Dukedoms of the realms of England, Scotland, GB, Ireland and the UK.

[alixaannencova]

I have spent years collecting together a personal library of books relating specifically to the ducal dynasties of the five peerages of creation set out above.

The present holders of such non royal Dukedoms number just twenty four individuals, which makes them an extraordinarily elite social group. I have long been fascinated by the families that have or had a Duke as their dynastic head, and have spent quite a lot of time and resources exploring and gathering as much data as I can on these rare creatures and their progeny.

I even contemplated setting up my own website dedicated to coalescing as much data as I could about the Ducal families, and acquired a suitable domain name etc, but I am not into IT and website creating, so this project never got very far!

But, I was wondering whether or not, there would enough people here on this marvelous forum, who would like me to start a thread about these families. I envisage that it would have to be limited to just Dukes from the above realms, otherwise it would become a monolith if all of Burkes was included, and other European Ducal Houses were included likewise.

I could have simply started individual topic threads for each of the twenty four extant Ducal families and others for the extinct variety, but I thought it may be quite a good idea, considering the amount of data I, and (hopefully) others may have to contribute , to create a seperate thread all together with individual topic threads within...so to speak!

Any thoughts would be very appreciated and I would be happy to start off at the beginning with a 'Norfolk' thread followed by 'Somerset' and so on..... if enough people would like me to and if the powers that be feel it may be positive and of use!

Cheers

Toots

[Prince_Lieven]

It's definitely an interesting subject Toots! Norfolk is the oldest one, if I remember right, followed by Somerset and then . . . . one of the one's created by Charles II? Grafton or Beaufort or St Albans? The dukedoms of England come first in precedence, followed by Scotland, Great Britain, the UK, then Ireland, I think . . .correct me if I'm wrong Toots. There's only two Irish dukedoms left - Leinster and Abercorn.

There's a new book about the Howard family (dukes of Norfolk) at the moment called 'House of Treason' (I think). They definitely had quite a chequered history, especially with the Tudors . . . the dukedom was attainted and re-instated several times I think! The Dukes of Norfolk  of Tudor times seemed to personify the 'over mighty subject' that was so abhorrent to the Tudors, especially once they'd gained a strain of Plantagenet blood (through Eleanor Stafford, wife of the 3rd duke [I think!] and descendant of Edward III). Great family to start the discussion with!

[alixaannencova]

Thanks Prince for your enthusiastic response!

Here is a taster about the Norfolks....I have heaps of stuff I could post...but thought best to just throw in a tit bit!

The Dukes of Norfolk cr. 1483 - This Dukedom is the oldest of non Royal origin in existence in Britain. The Howards were modest landowners until one Sir Robert Howard of Tendring, made a spectacular dynastic marriage to Lady Margaret Mowbray, daughter of the 1st Duke of Norfolk of the first creation. The Mowbrays were by this time one of the most illustrious dynasties in all England, having made brilliant marriages in turn to grand daughters of both Edward I and Henry III. It was with Sir Robert's marriage to Lady Margaret, that the Howards really emerged from the modesty of the landed gentry and began their rise to the very apex of society.

In due course, Sir Robert and Lady Margaret Mowbray's son, John Howard would benefit greatly from the deaths of his maternal first and second cousins once removed, John de Mowbray, 4th Duke of Norfolk and his only child Lady Anne Mowbray. Howard had, no doubt been made aware of the precarious instability and dangers that went with such power and wealth as a Dukedom during the fifteenth century from the example of his Mowbray kin. His grandfather the Mowbray 1st Duke had been metaphorically taken down a peg or two and was stripped of the Dukedom and Earl Marshalship, when he took the losing side in the feud between Richard II, the Duke of Gloucester and the future Henry IV. It was John Howard's uncle who was restored to Earl Marshalship in 1412 and in 1425 was restored to the Dukedom of Norfolk.

 John Howard's first cousin, the son and successor of the 2nd Duke of Norfolk, perhaps influenced his cousin to join the Yorkist cause during the Wars of the Roses thus providing Howard with a lucrative link to the court of Edward IV. The Mowbray 3rd Duke was a staunch supporter of Edward IV as was his only child and successor, the 4th and last Mowbray Duke of Norfolk. His death in 1476 brought the Mowbray Dukedom to an end, but his only child Lady Anne Mowbray was subsequently a great heiress, having inherited the vast Mowbray patrimony, and she was swiftly married off aged five, to Edward IV's second son, Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, then aged four. Anne died in 1481 and her widower was made Duke of Norfolk of the 2nd creation. In 1483 Richard, Duke of York and Norfolk was confirmed by Act of Parliament as legal successor to his dead wife's estates, to the detriment and exclusion of her rightful heirs John Howard and William, Viscount Berkeley. This legislation probably lead Howard to subsequently support Richard III's move to have himself proclaimed King after the disappearance of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York and Norfolk.

It is interesting to note that at the time that Edward V and his brother were conveyed to the Tower of London on May 19th and June 16th 1483 respectively, the Constable of the Tower was none other than John Howard. On 28th June following, three days after Richard took the throne, John Howard was created 1st Duke of Norfolk of the third creation and given a sizable portion of the Mowbray patrimony with which to support his new status.

On three occasions 1485, 1547 and 1572 the Howards have lost the Dukedom of Norfolk, but they have successfully regained this illustrious peerage thrice more in 1514, 1553 and 1660 through sheer labour, chicanery, shrewdness and dogged determination.
   
 The Howards have proved to be one of the most tenacious and enduring families in British History and have held  'twenty five different patents of creation to separate peerages.' Which in itself is a remarkable feat. 

With two Queen Consorts of England, both grand daughters of the 2nd Duke of Norfolk and a canonized saint, the son and heir of the 4th Duke amongst their ranks, and generations of other colourful and fascinating personages to learn about, the Dukes of Norfolk endure to this day.



 

[Prince_Lieven]

Fascinating stuff, Toots! Am I right in thinking they're also the only ducal family to remain Catholic? I think they've been nominally Anglican in the past, for political purposes, but have aways been regarded as an old, Catholic family. They were definitely a family of limitless ambition - as you mention, they've produced two queens of England (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, nieces of the 3rd duke) and there were even plots to marry the 4th duke to Mary, Queen of Scots, and put them both on the throne of England. The duke remains Earl Marshall to this day, I believe? Nowadays they have the double-barrel surname of 'Fitzalan-Howard', reflecting their acquisition of the earldom of Arundel, one of the oldest in England.

[alixaannencova]

Dukes of Norfolk cr. 1483 - Continued:-

In 1842 the 13th Duke of Norfolk encouraged his sons to add the name of Fitzalan to their surname. This was inspired by the pseudo-feudalism that was proving highly popular at the time! During the nineteenth century many patrician families employed genealogists to enhance their rolls of pedigree. It was fashionable to dig out links to Normans who came over with Conqueror or arrived in the century following, no matter how tenuous the evidence in some cases. The Russell Dukes of Bedford and the Seymour/St Maur Dukes of Somerset were amongst the Ducal Houses who were noticeably culprits in this fad. In the case of the Howards, such dexterous and questionable genealogical practices were wholly unnecessary, as they were lineal female line descendants not only of the Bigods, de Veres, Staffords and Mowbrays to name but a few, but also of the equally illustrious and impressively antique Fitzalans, Earl of Arundel. Further motivation was no doubt the Norfolks decision to establish Arundel, the ancient seat of their Fitzalan ancestors, as the principal ducal seat after the sale of Worksop in the famed Dukeries of Nottinghamshire.

Fot the sake of continuity I shall now return to the 1st Duke and his successor, and their places in the annals of this illustrious family:-
 
John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk proved himself a loyal supporter of Richard III. Even in light of his possible involvement in the disappearance of Edward V and Richard Duke of York, Norfolk's adherence to Richard III's cause did much to motivate a remarkable amount of damage limitation to his reputation after the Battle of Bosworth. Where the 1st Earl of Derby is regarded as a treacherous turncoat to this day, and the 4th Earl of Northumberland's hesitation during the battle still provokes raised eyebrows as to his loyalty to Richard III, Norfolk stood firm and perished along with his King on the field, but whilst the King's body was treated with relative ignominy, the Duke's body was conveyed back to Norfolk and interred with appropriate to his rank.
   Even though Norfolk died in the cause of the losing King, his stalwart loyalty would remain a key note to his future reputation as ducal progenitor of the Howards. He was posthumously attainted but only after his son and heir the Earl of Surrey, had held the Dukedom briefly, the latter, after several years in the Tower was released the attainder against him and his father reversed, and he was restored to the Earldom of Surrey and his wife's estates, during a period when the pragmatic Henry VII began to consolidate his position by actively winning over former opponents. But the Dukedom and the Howard-Mowbray estates continued to be withheld, probably in a bid to encourage a 'stick and carrot' incentive for Surrey, who subsequently continued his obeisance to Henry Tudor as he strove methodically and ably in his mission to restore his family's fortunes.

Over the following three decades, Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey de jure 2nd Duke of Norfolk, worked tirelessly and shrewdly to regain his alienated patrimony, finally achieving this goal in 1509. Thereafter, he worked industriously to enhance and consolidate the restoration and furtherance of his family's fortunes. He served Henry VII with a loyalty akin to that of his father to Richard III. From 1489, shortly after his release he was appointed Chief Justice in Eyre North of the Trent and in 1490 became Vice Warden of the East and Middle Marches. His duties in the North saw him successfully quell revolts inspired by increased taxes and in 1500 he returned south and to court were he was admitted to the Privy Council and subsequently appointed Lord Treasurer, a position he held for the following twenty one years.

  With the accession of the young Henry VIII, Lord Treasurer Surrey continued in office and was appointed Earl Marshal for the coronation. Surrey was primarily a Knight and soldier, having grown up during the darkest days of the Wars of the Roses, but he nonetheless possessed a more rounded character than that of a mere military commander, as proven by his leadership as Lord Treasurer. According to John Martin Robinson, the author of the primary Howard family history, Surrey found in Wolsey a rival, who resented Surrey's increasing prominence at court and began to use his machiavellian crafts to undermine and restrict Surrey's access to the King in the years following. In 1513 as Lord Treasurer, Surrey was apparently prevented from accompany Henry VIII on campaign to France, due to the devious designs of Wolsey, who wished to keep the war mongering King and Surrey apart at the time. Left behind in England to assist Queen Katherine in the governance of the realm, Surrey was thus able to rush north with his sons Thomas and Edmund in his retinue and resoundingly defeat James IV and the Scots at Flodden in the most spectacular triumph of his career and led to his restoration as 2nd Duke of Norfolk.

Even this, the epoch of his career was to be clouded for Norfolk by Wolsey's ever increasing pre-eminence at court. In 1521 at the age of nearly eighty, Norfolk was appointed 'Guardian of the Realm' when Henry and Wolsey crossed the Channel to attend the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Soon afterwards, probably at Wolsey's instigation Norfolk's old friend and the father of his elder son and heir's wife, Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham was arrested on charges of treasonous acts. Forced to act as Lord High Steward during the trial, Norfolk oversaw the downfall of Buckingham and apparently 'burst into tears' when the verdict was reached by his peers and he was required to pronounce sentence.

Now, a man of great age, Norfolk withdrew from court, he resigned all his appointments, retaining only that of  Earl Marshal and he retired to Norfolk, where he lived on in splendid dotage at Framlingham, the great seat of his Bigod and Mowbray forefathers, dying in 1524 having succeeded in leaving his successor the great patrimony regained through tireless and admirable labour. 

[alixaannencova]

Thomas, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, well what can one say about this extraordinary man?

  He was twelve years old when his grand father was slain at Bosworth and subsequently attainted. Yet, young Thomas would no doubt have learned the arts of self preservation, pragmatism and the rewards of methodical labour from the example of his remarkable father.
 As uncle of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard,and as a son in law through his first wife, of Edward IV and then of the tragic 3rd Duke of Buckingham through his second marriage, Thomas 3rd Duke of Norfolk is a figure who saw his family rise ever further to the very apex of preeminence and power during his tenure as Duke and also saw it sink into the very darkest nadir of ruin.
  He saw his own father pronounce the death sentence against his hapless father in law, an episode that perhaps prepared and hardened the 3rd Duke for when it came to the fate of his two nieces in the future. He watched and encouraged those nieces, pawns in a greater dynastic scheme, rise to the most exalted of all positions, and he then took part in their respective downfalls as well as witnessing that of his own foolish son and heir.
    He himself, came to within a literal hair's breadth of feeling the caress of the axe blade upon his own neck, saved only by the timely death of his King and former nephew by marriage, Henry VIII. Only with the death of Henry's Protestant son and successor, Edward VI and the Catholic Mary Tudor's accession after Lady Jane Grey's nine day tenure of the throne, did the eighty year old 3rd Duke reemerge from the Tower, where his father had also once languished, and where his grandfather as Constable had 'welcomed' Edward V and Richard Duke of York some seventy years earlier. Such was the nature of life during the uncertain and often dangerous times during which the 3rd Duke of Norfolk lived and survived.

At the age of twenty two as his father was rebuilding the family fortunes, Thomas future 3rd Duke of Norfolk made a spectacular marriage that eclipsed that of his great grandfather to Lady Margaret Mowbray, when he married Henry VII's sister in law Princess Anne of York. Although this marriage proved fruitless and Anne brought no dowry into the marriage, it established a familial link between the Tudor and Howard dynasties that was perhaps the catalyst for what would in time become something of a 'pet project' to reestablish, maintain and nurture for Thomas and his siblings.

In 1512, the widowed Thomas married for the second time, selecting once again a bride of impeccable pedigree with plenty of blue blood coursing through her veins. Lady Elizabeth Stafford was the daughter of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and his wife, a daughter of the 4th Earl of Northumberland of Bosworth infamy! The Staffords boasted descent from Edward III's sons, John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock, as well as from such illustrious dynasties as the Beauchamps, the Nevilles, the de Bohuns and the de Clares. This marriage produced the requisite heir and spare as well as a daughter, but eventually the couple lived apart, due in part to the future 3rd Duke's rather public attachment to the daughter of the Steward at his estate of Kenninghall in Norfolk.

Like his father, Thomas came from from 'an hereditary military caste,' but he did not emerge to the fore until after the accession of Henry VIII, who was keen to achieve military glory, particularly during the early years of his reign. In the year of his second marriage, Thomas took part in the disastrous Guienne campaign whilst his younger brother Lord Edward as Lord Admiral commanded the Channel Fleet. In the following year, Lord Edward perished in a skirmish off Brest and Thomas took his place. He was subsequently prevented from securing the Channel for the crossing of a great expeditionary force by prevailing winds and incurred the King's ire for his troubles. Inauspiciously, he remained behind with his father and younger surviving brother when Henry crossed and took part in the Battles of the Spurs and the capture of Tournai.

Therefore, fate allowed Thomas to be present to take an active role in implementing the strategy that saw the English under his father's command defeat the Scots at Flodden and see his father restored to the Dukedom of Norfolk in the following year, Thomas consequently gained his own reward as he became Earl of Surrey. Until his accession to the Dukedom, Thomas continued as Lord Admiral and served on occasion as Lord Deputy of Ireland amongst other appointments.

With his accession to the Dukedom in 1524, Thomas really came into his own as a man of extraordinary ambition, who would in time act so ruthlessly, that today his reputation is permanently tainted. The scheming began in earnest with the onset of the difficulties that Wolsey experienced during Henry VIII's moves to have his marriage to Katherine of Aragon annulled. In retrospect, it is hardly surprising that Norfolk would not look upon his father's arch rival's gradual fall from grace with some semblance of satisfaction. But in that heated and precarious climate of opportunity and change, Norfolk began to hone his own statecraft, and is believed to have been privy if not responsible for hatching the plans to encourage his nieces, Mary and Anne Boleyn into the disgruntle King's arms.
   As is well documented elsewhere, Norfolk was to see Anne triumph and marry their King, and at this time, it is supposed that Norfolk hoped to use his niece to forward a proposal to marry his heir, Surrey to Anne's new step daughter the future Mary I. In addition, Norfolk managed to arrange a match between his own daughter and the King's illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond thus establishing another tentacle like familial link between the King and his family. It must have seemed at this time as though Norfolk and the Howards were unassailable. But Norfolk came to realize that he could not rely on his niece to play an acquiescent and useful role in his grand designs. Anne Boleyn drew away from her uncle and a family fracture began to grow, a fracture that would eventually fester into a wound that would scupper many of Norfolk's future designs and divide his House.

I am unsure about the direction in which we should go here, as this is a thread about the Dukes of all twenty four extant house et al. and not just about the Norfolks? I fear that the ties that bound the Norfolks and the Somersets to the Tudors, Mary Queen of Scots and in the case of the Seymours in particular, James VI and I, may bog this thread down and I will try not to delve too deeply into the mire of intrigues that followed.

This is why I was wondering whether this should be sub divided into separate threads or not depending upon what sort of direction we wish to travel. I guess that there will be heaps of members who will like the Tudor period Dukes and ancestors of extant ducal families, and that others will not be so enthused, but the latter members will no doubt find their interests fired by the ducal personalities of the following centuries. I dare say, many will love learning and sharing anecdotes about those characters who figured during the Belle epoch in particular!

I mean I could easily and quite happily sit here for hours on end writing up bios, thoughts and stats about the each Duke of each 'House' in turn, which seems frightfully self indulgent to me!!!

[alixaannencova]

Sorry Prince Lieven...yes the Norfolks are the only ducal dynasty that are known to have remained faithful to Rome, with the odd conformity on the part of a couple of members of the family, including the notorious 'Jockey' Norfolk, boon companion of George IV when he was Prince Regent!

The present Duke retains his seat in the Lords by virtue of his position as Hereditary Earl Marshal. David, 7th and present Marquess of Cholmondely also retains his seat by virtue of his position as Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain. Neither Norfolk nor Cholmondely required election to remain in the Lords. The Dukes of Norfolk in their capacity as Earl Marshal were and are currently responsible for arranging all manner of state occasions, from state funerals to 'state' Royal Weddings, to the state opening of Parliament.
   In the past, Dukes as hereditary Earls Marshal have on occasion, incited concerns as to their abilities to carry out such complicated and painstaking duties, but in the last hundred years, successive Dukes have gained enormous respect for their finite knowledge and abilities. A further duty as Earl Marshal is to oversee the College of Arms which is the only body in Britain permitted to legally grant armorials.

I believe that Bernard Duke was very keen to make sure his successor learnt from experience as well as form his example in carrying out his duties! He arranged the coronation of 1937 when he was just twenty nine and was responsible thereafter for arranging all public state occasions until his death. When it became apparent he would not have a son of his own, Bernard Duke made sure his heir assumptive until 1972, heir presumptive thereafter, his second cousin once removed, Miles, Lord Beaumont and Howard of Glossop was suitably well groomed for the job he would eventually inherit with the Dukedom in 1975.

[alixaannencova]

I am so tempted to roll on to another dynasty, such as the St Albans clan (my favourite family descended from Charles II), the Osborne Dukes of Leeds (My absolute favourite ducal family of all!) or the Churchill Dukes of Marlborough (IMHO the ducal dynasty that has produced a line of 'unpleasant' but all the more interesting characters with 'remarkabe' consistency over the last three centuries, as well as the 'Greatest Briton' of them all!!!!!)

But I shall try to remain disciplined and continue with the Norfolks for now!

I note that I have not provided any information about the wives of the 1st and 2nd Dukes, so will do so here.

John 1st Duke (c.1424 - killed at Bosworh 1485) married twice. His first wife was Katherine de Moleyns, whose family were another of impeccable Norman descent and were I believe, Shire Knights of Buckinghamshire. This marriage produced the 2nd Duke. Until 1461 Katherine's married name would have been Mistress Howard, thereafter when her husband was Knighted she became Katherine, Lady Howard. John married 2ndly, one Margaret Chedworth (1436 - 1494) who appears to have had at least one child with Howard, a daughter, Katherine who married and had issue. I should have added that as a interesting footnote, in Shakespeare's 'Richard III', on the eve of the Battle of Bosworth the character of the 1st Duke receives an anonymous note warning him that Richard III was being betrayed, it read as follows:-

'Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold,
For Dickon, thy Master is bought and sold.'

Thomas 2nd Duke (1443 - 1524) married cousins, firstly Elizabeth (c.1445 - 1497) and then Agnes Tylney (1477 - 1545). Elizabeth, Countess of Surrey produced several surviving children. including her eldest son, who succeeded as 3rd Duke (1472 - 1554), a younger son Lord Edward (1476/77 - 1513) who perished during a skirmish with the French fleet off Brest, when he threw himself into the sea rather than be taken alive! Another surviving son Lord Edmund Howard (? - 1538) was father of Henry VIII's fifth Queen, Katherine Howard. One of Elizabeth's daughters, her namesake, (c.1480 - 1438) married the ambitious Sr Thomas Boleyn, who would later become Earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde. Of their numerous children, only three survived to adulthood, Mary, Anne who preceded her cousin Katherine as Henry VIII's second Queen, and George, Viscount Rochford.

Agnes, Duchess of Norfolk, who married her cousin's widower four months after Elizabeth's death produced several more children for her aging husband. William (c.1510 - 1573) who was implicated in helping his half niece, Katherine Howard in her purported 'adulterous' affairs and was subsequently arrested but later pardoned. He gradually returned to royal favour over time. In 1554 he successfully held London during the Wyatt rebellion and was rewarded when he was created Baron Howard of Effingham and became Lord High Admiral. It was through his descendants that the Howard dynasty acquired the Earldom of Notingham cr.1597 ext. 1681 and the Earldom of Effingham cr. 1st 1731 ext. 1816 and 2nd 1837. Williams younger brother Lord Thomas Howard (c.1511 - 1537) proved as rash as his half great nephew, the future 4th Duke in his lofty matrimonial ambitions. Lord Thomas incurred the wrath of Henry VIII when he embarked on a clandestine misalliance with the King's niece Lady Margaret Douglas, the future mother of Lord Henry Darnley! Lord Thomas was thrown into the Tower and died there for this misdemeanor. Several of Agnes' daughters made marriages of considerable dynastic importance. Yet another Lady Elizabeth married Henry Radclyffe, 2nd Earl of Sussex, Lady Katherine married Henry Daubney, 1st Earl of Bridgewater, Lady Dorothy married Edward Stanley, 3rd Earl of Derby and Lady Anne married John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford.

Agnes is well known to historians for her role in the upbringing and fate of her step grand daughter, Katherine Howard, who lived with her for periods of her life.

There, I hope I have provided enough data about these early chatelaines of the House of Howard and younger children too?!? Though, I am sure other members with firmer knowledge of this particular period in British History will be able to flesh out my rather scant tit bits here!!!!

[alixaannencova]

3rd Duke of Norfolk continued:-

Now I can bring in the next Ducal dynasty, as I carry on babbling about the ruthless 3rd Duke of Norfolk and his seemingly tireless schemes to bind his progeny to the Crown of England. It seems to have been a bit of an obsession with the Howards during this period in History. Starting the the 3rd Duke's first marriage to Henry VII's sister in law, Anne, then the marriage of Anne Boleyn, her uncle's increasingly inflated ambition to see his heir married to Mary Tudor, when this came to nothing he then brokered marriage between his daughter Mary to the King's bastard. Then there is the purported marriage between Lord Thomas Howard and Margaret Tudor's daughter. The ultimate matrimonial prize was to be coveted by the 4th Duke, who thought himself worthy of the hand of Mary, Queen of Scots! For this and suspected plots against his cousin, Elizabeth I, the 4th Duke not only lost his head but for the last time, brought the House of Howard to the brink of ruin, through his folly and grandiose ambitions.

The example set by Anne Boleyn and her family in securing for her the consort's crown paved the way for others to begin to nurture similar aspirations as Anne's star began to wane. At this juncture, as the 3rd Duke of Norfolk first tried to breach the gulf between himself and his increasingly distant and beleaguered niece, and Thomas Cromwell, the man who replaced Wolsey, as the King's principal adviser, other figures at court began to jostle for position, ready to take advantage of a weakening in the power base that was the House of Howard. Into this maelstrom of political intrigue and religious upheaval, stepped the Seymours, a family of Shire knights of Wiltshire. They were akin to the gentry of the 'military caste' from which the Howards themselves had emerged less then a century before with the Mowbray marriage.
  The Seymours would go one better in much shorter time, as they did not marry into the aristocracy as an entree into that rarefied world of coronets and great landed interests, but instead vaulted straight to the top of the greasy pole by managing to marry one of their lasses to the King himself. Where the Howards had set the example over several generation, by winning, losing and then winning back their coronet and position through a series of carefully planned dynastic unions, a painstaking strategy of craft and a proven track record of loyal service to three successive monarchs over three generations, the Seymours must have appeared relative 'upstart' nobodies, from the very moment Jane Seymour daughter of Sir John Seymour of Wolfhall and her brothers began to draw attention to themselves at court.

At this time, the 3rd Duke of Norfolk was finding his position increasingly difficult to maintain. In a repeat of the rivalry that had fermented between his father and Wolsey, the 3rd Duke found in Thomas Cromwell, his own nemesis. Having succeeded in orchestrating Wolsey's downfall,Norfolk had failed to capitalize on his promotion as the Cardinal's replacement as Henry's chief adviser, due to his lack of ability as a statesman. His own lack of success in the protracted divorce proceedings of the King and Katherine of Aragon, probably led to his being marginalized and allowed for the rise to prominence of the brilliantly crafty and able lawyer, Cromwell. Perhaps because of these shifting sands of power at court, Norfolk instead began his campaign to bind his family to the Crown in other ways. Hence he encouraged his niece in her relationship with the King and she in turn would initially prove a highly useful ally in his schemes to enhance the Howard name. Apparently, relations between uncle and niece were volatile, she finding him selfish and untrustworthy and he in turn finding her use of colourful language in heated exchanges, shocking on one particular occasion! As relations between Henry and Anne became increasingly strained, I dare say Norofolk, ever the pragmatist stood back and reappraised his niece's position and his own!
 
  Anne's more radical views on the issue of religion is purported to have put a particularly severe strain on their relationship in later years, and knowing Norfolk, Anne's inability to produce a healthy male heir after nearly three years of marriage, probably hastened his decision to drop any remaining support for her that their familial links may have previously maintained.  His subsequent callousness during her trial as Lord High Steward, is one of the first tangible examples of just how ruthless the 3rd Duke of Norfolk could be, when the preservation of his own position was at stake.
 
 Thinking about things generally, it seems rather fortuitous to me, that perhaps some of these ramblings, may have been covered in the miniseries 'The Tudors'! I have yet to see series three, but hope to soon! Although I did find the liberties taken for purposes of so called artistic license very annoying in the earlier series!!!!

Anyway, back to Norfolk after the downfall of Anne Boleyn. Now his rivalry with Cromwell really heated up! The Seymours had won the prize and were in the ascent. With the birth of a male heir, Jane Seymour secured positions of enviable intimacy and influence for her kin at court. Here began the greatest of rivalries ever to occur in English History, between non Royal ducal Houses. Whilst the Seymour brothers, Edward and Thomas strutted about, albeit for a while in mourning, at their brother-in-law's court, the latter by now Earl of Hertford, Norfolk tenaciously maintained his own place at court and during the period 1536 and 1540 he worked hard to continue to keep the King's favour.

Although a reactionary, Norfolk's role in the suppression of the Pilgrimage of Grace in the North is seen as further evidence of his ruthless self serving character. Whilst the Seymour brothers appeared to cosy up to Cromwell, enough to actually marry a sister, Elizabeth to Cromwell's heir in 1538, Norfolk carried out his duties assiduously, and with typical Howard guile he waited and watched as Cromwell embarked on the road that would end in his downfall.

It is interesting to note that amongst Gardiner's state papers, and dated to around 1538 is a commentary which describes almost all of the incumbent Dukes, Marquesses and Earls of the realm, Norfolk is described as:

 '72 years, the chief and best captain.....The Earl of Oxford, of 66 years, a man of great power and little experience. The Earl of Arundel, 60, a man of great power, little wit and less experience......The Earl of Derby, the greatest of power and land, young, and a child in wisdom and half a fool....The Earl of Essex (Thomas Cromwell), an old man, of little wit and less experience, without power. The Earl of Sussex, 50, of small power and little discretion.....The Earl of Bath, old and foolish.....The Earl of Hertford (Edward Seymour), young and wise, of small power...'

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Enjoyable and educational as well as entertaining - all of it....
A lot of reading but I've never minded that as long as I'm learning something.

I've been to Arundel Castle once in 1958 and our group spotted a man walking in the garden, whom our guide told us was the Duke of Norfolk.  He could have been for all I know, or he could have been just the gardiner!!
Great castle!!

Alix, just keep on whatever choice you make, whether the Norfolks or another, as long as they're identified in bold as you've been doing at the top of each posting.

It's good to have a new topic, as is this one;  and I'm very happy with the one on the Queens of Bohemia by another contributor also.
New fodder both of them for the brain...

Larry

[alixaannencova]

3rd Duke of Norfolk continued;-

I really do want to move on from the 3rd Duke of Norfolk, but no gaps allowed!

Personally, I have overdosed on the Tudor period, starting decades ago in childhood, in a relatively good old fashioned prep school where, the Tudors were the favoured area of study to really try and capture the interest of us wee ones and snare us into lifelong interests in History generally! In my case it worked, but I eventually discovered following eras which have become much more piquant pet interests to me!

Anyway, back to the grindstone so to speak! To any kind readers here, remember this is a very 'potted' version of events!!! I would love others to join in with more 'insightfull' textual contributions too if possible!

So by 1538 Norfolk was still teetering on the summit of his powers against all the odds. He loyalty may have been suspected by both his King and Cromwell, yet Norfolk managed to cling on to his position. His activities during the Pilgrimage of Grace requires deeper analysis. In recent times, historians have argued that Norfolk chose to see the rising as a form of revolt against the crown, rather than as a religious movement. Empathetic though he may have been to the people,  in such matters relating to the Reformation, Norfolk chose the crown over either the church or the People. In remaining loyal to the King, Norfolk escaped censure at the time, or at least that is what historians have hypothesized. But another less palatable but equally realistic motivation behind his part in the suppression of the Pilgrimage, is possible. It is speculated that Norfolk, when his own position was in jeopardy, demonstrated once again his instinct for consummate self preservation, with what some regard as another glaring example of his putting his temporal powers before his personal, spiritual and moral scruples.

It is interesting to speculate that Henry VIII had no real desire to neuter Norfolk at this time. Politically, as the Reformation proceeded, it would have been natural for the King to wish to maintain some semblance of the status quo within the ranks of his court. Perhaps it was a case of tolerating an able Norfolk as nominal leader of reactionary court faction, rather than to risk  creating a dangerous void which would have left Cromwell, Cranmer, and their acolytes, the Seymours amongst them to reap the benefits. Henry VIII may have broken with Rome, but it appears he was not prepared to embrace what were still regarded at that time as heretic practices at the time. The Act of the Six Articles passed in 1539 saw Norfolk and the conservatives win the first contest in the Reformation of the Church, and ensure the continued adherence to all the important doctrines and practices of the 'old religion.'

The failure of a grand Lutheran alliance envisaged through marriage to Anne of Cleves, led Norfolk to personally arrest the author of this disastrous opus at the Council table in June 1540. With Cromwell's subsequent execution, Norfolk's position appeared secure. He was once again the King's most trusted adviser, the only fly in the ointment being the continued presence of the Prince of Wales' maternal uncles, Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford and Sir Thomas Seymour.

These two young men were contemporaries of Norfolk's son and heir, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey. During the following six years, Surrey would become Hertford's principal rival in a dangerous struggle to secure power in the event of the King's death and the prospect of a Regency.  

Surrey, a man born with a multitude of gifts dazzled like a modern day 'bright young thing' for a time. Born to inherit the premier Dukedom of the realm, vast estates including the Liberty of Norfolk and married to Francis de Vere, daughter of the Earl of Oxford, who was second in precedence only to the Premier Earl of the realm, Lord Arundel, Surrey's future seemed promising in the aftermath of the execution of Cromwell. He wrote poetry, was a patron of the arts, went on campaign as a soldier, in fact he was the quintessential Renaissance 'Earl' who promised to gild his illustrious inheritance with the trappings of leaning and culture, that his predecessors had had little time for in their quest to establish the foundations upon which their house had risen.

Norfolk meantime had discovered another dynastic project. His niece, Catherine Howard, by all accounts, pretty, acquiescent and good natured had inflamed the ardour of the King, when she had been pressed into waiting to his brief fourth consort, Anne of Cleves. Apparently, Catherine's own family privately doubted her ability to deal with so august and unpredictable a mate. Nevertheless, the King was determined and young Catherine became Norfolk's second niece to sit upon the consort's throne. Although at the time, Norfolk's only real rival for power was Cranmer, the Duke appears to have had little direct influence in the the King's fifth marriage. Perhaps Norfolk was hedging his bets, until his niece produced a spare male heir, after which he may have become enthusiastic in cultivating and nurturing relations with the charming but rather naive young Queen.

With his almost prescient ability for self preservation, Norfolk was able to remain aloof from his niece's subsequent downfall, and is said to have actually cried tears of sympathy for the King when Catherine's adultery was unearthed. Apparently Norfolk was also heard to laugh when sentence was passed upon the former Queen. (I find this shocking...and wonder whether it is perhaps merely propaganda inspired folk lore developed to blacken Norfolk's name in the years following?) Norfolk and the rest of his brood were lucky to have escaped unharmed in the aftermath of Catherine's disgrace and execution.

Over the closing years of the increasingly tyrannical King's reign, Norfolk acted as Captain General of the Army and lad a lucrative raid in the eastern Border. The flare up hostilities with France led Norfolk and Surrey over the Channel and whilst Surrey, young and enthusiastically supportive of the defence of Bolougne, Norfolk advocated relinquishing the port, with his usual shrewd assessment, being proved right when a treaty was negotiated for England by none other that Edward Seymour Earl of Hertford.

In the last month of 1546 Surrey was arrested and charged with high treason, for rashly quartering the arms of Edward the Confessor with his own. In itself this was a crime, insinuating that Surrey was heralding his own place in the succession to the throne, but to gravely ill King, a hulk of flesh closeted in his bed, no doubt acutely aware of his own ebbing mortality, as he languished in agony from his putrefying leg and struggled to endure, this folly probably incited a rally of wrath. Hertford probably took full advantage of Surry's impetuousness and was perhaps instrumental in setting in motion the arrest of his most dangerous rival Norfolk. The Duke, now approaching his seventy fourth year was subsequently arrested, attainted and charged with treason. It appears that Hertford and his followers, fearing Norfolk's power, wished to remove him once and for all from the theatre of government, and to be seen to do so with the assent of the King, rather during a ensuing Regency. Politically it was a highly shrewd move by Somerset, in his scheme to end the Howards run of luck.

[alixaannencova]

Hi,

Enjoyable and educational as well as entertaining - all of it....
A lot of reading but I've never minded that as long as I'm learning something.

I've been to Arundel Castle once in 1958 and our group spotted a man walking in the garden, whom our guide told us was the Duke of Norfolk.  He could have been for all I know, or he could have been just the gardiner!!
Great castle!!

Alix, just keep on whatever choice you make, whether the Norfolks or another, as long as they're identified in bold as you've been doing at the top of each posting.

It's good to have a new topic, as is this one;  and I'm very happy with the one on the Queens of Bohemia by another contributor also.
New fodder both of them for the brain...

Larry

Oh Bu**er!!!!!! *%!$$>!!!!!

I exceeded the 7500 characters in my last post by heaps!!!! Very annoying as I can see no way to save 'exceeding' blurb!

On a happier note... many thanks Larry for you kind words of encouragement! It was lovely to read when I finally emerged from my previous post! I will try to make things a bit less wordy...as I guess it may be a little daunting otherwise! But I  must confess that I find myself getting completely carried away here. Even banging on about the Howards, a dynasty which I have never really warmed to, if the truth be told!

Never mind! I finally finished my waffle about the 3rd Duke of Norfolk and will dash it off here from memory....then I may take a wee break and think about the 4th of this illustrious line and how best to make his story fun to read as well as hopefully useful!!!

3rd Duke of Norfolk continued to his death (Finally!!!)

Surrey was executed on 19th January 1547. His father was languishing nearby in his own cell, awaiting a similar ignoble end. But miraculously it was the King who drew his last breath first, some nine days later. Norfolk was apparently due to be executed the following day, but fate intervened in this instance. Hertford, who would soon become the Premier and only Duke of realm when he made himself Duke of Somerset, with rare political shrewdness and perhaps recognizing the positive impression a semblance of leniency toward an aging broken man, would convey as he took up the reins of power, preferred to put off executing Norfolk. In consequence, the old man was left to mull over his shattered ambitions and broken patrimony and spent the following six years incarcerated in the Tower of London, during the reigns of Edward VI and his successor the nine days Queen, Lady Jane Grey. Perhaps Norfolk actually heard the hammering outside, as scaffolds were erected for the executions of Thomas Seymour in 1549 and of Somerset in 1552. Perhaps he regarded the fates of these two young men with rueful pity, but then again perhaps he cared not to!

In July 1553 with the accession of Mary I, a devout Catholic, Norfolk was released from the Tower restored to all his estates and the attainder against him reversed. Even at the great age of eighty, his duties began anew. He was also appointed Lord High Steward to preside over the trial of Lady Jane Grey's father in law, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland and in the following year he was Lieutenant General of the Army during the Wyatt rebellion. He died shortly afterwards. It is a remarkable fact that Norfolk who was born during the reign of Edward IV and was once married to that King's daughter, lived long enough to preside over the coronation as Earl Marshal, of the eighth monarch to reign during his long and eventful life. It must have been highly gratifying to the Catholic Norfolk to preside over the anointing of a sovereign loyal to the old religion. Once again his House was in order, his coronet buffed anew, his fortunes restored. All was secure for him to pass on to his grandson and heir, Surrey's eldest boy, another Thomas who would carry on the family name and perhaps add to its lustrous in ways more audacious than even the 3rd Duke would have dared to contemplate!

 Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk for all his ruthlessness and chicanery, was undoubtedly a fine soldier and a shrewd courtier, but perhaps most impressively of all, he was a simply a survivor!   

[alixaannencova]

So Larry has been in the same garden as Bernard Duke! Goodness there is a link to cherish!

He was a wonderfully taciturn man! Sadly, I never made it to Arundel before my move to the southern hemisphere, but I intend to pay a visit when next I return to dear old Blighty!   

I used to live near Framlingham, which is still very impressive! I often wonder why the Howards failed to win it back! But then again they had gained Arundel, and I guess too many castles in one pair of hands, may have been seen as a threat by Elizabeth I and her immediate successors! Taking into consideration the Howards track record that is, particularly in their apparent genetic traits of ambition and a taste for furtherance of their power that is!!!!! Thank goodness these particular traits have been tempered as the generations have unfurled down to the present! Now the principal ambition of the Norfolks appears to be the preservation of Arundel and the remainder of their once vast patrimony!

[alixaannencova]

All was secure for him to pass on to his grandson and heir, Surrey's eldest boy, another Thomas who would carry on the family name and perhaps add to its lustrous in ways more audacious than even the 3rd Duke would have dared to contemplate!

Ooops silly me...I am most embarrassed as I wrote lustrous instead of lustre!!!! Am red faced at my carelessness!!!! Sorry!

[Prince_Lieven]

Some wonderful informaion there Toots, thanks so much! Interesting that both the 2nd and 3rd dukes lived to such a great age, perhaps it was in the blood! It is indeed fascinating to think that the 3rd duke presided over the coronation of Mary I, having once been married to her great-grand-aunt, Anne of York! I eagerly await some info about the later Howards, since I don't know much about them!