Eustace Chapuys to Emperor Charles V., December 16, 1533.

Within days of the birth of Henry VIII's daughter, Elizabeth, Mary had been informed that the new child would have her title "Princess of Windsor".  Here, some two months later, Eustace Chapuys, ambassador to the man who will be Mary's staunchest and most powerful ally, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V., describes the distressing experience Mary endured having her title removed, household dissolved and being assigned as a servant in the house of her half-sister, baby Elizabeth.

Being Ambassador to a Catholic Emperor, and himself a Catholic, Chapuys refers to Princess Elizabeth as the “bastard daughter,” throughout his correspondence, and to Mary as “Princess”.  Here he describes Henry dissolving Mary’s household as Princess.  She is henceforward to be Lady Mary and to be a servant in the nursery of the new Princess Elizabeth.

 

In consequence of the King's resolution and order as to the respective treatment of the Princess and of his bastard daughter, about which I wrote last to Your Majesty, the latter was three days since taken to a house distant 17 miles from this city; and although there was a better and a shorter route thither, yet, for the sake of pompous solemnity, and the better to impress upon the people the idea of her being the true Princess of Wales, the King's bastard daughter, and her suite, composed of the noblemen specified in my last, were made to traverse this city. On the ensuing morning the Duke of Norfolk went 

himself to the Princess, and signified her father's pleasure that she should attend Court, and enter the service of his other bastard daughter, whom the Duke deliberately, and in her presence, called Princess of Wales. Upon which Princess Mary replied : "That is a title which belongs to me by right, and to no one else;" after which she addressed to him many gracious, honest, and very wise remonstrances, all tending to show that the proposals the Duke had brought from the King were both strange and unfitting. Which argument on the part of the Princess the Duke was unable to combat, so much so that he said to her that he had not gone thither to dispute, but to see the King's wishes accomplished, and his commands executed, namely, that she should be removed to the house taken for the bastard. Upon which the Princess, seeing that all her arguments and excuses would be of no avail, asked for half an hour's time to retire to her private chamber; where she remained, as I am given to understand, all the while, or nearly so, occupied in drawing out the protest whereof I once gave her the words. Thus, should she in any way be compelled by force or persuaded by deceit to renounce her rights, marry against her will, or enter a cloister, no prejudice should result to her hereafter.

When she came out of her room the Princess said to the Duke : " Since such is my father's wish, it is not for me to disobey his injunctions; but I beg you to intercede with him that the services of many well deserving and trusty officers of my household may be rewarded, and one year's wages at least given to them." After this she asked the Duke how many of her own servants she would be allowed to retain and take with her. The answer was that as she would find plenty of servants to attend on her where she was going, no great train of followers was needed. Accordingly the Princess set out on her journey, accompanied only by very few of her household. Her governess, daughter of the late Duke of Clarence, and the King's near relative—a very honourable and virtuous lady, if there be one in England—offered, I hear, to serve the Princess at her own cost, with a good and honourable train of servants, but her offers were not accepted; nor will they ever be, for were the said lady to remain by the Princess they would no longer be able to execute their bad designs, which are evidently either to cause her to die of grief or in   some other way, or else to compel her to renounce her rights, marry some low fellow, or let her fall a prey to lust, so that they may have a pretext and excuse for disinheriting her, and submitting her to all manner of bad treatment.

London, December 16, 1533.

 

Letters, Dispatches and State Papers… relating to Spain, Volume 4, Pt. 2. (1882). 881.

Also at Virtual Grub Street:

Bear-Baiting Histories: William Fitzstephen, Queen Elizabeth… and Who?  May 4, 2020. “The 25th, they were brought to Court with musick to dinner, and after a splendid dinner, they were entertained with the baiting of bears and bulls with English dogs.”

New Year’s Gifts through the Ages.  January 1, 2020.  “Henry’s daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, gave as well as received gifts on New Year’s day.”

Queen Elizabeth I’s Heart and the French Ambassador.  April 3, 2019.  “…the Queen of England, with the permission of her physicians, has been able to come out of her private chamber, she has permitted me… to see her…”

Gossip as History: The Murder of Amy Robsart. February 17, 2020. "The first sudden death Leicester was rumored to have caused was that of his wife, Amy Robsart, in 1560. In that year, it was still not clear whether the Queen would marry. But certainly not her beloved Leicester if he were married."

Check out the English Renaissance Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.

Check out the English Renaissance Letter Index for many letters from this fascinating time, some related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.