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
Chapuys told the French Admiral on his visit to England “that those who
had shown him the Tower, and several other things, had not shown him
the principal gem of all the kingdom, to wit the Princess. He replied
that he was as much vexed as possible, that he had no opportunity of
seeing her, although he had several times spoken about her, and used
means to that effect. I asked if he had been refused a sight of her,
and he confessed that he had not expressly requested it, but that the
King never would come to the point. He added that he had never heard
a lady so praised as the Princess, even by those who were giving her
trouble; and certainly he was her devoted servant, both on account of
her great virtue, and because she was so nearly related to the Queen
his mistress,[122] and that he hoped for certain, soon to do her good
service.”[123]
Chapuys had now begun to speak very openly to the King and Cromwell,
insisting on the discussion of matters over which they would rather
have drawn a veil. Of some of these Cromwell declared that “neither
sugar nor sauce would make them go down”.
It was evident to the envoy, that all their hope lay in the Queen’s
death, and he was at no pains to conceal the fact that he had fathomed
their designs. He had petitioned the King for leave to attend
Parliament when Katharine’s cause was tried, and to state her case
plainly. But Henry refused, on the plea that it was not customary for
foreigners to be present at parliamentary debates. Chapuys protested
that there had never been such a case before, and that no Parliament
could stigmatise the birth of the Princess, for the cognizance of such
cases belonged to ecclesiastical judges, and that even if his marriage
with the Queen were null, Mary was still his legitimate daughter, owing
to the lawful ignorance of her parents. The Archbishop of Canterbury,
he declared, had not dared to cast a slur on her birth, and the King
himself had considered her as the heir to the throne, until the birth
of his new daughter. Henry seemed more moved by this, than by anything
else that Chapuys had said; but he still maintained that there was no
need for Katharine, or any one else to be summoned to Parliament, as
he himself being a party could not be there, and that according to the
laws of the kingdom, Mary was unable to succeed, and there was no other
Princess except his daughter Elizabeth, who was the heir, until he had
a son, which he thought would happen soon, adding that he did not care
for all the canons which might be alleged, as he preferred his own
laws, according to which he would have legitimacy judged by lay judges,
who could also take cognizance of matrimonial causes. “As,” remarked
Chapuys, “I thought this was strange, he said he would send me books. I
asked him to do so, and also to show me the law which, he says, makes
against the Princess; but he will do neither the one nor the other, for
he will not find what he wants.”[124]
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account