Between Two Brothers: Edward and Thomas Seymour

Unless you are an only child you are familiar with the love that siblings bear one another. The events of life, along with the meddling of others caused a rift between these two men and ultimately cost both of them their lives. The Seymour brothers, Edward and Thomas.

Brothers

There are instances when situations fester and cause strife between siblings that tear them apart. You know, like when one sibling critiques the parenting of another – that’s going to cause a few arguments and then probably some avoidance.

These statements ring true for the Seymour brothers – Edward and Thomas. Even though Edward was only three years older than Thomas he behaved as the eldest son and the one who would gain the most in life.

While Thomas was the fourth son and the youngest at that – his future was not as bright as his older brother, but Thomas wasn’t like most youngest sons. He was ambitious, and while he knew he would never outrank his brother Edward, he wanted to get as close to the sun as possible.

Of the three remaining sons of Sir John Seymour of Wiltshire, Edward was the oldest, followed by Henry and then Thomas. Edward Seymour eventually became Lord Protector and Duke of Somerset. Henry hung around court for a bit and then went on to be country gentry – a subtler life…While the youngest Thomas followed in his eldest brother’s footsteps. He grew confidence when he recognized his own way with people. Most people liked Thomas, more so than his brother, Edward.

I have a feeling that Edward and Thomas had an even closer relationship when their brother Henry was around. Those two could only get along for short while before things got heated. Henry was able to play peacemaker. But with him away from court there were outside influences on their relationship that neither brother could see coming.

Warwick

While it appears that the brothers had a normal relationship, there are clues of jealousy and greed intertwined with manipulation and revenge.

John Dudley

The breakdown of their relationship began with John Dudley, newly titled Earl of Warwick, and his desire to see another in the position of ‘Lord Protector’, namely himself.

So what did the Earl of Warwick have to do with it? Warwick played a game of chess with the brothers. Speaking to Edward about what a great Lord Protector he was and then going to Thomas and telling him how he should have been named Governor of the king.

Warwick wedged himself in between the two brothers; Putting himself in a very dangerous situation as well. Lucky him, it all worked out, for a little while at least.

With Warwick whispering in his ear, the natural desire he already had to become more only intensified. Thomas Seymour felt he deserved a lot more as an uncle to the king and no matter what he did to obtain that goal he was thwarted, either by others or himself.

During all these arguments with his brother, Thomas was continuously trying to get a bill passed through Parliament that would make him Governor to the King. A position he believed, and had convinced many others, he deserved. Unfortunately for Thomas, those who said they would back him did not follow through when the time came.

Eventually, Edward Seymour would get a new letter patent through Parliament which named him Lord Protector and Governor of the King, which he would hold during the ‘king’s pleasure’ – this was changed from when the king turned eighteen. (explaining why Thomas Seymour continually tried to get Edward VI to rule on his own)

Marriage

Was Dudley’s interactions with the brothers what caused Thomas Seymour to seek a strong marriage? Seymour had only talked marriage a few times in his entire life and they were all later in life. There was Mary Howard, Elizabeth Tudor and Kateryn Parr. I also believe he proposed once to Mary Tudor as well. If we look at all those women, what do we see? I see power. I see support in case one should need it. A duchess and a Howard at that, a princess with Protestant supporters, a dowager queen with history and power, and another princess – a very Catholic princess. All great matches for a man like Thomas.

The only way Thomas could marry any of those women was without permission because he knew they all needed permission to wed…and then hope you can find a way to convince the Lord Protector that it was all his idea. When Thomas suggested to his brother that he marry Kateryn Parr, Edward quickly turned him down – it wouldn’t happen. Luckily for Thomas, he was already married to Kateryn Parr and wished to stay that way. Without gaining approval from the Lord Protector, Kateryn and Thomas decided to use their close connection with Edward VI, they believed they could convince the young king to suggest Kateryn as a perfect bride for his uncle Thomas. They had played their cards right, Edward VI eventually named Kateryn after a bit of coaxing from his servant John Fowler who was doing the dirty work for Thomas.

When Edward Seymour discovered the two had married he was furious that his own brother had went behind his back to get permission from the young king. Edward’s wife Anne Seymour was equally displeased with the union. Not only did Thomas and Kateryn marry too soon after Henry VIII’s death, but Kateryn was marrying well beneath her station since Thomas was merely a baron.

Author Margaret Scard of Edward Seymour, Lord Protector suggests that the beef was actually between Anne Seymour and Thomas, not the brothers or the wives.

Kateryn Parr still played the role as queen – with a household the same size as when she was married to Henry. Thomas Seymour, being the husband of Kateryn would have loved the feeling he got when he was the most powerful man in the room.

Anne Seymour – let’s just call her duchess going forward, since she was the Duchess of Somerset. The Duchess did not like sharing center stage with Kateryn Parr apparently. Once while walking in a procession, the Duchess is said to have nudged or pushed Parr out-of-the-way so she could take precedence over her. She believed she had that right as the wife of the Lord Protector and because Kateryn was only married to a baron. Author Scard believes that the Duchess was adamantly against the idea of Thomas Seymour taking precedence over her and that’s where the dispute began. That Thomas, as the husband of the dowager queen would be able to walk alongside his wife.

It wasn’t only what order to walk in a procession. The Duchess took it even further and wouldn’t allow Kateryn her jewels from the Tower of London. Both of the women believed the jewels were theirs – Kateryn only seemed to care about the gifts that were given to her by Henry VIII and a couple of pieces from her mother, I believe it was. The Duchess would not allow Kateryn to have her jewels.

Eventually the two brothers were involved in the dispute between their wives. Thomas approached Edward on the issue and they both agreed that Kateryn should have the jewels. Edward told his brother that he would speak with his wife on the subject and go from there. Well, we’re not sure what happened after that but Kateryn never got her jewels.

Southampton

Somerset, during this time, not only had to deal with the disobedience of his brother but also of members of the Council:

Thomas Wriothesley, 1st Earl of Southampton by Holbein

Thomas Wriothesley, in accordance with Henry VIII’s wishes was created Earl of Southampton in February 1547 and was also a member of the Regency Council. Southampton was one of the few men who ‘had always been engaged in an opposite party to Somerset’.¹ This marked Southampton as the enemy since he did not support Somerset ruling with the power of a monarch over the council. A month after being created Earl of Southampton, Thomas Wriothesley was suddenly dismissed from the title of Lord Chancellor (which he held since 1544)  and he also lost his seat on the Privy Council. This was obviously to serve as a lesson to those who would disagree with Somerset.

Death of Queen Kateryn

After Kateryn Parr died I feel like Thomas became a little unhinged. He allegedly proposed to Elizabeth Tudor and then is suspected of trying to kidnap his nephew, the king.

Eventually things got so bad that Thomas was thrown in the Tower. I’m certain that Edward felt horrible knowing his brother was in the Tower but I also feel like he knew what had to be done.

The Seymour brothers, had they joined forces, could have become even more powerful alongside each other as uncles to the King of England. Unfortunately for Thomas, his brother Edward felt that the power should all be his for the keeping.

After Kateryn Parr died, a servant of Thomas Seymour told him that: “If ever any grudge were borne toward him [Thomas] by my Lady of Somerset, it was as most men guess for the queen’s cause, who now being taken away by death, it will undoubtedly follow that she [Duchess] will bear him as good heart as ever she did in her life.”¹

Also after Kateryn’s death, her cousin, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, hoped that Thomas would change his attitude towards his brother, Edward. He encouraged him to be more humble towards his brother and offered advice that if he were ‘either wise or politic he would become a new manner of man borth in heart and service’. Throckmorton also condemned Thomas for his laziness and his ambitions to get what he wanted and told him that he should ‘alter his manners, for the world beginneth to talk unfavorably of him’.¹

In The End

From early on the Seymour brothers were gifted with titles. Edward was given the title Viscount Beauchamp after his sister married the King in 1536. The following summer he became Earl of Hertford. At the same time his younger brother Thomas became Gentleman of the Privy Chamber. A year later he was granted the castle and manor of Holt in Cheshire and knighted prior to the christening of his nephew, Prince Edward, into the Knight of the Bath.¹ From that point, until the death of King Henry, Thomas was continually given lands, but no greater titles – those were saved for his elder brother, Edward. As we’ve discovered through this podcast it was never enough.

We can see from the beginning, after the death of the late king that Somerset appeared to want to elevate his own brother:

My lords, you know how long my brother, Master Seymour, has served, and how the King esteemed him, and if he had not died would have given him great rewards; and you also know that it is time the Earl of Warwick was allowed to rest, and had another less laborious office. My brother is young and is well fitted for this post, so if you approve I propose to make Warwick the Earl Constable, and my brother High Admiral.²

If Edward and Thomas had only found a way to settle their differences maybe neither of them would have eventually been executed. But, we’ll never know.

Sources:

The History of England, Under the House of Tudor
Scard, Margaret; Edward Seymour, Lord Protector – Tudor King in All But Name
Lipscomb, Suzannah; The King is Deadb
Loades, David; The Seymours of Wolf Hall 
Loades, David; Jane Seymour 
McLean, John; The Life of Sir Thomas Seymour 
Porter, Linda; Katherine Parr 
Norton, Elizabeth; Catherine Parr 
James, Susan; Catherine Parr
Starkey, David; Elizabeth – The Struggle for the Throne
Norton, Elizabeth; The Temptation of Elizabeth Tudor: Elizabeth I, Thomas Seymour, and the Making of a Virgin Queen

Notes:

¹Scard, Margaret; Edward Seymour, Lord Protector – Tudor King in All But Name

Facebook no longer shows our posts to a majority of our followers - Don't want to miss out on new articles? Get notified! Subscribe to email updates from Tudors Dynasty.

Join 5,011 subscribers.

Evidence Against the Marriage of Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves

evidence-against-the-marriage-of-henry-viii-and-anne-of-cleves

Here we look at all the King’s men and their given depositions regarding the validity of the marriage between Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves. It gives us an interesting insight into each of their statements.

We recently looked at Thomas Cromwell: Downfall and Execution and the events of his decline – now we look at what happened after his execution. How Henry VIII wished to rid himself of his fourth wife with the help of his closest courtiers: Suffolk, Wriothesley, Audley, Russell, Browne, Hennage, Denny, Cobham, two doctors and the ladies, Rutland, Rochford and Edgecomb.

We’ll look at letters to understand how everything played out in this saga, firstly one that is labeled, “The Deposition of Henry VIII”:

That after the Queen was brought to Greenwich, at her first arrival, in order to ascertain whether such promises as were made for the clearing of the espousals or marriage between the Queen and the duke of Lorraine were performed, the King had put off the espousing of the Queen two days, and the same evening entered communication by his counsel with them that were her conductors as to “what they had brought in that matter”; who said they had brought nothing at all in writing. Yet at Windsor it was promised that the said espousals should be clearly put out of doubt; and thereupon Dr. Wotton, then resident at Cleves, was instructed to solicit the clearing thereof, “as he, brought forth before the ambassadors, avouched that he had done.” Yet the conductors of the Queen made a light matter of it, saying that it was done in their minority and had never after taken any effect. At which the King was marvellously discontent, and would have stayed the solemnization, but that the conductors of the Queen promised shortly after their return home to send such a discharge as should put all out of doubt. This promise not only have they not fulfilled, but they have sent such a writing for discharge (not being authentic) as puts the matter in much more doubt, “couching the words of that sort that th’espousals by them spoken of to have been made long ago may be taken for espousals not only de futuro but also de presenti.” Thus “it appeareth plainly the King’s marriage not to be cleared as was promised, but to remain more intrykyd, and the condition of the clearing thereof, put always thereunto by the King’s Majesty, not to be fulfilled in any wise by them that so promised.”

Signed: Thomas Audeley, Chauncellor: T. Cantuariensis: T. Norfolk: Charlys Soffolke: W. Southampton: Cuthbert Duresme.
In Tunstall’s hand, pp. 3.

‘Henry VIII: July 1540, 1-10’, in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 15, 1540, ed. James Gairdner and R H Brodie (London, 1896), pp. 412-436.



The King’s good friend, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk gave his take on the matter and said:

Charles Brandon Photo Christie's Images Ltd 2011
Charles Brandon Photo Christie’s Images Ltd 2011

In the beginning of the treaty he noted specially that the King constantly affirmed that he would do nothing in the matter of the marriage unless the precontract between the lady Anne of Cleves and the marquis of Lorraine were first cleared. Whereupon the commissioners of the dukes of Saxe and Cleves promised on her coming to England to bring the full and evident clearing thereof, which they did not. The King, not content to be so handled, and as earnest as before to have that matter cleared, deferred the solemnization from Sunday until Tuesday “to compass the end; wherein, the earl of Essex travailed with the King’s Highness apart, and so that matter passed over.” He saw that the King liked not the Queen‘s person, and thought that the King “would have been glad if the solemnization might then to the world have been disappointed, without note of breach of his Highness’s behalf.” Signed.

‘Henry VIII: July 1540, 1-10’, in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 15, 1540, ed. James Gairdner and R H Brodie (London, 1896), pp. 412-436.

So with that we are to understand that all along there was concern about a precontract between Anne of Cleves and the Marquis of Lorraine and the King wished to have that cleared up before she came to England – it apparently had not.

The Lord Privy Seal, William FitzWilliam, 1st Earl of Southampton had the following deposition:

Portrait of William Fitzwilliam, Earl of Southampton, by Hans Holbein the Younger
Portrait of William Fitzwilliam, Earl of Southampton, by Hans Holbein the Younger

That, when admiral, he received the Queen at Calais. Upon first sight of her, considering it was no time to dispraise her whom so many had by reports and painting so much extolled, he did by his letters much praise her and was very sorry to perceive the King, upon sight of her, so to mislike her person. The earl of Essex laid sore to his charge that he had so much “praised the Queen by his letters from Calais” and declared his intention to turn the King’s miscontentment upon him. He answered he thought his praise to good purpose if he could have done any good by it, the matter being so far passed. He was sorry to see the King proceed so coldly with the marriage, the solemnization being deferred from Sunday to Tuesday, “and much fault found for the clearing of the precontract and want of a commission;” the ending of which controversy the earl of Essex, repairing secretly to the King, did procure; but what he said to the King the Earl cannot tell. That, eight days after the marriage, the earl of Essex told him that “the Queen was then a maid for the King’s Highness,” who had no affection for her; and a little before Easter the King declared to him that the marriage had not been consummated. Signed.

‘Henry VIII: July 1540, 1-10’, in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 15, 1540, ed. James Gairdner and R H Brodie (London, 1896), pp. 412-436.

 Next we look at John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford and his words on the matter when he was Lord High Admiral – Bedford would later take Cromwell’s position of Lord Privy Seal:
John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford, by Hans Holbein the Younger; Royal Collection, Windsor Castle
John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford, by Hans Holbein the Younger; Royal Collection, Windsor Castle
That he saw the King at his first view of the Queen at Rochester marvellously astonished and abashed. And the next day the King asked him if he thought the woman so fair and of such beauty as report had been made of her; to which he answered that he took her not for fair but to be of a brown complexion; and the King said, “Alas, whom should men trust? I promise you I see no such thing in her as hath been showed unto me of her, and am ashamed that men hath so praised her as they have done, and I like her not.” I saw his Highness was sore troubled at the time. All which matter he told to Sir Anthony Browne, who declared that the King had shewed the like to him. Signed: J. Russell, L. A.

‘Henry VIII: July 1540, 1-10’, in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 15, 1540, ed. James Gairdner and R H Brodie (London, 1896), pp. 412-436.

Sir Anthony Browne was the Master of Horse to Henry VIII and surely had a close relationship with the King – here we look at his take on the first meeting between Henry and Anne, the famous meeting where Henry felt rebuffed by his future wife. Browne also mentions how he had seen her before the King and also thought she did not look like her portrait, but he had not warned Henry of his find. Plus Browne’s wife had nothing polite to say about Anne either, as you’ll see.

Sir Anthony Browne after Unknown artist, line engraving, possibly late 18th century NPG D24235
Sir Anthony Browne after Unknown artist, line engraving, possibly late 18th century NPG D24235

That being sent to the Queen at Rochester by the King on new year’s day with a message that he had brought her a new years’ gift, he was never more dismayed in all his life to see the lady so far unlike that which was reported; but on his return he said nothing of this to the King; nor durst not. When the King entered to embrace and kiss her, he noted on his countenance a discontentment and misliking of her person, and the King tarried not to speak with her twenty words. The King that night deferred sending the presents that he had prepared for her, viz., a partlet furred with sables and sable skins for her neck, with a muffler furred and a cap, but sent them in the morning by Sir Anthony with a cold message. When returning from Rochester to Greenwich in his barge, the King said to him very sadly and pensively, “I see nothing in this woman as men report of her, and I marvel that wise men would make such report as they have done.” At which he was abashed, fearing for his brother, the earl of Southampton, who had written in her praise.

That lady Browne, his wife, departed, who was appointed to wait upon the Queen, told him before the marriage how she saw in the Queen such fashion and manner of bringing up so gross that in her judgment the King should never heartily love her. That on the evening before the marriage he heard the King say he had a great yoke to enter into, and the next morning the King prepared himself so slackly for chapel that he showed he went to do an act to which he was not moved by his entire and hearty consent, and said to the earl of Essex some words which seemed to mean that “he must needs.”

By the King’s behaviour before and after the marriage he judgeth that the King did never in his heart favour the lady to marry her if outward respects had not enforced him to that act. Signed: Antone Browne.

‘Henry VIII: July 1540, 1-10’, in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 15, 1540, ed. James Gairdner and R H Brodie (London, 1896), pp. 412-436.

 

A Gentleman of Henry’s Privy Chamber by the name of Sir Thomas Heneage mentions what he heard the King say:

Ever since the King saw the Queen he had never liked her; and said as often as he went to bed to her, he mistrusted the Queen‘s virginity, by reason of the looseness of her breasts and other tokens; and the marriage had never been consummated. Signed.

‘Henry VIII: July 1540, 1-10’, in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 15, 1540, ed. James Gairdner and R H Brodie (London, 1896), pp. 412-436.



As a prominent member of Henry VIII’s Privy Chamber, Anthony Denny was a confidant of the King’s, he essentially reiterated what Heneage said:

Probably a portrait of Sir Anthony Denny. Some people however say it is Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey.
Probably a portrait of Sir Anthony Denny. Some people however say it is Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey.

That he had continually praised the Queen to the King, who did not approve such praises, “but said ever she was no such as she was praised for,” and afterwards upon continual praisings the King told him, as a confidential servant, that he could not induce himself to have affection for her, for she was not as reported and had her breasts so slack and other parts of her body in such sort, that he suspected her virginity, and that he could never consummate the marriage. In reply he lamented the state of princes to be far worse than that of poor men who could choose for themselves. This communication, he thinks, was before Lent; and the King has since said things to the same effect. Signed

‘Henry VIII: July 1540, 1-10’, in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 15, 1540, ed. James Gairdner and R H Brodie (London, 1896), pp. 412-436.

Thomas Wriothesley was one of two of the King’s principal secretaries – he arguably had as close of a relationship to the King that Cromwell had — this deposition from Wriothesley gives us a look at conversations that the two men had while Cromwell still lived…of course Cromwell is not around to defend himself.

Thomas Wriothesley, 1st Earl of Southampton by Holbein Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York.
Thomas Wriothesley, 1st Earl of Southampton by Holbein Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York.

Detailing two conversations he had with lord Cromwell [the earl of Essex] in June last. On June 6th or 7th, when lord Cromwell came home to Austin Friars from the Court, he told him (Sir T.) that one thing rested in his head which troubled him, that the King liked not the Queen, nor did ever like her from the beginning, and that the marriage had not been consummated. He (Sir T.) said he thought some way might be devised to relieve the King, to which lord Cromwell answered that it was a great matter. The next day he asked lord Cromwell to devise some way for the relief of the King, for if he remained in this grief and trouble, they should all one day smart for it. To which lord Cromwell answered that it was true, but that it was a great matter. “Marry,” said Sir T., “I grant, but let the remedy be searched for.” “Well,” said lord Cromwell, and then brake off from him. Signed.
Hol., pp.
2.

‘Henry VIII: July 1540, 1-10’, in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 15, 1540, ed. James Gairdner and R H Brodie (London, 1896), pp. 412-436.

When it came time to discuss whether or not the marriage was consummated we look at Henry’s doctors and the ladies that were near Anne of Cleves.

609px-hans_holbein_d-_j-_043-1
Dr. John Chambre
Dr. Butts
Dr. Butts

Henry’s doctors, Dr. John Chambre and Dr. William Butts both gave their evidence to the non-consummation of the marriage. Henry was said to tell Butts that although he was unable to perform with Anne that he had “two wet dreams”. This proved that it was not Henry’s fault that Anne had failed to excite and provoke any lust in him.

Next we have the deposition of the ladies that Anne confessed the non-consummation of the marriage. Eleanor Paston, Countess of Rutland reported that when Anne was asked if she could be with child she said to her “When he comes to bed he kisseth me, and he taketh me by the hand, and biddeth me ‘Good night, sweetheart’; and in the morning kisseth me and biddeth ‘Farewell, darling’.” She responded to Anne, “Madam, there must be more than this, or it will be long ere we have a duke of York, which all this realm most desireth.” (Weir, Alison; Six Wives of Henry VIII)

It’s interesting to look at all the statements made here and makes one wonder if things had gone differently upon their first meeting would they have stayed married? Do you believe that Henry was not attracted to Anne and that’s what it boiled down to? I’d love to see some discussion on this. I am no expert on Anne but truly enjoy gathering evidence on her story.


Facebook no longer shows our posts to a majority of our followers - Don't want to miss out on new articles? Get notified! Subscribe to email updates from Tudors Dynasty.

Join 5,011 subscribers.



Religious Persecution: Anne Askew

Anne Askew16 July 1546

On the 16th of July 1546, the Protestant martyr, Anne Askew was burned at the stake for her beliefs. Anne had been unfairly racked “till her bones and joints were almost plucked asunder, in such sort as she was carried away in a chair”. She had been imprisoned in the Tower by Thomas Wriothesley and Richard Rich in an attempt to force her to implicate Katherine Parr (the Queen) and other prominent court members including: Anne Seymour and her husband Edward Seymour. She never gave up their names.

Anne Askew, John Lascelles, John Adams & Nicholas Belenian
Anne Askew, John Lascelles, John Adams & Nicholas Belenian



Anne Askew was strong in her beliefs – she truly believed that everyone should be able to read the bible for themselves and not only rely on the clergy to interpret it for them. Something we take for granted in the 21st century.

John Foxe,English historian and martyrologist, recorded the event in his book Actes and Monuments which was an book that emphasized the sufferings of English Protestants. Here is what he had to say:

John_Foxe_from_NPG_cleaned
John Foxe

Hitherto we have entreated of this good woman: now it remaineth that we touch somewhat as touching her end and martyrdom. She being born of such stock and kindred that she might have lived in great wealth and prosperity, if she would rather have followed the world than Christ, but now she was so tormented, that she could neither live long in so great distress, neither yet by the adversaries be suffered to die in secret. Wherefore the day of her execution was appointed, and she brought into Smithfield in a chair, because she could not go on her feet, by means of her great torment. When she was brought unto the stake she was tied by the middle with a chain that held up her body. When all things were thus prepared to the fire, Dr. Shaxton, who was then appointed to preach, began his sermon. Anne Askew, hearing and answering again unto him, where he said well, confirmed the same; where he said amiss, “There,” said she, “he misseth, and speaketh without the book.”



The sermon being finished, the martyrs standing there tied at three several stakes ready ready to their martyrdom, began their prayers. The multitude and concourse of people was exceeding; the place where they stood being railed about to keep out the press. Upon the bench under St. Bartholomew’s Church sat Wriothesley, chancellor of England; the old Duke of Norfolk, the old earl of Bedford, the lord mayor, with divers others. Before the fire should be set unto them, one of the bench, hearing that they had gunpowder about them, and being alarmed lest the faggots, by strength of the gunpowder about them, and being alarmed lest the faggots, by strength of the gunpowder, would come flying about their ears, began to be afraid; but the earl of Bedford, declaring unto him how the gunpowder was not laid under the faggots, but only about their bodies, to rid them out of their pain; which having vent, there was no danger to them of the faggots, so diminished that fear.

Then Wriothesley, lord chancellor, sent to Anne Askew letters offering to her the King’s pardon if she would recant; who refusing once to look upon them, made this answer again, that she came not thither to deny her Lord and Master. Then were the letters like-wise offered unto the others, who, in like manner, following the constancy of the the woman, denied not only to receive them, but also to look upon them. Whereupon the lord mayor, commanding fire to be put unto them, cried with a loud voice, “Fiat justicia.” (Let justice be done)

And thus the good Anne Askew, with these blessed martyr being troubled so many manner of ways, and having passed through so many torments, having now ended the long course of her agonies, being compassed in with flames of fire, as a blessed sacrifice unto God, she slept in the Lord A.D. 1546, leaving behind her a singular example of christian constancy for all men to follow.

Possible portrait of Anne Askew
Possible portrait of Anne Askew


References:

Ridgway, Claire; This Day in Tudor History: July 16
The Anne Boleyn Files: Anne Askew Sentenced to Death (June 18, 2010)
Luminarium: Encyclopedia Project – Anne Askew
Wikipedia: John Foxe

Get Notified

Facebook no longer shows our posts to a majority of our followers - Don't want to miss out on new articles? Get notified! Subscribe to email updates from Tudors Dynasty.

Join 5,011 subscribers.