¹ The stone, which survives in the north aisle at Whatton, is illustrated as the frontispiece to Brooks, P. N., Cranmer in context: documents from the English Reformation (Cambridge, 1989Google Scholar; hereafter Brooks, Cranmer in context).

² Parker, M., De antiquitate Britannicae ecclesiae… ([London], 1572Google Scholar; S.T.C. 19292; hereafter Parker, De antiquitate), p. 387: ‘Eius enim domus materfamilias affinis illi fuit’. Parker the Cambridge man is more likely to have got this right than John Foxe, who made the landlady a relative of Cranmer's wife: The acts and monuments of John Foxe, ed. Townshend, G. and Cattley, S. R. (8 vols., London, 1837–1841; hereafter Foxe), viii, 4.Google Scholar

³ Works of Archbishop Cranmer, ed. Cox, J. E. (2 vols., Parker Society, 1844 [in two paginations], 1846Google Scholar; hereafter Cox), 1, 275. Commentators have repeatedly misplaced Cranmer on the social scale and seen his origins as among the yeomanry; cf. e.g. Smyth, C. H., Cranmer and the Reformation under Edward VI (London, 1926; 2nd edn, 1973), p. 43Google Scholar. Scott Thomson, G., ‘Three Suffolk figures: Thomas Wolsey: Stephen Gardiner: Nicholas Bacon: a study in social history’, Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology (hereafter PSIA), XXV 1952, 149–63Google Scholar; Oswald, A., ‘Stephen Gardiner and Bury St. Edmunds’, PSIA, XXVI 1955 (hereafter Oswald, ‘Gardiner’), 54–7.Google Scholar

⁴ On Clifton, see Emden, A. B., A biographical register of the University of Cambridge to 1500 (Cambridge, 1963, hereafter Emden, Cambridge to 1500), p. 141Google Scholar, and The visitations of the county of Nottingham in the years 7569 and 1614…, ed. Marshall, G. W. (Harleian Society IV, 1871), p. 18Google Scholar; he was the son of Sir Gervase Clifton, knight treasurer of Calais 1482 and Alice Neville. From 1500 he was rector of Hawton by Newark, family home of Cranmer's cousins the Molyneuxs. Cf. Cranmer's mention of Dr Clifton in a letter of 1533 to an old friend, British Library (hereafter BL) Harley 6148, fo. 24V, pr. Cox 2, p. 248, although the name is there mistranscribed as ‘Elyston’. Clifton's will, Public Record Office (hereafter PRO) Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills (hereafter PCC) F.I Spert, made on 19 April 1541 when he was dean of Hereford, is a short document concerned entirely with his Hereford acquaintance; it has no mention of Cranmer. I have not ascertained the exact connection of two other contemporary Cambridge dons with Lincoln connections, the brothers Robert and William Clifton: Emden, , Cambridge to 1500, p. 144Google Scholar, and Cambridge University Library, hereafter CUL, UA Wills 1 fo. 24V.

⁵ On Tamworth, see Emden, Cambridge to 1500, pp. 575–6 and Lincolnshire pedigrees, ed. Maddison, A. R. (4 vols., Harleian Society 51–3, 55, 1902–1904, 1906Google Scholar: continuous pagination), III, 947–8: he was the third son of Thomas or John Tamworth of Halstead Hall (Lines), near Stixwold, by Tamworth's second wife Katherine Dandelewe. Cranmer's relative and Dr Tamworth's nephew John Tamworth probably presented Tamworth to Sandon in Essex in 1545: cf. Emden, Cambridge to 1500 with Morant, P., The history and antiquities of the County of Essex (2 vols. London, 1763, 1768), II, 26Google Scholar, and for further links, the will of Christopher's brother, John's father Thomas Tamworth, PCC 24 Thrower, and their cousin another John Tamworth, PCC 21 Alenger, which mentions the parson of Leverton who was Dr Tamworth. On Cranmer's Tamworth connections, cf. PRO, S.P. 1/132 fo. 205, pr. Cox 2, pp. 368–9 (Letters and papers, foreign and domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII, ed. Brewer, J. S., Gairdner, J. and Brodie, R. H. (21 vols. in 33 parts, 1862–1910 and revision of vol. 1 and 2 part addenda, by Brodie, 1920–32Google Scholar; hereafter LP), XIII, pt. i, no. 1097).

⁶ Will of John Gardiner, 1507, Suffolk Record Office, Bury St Edmunds, Archdeaconry of Sudbury Wills, Liber Pye fo. 196, pr. PSIA 1 329–30. For Gardiner's later patronage to the Edens, cf. entries under Eden in J., and Venn, S. A. (eds.), Alumni Cantabrigienses (4 vols., Cambridge, 1922–1927Google Scholar; hereafter Venn), II, Crawley, C., Trinity Hall: the history of a Cambridge College 1350–1975 (Cambridge, 1976Google Scholar; hereafter Crawley), p. 45, and MacCulloch, D., Suffolk and the Tudors: politics and religion in an English county (Oxford, 1986), p. 234–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ The letters of Stephen Gardiner, ed. Muller, J. A. (Cambridge, 1933Google Scholar; hereafter Letters of Gardiner), pp. 4–5. Venn, II, 84, speculates that Eden was of the King's Hall, without giving any reason; he does not appear to feature in the surviving records of the King's Hall, and does not receive a mention in Cobban, A. B., The King's Hall within the University of Cambridge in the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1969Google Scholar; hereafter Cobban, King's Hall). He appears among members of Trinity Hall (including Thomas Larke and Gardiner) receiving legacies from a Trinity Hall fellow, John Purghold, in Jan. 1527: CUL, UA Wills I fo. 42V–43V.

⁸ For Eden's appointment to the Council, see LP I, no. 1462 (26). Cf. also Crawley, p. 45, although Crawley has not completed the connection between the clerk of the council and Trinity Hall.

⁹ On Larke, see Crawley, p. 26, and Oswald, ‘Gardiner’, p. 54, which gives details of the grant on 8 March 1530 by the Abbot of Bury to Gardiner of the Bury Domus Dei, in place of Thos Larke, by cession or demise. No direct family links can be established between Larke and Gardiner, but there are family connections to Bury St Edmunds; although Crawley, p. 26, suggests a Thetford ancestry for Larke, Oswald, ‘Gardiner’, p. 55 raises the possibility that he was the son of Thomas Larke, vintner of Bury, d. 1500. Suffolk in 1524, being the return for a subsidy granted in 1513…, ed. H[ervey], S. H. A. (Suffolk Green Books 10, 1910), pp. 50–1, 351Google Scholar, lists Thomas and Robert Larke probably of ? Stanton and Andrew Larke of Bury.

¹⁰ Leader, D. Riehl, A history of the University of Cambridge I. The University to 1546 (Cambridge, 1988Google Scholar; hereafter Riehl Leader), pp. 271–3, and Jones, M. K. and Underwood, M. G., The king's mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, countess of Richmond and Derby (Cambridge, 1992Google Scholar; hereafter Jones and Underwood), pp. 212–13. On the name of Jesus, ibid. pp. 176, 183; on Bishop Stanley, ibid. p. 235.

¹¹ On the Morices, cf. Narratives of the Reformation, ed. Nichols, J. G. (Camden Society, 1st ser. LXXVII, 1859Google Scholar; hereafter Narratives), pp. 45, 235. On Ralph's entry into Cranmer's service on Rochford's recommendation, and on Philip, BL Harley 6148, fo. 34r, pr. Cox II, 259 (LP VI, no. 1229), and for Philip's service to Cromwell, Bodleian Library Jesus MS 74 fo. 166r, and PRO, S.P. 1/132 fo. 186.

¹² On the foundation of the College, see Crawley, pp. 11–13; cf. Cobban, A. B., The medieval English universities: Oxford and Cambridge to c. 1500 (Aldershot, 1988Google Scholar; hereafter Cobban, , Med. Eng Univ.), pp. 238–9.Google Scholar

¹³ See Cobban, King's Hall, passim, but especially the analysis of careers of the fellows and wardens, pp. 281–99.

¹⁴ Cobban, , King's Hall, p. 296Google Scholar describes Larke as almost certainly fellow of the King's Hall in 1508–9. On Larke and building, see Gunn, S. G. and Lindley, P. G. (eds.), Cardinal Wolsey: church, state and art (Cambridge, 1991Google Scholar; hereafter Gunn and Lindley), pp. 14, 80, 83, 110.

¹⁵ Gunn and Lindley, chs. 2, 3, 10.

¹⁶ Cobban, , Med. Eng Univ. pp. 243–56.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cobban, , Med, Eng Univ. pp. 250–1.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For Gardiner's famous remark about the relationship between Luther and Erasmus, see Letters of Gardiner, p. 403.

¹⁹ Bradshaw, B. and Duffy, E. (eds.), Humanism, reform and the Reformation: the career of Bishop John Fisher (Cambridge, 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar; hereafter Bradshaw and Duffy), pp. 25–26; and cf. ibid. p. 30.

²⁰ Narratives, pp. 218–19, 239. Does the famous reference to ‘Faber’ refer to Faber Stapulensis, Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples (c. 1453–1536), as is usually assumed, or the German theologian Johann Faber (1478–1541), a cautious reformer and friend of Erasmus who later opposed Luther? The balance is probably with the traditional identification with Stapulensis, many of whose works were in Cranmer's library, including editions which he could have purchased early in his career: cf. MS Catalogue of Printed Books in the Old Royal Library, BL Department of Printed Books, p. 50 (collection of mathematical treatises, 1507); Canterbury Cathedral Library L-6−1 (Stapulensis on the Psalter, Paris, 1513).

²¹ Cf. the comments of Ridley on Cranmer's progress through scholarship: Ridley, J., Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1962Google Scholar; hereafter Ridley), pp. 15–16. On Erasmus in Cambridge, cf. e.g. Porter, H. C., Reformation and reaction in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 21–40Google Scholar. The curriculum for bachelors reading for the MA had been drastically revised c. 1500 to take account of the collapse of the traditional official courses of regency lectures: see Riehl Leader, p. 253–4.

²² Cf. Jones and Underwood, pp. 229–30, on early Tudor royal visits and gifts to Cambridge.

²³ Foxe VIII, p. 5, which is clearly an attempt to improve on Narratives, p. 240.

²⁴ Parker, De antiquitate, p. 387.

²⁵ PRO, S.P. 1/50/203 (LP IV, pt. ii, no. 4872): 24 Oct. 1528. It is curious, and perhaps significant, that this early mention of Cranmer has been generally overlooked: Ridley, p. 24, garbles it.

²⁶ Butterworth, C. C. and Chester, A. G., George Joye 1435?–1553: a chapter in the history of the English Bible and the English Reformation (Philadelphia, 1962Google Scholar; hereafter Butterworth and Chester), pp. 30–1, 45. Cf. Gardiner's own retrospective account of his dealings with Barnes at this time: Letters of Gardiner, p. 166, and for another account, Foxe V, 416.

²⁷ For instance, Pollard, A. F., Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation (London, 1904), p. 21Google Scholar; Clebsch, W. A., England's earliest protestants (New Haven and London, 1964), p. 274Google Scholar. For a Roman Catholic adoption of the same idea, see Hughes, P., The Reformation in England (3 vols., London, 1950–4Google Scholar; hereafter Hughes, Reformation), 1, 343. Rupp, E. G., Studies in the making of the English protestant tradition (Cambridge, 1947Google Scholar; hereafter Rupp, Studies), pp. 18–19, was more cautious in his phrasing, but still expansionist in his view of White Horse Tavern group membership.

²⁸ Butterworth and Chester, p. 26, which provides variant readings of Foxe's text: cf. Foxe V, 415–16.

²⁹ Cranmer to Henry VIII, 26 Aug. 1536, BL Cotton MS Cleopatra E VI fo. 234–5, Pr. Cox II, 327 (LP, XI, no. 361). On Burgrave, a bricklayer, Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS 128, p. 38, accurately qu. in LP XVIII, pt. ii, no. 546, p. 303. Cf. Ridley, pp. 21–2, on these texts; he is rightly sceptical about the second text, but has not quite grasped the sense of the quotation.

³⁰ Brooks, Cranmer in context, pp. 20–.2 Merlin, , Tomus primus quatuor conciliorum generalium. Quadraginta septem conciliorum provincialium authenticorum…, Paris [1524]Google Scholar. This book is now in the Karpeles MS Library Museums, Montecito, California [hereafter Karpeles]; a microfilm copy of it is held at Lambeth Palace as MS Microfilm 205. The binding of the four volumes is not consistent in various copies, and so I refer to volumes in the order in which they appear in the Karpeles microfilm. For Cranmer's annotations hostile to the papacy or sceptical about papal claims, cf. e.g. Karpeles 1, 3r., 12v, 13r, 93v, 95v; II, 3v, 4rv, 5v, 6v, 8v, 65r, 67r.

³¹ Cf. Cox 1, 144–5, with annotations on pseudonymous epistles of Clement to James, Karpeles 11, 3v–12r; especially ibid. 3v, 5v. At the latter folio is a close Latin paraphrase of the remark in the Answer about the Itinerarium Clementis, Cox 1, 144–5. The annotations on these epistles admittedly appear to have been made at different times.

³² Cranmer's copy is now BL 4532.h.2; it has no relevant annotations. Cf. the reference in Karpeles 1, 12r, which cross-refers to Tripartite history, 10 cap. 29: p. 608 in Cranmer's copy. Another cross-reference at Karpeles 1, 95r supplies a page number, but alas for any attempt at further precision, the paginations of the 1523 and 1528 editions of the Tripartite history are identical.

³³ Nicholson, G., ‘The Act of Appeals and the English Reformation’, in Law and government under the Tudors: essays presented to Sir Geoffrey Elton, ed. Cross, C., Loades, D. and Scarisbrick, J. J. (Cambridge, 1988Google Scholar; hereafter Nicholson, ‘Appeals’), p. 28. On the authorship of the Collectanea, and for further discussion, see Fox, A. and Guy, J., Reassessing the Henrician age: humanism, politics and reform 1500–1550 (Oxford, 1986Google Scholar; hereafter Fox and Guy), pp. 156–61.

³⁴ A useful discussion of these treatises is Sawada, P. A., ‘Two anonymous Tudor treatises on the general council’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XII (1961), 197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The second treatise, however, is not in the hand of Alexander Alesius as he suggests.

³⁵ The copy is BL C.81.f.2.

³⁶ BL C.81.f.2, fo. 130V; and cf. ibid, same folio and fos. 131rv, 132rv.

³⁷ BL C.81.f.2, fo. 132V.

³⁸ ibid. fo. 150r, noting Erasmus's differing opinion from Fisher on the authenticity of a text of Jerome: ‘Multo aliter sentit Erasm[us] super 2° tomo hieronymi fo. 49’. This refers to Erasmus's dismissal of the epistle ‘Virginitatis Laus’, to be found at fo. 49V of vol. II in the 1516 Basle edition of Erasmus's Jerome (4 vols.). Cranmer's copy of this edition is Lambeth Palace *D65, although there are no relevant marginalia at that point in the text. He later possessed the 1533/4 Paris edition of Erasmus's Jerome (4 vols.: BL 476.g.10–13). The 1533/4 edition has an entirely different foliation, with Erasmus's remarks about ‘Virginitatis Laus’ at IV, 39rv. Cf. also a criticism of Fisher at BL C.81.f.2, fo. 159r.

³⁹ ibid. fos. 156V. 157r.

⁴⁰ ibid. fos. 158r, 158V (two marginalia applauding Fisher), 160r.

⁴¹ Fairfield, L. P., ‘John Bale and Protestant hagiography in England’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XXIV (1973), 146.Google Scholar

⁴² Cochlaeus, , Beati Isidori…de officiis ecclesiasticis (1534 edn, preface)Google Scholar; cf. Ridley, pp. 21, 45, and Cranmer's comments on his meeting with Cochlaeus at Ratisbon, BL Cotton MS Vitellius B XIV fo. 41, pr. Records of the Reformation: the divorce, 1527–33, ed. Pocock, N. (2 vols., Oxford, 1870, hereafter Records of the Reformation), II, 506–7.Google Scholar

⁴³ On Ridley, preaching and his notebook (CUL MS Dd.5.27), see Riehl Leader, pp. 189–90, 251–2, 278–81. Letter to Gold, 24 Feb. 1528, BL Cotton MS Cleopatra E V, fo. 362V (LP IV, no. 3960). For Ridley's career, see Venn III, 458, and note especially the preferment in London which came to him during Tunstall's years as bishop of London. Ridley was one of Wolsey's 1521 theological commission against Luther, and also owned a copy of Fisher's Confutatio: Rex, R., ‘The English campaign against Luther in the 1520s’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series XXXIX (1989Google Scholar; hereafter Rex, ‘Luther’), 87–8.

⁴⁴ Foxe VIII, 5; cf. Parker, De antiquitate, p. 387.

⁴⁵ On Fisher, R. Rex, in Bradshaw and Duffy, p. 124. I am most grateful to my research student Ashley Null for our conversations about Alcock.

⁴⁶ Cox 1, 88.

⁴⁷ Foxe VI, 187. For other dismissive remarks by Gardiner about the regulars, ibid. pp. 204, 222, 233. On 20 Feb. 1533, he was the only member of the upper house of convocation to object to the exemption of certain regulars from the clerical subsidy; cf. Lambeth Palace MS 751, pp. 96–7, and Lehmberg, S. E., The Reformation parliament, 1529–1536 (Cambridge, 1970Google Scholar, hereafter Lehmberg, , Reformation parliament), p. 176.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ BLC.81.f.2, fo. 157V: ‘Videturhienon admodum errare…Studet hieRoffensis argumentum pro se infirmum schematis rhetoricis obfirmare’.

⁴⁹ ibid. fo. 158V: Luther: ‘Si Papa et concilium sic desiperent, ut in rebus non necessariis ad salutem determinandis, tempus et studia perderent, habendi et contemnendi essent pro fatuis et insanis, cum omnibus suis determinationibus larvalibus…’. Cranmer: ‘Sic crescit in malicia’; ‘totum concilium appellat insanum; ipse insanissimus’.

⁵⁰ ibid. fo. 159V: Luther: ‘O vos impiissimi animarum seductores, quam scelerate illuditis populo dei’. Cranmer: ‘Sanctissimum concilium vocat impiissimum. O arrogantia hominis sceleratissimi’.

⁵¹ Bradshaw and Duffy, pp. 119, 139; and cf. in general Dr Gogan's discussion of Fisher's ecclesiology, ibid. pp. 131–54.

⁵² For his letters of 1552 to Bullinger, Calvin and Melanchthon appealing for the convening of a General Council, see Cox 11, 431–2.

⁵³ Redworth, G., In defence of the church catholic: the life of Stephen Gardiner (Oxford, 1990Google Scholar; hereafter Redworth, Gardiner), pp. 16–22. NB the statement of George Wyatt that in April 1529 the pope wrote to Campeggio complaining of Gardiner's insolence on his mission: The papers of George Wyatt esquire…, ed. Loades, D. M. (Camden 4th ser. V, 1968), p. 142Google Scholar. For a convenient summary of Gardiner's preferment, Emden, A. B., A biographical register of the University of Oxford A.D. 1501 to 1540 (Oxford, 1974Google Scholar; hereafter Emden, , Oxford to 1540), p. 227Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cf. Ives, E. W., Anne Boleyn (Oxford, 1986Google Scholar; hereafter Ives, Anne), p. 138, and in particular the reference at n. 29 to LP IV, no. 5422, pr. Burnet, G., History of the Reformation of the Church of England (3 vols in 6, London, 1820Google Scholar; hereafter Burnet), II pt ii, no. 24, p, 405. Contrast Dr Redworth's sanguine view of Gardiner's loyalty to Wolsey at this time, Redworth, Gardiner, pp. 24–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Handlist of British diplomatic representatives 1509–1688, ed. Bell, G. M. (London: Royal Historical Society, 1990Google Scholar; hereafter British diplomatic representatives), p. 162; Burnet III pt i, 70; Redworth, , Gardiner, pp. 22–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ives, Anne, pp. 146–50. Henry's itinerary in these crucial months for Cranmer can be found in BL Lansdowne MS I fo. 210 [LP IV, no. 5965).

⁵⁷ Hall, E., The triumphant reigne of Kyng Henry the VIII, ed. Whibley, C. (2 vols. London, 1904), ii, 156.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Narratives, pp. 240–1; Foxe VIII, 6–7. There is no good reason to doubt the general veracity of these accounts. Ridley works out the chronology of the meeting, p. 25, and cf. his discussion of the conversation, pp. 25–7.

⁵⁹ The correspondence of Sir Thomas More, ed. Rogers, E.F, (London, 1947), pp. 495–6Google Scholar. The meeting cannot be much later than More's acceptance of the chancellorship and his taking of the Great Seal on 25 Oct.: Guy, J., The public career of Sir Thomas More (Brighton, 1980Google Scholar; hereafter Guy, More), p. 32. Cranmer apparently only first met the king in the same last week of October, at Greenwich: cf. Narratives, p. 242 with The divorce tracts of Henry VIII, ed. Surtz, E. and Murphy, V. (Angers, 1988Google Scholar; hereafter Divorce tracts), p. xxi.

⁶⁰ One surviving tract is the Articuli duodecim, BL Cotton MS Vespasian B V, pr. Records of the Reformation, 1, 334–99; cf. Guy, More, pp. 101–2, LP VI, no. 530. The flyleaf of this copy has the signature ‘Thomas Cantuarien.’ in a clerk's hand borne by books from Cranmer's library. There is another copy at BL Royal MS X B 1. On the sequence of events after the Waltham meeting, see Narratives, pp. 242–3. Ridley, pp. 27–8nn, is rightly sceptical about Morice's description of Cranmer's direct involvement in the discussions leading to Oxford and Cambridge's pronouncement of the Divorce in February/March 1530: impossible, since he was already away on the Boleyn embassy to Italy. However, he still thinks that Cranmer did attend some meeting in August to October 1529. It is more likely that Morice misunderstood the fact that Cranmer's writings had been used in persuading the universities: cf. Gardiner's and Fox's letter to Henry VIII, Feb. 1530, pr. Burnet 1, pt. ii, no. 32, pp. 124–6.

⁶¹ Chapuys to the Emperor, Calendar of state papers, Spanish, ed. de Gayangos, P., Mattingly, G., Hume, M. A. S. and Tyler, R. (London, 1862–1954Google Scholar; hereafter CSPSpan.), IV, pt. i, no. 252, pp. 432–3 (20 Jan. 30). Cranmer cannot otherwise definitely be identified as a royal chaplain until Jan. 1532: cf. Ridley, p. 36 and n. 2, and Historical MSS commission, seventh report, p. 601.

⁶² On Cranmer's pensionary status, cf. Ridley, pp. 30–1; although strictly speaking, the rise in Cranmer's daily expense allowance which Ridley notes is more likely to be connected with his official English designation as orator to the Apostolic see. Cf. Benet's mention of the appointment of his successor as pensionary, PRO, S.P. 1/65 fos. 108f, pr. State papers published under the authority of his majesty's commission, King Henry VIII (11 vols., London, 1830–52Google Scholar; hereafter State papers), VII, 279–81 (LP V, no. 68).

⁶³ Vatican Archivo Secreto Vaticano, Brevi Clemente VII, Arm. 40, vol. XXX, 215: a draft; this was a discovery of Dr Maria Dowling, and I am very grateful to her for generously letting me know of her important find. As far as we know, Cranmer never took advantage of this licence. Narratives, p. 243 indicates that the initiative in getting Cranmer a benefice came from Henry.

⁶⁴ In 1552 Bredon was listed at £72. iis per annum, still one of the four plum livings listed as worth over £50: PRO, SP10/15f. 173V. The Bishop and his post-Reformation successors as Lords of the Manor retained serfs here until the end of the sixteenth century: cf. e.g. Gloucester Record Office D.2957/174(i).

⁶⁵ For the collation of Carmelianus in 1506, see Hereford and Worcester Record Office (hereafter HWRO), b.716.093-BA 2648/8(i), p. 82; other rectors are listed in Bredon church guide book, which however misses Cranmer. Caimelianus, the previous known incumbent before Cranmer, died sometime before 13 Jan. 1528: Le Neve, J., ed. Jones, B., Fasti ecclesiae anglicanae 1300–1541, VI: northern province (London, 1963), 29Google Scholar. The somewhat confused Worcester episcopal Registers of the period, HWRO b.716.093-BA 2648/8(i) (ii), 9(i)(ii), do not reveal the institution of Cranmer or any other immediate successor to Carmelianus.

⁶⁶ HWRO, b.716.093-BA2648/8(ii), p. 38; on Barlow's career, see Rupp, Studies, pp. 64–5, 71. One could also compare the appointment of the radical royal protegé Hugh Latimer to West Kington (Wilts.) on 14 Jan. 1531. Like Bredon, this was in the gift of an absentee Italian, the bishop of Salisbury – none other than Lorenzo Campeggio. Cf. extract from Campeggio's Register, qu. Foxe VII, 773–4.

⁶⁷ John Bianket (Bianchi or Bianchetti?), a Bolognese. Cranmer left Rome for Bologna at the end of August or beginning of September 1530: the draft licence of 22 Aug. erases the reference to him as orator to the Apostolic See, presumably indicating that he left soon after the first preparation of the draft (above, no. 62). On Bianket, cf. BL Harl. 787, fo. 18, pr. Cox 11, 330–2 (LP XI, no. 1100), 18 Nov. 1536, and PRO S.P.1/128 fos. 86–7 (not pr. in Cox; LP XVIII, pt. i, no. 76), 14 Feb. 1538.

⁶⁸ Cf. Ridley, pp. 33–5; Scarisbrick, J.J., Henry VIII (London, 1968), pp. 255–8Google Scholar. On the date of the first meeting between Henry and Cranmer, see the summary comment in Ives, Anne Boleyn, p. 160 n. 29.

⁶⁹ BL Lansdowne MS 115, fo. I, pr. Cox II, 229–31. The rector's farmer is mentioned in a view of frankpledge for Bredon on 10 May 1530 (HWRO, 009: i-BA 2636/178 (xxvii, no. 92510), a court roll for the episcopal manors, unfoliated).

⁷⁰ On these two major tracts of the later phase of the divorce controversy, see Nicholson, ‘Appeals’, pp. 19–30, and Divorce tracts, especially p. iv. The Collectanea remained incomplete at the time of Cranmer's return from Rome in autumn 1530: cf. Guy, More, p. 132.

⁷¹ Haas, S. W., ‘The Disputatio inter clericum et militem: was Berthelet's 1531 edition the first Henrician polemic of Thomas Cromwell?’, Moreana, XIV (12. 1977Google Scholar; hereafter Haas, ‘Disputatio’) 66.

⁷² For a convenient summary of Gardiner's preferment, see Emden, , Oxford to 1540, p. 227.Google Scholar

⁷³ Cf. Richard Croke's remarks on Lutheran hostility to the divorce in his letter to Henry VIII, BL Cotton MS Vitellius B XIII fo. 91, pr. Burnet 1, pt. ii, pp. 128–9 (LP IV, no. 6491); or Robert Wakefield's hostile remarks about Luther in a sermon of 1534 – Rex, ‘Luther’, pp. 91–2.

⁷⁴ Fox and Guy, pp. 160–1.

⁷⁵ Haas, ‘Disputatio’, esp. pp. 67–8.

⁷⁶ Divorce tracts, pp. 50/6, 51/10–11, 305; 148/15, 149/29–30, 356.

⁷⁷ Divorce tracts, pp. 224/16–25, 225/26–34, 414.

⁷⁸ For the text of this answer, see Gee, H. and Hardy, W. J., Documents illustrative of English church history… (London, 1896), pp. 154–76Google Scholar, and for the context, Lehmberg, , Reformation parliament, pp. 145–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ For contrasting views on Gardiner's relationship with the king in the drafting of the answer, cf. Elton, G. R., Reform and Reformation (London, 1977), pp. 150–4Google Scholar, and Redworth, Gardiner, pp. 35–8; Dr Redworth has usefully clarified the seriousness of Gardiner's defiance during these events. For the text of Gardiner's letter to the king, see Letters of Gardiner, pp. 48–9.

⁸⁰ Cox 1, 63–4; Cranmer was writing in 1551. This parliamentary speech could only have been made after Gardiner had returned from his embassy in March 1532; he had never had any place in parliament before that.

⁸¹ CSPSpan. IV, pt. II, no. 954, pp. 450–1. Redworth, Gardiner, pp. 45–7.

⁸² Hughes, Reformation, 1, 240–1, drawing on Warham's Protestation of 24 Feb. 1532, pr. Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, ed. Wilkins, D. (4 vols., London, 1737), III, 746Google Scholar. Redworth, Gardiner, pp. 38–41, offers a variety of alternative explanations for Gardiner's change of front.

⁸³ British diplomatic representatives, pp. 47, 127.

⁸⁴ Elyot to duke of Norfolk, 14 March 1532, BL Cotton MS Vitellius B xxi, fos. 58–9, pr. Records of the Reformation, II, pp. 228–30, although the writer is there wrongly identified as Augustin (cf. LP VI, no. 869).

⁸⁵ The main evidence for the marriage is somewhat unsatisfactory, being brief accusatory statements at his trial in 1555: Cox 11, 550, 557. Cranmer was in Nuremberg during July: Ridley, p. 41. He was back in Regensburg by 17 Aug.: State papers, VII, 378.

⁸⁶ Matthew Parker, who was in a position to know, gives the first marriage a slightly longer span than other commentators: ‘Verum altero a nuptiis anno uxor…decessit’ (De antiquitate, p. 387).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cf. John Rogers later making use of this argument to Mary's privy council: Foxe VI, 596.

⁸⁸ Foxe VIII, 46.

⁸⁹ Henry's order to Cranmer to return presumably accompanied his successor's letters of credence dated 1 Oct. 1532, pr. Records of the Reformation II, 327 (LP VI, no. 1380); cf. CSPSpan. IV pt. ii, no. 1003, also of 1 Oct. 32, pp. 529–30. The command probably only reached him in November: cf. Ridley, p. 49.

⁹⁰ Cranmer's main account (Foxe VII, 66) presents some chronological problems; either it has been garbled by John Foxe, or the aged archbishop was himself confused. Cranmer says that after his initial summons from Henry soon after Warham's death (22 Aug. 1532) he managed to delay returning for ‘half a year’ until a second summons. In fact he was back home within four months of the earliest possible first summons, and on the most likely timing, two months elapsed between receipt of first summons in October/early November and return in January. This corresponds much better with his other passing statement at his trial (Foxe VIII, 55), that he took seven weeks to return home. Certainly he travelled slowly, making ‘small journeys’: PRO, S.P. 1/72 fo. 140 (LP vi, no. 1620).

⁹¹ Redworth, Gardiner, pp. 190–1.

⁹² Cf. PRO, E.154/2/41 (5 Sep. 53) for the inventory of Cranmer's goods in which Gardiner is given Cranmer's state barge. For versions of Cranmer's last speech, see Narratives, pp. 231–3 (reflected in Foxe VIII, 87–8) and discussion there, but also a divergent tradition in BL Harley MS 422 fos. 48–52r, BL Cotton Titus A XXIV fo. 88; also Lambeth MS 3152 fos. 114–5.