Chapter XXX: Sixteenth Century Women Students 295 (10)

We must turn back to note what the Cliffords had been doing. Sir Andrew being in the Tower, the Earl of Cumberland came to London, and handed over his Collar of the Garter into the Queen’s own hands, and some other jewels to the Queen’s Commissioners, Lord Rich and Mr. Potts, and on 6th September 1553, it was agreed that the Earl should keep the rest of Sir Andrew’s goods, on paying £500 into the Exchequer. Mary was very cordial to the Earl, but warned him that he must not marry his daughter except to one approved of by herself. It would almost seem that she suggested Henry, Lord Strange, son and heir of the Earl of Derby. At least the smiles of royalty brightened this wedding. The Queen presented the bride with a brooch of thirteen diamonds, all the household linen, and all the robes which had belonged to Sir Andrew Dudley. It is probable the Lady Margaret Clifford wore at her marriage to Lord Strange on 7th February 1554-5, the very robes of gold and silver tinsel Sir Andrew had received from the Royal wardrobe for his own intended wedding in June 1553. The Queen made a great feast at Court on the occasion of the marriage. There were jousts, in which King Philip himself took part, and “after supper there was the Juego de Cañas,” a Spanish game, in which he led. The Queen was anxious, a presentiment of evil weighed her down, and she more than once sent to beg the King not to expose himself so much. Her suspicion of a lurking danger was well founded. There was already widespread discontent with the Spanish marriage, the religious severities had increased this, and on the 4th of February, only three days before this gay wedding, John Rogers, the first Marian martyr, had been burned at the stake amid the murmurs of the people. The State Papers tell us that a secret band of conspirators had appointed William Hunnis, Allday, Cornwall, and others to the number of twelve, to kill the King, and after him the Queen, that very night. But though these elements of danger mingled in the gay crowd nothing was done. “A cautious consideration of the risks run by themselves put the conspirators out of stomach for the enterprise.” So the Lady Margaret Clifford was safely married to the Catholic Lord Strange; and after the festivities were all over the Queen’s pity turned to her former _fiancé_, and he was made capable of holding property and demanding debts. The first thing he did was to send his former servant, Alexander Harrison, to York to meet Oswald Wilkinson, and go with him to Skipton Castle to demand back his (Sir Andrew’s) wedding provision. But the Earl refused unless they paid him £500. They had it not to pay. The Earl refused even to give them some necessary pieces of plate for Sir Andrew’s use, worth in all about £40, which they earnestly requested. Poor Sir Andrew never saw either his bride or his property again. He was in a sad plight. He had lost all Court influence through his brother’s death, he was not so young or so astute as his nephews. He became suspected of being concerned in the plot held together by John Throckmorton, the Ashtons, and Henry Dudley (not his nephew). He might have sympathized with it, but nothing was proved against him. After a year filled with trials and executions in connection with this conspiracy Sir Andrew Dudley fell ill. He thought he was going to die, and made his will on 21st July 1556, leaving many legacies to be paid out of debts due to him, and appointing as overseers his nephews, Ambrose, afterwards Earl of Warwick, Robert, afterwards Earl of Leicester, and Henry, not the conspirator. The broken man did not then die. A new path to promotion might have been found for him in the new reign, through his nephews. But he died in the first year of Elizabeth at Westminster. His will was proved on 22nd November 1559, by Sir Robert Dudley. Thence arose the suit in the Court of Requests, which has preserved so many details. Sir Robert could not settle the legacies without securing the debts, so he exhibited a Bill of Complaint against the Earl of Cumberland, the chief debtor. The complaint itself is lost, but it is easy to reconstruct it (excepting the date) from the other papers. In an undated answer the Earl denied that the Lord Robert Dudley had any right to demand goods lawfully forfeited, minimized the amount and value of the goods, but acknowledged having:

One purse of 29 pieces of gold and 11 pieces of new money; divers apparels, as shirtes, petycotes, trusses, doublets of taffaty and satin, hoses of velvet and saten, jerkyns, clokes, and gowns of velvet and satin with aglets of gold, jackets of cloth of gold, cote of silver, velvet, and satin, hankerchers, certain plate double gilt, parcel gilt, white plate, one cup of gold, and certain pewter and glass.

The Queen became possessed of all, kept the jewels, and bargained the other goods to him for £500, as may be seen by a privy seal. The Replication of Lord Robert Dudley (also undated) declared the answer insufficient. The Earl of Cumberland in the first instance was not an official of the Queen’s, and had no right to seize the goods. They were not in his keeping, but in the keeping of the Lady Margaret. He never paid that £500 to the Exchequer, and had no receipt for it. Dudley was able to prove the goods were worth £4,500. Sir Andrew had a patent granted him to sue for all debts.

In the rejoinder the Earl said he knew of Sir Andrew’s patent, but before it was granted the Queen had seized the goods, detained some, sent some to the Lady Strange, and sold the remainder to him for £500. It is true that he did not pay this directly. But the Lord Strange owed him £500, and paid it for him. A commission was appointed to hear witnesses at Westminster, and they heard Lord Robert Dudley’s on 10th December 1560. The most important was Oswald Wilkinson, who stated all the facts above, and added that they could not have altered the inventory without his knowing it. Thomas Greene, of Adlyngton, co. Cheshire, another old servant, spoke to sums of money Sir Andrew had possessed. Alexander Harrison, while supporting Wilkinson, added that he had received from Sir Henry Sidney through James Shelley £1,300 for Sir Andrew Dudley at Petty Callys in Westminster in the last year of Edward VI. The Earl kept all the goods and inventories and everything except the four horses he and his fellows rode on. William Garrat and William Clark, gentlemen, of Westminster, former servants, supported the depositions of their fellows, and Hugh Briscowe had seen the book of payments for all Sir Andrew’s property, and heard him confess it on his death-bed. He knew Sir Andrew had sent in a Supplication against the Earl to the late Queen in the Court of Requests. John Cogges had packed all the property and had heard it estimated at £5,000.

The Earl’s witnesses were not examined till 3rd February 1561-2, Christopher Monckton, William Danby, and others, who really supported Dudley’s witnesses. On the same day, the 3rd of February 1561-2, the noble witness the Lady Margaret Strange was called. She gave her age as twenty-four, and thus the D.N.B. would seem to be out by two years in the date of her birth. She supported the depositions of the Dudley servants clearly and fully, and signed her deposition in her beautiful clear, careful handwriting, “Margaret Strange.” From the Book of Decrees and Orders one can gather that some private arrangement was come to after all. Lord Robert Dudley was becoming ever more powerful with the Queen, and the Earl of Cumberland would doubtless have to climb down. And the Lady Margaret Strange, who was not very happy with her Lord, became, on his father’s death, the Countess of Derby, survived her husband, and, it is said, communed with soothsayers, who promised her that her son should be King. That son resisted the suggestion, and she saw him struck down by poison given, it was said, by disappointed Jesuits. Her second son became Earl, and kept himself safe and secluded from worldly ambitions, “writing only comedies for the common players”; and she, out of favour in Elizabeth’s suspicious Court,[94] because of her dreams of a Royal succession, ended her life in gloom in 1596. (_See_ Camden’s “Annals,” p. 470.)

_“The Yorkshire Post,” 26th August 1912._

FOOTNOTES:

[94] She was confined in 11th March 1579, also 23rd November 1579. See Reg. Privy Council of date, and at other later times.

XXVI

JANE, THE QUEEN’S FOOL

The only woman in this country clearly recorded to have filled the peculiarly masculine office of the Royal Fool was a person named Jane, whose paternal name is as yet only a matter of inference. It is not insignificant that she flourished in the time of our first Queen Regnant, 1537-1558, coming to the Household while Mary was Princess, and sharing the days of her adversity, as well as of her prosperity. It is possible that Mary, with her modest nature, considered that it would be more decorous that her quiet household should be amused by a humourist of her own sex, than by such jesters as awakened by their broad witticisms roars of laughter in her father’s Court. But it is more than likely that, from some kind motive at first, she had extended her protection to Jane as a young girl left under some peculiar need of help, and, after fitting her for it, appointed her to the office. No book of Jane’s witticisms has come down to us, nor any allusions to them, as in the case of her predecessor Scogan, and her contemporary Will Somers, so that it is probable that her sayings were neither very brilliant nor very broad, and that she was one who rather warmed and illumined life by a genial humour, than one who flashed upon it startling coruscations of wit. Dr. Doran, in his “History of Court Fools,” does not allude to her, though he might have done so had he studied Sir Frederick Madden’s published transcript of the household expenses of the Princess Mary, as Miss Strickland has done to advantage.

Little is known of her except through the accounts of her garments, and yet through the language of clothes we find in this case a good deal of information regarding Court customs and expenditure, and of the Queen who determined both. In many ways Mary showed herself liberal by nature, but nowhere more markedly than in the clothing of her Court Fools. Besides the Girl-Fool of her youth, the Queen, on coming to the throne, “entertained” her father’s fool, William Somers, doubtless on account of his well-known kindly and charitable disposition. Armin, in his “Nest of Ninnies,” says of him:

He was a poor man’s friend
And helped the widow often to her end;
The King would ever grant what he did craue,
For well he knew Will no exacting Knave,
But wished the King to do good deeds great store
Which caused the Court to love him more and more.

But though Henry VIII granted his Fool’s requests, he did not array Somers anything like so handsomely as Mary did. So it does not seem surprising that she liked to deck her Woman Fool almost gorgeously at times. One can only wonder how Jane could wear out all the shoes that were made for her, unless she had some poor relatives whom they fitted. The more limited gifts of Mary’s early days were, no doubt, eked out by home-made “translations,” and certainly aided by grants from the King. The earliest entry (Royal MSS. British Museum, 17B. xxviii) runs: “December 1537. Payd for housen and shewes to Jane the Foole 20ᵈ.”

In 1538: “Payd for a yerde and a halfe Damaske for Jane the Fole 7/. Item payed to Mʳˢ Laundress for stuff by hir bought for Jane the Fole 15/.”

In 1542 appears: “Item for a pair of shews for Jane the Fole 6/.” In April 1543: “Item for three elles clothe to make Jane the Fole smocks 3/.” In July 1543: “Item payd for Jane the Fole for the tyme of her seekness 22/6.” In September of that year:

“Payd for a Kirtle for Jane Foole 15/.

“Item for nedles for Jane 1ᵈ.”

In January 1543-4: “Payed for shaving of Jane Fole’s head 8ᵈ,” an expense which was again incurred in July 1544, in August and September of that year, as if some weakness in the hair had followed her severe illness.

In June-1544: “Item for a coffer for Jane the Foole 3/4.”

From another source we find other facts. In 1540 there had been a warrant issued by Henry VIII to Sir Anthony Denny, Master of the Great Wardrobe, to deliver certain quantities of silks and stuffs to “The nurse of Prince Edward, to Catharine Champernoone, to Ann Basset, and to Jane the Foole” (Add. MS. 7100, Brit. Mus.).

In the autumn after Mary’s accession she allowed for the Coronation to William Somers “A gowne of blue satten, the ground yellow stripping with a slight gold, a jerkin furred, with sleeves of same, furred with conie” (427 (4) Exchequer Accounts, Q.R., P.R.O.).

Mary’s warrants to Sir Edward Waldegrave, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe, were generally in favour of an individual or group of individuals of the same class, as of the ladies of her chamber or ushers of her Court. So much was to be “delivered” either for the occasion or annually. I have not as yet found a notice of Jane so early as those of the others, but this may arise from the fact that her expenses were always included with those of the Queen, and were apparently retrospective. Mary’s special warrants included her own personal wants, with occasional references to those of King Philip; those of one lady, probably the “chief” of her “women,” at first Lady Margaret Clifford (until her marriage to Lord Strange on 7th February 1555-6); afterwards “Lady Jane Seymour,” but always those of her two fools, William and Jane, sometimes in strange juxtaposition. The earliest after her accession which has been preserved is that of 27th April 1 Mary 427 (11) Exchequer Accounts, in which are included:

Item, for thre yerdes of black satten geuen to Mʳ Herte, being Jane our Foole’s Valantyne, _all of our great guardrobe_.[95]

Item, for making of a Douche gowne for Jane our Foole of striped purple satten, the pleites lyned with frise and buckram, the bodyes lyned with fustian.

Item for making of a kirtle for her of striped silk lyned with cotton, the bodyes and placket lyned with lynnen cloth.

Item for making of a Douche gowne for her of Crimson satten striped with golde, the bodyes lyned with fustian, the pleites lyned with freize and buckram.

Item for making of a kirtle for her of blewe silke fringed over, the bodyes lyned with lynnen clothe, the skirtes with cotton.

Item for making of a Douche gowne for her of crimson striped satten, the bodyes lyned with fustyan, the plate with frieze & buckram, and for sewing silk to the same.

Item for making a kirtle of like crymson striped satten for her, the bodyes lyned with lynnen cloth, and the skirtes with cotton.

Item, for making of a cloak for her of yellow cloth garded with grene clothe layde on with yellow whippe lase, and for pillow silk to stitch it on.

Item for making of a Douche gowne for her of blew damaske chekered, the bodyes lyned with fustyan, the pleight lyned with cotton and buckram.

Item, for making of a kirtle for her all of white satten fringed with copper silver, the bodyes lyned with lynnen clothe and the skertes with cotton.

Item, for making of a kirtle for her of red vared silke lyned with lynnen and cotton cloth.

Item for making of a peticoate for her all of red cloth.

Item for making of a Frenche gowne for the Ladye Margaret Clifford of purple satten, etc.

It is a pity that the cost of the items is not given in this series of papers, but it is evident that there is no distinction of quality between the dress of Jane, and that of the great ladies of the Court, though there is sometimes in the colours or combinations, and generally in the shape. Jane seems to have worn Dutch gowns, and the courtiers French gowns, but the material is as good for Jane as for them and the number of garments greater.

The gentleman alluded to as Jane’s Valentine was probably one of the sons of Sir Percival Hart, who are recorded as performing then a device of their own before the Queen at Court.

This fact seems to suggest that Jane mingled with the other courtiers on a somewhat equal footing. As to what “a Valentine” really implied we cannot be sure, but it seems to have been normally conducted by an annual casting of lots. In Mary’s privy purse expenses there is an illustrative entry: “Item geven to George Mountjoye drawing my Lady Grace to his Valentyne.” And in the list of the Princess’s jewels is another: “Item, a Broche of gold enamyled blacke with an agaite of the story of Abraham with foure small rockt rubies,” while at the margin is added “Geven to Sir Antony Browne drawing her Grace to his Valentyne.”

At the foot of each page is the signature “Marye,” showing that the Princess had passed the entries. In the autumn of the year 1 and 2 Philip and Mary 17th October, the Queen being at Westminster, issued her warrants (427, 11. Exchequer Accounts):

Item to the said Marie Wilkinson our Silkewoman for one rich robe lace of purple silk & gold for his saide Majestie, wrought very richly with taffeta.

Then appears an item for “translating” some gowns for Lady Margaret Clifford; then:

Item, to the saide Edward Jones, tailor, for making of a douche gowne of fustian of Naples striped for Jane our foole, lyned with buckram & fringe and fringed the bodyes lined with fustyan.

Item, for making of a kirtle for her of yellowe Turquey Satten, lyned in Cotton, the bodyes and placarde lyned with lynnen clothe.

Item, for making of a douche gowne for her of grene satten tyncelled with copper gold frenges, the plaites lyned with cotton and Buckram the bodyes lyned with white Fustyan & paste Buckram.

Item, for making of a peticoat for her of red upperbodyed with Turquie Satten, lyned with Lynnen Cloth.

Item, for making of a Dowche gowne of Cloth for Beden the foole, frenged, the plaits lined with friese and buckram, and the bodyes lyned with fustyan.

Item, for making of a kirtle for her of yellowe Turquey Satten lyned with cotton.

Item for making of a peticoat for her of red upperbodyed with yellow Turquie satten lyned with lynnen clothe.

Item, to the saide Marie Wilkinson sylkewoman for nine peire of blak knit hose for the saide Jane our Foole, thirteene ounce and a haulfe of frenge of divers colours of fine slaine silke employed upon two gownes and two cappes for her, and for making the same.

Item, for twelve Handkerchevers of Holland for William Sommers our Fole, thre peyre of lynnen hosen for him, two peyre of knit hose, two ounce and a haulf of grene sylk employed upon a grene coate for hym & thre dossen of grene buttons.

Item, more for him, haulfe an ounce of blewe silke employed upon a coate of blewe damaske, one quarter of an ounce of silke for a doublet of canvas, two dossen white buttons for the same doublet, and one ounce and a haulfe of blew & yellow silke employed upon a Coat of Blew damaske garded with yellow Vellat.

Item for sixe and thre quarters ounce of fine slayne silke frenge of divers cullors employed by the said Edward Jones upon a gowne for the said Beden the foole.

Item to John Bridges Taylor, for making of a gown of purple Damaske, for the said William Sommers our foole with thre gardes of yellow Vellat.

Item for making of a jerkin for him of purple damask plaine, four caps of cloth, two russet, two of them garded with vellat, & stitched with silk.

Item, more to the saide Henry Arnolde our Shewmaker, for seven peire of shews to the saide Jane our fole.

This paper gives us two or three suggestive points. It shows that the knitted silk stockings, supposed to be a new experience to Queen Elizabeth, were liberally given to the Court Fool in the previous reign. It also introduces a new word, “Beden,” evidently a proper name, which can only mean one of two things; either that there was a second Female Fool, and a third Court Fool, nowhere else alluded to, or that “Beden” was the patronymic of Jane, which I take to be the case. I looked carefully through all the household lists of earlier years for a resembling name, and find a “John Bedon” mentioned three times as yeoman of the Chamber to Henry VIII in 1525, 1531, and 1533, who would have been a suitable enough father for her. There was also a John Beddon, master of the vessel sailing to Bordeaux for the King’s wine in 1526, and a Richard Bedon on the commission of the peace for Surrey, 1541. I cannot connect “Jane” with any of these, but thought it wise to note the names, as they may later yield some clue to her paternity.

The accounts here fail us at the Record Office, but fortunately they have strayed no further than to the Bodleian Library, whither they may be followed. Only six months later than the above list there were more garments ordered for Jane, (See Calendar of Charters and Rolls in the Bodleian, W. H. Turner; see also p. xviii.) In the account for 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, 10th April, at Hampton Court, we find:

Item for furring of a gowne (for William Sommer our foole) with gray jennets tayles, with a peere of sleves and a caape of jennets tailes to the same gowne, and fourtie white lambskynnes.

Item for furring of a gowne of grene figured Vellat (for hym) with sixtene white hare skynnes and fourtie and sixe white lamb skynnes.

Item for furring of a jerken (for hym) of the same Vellat, with seven white hare skennes and twenty whyte Lamb skynnes.

Item, for furring of a gowne of the same Vellat with sixe white hare skynnes for Jane our foole.

Item, for thirteen dosen and a haulf of round silke buttons of sundrie collours (for the saide William Sommer), two loupe buttons of silke, and two dossen buttons of grene silke and silver, five ounces of black stitching silke, sixe peire of Lemon hoosen, twelve shirts of Holland Cloth, and twelve Handkerchens of Holland Cloth.

Item, for eight paire of black knit hoosen (for the said Jane) seventeene ounces and a haulfe of Frenge of divers collors of fine Spanish silke, for the frenging of a gowne and a cappe of divers collors one peece[96] of green poynting Ribande for a gowne of grene satten and striped with golde, and for the making of two cappes, the oone with frenge, the other with Armiens.

Item, for thre yerdes of red cloth to make him a coate and two yerdes of Vellat to garde the same for lining, making, and embroidering of our letters.

Item, for 12 peire of shewes for the said Jane.

The account of six months later, also preserved at the Bodleian, continues the story (1st October 2 and 3 Philip and Mary, Greenwich):

Item for making of a loose gowne of greene vellat for Jane our foole, tyncelled with golde of our store lined with blacke cotton, the fore sleeves lined with friese and bagges and staye for the same.

Item for making of a Douche gowne of Fustian of Naples edged with frenge, the plaites lyned with buckram and cotton, the bodyes and sleves lined with frise, the collor lyned with stiff buckram.

Item, for making of a Kirtle (for her) of striped unwatered Chamblet with bodyes, the nether parte lyned with blacke cotton, and the bodyes and placarde lyned with Lennen clothe.

Item, for twelve peire of shewes for the said Jane.

Item, for making of two Grene coates for the saide William Sommer, the one garded with Vellat, the other playne and lyned with cotton.

Some other accounts seem to have vanished altogether. Jane appears to have been in trouble again, as among the lists of New Year’s gifts for 1556 are two:

Geven to a woman dwellyng at Burye for healing Jane the Foole her eye, oone guilt salt with cover.

To Maistres Ager for keping the saide Jane during the time of the healing of her eye, two guilt saltes.

The relative handsomeness of these gifts seems to show Mary’s appreciation of her Woman Fool. A later account at the Record Office (427, 18 Exchequer Accounts, 27th March, 6 Mary, Greenwich) shows continued liberality:

Item thre yerdes of blacke Satten geven to Mʳ Barnes, being Jane Foole her Valantyne.

Item, for making of a petycoat for Lady Jane Seymour of Scarlet garded with crimson vellat, &c....

Item for making of a Dowch Gowne for Jane our foole of blew fustyan of Naples, the pleights lyned with cotton and buckram, the bodyes and sleeves with fustyan, the upper sleeves with fryse and for making of a kyrtle for her of striped mockado, lyned with cotton, the bodyes and placard with lynnen clothe. And for making of another dowche gown for her of wrought fustian of Naples, the pleights lyned with cotton and buckram, the bodyes and sleeves with fustyan, the upper sleeves with fries and the collor with paste buckram and also for making of a kirtle for her of striped Russet lyned with cotton the bodyes and placarde lyned with lynnen cloth.

Item for three yerdes of Russet Clothe to make a gowne for William Sommers his sister....

Item, delivered to the saide Lady Jane Seymour six peces of blak jeane poynting ribande four peces of hollowe lase, one pece of girdling and thre ownce of crimson sylke in graine.

Item, delivered for the said William Somer eyght dossen of round silke buttons, thre ounce thre quarters of sylke, twelve shirtes of Holland cloth, twelve handkerchers of holland, fowre peyre of woollen hose, sixe peyre of lynnen hose, also two peyre of black buckram hose.

Item, delivered for the said Jane foole thirty one ounce thre quarters of frenge in collours for frenging of the said two gownes and cappes of fustian of Naples, and for making of the same cappes And for thirteene peyre of black knit hoose.

The next item is a long list of velvet shoes for the Lady Jane Seymour--so long, indeed, that one must think she had to supply the other ladies of the Chamber.

Item for twelve peire of shewes for the saide Jane Foole.

Item, for the said Thomas Perrye for furring of a gowne of clothe for the said William Somer, with thre tymber of Callake(?) and thyrte & eighte white lambe skynnes.

Item to the saide Mary Wilkenson, for four elles of Holland delivered to the said William Somer, etc.

The special feature of handkerchiefs in the wardrobe of William Sommers is noticeable. Other retainers do not seem to have had similar grants. He had apparently had this year a visit from his sister, whose relatively humble position is implied by the material of her garment. It may be remembered that Armin in his “Nest of Ninnies” gives a delightful account of the visit of William Sommers’ uncle to Court in Henry’s days. But we hear nothing further of the sister.

It is difficult to decide which “Mʳ Barnes” was Jane’s Valentine this year.

Then comes the last account of all, which becomes touching when we remember how Mary, crushed with ill-health, and the neglect of the husband for whom she had risked so much, with the loss of Calais, with long-continued “evil weather,” with the disaffection of her subjects, and the shrinking of her income, gave up all gaiety and expense.

Yet Mary, _about to die_, does not limit her expenditure upon her Court Fools, faithful among many faithless. (Exchequer Accounts, 31st October, 6 Mary 427, 18.) St. James:

Item, for furring of a gown of red fustian of Naples for Jane oure fole, with a here collored furre....

Item for William Somer our fole, seven ounce and a haulf of silke, one gross of buttons with stawlkes, eyght tassels of grene and yellow silke, two elles of Holland clothe, tenne peyre of Lennen hoose, fyve peire of Buckram hoose, haulfe a dossen of Handkerchievers, and thre dossen of round buttons.

Item for the said Jane our foole, thirteen ounce and a haulfe of silk freenge to frenge a gowne and two cappes, for making of the saide two cappes, and for thre ounce of grene silke for another gowne of grene damaske, one pece of crimson ribande and twelve pair of woollen hose....

Item, for making of twelve peire of lether shewes for the said Jane our foole....

Item to Richard Tysdale Taylor, for making of two grene coates for William Somer our foole thone garded with Vellat, and thother plaine, both lined with cotton, for making of two canvas doublets for him lyned with Bockram, and for making of a gowne of grene damaske garded with yellow vellat, and for making of a jerkin of same damaske lykewise garded with yellow Vellat.

And then the end came. Doubtless Mary’s two fools, after the way of their kind, knew more of the heart of their liberal mistress than many of her retainers. They do not seem to have offered their services to her successor, or to have been invited to her Court, though William Sommers had some payments made to him early in her reign. He apparently gravitated eastward from the Court, to the neighbourhood afterwards so famous for players and jesters, and he was buried in St. Leonard’s parish church in the Liberty of Shoreditch on 15th June 1560.

But there is no further word of Jane--she disappeared on the death of her royal mistress. I did not know of the name of “Beden” when I went through the registers of many London parishes; and though I have gone through the printed registers of others, I have as yet seen no record of the burial of any “Jane Beden,” or even of “Jane, a woman,” as was sometimes a clerk’s way of expressing the identity of the defunct. It is possible that through the suggestion of the patronymic some future worker may find some more details of the life of Jane, Queen Mary Tudor’s female Fool.

_“Athenæum,” 12th August 1905._

FOOTNOTES:

[95] This phrase is repeated every time.

[96] A “peece” does not here mean an indefinite quantity, but a known length for each material, 6, 12, 18, or 36 yards.

XXVII

ELIZABETH’S FOOLS AND DWARFS

It has been presumed that Elizabeth found her life interesting enough, and her Court attractive enough, to be able to do without the spice of the Court Fool or the contrasts of the Court Dwarf. But though no facetiae have come down to us as memorials of their existence in contemporary letters or State Papers, it is evident that she sometimes, at least, had such attendants. From the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, we can see that Mary and Elizabeth supported William Somers, their father’s Fool, until his death. (He was buried in St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, on 15th June 1560.)

Scrappy notes are scattered through the Warrants and Wardrobe Accounts in the Lord Chamberlain’s Books, and give us a few details. There is one series of these in English, and another in Latin, richly garnished with English borrowings. In later papers we find references to “the Fool,” and other allusions to unclassified persons who may have acted as such. There are “Sara Snow,”[97] “Monarcho,” “William Shenton,” “a little Blackamoor,” and “Thomazina, our Woman Dwarf.” There is also a mysterious “Ipolyta the Tartarian,” who has a warrant dormant granted her for sets of robes and garments every year, dated 4 and 5 Elizabeth, in which she is described as “Ipolyta the Tartarian, our dearly beloved woman.” Some of the particular payments for her robes and kirtles and the richness of her clothes show she was dressed on a level with the Court ladies. About the same time are granted clothes to another woman, and between the two is mentioned unconnectedly “The Foole.” This is the first time any fool is mentioned. Such rarely are referred to without a name, if it is so done here. It is possible it may refer to one of the women. It has been said that “there have been no women fools.” But I answered that statement in my paper in this journal on “Jane, the Queen’s Fool” (12th August 1905). To understand the present reference I must give it here in full:

Sara Snow. For twelve yardes of black satten to make her a
gowne, and 2 yardes of velvet to gard the same.
The Foole. Item, for 2 yardes of crimson sarcenet delivered
to Henry Herne to lyne the said Foles hosen.
Ipolyta the Item, to the said Henry Herne for 8 paire of
Tartarian. cloth hosen for her, all of our great Warderobe.
Item, to the said Garret Johnson for six paire of
Spanish Lether shoes for her.--“L. C.,” v, 34,
p. 17.
Ipolyta. Item, to the said Adam Blande for furring of
two cassocks of cloth for Ipolyta the Tartarian with
12 black coney skins from our great wardrobe.--p. 43.

On page 41 is another of those entries which suggest more than they tell, the first notice of “Monarcho”:

To Thomas Ludwell for making of a gowne of red grograyne chamblet for an Italian named Monarcho garded with three yardes of blue velvet with buttons of copper gold, a doublet for him of striped sackcloth faced with red taffeta,

lined with fustian furred, and “a hat of blue taffeta striped with gold lace.”

On page 240 there were a number of similar robes entered “for Monarcho,” and after these,

Item, for making of a Gascon coate for a lytle Blackamore of white Taffata, cut and lyned under with tincel, striped down with gold and silver, and lined with buckram and bayes, poynted with poynts and ribands ... and faced with taffata ... with a white taffata doublet with gold and silver lace, silver buttons, faced with Taffata; a payre of Gascons, a pair of knit hose, a paire of white shoes and pantoufles, a dozen of poynts, and a paire of gaiters.

On page 266 appears:

The Foole. Item, for making of a Gaskyn cote for a foole of graie cloth, striped with sylke lace sewed with sylke, with buttons and poyntynge riband faced with taffata, lined with fustian; for making of a doublet for him of Striped Sackcloth trymmed with silk lace, faced with taffeta lined with fustian.... Item, for making a hatt for the said foole of gray clothe, layd upon with sundry devices of sylke lace and a feather trimmed with gold and spangles. For a pair of gaskins for a foole of gray clothe trimmed with lace of divers colours.

On page 310:

Monarcho ... a gowne of gold Tincell for Monarcho guarded with yellow velvet layd on with lace, faced with chaungeable macadowe ... a doublet for him of striped sackcloth trymmed with lace ... a jerkin [for him] of chaungeable mockado striped above with billymente lace, furred with 44 black coney skynnes and 10 white lamb skynnes.

On page 312:

Item, for making of a coate of freyze for William Shenton our Foole, cut and lined underneath with mockado ... for making of a doblet of striped sackcloth trymmed with lace ... a pair of gascons of mockado trimmed all over with billyment lace, 2 paire of knit stockings, garters, and girdle of leven taffata and 2 knit cappes.

The resemblance between the dress of “William Shenton our Foole” and that of “Monarcho” makes me think the latter also of the class Fool.

Some have suggested that Richard Tarleton acted the Fool to Elizabeth, but he was very different. He was the chief of the Queen’s company of players, of whom Stow says “for a wondrous pleasant extemporal wit, he was the wonder of his time.”

After many years of accounts for “Ipolyta the Tartarian” she disappears, and her place in the books is filled by another (v. 36), even more gorgeously robed, in 1577-8 (page 110):

The Dwarf. Item, for making of two gownes, thone of white damask, thother of blew chamblet [for a woman dwarf] for two peticoats, thone of mockado, thother of red kersey [for the said Dwarf], laced with blew silk, upperbodied with mockado.

Page 174, 1578-9:

For making of a straight bodied gown of chamblet for Thomasina, a woman dwarf, garded with velvet, laid on with lace of crimson and white silk ... a paire of sleves of Carnation taffata cut [for her], lined with sarcenet; a peticoat of red mockado striped with copper gold, laid over with lace ... a straight bodied gown of watched taffeta with hanging sleeves laid with lace of counterfeit silver and silk ... a paire of sleeves of orange collored Taffata ... a peticoat of stamell coloured cloth garded with velvet laid on with lace of crimson sylke with bodies of crimson taffata.

The materials become richer as the years go on. 1580:

A gowne of blacke wrought vellat, the grounde yellow sattin, for Thomasina the dwarfe, layde with counterfeit silver lace ... a straight bodyed gown of yellow satten striped with silver ... a gowne of orrendge coloured chamblet garded with blacke vellat ... 3 paire of sleves of white satin (p. 239).

She was in mourning in 1585.

From the other series of accounts in Latin an even fuller description can be gained of the increasing gorgeousness of “Thomasina, our Woman dwarf”:

a _toga_ of white satin with gold lace and ribbon, the sleeves jagged and lined with carnation satin.

In 1589 she had a

gown of carnation and black fygured satin lined with silver lace, a stomacher and sleeves of white satten cut and lined with silver lace; a gowne of changeable silk grograine with 2 paire of sleeves, and a stomacher and sleeves of white sattin, fringed with gold lace; a petycoat of changeable tuft-taffeta with 3 gold lace about, the bodyes carnation satin.

The following year she had a similar gown of tuft taffeta laced about with Venice silver, the bodice and sleeves wrought all over with like lace. The next gown for “Thomasina Muliercula” was a variety

in yelow vellat laced about with Venise silver, the sleeves cutt and drawne out with cobweb lawn, a stomacher of white satin lined with sarcenet laced with gold lace ... the bodyes of carnation satten.

Another year she had a gown of carnation velvet with silk lace, cut, and drawn out with cobweb lawn and tinsel, sleeves of white satin laced with gold. The price of the material is given in this series. In 1590 she had a blue velvet dress, seven yards, at 24_s._ the yard; the next year a carnation velvet of same price, richly adorned, sleeves of white satin and gold lace; a loose gown of black damask, with a pair of sleeves of tawny satin. In 1592 there is “a gowne of tawny silk grograine at 16_s._ the yard, sleeves of white satin”; next year a yellow velvet again. In 1594 we find

a haire coloured velvet gown and hanging sleeves wrought with silver, white satin showes laced with gold lace, a gown of white taffeta lined with satin tincel; a gowne of willow-coloured velvet at 22_s._ a yard.

She was in flame-coloured silk in 1596, next year in black velvet and black silk, and the following year in purple tuft taffeta, as if she had been in mourning. In 1600, after all the honourable ladies of the Court, appears “Thomasina our Woman Dwarf,” and the supply allowed to her is noted. The following volume in this series seems to have been lost.

But in another series she is entered still as “Thomazina Muliercula,” 43-44 Elizabeth, on which occasion she had a “robe of satin tawny with sleeves of cut satin lined with gold,” etc. This series runs through five volumes, but I am afraid of giving references, they have changed so often since I began to go through the whole of the books twelve years ago. They used to be L.C. II. 22, etc. I thought the names which I have selected worth noting, as they may hereafter explain some recondite allusions. I remember having seen “Monarcho” mentioned in contemporary literature, but forget the reference.[98] I have found no further notices of William Shenton, nor any further information about Thomasina. She disappears from the Lord Chamberlain’s books with her royal mistress, and she is resuscitated nowhere else. She evidently did nothing to distinguish herself for good or bad. But she lived longer in her office than any of the others, and she adds a feature to our picture of Court life during the later years of Elizabeth.

_“Athenæum,” 16th August 1913._

FOOTNOTES:

[97] In the account of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation is mentioned “Mrs. Snow, five yards scarlet,” among the “Extraordinary women of the Privy Chamber when the Queen pleaseth to call for them.”

[98] Mr. J. F. in the “Athenæum,” 30th August 1913, reminds me it is in “Love’s Labour’s Lost,” iv, 1, l. 103: “A phantasime, a Monarcho, and one that makes sport to the Prince,” and Mr. Littledale refers me to Scot’s “Discouerie of Witchcraft,” 1584, “The Italian whom he called The Monarch,” p. 42.

XXVIII

THE ROLL OF COVENTRY

THE ARREST OF PRINCE HENRY

There is a delightful roll in Birmingham Public Library, not like those massive lesson-books called in the Record Office, “Recusant Rolls,” “Coram Rege Rolls,” etc., but a little roll, not six inches in breadth, and not very long, though it records notes on the history of Coventry during three hundred years.

It is entered in the Catalogue of Warwickshire MSS. as “No. 115,915. Citizens of Coventry with right to wear swords, 1352-1650.” Though this can hardly be called incorrect, it is, as a title, certainly incomplete and misleading; for the little roll is _a list of the Bailiffs or Mayors of Coventry_ during that period. Very often it is only a bare list, and as none of the names of the office-holders are very striking, I did not transcribe them altogether, finding a lack of consecutive interest in a string of mere names.

But against some of these names are remarks, records of the most notable events of the year of each man’s mayoralty, or what the writer took to be such. I am not about to discuss the position or office of the writer, or even to attempt to fix the exact date at which the roll was written, if it did not grow through the ages. It is at least old. But the writer seems to have been a selector and a copyist, because he is not certain in the reckoning of the regnal years, and generally renders them as a year too late. I give here the double date of the years of a mayoralty. I am only about to record those remarks which can, in general, be understood in the light of contemporary history, and occasionally reflect some light upon its pages.

The Roll begins with a bare list of names from 1352. The first which is annotated is:

1403-4, John Smither. In this year a Parliament was held at Coventry....[99]

1405-6, William Attleborrowe. In his year the Commons of Coventry rose....

1406-7, John Boutener. Ther was the pauement made in the city....

1412-3, John Horneby. Hee arrested the Prince in the city of Coventry....[100]

1423-4, Henry Peytoe. The Crosse was beegunn in the Cross Cheaping his yeare.

1424-5, Thomas Walgraue. This yeare the hermite preached in the King’s parke, where was a greate audience.

1425-6, John Braytoft. Hee arested the Earle of Warwick and brought him to the gaole in Coventry....

1433-4, Richard Sharpe. In this yeare began the new workes in St. Michell Church from the Battlement to the top.

1434-5, John Michell. In his yeare came the small strikes....

1444-5, 1445-6, Richard Braytoft. Maior two years, and St. Mary Hall was robed.

1451-2, Richard Boyes. In his yeare the King maid this a county.

1452-3, John Willgraue and Reignold his brother were the first Sheriffs here, also heard masse at St. Michael’s Church....

1457-8, Richard Braytoft. In his year the King and Queen came to Coventry....

1460-1, William Kempe. The King, Queen, and Prince came to Coventry, and held the Parliament there....

1467-8, John Garner. In his yeare the King Edward keep his Christmas heere....

1469-70, William Dawes. King Edward held his Councell in Coventry....

1471-2, William Stafford. Now was one Clapham beheaded, and his head was sett on Bablake Gate.

1472-3, John Bett. The sword taken from the Maior and the yerdes from the Sheriffes; the city was faine to give 500 marks to redeeme the Franchises.

1473-4, John Thornton. In this yeare Kent rose, sett fire on London Bridge; the King took the Captaines and beheaded them in Coventry....

1476-7, Robert Onley. Prince Edward came to Coventry, which gave 100_l._ and a cup; at Easter came there and kept St. George’s Feast, and afterwards his Christmas here at Chellesmore House....

1479-80, Robert Bornell. The king keep his Christmas at Chellesmore House.

1480-1, William Marshall. In this yeare died in thie city and the Liberties thereof 3400 people....

1482-3, Richard Collenes. In this yeare the Commons of Coventry rose....

1485-6, Henry Keball. Hee maide the Bakers fly to Bagginton Castle....

1497-8, John Dove, who died in his mairalty.

1498-9, William Ford. In his yeare was much rising in Coventry and Daventrye.

1499-1500, Thomas Bond. Prince Arthur came to Coventry, and had a hundred pounds and a cup given to him....

1512-3, John Strong. In his yeare King Henry the 8 and Queen Katherine cam to Coventry, wheare they were receved with 2 paggenes and a Stage Play, and logged at the Priory.

1513-4, Richard Horsall. In this yeare one [should be “seven”] was burned in Littell Parke. There was given to the Marquise one hundred men with horse by the citty. The ould Crosse in the Crosse Cheaping pulled down and new built....

1524-5, Julimus Nethermill. This yeare Pratt and Sloth were araigned of treason, and theire heads and quarters sett upon the gates of Coventry....

1526-7, Nicholas Haines. An evell Lammas Day.[101]

1527-8, Henry Wall. The Lady Mary came to Coventry, was royally receved at the Priory, staid two dayes, at whose departure the city gave her 100 marks and a kerchiefe....

1536-7, Robert Keruin. The Dukes of Norfolke and Richmond came to Coventry, were receved by the Crafts in Liveries and a Banquett on horseback....

1552-3, Richard Hunt. In this year the Magistrates of Coventry made a great seale of wood in the Park, and made it a pasture....

1563-4, Thomas Ryley. In this yeare was a great plague in Coventry....

1565-6, Edward Brownell. In this yeare Queen Elizabeth came to Coventry and lay there three nights, and had given to her a purse and a hundred pounds in itt....

1568-9, John Harford. This Harford in a quarrel betwixt one Heyle and him about there two dogges stroke the said Heyle soe that he died within one fortnight, for which fact he was put out of his mairalty and Mr. John Sanders served out the rest of his time....

1577-8, Robert Letherborough.... [His daughter married Thomas Shakespeare.]

1596-7, John Whitehed, who died in his Mairalty, and one Breers searued out his yeare.

1597-8, John Rogerson. A good man....

1601-2, Richard Butler. In this yeare the Library at Coventry was begun to be builded....

1604-5, William Wheate. In this year was a great plague in Coventry.

1605-6. Mathew Collines.[102]...

1616-7, Samuell Myles. In this year came King James with a greate traine to this citty and laye heere one night, and had a cup of gould given him of the value of one hundred and sixty pounds....

1622-3, Thomas Potter. Hee caussed the tops of St. Michael’s Steeple and Trinity to bee new sett up and painted.

1623-4, John Thomas. A Dutchman....

1625-6. William Burbage....

1649-50. Samuel Snell.

The Roll ends without any concluding remark. Now the Leet-Book of Coventry has been edited (or at least full selections from it from 1384 to 1590) by Miss Dormer Harris, and though it gives very much fuller information concerning the history of Coventry, some items occur in this Roll which do not occur in the Leet-Book. “Life in an Old English Town: a History of Coventry,” also by Miss Dormer Harris, gives very many more details, but misses some of these.

There remains a special charm in this little roll compared to the comparatively commonplace quartos which give even fuller information. A copyist, about the end of the seventeenth century, compiled a sort of history of the Mayors of Coventry (Harleian MS. 6388, f. 15).

While many of these short notes have a special value of their own, we may be allowed to express a particular interest in the record of John Hornby, here given as 1412-13.

Many able articles have been written, and speeches made, about the possibility or impossibility of a Lord Chief Justice committing a prince to prison. Many researches have been undertaken, in the Record Office and elsewhere, to try to discover any historical basis for the story regarding Prince Hal and the Lord Chief Justice Gascoigne, which so delighted Shakespeare that he added to it. But all researches have been in vain. No fact that in any way supports the tradition has been preserved. The story itself has been traced no further back than to Sir Thomas Elyot, who refers to it without giving the name of the Justice. Here, in this little Coventry Roll, it is recorded, as _the_ event of John Hornby’s year, that “he arrested the Prince in the city of Coventry.” We should like to have been told more, and to have heard the cause and consequence of the arrest.

This is the only trustworthy story of any _arrest_ of Prince Henry, and it is possible that the action of Mayor John Hornby, as Justice of the Peace in right of his office, became the foundation for the legend concerning the anonymous Lord Chief Justice. We know from other sources that Prince Henry was a good deal in Coventry when acquiring military experience in the Welsh wars, that he lay at Cheylesmore House in the immediate vicinity, and he probably took his amusements in Coventry. It may only be Shakespeare’s imagination which fixed the scene of his convivial gatherings with Falstaff and his train at the Boar’s Head Tavern in East Cheap. It is possible--indeed, more than likely--that these were carried on at Coventry, and that some breach of the peace there forced the courageous Mayor to do justice even against his popular prince.

We know that Shakespeare, to glorify Henry V, makes him retain the Lord Chief Justice Gascoigne in office on his accession, as a proof of his recognition of courage and directness in the administration of justice. This, as Dr. Blake Odgers pointed out, in an address to the Shakespeare League, was proof positive that Bacon did not write the play of “Henry IV, Part II,” at least. He _knew better_. For Gascoigne had been a Gray’s Inn man, and so was Bacon, and the latter knew that the young king Henry V did _not_ appoint Gascoigne to be his Lord Chief Justice. The records of Gray’s Inn prove that, and also the epitaph on Gascoigne’s tombstone, where it was clearly stated that he “had been Lord Chief Justice to King Henry the IV.” That epitaph would not have been silent about King Henry V if he had reappointed his father’s choice in the office of Lord Chief Justice.

It seems ungracious to dispute the credit of Shakespeare as an historian; but truth is better than fiction. The testimony that Prince Hal _was_ arrested at Coventry may stimulate our imaginations anew, and lead us to further research in fresh directions.

One other point may be noted. It is generally supposed that the local records say nothing about the intended duel between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. But this authority gives the suggestive idea that the combatants were received by the crafts in liveries, and had a banquet “on horseback”! King Richard II himself is not referred to.

Each of the short notes might be dwelt on and expanded indefinitely. As they stand, they only show us what struck the scribe as the note of the year.

“_Athenæum,” 8th October 1910._