¹ Most of Gardiner's researches are to be found in his History of England from the accession of James I to the outbreak of the civil war 1603–42 (1883), esp. vols. 3–5, and in his edition of Francisco de Jesús El hecho de los tratados del matrimonio pretendido par el príncipe de Gales con la sereníssima infanta de España María (Camden Soc, 1869)Google Scholar. Most recent work on the marriage has concentrated on popular reaction to it. See Cogswell, T., The blessed revolution: English politics and the coming of war, 1621–1624 (Cambridge, 1989); at p. 57Google Scholar, Cogswell makes the important point that ‘a thorough study of the Spanish match is overdue’. For the best account of early Stuart foreign policy, see Simon Adam's article, ‘Spain or the Netherlands? The dilemmas of early Stuart foreign policy’, in Before the English civil war, ed. Howard, Tomlinson (London, 1983), pp. 79–101Google Scholar. Vital for Spanish popular reaction is Ettinghausen, Henry M., Prince Charles and the King of Spain's sister; what the papers said: an inaugural lecture delivered on 28 February 1985 (Southampton, 1987).Google Scholar

² Biblioteca de Palacio, Madrid, MS II-2191, fos. 3a, 10 and 13 respectively. The volume also contains a Spanish diary for the first session of the parliament of 1621, which I am editing. I am grateful to José Antonio Ahijado Martinez of the royal library in Madrid for placing at my disposal his extensive knowledge of the library and its collections.

³ Sir Edward undertook his first embassy to the Elector Frederick so successfully that he was chosen to revisit the elector. The initial mission was in response to Frederick's crushing defeat at the Battle of the White Mountain in November 1620. Villiers left in January 1621 and returned early in April. He started out on his subsequent embassy in the second half of September, returning within a month. Sir Edward's missions were so sensitive that James allegedly kept most of his councillors in the dark about what he was telling his son-in-law. In turn, they complained bitterly, but as it turned out, unfairly about Villiers's unsuitability as an envoy. Both embassies were suspected of hingeing on what James had personally written to Frederick, see The letters of John Chamberlain, ed. McClure, N. E. (2 vols. Philadelphia, 1939), n, 360 and 401Google Scholar; and Calendar of State Papers Venetian, vols. XVI–vii, ed. Hinds, A. B. (London, 1910 and 1911), passim, esp. xvi, 317 and 318.Google Scholar

⁴ Don Diego's endorsement reads: ‘Copia de la carta q[ue] el Rey de ingalaterra escribio al palatino de su mano con don eduardo bilers y esta es de mano del marq[ue]s de boquingan’. Verification that the copy is indeed in Buckingham's hand was obtained by comparison with private letters he wrote in 1623; e.g. Bodleian Library, Oxford, Tanner MS 73/1, fos. 277 and 294.

⁵ For James's forms of address see Letters of King James VI & I, ed. Akrigg, G. P. V. (London, 1984)Google Scholar, and in particular Public Record Office, London, PRO31/8/198, fo. 177.

⁶ The evidence from Munich is as follows. The original of the letter was in archives there during the last century, since Anton Gindely cited part of the text of Letter I in the original French, namely, ‘desavouer mais aussi me declarer contre vouz’; see his Geschichte des Bohmischen Aufstandes von 1618 (Prague, 1869–1878, 4 books in 2)Google Scholar, iv, 330 and note. I have been unable to trace this letter in Munich, though others from James to his son-in-law which Gindely consulted are still available. Copies of some of these other letters are to be found in the P.R.O., in SP/81/21, though it does not contain a copy of Letter I.

⁷ For papal demands see Gardiner, , Pol. Hist, iv, 350–2.Google Scholar

⁸ James to Ambassador Digby, Wanstead, 9 Sept. 1620, Bodleian Library, Tanner MS 73/1, fos. 178–179v, esp. at 178b; and fo. 191, entitled ‘Touching the 5 Articles brought out of Spayne’, which appears to be a section of a document also dated 9 Sept.

⁹ Buckingham's draft is to be found in British Library, Harleian MS 1583, fos. 353–356v, esp. at fo. 355v. A printed version can be consulted in Cabala, sive scrinia sacra (1691), pp. 224–6, and excerpts are cited in Gardiner, , Pol. Hist, iv, 354–7Google Scholar; Lockyer, R., Buckingham; the life and political career of George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham 1592–1628 (1981), p. 128Google Scholar; and also in Rushworth, John, Historical Collections, 1 (1721), 69.Google Scholar

¹⁰ John Chamberlain wrote in a letter of 5 Oct. that he believed Cottington had been at court the day before. Letters, n, 455; see also Havran, M. J., Caroline courtier: the life of Lord Cottington (1973), pp. 67–8Google Scholar, and Huxley, G., Endymion Porter: the life of a courtier, 1587–1649 (1959), p. 65.Google Scholar

¹¹ Huxley, Porter, p. 66. He arrived in Madrid at the beginning of Nov. 1622, Gardiner, Tratados, p. 183.

¹² It is usually stated that James told the Spanish around this time that, if Frederick did not agree to a ceasefire, English troops would assist in forcing him to lay down his arms, though details are hard to come by; see Weiss, Elmar, Die Unterstützung Friedrichs V. von der Pfalz durch Jakob I. und Karl I. von England in Dreissigjährigen Krieg (1618–1632). Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Geschichdiche Landeskunde in Baden Württemberg, Reihe B, 37. Band (Stuttgart, 1966), 41Google Scholar. Weiss contains the clearest exposition of diplomatic events as well as a much-neglected analysis of English decision-making. For the wider context, Parker, G., The Thirty Tears' War (1987) is indispensable.Google Scholar

¹³ Gardiner, , Pol. Hist, iv, 357Google Scholar; v, 48, 94, analyses Buckingham's position in the triumvirate, as does Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 122.

¹⁴ Ackrigg, Letters, p. 388.

¹⁵ See Sharpe, K., Criticism and compliment: the politics of literature in the England of Charles I (1987), p. 24Google Scholar, ‘As a fashionable cult, however, Platonic love came to England through Henrietta Maria’. The queen's influence is highlighted in Veevers, E., Images of love and religion: Queen Henrietta Maria and Court Entertainments (1989), esp. pp. 1, 14, 18–19Google Scholar. I am indebted to Dr Sharpe for alerting me to the possible significance of Charles's terminology.

¹⁶ The best edition of La Celestina is Fernando de Rojas, Comedia o Tragicomedia de Calisto y Melibea, ed. Russell, P. E. (Madrid, 1991)Google Scholar. I wish to thank Professor Dorothy Sherman Severin for explaining to me the register of the word alcahuete in seventeenth-century Spanish during a luncheon generously offered to the First Anglo-Hispano Congress of British and Irish Hispanists by the mayor and people of Minas de Rio Tinto in March 1992.

¹⁷ The royal palace offers one further insight into the intimate nature of the young prince's relations with the ambassador and the marquess. On 30 January 1621/2, Buckingham wrote to Gondomar from Newmarket [MS II-2108, fo. 74c]. A number of serious matters were dealt with, but he began the letter in informal vein, noting that the previous day, a Tuesday, the Prince of Wales had had his very first Spanish lesson. To this letter, Charles added a bizarre holograph postscript in three languages which does not accord well with the very formal and restrained view we have of Charles, at least in later life.:

buenos dias de dios a

v[uestra]. Ex[celenci]a. voysie ma primiere

lesson espaniole mais le petit

iames nest pas le primier

coup de mon oeuvre, under

the rose be it spoken and

I thanke you a la mode dengletere

for useing my wife well.

Whether Charles was still full of Twelfth Night cheer is not known; for a sober assessment of his character, see Sharpe, K., The personal rule of Charles I (London, 1992), esp. at p. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Charles ‘me ha offrezido en mucha confiança y secreto que, si Uegado yo á España le aconsejase que se vaya á poner en las manos de V. Magd. y á su disposicion lo hará y llegará á Madrid yncognito con dos criados', quoted, translated, and commented on in Gardiner, Tratados, p. 183, and note a.

¹⁹ Journals of the House of Lords, iii, 220–3, 27 Feb. 1624, at p. 221. Buckingham also cites various letters, including one from James to Digby dated 3 Oct. 1622 which Porter also delivered.

²⁰ Arrangements for a visit would not, of course, necessarily indicate a fully fledged plot. A semi-public journey by sea to enable Charles to collect his bride had long been mooted; even in Sept. 1622 there was discussion of this, Sherebourne Papers, PRO31/8/198, p. 471.

²¹ The italics are mine. See ‘Interrogatories to be ministered to Endimeon Porter Esquier on the p[ar]te and behalf of the Right Hono[ur]able John Earle of Bristoll Defend[an]t at the suite of S[ir] Robert Heath Knight his Ma[jes]ties Attorney generall on his Ma[jes]ties behalfe Compl[ainan]t’, which are to be found among the Sherebourne Papers in the PRO, PRO31/8/198, pp. 469–74, at p. 472. For further background see Gardiner, , Pol. Hist, vi, 96Google Scholar; Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 321; and Huxley, Porter, pp. 142–4. It should be noted that, although Bristol quoted from the beginnings and ends of various letters from Buckingham which he claimed Porter delivered, the earl did not quote from any letters from Charles. This does not necessarily mean that Bristol was ignorant of the royal correspondence; rather it may simply indicate he felt a healthy attachment to his head.

²² Pace Cogswell, , Blessed revolution, p. 61Google Scholar. Whether Charles had been manipulated by Buckingham was hotly debated right up to the outbreak of the Civil War; for an overview, see Lockyer, Buckingham, p. 137 and above, n. 16.

²³ As for James's foreknowledge, Charles is keen to give at least the impression that his father was fully informed; Letter III, lines 8–10.