[Footnote 745: "It was not from Parliament," says
Brewer (_L. and P._, iv., Introd., p. dcxlvii.),
"but from Convocation that the King had to
anticipate any show of independence or opposition."
True, to some extent; but the fact does not prove,
as Brewer alleges, that Convocation was more
independent than Parliament, but that Henry was
doing what Parliament liked and Convocation
disliked.]
[Footnote 746: "The Queen replied that they were
all fine councillors, for when she asked advice of
the Archbishop of Canterbury, he replied that he
would not meddle in these affairs, saying
frequently, _Ira principis mors est_" (Chapuys to
Charles V., 6th June, 1531). Warham was one of the
counsel assigned to the Queen for the divorce
question.]
[Footnote 747: _L. and P._, v., 1247. Warham also
made a formal protest against the legislation of
1529-32 (_ibid._, v., 818). The likeness between
Henry VIII. and Henry II. extended beyond their
policy to their personal characteristics, and the
great Angevin was much in the Tudor's mind at this
period. Chapuys also called Henry VIII.'s attention
to the fate of Henry II. (_ibid._, vii., 94).]
[Footnote 748: _L. and P._, v., App. 10.]
[Footnote 749: _Ibid._, v., 831; _cf._ v., 898,
989, App. 28.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account