Peck's reprint series
Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art of Cambridge (1584)
and reprinted from
Peck, ed., Leicester's Commonwealth (Athens and
London: Ohio University Press, 1985).
Copy of a Letter
Written by a Master of Art of Cambridge to his friend in
London, concerning some talk passed of late between two worshipful and grave men
about the present state and some proceedings of the Earl of Leicester and his
friends in England.
spoken and published with most earnest protestation of all dutiful good will and
affection towards her most excellent Majesty and the realm, for whose good only
it is made common to many.
THE DEATH OF AMY ROBSART
is the earliest extant printed expression of the rumors concerning Amy's death.
Dudley married Amy Robsart in 1550, but after Elizabeth's accession he spent most
of his time at Court, in obvious flirtation with the Queen. Amy seems always to
have been on good terms with her husband but lived abroad in the country, and
in summer 1560 she was residing at Cumnor in Berkshire, the home of Dudley's man
Anthony Forster. On Sunday, 8 September, she insisted that all of her attendants
go to a nearby fair at Abingdon, and upon their return she was found at the foot
of a set of stairs with a broken neck. (Richard Verney, or Varney, was a dependent
of Dudley's, but there is no sign of his having been present.) Dudley's man Thomas
Blount arrived immediately upon the scene; five of his and Dudley's letters back
and forth survive in copies,1 and in them, although Dudley evinced
no grief whatever and expressed concern only for his reputation (wishing devoutly
that "this mischance had not happened to me"), he repeatedly commanded
Blount to be certain that the coroner's jury searched out the full truth of the
matter, "whether it happened by evil chance or by villainy," because
otherwise "I have no way to purge myself of the malicious talk that I know
the wicked world will use." Blount himself seems to have believed Amy "had
a strange mind in her," that is, that she had committed suicide. While investigation
was progressing, Lord Robert was sent away from Court.
initial suspicion of Forster, the jury found "death by mischance." This
may be correct (there is no hard evidence that it is not),2 or
it may be a tactful way of acknowledging a suicide. Indeed, suicide seems to me
more likely; Amy apparently had been suffering for some years from cancer of the
breast, and would naturally have been despondent, and so her ladies reported of
her - praying "God to deliver her from desperation" (Adlard, p. 36)
- and she seems to have been adamant that she be left alone on that day. Quite
possibly her illness, with her husband's manifest neglect and with the country
alive with gossip of his romance with the Queen, drove her to despair.3
From what kind of stairs she fell is unknown, and it would make a difference;
tumbling down a few steps is for obvious reasons an uncommon method of suicide,
whereas throwing oneself from the head of a stairwell is said to be psychologically
consistent with her presumed state of mind. On the other hand, Ian Aird has argued
from medical evidence that the facts suggest spontaneous collapse of the cervical
spine as a consequence of cancer, and this view is finding some support.4
Murder, either by Dudley or another, though possible, is the least likely alternative.
Dudley had foreseen, a flurry of scandal instantly arose. The Spanish ambassador,
De Quadra, wrote on 11 September that before her death Cecil had told him "that
Robert was thinking of killing his wife, who was publicly announced to be ill,
although she was quite well, and would take very good care they did not poison
her," adding that "the next day the Queen told me that Robert's wife
was dead or nearly so, and asked me not to say anything about it."5
Whether he intended it to be understood from this temporal ambiguity that Elizabeth
had spoken this prior to Amy's death seems impossible now to resolve, though much
ink has been spilled on the question. On the eighteenth the preacher Thomas Lever
wrote to Cecil from Coventry, reporting "grievous and dangerous suspicion
and muttering" in his country and pleading that the truth be found out and
made public.6 Ambassador Throgmorton was appalled by what he
heard in Paris: "Some let not to say what religion is this, that a subject
shall kill his wife and the prince not only bear withal but marry with him."7
In many of his letters from this autumn, the ambassador laments the state of the
Queen's reputation and its effect upon his diplomacy, but when his secretary,
Robert Jones, spoke to Elizabeth personally about it, "she laughed, and .
. . told me that the matter had been tried in the country and found to be contrary
to that which was reported, saying that [Dudley] was then in the Court, and none
of his at the attempt at his wife's house, and that it fell out as should neither
touch his honesty nor her honor."8 Although Robert had taken
pains to see that John Appleyard and others of his wife's family were summoned
to oversee the investigation lest there remain any doubts, seven years later Appleyard
was saying that "he had for the Earl's sake covered the murder of his sister."9
less circumstantial account of Amy's "murder" appears in Peck, "Letter
of Estate" (pp. 27-28).
THE DEATH OF THE EARL OF ESSEX
Devereux, first Earl of Essex, went into Ulster with a military force in 1573.
His wife Lettice Knollys was involved with Leicester, at first as early as 1565
and then again in her husband's absence, as (probably) during the Kenilworth festivities
of 1575; she married him in 1578. Whether Essex sought revenge upon Leicester
"for begetting his wife with child in his absence" may be doubted, but
they were hostile toward one another, and this may have been part of the reason;
on 5 December 1575, Antonio de Guaras wrote from London, during Essex's return,
that "as the thing is publicly talked about in the streets there is no objection
to my writing openly about the great enmity which exists between the Earl of Leicester
and the Earl of Essex, in consequence, it is said, of the fact that whilst Essex
was in Ireland his wife had two children by Leicester."10
Essex's Irish failures brought him home in 1575, but he was soon forced to go
back, largely, according to Camden, because of Leicester's influence in Council
(Elizabeth, 2:80). In late summer 1576 he was in Dublin, preparing to come
home again; there he became ill and, after three weeks' languishing, died on 22
13 September Essex wrote to Richard Broughton: "The last day of the same
month [August] a disease took me and Hunnis my boy and a third person to whom
I drank, which maketh me suspect of some evil received in my drink. . . . My page
[was] extremely ill also, but now of late that he is recovered."11
Shortly after his death his chaplain, T. Knell, reported the event, adding that
of his cellar [Rowland Crompton] by certain words by him [Essex] spoken was of
some suspected in his wine to have given him somewhat. . . . Some said that as
many as drank with him that night were paid, as certain gentlewomen which also
had the lask [diarrhea], which whether they had or not I am uncertain. [But Hunnis,
his Lordship's taster, was indeed ill,] yet the suspicion of Crompton the yeoman
of his cellar was so far from my Lord as by no means he said he would think it
is him. . . . He said he thought some other of Ireland had done it, but none of
his own house.12
Essex's "third person"
and Knell's "certain gentlewomen" both refer, as only the Commonwealth
indicates, to Alice Draycot. In a letter of 13 September 1576, hitherto unnoticed,
Robert and Margaret Bysse and Cicely Fagan wrote from Dublin to their aunt, Mary
Draycot, consoling her on the recent death of her daughter; they mention no suspicion
of foul play but apologize "that we were not at her burying, for she was
buried before we knew of any death."13
Lord Deputy, Leicester's brother-in-law Sidney, reported to Walsingham on 20 October
that he had found no evidence of poison, but that there were malicious rumors
abroad "that arose by some words spoken by him," rumors especially concerning
Crompton.14 On 4 February 1577 he wrote to Leicester himself:
"I trust I have satisfied you and others touching the false bruit of the
Earl of Essex's poisoning. I would have made Knell retract his foolish speech,
but God prevented me, he dying of the same disease as the Earl, which was most
certainly a mere flux [dysentery]. . . . If the Earl had lived, you should have
found him as violent an enemy as his heart would have served him."15
Four days later the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, William Gerrard, sent to Walsingham
the notes of his investigations into "the malicious bruits of the Earl of
Essex his poisoning,"16 but rumors continued to circulate
widely; for example, in an anonymous eulogy to Essex's deathbed piety (one of
many that survive), the writer asserts quite positively that he had died of dysenteria
but adds, ". . . or whether it were of any other accident the living God
both knoweth and will revenge it."17
Sidney, despite his obvious connection with Leicester's interests, was apparently
a man of very great honesty, and in the absence of harder evidence than we now
have, his report should be believed. The symptoms described by him and others
could suggest poison but accord just as well with dysentery or typhoid fever,
and there is no strong reason to doubt this judgment.
account of Essex's murder appears in Peck, "Letter of Estate" (pp. 28-29).
LEICESTER AND THE LADY SHEFFIELD
family tradition, Leicester first met Douglass Howard, wife of John Lord Sheffield,
when the Queen's progress was stopped at nearby Belvoir Castle in 1565.18
Their affair seems to have begun soon after her husband's death in 1568; Conyers
Read discusses a love letter (of a sort) from Leicester probably to Douglass,
which letter he dates 1573 and which seems to imply a history of some years in
their liaison.19 When in 1603 her son by Leicester attempted
to prove his legitimacy in the ecclesiastical courts, the Earl's widow Lettice
Knollys brought a countersuit for conspiracy in Star Chamber, on which occasion
Douglass testified to her own version of the relationship.20
She said that she had been formally contracted to the Earl in 1571; at what seems
to have been the occasion of a pregnancy, he married her (she says) in May 1573
at Esher in Surrey, in the presence of Sir Edward Horsey and Dr. Julio, among
others. Leicester, in fear of the Queen's wrath, insisted upon secrecy. Also in
May 1573, Court gossip was noticing that Douglass and her sister Frances were
"very far in love" with Leicester, "as they have been long,"
and were "at great wars together" over him.21
boy Robert ("Robin") was born on 7 August 1574, with Warwick and Sir
Henry Lee godfathers by proxy. Later, after their separation, Leicester got the
boy away from his mother, had him brought up at his kinsman John Dudley's house
at Stoke Newington (as the Commonwealth says), and in 1588 enrolled him
in Oxford as filius comiti (son of an earl); he provided generously for
the boy in his will (but scrupulously referred to him as his "base son"),
making him some nine important bequests.22 When young Robert's
attempt to gain his patrimony was removed to Star Chamber, he was acquitted (on
10 May 1605) of the conspiracy charge that had been brought there,23
but his witnesses were fined for perjury and the documents in the case were impounded
to prevent their being used again, which amounts (if not to a legal judgment)
to a statement of the court's opinion of his claim. Soon afterward he deserted
his wife and left for a brilliant career on the continent, where he died in 1649.24
In 1644 his wife was made Duchess of Northumberland by Charles I, a formal recognition
of his legitimacy but, in the circumstances, not a very meaningful one.25
or not there was another child born, a daughter, as the Commonwealth asserts,
is open to question. Her existence has been widely assumed; for example, she has
been advanced in identification of Spenser's allegorical "Dido."26
When in the 1605 trial one of the witnesses insisted upon the fact of her birth,
Lord Henry Howard (then Earl of Northampton) stepped forward and denied it in
Lady Sheffield's name.27 It seems likely, however, that there
was such a child, the occasion for whatever "marriage" occurred in May
1573; but since she appears nowhere thereafter, she probably died early.
1575 or 1576 Leicester, having tired of Lady Sheffield, began or renewed his courtship
of Lady Essex. According to Douglass, the Earl offered her seven hundred pounds
to disclaim their marriage, and when she refused, he tried to poison her. On 21
September 1578 he married Lady Essex, and on 29 November 1579 Douglass married
Edward Stafford, "for her safety," she said.28 Stafford
later testified (just before his death in 1605) that the Queen had promised Douglass
that if there were a provable contract between Douglass and Leicester "she
would make him make up her honor with a marriage or rot in the Tower" but
that Douglass had been forced to answer that she had trusted the Earl too much
to insist upon anything in writing.29 Both the Queen and the
Earl of Sussex seem to have been ready to intervene on her behalf, but in the
absence of any evidence at that time the matter was dropped and Douglass tacitly
confessed her unmarried status by proceeding with her marriage to Stafford. Thus
we can safely conclude that although the Earl acted in bad faith and although
Douglass justly believed she had been wronged, and although there may have been
a contract and a wedding ceremony of some sort (designed to put her mind at rest),
there had probably been no authentic marriage registered in law. The contradiction
between her belief that she was already married and her having wedded Stafford,
with her failure to make a better case in 1579, when the Queen and Leicester's
enemies would have been delighted to help her obtain justice, make her assertions
seem rather the desperate fictions of a compromised woman. Derek Wilson has recently
made a case for believing the marriage to have been genuine,30
but it is unconvincing. Lady Sheffield died in December 1608.31
Commonwealth's animus against this lady provides another link between the
book and the Catholic courtiers' fortunes in the years 1579-1581. Anne Vavasour,
daughter of Henry of Copmanthorpe, Yorkshire, came to Court (evidently at fifteen)
in 1580. She was kinswoman to Charles Arundell, Lord Harry Howard, and Lord Paget,
and whilst there she moved in Howard circles, under the care of other relatives,
the Knyvetts, and especially her aunt, widow of Paget's brother Lord Henry. In
summer 1580 she was being amorously pursued by the Earl of Oxford, which called
forth from Walter Raleigh his sterling little poem of brotherly advice to her,
"Many desire, but few or none deserve."32 The advice
was in vain, however, for in late summer she became pregnant by Oxford ("leavings
of another man"), who (according to Lord Howard) immediately made plans to
carry her over the sea and, though he was already wed to Burghley's daughter,
there to marry her.33 In December 1580 Oxford betrayed his friends
in the Howard circle and joined the Earl of Leicester; Anne (or her brother) brought
Oxford and Arundell together, Arundell says, so that the Earl might suborn him
to corroborate his story.34 When Arundell and Howard were placed
in the confinement in which for ten months they remained, Oxford too was imprisoned,
only to be released soon afterward and (in Arundell's words) to go "grazing
in the pastures, up and down the town."35 But then in March
Anne's baby arrived, and directly it was delivered she was sent to the Tower;
Oxford seems to have tried to flee the realm, but he too ended up in the Tower.36
On 8 June he was released but remained under house arrest for some while longer,
the Queen being reluctant to free him until he had confronted Howard and Arundell.37
a consequence of all this, Oxford was forbidden the Court for two years more,
during which time street battles continued between Oxford and Anne's kinsmen.
He was dangerously hurt in a fight with Thomas Knyvett in March 1582; servants
of Oxford and the Knyvetts fought in June; later in June Thomas Knyvett himself
was attacked, and again in July 1582, when he killed one man in self-defense;
in March 1583 one of Oxford's men killed one of Knyvett's, and as late as January
1585 the Earl was challenged to a duel by Anne's brother Thomas.38
Arundell, of course, hated Oxford, and sometime in 1581 he wrote a letter (apparently)
to Anne lamenting her "disgrace and banishment" and counselling her
to "pluck up your courage. . . and think that God hath not forgotten you."39
Nevertheless, despite his goodwill at that time and her relatives' indignation
in her behalf, Anne soon forsook her friends by becoming the mistress of Leicester's
ally Sir Henry Lee (thereby displacing Lee's much-ignored wife, Lord Paget's sister);
in about 1585 her brother Thomas, instead of joining his relatives at Court, took
service under the Earl of Leicester. Whether or not Anne Vavasour was really "attempted"
by Leicester as the Commonwealth asserts, her presence here in such contemptuous
mention reflects her defection to his party.40
DRAYTON BASSET RIOT
problem has been studied in some detail, but the main facts can be outlined here.41
William Robinson died "in the Queen's service" on 12 July 1563, and
so quite likely he had served with Warwick at Newhaven as asserted. Thomas, his
eldest son, inherited the manor of Drayton Basset in Staffordshire but ran into
financial difficulties and in about 1576 alienated Drayton and other properties
to one Richard Paramore, a merchant and land speculator from London. Robinson's
friends maintained the manor merely to have been mortgaged on a seven-hundred-pound
loan for which payment was not yet due, and Paramore had to have Thomas's brother
John evicted by an injunction from the Court of Exchequer.
Robinson was determined to pursue the matter, and violence broke out in June 1578,
continuing intermittently throughout the summer. On 2 September, Thomas and John
Robinson, supported by Walter Harcourt (knighted 1591, d. 1608) of Stanton Harcourt
and Ellenhall (who had married their sister Dorothy), several other Harcourts,
and as many as a hundred gentlemen and servants from the neighborhood, conducted
a raid upon the house, drove off Paramore's agents, and fortified their position.
Paramore sought the aid of Humphrey Ferrers, a leading citizen of nearby Tamworth
and a client of the Earl of Leicester's. Ferrers and Sir George Digby summoned
a posse and assaulted the house, and in the ensuing skirmish one of Ferrers's
servants, Tristram Warde, was killed by John Robinson himself. Ferrers then rode
up to London and complained to the government, but when the Lords Dudley and Stafford,
acting on Privy Council orders of 14 September, arrived to restore order, they
too were resisted. By the twenty-ninth, however, the rioters had surrendered or
been taken, for on that date the chief among them were committed to the Fleet
prison. Interrogations began, under Recorder William Fleetwood, not only of the
participants but also of some of the local gentry (including Edward Arden and
Sir Francis Willoughby), who were suspected of having materially supported the
rioters. Thomas Lord Paget was reported to be working at Court to have the whole
proceedings quashed as expensive and unnecessary.
case against the rioters was heard in Star Chamber, and by October 1580 Harcourt
and at least some of the others had been fined and released.42
John Robinson testified that he had resisted Ferrers's demands because the only
authority the man had had was "a letter of attorney . . . from my Lord of
Leicester to enter into the said manor of Drayton Basset to my Lord of Leicester's
own use." His defense in the charge of having killed Warde was that Warde
was slain "by some of his own company that came with him," a version
echoed elsewhere as well.43 We cannot be certain that John Robinson
was indeed sentenced to death, but there is reason to believe that was; the margin
note of one of the manuscript copies of Leicester's Commonwealth corrects
the error in the printed edition in terms that suggest a firsthand knowledge:
"Here is a mistaking, for it was not Thomas Robinson, the owner of the land,
that was thus condemned, but his brother."44
letter survives, written by Leicester to Ferrers at the height of the row (14
September), in which the Earl instructed his "loving servant" to guard
his interests zealously, "as a matter that toucheth both your honesty and
mine honor."45 Eventually the manor did come into Leicester's
hands; Paramore seems to have assigned his interest to the Earl in 1580 "in
consideration of a great sum of money," and in 1581 Leicester travelled into
Staffordshire to look the property over.46 He bequeathed Drayton
Basset to his wife in his will dated 1587, and although litigation over the title
continued between Thomas Robinson and the Earl's widow after Leicester's death
in 1588, the Countess died in residence there in 1634.
are still unable to determine whether Leicester was guilty of the Commonwealth's
accusations against him; we may assume not entirely so. We do know that there
was a violent incident over Drayton Basset, that the Earl was involved in it in
some measure, and that he eventually fetched up with the title. We also know that
the growing presence of his interests in the midlands seems to have been widely
resented by the local population and that this incident seems to have been understood
as another step in Leicester's encroachments in the region. In any case, the Commonwealth's
allegations are by no means far-fetched.
DR. JULIO AND THE SUSPENSION OF ARCHBISHOP GRINDAL
Edmund Grindal's removal from his duties in June 1577 resulted from his refusal
of the Queen's order that he suppress the Puritanical "prophesyings";
he remained suspended until his death in July 1583.47 Contemporary
rumor attributed his disgrace, however, to the fact that "he had condemned
an unlawful marriage of Julio . . . with another man's wife, while Leicester in
vain opposed against his proceeding therein."48 Dr. Julio
(born Guilio Borgarucci) was a Protestant who, having returned with the Earl of
Warwick from Le Havre, had entered Leicester's service in about 1563; in September
1573 he was taken on as physician to the royal household, in which post he seems
to have died in about 1581. He was often alluded to as the type of the "Italian
poisoner"; for example, Webster, in his play The White Devil (1612),
has the evil Duke Brachiano employ a "Dr. Julio" to poison his wife.
At one point in his career he was brought up for having married a woman already
wed, but the matter received favor from Dr. Valentine Dale, then Master of Requests.49
Sir William Cordell, Master of the Rolls, reopened it in 1573, and finally in
late 1576 the case came before Grindal.
4 December 1576 Julio wrote the following letter to the Earl of Leicester, in
which he seems to ask for extraordinary favor:
singular good Lord. I do understand by my proctor and other my lawyers of the
hard dealing of Dr. [Thomas] Yale, who now fulfilleth as much as he signified
unto me by Thomas of Denbigh my man, how the Archbishop of Canterbury had sworn
I should never obtain this gentlewoman I have married, nor enjoy her. For the
said Dr. Yale will not admit my witnesses to be examined but in such sort as seemeth
to be contra jus gentium and hath not been used, as by certain articles
which I have drawn shall the more at large appear unto your honor, and besides
this he doth also publish decrees against his own former proceedings in my great
prejudice, whereupon my learned counsel do wish me to appeal unto her Highness,
whom it may please your honor to entreat to be so good and gracious to me that
with her Majesty's favor I may have justice done me, and that my matter may be
committed to such as neither be allied, affectioned, or suspected by either parties,
to the intent that equity and justice may take place and that I be not precipitated
in law or condemned in dicta causa, as mine unnatural adversaries do put
in ure, whereby such as should allow of good doings and good intents do seem publicly
to overturn all the good considerations of conscience and course of right and
justice, as my learned men, being as they do term it at their wit's end to see
such partialities, have signified unto me. Thus I shall have cause not only to
pray to God for her Majesty's good health and prosperous long life, but also I
shall accompt this for a singular benefit among a great many that your honor of
your goodness hath bestowed upon me. From Brudges, the 4 of December 1576. Your
honor's faithful servant during life, Guilio Borgarucci.50
Leicester apparently approached
the Archbishop on behalf of his client, but (according to Strype) "notwithstanding
the Earl's solicitation, he was not to be swayed contrary to his judgment and
conscience," and he rendered a decision against Julio. Leicester appears
certainly to have supported Grindal in the matter of the prophesyings, but nevertheless
it is possible, if unlikely, that there was more connection between Julio's troubles
and the fall of the Archbishop than we might otherwise recognize. Professor Collinson
has found a letter from Burghley to Walsingham, dated 31 May 1577 (that is, when
there was a question whether the Queen might attempt to have Grindal removed altogether),
which at least indicates that Julio was somehow involved in the Archbishop's difficulties
in ways that made Cecil uneasy:
the evening [Burghley says] after that we had delivered to the Archbishop her
Majesty's message, I understood that Mr. Julio had that morning told a doctor
of the law what should be done. So as I see he was more of her Majesty's counsel
than two or three that are of present counsel. These proceedings cannot but irritate
our merciful God, [and I hope that] He shall show mercy to his afflicted church.
. . . I think the persons appointed to consult for deprivation of the Archbishop
shall be much troubled to find a precedent.51
It will be observed that
the Commonwealth inverts the usual story, supposing that it was Julio's bigamy
and not his wife's that was in question.
TO APPENDIX D
In the Pepys MSS., Magdalene College, Cambridge, printed in Adlard, Amye Robsart,
Thus the sensible argument by Gairdner, "Death of Amy Robsart."
Neale agrees, Queen Elizabeth I, p. 87.
Aird, "Death of Amy Robsart"; N. Williams, Elizabeth I, p. 112.
C.S.P. Spanish, 1558-67, p. 175.
Haynes, Collection of State Papers, p. 362.
C.S.P. Foreign, 1560-61, p. 439.
Jones to Throgmorton, 30 Nov. 1560, Hardwicke State Papers, 1: 165. "The
attempt" seems an odd phrase for the Queen to have used.
H.MC. Salisbury MSS., 1: 351; see Appendix B, note 10. An intelligent discussion
of the whole affair is found in D. Wilson, Sweet Robin, chap. 7.
C.S.P: Spanish, 1568-79, p. 511.
Malden, Devereux Papers, pp. 3-4. "Some evil" may imply suspicion
of poison but may merely mean "some harm."
Ibid., p. 11.
This letter is tucked loose into a manuscript copy of the Commonwealth
once owned by the Draycot family, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, MS. 1.3.28. Folded
with it is a conventional but affectionate verse letter to Mistress Alice Draycot,
originally accompanying the gift of a devotional book, which seems almost certainly
to be signed with a stylized "W. E.," i.e., Walter of Essex (though
the college library catalogue records it as "Y. F.").
Sidney Papers, 1: 140-42.
H.M.C. Penshurst MSS., 2: 51.
British Library, Harleian MS. 293. no. 72, fol. 115.
Holles, Memorials of the Holles Family, p. 70. There is no confirmation
of the Queen's having been at Belvoir at this time. Douglass (ca. 1545-1608),
daughter of Lord William Howard of Effingham (and sister of Lord Charles, the
admiral), styled herself Lady Sheffield to the end of her life, despite her marriage
See Read, "Letter from Robert, Earl of Leicester, to a Lady."
The best printed accounts are Warner's introduction, Voyage of Robert Dudley,
pp. xxxix-xlvi, and Hawarde's Reportes, pp. 169-70, 198-213.
Gilbert Talbot to Shrewsbury, Lodge's Illustrations, 2: 17.
The will is printed in Sidney Papers, 1: 70-75.
Hawarde, Reportes, p. 212.
See Lee, Son of Leicester.
The letters patent, Jebb, Life of . . . Leicester, appendix 13.
Higginson, Spenser's Shepherd's Calendar, pp. 238-42.
Hawarde, Reportes, pp. 208-9.
Ibid., p. 199.
Warner, Voyage of Robert Dudley, p. xlv.
D. Wilson, Sweet Robin, pp. 207-9 and notes.
An abstract of her will is printed in Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica,
n.s. 3 (1880): 369-70.
Peck, "Raleigh, Sidney, Oxford, and the Catholics, 1579," p. 431.
Walsingham to Huntingdon, 23 Mar. 1581, H.M.C. Hastings MSS., 2: 29.
A.P.C., 1581-82, p. 74; Walsingham to Burghley, 14 July 1581 (S.P. 12/149/69).
See Chambers, Sir Henry Lee, pp. 150-62 (which reproduces a portrait of
The best account of Anne Vavasour and her relations with Oxford is Bennett, "Oxford
Peck, "Earl of Leicester and the Riot at Drayton Basset, 1578," including
references not provided here.
See interrogations and answers in Star Chamber records, Public Record Office,
STAC 5/A.4/26, A.24/25, A.25/14, A.26/7, A.30/27, A.54/5.
Ibid., STAC 5/A.4/26. The unknown copyist who made the MS. of Leicester's
Commonwealth now in the library of St. John's College, Cambridge (MS. L.11),
added a marginalium: "There was a man slain, but Leicester caused one of
his own side to shoot a piece amongst his own men, and so one being slain it was
said he was slain from Robinson's side."
British Library, Lansdowne MS. 265, fol. 41.
Pierpont Morgan Library, MS. M.A. 134b, no. 141.
"A brief of the title of the Countess of Leicester to the manor of Drayton
Basset," British Library, Lansdowne MS. 62, item 53, fo1.127; I am indebted
to Dr. P. R. Roberts for this reference. Leicester to Huntingdon, 26 May 1581,
Huntington Library MS. H.A. 2377.
See Collinson, "Downfall of Archbishop Grindal," and his Elizabethan
Puritan Movement, pp. 191-98.
Camden, Elizabeth, 3: 26; see also Harington, Nugae antiquae, 2:
Strype, History of the Life . . . of Edmund Grindal, pp. 334-35.
British Library, Cotton MSS., Titus B. VII, fol. 36.
British Library, Additional MS. 5935, fol. 68; Collinson, "Downfall of Archbishop
Grindal," p. 46.
do not reproduce this text in any form for commercial purposes; all other uses
are okay, with acknowledgement. This text has been scanned from the printed copy,
published by Ohio University Press, 1985 -- this is an imperfect process and if
you should want to quote something and have any doubts about you see here, please
feel free to ask. Feedback and suggestions are welcome, .
Posted 1 September 2004.