Skip to content

John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland

Ch. 1 of 8
— CH. 1 · INTRODUCTION —

Contents

John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland

8 sections
  • John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, died on the 22nd of August 1553 with a curious phrase on his lips: "I have deserved a thousand deaths." He had just knelt before ten thousand people at the scaffold, kissed a cross he made in the straw, and placed his head on the block. The man who had steered England through some of its most turbulent years was gone. How did the son of an executed traitor rise to become the most powerful man in England? How did a celebrated admiral, a war hero, a reforming statesman, end up as a popularly despised figure known to history as the "wicked Duke"? And to what extent was the infamous plot to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne truly his own making?

  • Edmund Dudley, John's father, was arrested the very day Henry VIII came to the throne, used as a scapegoat for the unpopular financial policies of his predecessor. He was executed for high treason in 1510, leaving his seven-year-old son to become the ward of Sir Edward Guildford. The attainder against Edmund was lifted shortly after, and the King expressed hope for the "good services which the said John Dudley is likely to do." It was an ambiguous inheritance: restored in name and blood, but fatherless, and acutely aware of how quickly royal favour could turn fatal.

    Guildford's household became Dudley's world. He grew up alongside Jane Guildford, who was four years his junior and who would become his wife in 1525. The thirteen children they eventually had together were educated in Renaissance humanism and science. A French report from as late as 1546 called Dudley "the most skilful of his generation, both on foot and on horseback", praising his wrestling, archery, and tournament performances at the royal court.

    At around fifteen he probably travelled to the Pale of Calais for several years of service. He participated in Cardinal Wolsey's diplomatic voyages of 1521 and 1527, and was knighted at Roye by Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk, during the 1523 invasion of France. By 1524 he was a Knight of the Body. By 1534 he was responsible for the King's body armour as Master of the Tower Armoury. The trajectory of a man climbing steadily closer to power was already clear. His connection to Thomas Cromwell, which he used to win an inheritance dispute over Sir Edward Guildford's estate after the old man died without a written will in 1534, showed that Dudley understood how influence worked and was willing to deploy it.

  • In January 1537 John Dudley was made Vice-Admiral, and he threw himself into naval affairs with a thoroughness that transformed English sea power. He created the Council for Marine Causes, which for the first time co-ordinated the many tasks involved in keeping the navy functioning, making English naval administration the most efficient in Europe. His fighting orders were at the forefront of tactical thinking: squadrons of ships, ordered by size and firepower, were to manoeuvre in formation and use co-ordinated gunfire. These were all new developments in the English navy.

    In 1545 Dudley directed fleet operations before, during, and after the Battle of the Solent, and entertained King Henry aboard the flagship Henri Grace a Dieu. The sinking of the Mary Rose with five hundred men aboard was a tragic loss during those same engagements. In 1546, when Dudley suspected the Admiral of France, Claude d'Annebault, of manoeuvres that might have renewed hostilities, he abruptly put to sea in a show of English strength before returning to the negotiating table. The talks moved to Fontainebleau, where the English delegates were entertained by the Dauphin Henri and King Francis. In the resulting Peace of Camp, the French king acknowledged Henry VIII's title as "Supreme Head of the Church of England and Ireland".

    Dudley's interest in the sea was never purely military. He encouraged English voyages to distant coasts, ignoring Spanish threats. He contemplated a raid on Peru with Sebastian Cabot in 1551. Expeditions to Morocco and the Guinea coast were realised in 1551 and 1552. A planned voyage to China via the Northeast Passage under Hugh Willoughby sailed in May 1553, with the dying King Edward watching their departure from his window.

  • The Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547 saw Dudley lead the English vanguard as second-in-command under the new Lord Protector, Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset. He was described as "one of the key architects of the English victory". On one occasion during the Scottish campaign he fought his way out of an ambush and chased his Scottish counterpart for some two hundred and fifty yards, spear in hand. He and Somerset appeared firmly allied.

    But Somerset's agrarian proclamations, which implied to commoners that enclosures were unlawful, alarmed Dudley as one of England's major landowners. He discreetly tried to warn Somerset of the danger. By the summer of 1549, widespread rebellion had broken out across England. After the Marquess of Northampton failed to restore order around Norwich, Dudley was sent to suppress Kett's Rebellion. He offered Robert Kett a pardon if the peasant army disbanded at once; Kett refused. That night Dudley stormed the rebel-held city with a small mercenary contingent after fierce street fighting, hanging forty-nine prisoners immediately. Two days later, when Kett confronted the royal army with his main camp outside the city, more than two thousand peasants were killed in the battle that followed. Courts-martial in the following weeks executed many more rebels, perhaps up to three hundred. The enraged local gentry still wanted harsher punishment. Dudley rebuked them: "Is there no place for pardon?... Shall we hold the plough ourselves, play the carters and labour the ground with our own hands?"

    By autumn 1549, Somerset's colleagues had concluded he was unwilling to listen to good counsel and had failed to exercise proper authority. Dudley joined the Earl of Southampton and the Earl of Arundel to lead a coup of councillors, withdrawing from court to London and meeting at Dudley's own residence. Somerset tried in vain to raise a popular force and retreated to Windsor Castle with the young king. Military force near Edward's presence was unthinkable. Dudley and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer brokered an unofficial deal, and Somerset surrendered. The twelve-year-old King personally commanded his uncle's arrest. When Southampton later tried to destroy Dudley by associating him with Somerset's original crimes, Dudley invited the council to his house and silenced the plotters by placing his hand on his sword and declaring, with what one account called "a warlike visage", that the man who sought Somerset's blood would have his also.

  • On the 2nd of February 1550 John Dudley became Lord President of the Council, the effective regent for the twelve-year-old Edward VI. Rather than claim the title of Lord Protector, he chose to rule as primus inter pares, creating a more conciliar and less autocratic atmosphere than had existed under Somerset. He placed his "special friends" Sir John Gates and Lord Thomas Darcy near the King, and positioned his son-in-law Sir Henry Sidney and his brother Sir Andrew Dudley in Edward's vicinity as well. William Cecil, once Somerset's man, gradually shifted his loyalty and was made Secretary of State. Dudley called him "a most faithful servant and by that term most witty wise councillor... as was scarce like in this realm".

    The Imperial ambassador Jean Scheyfve observed that the King "loved and feared" Dudley. At a dinner Edward discussed affairs at length with the envoy until Northumberland discreetly indicated that he had said enough. Yet the relationship was not simply one of domination. Stephen Alford, writing on the question of how much Edward shaped his own government, concluded that it was possible to "endorse Edward's developing grasp of the business of kingship and accept the still powerful political presence of John Dudley and his colleagues." From the age of around fourteen, the King's signature on documents no longer required the council's countersignatures, and he was regularly briefed in meetings with a council of his own choosing.

    From an almost bankrupt administration, Dudley negotiated peace with both France and Scotland, recovering the besieged English garrison at Boulogne and receiving French payments of roughly £180,000 in redemption. He installed lord-lieutenants across England to represent the central government and keep small cavalry bands ready for local policing. By the summer of 1552 the country was calm enough that those cavalry bands were actually disbanded to save money. The financial expert Thomas Gresham was recruited to stabilise the currency; after the first good harvest in four years, by late 1552 the currency was stable, foreign debt had been eliminated, and food prices had dropped.

  • On the 21st of May 1553, Guildford Dudley, Northumberland's second youngest son, married Lady Jane Grey, the fervently Protestant daughter of the Duke of Suffolk and niece of Henry VIII through her mother Frances Brandon. At the time, the Imperial ambassador Scheyfve, who was the most suspicious observer at court, did not regard the match as politically significant. What changed everything was a document Edward had already been composing: headed "My devise for the Succession", it reflected the fifteen-year-old King's ardent Protestantism and his refusal to see his Catholic half-sister Mary inherit the throne.

    In an earlier draft, Edward had provided only for hypothetical male heirs, bypassing both his half-sisters. Around the end of May or the beginning of June, as his condition worsened dramatically, he altered the document so that Lady Jane Grey herself, not merely her future sons, could inherit the Crown. How far Northumberland influenced this final change remains genuinely contested. Edward personally supervised the copying of his will and twice summoned lawyers to his bedside to give orders. On the second occasion, the 15th of June, Northumberland kept a watchful eye over the proceedings. Days before, the Duke had intimidated the judges who raised legal objections. Eventually, a formal declaration signed by one hundred and two notables, including the whole Privy Council, peers, bishops, judges, and London aldermen, gave the scheme its legal weight.

    The traditional reading is that it was Northumberland's plot to keep his family close to power. But many historians have since concluded that the "devise" was genuinely Edward's own, with Dudley implementing it after the King's death out of loyalty, despair for his own survival, or a combination of both. At his execution Dudley himself said: "this act wherefore I die, was not altogether of me (as it is thought) but I was procured and induced thereunto by others."

  • Edward VI died on the 6th of July 1553. The following morning Northumberland sent his son Robert into Hertfordshire with three hundred men to secure Mary Tudor's person. But Mary had already moved to East Anglia, where she was the greatest landowner. She began assembling armed supporters and sent a letter to the council demanding recognition as queen. Her messenger, Thomas Hungate, arrived with the letter on the 10th of July, the very day Jane Grey was proclaimed queen.

    Northumberland needed a week to build a force large enough to confront Mary. He headed for Cambridge on the 14th of July with fifteen hundred troops and some artillery. But gentry and nobility across East Anglia and the Thames Valley were flocking to Mary's camp daily, and through what the sources call luck, her forces came into possession of powerful artillery from the royal navy. On the 20th of July a letter arrived from the council in London: they had proclaimed Mary Queen. Dudley explained to his fellow-commanders that they had always acted on the council's orders and that he did not now wish to "combat the Council's decisions." At the market place, proclaiming Mary Tudor, he threw his cap in the air and, as one account recorded, "so laughed that the tears ran down his cheeks for grief." The next morning the Earl of Arundel arrived to arrest him, the same Arundel who a week earlier had assured Northumberland of his wish to spill his blood at the Duke's feet.

    Northumberland rode through London to the Tower on the 25th of July, his guards struggling to protect him from the hostile crowd. A pamphlet circulating shortly after his arrest called him "the great devil Dudley." He was tried on the 18th of August 1553 in Westminster Hall. Before ten thousand people on the scaffold, Northumberland returned to the Catholic faith and delivered a final address urging the crowd to beware of preachers "who know not today what they would have tomorrow." He then made a cross in the straw, kissed it, laid his head on the block, and died. His last written words, a desperate plea to the Earl of Arundel the night before, read: "O my good lord remember how sweet life is, and how bitter ye contrary."

  • The "wicked Duke" label was largely constructed for political convenience. Queen Mary needed a single villain to explain the succession crisis, and Northumberland was the obvious candidate. Protestant writers including John Foxe and John Ponet rehabilitated Somerset as the "good Duke", which required its opposite. The Victorian historians James Anthony Froude and A. F. Pollard amplified this reading; Pollard called Dudley "the subtlest intriguer in English History." This dichotomy endured in scholarship as late as 1968-1970, when W. K. Jordan's two-volume study of Edward VI's reign still worked within it, though Jordan also saw Northumberland as a loyal and tragic enforcer rather than the original instigator of the succession scheme.

    Since the 1970s, historians have revised the picture substantially. Dale Hoak concluded in 1980 that "given the circumstances which he inherited in 1549, the duke of Northumberland appears to have been one of the most remarkably able governors of any European state during the sixteenth century." Diarmaid MacCulloch, writing in 1999, detected in his policies "idealism of a sort." Contemporary diplomatic observers were not uniformly hostile: a French eyewitness in 1553 described Dudley as "an intelligent man who could explain his ideas and who displayed an impressive dignity. Others, who did not know him, would have considered him worthy of a kingdom."

    The diplomat Richard Morrison once observed of his former superior: "This Earl had such a head that he seldom went about anything but he had three or four purposes beforehand." What stayed constant in Dudley, beneath the shifting assessments, was a quality his own writings make plain. Nine months before his execution he wrote to Cecil, recalling his father's fate: Edmund Dudley had "after his master was gone, suffered death for doing his master's commandments." The son would repeat the pattern almost exactly, and knew it.

Updated

Common questions

Who was John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland?

John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland (1504-1553) was an English military officer and politician who served as Vice-Admiral and Lord High Admiral under Henry VIII and became the de facto regent of England during the reign of the young King Edward VI from 1550 until 1553. He was the son of Edmund Dudley, a minister of Henry VII who was executed by Henry VIII.

What was John Dudley's role in the Lady Jane Grey succession crisis?

Northumberland's son Guildford Dudley married Lady Jane Grey on the 21st of May 1553, and after Edward VI altered his succession document to name Jane as heir, Northumberland signed the engagement to perform the King's will alongside twenty-three others. Whether the scheme was Northumberland's plot or genuinely Edward's own initiative remains disputed among historians; at his execution Dudley said he had been "procured and induced" by others.

How did John Dudley come to power after the Duke of Somerset?

Dudley led a coup of privy councillors in October 1549 that forced the Duke of Somerset, England's Lord Protector, out of office after Somerset's agrarian policies and autocratic style alienated his colleagues. By the 2nd of February 1550 Dudley had become Lord President of the Council, serving as de facto regent for the twelve-year-old Edward VI.

What did John Dudley accomplish as Lord High Admiral?

As Lord High Admiral from 1543, Dudley created the Council for Marine Causes, the first body to co-ordinate all naval maintenance tasks, making English naval administration the most efficient in Europe. He introduced formation manoeuvring and co-ordinated gunfire by squadrons ordered by size and firepower, and directed fleet operations at the Battle of the Solent in 1545. He also championed English voyages of exploration to Morocco, the Guinea coast, and a planned Northeast Passage expedition under Hugh Willoughby.

Why was John Dudley executed in 1553?

Northumberland was convicted of high treason on the 18th of August 1553 for his role in placing Lady Jane Grey on the throne after Edward VI's death, an act that directly challenged Mary Tudor's claim as queen. He was executed on the 22nd of August 1553 at the Tower of London before a crowd of ten thousand people.

How have historians reassessed John Dudley's reputation?

Since the 1970s, historians have moved away from the Victorian "wicked Duke" interpretation. Dale Hoak concluded in 1980 that Northumberland was "one of the most remarkably able governors of any European state during the sixteenth century." Scholars now credit him with revitalising the Privy Council, stabilising England's finances, ending costly wars with France and Scotland, and pursuing religious reform in line with Edward VI's own convictions.

All sources

240 references cited across the entry

  1. 1Loades 2008
  2. 2Loades 2008; Adams 2002 pp. 312–313
  3. 3Loades 1996 pp. 7–11
  4. 4Loades 1996 p. 17
  5. 5Loades 1996 p. 18
  6. 6Loades 1996 p. 20
  7. 7John Gough Nichols, Chronicle of Calais (London: Camden Society, 1846), p. 100.
  8. 8Loades 1996 pp. 20–22, 24–25
  9. 9Loades 1996 p. 22
  10. 10Ives 2009 p. 99
  11. 11MacCulloch 2001 pp. 52–53; Ives 2009 pp. 114–115
  12. 12Wilson 1981 pp. 11, 15–16; French 2002 p. 33
  13. 13Loades 1996 pp. 30–32; Beer 1973 p. 8
  14. 14Loades 1996 pp. 27–28
  15. 15Loades 1996 p. 28
  16. 16Beer 1973 pp. 8–9
  17. 17Loades 1996 p. 36
  18. 18Hawkyard 1982
  19. 19Loades 1996 pp. 31, 33–34
  20. 20Loades 1996 pp. 34–36, viii; Wilson 1981 p. 20
  21. 21Ives 2009 p. 99; Warnicke 2012 p. 64
  22. 22Loades 1996 p. 48
  23. 23Ives 2009 p. 103
  24. 24Ives 2009 pp. 100–101
  25. 25Ives 2009 p. 101
  26. 26Loades 1996 pp. 71, 85
  27. 27Beer 1973 p. 32; Loades 1996 pp. 69–71
  28. 28Loades 1996 p. 77
  29. 29Beer 1973 p. 36; Loades 1996 pp. 78–80; Ives 2009 p. 103
  30. 30Wilson 1981 p. 22; Beer 1973 p. 36
  31. 31Wilson 1981 p. 22
  32. 32Loades 1996 p. 79
  33. 33Hutchinson 2006 p. 181; Loades 1996 pp. 81–82
  34. 34Loades 1996 pp. 82–85; MacCulloch 2001 pp. 7–8
  35. 35Rathbone 2002; Loades 1996 pp. 82–85
  36. 36Beer 1973 p. 41
  37. 37Hutchinson 2006 p. 213
  38. 38Alford 2002 pp. 29, 69–70
  39. 39Loades 1996 pp. 88–90
  40. 40Beer 1973 pp. 58–60; Loades 2008
  41. 41Loades 1996 p. 100
  42. 42Ives 2009 p. 104
  43. 43Merriman 2000 p. 353
  44. 44Loades 1996 p. 107
  45. 45Loades 1996 pp. 107–108; Loades 2004 pp. 44–45; Loades 2008
  46. 46Loades 1996 p. 118
  47. 47Ives 2009 p. 102
  48. 48Wood 2007 p. 72
  49. 49Chapman 1962 p. 63; Wood 2007 pp. 72–73
  50. 50Rathbone 2002
  51. 51MacCulloch 2001 pp. 50–51
  52. 52Alford 2002 pp. 71–72
  53. 53Loades 2004 pp. 47–48
  54. 54Beer 1973 p. 88; Loades 2004 p. 48
  55. 55Loades 2004 pp. 48–50; MacCulloch 2001 p. 51
  56. 56Loades 2004 p. 50
  57. 57Loades 2004 pp. 84–85
  58. 58Loades 2004 pp. 84–85; Hoak 1980 pp. 36–37
  59. 59MacCulloch 2001 p. 95; Hoak 1980 p. 36
  60. 60Loades 1996 pp. 144–145
  61. 61Hoak 1980 pp. 36–39; Loades 2004 p. 88
  62. 62Loades 2004 pp. 87–88, 104
  63. 63Ives 2009 p. 111
  64. 64Hoak 1980 p. 39; Loades 1996 p. 186
  65. 65Hoak 1980 p. 48; Loades 2004 p. 110
  66. 66Loades 1996 pp. 168–169
  67. 67Alford 2002 p. 170
  68. 68Loades 2004 pp. 108–109
  69. 69Loades 1996 p. 182; Hoak 1980 p. 46
  70. 70Loades 1996 pp. 180–181
  71. 71Loades 1996 pp. 183, 184, 188
  72. 72Loades 2004 pp. 110–111; Loades 2008
  73. 73Ives 2009 p. 109; Loades 1996 pp. 189, 190
  74. 74Hoak 1980 p. 203; Loades 2004 p. 110
  75. 75Loades 1996 p. 182; MacCulloch 2001 p. 55
  76. 76Loades 1996 p. 149
  77. 77Hoak 1980 p. 38
  78. 78Hoak 1980 p. 44
  79. 79Christmas 1997
  80. 80Alford 2002 p. 140
  81. 81Hoak 1980 p. 40; Alford 2002 pp. 139–141
  82. 82Loades 2004 p. 88; Loades 1996 pp. 201–203
  83. 83Loades 2004 p. 88; Loades 1996 pp. 173, 193
  84. 84Loades 1996 p. 193
  85. 85Alford 2002 pp. 163–166, 168
  86. 86Beer 1973 pp. 124–125; Loades 2004 p. 89; MacCulloch 2001 p. 53
  87. 87Ives 2009 p. 133
  88. 88Loades 1996 p. 234
  89. 89Alford 2002 pp. 142, 148; Loades 1996 p. 202
  90. 90Alford 2002 p. 159
  91. 91Hoak 1980 pp. 29–30
  92. 92Loades 1996 p. 145
  93. 93Ives 2009 pp. 111–112, 308; Loades 2008
  94. 94Loades 2004 p. 98; Loades 2008
  95. 95Hoak 1980 p. 42
  96. 96Williams 1998 p. 67
  97. 97Slack 1980 p. 103; Guy 1990 p. 221
  98. 98Slack 1980 pp. 105–106
  99. 99Williams 1998 p. 68
  100. 100Loades 1996 p. 150; Rathbone 2002
  101. 101Loades 1996 pp. 169–170; Hoak 1980 p. 30
  102. 102Ives 2009 p. 132
  103. 103Loades 1996 pp. 162, 227–229
  104. 104Loades 1996 pp. 170–171
  105. 105Loades 1996 p. 171
  106. 106Loades 1996 pp. 211–213
  107. 107Ives 2009 p. 7; Loades 1996 pp. 248–251; Loach 2002 p. 113; Hoak 1980 p. 42
  108. 108Loades 1996 pp. 158–159; Ives 2009 p. 88
  109. 109Loades 1996 pp. 158–159
  110. 110Starkey 2001 p. 105
  111. 111Loades 2004 p. 101
  112. 112Loades 2004 p. 102; Ives 2009 p. 92
  113. 113Ives 2009 p. 93; Richards 2007
  114. 114Loades 2004 p. 76; Jordan and Gleason 1975 pp. 4–5
  115. 115MacCulloch 2001 p. 56; Loades 2008
  116. 116MacCulloch 2001 p. 101; Loades 1996 p. 254
  117. 117Ives 2009 pp. 115–116
  118. 118Ives 2009 p. 116
  119. 119MacCulloch 2001 pp. 101–102; Loades 1996 pp. 218–219
  120. 120Alford 2002 p. 139
  121. 121Loades 1996 p. 254; MacCulloch 2001 p. 170
  122. 122Loades 1996 p. 176
  123. 123Loades 1996 pp. 176–177; Heal 1980 pp. 141–142
  124. 124MacCulloch 2001 p. 154; Loades 1996 p. 255
  125. 125Loades 1996 pp. 198, 302
  126. 126Heal 1980 pp. 145–146; 149
  127. 127MacCulloch 2001 p. 55; Heal 1980 p. 147
  128. 128Loades 1996 pp. 254–255
  129. 129Loades 1996 p. 170
  130. 130Loades 1996 pp. 169–170
  131. 131Loades 1996 pp. 169–170; Loades 2008
  132. 132Loades 1996 pp. 154–155; MacCulloch 2001 p. 55
  133. 133Loades 1996 p. 166
  134. 134Merriman 2000 p. 377
  135. 135Loades 1996 p. 209
  136. 136Merriman 2000 pp. 373–376; Loades 1996 p. 221
  137. 137Loades 1996 pp. 203–206
  138. 138Loades 1996 pp. 203, 241–242
  139. 139Loades 1996 pp. 203, 241–244
  140. 140Wilson 1981 p. 41
  141. 141Alford 2002 p. 97
  142. 142Loades 1996 p. 210
  143. 143Loades 1996 p. 244
  144. 144Loades 1996 p. 245
  145. 145Beer 1973 p. 193
  146. 146Loades 1996 pp. 245–247, 238
  147. 147Loades 1996 p. 247
  148. 148Ives 2009 p. 11; Loades 1996 p. 237
  149. 149Loades 1996 pp. 237–238
  150. 150Ives 2009 p. 94
  151. 151Loades 1996 p. 237
  152. 152Loades 1996 pp. 238–239; Adams 1995 p. 44
  153. 153Loades 1996 p. 239
  154. 154Ives 2009 p. 152
  155. 155Loades 1996 pp. 238–239; Loades 2004 p. 121; Ives 2009 pp. 152–154; Jordan and Gleason 1975 pp. 10–11; Wilson 2005 pp. 214–215; Christmas 1997
  156. 156Alford 2002 pp. 171–172
  157. 157Ives 2009 pp. 137–139; Loades 2004 p. 68
  158. 158Loades 2003 pp. 79–80; Starkey 2001 pp. 111–113; Loades 1996 p. 232; Ives 2009 pp. 142–143; Hoak 2008
  159. 159Ives 2009 pp. 139–140; Starkey 2001 p. 113
  160. 160Ives 2009 p. 145; Loades 1996 p. 239
  161. 161Loades 2004 p. 121; Ives 2009 p. 150; Alford 2002 p. 172; Hoak 2008
  162. 162Alford 2002 p. 172; Loades 2004 p. 122; Hoak 2008
  163. 163Ives 2009 pp. 145, 148; Loades 1996 p. 241
  164. 164Ives 2009 pp. 105, 148
  165. 165Ives 2009 pp. 160–161; Alford 2002 p. 172
  166. 166Ives 2009 pp. 165–166; Hoak 1980 p. 49
  167. 167Hoak 2008
  168. 168Loades 1996 p. 240; Ives 2009 p. 151
  169. 169Loades 1996 pp. 262–263
  170. 170Loades 1996 pp. 256–257
  171. 171Chapman 1962 p. 121
  172. 172MacCulloch 2001 pp. 39–41; Starkey 2001 pp. 112–114; Alford 2002 pp. 171–172; Jordan 1970 pp. 515–516
  173. 173Ives 2009 p. 141; MacCulloch 2001 p. 41; Loades 1996 p. 233; Hoak 2008; Wilson 2005 p. 216
  174. 174Starkey 2001 p. 111; Beer 1973 pp. 147–148; Loades 1996 pp. 238
  175. 175Loades 1996 pp. 240–241; Jordan 1970 pp. 511, 517
  176. 176Loades 1996 p. 241; Loades 2008; Jordan 1970 pp. 531–532
  177. 177Ives 2009 p. 216
  178. 178Ives 2009 pp. 202, 325
  179. 179Loades 1996 pp. 257–258; Loach 2002 p. 170
  180. 180Loades 1996 pp. 258–259
  181. 181Ives 2009 p. 187
  182. 182Loades 1996 pp. 258–261
  183. 183Loades 1996 p. 261
  184. 184Ives 2009 p. 198
  185. 185Ives 2009 pp. 209–212; Loach 2002 p. 172
  186. 186Loades 2004 p. 127; Ives 2009 p. 241–242
  187. 187Chapman 1962 p. 149; Ives 2009 p. 241–242
  188. 188Ives 2009 p. 242
  189. 189Ives 2009 pp. 243–244; Nichols 1850 p. 7
  190. 190Chapman 1962 pp. 150–151
  191. 191Alford 2002 p. 7
  192. 192Alford 2002 p. 8; Loades 1996 p. 257
  193. 193Loades 1996 p. 265
  194. 194Loades 1996 pp. 264–265
  195. 195Ives 2009 pp. 96–97
  196. 196Tytler 1839 pp. 225–226; Ives 2009 p. 96; Loades 1996 pp. 266, 271
  197. 197Loades 1996 pp. 267–268; Ives 2009 p. 184
  198. 198Ives 2009 p. 117
  199. 199Ives 2009 p. 119
  200. 200Loades 1996 p. 269
  201. 201Chapman 1962 p. 169
  202. 202Loades 1996 p. 270
  203. 203Jordan and Gleason 1975 pp. 45–47
  204. 204Ives 2009 p. 109; Loades 2008
  205. 205Ives 2009 pp. 107–109
  206. 206Loades 1996 p. 267; Ives 2009 p. 3
  207. 207Ives 2009 p. 154 (square brackets by Ives)
  208. 208Loades 1996 pp. vii–viii; Jordan and Gleason 1975 pp. 54–55
  209. 209MacCulloch 2001 p. 42; Loades 1996 p. 192; Loades 2008
  210. 210Alford 2002 pp. 20–21
  211. 211MacCulloch 2001 p. 42
  212. 212Loades 1996 p. 192; Jordan and Gleason 1975 pp. 9–10, 12; Jordan 1970 pp. 531–532
  213. 213Beer 1973 p. 149; Rathbone 2002
  214. 214Hoak 1980 p. 49; Beer 1973 pp. 148, 164
  215. 215Hoak 1980 p. 50; Loades 1996 p. viii
  216. 216Loades 1996 p. vii
  217. 217MacCulloch 2001 p. 55; Alford 2002 p. 170; Hoak 1980 p. 50
  218. 218Dawson 1993 p. 253
  219. 219MacCulloch 2001 p. 55
  220. 220Hoak 1980 p. 51; Dawson 1993 p. 243
  221. 221Loades 1996 p. 268
  222. 222Ives 2009 p. 118; Jordan and Gleason 1975 p. 56
  223. 223Ives 2009 p. 115
  224. 224Adams 2002 p. 133; Ives 2009 p. 118
  225. 225Chapman 1962 p. 166; Jordan and Gleason 1975 p. 58; Loades 2008
  226. 226Beer 1973 p. 158; Loades 1996 p. 268; Ives p. 309
  227. 227Loades 1996 pp. 196, 198, 199
  228. 228Tytler 1839 p. 148
  229. 229Loades 1996 pp. ix, 285
  230. 230Loades 1996 pp. 285–286, 258
  231. 231Loades 1996 pp. 222–223; 97–98; Hoak 1980 p. 46
  232. 232Loades 1996 pp. 269–270; Hoak 1980 p. 45; Jordan and Gleason 1975 p. 57
  233. 233Loades 1996 pp. 269–270; Ives 2009 pp. 122–123, 124; Jordan and Gleason 1975 p. 12
  234. 234Ives 2009 pp. 120–123; Jordan and Gleason 1975 p. 57
  235. 235Ives 2009 pp. 123–124
  236. 236Ives 2009 p. 122
  237. 237Ives 2009 pp. 104–105; Hoak 1980 pp. 44–45
  238. 238Ives 2009 pp. 105–106, 307; Loades 2008; Gunn 1999 pp. 1268, 1270–1271
  239. 239Hoak 1980 p. 40; Alford 2002 p. 140; Ives 2009 pp. 124–125
  240. 240Nichols 1857 pp. ccxxii, ccxxiv; Ives 2009 p. 104

Queue