tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post3454448149671161298..comments2023-11-12T09:52:42.825-05:00Comments on Medieval Woman: Blogging with Historical Novelist Susan Higginbotham: The Great Precedence Battle of Katherine Parr and Anne SomersetSusan Higginbothamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-7279132001126043892011-03-26T15:26:14.937-04:002011-03-26T15:26:14.937-04:00Thanks for your comments, LMS! Susan James in her ...Thanks for your comments, LMS! Susan James in her book Kateryn Parr includes the letter in her appendix of the letters exchanged between Parr and Thomas Seymour; she lists the source as being the Dent-Brocklehurst MS, Sudeley Castle. I can't tell whether James has seen the letter in person or not.<br /><br />There's a list in John G. Nichols, "Anne, Duchess of Somerset." Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 177, 1845, of the jewels the Duchess of Somerset had at her death. Judging from the huge collection there, I think she would have been more than happy to bedeck herself with the crown jewels if she could come up with any excuse to do so.Susan Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-43565124944919338292011-03-26T14:44:42.956-04:002011-03-26T14:44:42.956-04:00btw (final post I promise!) – have you read A. Aud...btw (final post I promise!) – have you read A. Audrey Locke’s <i>The Seymour Family</i> (London, 1911)? It mentions a pretty heated letter Katherine allegedly wrote about the duchess. Unfortunately it gives no reference aside from saying it is in the collection at Sudeley Castle compiled by Mrs Dent in <i>Annuals of Winchcombe and Sudeley</i>. In it Katherine states that it is the duchess’s <i>‘coustome to promys many comynges to her frendes and to performme none’</i>. Would love to know if the letter is genuine and where it is now!little_miss_sunnydalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-16614023573230641602011-03-26T14:34:30.029-04:002011-03-26T14:34:30.029-04:00“While we're on the subject of Mary, the Duche...<i>“While we're on the subject of Mary, the Duchess of Somerset isn't listed by name as being present at her coronation-eve procession (unless there's a reference that I've missed). Assuming that I haven't missed something, do you know of any reason she might have been left out? Or is it more likely that no one bothered to write down her name, or that she simply missed the procession for unknown personal reasons?”</i><br /><br />I had a check with the few sources I have on hand and I also cannot spot her name. But some of the sources are very vague about who attended. Robert Wingfield’s <i>Vita Mariae</i>, states:<br /><br /><i>‘There was also a flock of peeresses, gentlewomen and ladies-in-waiting, never before seen in such numbers, who accompanied their queen in all her glory in the ancient fashion at the splendid palace of Westminster’.</i> (McCulloch eds, pp. 275-6.)<br /><br />Nichols’s <i>Chronicle of Queen Jane</i> is equally unclear (names several of the male peers, but little detail on the women).<br /><br />Did the duchess perhaps attend and her name was omitted? The marchioness of Exeter definitely accompanied Mary, but she is not mention in either source.<br /><br />If the duchess was not there, then why? Mary had released her from the Tower and provided some financial assistance later on. Clearly she remembered the duchess’s <i>‘earneste gentylnes towards me’</i> (TNA SP 10/1, f. 122). The duchess had also helped out some former members of Katherine of Aragon’s household, which she was once part of, which Mary was very grateful for. But the duchess had still been a prominent patron of religious reform during Edward’s reign. It is even possible that she amassed a great library of ‘heretical’ religious works (John Strype mentions that the duchess acquired most of Martin Bucer’s books after his death. There is some ambiguity about which duchess he was referring to. Some, including Warnicke, argue it is the duchess of Somerset, others say it is Katherine Brandon, duchess of Suffolk. Both are likely. Even if it wasn’t the duchess of Somerset, it is still is undeniable that she had excellent connections with various reformists and had numerous works dedicated to her). Mary of course was highly critical of the Edwardian Reformation. In fact, she regarded the majority of the reforms as sacrilegious, and was very angry about the attempts to make her, and her household, conform. This did not completely destroy Mary’s relationship with Anne; had this been the case, Mary would never have freed her and shown her various acts of kindness. She still sends the duchess sumptuous items for New Year including a smock wrought all over in 1557 (and the fact that Mary does not send items of clothing to everyone is telling I think). But I suspect the duchess’s decision to lead a more retired life during Mary’s reign was a decision agreeable to both. Mary could certainly be a benevolent individual, but her generosity had its limits. She was fond of the duchess and very mindful of their history. But the duchess’s committed stance of religion was an ‘embarrassing’ issue, so they stuck to the usual pleasantries and never enjoyed such a close relationship.little_miss_sunnydalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-84574062692969666682011-03-26T14:22:20.790-04:002011-03-26T14:22:20.790-04:00(Can't post my comment in one go - I ramble on...(Can't post my comment in one go - I ramble on too much! - so I'll post in two messages.)<br /><br /><br />I think it unlikely that there was a face to face argument, but I suspect the duchess made her disapproval known somehow. She would not have been the only one; Mary was also not thrilled about Katherine’s hasty remarriage so quickly after her father’s death. <br /><br />Have you read Jennifer Loach’s study on Edward VI? She pointed out that one the charges used against the Lord Protector at his trial was that <i>‘he hath robbed and embesselled from the kinges majestie the tresure and Jewells left by his majesties father’</i> (BL Add. MS 48136, f. 2). In other words he took various jewels that were the rightful property of Edward VI, and it is implied that he wore them during his time governing the realm. Despite his position, this was unacceptable. If we accept this charge as true (and the Lord Protector’s arrogance and love of finery is well supported in my opinion), then did he perhaps encourage his wife to act in a similar fashion? To dress as a suitable consort for the man who held the power of the monarch? That’s not to say the duchess was an unwilling party. Clearly she realised the advantages that came with being the Lord Protector’s wife (including helping individuals – even Mary petitioned her). So maybe she truly believed that she deserved these items?little_miss_sunnydalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-1024074396819447792011-03-24T15:40:14.363-04:002011-03-24T15:40:14.363-04:00Thanks, Little Miss Sunnydale! I wonder if Anne vo...Thanks, Little Miss Sunnydale! I wonder if Anne voiced her disapproval to Katherine, and that contributed to the friction between them?<br /><br />While we're on the subject of Mary, the Duchess of Somerset isn't listed by name as being present at her coronation-eve procession (unless there's a reference that I've missed). Assuming that I haven't missed something, do you know of any reason she might have been left out? Or is it more likely that no one bothered to write down her name, or that she simply missed the procession for unknown personal reasons?Susan Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-53510130237931617372011-03-24T15:38:31.313-04:002011-03-24T15:38:31.313-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Susan Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-29013411692591681892011-03-24T15:12:16.042-04:002011-03-24T15:12:16.042-04:00Interesting post!
I came across the palaver abou...Interesting post! <br /><br />I came across the palaver about the queen’s jewels in my MA research on Mary Tudor (who the duchess had a very good relationship with – amusing given their religious differences!). The tiff between the Seymour brothers regarding the items was still evident after Katherine Parr’s death. Thomas Seymour continued to petition for his late wife’s belongings, even resorting to asking Mary for her assistance. He apparently believed Mary could back up his claim that Henry VIII intended Katherine to have them (along with other items), for he wrote to Mary vouching such sentiments and to write ‘a brief note in 3 or 4 lines of her own knowledge’ to the Lord Protector. This must have put Mary in a difficult situation for she was good friends with the Lord Protector and the duchess (best seen in her letter to the duchess around this time in the BL).<br /> <br /><br />I think it likely that the duchess, like a lot of contemporaries (including to some extent Mary) disapproved of Katherine’s actions. Katherine was certainly a figure respected by many but she had married Seymour very quickly after Henry VIII died. Fortunately for Katherine, her young stepson, the new king Edward VI, supported her and his uncle. But others regarded their marriage as distasteful, and I think the duchess can be included amongst them.little_miss_sunnydalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04834404563322701533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-66022987611840329842011-03-21T22:53:58.602-04:002011-03-21T22:53:58.602-04:00Thanks, Kathryn! It's amazing how many reputab...Thanks, Kathryn! It's amazing how many reputable historians quote the "I will teach her better manners" thought as if the duchess actually said it!<br /><br />Anerje, how true! Contemporaries do describe him as being very much under the influence of his wife, but I suspect it was more of a matter of compatibility than his being henpecked. He himself had a very sharp tongue in his own right--Paget once took him to task for having reduced one of his councilors to tears.<br /><br />Bella, thanks! I have Legacy in my TBR pile--I think I had better finish my own Tudor novel before I get to it!Susan Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-90996754255339171772011-03-21T21:03:07.642-04:002011-03-21T21:03:07.642-04:00Susan, I very much appreciated reading this blog s...Susan, I very much appreciated reading this blog since I just started reading Legacy by SK and I just past that episode of presidency between both women.<br /><br />~Bella4everQueenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18381384266269279356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-37076269565947844062011-03-20T16:08:43.194-04:002011-03-20T16:08:43.194-04:00Anne Stanhope is usually portrayed as a shrew in h...Anne Stanhope is usually portrayed as a shrew in historical fiction. And her husband is often seen as 'hen-pecked'. There must have been some sort of quarrel between Katherine Parr and Anne Stanhope, whether it was over precedence or jewels, I guess we'll never know. Practically everything Nicholas Sander says is a load of rubbish anyway. These myths/intrpretations are so often accepted as just fact.Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-9235913233171544142011-03-20T04:01:42.578-04:002011-03-20T04:01:42.578-04:00Yet another historical myth elegantly demolished!Yet another historical myth elegantly demolished!Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-3006601114949169062011-03-19T10:20:15.895-04:002011-03-19T10:20:15.895-04:00No! I will not stop until you are Tudorized!No! I will not stop until you are Tudorized!Susan Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-47344882149423020432011-03-18T23:49:15.217-04:002011-03-18T23:49:15.217-04:00Susan, you are in grave danger of making Ye Olde T...Susan, you are in grave danger of making Ye Olde Tudor Tymes interesting... I must beg to you stop!Ragged Staffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285451640470655380noreply@blogger.com