The History of Mary I, Queen of England: as found in the public records, despatches of ambassadors, in original private letters, and other contemporary documentsStone, J. M. (Jean Mary)
History
The History of Mary I, Queen of England: as found in the public records, despatches of ambassadors, in original private letters, and other contemporary documents
Stone, J. M. (Jean Mary)
Great Britain -- History -- Tudors, 1485-1603; Mary I, Queen of England, 1516-1558
The Archbishop had had ample opportunity for flight had he been so
inclined, but he persistently refused to take advantage of it, though
he advised others in like danger to escape to the continent.[332] Great
numbers did so, and went to Strassburg, Antwerp, Worms, Frankfort or
Geneva, in all of which cities the new doctrines obtained. Among the
fugitives were the Bishops of Winchester, Wells, Chichester, Exeter and
Ossory; the Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and those of Westminster,
Exeter, Durham, Wells and Chichester; and the Archbishop’s brother
Edmund, Archdeacon of Canterbury.[333] Peter Martyr also applied for
passports which were granted without reluctance, and five days after
Cranmer’s committal, he left England “with great safety and unnecessary
precaution”.[334] The government apparently connived also at Latimer’s
escape, for the Bishop received warning of the coming of a pursuivant
from the Council. The pursuivant did no more than deliver a letter
and depart, after which plenty of time was left, in the hope that he
would take flight. But he did not budge, and accordingly, on the 13th
September, the Council Register states that “This day Hugh Latimer,
clerk, appeared before the lords, and for his seditious demeanour
was committed to the Tower, there to remain a close prisoner, having
attending upon him one Austin, his servant”.[335]
Mary was Queen, but not entirely mistress of her kingdom. De Noailles
was careful to keep the coals stirred continually, and was responsible
for at least half the discontent that prevailed in London. Elizabeth,
whose vanity prompted her to pose as the centre of attraction
everywhere, coquetted with the French ambassador, with the populace,
with the leaders of the Protestant party, without committing herself
to any overt act of rebellion. She was already mistress in the arts
of innuendo, dissimulation and intrigue. The treachery of de Noailles
made her the stalking-horse of the Reformers, although the ambassador
expressed to his master a fear, that her obstinacy in refusing to go
to Mass would shortly land her in the Tower.[336] But he was not even
sincere in his treachery, for lightly as he imperilled Elizabeth’s life
by encouraging the Princess to associate herself with the factious, it
was scarcely his aim in the event of a successful insurrection to place
her on the throne. Mary Queen of Scots was Mary Tudor’s next legitimate
heir, and as the wife of the Dauphin would, if she mounted the throne
of England, bring to a glorious end the humiliation under which the
French had smarted for centuries, in seeing the English monarchs, their
rivals, quartering the arms, and coolly assuming the style of Kings
of France. But of these ulterior views the ambassador’s friends in
England were totally ignorant, and perhaps even Elizabeth, with all
her cleverness, was at least once in her life completely outwitted. It
was constantly represented to the Queen, that her sister’s attitude
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