John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland

For other people named John Dudley, see John Dudley(disambiguation).

John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, KG(1504[1] – 22August 1553) was an English general, admi-ral, and politician, who led the government of the youngKing Edward VI from 1550 until 1553, and unsuccess-fully tried to install Lady Jane Grey on the English throneafter the King’s death. The son of Edmund Dudley, aminister of Henry VII executed byHenry VIII, JohnDud-ley became the ward of Sir EdwardGuildford at the age ofseven. He grew up in Guildford’s household together withhis future wife, Guildford’s daughter Jane, with whom hewas to have 13 children. Dudley served as Vice-Admiraland Lord Admiral from 1537 until 1547, during whichtime he set novel standards of navy organisation and wasan innovative commander at sea. He also developed astrong interest in overseas exploration. Dudley took partin the 1544 campaigns in Scotland and France and wasone of Henry VIII’s intimates in the last years of the reign.He was also a leader of the religious reform party at court.In 1547 Dudley was created Earl of Warwick and, withthe Duke of Somerset, England’s Lord Protector, dis-tinguished himself in the renewed Scottish war at theBattle of Pinkie. During the country-wide uprisings of1549 Dudley put down Kett’s Rebellion in Norfolk. Con-vinced of the Protector’s incompetence, he and otherprivy councillors forced Somerset out of office in Octo-ber 1549. Having averted a conservative reaction in reli-gion and a plot to destroy him alongside Somerset, Dud-ley emerged in early 1550 as de facto regent for the 12-year-old Edward VI. He reconciled himself with Somer-set, who nevertheless soon began to intrigue against himand his policies. Somerset was executed on largely fabri-cated charges, three months after Dudley had been raisedto the Dukedom of Northumberland in October 1551.As Lord President of the Council, Dudley headed a dis-tinctly conciliar government and sought to introduce theadolescent King into business. Taking over an almostbankrupt administration, he ended the costly wars withFrance and Scotland and tackled finances in ways thatled to some economic recovery. To prevent further up-risings he introduced countrywide policing on a localbasis, appointing Lords Lieutenants who were in closecontact with the central authority. Dudley’s religiouspolicy was—in accordance with Edward’s proclivities—decidedly Protestant, further enforcing the English Ref-ormation and promoting radical reformers to high Churchpositions.

The 15-year-old King fell ill in early 1553 and ex-cluded his half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth, whom he re-garded as illegitimate, from the succession, designatingnon-existent, hypothetical male heirs. As his death ap-proached, Edward changed his will so that his Protes-tant cousin Jane Grey, Northumberland’s daughter-in-law, could inherit the Crown. To what extent the Dukeinfluenced this scheme is uncertain. The traditional viewis that it was Northumberland’s plot to maintain his powerby placing his family on the throne. Many historians seethe project as genuinely Edward’s, enforced by Dudleyafter the King’s death. The Duke did not prepare wellfor this occasion. Having marched to East Anglia to cap-ture Princess Mary, he surrendered on hearing that thePrivy Council had changed sides and proclaimedMary asQueen. Convicted of high treason, Northumberland re-turned to Catholicism and abjured the Protestant faith be-fore his execution. Having secured the contempt of bothreligious camps, popularly hated, and a natural scapegoat,he became the “wicked Duke”—in contrast to his prede-cessor Somerset, the “good Duke”. Only since the 1970shas he also been seen as a Tudor Crown servant: self-serving, inherently loyal to the incumbent monarch, andan able statesman in difficult times.

1 Career under Henry VIII

Arms of John Dudley as Duke of Northumberland

John Dudley was the eldest of three sons of Edmund

1

2 1 CAREER UNDER HENRY VIII

Dudley, a councillor of King Henry VII, and his sec-ond wife Elizabeth Grey, daughter of Edward Grey, 4thViscount Lisle.[2] His father was attainted and executedfor high treason in 1510, having been arrested immedi-ately after Henry VIII's accession because the new Kingneeded scapegoats for his predecessor’s unpopular finan-cial policies.[3] In 1512 the seven-year-old John becamethe ward of Sir Edward Guildford and was taken into hishousehold.[4] At the same time Edmund Dudley’s attain-der was lifted and John Dudley was restored “in nameand blood”. The King was hoping for the good services“which the said John Dudley is likely to do”.[5] At aboutage 15 John Dudley probably went with his guardian tothe Pale of Calais to serve there for the next years.[6]He took part in Cardinal Wolsey's diplomatic voyages of1521 and 1527, and was knighted by Charles Brandon,1st Duke of Suffolk during his first major military ex-perience, the 1523 invasion of France.[7] In 1524 Dud-ley became a Knight of the Body, a special mark of theKing’s favour,[8] and from 1534 he was responsible for theKing’s body armour as Master of the Tower Armoury.[9]Being “the most skilful of his generation, both on foot andon horseback”, he excelled in wrestling, archery, and thetournaments of the royal court, as a French report statedas late as 1546.[9]

In 1525 Dudley married Guildford’s daughter Jane, whowas four years his junior and his former class-mate.[1]The Dudleys belonged to the new evangelical circles ofthe early 1530s,[10] and their 13 children were educatedin Renaissance humanism and science.[11] Sir EdwardGuildford died in 1534 without a written will. His onlyson having predeceased him, Guildford’s nephew, JohnGuildford, asserted that his uncle had intended him to in-herit. Dudley and his wife contested this claim. The par-ties went to court and Dudley, who had secured ThomasCromwell's patronage, won the case.[12] In 1532 he lenthis cousin, John Sutton, 3rd Baron Dudley, over ₤7,000on the security of the baronial estate.[13] Lord Dudley wasunable to pay off any of his creditors, so when the mort-gage was foreclosed in the late 1530s Sir John Dudleycame into possession of Dudley Castle.[14]

Dudley was present at Henry VIII’s meeting with FrancisI of France at Calais in 1532. Another member ofthe entourage was Anne Boleyn, who was soon to bequeen. Dudley took part in the christenings of PrincessElizabeth and Prince Edward[15] and, in connection withthe announcement of the Prince’s birth to the Emperor,travelled to Spain via France in October 1537.[16] Hesat in the Reformation parliament for Kent, in place ofhis deceased father-in-law,[17] in 1534–1536, and ledone of the contingents sent against the Pilgrimage ofGrace in late 1536.[18] In January 1537 Dudley wasmade Vice-Admiral and began to apply himself to navalmatters.[19] He was Master of the Horse to Anne ofCleves and Katherine Howard,[20] and in 1542 returnedto the House of Commons as MP for Staffordshire[17]but was soon promoted to the House of Lords when he

became Viscount Lisle after the death of his stepfatherArthur Plantagenet and “by the right of his mother”.[21]Being now a peer, Dudley became Lord Admiral and aKnight of the Garter in 1543; he was also admitted to thePrivy Council.[22] In the aftermath of the Battle of Sol-way Moss in 1542 he served as Warden of the ScottishMarches, and in the 1544 campaign the English force un-der Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford was supported bya fleet which Dudley commanded. Dudley joined the landforce that destroyed Edinburgh, after he had blown themain gate apart with a culverin.[23] In late 1544 he wasappointed Governor of Boulogne, the siege of which hadcost the life of his eldest son, Henry.[24] His tasks wereto rebuild the fortifications to King Henry’s design and tofend off French attacks by sea and land.[25]

In 1545 Lord Admiral John Dudley, Viscount Lisle welcomedKing Henry VIII on board the Henri Grace a Dieu, popularlycalled Great Harry.

As LordAdmiral, Dudley was responsible for creating theCouncil for Marine Causes, which for the first time co-ordinated the various tasks of maintaining the navy func-tioning and thus made English naval administration themost efficient in Europe.[1] At sea, Dudley’s fighting or-ders were at the forefront of tactical thinking: Squadronsof ships, ordered by size and firepower, were to manoeu-vre in formation, using co-ordinated gunfire. These wereall new developments in the English navy.[26] In 1545 hedirected the fleet’s operations before, during, and afterthe Battle of the Solent and entertainedKingHenry on theflagshipHenri Grace a Dieu. A tragic loss was the sinkingof theMary Rose with 500 men aboard.[27] In 1546 JohnDudley went to France for peace negotiations. When hesuspected the Admiral of France, Claude d'Annebault, ofmanoeuvres which might have led to a renewal of hostili-ties, he suddenly put to sea in a show of English strength,before returning to the negotiating table.[28] He then trav-elled to Fontainebleau, where the English delegates wereentertained by the Dauphin Henri and King Francis. Inthe Peace of Camp, the French king acknowledged HenryVIII’s title as “Supreme Head of the Church of Englandand Ireland”, a success for both England and her LordAdmiral.[29]

3

John Dudley, popularly fêted and highly regarded byKing Henry as a general,[30] became a royal intimate whoplayed cards with the ailing monarch.[24] Next to EdwardSeymour, Prince Edward's maternal uncle, Dudley wasone of the leaders of the Reformed party at court, andboth their wives were among the friends of Anne Askew,the Protestant martyr destroyed by Bishop Stephen Gar-diner in July 1546.[31] Dudley and the Queen’s brother,William Parr, tried to convince Anne Askew to conformto the Catholic doctrines of the Henrician church, yet shereplied “it was great shame for them to counsel contraryto their knowledge”.[1] In September Dudley struck Gar-diner in the face during a full meeting of the Council.This was a grave offence, and he was lucky to escapewith a month’s leave from court in disgrace.[32] In thelast weeks of the reign Seymour and Dudley played theirparts in Henry’s strike against the conservative Houseof Howard, thus clearing the path for a Protestant mi-nority rule.[33] They were seen as the likely leaders ofthe impending regency[34]—"there are no other noblesof a fit age and ability for the task”, Eustache Chapuys,the former Imperial ambassador, commented from hisretirement.[35]

2 From Earl of Warwick to Dukeof Northumberland

The 16 executors of Henry VIII’s will also embodied theRegency Council that had been appointed to rule collec-tively during Edward VI’s minority.[36] The new Coun-cil agreed on making Edward Seymour, Earl of Hert-ford Lord Protector with full powers, which in effectwere those of a prince.[37] At the same time the Coun-cil awarded themselves a round of promotions based onHenry VIII’s wishes; the Earl of Hertford became theDuke of Somerset and John Dudley was created Earl ofWarwick.[38][note 1] The newEarl had to pass on his post ofLord Admiral to Somerset’s brother, Thomas Seymour,but advanced to Lord Great Chamberlain. Perceived asthe most important man next the Protector, he was onfriendly terms with Somerset,[39] who soon reopened thewar with Scotland. Dudley accompanied him as second-in-command with a taste for personal combat.[40] On oneoccasion he fought his way out of an ambush and, spear inhand, chased his Scottish counterpart for some 250 yards(230 m), nearly running him through.[41] In the Battle ofPinkie Dudley led the vanguard, being “one of the keyarchitects of the English victory”.[42]

The Protector’s agrarian policy and proclamations wereinspired by a group of intellectuals sometimes called “thecommonwealth men”. These were highly critical of land-lords and left many commoners with the impression thatenclosures were unlawful.[44] As one of England’s majorlandowners, Dudley soon feared that this would lead toserious trouble and discreetly tried to warn Somerset.[45]By the summer of 1549 there was widespread unrest

Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset. In October 1549, the LordProtector proclaimed his recalcitrant colleagues to have “comeup of late from the dunghill ... more meet to keep service than tooccupy offices”.[43]

or even rebellion all over England.[46] The Marquess ofNorthampton had been unable to restore order in andaround Norwich,[47] so John Dudley was sent to get holdof Kett’s Rebellion. Dudley offered Robert Kett a pardonon the condition that the peasant army disband at once.This was rejected and the next night Dudley stormed therebel-held city with a small mercenary contingent anddrove the rebels out after fierce street fighting; 49 pris-oners he had immediately hanged. Two days later Kett,who had his main camp outside the city, confronted theroyal army, resulting in a slaughter of over 2,000 peasants.In the following weeks Dudley concucted courts-martialwhich executed many rebels, perhaps up to 300.[48] Forthe enraged and humiliated local gentry this was still notenough punishment, so Dudley warned them: “Is thereno place for pardon? ... What shall we then do? Shall wehold the plough ourselves, play the carters and labour theground with our own hands?" [49]

The Lord Protector, in his proclamations, appealed to thecommon people.[50] To his colleagues, whom he hardlyconsulted,[51] he displayed a distinctly autocratic and “in-creasingly contemptuous” face.[50] By autumn 1549 thesame councillors who had made him Protector were con-vinced that he had failed to exercise proper authorityand was unwilling to listen to good counsel.[52] Dud-ley still had the troops from the Norfolk campaign athis disposal, and in October 1549 he joined the Earl

4 3 RULING ENGLAND

of Southampton and the Earl of Arundel, prominent re-ligious conservatives, to lead a coup of councillors tooust the Protector from office.[53] They withdrew fromcourt to London, meeting in Dudley’s residence. Startingwith the Protector, each side issued proclamations accus-ing the other of treason and declared to act in defenceof the King’s safety.[54] Somerset tried in vain to raisea popular force and entrenched himself with the Kingat the fortress Windsor Castle. Military force near Ed-ward’s presence was unthinkable and, apparently, Dud-ley and Archbishop Cranmer brokered an unofficial dealwith Somerset, who surrendered.[55] To keep appear-ances, the 12-year-old King personally commanded hisuncle’s arrest.[56] For a moment there was hope of a con-servative restoration in some quarters.[57] However, Dud-ley and Cranmer secured the Reformed agenda by per-suading Edward to appoint additional Reformed-mindedmembers to the Council and Privy Chamber.[58] In De-cember 1549 Southampton tried to regain predominanceby charging Dudley with treason, alongside Somerset,for having been an original ally of the Protector.[59] Thescheme misfired when Dudley invited the Council to hishouse and baffled the plotters by exclaiming, with hishand at his sword and “a warlike visage": “my lord, youseek his [Somerset’s] blood and he that seeketh his bloodwould have mine also”.[60]

Dudley consolidated his power through institutional ma-noeuvres and by January 1550 was in effect the newregent. On 2 February 1550 he became Lord Presi-dent of the Council, with the capacity to debar coun-cillors from the body and appoint new ones.[61] He ex-cluded Southampton and other conservatives, but ar-ranged Somerset’s release and his return to the PrivyCouncil and Privy Chamber.[62] In June 1550 Dudley’sheir John married Somerset’s daughter Anne as a markof reconciliation.[63] Yet Somerset soon attracted polit-ical sympathizers and hoped to re-establish his powerby removing Dudley from the scene,[64] “contemplat-ing”, as he later admitted, the Lord President’s arrest andexecution.[65] Relying on his popularity with the masses,he campaigned against and tried to obstruct Dudley’spolicies.[66] His behaviour increasingly threatened the co-hesion vital within a minority regime.[67] In that respectWarwick would take no chances,[68] and he now also as-pired to a dukedom. He needed to advertise his powerand impress his followers; like his predecessor, he hadto represent the King’s honour.[69] His elevation as Dukeof Northumberland came on 11 October 1551 with theDuke of Somerset participating in the ceremony.[70] Fivedays later Somerset was arrested, while rumours aboutsupposed plots of his circulated. He was accused of hav-ing planned a “banquet massacre”, in which the Coun-cil were to be assaulted and Dudley killed.[71] Somersetwas acquitted of treason, but convicted of felony for rais-ing a contingent of armed men without a licence. Hewas executed on 22 January 1552. While technicallylawful,[72] these events contributed much to Northum-berland’s growing unpopularity.[73] Dudley himself, ac-

cording to a French eyewitness, confessed before his ownend that “nothing had pressed so injuriously upon hisconscience as the fraudulent scheme against the Duke ofSomerset”.[74]

3 Ruling England

King Edward VI c. 1550

Instead of taking the title of Lord Protector, John Dud-ley set out to rule as primus inter pares.[75] "[He] isabsolute master here”, Francis van der Delft, Imperialambassador, commented.[76] Nevertheless, as the sameand other ambassadors noted, the working atmospherehad markedly changed from autocratic to conciliar.[77]The new Lord President of the Council reshuffled somehigh offices, becoming Grand Master of the Householdhimself and giving Somerset’s former office of LordTreasurer to William Paulet, 1st Marquess of Winch-ester.[78] The office of Grand Master entailed super-vising the Royal Household, which gave Dudley themeans to control the Privy Chamber and thus the King’s

3.1 Social and economic policy 5

surroundings.[79] This was done via his “special friends”(as he called them), Sir John Gates and Lord ThomasDarcy.[80] Dudley also placed his son-in-law Sir HenrySidney and his brother Sir Andrew Dudley near theKing.[81] William Cecil was still in the Duke of Somer-set’s service when he gradually shifted his loyalty to JohnDudley, who made him Secretary of State and thoughthim “a most faithful servant and by that term most witty[wise] councillor ... as was scarce like in this realm”.[82]In this position Cecil was Dudley’s trusted right hand,who primed the Privy Council according to the LordPresident’s wishes. At the same time Cecil had intimatecontact with the King because Edward worked closelywith the secretaries of state.[83]

Dudley organised Edward’s political education so that heshould take an interest in affairs and at least appear toinfluence decisions.[84] He wanted the King to grow intohis authority as smoothly as possible. Disruptive conflictswhen Edward took over government could thus be min-imised, while Dudley’s chances to continue as principalminister would be good.[85] From the age of about 14Edward’s signature on documents no longer needed theCouncil’s countersignatures,[86] and the King was regu-larly debriefed in meetings with a Council of his ownchoosing—the principal administrators and the Duke ofNorthumberland were among the chosen.[87] Dudley hada warm if respectful relationship with the teenager, who“loved and feared” him according to Jehan de Schey-fye, the Imperial ambassador.[88] At a dinner Edward dis-cussed with the envoy at length until Northumberland dis-creetly indicated to the King that he had said enough.[89]Yet the Duke did not necessarily have his way in allthings. In 1552–1553 the King’s hand can be discernedbehind decisions (and omissions) that directly contra-vened Dudley’s wishes.[90] At court, complex networksof influence were at work and Edward listened to morethan one voice.[91] Regarding the question to what extentEdward played a role in his own government, Stephen Al-ford writes:

It is possible to endorse Edward’s devel-oping grasp of the business of kingship andaccept the still powerful political presence ofJohn Dudley and his colleagues. The structuresof ... the ... Council and the royal householdbegan to adapt themselves to the implications ofthe king’s age ... the dynamics of power at thecentre were capable of reshaping themselvesbecause themen around the king accepted that,in the circumstances, they should.[92]

3.1 Social and economic policy

The English people, as is evident from contemporarybroadsheet ballads and alehouse talk, were generally dis-affected to the men who ruled in the name of theirking.[93] Having inherited a failed government, Dudley set

out to restore administrative efficiency and maintain pub-lic order to prevent renewed rebellion as seen in 1549.[93]Equipped with a new law “for the punishment of unlaw-ful assemblies”,[94] he built a united front of landholdersand Privy Council, the government intervening locally atany sign of unrest.[95] Dudley’s methods were a mixtureof old and new. He returned to the ancient practice ofgranting licences to retain liveried followers and installedLord Lieutenants that represented the central governmentand were to keep ready small bands of cavalry.[96] Thesemeasures proved effective and the country was calm forthe rest of the reign. In fact, in the summer of 1552—ayear before the succession crisis—the cavalry bands weredisbanded to savemoney and because they had never beenactually needed.[97]

In a more practical style than Somerset, John Dud-ley strove to alleviate the social situation.[98] The 1547“Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds”, which had en-acted that any unemployed man found loitering was to bebranded and given to the “presentor” as a slave,[51] wasabolished as too harsh in 1550.[99] In 1552 Northumber-land pushed a novel Poor Law through parliament whichprovided for weekly parish-based collections for the “re-lief of the poor”.[100] Parishes were to register their needyinhabitants as well as the amounts people agreed to givefor them, while unwilling contributors were to be “in-duced” by the parson and, if need be, by the bishop.[100]The years 1549–1551 saw poor harvests and, accordingly,soaring food prices. Dudley tried to intervene againstthe “insatiable greediness” of middlemen by searches forhidden corn and by fixing maximum prices for grain,meat, and other victuals.[101] However, the set priceswere so unrealisitic that farmers stopped to sell their pro-duce at the open market and the regulations had to berescinded.[102] The regime’s agrarian policy, while giv-ing landlords much freedom to enclose common land,also distinguished between different forms of enclosure.Landlords guilty of illegal enclosures were increasinglyprosecuted.[103]

The financial legacy of the Protectorate consisted, apartfrom crippling Crown debts, of an unprecedentedly de-based coinage.[104] On the second day as Lord Presi-dent of the Council, Dudley began a process to tacklethe problems of the mint; his declared aim was “tohave his majesty out of debt”.[105] He set to work withWalter Mildmay and Sir William Herbert, cracking downon peculation by the officers of the mint and otherinstitutions.[106] In 1551 they at the same time tried toyield profit and restore confidence in the coin by issuingyet further debased coinage and “crying it down” imme-diately afterwards.[107] The result was panic and confu-sion and, to get hold of the situation, a coin of 92.3%silver content (against 25% silver content in the last de-basement) was issued within months.[51] The bad coinprevailed over the good, however, because people hadlost confidence.[108] Northumberland admitted to his col-leagues that he found finance a puzzling and disagreeable

6 3 RULING ENGLAND

thing, and told Lord Treasurer Winchester to find otherexperts to deal with it. Thomas Gresham's services werecalled upon.[109] After the first good harvest in four years,by late 1552 the currency was stable, prices for food-stuffs had dropped, and a basis for economic recovery hadbeen laid. A process to centralise the administration ofCrown revenue was underway and foreign debt had beeneliminated.[110]

3.2 Religious policy

The use of the Book of Common Prayer became law in1549. King Edward’s half-sister, Mary Tudor, de factohad licence to continue hearing mass in private. So soonas he was in power, Dudley put pressure on her to stop themisuse of her privilege, as she allowed her entire house-hold and flocks of visitors to attend.[111]Mary, who in herturn did not tolerate the Book of Common Prayer in anyof her residences, was not prepared to make any conces-sions. She planned to flee the country but then could notmake up her mind in the last minute.[112] Mary totallydisregarded Edward’s personal interest in the issue andfell into “an almost hysterical fear and hatred” of JohnDudley.[112] After a meeting with King and Council, inwhich she was told that the crux of the matter was notthe nature of her faith but her disobedience to the law,she sent the Imperial ambassador de Scheyfye to threatenwar on England.[113] The English government could notswallow a war threat from an ambassador who had over-stepped his commission, but at the same time wouldnot risk all-important commercial ties with the HabsburgNetherlands, so an embassy was sent to Brussels and someof Mary’s household officers were arrested.[114] On hisnext visit to the Council de Scheyfye was informed by theEarl of Warwick that the King of England had as muchauthority at 14 as he had at 40—Dudley was alluding toMary’s refusal to accept Edward’s demands on grounds ofhis young age.[115] In the end a silent compromise cameinto effect: Mary continued to hear mass in a more pri-vate manner, while augmenting her landed property byexchanges with the Crown.[116]

Appealing to the King’s religious tastes, John Dud-ley became the chief backer of evangelical Protestantsamong the clergy, promoting several to bishoprics—forexample John Hooper and John Ponet.[117] The EnglishReformation went on apace, despite its widespreadunpopularity.[118] The 1552 revised edition of theBook of Common Prayer rejected the doctrine oftransubstantiation, and the Forty-two Articles, issued inJune 1553, proclaimed justification by faith and deniedthe existence of purgatory. Despite these being cher-ished projects of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer,[51] hewas displeased with the way the government handledtheir issue.[119] By 1552 the relationship between theprimate and the Duke was icy. To prevent the Churchfrom becoming independent of the state, Dudley wasagainst Cranmer’s reform of canon law.[120] He recruited

the Scot John Knox so that he should, in Northum-berland’s words, “be a whetstone to quicken and sharpthe Bishop of Canterbury, whereof he hath need”.[121]Knox refused to collaborate, but joined fellow reform-ers in a concerted preaching campaign against covetousmen in high places.[121] Cranmer’s canon law was fi-nally wrecked by Northumberland’s furious interventionduring the spring parliament of 1553.[122] On a per-sonal level, though, the Duke was happy to help producea schoolchildren’s cathechism in Latin and English.[123]In June 1553 he backed the Privy Council’s invitationof Philip Melanchthon to become Regius Professor ofDivinity at Cambridge University. But for the King’sdeath, Melanchthon would have come to England—hishigh travel costs had already been granted by Edward’sgovernment.[124]

At the heart of Northumberland’s problems with theepiscopate lay the issue of the Church’s wealth, from theconfiscation of which the government and its officialshad profited ever since the Dissolution of the Monas-teries. The most radical preachers thought that bish-ops, if needed at all, should be “unlorded”.[125] This at-titude was attractive to Dudley, as it conveniently al-lowed him to fill up the Exchequer or distribute re-wards with Church property.[125]When new bishops wereappointed—typically to the sees of deprived conserva-tive incumbents—they often had to surrender substantialland holdings to the Crown and were left with a muchreduced income.[126] The dire situation of the Crown fi-nances made the Council resort to a further wave ofChurch expropriation in 1552–1553, targeting chantrylands and Church plate.[127] At the time and since, thebreak-up and reorganisation of the Prince-Bishopric ofDurham has been interpreted as Dudley’s attempt to cre-ate himself a county palatine of his own. However, as itturned out, Durham’s entire revenue was allotted to thetwo successor bishoprics and the nearby border garrisonof Norham Castle. Dudley received the stewardship ofthe new “King’s County Palatine” in the North (worth£50 p.a.), but there was no further gain for him.[128]Overall, Northumberland’s provisions for reorganiseddioceses reveal a concern in him that “the preaching ofthe gospel” should not lack funds.[129] Still, the confisca-tion of Church property as well as the lay government’s di-rection of Church affairs made the Duke disliked amongclerics, whether Reformed or conservative.[130] His rela-tions with them were never worse than when the crisis ofEdward’s final illness approached.[131]

3.3 Peace policy

The war policy 1547–1549 had entailed an extraordinaryexpenditure of about £350,000 p.a. against a regularCrown income of £150,000 p.a.[132] It was impossible tocontinue in this way,[133] and Dudley quickly negotiated awithdrawal of the besieged English garrison at Boulogne.The high costs of the garrison could thus be saved and

4.1 Changing the succession 7

French payments of redemption of roughly £180,000were a most welcome cash income.[134] The peace withFrance was concluded in the Treaty of Boulogne inMarch1550. There was both public rejoicing and anger at thetime, and some historians have condemned the peace as ashameful surrender of English-held territory.[135] A yearlater it was agreed that King Edward was to have a Frenchbride, the six-year-old Elisabeth of Valois. The threatof war with Scotland was also neutralised, England giv-ing up some isolated garrisons in exchange.[136] In thepeace treaty with Scotland of June 1551, a joint com-mission, one of the first of its kind in history, was in-stalled to agree upon the exact boundary between the twocountries. This matter was concluded in August 1552 byFrench arbitration.[137] Despite the cessation of hostili-ties, English defences were kept on a high level: nearly£200,000 p.a. were spent on the navy and the garrisons atCalais and on the Scottish border.[138] In his capacity asWarden-General of the Scottish Marches, Northumber-land arranged for the building of a new Italianate fortressat Berwick-upon-Tweed.[139]

The war between France and the Emperor broke out onceagain in September 1551. In due course Northumber-land rejected requests for English help from both sides,which in the case of the Empire consisted of a demandfor full-scale war based on an Anglo-Imperial treaty of1542.[140] The Duke pursued a policy of neutrality, a bal-ancing act that made peace between the two great powersattractive.[141] In late 1552 he undertook to bring abouta European peace by English mediation. These moveswere taken seriously by the rival resident ambassadors,but were ended in June 1553 by the belligerents, the con-tinuance of war being more advantageous to them.[142]

3.4 Overseas interest

John Dudley recovered the post of Lord Admiral im-mediately after the Protector’s fall in October 1549,[143]Thomas Seymour having been executed by his brother inMarch 1549.[144] Dudley passed on the office to EdwardLord Clinton in May 1550, yet never lost his keen in-terest in maritime affairs.[145] Henry VIII had revolu-tionised the English navy, mainly in military terms.[146]Dudley encouraged English voyages to far-off coasts, ig-noring Spanish threats.[147] He even contemplated a raidon Peru with Sebastian Cabot in 1551.[148] Expeditionsto Morocco and the Guinea coast in 1551 and 1552 wereactually realised. A planned voyage to China via theNortheast passage under Hugh Willoughby sailed in May1553—King Edward watched their departure from hiswindow.[149] Northumberlandwas at the centre of a “mar-itime revolution”, a policy in which, increasingly, the En-glish Crown sponsored long-distance trade directly.[150]

4 1553

4.1 Changing the succession

The 15-year-old King fell seriously ill in February 1553.His sister Mary was invited to visit him, the Council do-ing “duty and obeisance to her as if she had been Queenof England”.[151] The King recovered somewhat,[152] andin April Northumberland restored Mary’s full title andarms as Princess of England, which she had lost in the1530s.[153] He also kept her informed about Edward’scondition.[154] About this time a set of drawn-out mar-riage negotiations came to conclusion. On 25 May 1553Guildford Dudley, Northumberland’s second youngestson, married Lady Jane Grey, the fervently Protestantdaughter of the Duke of Suffolk and, through her motherFrances Brandon, a grandniece of Henry VIII. Her sisterCatherine was matched with the heir of the Earl of Pem-broke, and another Katherine, Guildford’s younger sister,was promised to Henry Hastings, heir of the Earl of Hunt-ingdon.[155] Within a month the first of these marriagesturned out to be highly significant. Although marked bymagnificent festivities, at the time they took place the al-liances were not seen as politically important, not even bythe Imperial ambassador Jehan de Scheyfye, who was themost suspicious observer.[156] Often perceived as proof ofa conspiracy to bring the Dudley family to the throne,[157]they have also been described as routine matches betweenaristocrats.[158]

“My devise for the Succession” by Edward VI. Edward changedhis text from “L Janes heires masles” to “L Jane and her heiresmasles”.[159]

At some point during his illness Edward wrote a draftdocument headed “My devise for the Succession”.[160]Due to his ardent Protestantism Edward did not want hisCatholic sister Mary to succeed, but he was also preoc-cupied with male succession and with legitimacy, whichin Mary’s and Elizabeth’s case was questionable as a re-sult of Henry VIII’s legislation.[161][note 2] In the first ver-sion of his “devise”, written before he knew he was mor-tally ill, Edward bypassed his half-sisters and provided forthe succession of male heirs only.[162][note 3] Around theend of May or early June Edward’s condition worseneddramatically and he corrected his draft such that LadyJane Grey herself, not just her putative sons, could inherit

8 4 1553

the Crown.[163] To what extent Edward’s document—especially this last change—was influenced by Northum-berland, his confidant John Gates, or still other membersof the Privy Chamber like Edward’s tutor John Cheke orSecretary William Petre, is unclear.[164]

Edward fully endorsed it.[165] He personally supervisedthe copying of his will and twice summoned lawyers tohis bedside to give them orders. On the second occa-sion, 15 June, Northumberland kept a watchful eye overthe proceedings.[166] Days before, the Duke had intimi-dated the judges who were raising legal objections to the“devise": In full Council he had lost his temper, “be-ing in a great rage and fury, trembling for anger” andsaying “that he would fight in his shirt with any man inthat quarrel”.[167] So Judge Montague remembered in hispetition to Queen Mary; he also recalled that, in Ed-ward’s chamber, the Lords of the Council declared itwould be open treason to disobey their sovereign’s explicitcommand.[168] The next step was an engagement to per-form the King’s will after his death, signed in his presenceby Northumberland and 23 others.[169] Finally, the King’sofficial “declaration”, issued as letters patent, was signedby 102 notables, among them the whole Privy Council,peers, bishops, judges, and London aldermen.[170] Ed-ward also announced to have it passed in parliament inSeptember, and the necessary writs were prepared.[171]

It was now common knowledge that Edward was dy-ing. The Imperial ambassador, Jehan de Scheyfye, hadbeen convinced for years that Dudley was engaged insome “mighty plot” to settle the Crown on his ownhead.[172] As late as 12 June, though, he still knew noth-ing specific, despite having inside information about Ed-ward’s sickness.[156] Instead he had recently reported thatNorthumberland would divorce his wife so as to marryPrincess Elizabeth.[173] France, which found the prospectof the Emperor’s cousin on the English throne disagree-able, gave indications of support to Northumberland.[174]Since the Duke did not rule out an armed interventionfrom Charles V, he came back on the French offer af-ter the King’s death, sending a secret and non-committalmission to King Henry II.[175] After Jane’s accession inJuly the ambassadors of both powers were convinced shewould prevail, although they were in no doubt that thecommon people backed Mary.[176] Antoine de Noailleswrote of Guildford Dudley as “the new King”, while theEmperor instructed his envoys to arrange themselves withthe Duke and to discourage Mary from undertaking any-thing dangerous.[177]

Whether altering the succession was Edward’s own ideaor not, he was determinedly at work to exclude his half-sisters in favour of what he perceived as his jeopardisedlegacy.[178] The original provisions of the “devise” havebeen described as bizarre and obsessive and as typical ofa teenager, while incompatible with the mind and needsof a pragmatical politician.[179] Mary’s accession couldcost Northumberland his head, but not necessarily so.[180]He tried hard to please her during 1553, and may have

shared the general assumption that she would succeed tothe Crown as late as early June.[181] At a meeting with theFrench ambassadors he asked them out of the blue whatthey would do in his place.[182] Faced with Edward’s ex-press royal will and perseverance, John Dudley submittedto his master’s wishes—either seeing his chance to retainhis power beyond the boy’s lifetime or out of loyalty.[183]

4.2 Downfall

Lady Jane Grey, whom Northumberland put on the Englishthrone; he reminded his colleagues that “this virtuous lady ... by... our enticement is rather of force placed therein than by herown seeking and request.”[184]

Edward VI died on 6 July 1553. The next morningNorthumberland sent his son Robert into Hertfordshirewith 300 men to secure the person of Mary Tudor.[185]Aware of her half-brother’s condition, the Princess hadonly days before moved to East Anglia, where she was thegreatest landowner.[186] She began to assemble an armedfollowing and sent a letter to the Council, demanding tobe recognised as queen. It arrived on 10 July, the dayJane Grey was proclaimed as queen.[187] The Duke ofNorthumberland’s oration, held before Jane the previousday, did not move her to accept the Crown—her parents’assistance was required for that.[188] Dudley had not pre-pared for resolute action on Mary’s part and needed aweek to build up a larger force.[189] He was in a dilemmaover who should lead the troops. He was the most experi-enced general in the kingdom, but he did not want to leavethe government in the hands of his colleagues, in some ofwhom he had little confidence.[190] Queen Jane decidedthe issue by demanding that her father, the Duke of Suf-

9

folk, should remain with her and the Council.[191] On 14July Northumberland headed for Cambridge with 1,500troops and some artillery, having reminded his colleaguesof the gravity of the cause, “what chance of variance so-ever might grow amongst you in my absence”.[190]

Supported by gentry and nobility in East Anglia andthe Thames Valley, Mary’s military camp was gatheringstrength daily and, through luck, came into possession ofpowerful artillery from the royal navy. In the circum-stances the Duke deemed fighting a campaign hopeless.The army proceeded from Cambridge to Bury St Ed-munds and retreated again to Cambridge.[192] On 20 Julya letter from the Council in London arrived, declaringthat they had proclaimed Queen Mary and commandingNorthumberland to disband the army and await events.Dudley did not contemplate resistance.[193][note 4] He ex-plained to his fellow-commanders that they had acted onthe Council’s orders all the time and that he did not nowwish “to combat the Council’s decisions, supposing thatthey have been moved by good reasons ... and I beg yourlordships to do the same.”[194] Proclaiming Mary Tudorat the market place, he threw up his cap and “so laughedthat the tears ran down his cheeks for grief.”[195] The nextmorning the Earl of Arundel arrived to arrest him. Aweek earlier Arundel had assured Northumberland of hiswish to spill his blood even at the Duke’s feet; now Dud-ley went down on his knees as soon as he caught sight ofhim.[196]

Northumberland rode through the City of London to theTower on 25 July, with his guards struggling to protecthim against the hostile populace.[197] A pamphlet appear-ing shortly after his arrest illustrated the general hatredof him: “the great devil Dudley ruleth, Duke I shouldhave said”.[198] He was now commonly thought to havepoisoned King Edward while Mary “would have been asglad of her brother’s life, as the ragged bear is glad ofhis death”.[199] Dumbfounded by the turn of events, theFrench ambassador Noailles wrote: “I have witnessed themost sudden change believable in men, and I believe thatGod alone worked it.”[200] David Loades, biographer ofboth Queen Mary and John Dudley, concludes that thelack of fighting clouds the fact that this outcome was aclose-run affair, and warns

to explain Mary’s triumph over Jane sim-ply in terms of overwhelming spontaneous sup-port. Northumberland ... was completely un-prepared for the crisis which eventually over-took him. He was already losing his grip uponthe situation before the council defected, andthat was why they did it.[201]

4.3 Trial and execution

Northumberland was tried on 18 August 1553 inWestminster Hall. The panels of the jury and judges

were largely made up of his former colleagues. Dud-ley hinted that he had acted on the authority of Princeand Council and by warrant of the Great Seal. Answeredthat the Great Seal of a usurper was worth nothing, heasked “whether any such persons as were equally cul-pable of that crime ... might be his judges”.[202] Aftersentence was passed, he begged the Queen’s mercy forhis five sons, the eldest of whom was condemned withhim, the rest waiting for their trials.[203][note 5] He alsoasked to “confess to a learned divine” and was visitedby Bishop Stephen Gardiner, who had passed most ofEdward’s reign in the Tower and was now Mary’s LordChancellor.[204] The Duke’s execution was planned for 21August at eight in the morning; however, it was suddenlycancelled.[205] Northumberland was instead escorted to StPeter ad Vincula, where he took the Catholic communionand professed that “the plagues that is upon the realm andupon us now is that we have erred from the faith thesesixteen years.”[206] A great propaganda coup for the newgovernment, Dudley’s words were officially distributed—especially in the territories of the Emperor Charles V.[207]In the evening the Duke learnt “that I must prepare my-self against tomorrow to receive my deadly stroke”, as hewrote in a desperate plea to the Earl of Arundel: “O mygood lord remember how sweet life is, and how bitter yecontrary.”[208] On the scaffold, before 10,000 people,[209]Dudley confessed his guilt but maintained:[210]

And yet this act wherefore I die, was not al-together of me (as it is thought) but I was pro-cured and induced thereunto by other[s]. I wasI say induced thereunto by other[s], howbeit,God forbid that I should name any man untoyou, I will name no man unto you, and there-fore I beseech you look not for it. ... And onething more good people I have to say unto you... and that is to warn you and exhort you tobeware of these seditious preachers, and teach-ers of new doctrine, which pretend to preachGod’s word, but in very deed they preach theirown fancies, ... they know not today what theywould have tomorrow, ... they open the book,but they cannot shut it again. ... I could goodpeople rehearse much more ... but you know Ihave another thing to do, whereunto I must pre-pare me, for the time draweth away. ... Andafter he had thus spoken he kneeled down ...and bowing toward the block he said, I havedeserved a thousand deaths, and thereupon hemade a cross upon the straw, and kissed it, andlaid his head upon the block, and so died.[211]

5 Assessments

10 5 ASSESSMENTS

5.1 Historical reputation

A black legend about the Duke of Northumberland wasalready in the making when he was still in power, themore after his fall.[212] From the last days of Henry VIIIhe was to have planned, years in advance, the destructionof both King Edward’s Seymour uncles—Lord Thomasand the Protector—as well as Edward himself.[213] Healso served as an indispensable scapegoat: It was the mostpractical thing for Queen Mary to believe that Dudleyhad been acting all alone and it was in nobody’s inter-est to doubt it.[214] Further questions were unwelcome, asCharles V’s ambassadors found out: “it was thought bestnot to inquire too closely into what had happened, so asto make no discoveries that might prejudice those [whotried the duke]".[215] By renouncing the Protestantism hehad so conspicuously stood for, Northumberland lost ev-ery respect and became ineligible for rehabilitation in aworld dominated by thinking along sectarian lines.[216]Protestant writers like John Foxe and John Ponet concen-trated on the pious King Edward’s achievements and rein-vented Somerset as the “good Duke”—it followed thatthere had also to be a “wicked Duke”.[217] This interpre-tation was enhanced by the High and Late Victorian his-torians, James Anthony Froude and A. F. Pollard, whosaw Somerset as a champion of political liberty whose de-sire “to do good”[218] was thwarted by, in Pollard’s phrase,“the subtlest intriguer in English History”.[51]

As late as 1968/1970, W.K. Jordan embraced this goodduke/bad duke dichotomy in a two-volume study of Ed-ward VI’s reign.[219] However, he saw the King on theverge of assuming full authority at the beginning of1553 (with Dudley contemplating retirement) and as-cribed the succession alteration to Edward’s resolution,Northumberland playing the part of the loyal and tragicenforcer instead of the original instigator.[220] Many his-torians have since seen the “devise” as Edward’s very ownproject.[note 6] Others, while remarking upon the plan’ssloppy implementation,[221] have seen Northumberlandas behind the scheme, yet in concord with Edward’s con-victions; the Duke acting out of despair for his ownsurvival,[51] or to rescue political and religious reform andsave England from Habsburg domination.[222]

Since the 1970s, critical reassessments of the Dukeof Somerset’s policies and government style led toacknowledgment that Northumberland revitalised andreformed the Privy Council as a central part ofthe administration,[223] and that he “took the neces-sary but unpopular steps to hold the minority regimetogether”.[224] Stability and reconstruction have beenmade out as the mark of most of his policies;[225]the scale of his motivation ranging from “determinedambition”[226] with Geoffrey Rudolph Elton in 1977to “idealism of a sort” with Diarmaid MacCulloch in1999.[227] Dale Hoak concluded in 1980: “given thecircumstances which he inherited in 1549, the duke ofNorthumberland appears to have been one of the most

remarkably able governors of any European state duringthe sixteenth century.”[228]

5.2 Personality

John Dudley, 1540s, with wand of office

John Dudley’s recantation of his Protestant faith be-fore his execution delighted Queen Mary and enragedLady Jane Grey.[206] The general opinion, especiallyamong Protestants, was that he tried to seek a pardonby this move.[229] Historians have often believed that hehad no faith whatsoever, being a mere cynic.[230] Fur-ther explanations—both contemporary and modern—have been that Northumberland sought to rescue his fam-ily from the axe,[231] that, in the face of catastrophe, hefound a spiritual home in the church of his childhood,[232]or that he saw the hand of God in Mary’s success.[233]Although he endorsed the Reformation from at least themid-1530s,[10] Dudley may not have understood theolog-ical subtleties, being a “simple man in such matters”.[206]The Duke was stung by an outspoken letter he receivedfrom John Knox, whom he had invited to preach beforethe King and in vain had offered a bishopric. WilliamCecil was informed:[234]

I love not to have to do with men which beneither grateful nor pleasable. I assure you Imind to have no more to do with him but towish him well ... he cannot tell whether I be adissembler in religion or not ... for my ownpart, if I should have passed more upon the

11

speech of the people than upon the service ofmy master ... I needed not to have had so muchobloquy of some kind of men; but the livingGod, that knoweth the hearts of all men, shallbemy judge at the last day with what zeal, faith,and truth I serve my master.[235]

Northumberland was not an old-style peer, despite hisaristocratic ancestry and existence as a great lord.[236] Heacquired, sold, and exchanged lands, but never strove tobuild himself a territorial power base or a large armedforce of retainers (which proved fatal in the end).[237]His maximum income of £4,300 p.a. from land and a£2,000 p.a. from annuities and fees, was appropriate tohis rank and figured well below the annuity of £5,333 p.a.the Duke of Somerset had granted himself, thus reach-ing an income of over £10,000 p.a. while in office.[238]John Dudley was a typical Tudor Crown servant, self-interested but absolutely loyal to the incumbent sovereign:The monarch’s every wish was law.[239] This uncriticalstance may have played a decisive role in Northumber-land’s decision to implement Edward’s succession device,as it did in his attitude towards Mary when she had be-come Queen.[240] The fear his services could be inade-quate or go unacknowledged by themonarch was constantin Dudley,[241] who also was very sensitive on what hecalled “estimation”, meaning status.[242] Edmund Dudleywas unforgotten: “my poor father’s fate who, after hismaster was gone, suffered death for doing his master’scommandments”, the Duke wrote to Cecil nine monthsbefore his own end.[243]

John Dudley was an imposing figure with a strong tem-perament who could also charm people with his cour-tesy and a graceful presence.[244] He was a family man,an understanding father and husband who was passion-ately loved by his wife.[245] Frequent phases of illness,partly due to a stomach ailment, occasioned long absencesfrom court but did not reduce his high output of paper-work, and may have had an element of hypochondria inthem.[246] The English diplomat Richard Morrison wroteof his onetime superior: “This Earl had such a head thathe seldom went about anything but he had three or fourpurposes beforehand.”[247] A French eyewitness of 1553described him as “an intelligent man who could explainhis ideas and who displayed an impressive dignity. Oth-ers, who did not know him, would have considered himworthy of a kingdom.”[41]

6 Ancestry

7 See also

• Cultural depictions of Lady Jane Grey

8 Notes[1] Claims that he was the grandson of a carpenter notwith-

standing, John Dudley was of noble ancestry. His paternalgreat grandfather was John Sutton, 1st Baron Dudley. Onhis mother’s side he descended from the Hundred YearsWar heroes, Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick andJohn Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury. He accordingly as-sumed the bear and the ragged staff, the arms of the me-dieval Earls of Warwick (Wilson 1981 pp. 1, 3; Adams2002 pp. 312–313).

[2] Henry VIII, in his Third Succession Act of 1544 and in hiswill, nominated his daughters Mary and Elizabeth as suc-cessors to the Crown, “upon condition” that they did notmarry without the consent of the Privy Council (Hutchin-son 2006 p. 212). In the same 1544 act his daughters werestill, as in earlier legislation, declared illegitimate and un-able to inherit by common law (Ives 2009 p. 143).

[3] If there were no male heirs at the time of his death, Eng-land should have no king until the birth of a male royalchild; a detailed system of female regency provisions wasto apply in this case. Edward also distinguished betweendifferent types of minority rule and envisaged the possi-bility of having adult sons to succeed him (Ives 2009 pp.137–139; Alford 2002 pp. 172–173).

[4] It was said that “his men forsook him”, as the Lon-don chronicler Henry Machyn put it (Loades 2004 p.127). Such rumours and claims were largely exaggerated,though (Ives 2009 pp. 203–205; Loades 2004 p. 127).The bulk of the troops he had brought from London werewith the Duke until the end and, in the words of DavidLoades, “he could have made a considerable nuisance ofhimself if he had chosen."(Loades 2004 p. 127).

[5] John, Ambrose, Robert, Henry, and Guildford Dudleywere all condemned to death, as was Sir Andrew Dud-ley, Northumberland’s brother. Only Guildford was exe-cuted, in February 1554, with his wife Lady Jane Grey.The only other people who died were Sir John Gates andSir Thomas Palmer, on the same day as the Duke (Loades1996 pp. 270, 271).

[6] For example: StephenAlford (Alford 2002 pp. 171–174);Dale Hoak (Hoak 2004); Eric Ives (Ives 2009 pp. 136–142, 145–148); David Loades (Loades 1996 pp. 231–233, 239–241; Loades 2003 pp. 79–80; Loades 2004pp. 68–69, 121–123; Loades 2008); Diarmaid MacCul-loch (MacCulloch 2001 pp. 39–41); Linda Porter (Porter2007 p. 188); Judith Richards (Richards 2007); ChrisSkidmore (Skidmore 2007 pp. 247–250); David Starkey(Starkey 2001 pp. 112–114); DerekWilson (Wilson 2005pp. 215–221).

9 Citations[1] Loades 2008

[2] Loades 2008; Adams 2002 pp. 312–313

[3] Loades 1996 pp. 7–11

12 9 CITATIONS

[4] Loades 1996 p. 17

[5] Loades 1996 p. 18

[6] Loades 1996 p. 20

[7] Loades 1996 pp. 20–22, 24–25

[8] Loades 1996 p. 22

[9] Ives 2009 p. 99

[10] MacCulloch 2001 pp. 52–53; Ives 2009 pp. 114–115

[11] Wilson 1981 pp. 11, 15–16; French 2002 p. 33

[12] Loades 1996 pp. 30–32; Beer 1973 p. 8

[13] Loades 1996 pp. 27–28

[14] Loades 1996 p. 28

[15] Beer 1973 pp. 8–9

[16] Loades 1996 p. 36

[17] Hawkyard 1982

[18] Loades 1996 pp. 31, 33–34

[19] Loades 1996 pp. 34–36, viii; Wilson 1981 p. 20

[20] Ives 2009 p. 99; Warnicke 2012 p. 64

[21] Loades 1996 p. 48

[22] Ives 2009 p. 103

[23] Ives 2009 pp. 100–101

[24] Wilson 1981 p. 22

[25] Ives 2009 p. 101

[26] Loades 1996 pp. 71, 85

[27] Beer 1973 p. 32; Loades 1996 pp. 69–71

[28] Loades 1996 pp. 77

[29] Beer 1973 p. 36; Loades 1996 pp. 78–80; Ives 2009 p.103

[30] Wilson 1981 p. 22; Beer 1973 p. 36

[31] Loades 1996 p. 79

[32] Hutchinson 2006 p. 181; Loades 1996 pp. 81–82

[33] Loades 1996 pp. 82–85; MacCulloch 2001 pp. 7–8

[34] Rathbone 2002; Loades 1996 pp. 82–85

[35] Beer 1973 p. 41

[36] Hutchinson 2006 p. 213

[37] Alford 2002 pp. 29, 69–70

[38] Loades 1996 pp. 88–90

[39] Beer 1973 pp. 58–60; Loades 2008

[40] Loades 1996 p. 100

[41] Ives 2009 p. 104

[42] Merriman 2000 p. 353

[43] Dawson 1993 p. 244

[44] Loades 1996 p. 107

[45] Loades 1996 pp. 107–108; Loades 2004 pp. 44–45;Loades 2008

[46] Loades 1996 p. 118

[47] Ives 2009 p. 102

[48] Wood 2007 p. 72

[49] Chapman 1962 p. 63; Wood 2007 pp. 72–73

[50] MacCulloch 2001 pp. 50–51

[51] Rathbone 2002

[52] Alford 2002 pp. 71–72

[53] Loades 2004 pp. 47–48

[54] Beer 1973 p. 88; Loades 2004 p. 48

[55] Loades 2004 pp. 48–50; MacCulloch 2001 p. 51

[56] Loades 2004 p. 50

[57] Loades 2004 pp. 84–85

[58] Loades 2004 pp. 84–85; Hoak 1980 pp. 36–37

[59] MacCulloch 2001 p. 95; Hoak 1980 p. 36

[60] Loades 1996 pp. 144–145

[61] Hoak 1980 pp. 36–39; Loades 2004 p. 88

[62] Loades 2004 pp. 87–88, 104

[63] Ives 2009 p. 111

[64] Hoak 1980 p. 39; Loades 1996 p. 186

[65] Hoak 1980 p. 48; Loades 2004 p. 110

[66] Loades 1996 pp. 168–169

[67] Alford 2002 p. 170

[68] Loades 2004 pp. 108–109

[69] Loades 1996 p. 182; Hoak 1980 p. 46

[70] Loades 1996 pp. 180–181

[71] Loades 1996 pp. 183, 184, 188

[72] Loades 2004 pp. 110–111; Loades 2008

[73] Ives 2009 p. 109; Loades 1996 pp. 189, 190

[74] Hoak 1980 p. 203; Loades 2004 p. 110

[75] Loades 2004 p. 88; MacCulloch 2001 p. 55

[76] Erickson 1995 p. 252

[77] Loades 1996 p. 182; MacCulloch 2001 p. 55

13

[78] Loades 1996 p. 149

[79] Hoak 1980 p. 38

[80] Hoak 1980 p. 44

[81] Christmas 1997

[82] Alford 2002 p. 140

[83] Hoak 1980 p. 40; Alford 2002 pp. 139–141

[84] Loades 2004 p. 88; Loades 1996 pp. 201–203

[85] Loades 2004 p. 88; Loades 1996 pp. 173, 193

[86] Loades 1996 p. 193

[87] Alford 2002 pp. 163–166, 168

[88] Beer 1973 pp. 124–125; Loades 2004 p. 89; MacCulloch2001 p. 53

[89] Ives 2009 p. 133

[90] Loades 1996 p. 234

[91] Alford 2002 pp. 142, 148; Loades 1996 p. 202

[92] Alford 2002 p. 159

[93] Hoak 1980 pp. 29–30

[94] Loades 1996 p. 145

[95] Ives 2009 pp. 111–112, 308; Loades 2008

[96] Loades 2004 p. 98; Loades 2008

[97] Loades 1996 p. 252; Hoak 1980 p. 42

[98] Hoak 1980 p. 30; Rathbone 2002

[99] Williams 1998 p. 67

[100] Slack 1980 p. 103; Guy 1990 p. 221

[101] Slack 1980 pp. 105–106

[102] Williams 1998 p. 68

[103] Loades 1996 p. 150; Rathbone 2002

[104] Loades 1996 pp. 169–170; Hoak 1980 p. 30

[105] Ives 2009 p. 132

[106] Loades 1996 pp. 162, 227–229

[107] Loades 1996 pp. 170–171

[108] Loades 1996 p. 171

[109] Loades 1996 pp. 211–213

[110] Ives 2009 p. 7; Loades 1996 pp. 248–251; Loach 2002p. 113; Hoak 1980 p. 42

[111] Loades 1996 pp. 158–159; Ives 2009 p. 88

[112] Loades 1996 pp. 158–159

[113] Starkey 2001 p. 105

[114] Loades 2004 p. 101

[115] Loades 2004 p. 102; Ives 2009 p. 92

[116] Ives 2009 p. 93; Richards 2007

[117] Loades 2004 p. 76; Jordan and Gleason 1975 pp. 4–5

[118] MacCulloch 2001 p. 56; Loades 2008

[119] MacCulloch 2001 p. 101; Loades 1996 p. 254

[120] Ives 2009 pp. 115–116

[121] Ives 2009 p. 116

[122] MacCulloch 2001 pp. 101–102; Loades 1996 pp. 218–219

[123] Alford 2002 p. 139

[124] Loades 1996 p. 254; MacCulloch 2001 p. 170

[125] Loades 1996 p. 176

[126] Loades 1996 pp. 176–177; Heal 1980 pp. 141–142

[127] MacCulloch 2001 p. 154; Loades 1996 p. 255

[128] Loades 1996 pp. 198, 302

[129] Heal 1980 pp. 145–146; 149

[130] MacCulloch 2001 p. 55; Heal 1980 p. 147

[131] Loades 1996 pp. 254–255

[132] Loades 1996 p. 170

[133] Loades 1996 pp. 169–170

[134] Loades 1996 pp. 169–170; Loades 2008

[135] Loades 1996 pp. 154–155; MacCulloch 2001 p. 55

[136] Loades 1996 p. 166

[137] Merriman 2000 p. 377

[138] Loades 1996 p. 209

[139] Merriman 2000 pp. 373–376; Loades 1996 p. 221

[140] Loades 1996 pp. 203–206

[141] Loades 1996 pp. 203, 241–242

[142] Loades 1996 pp. 203, 241–244

[143] Wilson 1981 p. 41

[144] Alford 2002 p. 97

[145] Loades 1996 p. 210

[146] Loades 1996 p. 244

[147] Loades 1996 p. 245

[148] Beer 1973 p. 193

[149] Loades 1996 pp. 245–247, 238

[150] Loades 1996 p. 247

14 9 CITATIONS

[151] Ives 2009 p. 11; Loades 1996 p. 237

[152] Loades 1996 pp. 237–238

[153] Ives 2009 p. 94

[154] Loades 1996 p. 237

[155] Ives 2009 pp. 185, 321; Loades 1996 pp. 238–239;Adams 1995 p. 44

[156] Loades 1996 p. 239

[157] Ives 2009 p. 152

[158] Loades 1996 pp. 238–239; Loades 2004 p. 121; Ives2009 pp. 152–154; Jordan and Gleason 1975 pp. 10–11;Wilson 2005 pp. 214–215; Christmas 1997

[159] Alford 2002 pp. 171–172

[160] Ives 2009 pp. 137–139; Loades 2004 p. 68

[161] Loades 2003 pp. 79–80; Starkey 2001 pp. 111–113;Loades 1996 p. 232; Ives 2009 pp. 142–143; Hoak 2008

[162] Ives 2009 pp. 139–140; Starkey 2001 p. 113

[163] Ives 2009 p. 145; Loades 1996 p. 239

[164] Loades 2004 p. 121; Ives 2009 p. 150; Alford 2002 p.172; Hoak 2008

[165] Alford 2002 p. 172; Loades 2004 p. 122; Hoak 2008

[166] Ives 2009 pp. 145, 148; Loades 1996 p. 241

[167] Ives 2009 pp. 105, 148

[168] Loades 1996 p. 241

[169] Ives 2009 pp. 160–161; Alford 2002 p. 172

[170] Ives 2009 pp. 165–166; Hoak 1980 p. 49

[171] Hoak 2008

[172] Loades 1996 p. 240; Ives 2009 p. 151

[173] Loades 2003 p. 79

[174] Loades 1996 pp. 254–255

[175] Loades 1996 pp. 262–263

[176] Loades 1996 pp. 256–257

[177] Chapman 1962 p. 121

[178] MacCulloch 2001 pp. 39–41; Starkey 2001 pp. 112–114;Alford 2002 pp. 171–172; Jordan 1970 pp. 515–516

[179] Ives 2009 p. 141; MacCulloch 2001 p. 41; Loades 1996p. 233; Hoak 2008; Wilson 2005 p. 216

[180] Starkey 2001 p. 111; Beer 1973 pp. 147–148; Loades1996 pp. 238

[181] Loades 1996 pp. 240–241; Jordan 1970 pp. 511, 517

[182] Skidmore 2007 p. 253

[183] Loades 1996 p. 241; Loades 2008; Jordan 1970 pp. 531–532

[184] Ives 2009 p. 216

[185] Ives 2009 pp. 202, 325

[186] Loades 1996 pp. 257–258; Loach 2002 p. 170

[187] Loades 1996 pp. 258–259

[188] Ives 2009 p. 187

[189] Loades 1996 pp. 258–261

[190] Loades 1996 p. 261

[191] Ives 2009 p. 198

[192] Ives 2009 pp. 209–212; Loach 2002 p. 172

[193] Loades 2004 p. 127; Ives 2009 p. 241–242

[194] Chapman 1962 p. 149; Ives 2009 p. 241–242

[195] Ives 2009 p. 242

[196] Ives 2009 pp. 243–244; Nichols 1850 p. 7

[197] Chapman 1962 pp. 150–151

[198] Alford 2002 p. 7

[199] Alford 2002 p. 8; Loades 1996 p. 257

[200] Loades 1996 p. 265

[201] Loades 1996 pp. 264–265

[202] Ives 2009 pp. 96–97

[203] Tytler 1839 pp. 225–226; Ives 2009 p. 96; Loades 1996pp. 266, 271

[204] Loades 1996 pp. 267–268; Ives 2009 p. 184

[205] Ives 2009 p. 117

[206] Loades 1996 p. 268

[207] Ives 2009 p. 119

[208] Loades 1996 p. 269

[209] Chapman 1962 p. 169

[210] Loades 1996 p. 270

[211] Jordan and Gleason 1975 pp. 45–47

[212] Ives 2009 p. 109; Loades 2008

[213] Ives 2009 pp. 107–109

[214] Loades 1996 p. 267; Ives 2009 p. 3

[215] Ives 2009 p. 154 (square brackets by Ives)

[216] Loades 1996 pp. vii–viii; Jordan and Gleason 1975 pp.54–55

[217] MacCulloch 2001 p. 42; Loades 1996 p. 192; Loades2008

15

[218] Alford 2002 pp. 20–21

[219] MacCulloch 2001 p. 42

[220] Loades 1996 p. 192; Jordan and Gleason 1975 pp. 9–10,12; Jordan 1970 pp. 531–532

[221] Beer 1973 p. 149; Rathbone 2002

[222] Hoak 1980 p. 49; Beer 1973 pp. 148, 164

[223] Hoak 1980 p. 50; Loades 1996 p. viii

[224] Loades 1996 p. vii

[225] MacCulloch 2001 p. 55; Alford 2002 p. 170; Hoak 1980p. 50

[226] Dawson 1993 p. 253

[227] MacCulloch 2001 p. 55

[228] Hoak 1980 p. 51; Dawson 1993 p. 243

[229] Ives 2009 p. 118; Jordan and Gleason 1975 p. 56

[230] Ives 2009 p. 115

[231] Adams 2002 p. 133; Ives 2009 p. 118

[232] Chapman 1962 p. 166; Jordan and Gleason 1975 p. 58;Loades 2008

[233] Beer 1973 p. 158; Loades 1996 p. 268; Ives p. 309

[234] Loades 1996 pp. 196, 198, 199

[235] Tytler 1839 p. 148

[236] Loades 1996 pp. ix, 285

[237] Loades 1996 pp. 285–286, 258

[238] Loades 1996 pp. 222–223; 97–98; Hoak 1980 p. 46

[239] Loades 1996 pp. 269–270; Hoak 1980 p. 45; Jordan andGleason 1975 p. 57

[240] Loades 1996 pp. 269–270; Ives 2009 pp. 122–123, 124;Jordan and Gleason 1975 p. 12

[241] Ives 2009 pp. 120–123; Jordan and Gleason 1975 p. 57

[242] Ives 2009 pp. 123–124

[243] Ives 2009 p. 122

[244] Ives 2009 pp. 104–105; Hoak 1980 pp. 44–45

[245] Ives 2009 pp. 105–106, 307; Loades 2008; Gunn 1999pp. 1268, 1270–1271

[246] Hoak 1980 p. 40; Alford 2002 p. 140; Ives 2009 pp.124–125

[247] Nichols 1857 pp. ccxxii, ccxxiv; Ives 2009 p. 104

10 References• Adams, Simon (ed.) (1995): Household Accountsand Disbursement Books of Robert Dudley, Earl ofLeicester, 1558–1561, 1584–1586. Cambridge Uni-versity Press. ISBN 0-521-55156-0.

• Adams, Simon (2002): Leicester and the Court: Es-says in Elizabethan Politics. Manchester UniversityPress. ISBN 0-7190-5325-0.

• Alford, Stephen (2002): Kingship and Politics in theReign of Edward VI. Cambridge University Press.ISBN 978-0-521-03971-0.

• Beer, B.L. (1973): Northumberland: The Politi-cal Career of John Dudley, Earl of Warwick andDuke of Northumberland. The Kent State Univer-sity Press. ISBN 0-87338-140-8.

• Chapman, Hester (1962): Lady Jane Grey.Jonathan Cape. OCLC 51384729.

• Christmas, Matthew (1997): “Edward VI”. HistoryReview. Issue 27. March 1997. Retrieved 2010-09-29.

• Dawson, Ian (1993): The Tudor Century 1485–1603. Thomas Nelson & Sons. ISBN 0-17-435063-5.

• Erickson, Carolly (1995): Bloody Mary: The Life ofMary Tudor. BCA.

• French, Peter (2002): John Dee: The World of anElizabethan Magus. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7448-0079-1.

• Gunn, S.J. (1999): “A Letter of Jane, Duchess ofNorthumberland, 1553”. English Historical Review.Vol. CXIV No. 460. November 1999. pp. 1267–1271.

• Guy, John (1990): Tudor England. Oxford Paper-backs. ISBN 0-19-285213-2.

• Hawkyard, A.D.K. (1982): “DUDLEY, Sir John(1504/6-53), of Halden, Kent; Dudley Castle,Staffs.; Durham Place, London; Chelsea and Syon,Mdx.”. The History of Parliament Online. Retrieved2014-02-28.

• Heal, Felicity (1980): Of Prelates and Princes: AStudy of the Economic and Social Position of the Tu-dor Episcopate. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-08761-2.

• Hoak, Dale (1980): “Rehabilitating the Duke ofNorthumberland: Politics and Political Control,1549–53”. In Jennifer Loach and Robert Tittler(eds.): The Mid-Tudor Polity c. 1540–1560. pp.29–51, 201–203. Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-24528-8.

16 11 EXTERNAL LINKS

• Hoak, Dale (2008): “Edward VI (1537–1553)".Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Onlineedn. Jan 2008 (subscription required). Retrieved2010-04-04.

• Hutchinson, Robert (2006): The Last Days of HenryVIII: Conspiracy, Treason and Heresy at the Court ofthe dying Tyrant. Phoenix. ISBN 0-7538-1936-8.

• Ives, Eric (2009): Lady Jane Grey: A TudorMysteryWiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9413-6.

• Jordan, W. K. (1970): Edward VI: The Threshold ofPower. The Dominance of the Duke of Northumber-land. George Allen & Unwin. ISBN 0-04-942083-6.

• Jordan, W.K. and M.R. Gleason (1975): The Say-ing of John Late Duke of Northumberland Upon theScaffold, 1553. Harvard Library. LCCN 75-15032.

• Loach, Jennifer (2002): Edward VI. Yale UniversityPress. ISBN 0-300-09409-4.

• Loades, David (1996): John Dudley, Duke ofNorthumberland 1504–1553. Clarendon Press.ISBN 0-19-820193-1.

• Loades, David (2003): Elizabeth I. HambledonContinuum. ISBN 1-85285-304-2.

• Loades, David (2004): Intrigue and Treason: TheTudor Court, 1547–1558. Pearson/Longman. ISBN0-582-77226-5.

• Loades, David (2008): “Dudley, John, duke ofNorthumberland (1504–1553)". Oxford Dictionaryof National Biography. Online edn. Oct 2008 (sub-scription required). Retrieved 2010-04-04.

• MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2001): The Boy King: Ed-ward VI and the Protestant Reformation. Palgrave.ISBN 0-312-23830-4.

• Merriman, Marcus (2000): The Rough Wooings:Mary Queen of Scots, 1542–1551 Tuckwell Press.ISBN 978-1-86232-090-1.

• Nichols, J.G. (ed.) (1850): The Chronicle of QueenJane. Camden Society.

• Nichols, J.G. (ed.) (1857): Literary Remains ofKing Edward the Sixth. Vol. I. Roxburghe Club.

• Porter, Linda (2007): Mary Tudor: The First Queen.Portrait. ISBN 978-0-7499-5144-3.

• Rathbone, Mark (2002): “Northumberland”.History Review Issue 44. December 2002. Re-trieved 2010-09-29.

• Richards, Judith (2007): “Edward VI and Mary Tu-dor: Protestant King and Catholic Sister”. HistoryReview. Issue 59. December 2007. Retrieved 2010-12-23.

• Skidmore, Chris (2007): Edward VI: The Lost Kingof England. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-84649-9.

• Slack, Paul (1980): “Social Policy and the Con-straints of Government, 1547–58”. In JenniferLoach and Robert Tittler (eds.): The Mid-TudorPolity c. 1540–1560. pp. 94–115. Macmillan.ISBN 0-333-24528-8.

• Starkey, David (2001): Elizabeth: Apprenticeship.Vintage. ISBN 0-09-928657-2.

• Tytler, P. F. (1839): England under the Reigns ofEdward VI. and Mary. Vol. II. Richard Bentley.

• Warnicke, R. M. (2012): Wicked Women of Tu-dor England: Queens, Aristocrats, Commoners. Pal-grave.

• Williams, Penry (1998): The Later Tudors: England1547–1603. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-288044-6.

• Wilson, Derek (1981): Sweet Robin: A Biogra-phy of Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester 1533–1588.Hamish Hamilton. ISBN 0-241-10149-2.

• Wilson, Derek (2005): The Uncrowned Kings ofEngland: The Black History of the Dudleys and theTudor Throne. Carroll &Graf. ISBN0-7867-1469-7.

• Wood, Andy (2007): The 1549 Rebellions and theMaking of Early Modern England. Cambridge Uni-versity Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83206-9.

11 External links• “Dudley, John, Duke of Northumberland(DDLY551J)". A Cambridge Alumni Database.University of Cambridge.

• The Archaeology of Dudley Castle VIII. Successionof John Dudley and his building the RenaissanceRange

• Duke of Northumberland at The Internet MovieDatabase

17

12 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

12.1 Text• John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dudley,_1st_Duke_of_Northumberland?oldid=621508537 Contributors: Mav, Deb, SimonP, Mintguy, Gabbe, Ugen64, John K, JASpencer, Charles Matthews, Adam Bishop, DavidNewton, Dcoetzee, Istabraq, Lord Emsworth, Francs2000, Pigsonthewing, Seglea, Wjhonson, Cutler, Nunh-huh, Brequinda, Gdr, Icairns,Faedra, Grstain, D6, Cnyborg, CanisRufus, FeanorStar7, PatGallacher, Commander Keane, Tabletop, Marudubshinki, Coemgenus, FlaBot,Dpknauss, Kmorozov, Str1977, Choess, Gareth E Kegg, Jaraalbe, Ariasne, YurikBot, RussBot, Kauffner, Heavens To Betsy, NawlinWiki,Nlu, Nikkimaria, Bevo74, Caponer, SmackBot, Peter Isotalo, Jon513, Ohconfucius, Esrever, Meco, Neddyseagoon, LHaydon, Iridescent,The Giant Puffin, Tryde, Joseph Solis in Australia, JoeBot, CmdrObot, Cydebot, Christian75, Jed keenan, Thijs!bot, S Marshall, Phoe,Dsp13, PhD Historian, Magioladitis, Connormah, Deposuit, Daytrivia, Henning M, LordAnubisBOT, Moonksy29, The Duke of Waltham,Omegastar, TXiKiBoT, Unoquha, Bleaney, Alaric the Goth, AlleborgoBot, SieBot, StAnselm, BotMultichill, SE7, Darth Kalwejt, G.-M.Cupertino, Martarius, Twopenneth, Andrei Iosifovich, Welham66, Rs-nourse, Muro Bot, Thehelpfulone, Tseno Maximov, Sunquanliangx-iuhao, RexxS, Boleyn, RogDel, Good Olfactory, Surtsicna, Addbot, Proofreader77, Jeanne boleyn, Tassedethe, Тиверополник, Lightbot,Luckas-bot, Yobot, Gremlin Scholar, Guy1890, AnomieBOT, 1exec1, Flewis, Xqbot, TechBot, Mlpearc, Sir Stanley, Žiedas, Buchraeumer,FrescoBot, Moonraker, Île flottante, Full-date unlinking bot, Trappist the monk, Nickyus, Vrenator, RjwilmsiBot, John of Reading, Go-ingBatty, AManWithNoPlan, RaptureBot, LoveActresses, ClueBot NG, Morgan.booker2109, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Fritzelblitz,BendelacBOT, Cloptonson, VIAFbot, Nimetapoeg, Madame Bonheur and Anonymous: 61

12.2 Images• File:AnthonyRoll-1_Great_Harry.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/AnthonyRoll-1_Great_Harry.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Anthony Roll as reproduced in The Anthony Roll of Henry VIII’s Navy: Pepys Library 2991and British Library Additional MS 22047 With Related Documents ISBN 0-7546-0094-7, p. 40. Original artist: Own scan. Photo by GerryBye. Original by Anthony Anthony.

• File:Coat_of_arms_of_Sir_John_Dudley,_1st_Duke_of_Northumberland,_KG.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Coat_of_arms_of_Sir_John_Dudley%2C_1st_Duke_of_Northumberland%2C_KG.png License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rs-nourse

• File:Commons-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Originalartist: ?

• File:Dudley,_John_signature.GIF Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Dudley%2C_John_signature.GIF Li-cense: Public domain Contributors: http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Objetos/Signs/1Dudley,John01%28sig%29.GIF Original artist: JohnDudley, Duke of Northumberland (1504–1553)

• File:DukeofNorthumberland_Penshurst.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/DukeofNorthumberland_Penshurst.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: www.tudorplace Original artist: Unknown

• File:Edward_Seymour_Duke_of_Somerset.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Edward_Seymour_Duke_of_Somerset.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://tudorhistory.org/people/edseymour/ Original artist: The source claimsthat this portrait is by Hans Holbein the Younger (d. 1543), but this is not supported by Holbein scholarship.

• File:Edward_VI’{}s_'devise_for_the_succession'.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Edward_VI%27s_%27devise_for_the_succession%27.png License: Public domain Contributors: Source of image: Jennifer Loach, Edward VI, NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1999, ISBN 0300079923. Original artist: Edward VI of England

• File:Edward_VI_Scrots_c1550.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Edward_VI_Scrots_c1550.jpg Li-cense: Public domain Contributors: Scanned from tipped in color plate in Roy Strong, The English Icon: Elizabethan and Jacobean Por-traiture, 1969, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Original in the Royal Collection. Original artist: Attributed to William Scrots (fl.1537–1554)

• File:John_Dudley,_1st_Duke_of_Northumberland.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/John_Dudley%2C_1st_Duke_of_Northumberland.png License: Public domain Contributors: Chris Skidmore, Edward VI: The Lost King ofEngland, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007, ISBN 9780297846499. Original artist: Artist unknown.

• File:Streathamladyjayne.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Streathamladyjayne.jpg License: Publicdomain Contributors:Purchased from [1].National Portrait Gallery, London: NPG 6804Original artist: Unknown

• File:Symbol_support_vote.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg License: ? Contribu-tors: ? Original artist: ?

12.3 Content license• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0