The English Accession of James VI: ‘National’ Identity, Gender and the Personal Monarchy of England

English Historical Review

Volumn 117, Issue 472, 2002, Pages 513-535

  Richards, Judith M ^a  

^a LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60949941029     PISSN: 00138266     EISSN: 14774534     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ehr/117.472.513     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. The most significant exponent of James’s Scottish context and experience has been Jenny Wormald, to whose work a number of more detailed references are made below. Other recent exponents of the significance of the gender factor include A. N. McLaren, Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I: Queen and Commonwealth 1558–1585 (Cambridge, 1999), and from another angle, Michael B. Young, James VI and I and the History of Homosexuality (Basingstoke, 2000).
2. For some recent discussions of this, see Stephen Alford, The Early English Polity: William Cecil and the English Succession Crisis 1558–1569 (Cambridge, 1998), and McLaren, Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth. More popular responses to Elizabeth’s rule have also been widely discussed, but throughout this article particular reference is made to Judith Richards ‘Love and a Female Monarch: The case of Elizabeth Tudor’ Journal of British Studies 38, (1999) 133–160.
3. Such unity could, however, easily be overstated. The need to prepare the English coastal communities against a probable Spanish onslaught before 1588 provided many examples of the dearth of commitment to a ‘public’ interest in protecting the ‘national’ good. See, for example Richards, ‘Before the ‘‘Mountains Mouse’’: Propaganda and public defense before the Spanish Armada’ in England and the Spanish Armada, ed. Jeff Doyle and Bruce Moore (Canberra, 1990), pp. 13–34.
4. Even Jenny Wormald has not been able to offer a more plausible description for James’s seeking that Union beyond its being his own preference and, he believed, a ‘divine obligation laid upon him by God’. She instanced some previous (and historically discouraging) attempts at a comparable union as partial explanation of his idea, but they were surely not promising historical precedents. Jenny Wormald, ‘The Creation of Britain: Multiple Kingdoms or Core and Colonies?’ T[ransactions of the]R[oyal]H[istorical]S[ociety] (Sixth Series) (1991) 175–194, esp. 177ff. The case for such a union, frequently articulated by James, and the more obvious barriers to it, were usefully summarized by Brian Levack, ‘Toward a More Perfect Union: England, Scotland and the Constitution’, After the Reformation: essays in honor of J. H. Hexter ed. Barbara C. Malament (Philadelphia, 1980), pp. 57–74, but this throws no light on the inspiration for such an unusual enterprise. For an overview of the extensive literature on James’s commitment to ‘Great Britain’ see W. B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 31–2.
5. Thomas Dekker, The Wonderfull Yeare 1603 (London, 1603) ed. G. B. Harrison (London, 1966), pp. 19–20.
6. The Copie of the K. Maiesties letter to the Lord Maior . . . and to the Aldermen and Commons [dated 28 March 1603] (1603) It was fitted on to a single sheet, perhaps to facilitate wider distribution.
7. ‘A Special grace appointed to have been said after a banket at Yorke . . .’ November 1558 [Aiii(v)] [n.p., n.d.]
8. P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice] SP 12/208/75.
9. For example, two works by John Thornborough, Bishop of Bristol, A Discourse Plainely Proving the evident vtilitie and urgent necessitie of the desired happie Vnion . . . (London, 1604) and The Ioiefull and Blessed Revniting the two mighty and famous kingdoms . . . (London, 1605?) in which he used the example of ‘Israell and Iuda’ as a parallel to argue the strength of rivalry and contention in the absence of a more perfect union, and the associated ‘inconvenience and mishchiefe’. A Discourse pp. 16–19; see also John Hayward, A Treatise of Union of the two Realmes (London, 1604) p. 18; ‘Arguments drawne against ye union 1604’, B[ritis] L[ibrary]. Eg 2877 f170 b. In December 1605, the Venetian Ambassador reported that, in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot, a paper had been found, listing a number of Scots. ‘When asked as to the meaning of this the prisoners said that it was intended, after the explosion of the mine, to massacre all the Scottish in this country, for they could not submit to the share which their natural enemies now had in the government.’ Venetian Ambassador to the Doge and Senate, 22 December 1605, Calendar of State Papers, Venetian (hereafter CSPVen) vol X 1603–7, p. 303.
10. For one recent discussion of the early impact of the Elizabethan succession issue on English politics, see Alford, The Early Elizabethan Polity. The possible permutations on claims were almost infinite. The Yorkist claim was said by some, though not by the man himself, to survive in the person of the Earl of Huntingdon. Bishop Quadra reported that Cecil had said that, should the Queen die ‘the succession belonged of right to the earl [of Huntingdon], as he was descended from the house of York’. Quadra also enclosed a copy of a ‘genealogical tree of the kings of Scotland, with a statement of the right of the various claimants to the succession’. Calendar of State Papers, Spanish (Elizabeth) v. 1 Bishop Quadra to the King, 15 October 1560, pp. 176–7. Subsequently, there probably was a general acceptance of Mary Stuart’s claims as heir apparent to the throne, but like all other possible claimants, she never won any formal recognition. After her death, the potential for confusion only increased and the outstanding contribution was the work of Robert Parsons, writing as R. Doleman. Comprehensively subverting the English succession traditions, he cast doubt on the legitimacy of all English rulers since Henry II (whose true descendant he declared to be ‘the lady Isabella, Infanta of Spaine’). He included (selectively) descendants of female royal offspring, modified comprehensively the claims of lineal descent, interpolated reminders of the intermittent role of war in deciding inheritance, and highlighted the ‘wonderfull diversity on matters of religion’. Doleman declared the ultimate weight to be the defence of true religion and ‘the approbation of the common wealth’, thereby demonstrating to his own satisfaction the absence of any definitive criteria. His conclusion was that after Elizabeth, the matter would be sorted on the battlefield, and that the Infanta would probably triumph, as a princess of a great state, backed by considerable might, and as a candidate free to marry ‘suitably’. R. Doleman (Robert Parson et al.) A Conference About the Next Succession to the Crowne of England (Antwerp, 1594) passim esp. Bk. II, pp. 11, 261. It is hard to know which aspect of Doleman/Parsons’ argument offended Elizabethan authorities the most, but it proved impossible for them to suppress this offensive work entirely. Given its import, it is not surprising there were no published replies to it in England until 1603, with John Hayward, An answer to the first part of a certain conference . . . (London, 1603). The knowledge of the wide-ranging argument, however, did nothing to reduce English anxieties about Spanish intentions in the final years of Elizabeth’s reign.
11. In 1601, a correspondent to Henri IV of France, seeking advice as to royal French preferences for the English throne, outlined Papal concerns for the strength of support for the Lady Arabella. He treated with all apparent seriousness Parsons’s disallowance of almost all candidates to the English throne, reported papal dismay at the support for Lady Arabella Stuart, canvassed papal interest in assorted other candidates, and concluded that the then King of Scots was a good friend and near kinsman to the house of Lorraine. BL Stowe 155 ff18–38 ‘A letter of advice from the Cardinall Dossort to Henry the 4th . . . aboute the succession of the Crowne of England’ Dated 26 Nov 1601.
12. PRO SP 14/2/96.
13. Thomas Wilson, ‘The State of England Anno Dom 1600’ ed. F. J. Fisher, Camden Miscellany Vol. XVI (1936) pp. 1, 2, 5. Having declared he would not venture into the matter further, Wilson did finally set out his reasons for believing James would prevail despite his foreign birth.
14. Acts of the Privy Council (NS) Vol. XXXII, p. 493.
15. Simon Theloal to Dr Dun, 26 March 1603, in G Goodman, The Court of King James, ed. J. S. Brewer (London, 1839) 2 vols, ii 57–8, note.
16. The Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. N. E. McClure (Philadelphia, 1939) pp. 188–9, letter dated 30 March 1603. Diary Of John Manningham, ed. John Bruce [1869] (New York, 1968), pp. 27–8. Subsequently Manningham recorded that ‘the Lord Beauchamps’ had actually assembled his followers and other gentry ‘to goe with him to proclayme the King’. This ‘a good lady not understanding gave intelligence that he assembled his followers’, pp. 160–1. The misunderstanding of this ‘good lady’ may well be another indicator of the tensions of the time.
17. The Diaries of Lady Anne Clifford, ed. D. J. H. Clifford (Stroud, 1990), p. 21.
18. Thomas, Lord Burghley (Lord President of York) to Sir Robert Cecil, 27 March, H[istorical] M[anuscripts] C[ommission] Salisbury pt 15, p. 11. Other reports of a peaceful proclamation of James’s accession followed in subsequent days for such places as Chester, Tamworth and Somerset.
19. B[ritish] L[ibrary] ADD MS 6709 ff 4, (4v) ‘To Mr Penifather Parson of Draycott and to the Constable there’ 2 April 1603. The letter is one of a series distributed much more widely by the Council.
20. ‘[S]ince we see by this late experience that God can show us greater blessings than we have almost hearts to hope for and that his mercies are then greatest when they are nearest to be utterly despaired of, we may discharge ourselves of all care, as we have little part of any charge and only add the breath of our vows and good wishes to their sails, which in this perilous time have steered so right a course and brought us to so safe a harbour. You shall understand that the statists here who, in the depth of their judgments, presaged our ruin and confusion, shrink up their shoulder and allow as much to the wisdom and counsels of our great ones as they were wont to detract.’ Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain 1603–1625 Jacobean Letters, ed. Maurice Lee Jnr (New Brunswick, 1972). Letter dated 9–14 April, 1603, p. 29.
21. Accession Proclamation for James I, 24 March, 1602/3. A beautifully printed version is held in BL, C112 h 1(1). For a modern version, see Stuart Royal Proclamations vol. 1 Royal Proclamations of King James 1 1603–1625 ed. James F. Larkin and Paul H. Hughes (Oxford, 1973), pp. 1–3. For the accession proclamation of the nine day queen, see T. B. Howell ed., Complete Collection of State Trials . . . to 1783 21 vols (5th edition, 1816) v.1, 739–42.
22. See Richards, ‘Love and the Female Monarch’ for further discussion of this issue.
23. Accession Proclamation, James I.
24. William Fitzwilliam to Sir Robert Cecil, HMC Salisbury pt 15, p. 19.
25. Manningham Diary p. 147.
26. I. F[enton], ‘King James his welcome to London’ (London, 1603) B3(v).
27. Accession Proclamation, James I. Kenneth Fincham has reminded me that the same sentiment was echoed again in the preface to the 1611 translation of the Bible, in the hope that ‘long may [his Majesty] reign, and his offspring for ever’.
28. R. Parker, Sorrowes Joy, or A Lamentation for our late deceased Soveraigne Elizabeth, with a triumph for the prosperous succession of our gratious King James (Cambridge, 1603); King James His Welcome to London With Elizaes Tombe and Epitaph (London, 1603) sig [B3v]; Elizaes Memoriall (London, 1603) sig D.
29. This may well have reflected James’s own theoretical identification of the Papacy with the ‘Pale Horse’ of Revelation and of the Papal empire with the rule of Babylon. His orthodox Protestant views were stated again, in his works reprinted in The Workes of the Most High and Mighty Prince, James in 1616. Both his ‘Paraphrase upon the Revelation of the Apostle St John’ and ‘A Fruitful Meditation, Containing a Plaine and Easie Exposition . . . of . . . Verses of the 20 Chapter of the Revelation’ were profoundly informed by that identification. A recurrent problem for many of his English subjects was his pragmatic (and principled) distinction between intellectual stance and practical toleration.
30. One such rumour was that reported by Scaramelli on 10 July 1603: ‘Robert Chricton(sic) . . . who is very intimate with the King, and still more with the Queen as being a Catholic, told me in the strictest confidence that he himself had an interview with the Pope at Ferrara. And had promised in the King’s name that if he succeeded to the throne of England, he would permit liberty of conscience, and would restore to their country and their possessions all who had been persecuted for being Catholics’. CSPVen X, p. 63.
31. Ibid., Letter dated 15 May 1603, p. 25.
32. PRO SP/14/1/3. 26 March, unpaginated. Kevin Sharpe has speculated that Cotton prepared this genealogy at the behest of Henry Howard. Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton 1586–1631. History and Politics in Early Modern Britain (Oxford, 1979) pp. 114–5. This seems the more likely since Cotton had been so actively engaged in service to Howard that he has been described as Howard’s ‘closest adviser’. Linda Levy Peck, Northampton. Patronage and Policy at the Court of King James I (London, 1982), p. 103.
33. Royal Proclamations of King James I no. 3, p. 7.
34. George Owen Harry, The genealogy of the High and Mighty Monarch, James, by the Grace of God, King of great Brittayne (London, 1604).
35. See n. 4.
36. ‘A speech, as it was Delivered . . . on Mvnday the XIX Day of March 1603’ in James VI and I. Political Writings ed. Johann P. Sommerville (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 132–3.
37. ‘Henry meanwhile made his way to London like a triumphing general, and in the places through which he passed was greeted with the greatest joy by all. Far and wide the people hastened to assemble by the roadside, saluting him as king and filling the length of his journey with laden tables and overflowing goblets’; The Anglia Historia of Polydore Vergil A.D 1485–1537, ed. and trans. Denys Hay, (Camden Series LXXIV, London, 1950), p. 3.
38. For example the Privy Council item of 13 September 1603, deploring that during James’s current progress ‘rogues growe againe to increase and bee incorrigible and dangerouse’ to both subjects and king, and agreeing to banish offenders to ‘the Newe Founde Land, the East or West Indies, France, Germanie, Spaine and the Low Countries or any of them.’ Acts of the Privy Council of England New Series Vol. XXXII AD 1601–1604 (London, 1907) p. 503.
39. T. M., The True Narration of the Entertainment of his Royall Maiesties, from the time of his departure from Edenbrough; till his receiving at London: with all the most special Occurrences . . . (London, 1603) Sig D2.
40. Ibid., Sig [D4v], E2, F3.
41. James 1, Basilicon Doron (1599) (Scholar Press, 1969) p. 137.
42. CSP (Ven) VII, p. 17.
43. John Savile, King James his entertainment at Theobalds With his welcome to London, together with a salutorie Poem (London, 1603), sig [Bv], Bii,[Biiv]. He employed two assistants to help with his coverage of the great multitudes gathered for the King’s arrival at Theobalds. The King set out from Theobalds on 7 May, 1603, and Savile’s work was entered in the Stationers Company Records on 14 May, so he was apparently an enterprising man in a number of ways.
44. Royal Proclamations of King James I No. 2, 5 April 1603, pp. 4–6.
45. Ibid., No. 4, dated 10 April 1603, p. 8. Manningham’s Diary has a succinct summary of this proclamation entered 6 April, p. 159.
46. Although James has long had a reputation for misogynistic comments, of which one of the more remarkable was that ‘hee had as live an Ape, as a woman should Baptise his child’, the focus here is on his attitude to Elizabeth in particular. The remark is quoted by William Barlow, The summe and substance of the conference . . . (London, 1604) Sig P & [v].
47. Original Letters, Illustrative of English History, ed. Henry Ellis, 3 vols (London, 1824) iii, 64–7, James to Privy Council, 6 April 1603.
48. Chamberlain’s Letters, p. 193.
49. CSPVen, X, Scaramelli to the Doge and Senate, p. 24.
50. Letters of James VI and I, ed. G. P. V. Akrigg (Berkeley, 1984), p. 215.
51. Memoirs of the Duke of Sully (translated from the French), 5th edition, 6 vols (London, 1778) v. 3, 245–6. Others, including the Venetian ambassador, also read James’s absence from Elizabeth’s funeral as a slight to her memory, but in that matter the King was following usual English practice, and the advice of his English Council.
52. PRO SP 14/13/8 Cranbourne to Sir Thomas Lake 4 March 1605.
53. [Arthur Nixon?] Elizaes Memoriall, King James his arrival and Romes Downefall (London 1603) Even the title grated, given the new King’s project for bringing peace to Europe.
54. Anon. BL: Eg 2877 [f13v].
55. BL C18 e 2 (82) ‘An Excellent new Ballad, shewing the Petigree of our Royal king James . . .’ (1603). See also ‘A Mournfull Dittie, entituled Elizabeth’s losse, together with a welcome for King James’ (1603?). This was a single sheet ballad.
56. William Hubbock, An Oration Gratulatory To the High and Might James . . . On the twelft day of February last presented . . .. (Oxford, 1604) [B2v]; Thomas Dekker, ‘The Magnificent Entertainment . . . 15 March 1604’ (London, 1604), A3(v).
57. BL: Sloane 1775 The Catholiques of England Letter to King James at his first Entrance into England f. 58.
58. In Basilikon Doron, privately published in 1599, James wrote of the ‘double curse . . . to the land’ by his grandfather, leaving only a ‘Woman of sexe and a new borne babe of aage to reigne over them.’ King James VI and I. Political Writings ed. Sommerville, p. 39.
59. Perhaps the most familiar example of this was James’s suppression of Walter Ralegh’s History of the World (1614) in 1615 ‘for beeing too sawcie in censuring princes’, as Chamberlain reported to Carleton 5 Jan 1615, of a book which ended with the Roman Empire; The Letters of John Chamberlain, p. 568.
60. D. R. Woolf, ‘Two Elizabeths? James 1 and the Late Queen’s Famous Memory’ Canadian Journal of History 20, (1985), 167–191, sets out the case for James’s ongoing respect for Elizabeth’s memory.
61. Memoirs of the Duke of Sully, iii, 277. He reported the conversation as having taken place 29 June 1603.
62. Cecil to John Harington, John Harrngton, Nugae Antiquae, ed. Henry Harington, 1779, 3 vols, i. 344.
63. BL Add Ms 15227 F. 83 James I, ‘In reg Elizab’.
64. Manningham’s Diary, p. 157.
65. ‘A Speach, as it was delivered . . . on Mvnday the XIX. day of March 1603, Being the First Day of the first Parlment’ in King James VI and 1 ed. Sommerville, p. 136.
66. The interesting argument presented by Michael J. Enright, ‘King James and his island: an archaic kingship?’ Scottish Historical Review 55 (1976) 29–40 in no way subverts the argument here; rather it is another indicator of just how multivalent words were in shifting historical contexts, a recurring theme in the study of James, as Jenny Wormald has long argued.
67. Elizabeth’s accession was defended against Knox’s diatribe against female rule, in part, on these grounds. See [John Aylmer] An Harborowe For Faithfull and Trewe Subiectes ([London], 1559) H3 and passim. The whole tenor of the printed account of her coronation progress through London, reprinted in 1603, was a stress on the role of good counsel, from all parts of the realm, and the fifth and final pageant was an explicit statement that a woman, like any male ruler, would rule with the aid of good counsel. The point was a more general one. The best-known political handbook of the era followed a discussion of the absolute powers of the monarchy with a discussion of the way in which, in the English commonwealth, the ‘making of laws’ and the ‘providing of moony for the maintenance of themselves’ was ‘done by the prince in parliament’. Sir Thomas Smith, De Republic Anglorum (1583) ed. L. Alston (Cambridge, 1986), p. 63.
68. Another fruitful field for considering the implications of gender difference in the monarchy might be a comparison of contemporary Court responses to young men preening themselves before on the one hand, Elizabeth, and on the other James. For a discussion of the latter, see Young, James VI and I and the History of Homosexuality.
69. R. Malcolm Smuts, Court Culture and the Origins of a Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart England (Philadelphia, 1987) p. 23.
70. ‘A speech as it was delivered . . .’ in Sommerville, ed. pp. 133, 135.
71. BL Add Ms 22 587 f. 4; ‘KING James his extemporarie speech at the first touchinge of a diseased child of the kings evill, att Woodstock 1603’.
72. ‘King’s Speech at Whitehall . . . 21 Mai’, Proceedings in Parliament 1610, ed. Elizabeth Read Foster, 2 vols (New Haven, 1966) ii, 102. I am grateful to Rhys Isaac, who drew to my attention how very dismissive was the language James deployed for his two immediate royal precursors in that speech. The view of necessarily limited female monarchy was apparently shared by Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, at least in retrospect: ‘Though the Queen, our late sovereign, had power to make canons ecclesiastical. Yet it is more proper to the King.’ Ibid., I, p. 101. Bancroft’s reservations about the power of a female head/governor of the Church of England had been endemic, among the upper clergy at least, since 1558.
73. Proceedings ii, pp. 109, 114, 135.
74. Lord Ellesmere, ‘Special observations touching all the sessions of the last parliament Anno 7 Regis Jac.’ in ibid., pp. 276, 278.
75. Consider, for example, James’s advice to the Lords of 21 March, 1610, ‘not to dispute what a king may do, but look to his practice, what he doth’; Proceedings i, 46–7. Reverting to another familiar theme, in almost the same breath, he justified his greatly increased court expenditure, ‘by reason of my issue’ and reminded them that the late Queen ‘was but a barren prince’; ibid. By then, however, the first flush of enthusiasm for abundant guarantees for the succession seems to have faded.
76. Christopher Wortham, ‘Shakespeare, James I and the Matter of Britain’ English (Journal of the English Association) 182 Summer 1996, 97–122, points to one aspect of the subsequent shift in focus in his opening observation that ‘There is little celebration of England and Englishness in Shakespeare’s plays written after the accession of James VI of Scotland to his English throne’. Wortham points out that Shakespeare’s three plays between 1604 and 1607 – King Lear, Macbeth and Antony and Cleopatra – all address issues of political unity and the dangers of dividing a realm; 119–120. The political and legal responses to the proposed union of the kingdoms have been comprehensively and repeatedly discussed. The implications for concepts of allegiance are discussed in idem, ‘English allegiances in a British context: political problems and legal resolutions’, Parergon, new series vol 18 (2001), 103–24.
77. John Gordon, Enotikon or a Sermon of the Union of Great Britannie (1604) quoted in Peter E. McCullough, Sermons at Court. Politics and Religion in Elizabethan and Jacobean Preaching (Cambridge, 1998) p. 109.
78. While the late Queen’s councillors were issuing proclamations for their new King, the language of loving monarch and loving, good subject remained in use, Royal Proclamations of King James I, pp. 4–8, but as the King increasingly took the initiative, the language of affective relations faded. Ibid., passim. It was not that he did not know that widespread humanistic language; indeed he occasionally used it himself, but without the distinctive value of reciprocity which had been such a hallmark of Elizabeth’s usage. See Basilikon Doron in Political Works ed. Sommerville p. 31 for an example of his usage of it, and its quite different implications.
79. Curtis Perry, ‘The citizen politics of nostalgia: Queen Elizabeth in early Jacobean London’, Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 23 (1993) 89–111, esp. 99.
80. Even when James explicitly deployed the language of reciprocity – most notably in the title of his first and ostensibly anonymous publication, The Trew Law of Free MonarchiesThe Reciprock and Mutuall Duetie betwixt a Free King, and his Naturall Subiects in 1598 – it is very hard to see what he saw as being reciprocal as commonly understood in the monarch’s divinely ordained duty to rule, and the subjects’ essentially unqualified, divinely-ordained duty to obey.
81. Perry, ‘The citizen politics of nostalgia’ 93–6.
82. ‘A Speach to . . . the Parliament . . . on Wednesday the XXI of March. Anno 1609’, King James . . . Political Writings ed. Sommerville, pp. 179–203, esp. p. 182.
83. Jenny Wormald, Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent, 1442–1603 (Edinburgh, 1985), p. 158 et passim esp. pp. 153–165.
84. Letters of King James ed. Akrigg, Letter 78, dated 8 April 1601, pp. 173–78.
85. BL Cotton Ms Faustina, C II ii ‘‘Advertisments of a Loyall Subiect to His Gratious Soveraigne Drawn from the Observations of the Peoples Speache’’ [f 63v] (n.d).
86. David Harris Willson, King James VI and I (London, 1956, 1963), p. 165.
87. A. W. Beasley, ‘The disability of James VI & I’ Seventeenth Century 10 (1995), 151–62.
88. Manningham’s Diary p. 155.
89. Arthur Wilson, The History of Great Britain, being the life and reign of King James the first (London, 1653), pp. 12–13.
90. ‘Journal of Sir Roger Wilbraham’ quoted in Robert Ashton, James I by his contemporaries (London, 1969), p. 7.
91. Cited in Lucy Aikin, Memoirs of the Court of King James 2 vols (London, 1822), i, 161–2; Dudley Carleton’s Letters p. 35.
92. Gillian Brennan, ‘Patriotism, Language and Power: English Translations of the Bible, 1520–1580’, History Workshop, 27 (1989), 18–36.
93. See Richards, ‘Love and the female monarch’.
94. Cited by J. F. R. Day, ‘Death be very proud: Sidney, subversion, and Elizabethan heraldic funerals’, in Tudor Political Culture, ed. Dale Hoak (Cambridge, 1995) pp. 179–203 esp. p. 181 and n. 5.