Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:25:55.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Character and Composition of the Duke of Northumberland's Army

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Robert C. Braddock
Get access

Extract

When the Duke of Northumberland set out from London op July 14, 1553, to play the role of kingmaker and usurp the throne from Mary Tudor in favor of his daughter-in-law, Lady Jane Grey, he remarked prophetically, “the people press to see us, but not one sayeth God speed us.” Yet even without the vocal support of the London mob, his position seemed invincible to informed observers; and so unlikely did the prospect of Mary's accession appear to her supporters, that the four Imperial ambassadors estimated that her desperate resistance would last no more than a few days and that everything for which they and their master had labored would be ruined.

The sudden reversal of Northumberland's fortunes has led historians to conclude that his army was not as powerful as the ambassadors feared: hatred for the upstart and loyalty to the house of Tudor combined to make the upper classes forget their recently-acquired church land and flock to Mary's banner. In their opinion Northumberland had to make do with whatever rabble he could muster from the streets of London, and thus his army was no match in size or quality to that which thronged to Mary at Framlingham. With the weight of informed opinion behind him, Professor Bindoff could confidently conclude: “But this time there was not even a battle. Northumberland's puny force was no match for the thousands who, in the greatest mass-demonstration of loyalty ever accorded to a Tudor, flocked to Mary's camp, and he fell back before them to Cambridge.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , Winter 1974 , pp. 342 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nichols, J. G., ed., The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary…, Camden Society, old ser., XLVII (1850), p. 8.Google Scholar

2 Bergenroth, G. A.et al., eds., Calendar of State Papers, Spanish (15 vols, in 20; London, 1862–1954), XI: 87–8Google Scholar [hereafter cited as C.S.P., Span]. A few days later they rated her chances somewhat higher. Ibid., XI: 91-3. See also de Guaras, Antonio, The Accession of Queen Mary, ed. Garnett, Richard (London, 1892), pp. 88–92Google Scholar, and Malfatti, C. V., tr. and ed., The Accession, Coronation and Marriage of Mary Tudor… (Oxford, 1956), pp. 13–22.Google Scholar

3 Bindoff, S. T., Tudor England (Harmondsworth, 1950), p. 166.Google Scholar

4 Jordan, W. K., Edward VI: The Threshold of Power (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), pp. 520–32.Google Scholar

5 Haynes, S. and Murdin, W., eds., Collection of State Papers…Left by William Cecil, Lord Burghley… (2 vols.; London, 1740–1759), I: 192 (misprinted 196).Google Scholar

6 Ibid.; Malfatti, , The Accession of Mary Tudor, p. 22Google Scholar; Dasent, J. R., ed., Acts of the Privy Council of England (32 vols.; London, 1890–1907), IV: 198–9Google Scholar [hereafter cited as A.P.C.] As late as December special warrants were necessary to defray the expenses of prisoners in the Tower of London. Ibid., IV: 376; C.S.P., Span., XI, 83-9; Chronicle of Queen Jane, pp. 1-13; Stow, J., Annates, or, A Generall Chronicle of England, ed. Howes, E. (London, 1631), pp. 609–11.Google Scholar

7 Public Record Office [PRO], E 101/427/6; E 101/427/4.

8 Nichols, J. G., ed., The Diary of Henry Machyn…, Camden Society, old ser., XLII (1848), 35–6Google Scholar; Nichols, J. G., ed., Narratives of the Days of the Reformation…, Camden Society, old ser., LXXVII (1859), 168–9Google Scholar; Tytler, P. F., ed., England Under the Reigns of Edward Viand Mary (2 vols.; London, 1839), II: 187Google Scholar; Froude, J. A., The History of England… (rev. ed., 12 vols.; London, 1862–1870), VI: 23–31.Google Scholar

9 PRO E 101/427/6. This list should be compared with British Museum [BM], Stowe MS 571 and Society of Antiquaries MS 125.

10 Narratives of the Reformation, pp. 132-76.

11 On the Gage family see Lower, M. A., The Worthies of Sussex (Lewes, 1865)Google Scholar and the Dictionary of National Biography.

12 Sackville had come to court in the service of Jane Seymour. He was the brother of Sir Richard Sackville, chancellor of the court of augmentations. See Philips, C. J., A History of the Sackville Family (2 vols.; London, 1930).Google Scholar

13 Strype, J., Annals of the Reformation… (4 vols.; Oxford, 1824), III: ii, 460.Google Scholar

14 Bateson, M., ed., “A Collection of Original Letters from the Bishops to the Privy Council…,” Camden Miscellany, IX (1893), pt. 3, p. 28Google Scholar. I owe this reference to the History of Parliament Trust.

15 Foxe thought that many Protestants sided with Mary in the belief that she would let them keep their religion. Foxe, J., Acts and Monuments…, ed. Cattley, S. R. (8 vols.; London, 1837–1841), VI: 387.Google Scholar

16 Simpson, A., The Wealth of the Gentry, 1540-1560 (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 41–3.Google Scholar

17 A.P.C., IV: 306, 309, 330.

18 Calendar of the Patent Rolls…, Edward VI (5 vols.; London, 1924–1929), V: 201Google Scholar [hereafter cited as C.P.R.]

19 Richardson, W. C., History of the Court of Augmentations, 1536-1554 (Baton Rouge, 1961), pp. 232–3.Google Scholar

20 Of all the pensioners serving in 1553, Bagnall was closest to the armed retainer of the fifteenth century. The son of a merchant, he had little local influence and was forced to make his way by his own wits. He received the post of soliciter and supervisor of kerseys and receiver of subsidies in the ports of London and Southampton shortly after Northumberland seized power. The post carried a salary of £100 and had valuable perquisites. Loades, D. M., Two Tudor Conspiracies (Cambridge, 1965), p. 214Google Scholar; C.P.R., Edw. VI, II: 247–8.Google Scholar

21 A.P.C., III: 30.

22 The story is told succinctly in Jordan, , Edward VI: The Threshold of Power, pp. 64, 80Google Scholar; Jordan, W. K., ed., The Chronicle and Political Papers of King Edward VI (London, 1966), p. 89Google Scholar; compare PRO, E179/69/62; E 179/69/63; E 179/69/64.

23 See appendix.

24 Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, passim; PRO, LC 2/2, fos. 41-2.

25 PRO, LC 2/3, fo. 113. Shaw, W. A., The Knights of England (2 vols.; London 1906), II: 61Google Scholar; Narratives of the Reformation, p. 158; Strype, J., Ecclesiastical Memorials… (7 vols.; London, 1816), I: 323–4Google Scholar; Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, passim.

26 PRO, E 179/69/45, fo. 3v.

27 Braddock, R. C., “The Royal Household, 1540-1560” (unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern University, 1971), pp. 76–9.Google Scholar

28 Worship, F., “Account of a MS. Geneology of the Paston Family…,” Norfolk Archaeology, IV (1855), pp. 41–3.Google Scholar

29 C.P.R., Philip and Mary (4 vols.; 1936–1939), I: 82.Google Scholar

30 Richardson, Court of Augmentations, Chap. 8; A.P.C., IV: 3 12, 337; V: 238; C.P.R., Philip and Mary, IV: 427.Google Scholar

31 They were: Digby, Anthony, Paston, Clement and Warcop, George. Edward, VI, Chronicle, pp. 103, 105–6.Google Scholar

32 They were: SirBagnall, Ralph, SirLawrence, Oliver (Shaw, , Knights of England, II: 61)Google Scholar and Sir Humphrey Radcliff who is usually styled knight but is not mentioned by Shaw.

33 C.P.R., Edward VI, V: 201Google Scholar; Rowse, A. L., Ralegh and the Throckmortons (London, 1962), pp. 10–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Compare BM, Stowe MS 571 with PRO, LC 2/4/1.

35 For Henry VIII's use of his household servants in battle see PRO, SP 1/185, fos. 52-4.

36 See Jordan, , Edward VI: Threshold of Power, pp. 434–9.Google Scholar

37 Edward, VI, Chronicle, pp. 100, 123.Google Scholar

38 Read, Conyers, Mr. Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth (London, 1955), pp. 93–101.Google Scholar