Princess Mary’s Itinerary in the Marches of Wales 1525–1527: a Provisional Record

# Institute of Historical Research 1998. Historical Research, vol. 71, no. 175 (June 1998)Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA.

d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

Princess Mary's Itineraryin the Marches of Wales 1525±1527:

a Provisional Record

Abstract

The State Papers and the Journal of Prior More of Worcester are the mainsources for a detailed, though incomplete, record of the itinerary of PrincessMary in the Marches of Wales, 1525±7. Revised dates are proposed for severaldocuments calendared in Letters and Papers . . . of Henry VIII which the princess'sbiographers have misinterpreted, including some relating to the appointment ofher council and household. References to the itinerary of the princess's councilare also noted. After returning to court early in 1527, the princess did not returnto the Marches, probably because her prominent role there was no longercompatible with the king's intentions concerning the succession.

T h e e v i d e n c e for Princess Mary's itinerary after she left court in 1525to take up residence in the Marches has never been systematically examined.1

This neglect has had unfortunate consequences, since it has led herbiographers to confuse the course of events of this period of her childhoodand to make unfounded assumptions about the dates and durations of hervisits in the Marches, particularly in respect of Ludlow. Frederick Madden,her earliest modern biographer, suggested in 1831 that she probably passedher time alternately at Ludlow castle or at Tickenhill manor near Bewdley,2

and these were also mentioned in the article on the princess in the Dictionaryof National Biography, the biography by J. M. Stone and in Caroline Skeel'shistory of the council in the Marches.3 More recent biographers havegenerally identified Ludlow as her principal residence.4 Her latest biographerhas noted her visits to some other places during this period, but a few of

1 In contemporary documents the term `Marches of Wales' or `Marches' generally included theEnglish counties within the jurisdiction of the council in the Marches of Wales as well as themarcher lordships of Wales (which the princess never visited). The term `Marches' is used in thisinclusive sense in the present article.

2 Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary, ed. F. Madden (1831), p. xliii. Madden's suggestion wasbased on the statement in T. R. Nash, Collections for the History of Worcestershire (2 vols., 1781±2), ii.274.

3 Article by Sidney Lee in the Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter D.N.B.); J. M. Stone, TheHistory of Mary I Queen of England (1901), p. 24; C. A. J. Skeel, The Council in the Marches of Wales(1903), p. 52, where Thornbury is mentioned as her first residence.

4 B. White, Mary Tudor (1935), p. 13; H. F. M. Prescott, Mary Tudor (rev. edn., 1952), p. 28; J. Ridley,The Life and Times of Mary Tudor (1973), p. 27; C. Erickson, Bloody Mary: the Life of Mary Tudor (1978,repr. 1995), p. 60.

these references are misdated and the duration of her time in the Marcheshas been greatly overestimated.5

The failure of Princess Mary's biographers to trace her itinerary in theMarches may be partly attributable to the loss for these years of somecategories of evidence from which a detailed record might most readily havebeen compiled, such as privy purse expenses. The two main sources for heritinerary at this time have, however, long been accessible. They are thecorrespondence from Cardinal Wolsey's office in the State Papers and theJournal of William More (d.1552), prior of Worcester cathedral priory, whichrecords More's expenses and related information on a weekly basis through-out the period of Princess Mary's stay in the Marches.6 Wolsey's corres-pondence as calendared in Letters and Papers . . . of Henry VIII has beenselectively used by Mary's biographers, but the relevant letters have not beencritically studied and calendar errors in their dating have gone unnoticed.7

The neglect of Prior More's Journal by Mary's recent biographers issurprising, as it was the basis for a memorable chapter in the final volumeof Dom David Knowles's trilogy, The Religious Orders in England, in which hereferred to the princess's stay at Worcester and the nearby manor ofBattenhall in the early months of 1526.8

More's Journal and the State Papers provide the basis for the provisionalitinerary of the princess appended below, but these sources have beensupplemented by others, including a record of victuals supplied to herhousehold during its initial progress westward in August 15259 and someaccounts for her household.10 Dr. Neil Samman's thesis on Henry VIII's courtduring the period of Cardinal Wolsey's ascendancy, with its detaileditineraries for Henry VIII and Wolsey, was particularly valuable in compilingthe itinerary.11 Some dates and locations remain conjectural and in these casesthe evidence is discussed in some detail. There are also several periods duringthe princess's sojourn in the Marches for which no information relating toher itinerary has so far been found, but for which evidence may come to

pr incess mary ' s it inerary, 1525±7234

# Institute of Historical Research 1998

d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

5 D. Loades, Mary Tudor (Oxford, 1989), pp. 45, 9, mentions her presence at Greenwich in May1526, at Tewkesbury in Sept. 1526 and her return from the Marches in the summer of 1528.

6 Journal of Prior William More, ed. E. S. Fegan (Worcs. Hist. Soc., 1914). The manuscript is no. A11in Worcester Cathedral Library.

7 Letters and Papers of Henry VIII (hereafter L.P.). The letters and documents calendared in L.P., ivfor which revised dates are suggested in this article are as follows (revised dates in brackets): pt.i,nos. 2159 (1527), 2326 (1525), 2331 (2) (1525); pt.ii, nos. 2395 (1525), 2448 (1525), 3094 (1526), 3367 (1526),3576 (1525), 4238 (1526).

8 D. Knowles, The Religious Orders in England (3 vols., Cambridge, 1948±59), iii. 124±5.9 British Library, Royal MS. Appendix 89 fos. 43±45v.

10 A few accounts for the princess's household have been briefly calendared (L.P., iv.i, nos. 1577(11), ii, nos. 2598, 2739). Others used in this article include an incomplete wardrobe account for Oct.1525 to Apr. 1526; an account of the treasurer of her chamber from 30 Sept. 1526 to 30 Sept. 1527; anda declaration of account of the executor of the late treasurer of her chamber from 30 Sept. 1527 to30 Dec. 1528 and of the expenses of her household from 1 Jan. 1528 to 30 Dec. 1528 (Public RecordOffice, E 101/424/20; E 101/419/19; E 101/420/6).

11 N. Samman, `The Henrician court during Cardinal Wolsey's ascendancy c.1514±1529'(unpublished University of Wales Ph.D. thesis, 1989).

light in other sources. Besides references to the princess's location onparticular dates, the itinerary also includes in square brackets such referencesas have been found to the dates and locations of sessions of her council heldduring the period of her residence in the Marches, and also notes of a fewletters written early in 1527 by Bishop Veysey, the president of the council, toother councillors. Most of the references to council sessions are taken fromnotes or transcripts of council proceedings recorded in a late sixteenth- orearly seventeenth-century precedent book in the National Library of Wales.12

Judicial sessions of the council were sometimes held in towns where theprincess and her household were not then resident, but other references tothe council may indicate her location on dates for which direct evidence ofher presence is not available.13

Princess Mary's early childhood has been described in Professor Loades'srecent biography.14 The first indication that Henry VIII had decided that thenine-year-old princess should take up residence in the Marches is providedby a brief note addressed to Wolsey written before Corpus Christi day(15 June) 1525 giving the names of `counsaillours appoynted for the LadyePrynces to be resident about her person in the Marches of Wales'.15 The samedocument also includes the names of the principal officers of a newhousehold for the king's illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy, who was to becreated duke of Richmond and Somerset on Corpus Christi day, togetherwith other peerage creations. These nominations may confidently beattributed to the king, but Wolsey was no doubt partly responsible for alonger but still incomplete list of òfficers and counsailours appointed to beresident about the persoune of my lady princes in the Marches of Wales'apparently drawn up within a few weeks of the first list.16 This later list was

pr incess mary ' s it inerary, 1525±7 235


d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

12 National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth, hereafter N.L.W., MS. no. 6620 (paper, 64 folios). Theproceedings recorded in the MS. range in date from the reign of Henry VII to that of Mary, and theapproximate date of the MS. is indicated by the watermark. A note on fo. 2 shows that the bookbelonged to George Chamberlayne (c.1616, d.1698), son of Sir Thomas Chamberlayne (d.1625), justiceof North Wales 1615 and chief justice of Chester 1616±20 and 1624 until death.

13 A few references suggest that individual councillors occasionally visited towns on their own toconduct routine council business which did not involve hearing and determining suits.

14 Loades. This includes (Appendix 1, pp. 346±7) lists of the members of the princess's householdin 1516 and 1519. Subsidy assessments made in 1524 and 1525 list over 60 lay male members of theprincess's household, headed by Sir Philip Calthrop as chamberlain, before its reconstitution in 1525(P.R.O., E 179/69/3, 3a). Brit. Libr., Egerton MS.2604 fos. 1±6v is a record of the wages paid to namedmembers of the princess's household for an unspecified half-year.

15 15 P.R.O., SP 1/234 fo. 244, calendared in L.P., Addenda, i. i, no. 458. Those named were theMarquess Dorset, master; the bishop of Exeter, president of the council; Lord Dudley, chamberlain;Sir Philip Calthrop, vice-chamberlain; Dr. Denton, chancellor; `Mr Sydenham' (error for Sydnor),receiver and general surveyor; Lord Ferrers, steward of the household; Sir Ralph Egerton, treasurerof the household; and Sir Thomas Denys, comptroller.

16 Brit. Libr., Cotton MSS., Appendix L fo. 43, calendared under 1526 in L.P., iv. i, no. 2331(2). Thislist was written before 10 July 1525, when John Port, who is referred to in it as a serjeant-at-law, wasmade a justice of the King's Bench (The Notebook of Sir John Port, ed. J. H. Baker (Selden Soc., cii,1986), p. xvii, n. 48). It includes Sir Philip Calthrop, who had apparently been replaced by 19 July 1525when Sir William Fitzwilliam wrote from Guildford to Wolsey reporting that the king wascontented that Sir William Morgan should be vice-chamberlain, and also that the king had

in turn replaced by a comprehensive list of the members of the princess'shousehold and council made by the king's council at London in July 1525 andapproved by the king.17 In this list Thomas Grey (d.1530), Marquess Dorset,who had headed the two earlier lists, is not mentioned and no reference ismade to the office of lord master of the household to which he had beennominated. The countess of Salisbury, Margaret Pole neÂ e Plantagenet (d.1541),heads the names of the female members of the princess's household in hercapacity as lady governess,18 and John Veysey (d.1554), bishop of Exeter isnamed as lord president of the princess's council.

Shortly after the list of July 1525 was approved, and certainly before thedeparture of the princess for the Marches on 12 August, the king signed andissued instructions to the princess's council and household.19 These, asEdward Hall implies, were probably drafted by Wolsey.20 Most of the



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

approved the order that Wolsey had taken about Lady Calthrop (L.P., iv.i, no. 2326, calendared under1526). Morgan was named as vice-chamberlain in a list of the princess's household compiled in July1525 (Brit. Libr., Harley MS. 6068 fos. 32±5), which makes no mention of Calthrop. The compiler ofthe list in Brit. Libr., Cotton MSS. Appendix L fo. 43 was unfamiliar with the offices held by some ofthe 6 men bracketed together as `counsailours'. [John] Salter, described as `debite justice ofSouthwalys' was deputy justice of North Wales; [George] Bromley, described as `debite justice ofNorthwalys' was deputy justice of Chester; and no description is ascribed to `Croftes', i.e. Sir EdwardCroft, who was not a lawyer (see Appendix). Brit. Libr., Harley MS. 6068 fo. 32v also includes Croft as`lerned counsaill'.

17 Brit. Libr., Harley MS. 6068 fos. 32±5, a late 16th- or early 17th-century copy of a roll entitled`Rotulus Marie serenissime principis unice filie metuendissimi domini nostri Henrici octavi Anglieet Frauncie regis fidei defensoris ac domini Hibernie fact' et ordinat' per honorabil' conciliumeiusdem principis apud London mens' Julii anno regni eiusdem domini regis decimo septimo'.`Henry R'' appears immediately below this heading. As this list describes John Port as `judge', it wasevidently compiled after Port's appointment as a judge of the King's Bench on 10 July 1525 (see n. 16above). Another copy of this list is in Brit. Libr., Harley MS. 6807 fos. 3±6 and many of the names inthis are included in Loades, Appendix B(i) and B(ii), pp. 348±51. The councillors and officers namedin the longer of the two earlier lists, but not in this list, include Sir Philip Calthrop, vice-chamberlain (see n. 14 above); Sir Thomas Denys, controller; Sir John Style, treasurer of the chamber;and Christopher Hale, attorney. The list includes (fo. 32v) John ap Morgan, the princess's carver, whodied before 15 Feb. 1525 (L.P., iv.i, no. 1136 (15) ).

18 For Margaret Pole, neÂ e Plantagenet, daughter of George (d.1478), duke of Clarence, createdcountess of Salisbury in 1513, see D.N.B. and The Complete Peerage, comp. G. E. Cokayne and others(13 vols. in 14, 1910±59), xi. 399±402.

19 No contemporary copy of these instructions apparently survives, but there are a number of late16th- or early 17th-century copies. The copy in Brit. Libr., Harley MS. 6088 fos. 22±29v is followedby a copy of later instructions to the council dated 20 July 1526 (calendared from another copy inL.P., iv. i, no. 2331(i) ). Other copies of the council's instructions of 1525 and the councillors' oath arein Brit. Libr., Cotton MSS. Vitellius C i fos. 7±20 and Vespasian C xiv pt. ii fos. 151±152v(incomplete), and in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS. Rawlinson B 146 fo. 214 ff.). The instructionsdescribed John Port as a knight, an honour conferred on him between 13 July and 11 Aug. (L.P., iv. i,nos. 1533(13), 1610(11) ). A summary of the main provisions of the instructions of 1525, brieflymentioned in L.P., iv. i, 1940(1), was printed from a MS. among the Sidney Papers at Penshurst Place,Kent, in Letters and Memorials of State, ed. A. Collins (2 vols., 1746), i. 4±5. This summary, and possiblythe original version of the instructions, had probably been in the possession of Sir Henry Sidney(d.1586), president of the council of Wales, 1560±86.

20 Edward Hall asserted that Wolsey ordained a council and established another household forthe Lady Mary, then being princess of the realm, so that everything that was done, was done by him,and without his assent nothing was done (E. Hall, Henry VIII, ed. C. Whibley (2 vols., 1904), ii.49).

members of the princess's council were named in these instructions and themore distinguished of these had also been appointed to offices in theprincess's household.21 The most senior of the lawyers appointed to thecouncil was Sir John Port (d.1540), whose appointment as a judge of theKing's Bench on 10 July 1525 and subsequent knighthood was probablyintended to enhance the council's prestige in its judicial role. Of the sixsurviving members of the council in the Marches appointed in March 1522,only Sir Ralph Egerton (d.1528) and the lawyer George Bromley (d.1533) wereappointed to the princess's council,22 which was larger and more distin-guished than its predecessor.23 Several of the newly-appointed councillorswere granted substantial fees, although others were evidently considered tobe already adequately rewarded by virtue of other royal appointments orecclesiastical preferments.24

The council's instructions cannot be discussed in detail here, but areference in them to the king having furnished the council with àmplecommissions and aucthoritie aswell for administration of iustice as for allother thinges requisite and expedient to be done' calls for comment.25 Theonly record of the five categories of commissions specified in the instructionswhich has been traced relates to the councillors' `particuler associacion withother the kinge's commissioners in the commission of peace within sondryshires and countreyes'. This association is reflected in the councillors'inclusion in new commissions of the peace for Gloucestershire and Here-fordshire which were issued, together with those for many other counties, on11 August 1525. No record has, however, been found of the new peace



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

21 For a list of the councillors named in the instructions, with biographical references, seeAppendix.

22 L.P., iii.ii, no. 2145(7). Of the 9 commissioners then appointed, Sir William Uvedale and SirPeter Newton died in 1524 and Sir Rhys ap Thomas on 19 Feb. 1525. Besides Egerton and Bromley,the surviving councillors in June 1525 were the president, Geoffrey Blyth (d.1531), bishop of Coventryand Lichfield; Charles Booth (d.1535), bishop of Hereford; Sir Thomas Cornwall (d.1537); and SirWilliam Thomas (d.1543).

23 The last recorded session of the council appointed in 1522 was at Shrewsbury in June 1525(N.L.W., MS. 6620, no. 77). Of the councillors then present, only Bishop Blyth is named.

24 The chamberlain, Edward (d.1532), Lord Dudley, was granted an annual fee of £33 6s 8d and SirWilliam Morgan, vice-chamberlain, George Bromley, one of the learned counsel, and WilliamMucklow, cofferer, were each granted a fee of £20 (Brit. Libr., Harley MS. 6068 fos. 32r±v, 33v). JohnPort's fee was presumably less than that of Bromley, his junior in rank, because Port was entitled tofees as a judge of the King's Bench (ibid. fo. 32v). No fee, but the phrase `nihil quia habet offic'',appears (ibid. fo. 33v) against the name of Walter (d.1558), Lord Ferrers, who was appointed to theoffice of chief justice of South Wales and other offices on 22 Aug. 1525 (L.P., i. i, no. 1610(22); hisimpending appointments were probably known when the list was compiled). No fees, but the phrase`nihil quia vetus' appears against the name of the treasurer, Sir Ralph Egerton, and that of thecomptroller, Sir Giles Grevile, which suggests that their appointments were regarded as largelyhonorific.

25 Brit. Libr., Cotton MS. Vitellius C i fo. 8. Cf. the following version of the council's title, `Theking's commissioners of council with my ladie princes grace in the Marches of Wales' (H. Owenand J. B. Blakeway, A History of Shrewsbury (2 vols., 1825), i. 305). P. Williams, The Council in theMarches of Wales under Elizabeth I (Cardiff, 1958), pp. 13±14, comments on the council's powers andprocedures.

commissions, presumably also issued at this time, for most of the othercounties within the council's jurisdiction.26 The Gloucestershire and Here-fordshire commissions included thirteen of the councillors named in thecouncil's instructions of July 1525,27 but not John Russell, named elsewhere asthe princess's secretary, or the unidentified Peter Lacy, who with othersunnamed were also mentioned in the instructions.28

The first accounts for the wages of Princess Mary's new household andcouncil cover the six weeks from Sunday 2 July to Saturday 12 August 1525.29

Throughout this time members of the council and household servants wereprobably still being assembled and sworn to the princess's service and somemay not have become entitled to their full wages and fees until the end ofthe period. This was a time of great activity for those concerned with theprocurement of household supplies, the distribution of livery cloth and thehiring of horses and carts. Early in August the princess and her seniorhousehold officers and councillors apparently assembled at The More,Wolsey's residence near Rickmansworth, where Wolsey instructed them ontheir duties, as Walter, Lord Ferrers, later recalled.30 The princess and herhousehold left The More on their journey westward on 12 August, by whichdate the various commissions authorizing her council to exercise theirjudicial and administrative duties had probably all been issued.

The record of the princess's itinerary set out below does not call fordetailed discussion here but a brief commentary may be helpful. Thewestward route taken by the princess and her attendants after their departurefrom The More is generally clear, although the indicated dates of arrival anddeparture are mostly conjectural and it is uncertain whether they stayed atKingswood abbey near Wotton-under-Edge on their way to Thornburycastle or a few weeks later when travelling towards Gloucester after leavingThornbury. The princess made a ceremonial entry into Gloucester on12 August and probably stayed in St. Peter's abbey there for a few weeksbefore travelling to Tewkesbury. Here she stayed in the abbey before movingto the `fair maner place of tymber and stone' belonging to the abbey inTewkesbury park, where she apparently stayed until the first week of 1526.The council mainly stayed at Tewkesbury during the autumn of 1525, butduring the last week of September Veysey and other members of the councilvisited Worcester to hold judicial proceedings, and they also visited othertowns within their jurisdiction. In the second week of January 1526 theprincess left Tewkesbury for Worcester, probably making a ceremonial entry



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

26 L.P., iv. i, no. 1610(11). The earliest surviving peace commission for Cheshire was issued in 1539.27 Brit. Libr., Harley MS. 6068 fo. 32v, nominal roll of July 1525. Letters patent granting him the

office of secretary and clerk of the signet to Princess Mary were issued on 16 June 1526 (L.P. , iv. i,no. 2253).

28 See Appendix.29 L.P., iv. i, no. 1577 (12); no. 1577 (11) is a summary record of the expenditure of the princess's

former household from 1 Oct. 1524 to Aug. 1525.30 Ibid., no. 1887, correctly dated 13 Jan. 1526. Lord Ferrers's letter is also calendared in ibid. as

nos.1872 and 2201.

into the city, and from then until April she stayed either at Worcester in thecathedral priory or in the priory's manor at Battenhall a short distanceoutside the city.

The princess left Worcester on 17 April 1526. The duration of her staythere may indicate that it was not until the latter part of April that thebuilding work at Tickenhill and Ludlow castle was sufficiently advanced forher to be received at those residences. Her immediate destination on leavingWorcester was Hartlebury, the principal country residence of the bishop ofWorcester. At this date the bishop was the absentee Italian Geronimo de'Ghinucci and it is uncertain who on his behalf received the princess and herentourage at Hartlebury castle. No evidence has been found of the princess'sitinerary between 17 April and 3 May, when there is evidence that she was atLudlow. As her biographers have assumed that Ludlow castle was herprincipal residence during her stay in the Marches, it should be noted thatthe evidence for her presence there in early May 1526 is indirect and that noother evidence for her being at Ludlow has been found.31 The relevantdocumentation is discussed in detail. Veysey's concern about the danger tothe princess arising from plague at Bewdley is understandable, although it isperhaps surprising that the only precautionary measure that he proposed wasto keep the members of the council who were in contact with suitors awayfrom the princess's presence. Wolsey's instruction that the princess should bemoved a few miles away from the council and suitors would have been morelikely to prevent infection, although Wolsey felt it necessary to remind thecouncil of the need for economy in moving the princess to another lodging.Evidently the council acted in accordance with Wolsey's instructions andmoved the princess `with privy company' to à place solitary'. There is noevidence for the location of this place or of the princess's itinerary during thethree months following 4 May, but towards the end of that period she mayhave been at Hartlebury, where council sessions were held on 6 June and26 July and where she was staying early in August before going to Worcester.

During August reports of plague at Woodstock obliged the king to changehis plan to meet the princess there and he arranged instead that they shouldmeet at Langley, a few miles further west.33 The princess accordingly leftWorcester for Oxfordshire on 22 August. She travelled via Evesham, probably



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

31 A recent history of Ludlow based on extensive research on record sources mentions majorrepairs to the castle between 1518 and 1525 when Princess Mary took up residence (M. Faraday,Ludlow 1085±1660: a Social, Economic and Political History (Chichester, 1991), p. 100), but the sourcescited relate to the repairs. There is apparently no direct evidence in local sources for the princess'sstay at Ludlow.

32 For reference, see Itinerary entry `? midÐMayÐJune'. If the council acted on Wolsey's proposalto move the princess a few miles from Ludlow, they may have moved her to Oakley Park, a fewmiles north west of Ludlow, the Shropshire residence of Sir William Thomas (d.1543), one of themembers of the previous council. For Thomas's earlier close association with the king see W. R. B.Robinson, `Henry VIII's household in the fifteen-twenties: the Welsh connection', ante, lxviii (1995),178, n. 23. His will (P.R.O., PROB 11/29, will-register Spert fo. 131v) mentions his household stuff atÒcle Park'.

33 L.P., iv. ii, no. 2407.

staying at the abbey, before arriving at Langley on 1 September. Later thatmonth she accompanied the king and queen to Stony Stratford and Ampthill,which she left on 1 October to return to the Marches. Presumably sheretraced the route she had followed in August and probably arrived atHartlebury towards the middle of October. There is no record of heritinerary in the following few months. In the course of 1526 she visitedCoventry, where she made a ceremonial entry, but it is uncertain whetherthis visit took place in the autumn or earlier in the year. She was at Bewdleyon 23 December and probably remained there until the beginning ofFebruary 1527. She then stayed briefly at Worcester before setting out forWindsor, having been sent for by the king so that he could show her to theFrench ambassadors who had come to England for the negotiations for theprincess's betrothal to Francis. I.34 By 20 February she had arrived at Windsorand all references to her later in 1527 indicate that she was at court for theremainder of that year. It is highly unlikely that she could have returned tothe Marches in 1527 without her presence there being recorded in somecontemporary source.35 Nevertheless for some time following her arrival atcourt in February 1527 her eventual return to the Marches does not seem tohave been in doubt,36 and her household there was not dissolved until earlyin 1528. Some nineteen months elapsed between her departure for theMarches in August 1525 and her return to court in February 1527.

The appointment of Princess Mary's council and household in the Marchesin 1525 is an understudied aspect of the political history of the fifteen-twenties. The changes in the government of Wales and the Marches made inthe summer of 1525 were apparently prompted, as has recently beensuggested, by the death earlier that year of Sir Rhys ap Thomas, the long-serving chamberlain and chief justice of the principality of South Wales.37 Sir



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

34 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1527±33, no. 47. For these negotiations see Loades, p. 48.35 If she had returned, she would probably have stayed at Worcester priory before proceeding to

Bewdley or Ludlow, but Prior More's Journal makes no reference to her staying there after Feb. 1527.Half her àltar stuff' had remained at Worcester, and half at Ludlow (L.P., v, pp. 319±20).

36 Wolsey's statements to Veysey and the other members of the council present with him at courtin March 1527 indicate that Wolsey expected the senior officers of the princess's household to makean early return to the Marches, which they probably did in Apr. 1527 (see entries under 3 and24 March in the itinerary). At this stage Veysey clearly had no idea that the princess would notherself be returning to the Marches.

37 P. Gwyn, The King's Cardinal: the Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (1990), p. 260; R. A. Griffiths, SirRhys ap Thomas and his Family: a Study in the Wars of the Roses and Early Tudor Politics (Cardiff, 1993),p. 89. Professor Griffiths gives the date of Sir Rhys's will, in which he describes himself as sick in hisbody, as 3 Feb. 1524 and his death as in the summer of 1525 (ibid., p. 77), but the date of his will is3 Feb. 1524/5 and there is no reason to reject later evidence that he died on 19 Feb. 1524/5 (W. R. B.Robinson, `Knighted Welsh Landowners, 1485±1558: a provisional list', Welsh Hist. Rev., xiii (1986±7),288). That Sir Rhys died early in 1525 is confirmed by the terms of the three separate letters patentgranting the office of chamberlain to Grevile, the office of chief justice to Lord Ferrers, and on23 Aug. 1525 the office of steward to the lordship of Haverfordwest and other offices in that lordship(also previously held by Sir Rhys) to Sir Ralph Egerton. These patents provided that the granteeswere to have their fees from the preceding feast of the Annunciation, i.e. 25 March (P.R.O., C 66/647,mm.6, 11, calendared in L.P., iv. i, no. 1610 (14,22,23); the calendar entries relating to Lord Ferrersand Egerton do not mention the backdating of their fees).

Rhys was succeeded as chamberlain by Sir Giles Grevile and as chief justiceby Walter, Lord Ferrers, whose appointments were made by letters patent of14 and 22 August respectively, a few weeks after their appointment to theprincess's newly-established council. Since there is evidence that Sir Rhysdied on 19 February, the delay in appointing his successors suggests that theking and Wolsey had taken the opportunity to undertake a general review ofthe government of Wales and the Marches.38 They were no doubt aware ofits shortcomings, but there is little evidence to suggest that the administra-tion of justice there had previously deteriorated, as the preamble to theinstructions to the new council implied. It is, however, clear from thepreamble that in considering appointments to the senior offices in SouthWales vacated by Sir Rhys's death, the king and Wolsey recalled theprominent role that the king's elder brother, Prince Arthur, had assumedas prince of Wales before his premature death at Ludlow in 1502. Theyevidently saw attractions in reviving the traditional association of the heir tothe throne with the government of Wales, although as the king's heirpresumptive was his daughter the particular form which that associationassumed was unprecedented. The radical innovation of nominating theprincess, then nine years old, as the titular head of a prestigious householdresident in the Marches with an attendant council showed the king's concernfor a more vigorous assertion of royal authority in Wales and the Marchesand the importance which he attached to enhancing the princess's personalrole.39 The establishment of the princess in the Marches enabled her to gainvaluable experience of ceremonial duties and also demonstrated the king'srecognition of her status as his heir presumptive both to his own subjects andto foreign rulers. Nevertheless the precariousness of leaving the succession tothe throne dependent on the survival of a young girl made it timely to makesome public, though not wholly explicit, recognition of the king's kinshipwith his illegitimate son. This was effected by Henry Fitzroy's creation asduke and by his appointment to high office in the North of England with ahousehold and council comparable with those established for the princess.The need to strengthen royal control over regions far from south-eastEngland was met by the appointment to the princess's and Richmond'scouncils of men of wide local influence supported by extensive new powers,40



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

38 This review covered some of the major offices in North Wales as well as those held by Sir Rhysap Thomas, and led to the replacement of Charles, duke of Suffolk as steward and receiver ofBromfield, Yale and Chirk and as chief justice of North Wales in Aug. and Sept. 1525 (L.P., iv. i, nos.1610(23), 1676(26); S. J. Gunn, `The regime of Charles, duke of Suffolk, in North Wales and thereform of Welsh government, 1509±25', Welsh Hist. Rev., xii (1984±5), 477±8, 488±9).

39 S. Lee noted that the princess was never formally styled `princess of Wales', although she was sodescribed on a few occasions (D.N.B. article on Mary I; see also Cal.S.P. Spanish, 1527±9, p. 117). Oneinstance of the use of the style `princess of Wales' in a formal royal document occurs in the letterspatent of 14 Aug. 1525 granting Sir Giles Grevile the chamberlainship of South Wales and thebackdated fees of that office, because at the king's special command he had until that time been ìnobsequio precharissime filie nostre Marie Principisse Wallie ad nostrum beneplacitum' (P.R.O., C66/647, m.11, calendared in L.P., iv. i, no. 1610(14) ).

40 Gwyn, p. 260, mentions the decision to set up a council in the North headed by Richmond as

but the enhanced personal status conferred on the princess and Richmond isattributable to the king's concern over the succession.

Whether the princess's council achieved any significant improvement inthe government of the areas within its jurisdiction cannot now be judged, butits effectiveness was not of immediate significance in determining its roleafter the princess returned to court early in 1527. The decisive factor in thatrespect was the king's reconsideration of his options in regard to remarriageand the succession, which prompted reservations about the princess's status.By the summer of 1527 the king evidently thought it undesirable for her toresume the prominent role, including ceremonial entries into cities, whichshe had previously assumed during her residence in the Marches. Thedissolution of her household there early in 1528 has been attributed to areappraisal of its expenses,41 but by that date it was clear that there was nolonger any reason to maintain a household for her in the Marches.

The foregoing discussion of Henry VIII's possible motives for initiating,and later discontinuing, Princess Mary's residence in the Marches isnecessarily speculative. The consequences of these decisions may be moresusceptible to analysis, although that cannot be attempted here. Aspectswhich might merit further examination include the scale of the fundsallocated to support the princess's household and council; the selection of thepersonnel appointed to those bodies and the consequences of appointmentfor the careers of the many officers and servants concerned; and the impact ofthe sojourn of the princess and her entourage, albeit only for a brief period,on the inhabitants of Wales and the Marches. More generally, the princess'sresidence in the Marches is only one of many episodes in the long history ofthe council in the Marches which might reward detailed study, and evenoffer perspectives of some contemporary interest in view of the currentdebate about the devolution of government in Britain.

Cheam, Surrey W. R. B. Robinson

princess mary ' s it inerary, 1525±7242


d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

one of the reasons for sending Mary to Wales in 1525. There is insufficient evidence to determinewhen the decisions to establish Richmond's council and the princess's council were made. Theearliest reference to them occurs in the same document (L.P., Addenda, i. i, no. 458, cited in n. 15above). This document, written before 15 June, also indicates the intention of appointing Richmondto be warden of the three Marches towards Scotland, which was effected by letters patent of 22 July1525 (L.P., iv. i, no. 1510). The termination of the appointment of Thomas (d.1525), Lord Dacre aswarden of the three Marches had probably been under consideration since early in 1525. Lord Dacre,who was in London on 4 Jan. 1525, was committed to the Fleet prison on 7 Feb. by Wolsey and thecouncil after confessing to maintaining (`bearinge') thieves and being negligent in punishing them,but he continued as warden-general of the Marches for some months after his brief imprisonment,since in his capacity as warden-general he concluded a truce with the Scottish commissioners inLondon on 23 March and wrote to the primate of Scotland on 17 May (Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. Ifo. 105; T. Rymer, Foedera (3rd edn., 10 vols., The Hague, 1745), vi. ii. 14, 16; L.P., iv. i, no. 1362). Dacreprobably remained in London throughout the first half of 1525 (L.P., iv. i, no. 1007 showing him atNaworth on 10 Jan. is probably misdated). For discussion of Dacre's role see S. G. Ellis, Tudor Frontiersand Noble Power: the Making of the British State (Oxford, 1995), pp. 162±7, but his imprisonment wasbriefer than there stated.

41 Loades, p. 41.

Princess Mary's Itinerary 1525±1527

1524

25 Dec. Windsor. The princess made an offering there ìn festo natali domini'(P.R.O., SP 1/35, p. 223, account of her household from 1 Oct. 1524 to 11 Aug. 1525,calendared in L.P., iv. i, no. 1577(11) ).

1525

2 Feb. Richmond. The princess made an offering there ìn festo purificacionis'(ibid.).

9 March Bridewell palace. The princess was there with the king and queen(Cal.S.P. Spanish 1525±6, p. 82; Samman, p. 369).

9 Aug. The More, near Rickmansworth. Veysey and Egerton signed a warrant atThe More requesting Sir Andrew Windsor to advance money to James Vaughan,master of horse with the princess, for buying palfreys on her behalf (L.P., iv. i.no. 1577(7) ).

12 Aug. The More. The Venetian ambassador reported that the princess had goneto `her Principality of Wales' on this date (Cal.S.P. Venetian 1520±6, no. 1096).Previously she and her entourage had apparently been staying with Wolsey at hishouse at The More for some days (Samman, p. 421).

12 Aug. Àpud locum magistri Restall'. Wolsey presented lunch (`prand' ') to theprincess and her servants at this unidentified location on the journey from The Moreto Wooburn, and £20 to the servants of her chamber and household (Brit. Libr.,Royal MS. App.89 fo. 43).

12 Aug. Wooburn, Bucks., 4 miles S.E. of High Wycombe. The princess and herentourage arrived at the bishop of Lincoln's house at Wooburn èodem die ad cenam',i.e., 12 Aug., and during their stay they were presented with victuals (a term used inthis and later entries to denote other supplies besides food) valued at £4 16s 0d (ibid.).Wooburn was the favourite residence of John Longland, bishop of Lincoln 1521±47(M. Bowker, The Henrician Reformation: the diocese of Lincoln under John Longland, 1521±47 (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 160, 183).

14 Aug. Wooburn. Writing to Wolsey, Veysey referred to the entertainment givento the princess by `my lord of Lincoln' (i.e., the bishop) `her [here] at Oborn from thewhiche we departe this vigil of our Lady th'assumpc' towerd Reydyng. And fro thensyntend to jorney upon Friday next' i.e., 18 Aug. (P.R.O., SP 1/36 fo. 55, calendaredunder 1526 in L.P., iv. ii, no. 2395, where `my lord of Lincoln' appears as `my lady').

18 Aug. Reading abbey. Veysey and seven other members of the princess's councilsigned a letter dated at Reading abbey on 18 Aug. (L.P., iv. i, no. 1557(4) ). Victualsvalued at £17 12s 0d were presented to the princess by the abbot of Reading,suggesting a stay of a few days (Brit. Libr., Royal MS. App.89 fo. 44).? 20 Aug. Littlecote, Wilts. A list of victuals valued at £6 0s 8d presented by Mr.Darell at Littlecote follows those presented at Reading (ibid.). No date is mentioned.For Sir Edward Darell (d.1530) of Littlecote see The History of Parliament: the House ofCommons, 1509±58, ed. S. T. Bindoff (3 vols., 1982), ii. 18±19.

? 21±22 Aug. Malmesbury abbey. The list of victuals valued at £12 5s 4d presentedby the abbot of Malmesbury and recorded after the Littlecote entry suggests a stay ofa few days (Brit. Libr., Royal MS. App.89 fo. 44v). No date is mentioned.



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

?23 Aug. Kingswood abbey, near Wotton under Edge, Glos. The list ofvictuals valued at 38s 7d presented to the princess by the abbot of Kingswood comesimmediately after the list for Malmesbury and is followed by that for Gloucester(ibid. fo. 45). No date is mentioned. There is no record of any presentation ofvictuals at Thornbury, and there is nothing to indicate whether the princess visitedKingswood en route from Malmesbury to Thornbury or a few weeks later en routefrom Thornbury to Gloucester. Kingswood is entered here before Thornburybecause the princess and her entourage, accompanied by carts and heavy baggage,may have taken a day to cross the Cotswolds, and because there is no obviousreason for making a detour to Kingswood on the journey from Thornbury toGloucester.

?24 Aug.±11 Sept. Thornbury castle, Glos. The royal instructions given to Veyseyand the council on their appointment envisaged that after her arrival at Thornburythe princess would stay there for several days at least: àfter the princesse shalbe arivedatt Thornbury and her house there setled, the commissioners within 6 or 7 dayes afterher repayre there shall proceed to the execucion of the commission of oyerdetermyner, which is thought to be convenient to be first put in execucion inGloucestershire' (Brit. Libr., Cotton Vitellius C i fo. 10v). Sir William Kingston hadbeen appointed constable of Thornbury in Jan. 1522 (L.P., iii. ii, no. 2016 (29) ).Writing to Wolsey from Thornbury on 1 Sept., Veysey stated that it was intendedthat the princess should move from Thornbury towards Tewkesbury on Mondayafter our Lady day, i.e., Monday 11 Sept. (P.R.O., SP 1/30 fo. 93, calendared under 1526in L.P., iv. ii, no. 2448).

12 Sept. Gloucester.The princess's ceremonial entry into Gloucester on 12 Sept. wasrecorded in detail by the town council (Hist. MSS. Comm., 12th Report, App. pt. iv,pp. 442±3). She probably stayed at St. Peter's abbey during her visit. Victuals valued at£27 15s 9d were presented to her by the abbot of Gloucester (Brit. Libr., Royal MS.App.89 fo. 45r±v), suggesting a stay of some days.

?late Sept. Tewkesbury. The date of the princess's arrival is uncertain. On arrivalshe probably stayed briefly in Tewkesbury abbey, as her wardrobe expenditure forOct. 1525 records the payment of 4s 3d for the carriage of the princess's stuff from themonastery of Tewkesbury to the manor in the park (P.R.O., E 101/424/20). Victualsvalued at £51 9s 4d were presented to her at Tewkesbury by the abbot ofTewkesbury, other abbots, `Mr Hucleton', Edward, Lord Dudley and Henry, LordHerbert (Brit. Libr., Royal MS. App.89 fo. 45v). For most of her stay at Tewkesbury theprincess lodged in à fair maner place of tymber and stone' in the park belonging tothe abbey (The Itinerary of John Leland, ed. L. T. Smith (5 vols., 1906±8), iv. 134; VictoriaCounty History, Gloucestershire, viii. 132).

[28 Sept. Worcester. An order by the council in the Marches was made atWorcester on 28 Sept., those present being Veysey, Lord Ferrers, Dr. Denton, Dr.Sydnor, John Salter and George Bromley (N.L.W., MS. 6620, no. 3). More's Journal,p. 216, mentions the council's presence at Worcester during the week beginning24 Sept. As More was careful to record the princess's visits and does not mention herpresence in Worcester in the autumn of 1525, it may be assumed that she stayed atTewkesbury during this period. Other evidence for the occasional absence of thecouncil from the princess's household during this autumn is provided by a fictitiousconversation composed by her French tutor Giles Duwes, entitled À communicationbetwene the lady Mary and her Amener, her grace beinge with a privy family in the



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

parke of theukesbery' (Giles Duwes, An introduction for to lerne Ð Frenche trewly,compyled for the Ðlady Mary of Englande (J. Waley, London, ?1557, later edition of bookfirst published ?1534), unsigned leaf following Aaiii, Bb). In the `communication'(French with English translation) the princess's almoner (Dr. Peter Burnell) isrepresented as responding thus to her reproach that he had left her solitary anddestitute of all company: Ì must nedes be with your counsayle, leanynge to them ofmy power' (`leanynge' is misprinted `leavynge': the French has `les assistant', and thephrase meant àiding them'. The phrase `to ayde and lene unto' appears a few pagesearlier, verso of the leaf following Uiii).]

[4 Oct. Hereford. Dr. Sydnor, a member of the council in the Marches authorizedthe issue of a letter at Hereford on 4 Oct. (N.L.W., MS. 6620, no. 57).]

[10 Oct. Council's location uncertain, possibly Shrewsbury. On 10 Oct.Veysey and six other members of the council (Lord Dudley, Dr. Denton, Sir JohnPort, Dr. Sydnor, Salter and Bromley) took receipt of household goods, a chest of ironfetters, a chest of Council muniments and £289 10s 0d in coin from Richard Strete,archdeacon of Salop, acting on behalf of Geoffrey Blyth (d.1531), bishop of Coventryand Lichfield and Veysey's predecessor as president of the council (P.R.O., SP 1/36fo. 49r±v, calendared in L.P., iv. i, no. 1691). Only a contemporary note of theindenture of receipt survives, and this does not indicate where Strete delivered theproperty to Veysey and the other councillors. The last recorded session of the councilof which Bishop Blyth was president was held at Shrewsbury on 21 June 1525 (N.L.W.,MS. 6620, no. 77). Possibly the council property was then left in Shrewsbury, andBlyth sent Strete there in Oct. to hand it over to the new council on their first visit tothe town. During the accounting year ending Mich. 1526 Veysey, Lord Dudley, Port,Bromley and other councillors visited Shrewsbury, although the date of their visit isnot recorded (Owen and Blakeway, i.306). It is unlikely that the princess visitedShrewsbury while in the Marches, as there is no reference to any visit by her in thetown records. The possibility that Strete, who normally resided at Lichfield, broughtthe council property from Lichfield or elsewhere to Veysey and the other councillorsat Tewkesbury cannot be excluded, but seems unlikely.]

[24 Oct. Tewkesbury. A council letter was issued at Tewkesbury to Henry, LordHerbert and his officers of Raglan ordering proceedings to cease pending examinationby the council `here'. Dr. Sydnor and Dr. Burnell are the only councillors named(N.L.W., MS. 6200, no. 35).]

13 Nov. Tewkesbury. Writing to Wolsey from Tewkesbury on 13 Nov., Veyseyexpressed the opinion that it would be expedient for the princess's attorney andsolicitor to be continually attendant with the council, and that it would encourage thelearned men of the council to give better attendance if they had lodging within theprincess's court (P.R.O., SP 1/45 fo. 49, calendared under 1527 in L.P., iv. ii, no. 3576).

27 Nov. Tewkesbury. Veysey and five other members of the princess's councilwrote to Wolsey from Tewkesbury for advice about arrangements for Christmas(L.P., iv. i, no. 1785).

[5 Dec. Tewkesbury. Thomas Audley, included as `Ð Audley' among the learnedcounsel named in the list of the princess's household (Brit. Libr., Harley MS. 6068fo. 32v), authorized the issue of a council letter from Tewkesbury on 5 Dec. (N.L.W.,MS. 6620, no. 64). Audley was one of the signatories of the letter of 27 Nov. toWolsey. For his career see H. of C. 1509±58, i. 350±3.]



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

1526

1 Jan. Tewkesbury. A record of provisions remaining in divers offices of theprincess's household at Tewkesbury on 1 Jan. suggests that her household was still atTewkesbury on that date (Brit. Libr., Royal MS. App.89 fo. 43). The princess probablyremained at Tewkesbury until after Twelfth Night (Epiphany) on 6 Jan.

8 6 14 Jan. Worcester. `This year Ladie Marie after twelfe day 1526 came toWorcester' (D. MacCulloch and P. Hughes, À bailiff 's list and chronicle fromWorcester', Antiquaries Jour., lxxv (1995), 242). More's Journal, p. 224, records her arrivalin Worcester during the week beginning Sunday 7 Jan. (Èbdomada iija at Worceterye Prynces commyng'), but does not mention the date of her arrival. It seems unlikelythat she would have travelled from Tewkesbury on a Sunday.

14 Jan.±24 Feb. Worcester. (More's Journal, pp. 224±6; on 19 Jan. the princess madean offering at Prior More's mass at the high altar (ibid., p. 37). She stayed at Worcesteruntil the end of the week beginning 18 Feb.

[27 Jan. Worcester. A council order was made at Worcester on 27 Jan. Bromley isthe only member of the council named (N.L.W., MS. 6620, no. 112).]

25 Feb. Worcester: Battenhall. More's Journal, pp. 226±7, records the princess asbeing at Battenhall, a manor belonging to Worcester priory about a mile S.E. of thecity, during the week beginning 25 Feb., probably indicating that she moved there onthat date.

26 Feb.±25 March Battenhall. More's Journal, pp. 227±8, records that the princesswas at Battenhall during the four weeks beginning 25 Feb. and part of the weekbeginning 25 March.

26 Feb. 6 31 March Worcester. Princess Mary returned to Worcester on anunspecified date during this week, and made an offering at Prior More's mass at thehigh altar on Easter Day, i.e. 1 Apr. (ibid., pp. 38, 228).

1±17 Apr. Worcester. The princess was at Worcester during the two weeksbeginning 1 Apr. and for part of the following week, leaving there for Hartleburycastle, Worcs., the principal residence of the bishop of Worcester, on 17 Apr. (ibid.,pp. 228±9).

17 Apr. Hartlebury. (ibid., p. 229).

[21 Apr. Hartlebury. A judicial order was made at Hartlebury on 21 Apr. followingthe appearance of the parties before the Council on that day. No councillors arenamed (N.L.W., Badminton Deeds and Documents, no. 1415).]

3±4 May Ludlow. There is no direct evidence for the princess's presence in Ludlow,but her lady governess, the countess of Salisbury, was there on 3 May 1526, and thereare grounds for concluding that the princess was with her at that time. The evidenceis provided by two letters from Veysey dated 3 May and 4 May respectively (P.R.O., SP1/48 fo. 1, calendared under 1528 in L.P., iv. ii, no. 4238, and P.R.O., SP 1/43, p. 193,calendared under 1527 in L.P., iv. ii, no. 3094). Neither letter specifies the year, but it isclear from their contents and other evidence that both were written in 1526. Veysey'sletter of 3 May, which gives no place-date, was addressed to Walter, Lord Ferrers. Itreported that on that day one of Veysey's servants had died ùpon the comen siknes' atBewdley, and that in view of the `gret resort dayle of suetors', the lady governess `withthe consell her [here] now beyng present' thought that àll such persons of the saidconsell as shall be occupied with suche multitude of suetors not to com yn the princes



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

presens'. Veysey's letter was prompted by the danger to the princess arising fromplague `for dyvers townes and places yn thes partes byn ynfect', and he mentionedthat ìf any suche ynfeccion should fortune to be at Hertalbery [we] have notherabout any place convenyent wherunto the princes grace may remove to'. Veysey'sletter dated 4 May at Ludlow requested that the bearer, Mr. Bromley, `may spedelyretorn to help us to dispache the gret multitude of sueters dayly to this counsell'. Thereferences in this letter to the multitude of suitors indicates that Veysey's letter of3 May was written on the previous day in the same year, and almost certainly atLudlow. Lord Ferrers was at Westminster on 5 May 1526 (L.P., iv. i, no. 2151), and thesurvival of Veysey's letter of 3 May to him is attributable to his having given it toWolsey, as Veysey asked that the king and Wolsey should be informed of its contents.

Further evidence that the letters were written in 1526 is provided by a passage in amemorandum dated May 18 Henry VIII preserved among the papers of John Russell,the council's secretary, entitled Àrticles wherin my lord legates gracious pleasure is tobe knowen, videlicet' (Worcestershire Record Office, Berington Collection, 705:24/2).Wolsey's comments on the articles were in recorded in the right-hand margins of thememorandum, in notes probably written by Bromley following his discussion withWolsey after he had delivered Veysey's letter of 4 May. Against an article requestingto know Wolsey's pleasure for the princess's safety in view of the `contagious aier andinfeccion now abrode in those parties', Wolsey's response is recorded as follows: Ìtem,his gracioux pleasure is that, bi discrecion of the counsaill, for the preservacion of theprincesse person her grace when caas shal requir be logid aparte in sum convenientplace, standing in clene aier with a [? convenient] nombr' about her. And the counsailland residue to be dissevered bicause of repair of sutors within ij or [missing] miles ofher grace and good husbandry to be used in the charges standing with the princeshonour'. The princess's presence at Ludlow on 3 May has been inferred because itseems unlikely that she would have been left elsewhere while her lady governess wasat Ludlow, and also because the concern of the lady governess and the council in theMarches that those councillors who had been in contact with suitors should be keptaway from the princess is most readily explicable if at the time when Veysey wrotethe princess was at Ludlow where the council was in regular contact with suitors.

Although L.P., iv. i, no. 2159 calendars under 1526 a record of the expenses of asupper and banquet given by the king at Greenwich for Princess Mary among otherson Monday 6 May 18 Henry VIII, this should be dated 1527, despite the fact that, by acontemporary error, Ànno xviijvo Regis Henr'VIII' appears at the head of the record(P.R.O., SP 1/38, p. 119). 6 May 1526 fell on Sunday, whereas 6 May 1527 fell onMonday, and the princess's participation in a masque at Greenwich on that day isrecorded in other sources (see under 6 May 1527 below).

?mid May±June. For part at least of this period the princess was apparently in a`place solitary' (not identified) in accordance with Wolsey's instructions. Evidence forthis is provided by the following heading of a composition by Giles Duwes:`Confabulation betwene the lady Mary and the Treasorer of her chambre herhusband adoptyve her noble grace beyng withdrawen with privy company in a placesolitary, bycause of the deth [plague] for introduction of the frenche tongue'(G. Duwes, An Introductorie, Bb verso). The treasurer of the princess's chamber,jocularly referred to as her `husband adoptyve', was Dr. Peter Burnell, mentioned latein 1526 as holding that office (P.R.O., E 101/419/19), presumably performing it jointlywith that of almoner, which he held in 1525.



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

[6 June Hartlebury. An order for the issue of a council letter was made atHartlebury on 6 June. The councillors named are Dr. Denton and Giles Grevile(N.L.W., MS. 6620, no. 32).]

[26 July Hartlebury. An order for the issue of a council letter was made atHartlebury on 26 July. The councillors named are Veysey, Lord Ferrers, Dr. Dentonand George Bromley (ibid., no. 31).]

Early Aug. Hartlebury. Writing from Worcester on 20 Aug., the countess ofSalisbury indicated that she, and presumably the princess, had stayed at Hartleburybefore moving on to Worcester (L.P., iv. ii, no. 3367, calendared under 1527).

5 6 7 Aug. Worcester. A note `this wycke the princes commyng' appears in theheading relating to More's expenses during the week beginning 5 Aug. (More's Journal,p. 234).

11±22 Aug. Worcester. The princess was at Worcester until Wed. 22 Aug. PriorMore then escorted her to Cropthorne (2 miles W. of Evesham) and Evesham (ibid.,pp. 39, 235). She was apparently also escorted on her journey from Worcester toLangley, Oxon., by Sir Ralph Egerton, who was reported in a letter of 25 Aug., datableto 1526, as having ridden (presumably from his house at Ridley, Ches.) àpon Ffrydaylast passed to my lady prynces and so will cumme up with her' (P.R.O., SP 1/39 fos. 96±7, letter dated at Chester 25 Aug. from William Brereton of Chester to WilliamBrereton, groom of the privy chamber, calendared in L.P., iv. ii, no. 2431: for atranscript see E. W. Ives, `Patronage at the court of Henry VIII: the case of Sir RalphEgerton of Ridley', Bull. John Rylands Libr., lii (1970), 371±3 and also Letters andAccounts of William Brereton of Malpas, ed. E. W. Ives (Record Soc. of Lancs and Ches.,cxvi, 1976), pp. 73±4). Although correctly ascribed to 1526, the references given asevidence for this date in ibid., p. 94 are not relevant, as although Russell's letterspatent appointing him secretary to the princess were not issued until June 1526 hehad held that office since July 1525 (Brit. Libr., Harley MS. 6068 fo. 32v), and L.P., iv. ii,no. 2448, calendared under 1526, should be dated 1525. The letter cannot, however,have been written in 1525, as 25 Aug. 1525 was a Friday and a reference in a letter ofthat date to Friday last past would refer to 18 Aug., when Egerton and others of theprincess's council were with her at Reading abbey during her journey westward (L.P.,iv. i, no. 1577 (4) ). 25 Aug. 1526 was a Saturday, but a reference in a letter of that dateto Friday last past probably refers not to 24 Aug., but to 18 Aug., and the informationin the letter about Egerton's plans indicates that he intended to accompany theprincess on her journey to the king so that he could seek new grants of his offices.The letter cannot have been written in 1527, as by Aug. 1527 the princess was back atcourt and Veysey and the other members of the council in the Marches, whoseassistance the letter urged Brereton to seek, were no longer in attendance on her.

22±?31 Aug. Evesham. The princess visited Evesham on her journey fromWorcester to Langley. As she did not arrive at Langley until 1 Sept., she probablyspent some days at Evesham abbey before going there.

1 Sept. Langley, Oxon. (5 miles N.W. of Witney). Writing to Wolsey from Langleyon 3 Sept., Dr. Richard Sampson reported that the princess came there on Saturday,i.e. 1 Sept. (L.P., iv. ii, no. 2452). The king was at Langley 1±10 Sept. and later thatmonth moved to Stony Stratford and Ampthill (Samman, p. 374).

25 Sept. Stony Stratford, Buck. (P.R.O., E 101/419/13 fo. 33; the king and(apparently) the queen were also there at that time.



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

1 Oct. Ampthill, Beds. Writing to Wolsey from Ampthill on 1 Oct., Dr. WilliamKnight reported that the princess had that day left the court (L.P., iv. ii, no. 2541).More's Journal, p. 238, records a payment to the princess's minstrels in the weekbeginning 1 Oct., probably indicating that the princess passed through Worcesterduring that week.

?early/mid Oct. Hartlebury. The princess wrote an undated letter in Latin toWolsey from Hartlebury thanking him for his letter delivered to her at Ampthill andfor his intercession which had allowed her to spend a month to enjoy the society ofthe king and queen (Titi Livii ForoÐJuliensis Vita Henrici Quinti, ed. T. Hearne(Oxford, 1716), pp. 122±3, translated in Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies, ed. M. A. E.Wood (3 vols., 1846), ii. 32±3). Veysey was present 25 Oct. (N.L.W., MS. 6200, no. 62).

23 Dec. Bewdley. The account of Peter Burnell, clerk, treasurer of the princess'schamber, for the year ending Michaelmas 1527 records, among rewards paid by himby the advice of the princess's council, one of 13s 4d to a certain Cartwright (Christianname unrecorded), student of Oxford, for preaching before the princess at Bewdleyon 23 Dec. (P.R.O., E 101/419/19, m.6).

1526, uncertain date Coventry. Ìn ye year 1526', date unspecified, during themayoralty of Henry Wall, the princess visited Coventry for two days, lodging at thepriory (Records of Early English Drama: Coventry, ed. R. W. Ingram (Toronto &Manchester, 1981), p. 125). The mayoral year at this date began at Candlemas, 2 Feb.(`Ceremony and the citizen: the communal year at Coventry, 1450±1550', Crisis andOrder in English Towns, ed. P. Clark and P. Slack (1972), pp. 74±9). It is unlikely that theprincess's visit took place in 1527, as she was apparently at Bewdley in the early weeksof that year before she left to return to court.

1527

Jan. ? Bewdley. The princess probably celebrated Christmas at Bewdley and stayedthere during Jan. 1527 until she left for Worcester towards the end of the month.Robert Haslerig, one of the queen's gentleman ushers, is recorded as having escortedher from Bewdley to Richmond (P.R.O., E 101/419/19).

[25 Jan. Bewdley. An order was given to the parties who appeared before thecouncil at Bewdley on 25 Jan. to appear again on 15 March. The councillors named areLord Ferrers, Bromley and Russell (N.L.W., MS. 6620, no. 34).]

20 6 27 Jan.±3 6 10 Feb. Worcester. More's Journal p. 241 records a payment tothe princess's minstrel during the week beginning 20 Jan., probably indicating thatthe princess arrived in Worcester that week. She left during the week beginning 3 Feb.(ibid., p. 242).

[7 Feb. Bewdley. An order for the issue of a council letter was made at Bewdley on7 Feb. The councillors named are Dr. Denton, Russell and Bromley (N.L.W., MS.6620, no. 33).]

16 Feb. Cropthorn. 2 miles W. of Evesham. The princess made an offering to theimage of the Virgin Mary at `Corpthorn' (P.R.O., E 101/419/19).

17 Feb. Abingdon. The princess made an offering at Abingdon (ibid.). She probablystayed at Abingdon abbey on that night.

20 Feb. Windsor. The princess made an offering at Windsor (ibid.).

[23 Feb. London. Veysey wrote from London to Salter, Bromley and the Secretary(Russell) `yn crastino cathedre sancti Petri' stating inter alia that Wolsey was well



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

content with their being still at Bewdley (Worcs. R.O., Berington Collection 705: 24/7, no year cited).]

3 March Richmond. The imperial ambassador, in a passage in his report of 18March apparently written shortly after 3 March, mentioned that the princess had justarrived at Richmond (Cal.S.P. Spanish 1527±9, p. 117). Further evidence indicating theprincess's presence there in early March is provided by a letter from Veysey to Salter,Bromley and Russell stating that on 3 March at Richmond he had received their letterdated at Bewdley on 23 Feb. (Worcs. R.O., Berington Collection 705: 24/3 (iii),undated letter). Veysey stated that the king and Wolsey were contented with theirstaying at Bewdley and their business there. He also reported what Wolsey had`yesterday' declared to him and the lord steward (Lord Ferrers), Mr. Comptroller (SirGiles Grevile), `Mr Croftes' (Sir Edward Croft) and Mr. Almoner (Dr. Burnell) aboutthe augmentation of the stipends of Salter, Bromley and the solicitor (RichardHassall) and the better treatment of the council in respect of their lodging `with manyother thynges for the good rule of Walles and of the prynces howshold'. Veysey andthe four other members of the princess's council with him at Richmond had probablyescorted the princess there from Bewdley.

[3 March Bewdley. An order for the issue of a council letter was made at Bewdley.The councillors named are Salter, Bromley, Russell and Richard Hassall (N.L.W., MS.6620, no. 21).]

13 March Richmond. The princess was at Richmond on 13 March (Samman, p. 377,citing P.R.O., E 101/107/26 fo. 2).

[24 March London. Veysey wrote from London on 24 March, year unspecified, tothe abbot of Reading (Hugh Cook alias Faringdon), Port, Salter, Bromley, Russell andothers of the princess's council at Bewdley, reporting that Wolsey had told him thatwithin ten days he (`we') and the princess's household should return to Bewdley(Worcs. R.O., Berington Collection 705: 24/3 (v) ). The members of the princess'shousehold who were to return to Bewdley with Veysey were presumably thosenamed in his letter of 3 March.]

[7 Apr. Hartlebury. At Hartlebury on 7 Apr. a king's messenger reported thedelivery of the king's letter òut of this honorable Courte' to the defendants in a civilsuit (N.L.W., MS. 6620, no. 82).]

23 Apr. Greenwich. The princess was present with the king and queen atGreenwich, where the king kept the feast of St. George's day (L.P., iv. ii, no. 3105,pp. 1411±12).

6 May Greenwich. The princess with seven ladies took part in the masque atGreenwich (ibid., no. 3098 (ii); Hall, Henry VIII, ii. 87).

[16 June Ludlow. A council letter was issued at Ludlow on 16 June (N.L.W., MS.6620, no. 23). The councillors named are Veysey and Dr. Burnell.]

25 July Beaulieu (i.e. New Hall, 4 miles N.E. of Chelmsford). Writing fromBeaulieu on 25 July, Sampson reported to Wolsey that the king, queen and princesswere in good health (L.P., iv. ii, no. 3302).

10 Nov. Greenwich. Bonnets were made for the king, the princess and others forthe revels held on 10 Nov. (L.P., iv. iii, no. 3564, p. 1605).



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

APPENDIX

Members of Princess Mary's council named in the royal instructions issued in July orAugust 1525.

John Veysey (d.1554), president. Bishop of Exeter 1519±51 and 1553±4 (D.N.B.; A. B.Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500 (3 vols., Oxford,1957±9), iii. 1947±8) ).

Edward Sutton (d.1532), Lord Dudley, chamberlain (Complete Peerage, iv. 480±1;W. R. B. Robinson, Èdward Sutton (d.1532), Lord Dudley: a West Midlands peer innational and local government under the early Tudors', Staffordshire Studies, viii (1996),50±65.

Walter Devereux (d.1558), Lord Ferrers, steward (Complete Peerage, v. 326±8).

Sir John Port (d.1540), justice. Appointed a justice of the King's Bench 10 July 1525,knighted between 13 July and 11 Aug. 1525 (Notebook of Sir John Port, pp. xi±xxiii;D.N.B.; L.P., iv. i, nos. 1533 (13), 1610 (11) ).

Dr. James Denton (d.1533), chancellor (D.N.B.; A. B. Emden, A Biographical Registerof the University of Cambridge to 1500 (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 182±3).

Dr. Richard Sydnor (d.1534), surveyor (Emden, Biographical Register Oxford, iii. 1839;his name appears as `Mr Sydenham' in a list of councillors compiled before 15 June1525 (L.P. Addenda, i. i, no. 458) ).

Dr. Peter Burnell (d.1529), almoner (Emden, Biographical Register Oxford, i. 316; willdated 6 Jan. 1528/9, proved 8 May 1529, P.R.O., PROB 11/23, will-register Jankynfo. 49).

Sir Ralph Egerton (d.1528), treasurer (Ives, `Patronage', pp. 346±74).

Sir Giles Grevile (d.1528), comptroller (R. A. Griffiths and R. S. Thomas, ThePrincipality of Wales in the Later Middle Ages: the Structure and Personnel of Government, i:South Wales, 1277±1536 (Cardiff, 1972), p. 191).

Sir Edward Croft (d.1547), master porter (L.P., iv. i, no. 1577 (2 ii); O. G. S. Croft, TheHouse of Croft of Croft Castle (Hereford, 1949), pp. 47±51).

Sir William Morgan (d. 1542), vice-chamberlain (W. R. B. Robinson, `Sir WilliamMorgan (d.1542) of Pencoed and the Morgans of Tredegar and Machen in Henry VIII'sreign', Nat. Libr. Wales Jour., xxvii (1991±2), 405±29; the discussion of his position asvice-chamberlain (p. 411) requires amendment in view of the revised dating of L.P.,iv. i, no. 2326 given in n. 16 above).

John Salter (d.1532), learned in the law. For his career see Griffiths and Thomas,pp. 162±3, but his inclusion in that volume as deputy-justiciar of South Wales is basedon the erroneous reference to him in Brit. Libr., Cotton MSS., Appendix L fo. 43,discussed in n. 16 above. He was appointed deputy-justice of North Wales by thechief justice there, Sir Charles Brandon (d.1545), Viscount Lisle, created duke ofSuffolk in 1514 (The Plea Rolls of Anglesey (1509±16), ed. H. Owen (Anglesey AntiquarianSoc. Trans. Supplement, 1927), p. 28), and appointed chief justice 26 Sept. 1526 (L.P., iv. i,no. 1676 (26) ).

George Bromley (d.1533), learned in the law. Bromley, of Hodnet, Salop, was anInner Temple reader in 1509 (J. B. Blakeway, The Sheriffs of Shropshire (Shrewsbury,1831), p. 85; The Reports of Sir John Spelman, ed. J. H. Baker (2 vols., Selden Soc., xciii,xciv, 1977±8), ii. 349). He served on various royal commissions for Shropshire from



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh

1502, as a member of the council in the Marches from 1510, and was appointed sheriffof Shropshire in 1522. He appears as `lieutenaunte [i.e. deputy] justice of Chester' on10 Aug. 1522 (N.L.W., MS. 6200, no. 44) and a reference to him in 1525 as `debitejustice of Northwalys', an office then held by John Salter, is erroneous (Brit. Libr.,Cotton MSS., Appendix L fo. 43, discussed in n. 16 above). He was an active memberof Princess Mary's council until its dissolution in 1528 and apparently continued as amember of the council in the Marches until his death on 7 July 1533 (P.R.O., C 142/56,no. 2).

John Russell (d.1540), secretary (for his career see The Marcher Lordships of SouthWales 1415±1536: Select Documents 1415±1536, ed. T. B. Pugh (Cardiff, 1963), p. 296, but hewas dead by 17 Sept. 1540 (L.P., xvi, no. 107 (39) ) and was not Sir John Russell (d.1556)of Strensham as there stated).

Peter Lacy. Not identified.



d:/71-2/robinson.3d ± 29/4/98 ± 12:42 ± /sh