Search Results

The return of the duke of Norfolk was obviously a considerable relief to the Yorkshire gentry. He arrived at Doncaster, as promised, on February 1, where a number of the gentry and nobility had gathered to meet him, amongst them Sir Thomas and Sir Ingram Percy, the younger brothers of the earl of Northumberland. From Doncaster Norfolk made his way to Pontefract, where he was obliged to arbitrate between Thomas Darcy and Sir George Darcy over the custody of the castle. The king's decision to relieve Darcy of responsibility led Darcy to write to Robert Aske begging the return of munitions which he had taken from the castle during the Pilgrimage, a letter which the Crown was able to exploit after it fell into its hands. The gentry who warmly received the duke were frightened of the commons: they recognised that if the commons were not returned to obedience, then they would lose their property to them.

In the first week of October 1536, Henry VIII's policy was one of containment to prevent the movement of the Lincolnshire rebels either southwards towards Stamford, Peterborough, and ultimately London, or westwards, over the Trent and into the east Midlands. Whilst this was being done, the Crown paid little attention to the few reports coming out of Yorkshire. On October 15, the earl of Shrewsbury was ordered to repress the rebels in Yorkshire when he was satisfied that the Lincolnshire rebellion had been squashed; on October 17, he was to advance against them, and Sir Arthur Darcy was told to lead 1,000 men from Pontefract to relieve the city of York. Despite the duke of Norfolk's strategic analysis, the earl of Shrewsbury advanced beyond the Trent to hold the line of the Don and established his camp at Scrooby, 10 miles to the south of Doncaster, on October 22.

At the first Doncaster meeting the gentry leadership of the Pilgrimage of Grace and the duke of Norfolk devised the means to disband the Pilgrims' army. At the second Doncaster meeting they went a stage further and wound up the Pilgrimage in return for a pardon, a number of ill-defined promises to assuage the commons, and the promise of a parliament. The first few days of December 1536 continued to see differences of opinion between Henry VIII and Norfolk over the Pilgrimage. The king believed that the movement had burnt itself out. Little in the way of concessions would be needed to bring it to a conclusion. Sending Norfolk new instructions on December 2, he argued that Norfolk had over-coloured his account of the rebels' numbers and hostility. He was surprised that the duke accepted that the Pilgrims sought a general pardon and a parliament without having met with them.

This chapter shifts the focus to women's involvement in the electoral process. It opens with a study of Lady Irwin's extended and successful struggle for control over her borough of Horsham against the duke of Norfolk in the last quarter of the 18th century, and suggests that her motivations for electoral involvement, and those of other women like her, were personal, familial, and ideological — not unlike those of their male counterparts. By highlighting the electoral activities of a number of aristocratic widows, it allows us to gain a more rounded understanding of women's electoral involvement.

Newman was elected an honorary fellow by his old college, Trinity, and returned to Oxford again after many years. And at the beginning of December 1878, the Duke of Norfolk personally suggested to the Pope that Rome formally recognise Newman's loyalty and orthodoxy. The offer was unusual because Newman was neither a bishop nor resident in Rome. Newman was elevated to Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII. Newman's health deteriorated and he celebrated mass for the last time on Christmas Day 1889. He died of pneumonia on August 11, 1890 and was buried at Rednal in the grave of Ambrose St. John. On his memorial-tablet were inscribed the words “Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem” (Out of unreality into reality).

This chapter traces the assault on Mary Stuart through the invocation of the Ridolfi plot, first in performance, rumour, and print and subsequently in the trial of the duke of Norfolk and in parliament. Parliament features as an echo chamber or amplifier, a means to elicit certain opinions and then to disseminate them out again into the country, while rendering the costs of dissent all too plain. Particular attention is paid to a pro-Marian counter narrative of recent events in Scotland, and to the existence, in England, of a Marian, crypto-Catholic, anti-Puritan alternative to the policies being pushed by elements in the regime and the parliament, to the suppression of which elements in the regime dedicated much time and energy.