In my previous post about Sir Henry Seymour, I briefly mentioned another sister called Dorothy. As far as all the living Seymour siblings go it is Henry and Dorothy that we know very little about. When I decided to write an article the lesser known Seymour daughter I hoped that I could come across something that had never been published about her – that I would find some contemporary evidence that would give a glimpse at who she was as a person. But, like most women of the time, little was written about her and we can only learn who she was through the men she married – so that is what I’ve done here. I have, I believe, found information about her spouses and children that has yet to be published in a site like mine. All of this put together should give us a good idea of her life and her family.
The most recognizable Seymours at the court of Henry VIII were: Edward, Thomas, and Jane Seymour. Other than Elizabeth Seymour, who married Gregory, the son of Thomas Cromwell, there was another Seymour brother who occasionally spent time at court and is often overlooked, his name was Henry. Not to mention their youngest sister, Dorothy. But today we are going to look at Henry, in particular.
Born At Sudeley Castle in Gloucestershire on 30 August 1548, Lady Mary Seymour was the long-awaited child of dowager queen Kateryn Parr, and her fourth husband Sir Thomas, Baron Seymour of Sudeley. The unexpected pregnancy left both parents overjoyed.
I recently picked up The Reign of Edward VI by James Anthony Froude and started looking for information on Thomas Seymour. It was while searching that I came across some new information.
On page 77, in the section of the book about the Protectorate, I found this line:
the admiral had seduced and deserted at least one innocent woman, who fell into crime and was executed.
The source for this statement is merely listed as “Latimer’s Sermons before King Edward”. So, of course, I went looking for this story in Latimer’s sermons. Unfortunately for me Froude did not give a more specific location in Latimer’s sermons. Luckily for me, the book is available online and I could do a search within it to find the reference to this woman.
The book is titled Sermons by Hugh Latimer, sometime Bishop of Worcester, Martyr, 1555, and I found the reference on page 164 (Latimer’s fourth sermon preached before Edward VI).
“I heard of a wanton woman, naughty liver. A whore, a vain body, was led from Newgate to the place of execution for a certain robbery that she had committed, and she had a wicked communication by the way. Here I will take occasion to move your grace, that such men as shall be put to death may have learned men to give them instruction and exhortation. For the reverence of God, when they be put to execution, let them have instructor; for many of them are cast away for lack of instruction, and die miserably for lack of good preaching. This woman, I say, as she went by the way, had wanton and foolish talk, as this: “that if good fellows had kept touch with her, she had not been at this time in that case.” [And amongst all other talk she said that such an one (and named this man) had first misled her: and, hearing this of him at that time, I looked ever what would be his end, what would become of him. He was a man the farthest fear of God that ever I knew or heard of in England. First, he was the author of all this woman’s whoredom; for if he had not led her wrong, she might have been married and become an honest woman, whereas now being naught with him, she fell afterward by that occasion to other: and they that were naught with her fell to robbery, and she followed; and thus was he the author of all of this.
After reading all that I was left wondering: Who was this woman? Did this really happen or was it fabricated by Latimer to further tarnish the reputation of Seymour to the King?
This got me thinking…how well did Latimer know Thomas, or the Seymour family at that. I found online, “Hugh Latimer; a biography” and in Chapter Four it states that Latimer was in Wiltshire from 1531 to 1535. During that time Thomas Seymour was employed by Francis Bryan at court.
If you are not familiar with the Seymours, their home at Wolf Hall was in Wiltshire. In the book “Ordeal by Ambition” by William Seymour, states that their home was in Burbage. Hugh Latimer was preaching at West Kington. I used Google maps to see what kind of distance were between the two locations and it appears to be about 36-38 miles, a bit far for the family to attend mass. In “Hugh Latimer; a biography”, the author states that while Thomas Seymour was in the Tower he requested that “Mr. Latimer might come to him”. The author believed that Seymour had heard countless praises of Latimer from his late wife, dowager queen Kateryn and that Latimer had converted Parr to the Protestant faith. Latimer visited Seymour in the Tower and may have attended him the day of his execution.
Latimer, indeed, without mentioning Seymour’s name, assumed that his audience “knew what he meant well enough.” But there were many who doubted his guilt; Latimer’s words were consequently much censured; and in his next sermon before the Court, on March 29, he deemed it necessary to defend himself by narrating all that he knew of Seymour’s death.
Latimer was also the person who reported the small notes that Seymour had written:
The man being in the Tower, wrote certain papers, which I saw myself. They were two little ones, one to my Lady Mary’s Grace, and another to my Lady Elizabeth’s Grace, tending to this end, that they should conspire against my Lord Protector’s Grace; surely, so seditiously as could be.
These notes were reported to Latimer by his servant and were found in Seymour’s shoe. The notes were sewn between the soles of a velvet shoe. He also goes on to mention how creative Seymour had been in creating ink to write. “He made his ink so craftily and with such workmanship, as the like hath not been seen.” “He made his pen of the aglet of a point, that he plucked from his hose, and thus wrote these letters…”
Image Courtesy TheCostumeWardrobe – Etsy
John Lingard of Lingard’s History of England was no fan of Latimer or Somerset. He said that Latimer was merely staying on the good side of Somerset with his sermons.
So, from all this we can determine that Thomas Seymour may have known, or at least known of Latimer through his late wife. We can, if we believe Lingard, determine that Latimer was a man who understood he had to appease the Lord Protector.
I have been been unable to corroborate Latimer’s sermon about the wanton women who was executed because of Thomas Seymour. But it is my belief that Hugh Latimer’s sermon was fabricated to further slander Thomas Seymour’s name – many of the King’s subjects had become sympathetic to his story after his execution, just as they had with Anne Boleyn.
——-
Sources:
Hugh Latimer; a biography. by Demaus, R. (Robert), 1829 -1874; Tract Society, London. Publication date [1881] Lingard’s History of England by Dom Henry Norbert Birt, O.S.B.. London. George Bell & Sons [1903]. The Reign of Edward VI by James Anthony Froude. Published by J. M. Dent & Company [1926]. Sermons by Hugh Latimer, sometime Bishop of Worcester, Martyr, 1555. Publisher Cambridge : Printed at the University Press [1844]. Ordeal by Ambition: An English Family in the Shadow of the Tudors by William Seymour. Published by Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd [1972].
There is not much known about Thomas Seymour’s early years. Historian and author, David Loades believed that when Thomas first came to court (sometime between 1525-1530) that he may have rented a place in London. But once his sister Jane became Queen we can assume that he always had a place at court.
It would be awhile before Seymour would have a place of his own. It wasn’t until he was recognized for his military and political achievements that he finally made some progress in that arena.
In summer 1543 he was marshal of the English army in the Low Countries, serving under Sir John Wallop. This military experience may explain his appointment as master of the ordnance for life on 18 April 1544, a striking mark of royal favour, and he took part in the capture of Boulogne on 14 September. In October of that year he was appointed an admiral of the fleet, and he was much involved in naval action in 1545.�
Thomas Seymour was ‘rewarded’ Hampton Palace in November 1544 and soon renamed it Seymour Place. Hampton Place had been previously owned by William Fitzwilliam, Earl of Southampton until his death in 1542. Since Hampton Place was available to Thomas Seymour in 1544, and Southampton died it 1542, we can assume that after Southampton’s death the property reverted back to the Crown. That is until it was given to Thomas Seymour on the 29th of November 1544.
In less than three years from the time he was rewarded with Seymour Place, King Henry VIII was dead and Thomas Seymour, uncle to the King, was created Baron Seymour of Sudeley and as such became the owner of Sudeley Castle.
Description and Location
The best description of location I have found of Seymour Place was that it was to the East of Somerset Place and just outside Temple Bar. In this illustration below, you will see “Temple barre” in the top right. Just down and to the right of the words you will notice an arch – that is Temple Bar.
…was the principal ceremonial entrance to the City of London on its western side from the City of Westminster. It is situated on the historic royal ceremonial route from the Tower of London to the Palace of Westminster, the two chief residences of the medieval English monarchs, and from the Palace of Westminster to St Paul’s Cathedral.�
Here is what Temple Bar looked like in 1870 (sketch) and 1878 (photograph):
Public Domain Images
Seymour Place, which after the execution of Thomas Seymour became Arundel Place, was located on the River Thames and was between Milford Lane and Strand Lane. Strand Lane is what separated Seymour Place from Somerset Place. Arundel place was to the south of St. Clement Dane (church) and adjacent to the Roman Baths at the Strand.
In the below image you will notice that Arundel Place, just to the right (or East) of it is Milford Lane. Thomas’ home was very near Temple Bar and was technically in Westminster and not London.
These below sketches were created by Wenceslas Hollar in his lifetime (1607-1677 ) and it gives you a feel for what it may have looked like during the life of Thomas Seymour:
Arundel House, from the South [from the Thames side] by Wenceslas Hollar. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Here is another image of Arundel Place in 1677:
This Image Copyright MAPCO 2009
Even after Arundel House was demolished in 1680 to 1682, it was remembered in descriptions of London. John Strype recorded a brief history of Arundel House in his 1720 update to Stow’s A Survey of London, terminating in the house’s demolition:
Formerly the Bishop of Bath’s Inn: Which in Process of Time came to the Family of the Howards, Dukes of Norfolk, the late Duke dwelling there. It then was a very large and old built House; with a spacious Yard for Stablings, towards the Strand, and with a Gate to enclose it, where there was the Porters Lodge; and as large a Garden towards the Thames. This said House and Grounds was some Years since converted into Streets and Buildings.
(Strype 4.7.117)�
Seymour Place was the location at which Lady Jane Grey stayed during the time that Thomas Seymour owned her wardship. Grey also eventually moved to Sudeley Castle in 1548 with Seymour and Parr.
My original impression of Seymour Place was that it was a small home. It wasn’t until I was able to get a good look at it through maps that I discovered it was quite the property and I have no doubt that Thomas Seymour made it into a grand estate.
—
Notes:
� Bernard, G.W., Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: Seymour, Thomas, Baron Seymour of Sudeley
� Wikipedia. Temple Bar, London
� Maps of Early Modern London – Arundel House
When the Lord Protector, Thomas Seymour’s brother Edward, Duke of Somerset was off fighting the Battle of Pinkie in Scotland in 1547, Thomas used his time wisely by gaining friends and support from the King’s inner circle of servants and privy chamber members.
Thomas, as the Lord High Admiral of England, should have been in Scotland as well, but he had stayed in London to allegedly intrigue against Somerset. If I recall he feigned illness. This would not be the last time Thomas Seymour shirked his duties as Admiral.
It was also during the time when Somerset was at the Battle of Pinkie that Seymour was able to convince the King to write a letter approving of a marriage between Thomas and Kateryn Parr. Of course, nobody knew that the two had already wed, but Seymour got a letter written that protected himself and the queen dowager.
During this time Thomas Seymour was believed to have given money to two or three of the members of the King’s privy chamber andgrooms of the chamber. By accepting the money from Seymour he believed that they would in return become ‘his men’.
The question that always remains is what was the catalyst that caused the falling out between the two Seymour brothers for Seymour to act this way?
The main cause of the following out between Thomas and his brother Edward was the fact that Edward became Lord Protector of the Realm and Governor of the King upon the accession of their nephew, Edward VI. Thomas believed that the titles should have been shared by the two brothers as had happened in the past. He even went so far to search the chronicles for precedents and discovered evidence to back him up: ‘that there was in England at one time one Protector and another Regent of France and the Duke of Exeter and the Bishop of Winchester, Governors of the King’s Person‘.
Some have suggested that John Dudley, Earl of Warwick instigated Seymour’s intrigues to cause discord between the brothers. After the death of Henry VIII, Thomas Seymour felt that he was unfairly treated and this caused a wound between the brothers. Like a vulcher, Warwick attacked the wounded prey.
Prior to the death of Henry VIII there is nothing of note to indicate that the brothers were anything but civil with one another. As a matter of fact, Thomas wrote to his brother when he was away that he had checked on his wife (Anne Stanhope) and Prince Edward:
“Our master and mistress, with my lord Prince, are merry, and so is my lady my sister, whom I will visit ere (before) I sleep. And thus most heartily fare ye well, and send you a prosperous journey. Westminster, [14 March 1544]”
So Warwick, understanding that there was an opportunity to be had, promised that if Thomas pursued the cause to become Governor of the King with the council, that he would give him his support. Seymour played into Warwick’s hands like a puppet – he had already been angry and jealous toward his brother and the nudge from Warwick was enough to push him over the edge. When Thomas raised the matter at a council meeting his brother, Duke of Somerset upon hearing his statement, stood up (without saying anything) and ended the meeting.
The one thing that Warwick had not mentioned was the discord caused by having two uncles in charge – looking no further than the Duke of Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort (previously mentioned Regent of France and Bishop of Winchester) during the minority of King Henry VI. This was something that Thomas’ brother, Somerset had mentioned and was one of the reasons he was reluctant to give his brother such a title.
We also know Thomas was not too keen on education, so did he know English history? Was he aware what had happened the last time two uncles held power during the minority of their nephew?
As Thomas pushed and pushed about the matter of becoming Governor, it only incensed Somerset further. It was brought to Seymour’s attention that he willfully signed the document making Edward, Lord Protector of the Realm and Governor of the King. This did not dissuade Seymour from his mission, however.
Ultimately, the council turned against Thomas Seymour – probably led by the Earl of Warwick and they convinced Somerset that his brother was a danger to his life.
Edward VI
Now, if we look at King Edward VI and his relationship with Somerset, we see a young King, who was the son of Henry VIII – that in itself probably means that Edward had a strong personality and wanted things his way.
John Fowler, servant to King Edward VI, had mentioned that Seymour would come to the privy buttery and drink there alone and ask him whether the king would say anything of him. Thomas had been giving the King gifts of money so that he could give gifts to his servants and have money of his own – you see, the Lord Protector had also put restrictions on his nephew the King and so Thomas may have believed he and the King were kindred spirits in the is matter…both were being held back by the Lord Protector. Seymour, while protecting and encouraging his nephew to become King in his own right was not only fighting for his nephew, but also for himself. He saw it as unfair and so had the King. At one time mentioning how he wished that his uncle Somerset was dead.
Alleged Kidnapping Attempt
On the night of the 16th of January 1549, Thomas Seymour was arrested for allegedly killing the King’s dog and attempting to kidnap the King. What is not fully stated in most cases is the facts that surround the case.
Weeks earlier, Thomas Seymour had made complaints that his nephew was not well protected. That he needed more guards. On the night of the incident it was reported that Thomas dispersed some of the guards to run errands, which left a gap in security. The Duke of Somerset had made it very clear prior to this that Thomas should not have access to his nephew. Would these guards have been brave enough to work against the Lord Protector by taking orders from his younger brother? I’m skeptical.
The story then continues with King Edward’s dog being shot outside the royal bedchamber. The sound of the gunshot alerted a nearby guard(why wasn’t there one closer?) who then collected other guards before approaching the door to the bedchamber. It was then that they spotted Thomas Seymour standing there. Immediately Thomas was accused of shooting the dog and plotting to kidnap the king.
Professor G.W. Bernard cannot definitively say whether or not Thomas Seymour meant to kidnap King Edward (and Elizabeth for that fact) – to me that speaks volumes. Nobody knows for certain if that was his intent that night at Hampton Court Palace. We know he was there – that’s a fact. We also know that sometime before the alleged kidnapping that Seymour was discouraged at the number of guards available to protect the king. Those who oppose Seymour see that as him scoping out the joint beforehand. I see it as an uncle who is concerned for his nephews safety.
Henry Bullinger is quoted as condemning Seymour on the 15th of February 1549. Bullinger, a German reformer, put all the blame on Seymour and insisted that Seymour killed the King’s dog and would have killed the King if he had not been halted by the guards.
When we consider the killing of the King’s dog we must remember that there were no witnesses to the murder. It was easy to place the blame on Seymour. Contrary to what some authors have stated, the King’s dog was not next to the King’s bed in his bedchamber, instead he was just outside the room.
Thomas Seymour had brought a few of his servants with him that night at Hampton Court Palace that night. My thought has always been that Seymour was concerned about the safety of his nephew. There was no advantage for him to murder his nephew, but protect him – yes. It is my belief that one of his servants made it to King’s room before Seymour to check if the room was being protected and got scared by the barking dog. In a panic the dog was killed. Seymour’s timing could not have been worse – as he approached the King’s room the King’s guards apprehended him. Seymour insisted that he was checking that the King was securely guarded. It is possible that he was there to kidnap his nephew. He may have seen this as his only option.
After his arrest, Thomas Seymour was examined and mentioned that he and Fowler had a discussion about Mr. Stanhope’s paranoia surrounding the King. That he asked to be woken anytime someone came to the door. Then they went on to ask if he was afraid that any man may come and take the King. To which it was implied that that man was Seymour – he said, “If he think that I will go about it, he shall watch a good while”.
Did Thomas Seymour want to kidnap his nephew? Well, he certainly mentioned one time that he wished to have the King in his possession. Here is how he responded to that charge against him:
“He said that about Eastertide he said to Fowler, as he supposeth it was, that if he might have the king in his custody as Mr. Page had he would be glad, and that he thought a man might bring him through the Gallery to his chamber, and so to his house, but this he said he spoke merely meaning no hurt.”
The story of Thomas Seymour and his nephew ended with Edward VI turning against his uncle and Seymour being executed on the 19th of March 1549. Then a few years later, on the 22nd of January 1552, his other uncle and former Lord Protector was executed, leaving John Dudley as the most powerful man in England.
The Tudor court was full of scandal and intrigue and the reign of Edward VI was obviously no different.
We may never know the whole story when it comes to Thomas Seymour, but I promise you I will continue to dig until we have a better understanding of all the events that occurred between 1547 and 1549.
