Read The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) Online
Authors: Peter Gwyn
82
Rymer, xiii, p.734.
83
Ibid, pp.739-42.
84
M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.171, where he gives as his source Reg.Vat. 1202, fo 110.
85
LP
, iii, 127; for the other letter see
LP
, iii, 98.
86
M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.182. Certainly their appearance in
LP
in 1519 seems too early, because it was not until June 1519 that Wolsey knew that his legatine powers would continue after Campeggio’s departure.
87
LP
, iii, 2625.
88
LP
, iii, 2633, 2752. See also M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.182-7; Kitching, pp.191-213.
89
M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.42-94.
90
LRO Bishop’s Possessions, Manional, unnumbered box. I am grateful to M. Bowker for a copy of this document and for much other help.
91
Kitching, p.195 states that the goods worth £100 had to be in one diocese, but this worries me.
92
BL Add.MSS, 48012.
93
LP
, v, 450.
94
LP
, iv, 6075 art.31. The article does not specify that only wills in the diocese of York were at issue, but since the archbishops of York appears not to have exercised any prerogative jurisdictions over wills until the Elizabethan period I am assuming this to be so; see Kitching, p.193.
95
Hall, p.765.
96
See Bowker ‘Some archdeacons’ court books’, pp.294-301.
97
SR
, p.286.
98
Bernard,
EHR
, xcvi, p.772.
99
In 1524 the executors of Sir Thomas Lovell paid £
66
13
s
4
d
for his probate in the joint-prerogative court with some additional fees to various officials amounting to about £20. His wealth is not known, but given his many years in royal service it must have been considerable; see
LP
, iv, 366.
100
LP
, iv, 3395. For Sir William Compton’s will see
LP
, iv, 4442.
101
LP
, iii, 2752.
102
135 LRO, Bishop’s Possessions, Marional, unnumbered box.
103
For Chichester BL Add MSS 34317, fo.33; for Ely
LP
, iii, 599; for Hereford
Registrum Caroli Bothe
, pp.189-90; and for Norwich
LP
, iv, 5589.
104
Guy,
EHR
, xcvii, pp.482-3.
105
In saying this, I am disagreeing with Guy’s interpretation in
EHR
, xcvii and following Bernard in
JEH
, 37 and Scarisbrick in
Cambridge Historical Journal
, xii.
106
LRO Bishop’s Possessions, Manorial, unnumbered box.
107
LP
, iii, 599, where it is placed in 1519. But Heal (‘Bishops of Ely’, pp.46-7) argues for 1523 or 1524, and of these two I prefer the latter, for that with Warham was only signed in January 1523.
108
Registrum Caroli Bothe
, pp.189-90.
109
Heal,
Of Prelates and Princes
, pp.62-4.
110
Ibid, p.328.
111
Ibid, p.62.
112
Registrum Caroli Bothe
, pp.189-90.
113
PRO SP l/19/fo.168 (
LP
, iii, 599).
114
BL MS Add 34317, fo 33; for its interpretation see S.J. Lander, ‘Church courts’, p.227.
115
LP
, iii, 2625.
116
John Allen, John Bell, William Benet, William Burbank, William Clayburgh, William Clayton, John Dowman, Richard Duke, Roland Lee and Edward Steward; see M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.178-80.
117
PRO C/85/188/fos.16 ff.
118
LP
, iv, 5095.
119
LP
, iii, 2625.
120
Associated Architectural Societies’ Reports and Papers
, xxviiii, p.638.
121
Houlbrooke; Bowker, ‘Some archdeacons’ court books’.
122
Brigden,
JEH
, 32, pp.289-90.
123
LP
, iv, 2619.
124
Baker, ii, pp.54-7 for biographical information.
125
He was to have what was left after various large legacies to the widow and two younger sons had been paid; see Roper, pp.xxxv-vi. But his father had secured his succession to the post of protonotary, and so may have felt that he had sufficiently provided for him.
126
LP
, iv, 1118 makes this clear, though not picked up by Kelly in his discussion of the case; see M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.190-1.
127
LP
, iv, 1118.
128
LP
, iv, 1518; for the will see
LP
, iv, 72.
129
Henry Ellis, 3 ser, ii, p.43 (
LP
, iv, 1157).
130
The reason for saying this is that the examination of the witnesses on 23 March 1526 took place before John Cocks, Warham’s commissary in the joint-prerogative court; see
LP
, iv, 1518.
131
M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.181.
132
For the criticisms of theologians asembled at Alcala in 1479 see Jedin, i, p.41.
133
Ibid, p.131.
134
The best introduction to this subject is Southern, pp.100-69. See also Thomson,
Popes and Princes
, with a useful bibliography.
135
PRO SP 1/39/fos, 19-29 (
LP
, iv, 2360); the period covered is July 1525 to July 1526.
136
Houlbrooke, p.185.
137
Henry Ellis, 1 ser, ii, pp.221-2.
138
Wilkins, iii, p.699.
139
The five summonses for 8 June are that for Wolsey’s vicar-general at Bath and Wells (
Registers of Thomas Wolsey, John Clerke, etc
, pp.27-8; for the bishop of Chichester (WSRO Epl/l/4/fos.104-6); for the bishop of Hereford (
Registrum Caroli Bothe
, pp.142-4); for the bishop of London, (GRO Register Tunstall, 9531/10/fo.34); for the prior of Butley (
Butley Priory
, pp.44-6). The two for 2 June are for the bishop of Lincoln (Wilkins, iii, p.700 though not in the extant registers); for the bishop of Rochester (KCA, DR c/R7/fo.110). Rochester’s summons for 2 June was issued on 7 May but so also was Wolsey’s vicar-general’s for 8 June.
140
See Elton,
Reform and Reformation
, p.92; Guy,
EHR
, xcvii, pp.483-4; M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.174-7; A.F. Pollard, pp.187-91.
141
Vergil, p.305.
142
Ibid, p.307.
143
M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.175 for the suggestion; for the correction
LP
, iii, 2483 [1]; Goring,
EHR
, lxxxvi, p.701, n.2.
144
Nix was excluded in connection with the
quo warranto
proceedings at King’s Lynn. It may be this that prompted Elton to name him amongst Wolsey’s opponents in 1523 (
Reform and Reformation
, p.92), but there is no other evidnce for it.
145
LP
, vi, 1672.
146
LP
, iv, 183. Gloucester College was the first Benedictine Hall in Oxford. It stood on the site now occupied by Worcester College.
147
Heath,
BIHR
, xlii, pp.101-9.
148
Hall, p.655.
149
Vergil, p.305.
150
M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.307-8. Wolsey estimated that it would bring in £120,000; see
LP
, iii, 2483 [3].
151
Knowles,
JEH
, 3, pp.144-58.
152
Harper-Bill,
JEH
, 29, pp.6 ff. for both episodes.
153
M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.42-94.
154
Cavendish, p.16.
155
See pp.31-2 above.
156
On 7 Feb. 1519; Wolsey’s having been summoned for 14 March. A copy of Warham’s summons is to be found in BL MS Add 48012, fo.53v.
157
Wilkins, iii, pp.660-1 (
LP
, iii, 77 (2)). It is not dated but presumably written fairly soon after Warham’s summonses had been sent out on 2 Dec.
158
PRO SP l/18/fo.37 (
LP
, iii, 77 [6]).
159
Guy,
Cardinal’s Court
, pp.76, 164-5 for the suggestion and documentation; see also Elton,
Reform and Reformation
, pp.56-7.
160
Scarisbrick,
Henry
VIII
, p.330
161
Kelly’s suggestion that Warham failed to turn up for the legatine council depends in my view on a misdating of
LP
, iii, 120. Though placed in 1519 in
LP
, the suggestion in AC, i, p.20 of 1523 seems to me more likely; but see M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.167.
162
Here I am following Kelly (‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.186-7), though in general he takes a gloomier view of their relationship than I do.