THE CLANDESTINE MARRIAGE

Some five or six days after the betrothal of Lady Katherine to the Earl of Hertford, Queen Elizabeth elected to go with her train to Greenwich on a hunting expedition; and, summoning her ladies and maids, ordered them to make immediate preparations to follow her. Lady Katherine excused herself on the plea that she was sore afflicted with toothache, and as an evidence of the fact, exhibited her swollen face, tied up in a kerchief: whilst Lady Jane Seymour declared that she could “not go a-hunting, for she was sick with a bad headache.” The unsuspecting queen accepted these excuses and left the girls to their own devices. Scarcely had Her Majesty and her train left Westminster Palace, than the young ladies stole out and repaired to the Earl of Hertford’s house in Cannon Row, Westminster. His Lordship had previously despatched all his servants on various errands; some he sent into the city, others to the country, but his confidential valet was told to wait for him at a goldsmith’s shop in Fleet Street. Powell, the cook, however, afterwards deposed before the council that he had seen the Lady Katherine and the Lady Jane steal out of the water-gate stairs, and enter the earl’s chamber, to reach which they had to pass the kitchen door. In the earl’s bedroom was a priest, who performed the marriage service, Lady Jane Seymour being the only witness. The earl gave his bride a wedding ring, apparently the one already mentioned. Hertford afterwards asserted that the clergyman was brought to the house by Lady Jane, and described him as a fair-complexioned man of middle stature, with an auburn beard; he had no surplice, but wore a garb resembling that of the foreign Reformers who returned to England after Queen Mary’s death—a long furred black cloth gown, with a turn-down collar of white linen. Neither the earl nor Katherine seem to have known this reverend worthy’s name; but Lady Jane paid him a fee of ten pounds, out of the pocket money which her brother gave her for her clothes—he himself seems to have been short of cash at the time. A sort of informal wedding repast had been prepared in the earl’s chamber, but the Lady Katherine, we learn, was too much unnerved to eat or drink. About two hours after the brief ceremony was over, the earl escorted the young ladies down the stairs and “kissed Lady Katherine good-bye.” The tide had risen during the interval, and the maids of honour were obliged to take boat back to the palace, the pathway by which they had come being under water. They must have reached Westminster very early—the wedding took place in the morning[70]—for they dined at noon as usual at the table of the comptroller of the household. Nobody seems to have noticed their absence, nor, except the cook, to have paid attention to their movements, and for a time the queen remained in ignorance of the event. But Katherine had the temerity, at least so Hertford afterwards alleged, to wear the coif known as a “froze-paste,” under her hood: it may be remarked here that her sister, Lady Jane Grey, had worn a similar coif—not unlike a nun’s—at her execution. This close-fitting cap, which entirely concealed the hair, was worn by all married women, even if young, and is said to have been one of the reasons why Elizabeth refused to marry. She wished her subjects always to enjoy the privilege of admiring her magnificent hair. Under the circumstances, Lady Katherine would have been wiser to have disregarded this traditional custom.[71]

The course of true love did not flow smoothly for long, for on March 20, 1561, the learned, though youthful, Lady Jane Seymour died suddenly in her apartment at Westminster Palace. Elizabeth, who was much attached to her, and unaware of her share in Lady Katherine’s affairs, ordered a state funeral of great splendour, and six days after her death, Lady Jane was buried in St. Edmund’s Chapel, Westminster Abbey, where her monument is still to be seen, with an inscription to the effect that it was erected by “her dear brother,” the Earl of Hertford. All the queen’s ladies attended the funeral, among them being the Ladies Katherine and Mary Grey. Machyn gives a quaint account of what he calls the funeral of “my lade Jane Semer, the wyche was one of the Quen’s mayds and in grett favor.” Her death must have deeply grieved Lady Katherine, who was not only very fond of Lady Jane, but had found in her a sympathetic confidante.

Throughout the year 1561, the young couple exchanged regular, though secret, visits either at Westminster Palace or at Cannon Row. Lady Katherine, in her examination, said that, from the time of the marriage onwards to the death of Lady Jane Seymour, “considering herself as the earl’s wife, in her own heart, she was often in his company at sundry times by means of Lady Jane Seymour and a woman, her own maid, Mrs. Leigh, who was now gone from her. This woman never was bade to do it, but she would, of herself, if she saw my Lord and her [Katherine] whisper together, go out of the way.” Indeed, the discretion of Hertford and his wife was so great that no one appears to have realized the truth for a considerable time after the clandestine wedding had taken place, although, as already observed, Cecil and some of Katherine’s friends certainly suspected that a love intrigue was afoot.

About April 1561, the queen—possibly on the advice of Cecil, who, suspecting something untoward, wanted him out of the way—ordered Hertford to accompany Mr. Thomas Cecil, son of the above-named statesman, into France, where the young gentlemen were to take up certain legal studies. The Duchess of Somerset, evidently in total ignorance of what had occurred, addressed a letter to Cecil, on April 19, 1561, in which she says she is content to submit to her son’s going abroad; but adds: “I would wish him matched at home in some noble house to the Queen’s liking.” Whether there had been some disagreement between the mother and son it is now impossible to say, but the Duchess goes on to express her sorrow for “hys wylfulness,” and somewhat spitefully begs Cecil “not to spare him, but to overrule him.” Hertford was apparently not at all distressed by this sudden separation from his bride, from whom he seems to have taken leave at Greenwich, where the court was then staying. A few months later, the studious Mr. Cecil writes complaining that his “studies and meditations” are considerably disturbed and interrupted by “the gaieties and jaunts” organized by his youthful monitor, the earl.

Whilst her husband was thus gaily disporting himself in the French capital, Lady Katherine was left alone, to realize that soon she would no longer be able to conceal her condition. So great was her terror when she became certain of this, that she mislaid the deed of jointure assigning her £1000, which her husband had made in her favour before he left England; and in her terror, the forlorn little woman, on receiving orders to attend the queen during Her Majesty’s progress through Suffolk, rushed, one Sunday afternoon late in July or in August, to her old friend Mistress Saintlow, and confessed, with bitter tears, that in a few weeks she was sure to become a mother; “but,” added she, “I am an honest woman and am married to Lord Hertford.” The recipient of this astonishing information, instead of offering consolation, burst into an hysterical rage, and violently upbraided the wretched Katherine for selecting her as the confidante of her folly. How the poor girl spent the rest of that day we know not, but she must have worked herself into a perfect frenzy, for towards midnight she suddenly appeared, in her night-gown, at the bedside of her all-powerful brother-in-law, Lord Robert Dudley, who was fast asleep. His unexpected visitor’s lamentations soon roused him, and, to his amazement, he beheld her kneeling by his bed, shaking with sobs, and “in a most awesome state of mind.” With streaming eyes she confessed everything, and besought him to induce the queen to be merciful to her. She reminded him that he was the brother of young Guildford Dudley, the husband of her unhappy sister, Lady Jane, and entreated him, in the name of this slaughtered brother, whom he had fondly loved, to go to the queen and obtain her pardon. The nocturnal visit placed Lord Robert in a very difficult position, for if the dispatches of La Motte, FÉnelon and Quadra are reliable, Elizabeth invariably slept, as already said, in a chamber adjacent to his, and moreover communicating with it. Dudley was frightened out of his wits, lest the “Lioness of England” should suddenly rush in, to pounce upon the weeping Katherine in her night-gear. We are not told how he managed to rid himself of the distracted suppliant, but we do know that on the following morning he told Elizabeth the whole story, whereupon that royal virago burst into a whirlwind of rage, the immediate result of which was that the Lady Katherine was sent to the Tower that afternoon, and lodged in the part of it known as the Belfry. Cecil communicated Lady Katherine Grey’s situation to Archbishop Parker, in a letter dated August 12, 1561, in the following terms: “She is committed to the Tower, and he sent for [to come] home. She says she is married.” He doubted, or pretended to doubt, that a marriage had really taken place. Cecil, who was essentially self-seeking, had, in the days of Elizabeth’s greatest unpopularity, espoused her rival’s cause, and now, according to Quadra, he was anxious, at any cost, to avoid being implicated in unpleasant consequences. “What I understand by it all, is,” remarks the Spanish ambassador, “that Lady Katherine’s marriage ... [was] arranged a year ago, after the death of Robert’s wife, and that Cecil (who was then in great disgrace with the Queen and at enmity with Robert) was at the bottom of it, in the fear that, in accord with common belief, the Queen would marry Robert and restore religion to obtain Your Majesty’s favour. Since Cecil has returned to the good graces of the Queen, and has satisfied himself that there will be no change of religion, he has gradually and cautiously separated himself from these negotiations, and is now endeavouring to hush up and amend the past.” Nevertheless, Cecil did not entirely abandon Lady Katherine. The news of the marriage must, however, have come as rather a blow to Philip of Spain, since it scattered his own schemes for Katherine’s bestowal; whilst the inevitable imprisonment which followed, put her effectually out of his reach. From this time forth, Spanish interest in Katherine was considerably diminished.

Immediately after the queen was made aware of the marriage, the news was conveyed to Hertford’s mother, the old Duchess of Somerset, who forthwith, on August 22, wrote a monstrous letter to Cecil, casting all the blame of the affair on poor Katherine, and beseeching him to believe that she [the duchess] had no hand in the matter, declaring that “neither for child nor friend” would she willingly neglect the duty of a faithful subject. Hence she begs “good Master Secretary” to “stand her friend, that the wildness of mine unruly child do not minish [sic] Her Majesty’s favour towards me.”[72] But Her Majesty’s anger knew no bounds, and even poor Lady Saintlow was committed to the Tower, for the fell crime of having been Katherine’s involuntary confidante! A letter in Her Majesty’s own hand commanded Sir Edward Warner, Lieutenant of the Tower, to “examine the Lady Katherine, very straitly, how many hath been privy to the love between her and the Earl of Hertford from the beginning; and let her understand that she shall have no manner of favour except she will show the truth—not only what ladies and gentlewomen were thereto privy, but also what lords and gentlewomen of this court; for it doth now appear that sundry personages have dealt therein. When that shall appear more manifestly it shall increase our indignation against her, if she now forbears to utter it.” Apparently the queen, aware of the existence of the Spanish plot, hoped that, if one or other of the “sundry personages” was intimidated, they would reveal the whole truth. Very likely, too, she had a shrewd idea that Cecil was involved. Katherine was, however, obstinate—nothing would make her confess; so that on August 22, Warner informed the queen by letter that he had questioned Lady Katherine as to “the love practices between her and the earl” and that “she will confess nothing.”

Soon afterwards, Sir Edward received orders to furnish the Lady Katherine’s apartment with some of the cast-off splendour which lingered in the forsaken state apartments of the Tower. This furniture had very likely been used by the Lady Jane during the “nine-days’ reign,” or even by Elizabeth herself when a prisoner; and though described as “much worn, torn, and defaced”—so little value is set on historical objects in the days to which they belong—would doubtless now fetch its weight in gold at Christie’s. The unkindly office of critic of these relics of vanished grandeur assigned for the Lady Katherine’s use, was later on discharged by Sir Edward Warner, whose scathing comments on the “owld” stools and cushions are, as we shall see, most quaint and amusing. It may have been as well that the furniture of the Lady Katherine’s prison-dwelling was not in its primal magnificence, for before she had been two days in the Tower, her very extensive collection of parrots, monkeys,[73] and lap-dogs followed her from Westminster—and a nice smell and a pretty mess they must have made! However, the creatures were company of a kind, and no doubt heartily welcome to the captive.

Meanwhile the miserable bridegroom, recalled—apparently without warning of the fate which awaited him—from Paris, had arrived at Dover, and was promptly lodged in “Her Majesty’s house”—i.e. the castle. Whilst he was at breakfast with a certain Mr. Thomas Sackville and a Mr. Strange, Mr. Crispe, the “captain” of the castle, entered, and showed Hertford his commission for the latter’s arrest. This read, the “captain” formally arrested the young earl, who was deprived of his servants and of the society of his friends, taken up to London, and immediately lodged in the Tower (September 5). On the following day he was ordered to appear before the Marquis of Winchester, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Grindal Bishop of London, Sir William Petre, and a host of divines and seculars, and ordered to answer their questions regarding what they were pleased to call “his infamous proceedings with the Lady Katherine Grey.” Hertford behaved like a gentleman, and all the brow-beating and hectoring of his inquisitors failed to intimidate him. He swore he had been lawfully married, by a priest fetched by his sister, and described him in the terms already quoted. Search was forthwith made for this priest, whom people rightly imagined to be a Roman Catholic, but it was not until forty-six years later, in the reign of James I, that he was discovered, and the validity of the marriage proved. The report that he was a Catholic priest was then found to be correct; and the fact tends to prove that Lady Katherine was still a Catholic, with whom marriage is a Sacrament. The officiating clergyman being undiscoverable, Lady Jane Seymour, the principal witness of the wedding, lately dead, and the only tangible proofs of the ceremony the bridegroom’s own word and the wedding-ring, the legitimacy of the expected infant might easily have been then and there invalidated. But this course was not followed. It was deemed bad policy “to charge a princess of the blood with harlotry.”

The Lady Katherine was next examined. She shed floods of tears throughout the whole proceeding; and confirmed everything her husband had said. Exhibiting the curious five-pieced ring already mentioned, she added that before Lady Jane Seymour’s death she had told her she feared she was enceinte, and that she (Lady Jane) and Hertford had suggested an appeal to the queen’s mercy. She stated that some days before he left for France, she told her husband she thought she was about to become a mother, and that he replied, if this was indeed the case, he would return shortly to her. She admitted she had written to him during his absence, but had not received any answer to her letters; though, to her distress, he had sent various “tokens” to other ladies about the queen—which indicates a certain lack, on the earl’s part, of enthusiasm for his young bride, quite in accordance, however, with the festive existence he had been leading in Paris. She also mentioned the loss of the deed of settlement. She had written her husband a letter about this matter, to inform him of her condition, and had entrusted it to a man named Glynne, lately a servant in the employ of Lady Jane Seymour, and now apparently used as a spy by the queen. In this letter she advised her husband to return at once, and confess the whole affair. It only reached him one month before his official recall. Glynne lyingly pretended to the earl that his business in Paris was to find a relative of his who had “stolen his master’s money.” He had remained a considerable time in Paris, and when asked by the earl why he did so, gave an evasive answer. Hertford admitted the receipt of the letter brought by Glynne; and said he had sent his wife several letters from France, incidentally giving us a curious insight into the postal arrangements of the period. He despatched one note from Rouen by “the common letter-bag which went by packet.” From this it may be inferred that even in those days, some sort of regular postal service existed between this country and the Continent. Whether this service was hopelessly inefficient, or whether Hertford was not telling the truth when he said he had written Lady Katherine several letters, we are not able to affirm, but she swore, as we have said, that she never received a single line, although admitting that Lord Henry Seymour, Hertford’s brother, when she was at Havering in Essex, gave her a pair of bracelets from the earl. Hertford deposed that he entrusted one of his epistles to Monsieur “Jehan Renate, a merchant who lived on the bridge at Paris,” to whom he gave particular instructions “to deliver his letter into the very hands of Lady Katherine”; M. Renate, however, seems to have been unable to fulfil his mission, for she never even received this note. Lord Henry Seymour was also called, and deposed that he had carried presents from his brother to Katherine, even before the former went abroad; but though he thought some of these were rings, he denied handing Lady Katherine any letters from Hertford, either before or during his brother’s trip to the Continent. “Some of the earl’s letters,” he went on to say, “came by the common post, and some by Frannces the Post.” He also swore he knew nothing of the marriage, though it would appear from the above that he was aware of the existence of the missing correspondence. Elizabeth could possibly have thrown considerable light on the subject and even have produced the letters, had it suited her purpose so to do—for without doubt they were in her possession.