Ross

THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE: GOSSIP LETTERSABOUT THE WEDDING OF FRANCES COKE

by Emily Ross'

Abstract: Frances Coke, daughter of Sir Edward Coke and Lady Elizabeth Hatton. wasmarried in 1617 lo Sir John Villiers. brother of the royal favorite George Villiers, thencarl of Buckingham. Although history has little io say about Frances, reading gossipabout her in letters provides an alternative, subjective means of gaining insight into hersocial existence. While most letters about ihe wedding are preoccupied by the evidenceevents provided of the king's favor to Coke, one writer. Castle, passed on a secondhandobservation that the bride had cried at the wedding, with some speculative interprétationsof her tears. This article explores representations of the wedding in that letter, and othersas a contrast to it, to gain an understanding of the cultural, rather than histoiica!, mean-ings in circulation around Ihis episode in Frances's life.

Keywords: women, letters, marriage, law. gossip, faction, feminist, historiography, Ja-cobean court, early modem England.

While legal documents may attest that early modem women were bom.married, committed crimes or had crimes committed against them, anddied, few nuanced accounts of their lives can be found in the historiesof the period, which are patently a "record of male experience, writtenby men, from a male perspective."' For much of her life, Frances Cokeis just such an invisible woman: there are no portraits of her, no recordot her birth, and few of the letters she wrote have survived. However,while there are few traces of her in institutional history, reading gossipin the letters written about her enables us to get a glimpse—not ofFrances herself, because the reality of her life has been lost, but of hersocietal shadow. This article explores the meanings of one particularincident in her life which brought her to public attention: her marTiageto John Villiers in 1617. The method I use involves focusing on epi-sodes in women's lives which were fictionalized through gossip in or-der to gain an understanding of cultural, rather than historical, mean-ings.

The starting point for this investigation was a single letter, which al-leged that Frances cried at her wedding. I examine this letter, and oth-ers as a contrast to it, considering the legal and political implications of

'English Department. University of Otago, Box 56. Dunedin. New Zealand.' Gayle Greene and Coppelia Kahn, "Feminist Scholarship and the Social Construc-

tion of Woman." Making a Difference: Feminist Literary Criticism, ed. Gayle Greeneand Coppelia Kahn (London and New York 1985) 12.

232 EMILY ROSS

her tears. The objective is not to try to ascertain whether or not shecried, which cannot be established, but to highlight that multiple anddivergent stories can be told about the same events. Being concernedonly with whether a story is empirically true, in tenns of correspon-dence to historical events, means suppressing or flattening this varietyin a way which distorts the truth while claiming to pursue it. Even if itcould be proven defmitively that Frances cried, the sign "crying" hasmore than one possible interpretation; and if she did not cry that doesnot then signify that she was happy. Therefore, while I am interested inwhat participants, observers, and third parties say about "what reallyhappened." my purpose is to deconstruct the accounts by recognizingwhere they subjectively vary and diverge, undermining the artificiallycohesive picture of the past that traditional history presents. First, it isnecessary to give some background to the events leading up to Fran-ces's wedding day. What follows is necessarily a much simplified ac-count and does not claim to represent the "whole truth" of Frances'shistory.

Sir Edward Coke and Lady Elizabeth Hatton married in November1598.^ Frances was the second of two daughters they bad together, withthe first born August 1599, so that means her earliest possible birth-date would be May 1600. The legal minimum age for brides in earlymodern England was fourteen." and she married in September 1617, sothat gives an end date for her birth as 1603. So she was bom sometimebetween 1600 and 1603 and was therefore between fourteen and sev-enteen when she was married. Her husband, John Villiers, was born inapproximately 1591,^ meaning that he was about twenty-six, at leastnine years older. John was the mentally unstable older brother of KingJames l's favorite George Villiers, carl of Buckingham. Rumors of a

^ Laura Norsw orthy, The Lady of Bleeding Heart Yard: Lady Eltzabeih Hatton. 1578-7(546 (London 1938) 12 n.

^ Kathy Lynn Emerson. Wives and Daughters: The Women of Sixteenth Century Eng-land (Ucw Y orV. 1984)47.

•* Reginald Haw, The State <)f Matrimony: An Investigation ofthe Relationship be-tween Ecclesiastical and Civil Marriage in England after the Reformation (London 1952)5.

^ Stuart Handley, "Villiers, John. Viscount Purbeck (15917-1658)," Oxford Diction-ary of National Biography (Oxford 2004) (henceforth DNB), 22 May 2008, www.oxforddnb,com/view/article/28299.

THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE 233

match between Frances and John began in November 1616. The matchwas politically advantageous for Coke, however the negotiations weretumultuous—supposedly Coke refused on the basis of Buckingham'sfinancial demands, then decided it would be politically beneficial toproceed after all.' Frances's mother. Lady Elizabeth Hatton, was not inagreement that the marriage should proceed and tried to prevent it, first,by attempting to bind Frances in an alternative marriage contract withthe earl of Oxford, then secretly sending her into the countryside to staywith Hatton's cousin. Sir Edmund Withipole. Coke sought out Francesand took her from Withipole's house to London. Coke and Hattonfought over her custody, but the case was settled when James returnedfrom a visit from Scotland and found in favor of Coke and Bucking-ham, declaring Hatton's actions criminal and imprisoning her. Therefollowed a period of about a month, during which Frances seeminglycontinued to refuse to marry John. However, despite Hatton's andFrances's objections, John Villiers and Frances Coke were married atHampton Court Palace. There is some discrepancy about the exact date,but it seems to have been between 27-29 September 1617.

While a number of documents and letters mention that the marriagehas occurred, without describing the wedding, eight writers mention thewedding specifically, and these texts form the corpus of gossip underinvestigation here:

I. A letter from Robert Sidney, Viscount L'isie, to his wife, Lady L'isle.dated 27 September. The letter was sent from London, where L'isle wasprobably in attendance at court. His wife was presumably at the familyestate, Penshurst, which is near Tonbridge in Kent.'"

Chamberlain to Carieton, 9 November 1616, in John Chamberlain, The Letters ofJohn Chamberlain, cd. Norman Egbert McClurc. 2 vols. (Philadelphia 1939) 2.32.

Chamberlain to Carleton. ISMarch 1617. ibid. 2.64.*• It was recorded in William Camden's Annals as occurring on 29 September, and it

was repeatedly said to have taken place on Michaelmas Day, which is 29 September.However. Newton, writing on the 28th. says it took place "yesterday." which would meanIhc 27th (Newton to Puckering. 28 September 1617, BL MS Add 4176 fol. i82),

'' L'isle to Lady L'isie. 27 September, in William A. Shaw. G.Dylnalll Owen, andC,,L. Kingsford, eds., Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L'isle á Dudlev. 6 vols(London 1925-1966)5.414,

'" Robert Shephard. "Sidney. Robert. First Earl of Leicester {1563-1626)," DNB. 12November 2008, www,oxforddnb,eom/ view/article/25524.

234 EMILY ROSS

I I2. A letter from Adam Newton to Thomas Puckering, his brother-in-law,

dated 28 September 1617.'• Newton was usually resident in London, buthis letter says explicitly that he was out of town at the time (but does notsay where) and therefore did not attend. Puckering's barony was based inWeston. Hertfordshire." so the letter was presumably sent to him there.

3. An entry in Camden's Annals for 29 September 1617.'"" At the time. Cam-den was headmaster at Westminster School in London. "'

4. A letter from John Castle to his friend William Trumbull. 2 October1617.'^ Castle was based in London, and Tmmbull was English ambassa-dor to Brussels.'^

5. A letter from Sir Gerard Herbert to Sir Dudley Carleton. 6 October1617."* Herbert was a courtier in London, and Carleton was England'sambassador to the Hague.

6. On 11 October 1617 Carleton received another letter about the matterfrom John Chamberlain, a triend of his based in London.""

7. A letter from Thomas Paulyn to Sir Richard Beaumont, 22 Noveniber1617.' ' Paulyn was an assistant master at Kings School, Canterbury.^^ Hewrote this letter from London, where he attended the wedding. Beaumontwas a courtier who shared Paulyn's interest in education, having built

'' Frances Parthenope Vemey and Margaret Maria Williams-Hay Vemey. Memoirs ofthe Verney Family During the Civil War, 4 vols. (London 1892-1899) 3.10.

'- Newton to Puckering, 28 September 1617, BL MS Add. 4176 Ibl. 182." Henry Chauncy. The Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire (London 1826) 2.1M.'* Camdcn. 29 September 1617. in William Camden, "The Annals of Mr William

Camden." A Complete History of England: With the Lives of All the Kings and QueensThereof I...J, ed. John Hughes (London 1719) 2.64S.

' Wyman H. Herendeen. "Camden. William (1551-1623)." DNB. 12 November2{K18, www.oxForddnb.com/'view/anic!c/4431.

'" Castle to Trumhull, 2 October 1617, in E. K. Pumell, A. B. Hinds. G. DyfnalltOwen, and Sonia P. Anderson, eds.. Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess ofDownshire. 6 vols. (London 1924-1995) 6.299-300.

'' Imran Uddin. "Williann Trumbiill: A .lacohean Diplomat at the Court of the Arch-dukes in Brussels. 1605/9-1625" (Brussels 2006) 17, 35. 58.

"* Herbert to Carleton. 6 October 1617, State Papers Domestic (henceforth SPD)(James I) 14/93/114.

'* L. J. Reeve. "Carleton, Dudley. Viscount Dorchester (1574-1632)," DNB. 17November 2008, www.oxforddnh.com/ view/article/4670.

-"Chamberlain to Carleton, 11 October 1617, in John Chamberlain. The ChamberlainLeiters: A Selection of the Letters of John Chamberlain [...] ¡597 to 1626, ed. ElizabetliMcClure Thomson (London 1966) 187.

•' Paulyn to Beaumont. 22 November 1617, in W. Dunn Macray, ed., Beaumont Pa-pers: Letters Relating lo the Family of Beaumont, of Whitley, Yorkshire (London 1884)34.

' ' Records of Early English Drama Kent: Diocese of Canterbury, ed. James M. Gib-son (Toronto 2002), 11 November 200S. ia3l I541.us.archive.org/l/items/kentcanterburyREED03gibsuoft/kenteanterbiiryREEDa3gibsuoñ.pdf.


Kirkheaton Grammar School for Boys on his property in West York-shire." This letter probably traveled between Londoti and Kirkheaton.A letter from George Lord Carew to Sir Thomas Roe, dated 18 Jantiary1618." Carew was a privy couticilor in London and wrote this letter fromthe Savoy. Intriguingly, he was William Camden's patron."'' but there isno evidence of textual infltience on this occasion. Sir Thomas Roe wasEngland's ambassador to India.'''

FIG. I. M A P OF THE TRANSMISSION OF THE EIGHT TEXTS

-' "Down Your Way: Mills, Fires and Toilet Trouble," The Cricket: History ofCalderdale and Kirkiees. 1 I November 2008, www.ckcrickethcrítage.org.uk/southkirkiees/kirkheaton/docs/kirklieaton_downyoiinvay.pdf.

; Carew to Roe, 18 January 1618, SPD 14/95/22.Ute Lotz-Heumann, "Carew. George. Earl of Totnes (1555-1629)," DNB, 12

November 2008, www.oxforddnb.com/view/ anicle/4628.'^ Michael Strachan. "Roe. Sir Thomas (1581-1644);' DNB. 12 November 2008,

<http://www.oxlbrddnb.coin/view/article/23943>.

236 EMILY ROSS

Of the fourteen individuals involved with these documents, it is sig-nificant that (apart from Lady L'isle) all are male and (apart from Cam-den and Paulyn who were more middle class but highly educated) up-per class or aristocrats. Unlike the letters of women or lower class in-dividuals, the productions of these men were valued and preserved.However, despite the accoutrements of bureaucracy which situate theseletters among state papers, the activity tbese men are engaged in shouldbe acknowledged to be gossip. That such high status men— three am-bassadors, a privy councilor, a handful of courtiers and nobles, and twoschool masters—are recognized to be actively engaged in gossip re-minds us that knowledge is power and raises the question as to whetherwomen have traditionally been condemned for gossiping because gos-sip is trivial—or because it is not.

While no individual on the list is both recipient and sender, whichwould suggest a gossip chain is occurring, the map shows gossipspreading from tbe site of the event, London, out to the provinces andto English outposts in other countries. While there are too few letters toprove this is a trend rather than a coincidence, tbis center-to-peripheryspread pattern has been noted as common by other communication re-searchers such as Scott-Warren and Fox,"^ and applies equally to otherforms of communication commodities sucb as books, produced in Lon-don and distributed through the countryside and overseas, often via thepost.

Although there is no gossip chain in this instance, there is a signifi-cant amount of textual overlap between Herbert and Paulyn's letters.Both state that the wedding took place at Hampton Court on Michael-mas Day, and that the king, queen and prince were present. Both de-scribe the giving of the bride and then the dinner. That both Herbertand Paulyn explicitly claim eyewitness status for their accounts, andthat their letters have a coincident event sequence, suggests tbat thesimilarity between the versions is due to their shared experience of tbechronology of occurrences during tbe wedding rather than a sharedtextual source. However, while they can therefore be seen to corrobo-rate each other's story of "what really happened," the divergences be-

' Jason Scott-Warren, "News, Sociability, and Bookbuying in Early Modem England:The Letters of Sir Thomas Comwallis," The IJbraiy 7.4 (2000) 389; Adam Fox, "Ru-mour. News and Popular Political Opinion in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England," TheHistorical Journal 40.3 ( 1997) 620.


tween their texts illustrate how experiences ofthe same events can gen-erate different accounts. Neither eyewitness mentions Frances crying;Paulyn's explicit comment, however, that the bride "did behave her selfwell that day (1 was there and saw it),"-'' suggests an awareness that thispoint was or might be under dispute.

The claim that Frances cried at her wedding was made in Castle'sletter to Trumbull;

It was observed that when by the course ofthe ceremony she was to give hirhand to hir husband, the teares fell from hir eyes which some expound tohave ben lachiytnae repugnanti.s voluntatis as not affecting the hand wilhwhich shee was to joyne; others say they were lachrymae pietatis proceed-ing from a daughter that remembred shee was now tying that knod forcrossing whereof hir mother and cheife frends remayned forclosed from theKings grace and favor.'**

The phrase "it was observed" is a passive construction, suggesting thatCastle was not an eyewitness at the wedding and that this is a reportedstory. That Castle is passing on gossip is supported by the collectives"some expound" and "others say." The Latin expressions, which trans-late roughly as "reluctant tears" and "pious tears,"^" are class-coded,with Castle assuming that his friend Trumbull shared his elite, classicaleducation—a privilege from which all but a few privately educatedwomen were excluded."" Putting these phrases in Latin makes themseem more weighty than the mere speculations that they are, and asso-ciatively links them with the Latin terminology ofthe legal discourse towhich they indirectly allude.

Friends tend to have similar political opinions,^^ which may explainwhy Castle feels able to convey interpretations of the event which areindirectly critical ofthe king—with "reluctant tears" suggesting he hadencouraged an enforced match and "pious tears" suggesting that Hattonhad been wrongly imprisoned. Should Castle be challenged on these

* Paulyn to Beaumont, 22 November 1617, Macray. ed. (n. 21 above) 34.-" Castle to Tnimbull. 2 October 1617. Piirnell. Hinds, Owen and Anderson eds (n

16 above) 6.299-300.Thanks to Jonathon Cweorth for his help with the translation of "lachrymae

repugnantis voluntatis" and "lachrymae pietatis."• ' Barbara Kiefer Lewalski, Writing Women in Jacobean England (Cambridge, MA

1993)69.- Maryann Ayim, "Knowledge through the Grapevine: Gossip as Inquiry." G<K)d

Gossip, cd. Robert F. Goodman and Aaron Ben-Ze'ev (Lawrence, KS 1994J 96.

238 EMILY ROSS

views, the passive construction of "it was observed" and the attributionof these opinions to others and not himself could protect him from criti-cism. While Castle's account seems sympathetic to Frances's plight, itis important to note that his interest in her is political and he does notmention her name, terming her only "Sir Edward Coke's daughter."

Although Castle's secondhand account is the only text ofthe eight tomention the crying, Frances has been portrayed as tearful almostunanimously in those few secondary history texts which discuss thewedding. Johnstone wrote, prior to 1811, that the wedding "was cele-brated amid the gratulation of the fawning courtiers, but stained by thetears of the reluctant bride." with this statement then being cited byWeldon'' and Longueville.'"' Williamson wrote in 1940 that the bridewept/^ while Norsworthy played up the pathos of Frances's plight,claiming that on her wedding day "she looked more like a martyr beingbrought to the stake than a bride being led to the altar.""'" That thehistorians knew that the story ended badly—John is consigned to asy-lums for most ofhis life, and Frances allegedly commits adultery withSir Robert Howard and conceives a son to him, for which Buckinghamrepeatedly but unsuccessfully attempts to prosecute her in order to dis-inherit the baby—may have influenced their decision to portray Francesas crying. As Gibbs, the author of The Romance of George Villiers,shrewdly notes, once events had played out "there were many who re-membered the tears."^^

The speculation that Frances cried reluctant tears raises the questionof whether she married John against her will. Canon law from as earlyas 560 A.D. consistently upheld the free consent of children as crucial tomarriage formation. Forbidding forced marriage. ** Macfarlane makesthe point that the consent ofthe couple is central to the marriage service

" Anthony Weldon, "The Court and Character of King James," Secret History oftheCourt of James the First (Eáinburgh 1811) 1.445.

'•• Thomas Longueville. The Curious Case of Lady Purbeck: A Scandal ofthe Seven-teenth Century (Rockville, MD 2005) 38.

" Hugh Ross Williamson, George yHlieK-i. First Duke of Buckingham: Study for aBiography (London 1940) 68.

""• Norsworthy (n. 2 above) 65." Philip Gibbs, The Romance of George yHliers, First Duke of Buckingham (London

1930)64.'" Alan Macfarlane, Marriage and Love in England: Modes of Reproduction, 1300-

yS-ííí (Oxford 1986)131.


39itself, and that if either party dissents the marriage cannot proceed.Frances does not actively dissent—she goes through with the marriageceremony and therefore presumably voiced her consent—and so cannotbe said to be enforced, but interpreting her tears as reluctant carries thatimplication that she gave that consent only under coercion or ditress.Duress was a legal impediment to marriage, meaning that if coereioncould be proven it could either prevent a maiTiage from taking place, orbe sufficient to annul a forced marriage as illegal. However, in earlymodem times, physical force causing injury or fear of the same, withwitnesses, was the only form of duress reliably to be accepted by thecourt.^"

As Frances's father. Sir Edward Coke, wrote an overview of the le-gal history of forced marriages in chapter 12 of his Third Part of theInstitutes of the Laws ofEngland,^^ it is to be expected that he was wellaware that proven enforcement or undue duress would be sufficient toprevent or annul the union. He seems to have taken measures to defleetthis interpretation. There is a letter, purportedly from Frances to Hatton,written sometime during the period prior to the wedding while Hattonwas imprisoned, in which Frances states her "resolve to be wholly ruledby my father and yourself... 1 being a mere child and not understandingthe world nor what is good for myself," expressing the opinion that themarriage "will be a means of the king's favor to my father," with thepostscript "Dear mother, believe there has no violent means been usedto me by words or deeds."^'

The vocabulary and rationale used in the letter undermine the plausi-bility of its claim to be a spontaneous letter from a teenager to hermother, and make it seem more likely that the letter was either com-posed or dictated by Coke as proof of Frances's consent and an explicitdisclaimer to ward off allegations that undue duress had been involved.The former supposition is supported by a comment in a letter from Ed-ward Sherbum to Carleton, about how a letter written by Frances (pre-sumably this letter) was used: "S[i]r Edw[ard] Cook the last weeke[joumid] to the King to shewe unto his Ma|jes]tie under his daughters

"Ibid. 130.B. J. Sokol and Mary Sokol, Shakespeare: Law and Marriage (Cambridge 2003)

31.•" Edward Coke, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England: Concerning

High Treason, and Other Pleas of the Crown (London 1797).•*- Frances to Hatlon, Undated. BL Harley MS 6055 fols. 24v-25.

240 EMILY ROSS

hand her consent and allowance of S[i]r John Villiers for her hus-band.""'

To allow objections to unions to come to light, canon law requiredthat the banns were called in the church where the couple were to bemarried for several weeks prior to the wedding.*" Chamberlain reportedto his friend Carleton that this had been carried out. with the couple"thrice publicly asked in the church," without objection raised."^ How-ever, this public perfomiance of willingness to hear objections beliedthat the marriage was able to proceed mainly because the primary op-ponent of the union, Hatton, was in prison and therefore unable tochallenge it, with those who would have supported her similarly sub-dued and intimidated.

The efforts of Coke's faction to confer legitimacy on the weddingthrough demonstrated legal compliance can therefore be understood asattempts to control public opinion about the wedding. They were atleast partially effective, as writers such as L'isle and Camden note thatthe wedding occurred, with no further comment; Newton reports, "It issaid, the Mother's consent was obtained" and "Frances "protest[ed] sheliked Sir John better than any other whatsoever."^ However, Castle'scomment that "some expound" that Frances cried reluctant tears sug-gests that the propaganda was not entirely convincing.

The alternative interpretation that Castle offers—that Frances shedpious tears at making the match for which her mother had been impris-oned — shows that at least some courtiers were aware of Hatton's pro-tests. While imprisonment prevented Hatton from being able to physi-cally intervene in the lead up to the wedding, she and her supporters,especially her secretary. Sir John Holies, conducted something of apublic relations campaign of their own, attempting to discredit thewedding in public opinion by spreading versions of events which char-acterized the marriage as enforced or taking place under duress anddrew attention to Hatton's plight as unjustly imprisoned. For example.Holies wrote to Sir Thomas Lakes on 6 August saying that Frances was

•*' Sherbum to Carleton. 23 August 1617. SPD 14/78/214.** Lawrence Stone, The Family. Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (London

1977)31.'"' Chamberlain to Carleton, 11 October 1617, Chamberlain, The Chamberlain Letters

(n. 20 above) 187.*" Newton to Puckering. 28 September 1617, BL MS Add 4176 fol. 182.


"besieged" by Coke and his supporters and "lives in that house, as in awildemes, with bears, and wolves."^^

Although Hatton was eventually forced to grant her consent underthe threat of forfeiting all her property to Coke, her continued opposi-tion was signaled by her absence from the wedding. Gerard Herbertexplained to Carleton that the king had "sent for her to the wedding"but that Hatton had "desired to be excused, sayinge she was sick."^^While it may be true that Hatton was ill at that time, it may also be truethat her absence was strategic; simultaneously a boycott of proceedingsto which she had been forced to consent but of which she did not ap-prove, and an act intended lo spread the assumption that she had beenforbidden to attend. Carew wrote to Roe that Hatton was not presentbecause she "was nott released frome the Alderman's guard'";'*" andPaulyn attributes her absence and continued imprisonment as due to heropposition to the match.^" While some historians report that Hattonrefused to attend,^' others have assumed, like Carew and Paulyn, thatshe did not attend because she was forbidden to do so.' " That Hatton'sabsence was a deliberate boycott is supported by the correspondingabsences of members of the Cecil faction to which she belonged, whichdid not go unnoticed. Carew reported that "the Erie of Exeter [Hatton'sfather] and all his familie" were all absent,"" and Gerard Herbert com-mented that he "saw never a Cecill."^''

Paying attention only to what actually occurred—how legal require-ments were complied with—risks missing the ways in which eventswere manipulated and the "truth" massaged to favor the interests ofparticipants and factional groups. What is immediately evident, even indocuments which make only cursory reference to the wedding, is thatthe writers are interested in the marriage as a political rather than per-sonal event. One indicator of this interest is the number of times letter

- Holies to Lakes, 6 August 1617, John Holies, Letters of John Holies I587-I637,Thoroton Society Record Series, ed. P. R. Seddon. 3 vols. (Nottingham 1986)2.188-189.

•"* Herbert to Carleton, 6 Oclober 1617, SPD 14/93/114.••''Carew to Roc. 18 January 1618, SPD 14/95/22.'" Paulyn to Beaumont, 22 November 1617, Macray, ed. (n. 21 above) 34.•' William.son {n. 35 above) 68; Antonia Fraser, The Weaker Vessel: iVoman's Lot in

Seventeenth Century England (London 1984) 16.'- Roger Lockyer, Buckingham: The Life and Political Career of George Villiers.

First Duke of Buckingham 1592-1628 (Essex 1981 ) 43; Norsworthy (n. 2 above) 64." Carew to Roe, 18 January 1618. SPD 14/95/22.' Herben to Carieton. 6 October 1617, SPD 14/93/114.

242 EMILY ROSS

writers mention different characters in the story and how they refer tothem. Wodak and Reisig! recotnmend that, in discourse analysis, re-searchers should pay particularly close attention to how are people are"named and referred to linguistically.""' Counting the number of timesacross the letters that characters are honored with respectful titles,named with or without a title, or defined by their role either in the wed-ding or in their family, reveals a discrepancy between the centrality offigures to the actual ceremony and their importance on the occasion.The figure on the following page shows the participants in the wedding,their relationships to each other, and the titles by which they were ad-dressed. While the bride might be expected to be a central tlgure at awedding, and Frances is mentioned in some fashion by all the writersexcept L'isie, she is named on only one occasion, otherwise identifiedalmost exclusively in relation to others: as Coke or Hatton's daughteror as John's bride. On the other hand, the frequent and respectful men-tions ofthe king reveal him to be a key player in this event.

That the union was celebrated in the presence of and under the pa-tronage of the king, queen, and prince is commented on by six of theeight writers, with the royal seal of approval on the marriage acting asthe ultimate guide to public opinion. Viscount L'isie complained in hisletter to Lady L'isie that the marriage cost him a "good peece ofplate."^*' Presumably he was not the only courtier to signal his align-ment with the king by presenting gifts to the newlyweds.

" Rulh Wodak and Martin Rcisigl, "Discourse and Racism," The Handbook of Dis-course Analysis, ed. Deborali Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (Mai-den, MA 2003) 385.

' L'isie to Lady L'isie, 27 September 1617, Shaw. Owen, and Kingsford, eds. (n. 9above) 5.414.


FIG. 2. TERMS USED AND FREQUENCY

2 X Majesty King JamesUxKina T Queen .\mie ' t Majesty

2 X Queen

1 X Mother, brethren,iheir wives, sisters .

Prince Charles l x Majesty7 X Prince

3 X Lord Coke6x SirEdn-aid Coke, SirEdwarii

EdwardCoke

2 X Moth«

liziibeHattonI Hatton

George1 X Earl of BucIUDghitm3 X Lofd ofBuckingham

Frances

1 X Lord VilliMs 2 \ The Lady8 X Sir John Villiere, Sii Johc 1 x Gentlewoman17. John VillJere I x Frances2 Ï Bridegroom 7 x Bride2 X Husband1 J. Brolher g x Daughier

The king's approval was signaled not only implicitly by his beingpresent, but explicitly by his active participation in the ceremony.Whereas the Book of Common Prayer calls for the bride to be given tothe groom by the bride's father or friend/^ according to Paulyn. "theBride was led to the chappell betweene the Prince and my lord ofBuckingham"; and when the bishop of Winchester asked "Who giveththis woman to be marid to this man," Coke "tooke his daughter by thehand, and gave her to the Kinge, and the Kinge gave her to her hus-band."- Herbert's account is not as detailed but essentially corrobo-rates this transaction, adding that Coke gave his daughter to the king"with some wordes of complemente at the givinge." *^ Chamberlainconcurs, writing to Carleton that "The ICing himself gave the bride."''^The effect of this added step in the ceremony is a shift in focus from thebond the marriage creates between Frances and John to the bond thatthe transaction enables between Coke and the king. Coke's gift ofFrances is performed as an act of tribute or allegiance to the king, with

Joan Larsen Klein, ed., Daughters, IVives, and Widows : Writings by Men AboutH^omen and Marriage in England. 1500 1640 (Urbana 1992)6-7.

^ Paulyn to Beaumont. 22 November 1617, Macray. ed. (n. 21 above) 34.*''Herben to Carleton, 6 October !ftl7,SPD 14/93/114."* Chamberlain to Carleton, II October 1617. Thomson (n. 20 above) 187.

244 EMILY ROSS

the king's gift of Frances to John as an act of bestowing largesse. Fran-ces herself is merely a token in this exchange, literally passed from thehands of one man to another and then another.

Despite Castle's claim that Frances and John's marriage was cele-brated with "not too much pomp and ceremony,"'"' there seems to havebeen a fair amount of pageantry. Newton wrote to Puckering that hecrossed paths on Kingston Bridge with the wedding party, headed byCoke, on their way to court in "eighl or nine Coaches,"^" and that fig-ures such as Herbert and Paulyn were present at the ceremony suggestsit may have been well attended. Herbert lists the guests as being "manyLordes & Ladies, My Lord Canterbury, my Lord Treasurer, my LordChamberlayne & c." including "the Lord of Buckinghams mother,[brethren], there wyves, & his sisters."" After the wedding, there was abanquet, commentary on which is provided by the two eyewimesses,Herbert and Paulyn, and by Castle. All three report that Frances satnear the prince, witb Paulyn specifying that the prince was on her rightand the lord keeper on her left, and Castle stating that the prince "ingrace of his servant caressed hir with many demonstrations.'" Accord-ing to Herbert, at both dinner and supper, John stood behind her andattended on her, and the king drank toasts to her health. "

As with the wedding, the writers seem primarily preoccupied withthe evidence that events provide of the king's favor to Coke. Paulynobserved that the king spoke with Coke for "neare hälfe an houre,"while Herbert noted Coke's "merrie countenance" at the dinner andsupper.''^ it was customary for guests at state occasions to sit in order ofrank, ^ so gossip about who is sitting where and next to or above whomcan be understood as monitoring the ever-shifting pecking order. Dun-bar, an evolutionary psychologist, hypothesizes that the primary pur-

"' Caslle lo Trumbull, 2 October 1617. Pumell, Hinds, Owen and Anderson, eds. (n,16 above) 6.299-300.

" Newton to Puckering. 2S September 1617, BL MS Add 4176 fol.182"Herben to Carleton, 6 October Í617.SPD 14/93/114.• Paulyn to Beaumonl. 22 November 1617. Macray. ed. (n. 21 above) 34; Caslle to

Trumbull. 2 October 1617. Pumell. Hinds, Owen and Anderson, eds. (n. 16 above)6.299-300.

" Herbert to Carlelon. 6 October 1617, SPD 14/93/114.** Paulyn lo Beaumonl, 22 November 1617, Macray, ed. (n. 21 above) 34; Herbert to

Carleton, 6 October 1617. SPD 14/93/114."' Chris Meads. Banquets Set Forth: Banqueting in English Renaissance Drama

(Manchester 2001) 55.


pose of gossip is to keep track of social hierarchies and networks/^ andthat seems to be partially what is happening here. Paulyn describes howthe noble guests sat "in theire ranke" but that Coke sat "towards thelower end, right hand ... next above my lord of Buckingham."'''^ Thispreoccupation with how the match will affect Coke's place in the socialhierarchy is consistent with gossip about the match before and after thewedding. To give a few examples, prior to the match, Robert Bran-thwait wrote to William Trumbuil in August that "great ones ... feareSir Edwards rising" through the alliance with Buckingham; and SirJohn Finet wrote to Carleton that some opposed the business fearingthat "it wyll be a ladder for him, to clyme to his former height or hy-gher."™

According to Campbell's supposedly historical lives of the Chief

Justices (1858), after the "splendid" banquet, "a masque was performed

in the evening; the stocking was thrown with all due spirit; and the

bride and bridegroom, according to long established fashion, received

the company at their couchée."'' No primary source is provided for this

statement. While Herbert states that James announced he would visit

the couple the following day,^" corroborating evidence cannot be found

for the other details Campbell claims. Norsworthy reiterates and em-

bellishes Campbell's account:

in the evening a tnasque was performed, and there was the usual scramble atthe banquet that foliowed ... King James I, having drunk the health of brideand bridegroom rather more often than was good for him, made an all nightjoliitlcation of the occasion, and instead of going to bed prowled round thePalace in his shirt and night clothes, indulging in clownish tricks, such asbarging into bedrooms, making 'apple pie" beds for the occupants, castingoff the bride's left stocking, teasing her with much mirth and ribaldry, andpertbmiing "other petty sorceries."

*•" Robin Dunbar, Grooming. Gossip and the Evolution of Language {Lonáon mù Bos-ton 1996).

''"Paulyn to Beaumont, 22 November 1617, Maeray, ed, (n. 21 above) 34.•"' Robert Branlhwait to Trut^ibull, 28 August 1617, Pumell. Hinds. Owen, and Ander-

son, eds. (n 16 above) 6.269: Sir John Finet to Carlcton, 24 July 1617, SPD 14/92/104.' John Campbell. The Lives of the Chief Justices of England, from the Norman Con-

quest Till the Death of Lord Tenterden, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (London 1858) 1.303." Herbert to Carletoii, 6 October 1617, SPD 14/93/114." Norsworthy (n. 2 above) 67.

246 EMILY ROSS

The phrase "petty sorceries" can be traced back to a letter Carletonwrote to Chamberlain in 1605 about the marriage of Susan de Veré toSir Philip Herbert:

There was none of our accustomed forms omitted of bridecakes, sops inwine, giving of gloves, laees and points ... and at night there was sewing intothe sheet, casting of t!ie bride's left hose, and twenty other petty sorceries....the King gave them in the morning before they were up a reveille-matin inhis shirt and his nightgown, and spent a good hour with them in the bed orupon, choose which you will believe best. '*

That this is Norsworthy's source is confirmed by her use of Carleton'sphrase "reveille" for the king's visit to the couple the following mom-ing, stating apparently without basis that "he visited the bride andbridegroom, and next day assisted at their reveille, peeping inside thecurtains, jumping and rolling on the great four-post bed. and making amost unkingly display of the royal prerogative."" While it isunderstandable to want to flesh out the detail of an event by drawing oncomparable occasions, claiming specific details as historical while pla-giaristically sourcing them, unacknowledged, from another text is adifferent matter. While Norsworthy's account appears to be sympa-thetic to Frances, she appropriates Frances's experiences by superim-posing the genre of melodrama over the account of her wedding, turn-ing her into a stereotypical ly passive, weeping woman, the helplessvictim of tyrannical men; and then by filling the gap in the historicalrecord by interpolating another bride into ber place. However, whileNorsworthy blatantly blends fact and fiction in her theatrically entitledLady of Bleeding Heart Yard, Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices ofEngland is more deceptive, in that his restrained tone makes a greaterclaim to authoritative truth.

CONCLUSION

Exploring the traces of Frances's wedding brings us no closer to "whatreally happened." We cannot from this distance judge between the pos-sibility that she cried at her wedding but Herbert, Paulyn, and the otherswere indifferent to her distress in their anxiety to be confirmativelysupportive of the union, or that Castle and his anonymous associates

'* Carleton lo Chamberlain. 7 January 1605, SPD 14/12/6." Norsworthy (n. 2 above) 68.


and historians projected tears onto her face or read those that were therein such a way to further their own political points. The whispers that wecan hear are unanimously the voices of aristocratic men, gossiping na-tionally and internationally about the legal and factional aspects oftheevent which may affect themselves, rather than those which patentlyaffect Frances. However, while such traces and whispers can provideonly unreliable information about the truth ofthe past, the discoursesthey contain and values that they evince tell us much ofthe social mi-lieu in which women, such as Frances, lived out their lives.

Ultimately it is not possible to recuperate historically that which hasbeen lost. Attempts to do so—such as Norsworthy's tragic figure at thealtar or Campbell's extrapolated wedding feast—serve to over-writeand obscure the traces and whispers which can be found, replacingthem with falsehoods, caricatures, and archetypes, and filling the gapleft by the absence ofthe actual figure of Frances with that of a generic,crying bride.

Documents

Ross