The King's Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey (Pimlico) (96 page)

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.