Spain: May 1547, 1-15

Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 9, 1547-1549. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1912.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

'Spain: May 1547, 1-15', in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 9, 1547-1549, (London, 1912) pp. 86-89. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol9/pp86-89 [accessed 19 April 2024]

May 1547, 1–15

May 4. Vienna Imp. Arch. Van der Delft to the Emperor.
My last letters to your Majesty dated the 27 April have been delayed more than was desirable, and in the meanwhile a favourable opportunity has offered for me to pass some time with the Protector, who had a long conversation with me. The substance of it was that he was in great hope that he should not have war with France, but if the King (of France) wanted to begin it he would find them so well ready for him that he would gain nothing by his action. But he (Somerset) hoped that the King would not violate the treaties and make war upon a child, by which no honour or profit could be gained.
With regard to the Scots, the Protector said, they did not fear them at all. When he had gone to meet them lately, he said, he had found that they could soon be put in their place (l'on les pourrait bien ranger) and their army was not large. When I said that it was not likely that the French would abandon them, he rather made light of it so far as the Scottish side was concerned, because they (the English) intend to raise such a naval force as to make it difficult for the French and Scots to help each other. He (the Protector) made a long harangue about the great power of your Majesty, but said that your dominions were widely separated, and the King of France always had his eye on Milan. He, therefore, inclined to the belief that it was more probable that some (French) enterprise was intended against your Majesty's dominions than against them (the English), although he (the Protector) admitted that after Milan, Boulogne pricked the King of France most, for they (the English) supposed that the King (of France) expected to win as much here as in Italy and in your Majesty's Netherlands.
I replied to this that there was no need for any fear of the King of France on any side of your Majesty's countries, in consequence of the ample preparations and good order which had been established everywhere and against any attempt. Nevertheless, I said, we thought to be as assured of good friendship, as they (the English) were, although they had, it is true, been in close negotiations with the French recently. In order to get something from him about the treaty they have in hand, I then continued that it appeared from a clause, the copy of which they had brought me by Secretary Mason, that the reservation they had made respecting your Majesty had hardly been agreed to and accepted by the French without something being conceded greatly to their advantage; at least I said, the surrender of Boulogne, to them. In reply to this the Protector said that by the terms of the treaty they (the English) retained Boulogne for the time agreed upon, namely, eight years, and that at the end of that period the place would be restored to the French on their paying the sum specified in the former treaty, which he took very good care not to mention, whereby I perceived clearly that the sum stipulated in the old treaty had been modified in the new one.
When I mentioned to the Protector the recall of Paulin, who it is now said has been dismissed from his office in the guard, and I mentioned that I had heard that no envoy had been sent from France to notify the demise of the King (Francis I) as had been done to your Majesty, he only replied that your Majesty's dominions and this realm were united and stood together.
He asked me if I had any recent news of your Majesty, and when I told him that I had heard nothing since the departure of M. de Chantonnay, and begged him if he had received any news to be good enough to impart them to me, he replied that he had heard that your Majesty was going towards Saxony, but that notwithstanding this there was talk of some honourable understanding being arrived at, because there was information that the Turk was coming. If he did come, he continued, we might be quite sure that the late King of France was at the bottom of it. With regard to the Protestants who had returned hither, said the Protector, in order to banish all suspicion from the mind to your Majesty, he had ordered the Saxon Chancellor to return home.
From all the conversations I hear I see plainly that they only desire to maintain their friendship with your Majesty, but so far as my small understanding goes it certainly seems to me that they ought to behave better towards us and arrange better than they do; and I will make this known to them more plainly as soon as your Majesty deigns to order me to do so.
D'Oisy has come hither from France on his way to Scotland. He has not got his passport yet, and I suppose they are doubtful whether his going will be to their advantage.
A gentleman has also arrived from the Duke of Ferrara to bring his condolence for the death of the late King (Henry VIII), as he tells me.
During the last two days the Council has again been increased by the addition of two new members, namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasurer of the Augmentation. (fn. 1) It is believed that my Lord Marquis (of Dorset), who is married to the niece of the late King, daughter of the late Duke of Suffolk, (fn. 2) and some others will also be admitted to the Council. All this seems to me to be with the intention of consolidating the power of the Protector, who by this increase of rank places each of the recipients under obligation to him, and I see that they all worship him.
London, 4 May, 1547.
May 4. Vienna Imp. Arch. Van der Delft to the Queen Dowager.
I have delayed answering the despatches of your Majesty dated the 1st of April last, both on account of my having written on a similar date to your Majesty informing you of the reply given to me by the Council respecting the claims of the Emperor's subjects in the Boulognais, as your Majesty had instructed me to do, and also in consequence of the absence of Secretary Paget having made it impossible for me to obtain access to the Council.
Your Majesty will see by the copies of my letters to the Emperor what has been happening here in the interim. Since Paget returned to London I have not had an opportunity of conversing with him, as they (the Councillors) are so busily occupied with the matter of the supplies granted for the life of the late King. But, as during the last few days God has blessed me with a new born son, I thought it would afford me a good opportunity to render my relations with Paget more intimate and to get a long conversation with him if I asked him to favour me by standing godfather to my child. He took the invitation in very kindly fashion, but he advised me, since it was my intention to ask Lady Mary to stand godmother, to invite the King and the Protector to be the other sponsors. I followed his friendly advice in this, and when I went to invite the Protector we had several chats as your Majesty will see by my second letter to the Emperor of which I enclose a copy.
When I went to Madam Mary and had saluted her on behalf of your Majesties, she asked me to send her regards to you in my next letter. As she was in mourning she sent to represent her at the baptism the wife of the Lord Privy Seal (Lady Russell) her gift to her godson being two reasonable silver gilt pots. To represent the King the Protector himself came, and as his own proxy he appointed the former Lord Admiral, now earl of Warwick. The gift of the King was a high standing cup of silver gilt and that of the Protector a smaller one. I write these trivial details to you, Madam, only that your Majesty may understand how determined the Protector is to take the first place on every occasion.
In the matter of a certain vessel belonging to some citizens of Bruges arrested by Lord Grey at Boulogne, I have given notice to the Council, and have received a reply that they will immediately take measures to have the embargo raised and will see that nothing of the sort shall happen again. There is a rumour here that the Lord Admiral is going to marry the Duchess of Suffolk, (fn. 3) but I do not know yet how true this may be. The Queen has again taken to wearing a hood and her mourning garb is now of silk. Not a word is said about Madam Cleves.
London, 4 May, 1547.

Footnotes

  • 1. Sir Edward North.
  • 2. Charles Brandon, who had married Henry's younger sister Mary, Queen Dowager of France. The daughter Frances was married to Henry Grey, Marquis of Dorset.
  • 3. This was the famous Catharine, Lady Willoughby d'Eresby, whose mother was the daughter of Diego de Sarmiento, first Count of Salinas, and had been the devoted friend and attendant of Queen Catharine of Aragon. Lady Willoughby D'Eresby had married as his fourth wife, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, and as will be seen by a letter in the last volume of this Calendar, it was commonly believed at Court that Henry VIII during the last months of his life had contemplated divorcing Catharine Parr in order that he might marry the Duchess of Suffolk. There is no reason to suppose that Thomas Seymour ever had any intention or idea of marrying the Duchess. He was shooting at higher game even than she was, with all her wealth; and the intelligence given by Van der Delft was doubtless a vague echo of his secret courtship, which had already commenced, of Catharine Parr. The Duchess of Suffolk subsequently married a gentleman of her household, Francis Bertie, and thus became the ancestress of the earls of Abingdon and Ancaster.
PreviousTable of contentsNext