THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE: GOSSIP LETTERS ABOUT THE WEDDING OF FRANCES COKE by Emily Ross'

Abstract: Frances Coke, daughter of Sir Edward Coke and Lady Elizabeth Hatton. was married in 1617 lo Sir John Villiers. brother of the royal favorite George Villiers, then carl of Buckingham. Although history has little io say about Frances, reading gossip about her in letters provides an alternative, subjective means of gaining insight into her social existence. While most letters about ihe wedding are preoccupied by the evidence events provided of the king's favor to Coke, one writer. Castle, passed on a secondhand observation that the bride had cried at the wedding, with some speculative interprtations of her tears. This article explores representations of the wedding in that letter, and others as a contrast to it, to gain an understanding of the cultural, rather than histoiica!, meanings in circulation around Ihis episode in Frances's life. Keywords: women, letters, marriage, law. gossip, faction, feminist, historiography, Jacobean court, early modem England.

While legal documents may attest that early modem women were bom. married, committed crimes or had crimes committed against them, and died, few nuanced accounts of their lives can be found in the histories of the period, which are patently a "record of male experience, written by men, from a male perspective."' For much of her life, Frances Coke is just such an invisible woman: there are no portraits of her, no record ot her birth, and few of the letters she wrote have survived. However, while there are few traces of her in institutional history, reading gossip in the letters written about her enables us to get a glimpsenot of Frances herself, because the reality of her life has been lost, but of her societal shadow. This article explores the meanings of one particular incident in her life which brought her to public attention: her marTiage to John Villiers in 1617. The method I use involves focusing on episodes in women's lives which were fictionalized through gossip in order to gain an understanding of cultural, rather than historical, meanings. The starting point for this investigation was a single letter, which alleged that Frances cried at her wedding. I examine this letter, and others 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 Construction of Woman." Making a Difference: Feminist Literary Criticism, ed. Gayle Greene and Coppelia Kahn (London and New York 1985) 12.

232

EMILY ROSS

her tears. The objective is not to try to ascertain whether or not she cried, which cannot be established, but to highlight that multiple and divergent stories can be told about the same events. Being concerned only with whether a story is empirically true, in tenns of correspondence to historical events, means suppressing or flattening this variety in a way which distorts the truth while claiming to pursue it. Even if it could be proven defmitively that Frances cried, the sign "crying" has more than one possible interpretation; and if she did not cry that does not then signify that she was happy. Therefore, while I am interested in what participants, observers, and third parties say about "what really happened." my purpose is to deconstruct the accounts by recognizing where they subjectively vary and diverge, undermining the artificially cohesive picture of the past that traditional history presents. First, it is necessary to give some background to the events leading up to Frances's wedding day. What follows is necessarily a much simplified account and does not claim to represent the "whole truth" of Frances's history. Sir Edward Coke and Lady Elizabeth Hatton married in November 1598.^ Frances was the second of two daughters they bad together, with the first born August 1599,^ so that means her earliest possible birthdate would be May 1600. The legal minimum age for brides in early modern England was fourteen." and she married in September 1617, so that gives an end date for her birth as 1603. So she was bom sometime between 1600 and 1603 and was therefore between fourteen and seventeen when she was married. Her husband, John Villiers, was born in approximately 1591,^ meaning that he was about twenty-six, at least nine years older. John was the mentally unstable older brother of King James l's favorite George Villiers, carl of Buckingham. Rumors of a

^ Laura Norsw orthy, The Lady of Bleeding Heart Yard: Lady Eltzabeih Hatton. 15787(546 (London 1938) 12 n. ^ Kathy Lynn Emerson. Wives and Daughters: The Women of Sixteenth Century England (Ucw Y orV. 1984)47. * Reginald Haw, The State <)f Matrimony: An Investigation ofthe Relationship between Ecclesiastical and Civil Marriage in England after the Reformation (London 1952) 5. ^ Stuart Handley, "Villiers, John. Viscount Purbeck (15917-1658)," Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford 2004) (henceforth DNB), 22 May 2008, www.oxford dnb,com/view/article/28299.

THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE

233

match between Frances and John began in November 1616.^ The match was politically advantageous for Coke, however the negotiations were tumultuoussupposedly Coke refused on the basis of Buckingham's financial demands, then decided it would be politically beneficial to proceed after all.' Frances's mother. Lady Elizabeth Hatton, was not in agreement that the marriage should proceed and tried to prevent it, first, by attempting to bind Frances in an alternative marriage contract with the earl of Oxford, then secretly sending her into the countryside to stay with Hatton's cousin. Sir Edmund Withipole. Coke sought out Frances and took her from Withipole's house to London. Coke and Hatton fought over her custody, but the case was settled when James returned from a visit from Scotland and found in favor of Coke and Buckingham, declaring Hatton's actions criminal and imprisoning her. There followed a period of about a month, during which Frances seemingly continued to refuse to marry John. However, despite Hatton's and Frances's objections, John Villiers and Frances Coke were married at Hampton 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 marriage has occurred, without describing the wedding, eight writers mention the wedding specifically, and these texts form the corpus of gossip under investigation 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 was probably in attendance at court. His wife was presumably at the family estate, Penshurst, which is near Tonbridge in Kent.'"

Chamberlain to Carieton, 9 November 1616, in John Chamberlain, The Letters of John 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 mean Ihc 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, and C,,L. Kingsford, eds., Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L'isle Dudlev. 6 vols (London 1925-1966)5.414, '" Robert Shephard. "Sidney. Robert. First Earl of Leicester {1563-1626)," DNB. 12 November 2008, www,oxforddnb,eom/ view/article/25524.

234

EMILY ROSS
II

2. A letter from Adam Newton to Thomas Puckering, his brother-in-law, dated 28 September 1617.'^ Newton was usually resident in London, but his letter says explicitly that he was out of town at the time (but does not say where) and therefore did not attend. Puckering's barony was based in Weston. Hertfordshire." so the letter was presumably sent to him there. 3. An entry in Camden's Annals for 29 September 1617.'"" At the time. Camden was headmaster at Westminster School in London. "' 4. A letter from John Castle to his friend William Trumbull. 2 October 1617.'^ Castle was based in London, and Tmmbull was English ambassador to Brussels.'^ 5. A letter from Sir Gerard Herbert to Sir Dudley Carleton. 6 October 1617."* Herbert was a courtier in London, and Carleton was England's ambassador to the Hague. 6. On 11 October 1617 Carleton received another letter about the matter from John Chamberlain, a triend of his based in London."" 7. A letter from Thomas Paulyn to Sir Richard Beaumont, 22 Noveniber 1617.'^' Paulyn was an assistant master at Kings School, Canterbury.^^ He wrote this letter from London, where he attended the wedding. Beaumont was a courtier who shared Paulyn's interest in education, having built

'' Frances Parthenope Vemey and Margaret Maria Williams-Hay Vemey. Memoirs of the 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 Queens Thereof I...J, ed. John Hughes (London 1719) 2.64S. '^ Wyman H. Herendeen. "Camden. William (1551-1623)." DNB. 12 November 2{K18, www.oxForddnb.com/'view/anic!c/4431. '" Castle to Trumhull, 2 October 1617, in E. K. Pumell, A. B. Hinds. G. Dyfnallt Owen, and Sonia P. Anderson, eds.. Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Downshire. 6 vols. (London 1924-1995) 6.299-300. '' Imran Uddin. "Williann Trumbiill: A .lacohean Diplomat at the Court of the Archdukes 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. 17 November 2008, www.oxforddnh.com/ view/article/4670. -"Chamberlain to Carleton, 11 October 1617, in John Chamberlain. The Chamberlain Leiters: A Selection of the Letters of John Chamberlain [...] 597 to 1626, ed. Elizabetli McClure Thomson (London 1966) 187. ' Paulyn to Beaumont. 22 November 1617, in W. Dunn Macray, ed., Beaumont Papers: 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. Gibson (Toronto 2002), 11 November 200S. ia3l I541.us.archive.org/l/items/kentcanterbury REED03gibsuoft/kenteanterbiiryREEDa3gibsuo.pdf.

THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE

235

Kirkheaton Grammar School for Boys on his property in West Yorkshire." This letter probably traveled between Londoti and Kirkheaton. A letter from George Lord Carew to Sir Thomas Roe, dated 18 Jantiary 1618." Carew was a privy couticilor in London and wrote this letter from the Savoy. Intriguingly, he was William Camden's patron."'' but there is no evidence of textual infltience on this occasion. Sir Thomas Roe was England's ambassador to India.'''
FIG. I. M A P OF THE TRANSMISSION O F THE EIGHT T E X T S

-' "Down Your Way: Mills, Fires and Toilet Trouble," The Cricket: History of Calderdale and Kirkiees. 1 I November 2008, www.ckcrickethcrtage.org.uk/southkirk iees/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 significant that (apart from Lady L'isle) all are male and (apart from Camden and Paulyn who were more middle class but highly educated) upper class or aristocrats. Unlike the letters of women or lower class individuals, the productions of these men were valued and preserved. However, despite the accoutrements of bureaucracy which situate these letters among state papers, the activity tbese men are engaged in should be acknowledged to be gossip. That such high status men^three ambassadors, a privy councilor, a handful of courtiers and nobles, and two school mastersare recognized to be actively engaged in gossip reminds us that knowledge is power and raises the question as to whether women have traditionally been condemned for gossiping because gossip is trivialor because it is not. While no individual on the list is both recipient and sender, which would suggest a gossip chain is occurring, the map shows gossip spreading from tbe site of the event, London, out to the provinces and to English outposts in other countries. While there are too few letters to prove this is a trend rather than a coincidence, tbis center-to-periphery spread pattern has been noted as common by other communication researchers such as Scott-Warren and Fox,"^ and applies equally to other forms of communication commodities sucb as books, produced in London and distributed through the countryside and overseas, often via the post. Although there is no gossip chain in this instance, there is a significant amount of textual overlap between Herbert and Paulyn's letters. Both state that the wedding took place at Hampton Court on Michaelmas Day, and that the king, queen and prince were present. Both describe the giving of the bride and then the dinner. That both Herbert and Paulyn explicitly claim eyewitness status for their accounts, and that their letters have a coincident event sequence, suggests tbat the similarity between the versions is due to their shared experience of tbe chronology of occurrences during tbe wedding rather than a shared textual source. However, while they can therefore be seen to corroborate 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, "Rumour. News and Popular Political Opinion in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England," The Historical Journal 40.3 ( 1997) 620.

THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE

237

tween their texts illustrate how experiences ofthe same events can generate different accounts. Neither eyewitness mentions Frances crying; Paulyn's explicit comment, however, that the bride "did behave her self well that day (1 was there and saw it),"-'' suggests an awareness that this point was or might be under dispute. The claim that Frances cried at her wedding was made in Castle's letter to Trumbull; It was observed that when by the course ofthe ceremony she was to give hir hand to hir husband, the teares fell from hir eyes which some expound to
have ben lachiytnae repugnanti.s voluntatis as not affecting the hand wilh which shee was to joyne; others say they were lachrymae pietatis proceeding from a daughter that remembred shee was now tying that knod for crossing whereof hir mother and cheife frends remayned forclosed from the Kings grace and favor.'**

The phrase "it was observed" is a passive construction, suggesting that Castle was not an eyewitness at the wedding and that this is a reported story. That Castle is passing on gossip is supported by the collectives "some expound" and "others say." The Latin expressions, which translate roughly as "reluctant tears" and "pious tears,"^" are class-coded, with Castle assuming that his friend Trumbull shared his elite, classical educationa privilege from which all but a few privately educated women were excluded."" Putting these phrases in Latin makes them seem more weighty than the mere speculations that they are, and associatively links them with the Latin terminology ofthe legal discourse to which they indirectly allude. Friends tend to have similar political opinions,^^ which may explain why Castle feels able to convey interpretations of the event which are indirectly critical ofthe kingwith "reluctant tears" suggesting he had encouraged an enforced match and "pious tears" suggesting that Hatton had 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 attribution of these opinions to others and not himself could protect him from criticism. While Castle's account seems sympathetic to Frances's plight, it is important to note that his interest in her is political and he does not mention her name, terming her only "Sir Edward Coke's daughter." Although Castle's secondhand account is the only text ofthe eight to mention the crying, Frances has been portrayed as tearful almost unanimously in those few secondary history texts which discuss the wedding. Johnstone wrote, prior to 1811, that the wedding "was celebrated amid the gratulation of the fawning courtiers, but stained by the tears of the reluctant bride." with this statement then being cited by Weldon'' and Longueville.'"' Williamson wrote in 1940 that the bride wept/^ while Norsworthy played up the pathos of Frances's plight, claiming that on her wedding day "she looked more like a martyr being brought to the stake than a bride being led to the altar.""'" That the historians knew that the story ended badlyJohn is consigned to asylums for most ofhis life, and Frances allegedly commits adultery with Sir Robert Howard and conceives a son to him, for which Buckingham repeatedly but unsuccessfully attempts to prosecute her in order to disinherit the babymay have influenced their decision to portray Frances as crying. As Gibbs, the author of The Romance of George Villiers, shrewdly notes, once events had played out "there were many who remembered the tears."^^ The speculation that Frances cried reluctant tears raises the question of whether she married John against her will. Canon law from as early as 560 A.D. consistently upheld the free consent of children as crucial to marriage formation. Forbidding forced marriage.^** Macfarlane makes the point that the consent ofthe couple is central to the marriage service

" Anthony Weldon, "The Court and Character of King James," Secret History ofthe Court of James the First (Einburgh 1811) 1.445. ' Thomas Longueville. The Curious Case of Lady Purbeck: A Scandal ofthe Seventeenth Century (Rockville, MD 2005) 38. " Hugh Ross Williamson, George yHlieK-i. First Duke of Buckingham: Study for a Biography (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, 1300yS- (Oxford 1986)131.

THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE

239

itself, and that if either party dissents the marriage cannot proceed.39 Frances does not actively dissentshe goes through with the marriage ceremony and therefore presumably voiced her consentand so cannot be said to be enforced, but interpreting her tears as reluctant carries that implication that she gave that consent only under coercion or ditress. Duress was a legal impediment to marriage, meaning that if coereion could be proven it could either prevent a maiTiage from taking place, or be sufficient to annul a forced marriage as illegal. However, in early modem times, physical force causing injury or fear of the same, with witnesses, was the only form of duress reliably to be accepted by the court.^" As Frances's father. Sir Edward Coke, wrote an overview of the legal history of forced marriages in chapter 12 of his Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws ofEngland,^^ it is to be expected that he was well aware that proven enforcement or undue duress would be sufficient to prevent or annul the union. He seems to have taken measures to defleet this interpretation. There is a letter, purportedly from Frances to Hatton, written sometime during the period prior to the wedding while Hatton was imprisoned, in which Frances states her "resolve to be wholly ruled by my father and yourself... 1 being a mere child and not understanding the world nor what is good for myself," expressing the opinion that the marriage "will be a means of the king's favor to my father," with the postscript "Dear mother, believe there has no violent means been used to me by words or deeds."^' The vocabulary and rationale used in the letter undermine the plausibility of its claim to be a spontaneous letter from a teenager to her mother, and make it seem more likely that the letter was either composed or dictated by Coke as proof of Frances's consent and an explicit disclaimer to ward off allegations that undue duress had been involved. The former supposition is supported by a comment in a letter from Edward Sherbum to Carleton, about how a letter written by Frances (presumably 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 husband.""' To allow objections to unions to come to light, canon law required that the banns were called in the church where the couple were to be married for several weeks prior to the wedding.*" Chamberlain reported to his friend Carleton that this had been carried out. with the couple "thrice publicly asked in the church," without objection raised."^ However, this public perfomiance of willingness to hear objections belied that the marriage was able to proceed mainly because the primary opponent of the union, Hatton, was in prison and therefore unable to challenge it, with those who would have supported her similarly subdued and intimidated. The efforts of Coke's faction to confer legitimacy on the wedding through demonstrated legal compliance can therefore be understood as attempts to control public opinion about the wedding. They were at least partially effective, as writers such as L'isle and Camden note that the wedding occurred, with no further comment; Newton reports, "It is said, the Mother's consent was obtained" and "Frances "protest[ed] she liked Sir John better than any other whatsoever."^ However, Castle's comment that "some expound" that Frances cried reluctant tears suggests that the propaganda was not entirely convincing. The alternative interpretation that Castle offersthat Frances shed pious tears at making the match for which her mother had been imprisoned^^shows that at least some courtiers were aware of Hatton's protests. While imprisonment prevented Hatton from being able to physically intervene in the lead up to the wedding, she and her supporters, especially her secretary. Sir John Holies, conducted something of a public relations campaign of their own, attempting to discredit the wedding in public opinion by spreading versions of events which characterized the marriage as enforced or taking place under duress and drew 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.

THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE

241

"besieged" by Coke and his supporters and "lives in that house, as in a wildemes, with bears, and wolves."^^ Although Hatton was eventually forced to grant her consent under the threat of forfeiting all her property to Coke, her continued opposition was signaled by her absence from the wedding. Gerard Herbert explained 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 true that her absence was strategic; simultaneously a boycott of proceedings to which she had been forced to consent but of which she did not approve, and an act intended lo spread the assumption that she had been forbidden to attend. Carew wrote to Roe that Hatton was not present because she "was nott released frome the Alderman's guard'";'*" and Paulyn attributes her absence and continued imprisonment as due to her opposition to the match.^" While some historians report that Hatton refused to attend,^' others have assumed, like Carew and Paulyn, that she did not attend because she was forbidden to do so.'^" That Hatton's absence was a deliberate boycott is supported by the corresponding absences of members of the Cecil faction to which she belonged, which did not go unnoticed. Carew reported that "the Erie of Exeter [Hatton's father] and all his familie" were all absent,""^ and Gerard Herbert commented that he "saw never a Cecill."^'' Paying attention only to what actually occurredhow legal requirements were complied withrisks missing the ways in which events were manipulated and the "truth" massaged to favor the interests of participants and factional groups. What is immediately evident, even in documents which make only cursory reference to the wedding, is that the writers are interested in the marriage as a political rather than personal 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 to them. Wodak and Reisig! recotnmend that, in discourse analysis, researchers should pay particularly close attention to how are people are "named and referred to linguistically.""' Counting the number of times across the letters that characters are honored with respectful titles, named with or without a title, or defined by their role either in the wedding or in their family, reveals a discrepancy between the centrality of figures 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 addressed. While the bride might be expected to be a central tlgure at a wedding, and Frances is mentioned in some fashion by all the writers except L'isie, she is named on only one occasion, otherwise identified almost exclusively in relation to others: as Coke or Hatton's daughter or as John's bride. On the other hand, the frequent and respectful mentions ofthe king reveal him to be a key player in this event. That the union was celebrated in the presence of and under the patronage of the king, queen, and prince is commented on by six of the eight writers, with the royal seal of approval on the marriage acting as the ultimate guide to public opinion. Viscount L'isie complained in his letter to Lady L'isie that the marriage cost him a "good peece of plate."^*' Presumably he was not the only courtier to signal his alignment with the king by presenting gifts to the newlyweds.

" Rulh Wodak and Martin Rcisigl, "Discourse and Racism," The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. Deborali Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (Maiden, MA 2003) 385. ^'^ L'isie to Lady L'isie, 27 September 1617, Shaw. Owen, and Kingsford, eds. (n. 9 above) 5.414.

THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE FIG. 2. TERMS USED AND FREQUENCY 2 X Majesty UxKina K i n g James

243

Prince Charles

Queen .\mie l x Majesty

7 X Prince

' t Majesty
2 X Queen

3 X Lord Coke 6x SirEdn-aid Coke, SirEdwarii 2 X Moth 1 X Mother, brethren, iheir wives, sisters .

Edward Coke

I
Frances

liziibe Hatton Hatton

George
1 X Earl of BucIUDghitm 3 X Lofd ofBuckingham

1 X Lord VilliMs 2 \ The Lady 8 X Sir John Villiere, Sii Johc 1 x Gentlewoman 17. John VillJere I x Frances 2 Bridegroom 7 x Bride 2 X Husband 1 J. Brolher g x Daughier

The king's approval was signaled not only implicitly by his being present, but explicitly by his active participation in the ceremony. Whereas the Book of Common Prayer calls for the bride to be given to the groom by the bride's father or friend/^ according to Paulyn. "the Bride was led to the chappell betweene the Prince and my lord of Buckingham"; and when the bishop of Winchester asked "Who giveth this woman to be marid to this man," Coke "tooke his daughter by the hand, and gave her to the Kinge, and the Kinge gave her to her husband."-^ Herbert's account is not as detailed but essentially corroborates this transaction, adding that Coke gave his daughter to the king "with some wordes of complemente at the givinge."^*^ Chamberlain concurs, 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 the bond the marriage creates between Frances and John to the bond that the transaction enables between Coke and the king. Coke's gift of Frances is performed as an act of tribute or allegiance to the king, with

Joan Larsen Klein, ed., Daughters, IVives, and Widows : Writings by Men About H^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. Frances herself is merely a token in this exchange, literally passed from the hands of one man to another and then another. Despite Castle's claim that Frances and John's marriage was celebrated with "not too much pomp and ceremony,"'"' there seems to have been a fair amount of pageantry. Newton wrote to Puckering that he crossed paths on Kingston Bridge with the wedding party, headed by Coke, on their way to court in "eighl or nine Coaches,"^" and that figures such as Herbert and Paulyn were present at the ceremony suggests it may have been well attended. Herbert lists the guests as being "many Lordes & Ladies, My Lord Canterbury, my Lord Treasurer, my Lord Chamberlayne & c." including "the Lord of Buckinghams mother, [brethren], there wyves, & his sisters."" After the wedding, there was a banquet, commentary on which is provided by the two eyewimesses, Herbert and Paulyn, and by Castle. All three report that Frances sat near the prince, witb Paulyn specifying that the prince was on her right and the lord keeper on her left, and Castle stating that the prince "in grace of his servant caressed hir with many demonstrations.'" According to Herbert, at both dinner and supper, John stood behind her and attended on her, and the king drank toasts to her health.^"^ As with the wedding, the writers seem primarily preoccupied with the evidence that events provide of the king's favor to Coke. Paulyn observed that the king spoke with Coke for "neare hlfe an houre," while Herbert noted Coke's "merrie countenance" at the dinner and supper.''^ it was customary for guests at state occasions to sit in order of rank,^^ so gossip about who is sitting where and next to or above whom can be understood as monitoring the ever-shifting pecking order. Dunbar, 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 617.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.

THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE

245

pose of gossip is to keep track of social hierarchies and networks/^ and that seems to be partially what is happening here. Paulyn describes how the noble guests sat "in theire ranke" but that Coke sat "towards the lower end, right hand ... next above my lord of Buckingham."'''^ This preoccupation with how the match will affect Coke's place in the social hierarchy is consistent with gossip about the match before and after the wedding. To give a few examples, prior to the match, Robert Branthwait wrote to William Trumbuil in August that "great ones ... feare Sir Edwards rising" through the alliance with Buckingham; and Sir John Finet wrote to Carleton that some opposed the business fearing that "it wyll be a ladder for him, to clyme to his former height or hygher." 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 couche."'' 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 embellishes Campbell's account: in the evening a tnasque was performed, and there was the usual scramble at the banquet that foliowed ... King James I, having drunk the health of bride and bridegroom rather more often than was good for him, made an all night joliitlcation of the occasion, and instead of going to bed prowled round the Palace in his shirt and night clothes, indulging in clownish tricks, such as barging into bedrooms, making 'apple pie" beds for the occupants, casting off the bride's left stocking, teasing her with much mirth and ribaldry, and pertbmiing "other petty sorceries."

* " Robin Dunbar, Grooming. Gossip and the Evolution of Language {Lonon m Boston 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 Anderson, 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 Conquest 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 Carleton wrote to Chamberlain in 1605 about the marriage of Susan de Ver to Sir Philip Herbert: There was none of our accustomed forms omitted of bridecakes, sops in wine, giving of gloves, laees and points ... and at night there was sewing into the 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 in his shirt and his nightgown, and spent a good hour with them in the bed or upon, choose which you will believe best. '* That this is Norsworthy's source is confirmed by her use of Carleton's phrase "reveille" for the king's visit to the couple the following moming, stating apparently without basis that "he visited the bride and bridegroom, and next day assisted at their reveille, peeping inside the curtains, jumping and rolling on the great four-post bed. and making a most unkingly display of the royal prerogative."" While it is understandable to want to flesh out the detail of an event by drawing on comparable occasions, claiming specific details as historical while plagiaristically sourcing them, unacknowledged, from another text is a different matter. While Norsworthy's account appears to be sympathetic to Frances, she appropriates Frances's experiences by superimposing the genre of melodrama over the account of her wedding, turning her into a stereotypical ly passive, weeping woman, the helpless victim of tyrannical men; and then by filling the gap in the historical record by interpolating another bride into ber place. However, while Norsworthy blatantly blends fact and fiction in her theatrically entitled Lady of Bleeding Heart Yard, Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices of England is more deceptive, in that his restrained tone makes a greater claim to authoritative truth.
CONCLUSION

Exploring the traces of Frances's wedding brings us no closer to "what really happened." We cannot from this distance judge between the possibility that she cried at her wedding but Herbert, Paulyn, and the others were indifferent to her distress in their anxiety to be confirmatively supportive 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.

THE CASE OF THE CRYING BRIDE

247

and historians projected tears onto her face or read those that were there in such a way to further their own political points. The whispers that we can hear are unanimously the voices of aristocratic men, gossiping nationally and internationally about the legal and factional aspects ofthe event which may affect themselves, rather than those which patently affect Frances. However, while such traces and whispers can provide only unreliable information about the truth ofthe past, the discourses they contain and values that they evince tell us much ofthe social milieu in which women, such as Frances, lived out their lives. Ultimately it is not possible to recuperate historically that which has been lost. Attempts to do sosuch as Norsworthy's tragic figure at the altar or Campbell's extrapolated wedding feastserve to over-write and obscure the traces and whispers which can be found, replacing them with falsehoods, caricatures, and archetypes, and filling the gap left by the absence ofthe actual figure of Frances with that of a generic, crying bride.