[Footnote 95: Camusat, _Meslanges_, vol. ii., f. 106. Chapuys writes that: Not content with having given her all his own jewels, Henry sent the Duke of Norfolk to try to obtain the Queen’s also. Katharine replied “that she would not send jewels or anything else to the King, as he had long ago forbidden her to do so; and besides, it was against her conscience to give her jewels to adorn a person who was the scandal of Christendom, and a disgrace to the King who was taking her to such an assembly; however, if the King sent expressly to ask for them, she would obey him in this as in other things. Though he was vexed at what she said, he did not fail to send for them by one of his own chamber, who had letters to the Queen’s chancellor and chamberlain as well as to herself. The man told her, the King was surprised that she had not sent her jewels, as the Queen of France and many others had done. She excused herself, and sent all she had; with which the King was much pleased” (Gairdner, _Cal._, v., 1377).] [Footnote 96: Paul Friedmann, _Anne Boleyn_, vol. i., p. 182.] [Footnote 97: Gairdner, _Cal._, vi., 83, 180.] [Footnote 98: Sanders, Hall, and those who follow them, assert without the least authority, that the marriage of Elizabeth’s parents took place in the preceding November. Chapuys was himself mistaken, in asserting that Cranmer had solemnised it. He was also wrong in ascribing the fact to Dr. Brown, Prior of the Austin Friars in London. A letter from Cranmer to N. Hawkins, in the following June, disclaims any part taken by himself in the marriage, which he says took place “about St. Paul’s Day” (_Archæologia_, p. 81). Stowe makes the following statement: “King Henry privilie married the Lady Anne Boleine on the five and twentieth day of January, being S. Paules Day. Mistress Anne Savage bore uppe Queene Anne’s traine, and was herself shortly after marryed to the lord Barkley; doctor Rowland Lee that marryed the King to Queene Anne was made Bishop of Chester, then Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, and president of Wales” (_Annals_, p. 561). Harpsfield’s account (in _The Pretended Divorce_) is the same, with more detail, as is also Le Grand’s translation from a Latin MS. in his _Histoire du Divorce_ (vol. ii., p. 110).] [Footnote 99: Gairdner, _Cal._, vi., 525-29.] [Footnote 100: _Ibid._, pp. 150, 167, Chapuys to Charles V.]