INSPIRATIONS: MARY STUART, QUEEN OF SCOTS - DECEMBER 8, 1542 - FEBRUARY 8, 1587 feat. Did You Know?

Marie (Mary) Stuart, Queen of Scots

As Scotland recognizes the birth of it’s 16th century monarch, Queen Mary Stuart - born this December day in 1542 at the Heathered Isles’ Linlithgow Palace, Unraveling Musical Myths takes a look back at the ill-fated rulers only true stronghold in the annals of British history: her impressive post-mortal foray into the world of symphonic muses.

Queen Mary’s tragic life and all-too-brief “reign” (if one could even call it that in the era of ruling noble factions in Scotland) has been covered extensively on this blog. You may find background on this notorious femme fatale by perusing the archives.

In brief: the young, hapless Queen, who attempted rule by matters of heart over matters of state was internationally reviled over the course of her blink-of-an-eye reign, save for the French King, Henri II and his sickly son, the dauphin François who Mary was all but forced into wedding after England’s tyrannical Henry VIII set siege on Scotland (a violent period of British history known as "The Rough Wooing") in an effort to kidnap the young royal and force a betrothal to his only legitimate son, the future king of England Edward VI - which forced Marie de Guise (mother to the queen) to make a marriage pact for her daughter with François – and in effect with France – in exchange for exile and for a French military presence in Scotland to help the nation defend themselves against the troublesome English. Detested by the French Queen Regent and conspirateur Catherine de Medici, Mary would be swiftly ousted from Court following the unexpected premature death of King François by inner ear infection in 1560.

No longer Queen Consort of France, Mary sought to regain control over her native Scotland and chose to retreat there. It would be a disaster right from the beginning. The Queen had just but set foot on terra firma after a stormy crossing at sea when the young Catholic ruler was met - rather rudely -  by the Protestant leader John Knox, who loudly chastised the Queen and cursed her very arrival on Scotland. This was not the Catholic Scotland of her youth – this was a country in the midst of a Religious Reformation.

^[1]Wedded bliss? A smug portrait of Lord Darnley, flanked by Mary.
Lord Darnley was born Henry Stuart - making the former Consort King
first cousin to Mary.

One disastrous marriage later to the consort king Lord Darnley^[1] – a highly vainglorious, narcissistic lout sent to the Island by Mary’s cousin, Queen Elizabeth I of England - and the persistent ruler would find herself embroiled in a series of diabolical plots – both as victim and as alleged manipulatrice – that would prove to be her undoing.

First, her close confidant and alleged lover, the luteist David Rizzo is executed in front of the Queen by her jealous husband after Mary shocks the nation by appointing him – a commoner - Secretary For Relations With France. It seemed Lord Darnley had political aspirations of the highest degree and would stoop to any level in order to overthrow his wife, disinherit her child (the future "Union King," James VI and I), and secure for himself the Scottish throne (including accusing Mary of a treasonous affair and alleging the child she presently carried in utero to be the illegitimate spawn of a humble musician – hardly fit to be a future King).

Lord Darnley would pay dearly for his transgressions when Mary – and her very real lover – the Scottish Lord James Hepburn (the Earl of Bothwell), successfully launched an almost aborted coup d’état by first attempting to blow the king up as he slept, and, when that failed, by chasing him down and throttling him to death. As enraged nobles - all of whom carried their own political aspirations - sought to imprison and execute the Queen and Lord Bothwell for the heinous murder of Lord Darnley, Mary once more sought exile – this time sailing South, to England, where she rightfully possessed an heirship to the English Royal Throne via the female line of Tudors (Margaret, sister to Henry VIII was Mary’s grandmother through her marriage to the Scottish King James V – Mary’s grandfather). 

Mary's only surviving son, James Stuart may have come
out the winner in an ages old battle for the British
Throne, yet his coronation would prove him to
be undoubtedly the son of the hapless Queen Mary
when it was announced that the newly-minted King
would receive his Coronation in the midst of a plague
that was busy decimating Europe. The "Union King"
as a result would receive none of the royal 
festivities traditionally granted to Kings to mark the
historical occasion. It seemed the so called
"Stuart curse" (coined during his 
mothers reign) preceded him to the throne.

England itself was embroiled in a religious revolution, and those remaining Catholics who felt themselves thwarted by the Queen and punished for their worship were engaged in countless plots to overthrow the Protestant Elizabeth – a "usurper" of the English throne once declared by King Henry VIII himself (Elizabeth’s father and England’s former king) to have been a bastard child - and place who they felt was the “rightful” Queen on the English throne: Mary Stuart. Mary herself famously became involved in several of these plots – how deeply involved remains hotly contested depending on which side of the United Kingdom one hails. In any event, the former Queen would be subjected to a show trial, promptly found guilty, and, after much hesitation, beheaded by an executioner in Elizabeth’s employ.

In a cruel twist of irony (or as a matter of just desserts – which ever be your pleasure) Mary’s son, James, who had been raised English – and Protestant – would effortlessly accomplish what Henry VIII had sought to accomplish during his so-called "Rough Wooing" some sixty years earlier, and what Lord Henry Darnley sought to steal from Mary, and what Mary herself ultimately sacrificed her life for whilst trying to become: the heir presumptive of a United England. After Elizabeth died bearing no offspring in March of 1603, a middle-aged James automatically secured for himself the throne of both England and Scotland, simultaneously establishing the Stuart dynasty - and bringing together the two millenia-old enemy nations under one Monarch, efectively setting the stage for what would eventually bceome The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, realized in 1801.**

Mary's only surviving child (she tragically miscarried twins whilst in prison) would reign gloriously over the British Empire as James I of England and James VI of Scotland.

Mary’s fascinating life and tragic death have spawned countless biographies, plays, biopics – even a television series. Her many failed exploits are the stuff of legend. The classical music sphere knows her best as a scorned coquette in maestro Donizetti’s Maria Stuarda (click here to listen to “Mary’s” famous aria “Quando de Luce Rosea”)

...but  Did You Know?

Queen Mary Stuart was also honored in the form of Lieder?

Both megalithic composers Richard Wagner and Robert Schumann (who used the Queen’s own writings as his libretti) were just a few of the many famous and revered musicians to have set the fateful Queen’s life to music.

Listen below to Herr Wagner’s “Les Adieux de Marie Staurt: Adieu, charmant pays de France" (The Farewell of Mary Stuart: Goodbye, my beloved country of France”) [left] followed by Schumann’s five-song collection “Gedichte der Königin Maria Stuart” (Poems of Queen Mary Stuart, or Mary Stuart Songs (colloquially)), for voice & piano (Op. 135) [right]:

 
 
Learn more about these lieder (external links):

“Les Adieux de Marie Staurt: Adieu, charmant pays de France" 

• Background at All Music
• Lyrics and Translation - at Lieder.net

“Gedichte der Königin Maria Stuart”

• Background at All Music
• Lyrics and Translation at Lieder.net

Footnotes:

**Whilst this Union, known as The Union of the Crowns, would unify the England and Scotland under one Monarch through James's ascension to the throne, both countries remained separate nations with separate parliaments. This crucial inheritance, however, must not be downplayed, as it set the stage for a Single Sovereign State under Queen Anne in 1707, herself ironically the last Monarch of the House of Stuart. 

 

Thus, James' ascension was a pivotal step in the future creation of the United Kingdom, as the future Queen Anne's Acts of Union in 1707 effectively abolished the parliament of England and Scotland, uniting the nations to create a new, single parliament, henceforth known as Great Britain, which would be established in Westminster. 

 

Throughout Anne's reign, she was also Monarch of the Kingdom of Ireland, however it continued to maintain its own parliament, whilst remaining subordinate to the parliament of Great Britain in London. As all of the Queens 11 heirs pre-deceased her, and with the clear directive established in the a document dubbed the Acts of Settlement created in 1701, which stipulated a ban on all remaining Catholic Stuarts for eligibility to the throne during the still contentious Reformation era, the third, final stage of the creation the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was established in 1801 under George III from the House of Hanover, which unified the Kingdom of Ireland into Great Britain, abolishing the former's parliament, thus joining England and Scotland under one Monarch.

 

The ties to the House of Stuart remained, not only through predecessors who set the stage for this monumental event, but also through bloodline, as George III was a direct descendant of the House of Stuart through his ancestor George I, the first son of Sofia of Hanover (George was therefore grandfather to James VI/I). Simply put, due to Queen Anne's lack of heirs, not to mention the caveat in the 1701 Act of Succession, which would have bypassed all remaining Catholic Suarts for eligibility to the throne during the contentious Reformation era, the house of Hanover never would have acceded to the throne were it not for the Stuart family lineage, and the implantation of James VI/I, son of Mary Queen of Scots, to the throne of England.

-Rose.

BACK TO HOME PAGE

A LITTLE MUSIC, A LITTLE HISTORY AND A LITTLE MYTH-BUSTING TO COMMEMORATE THE INDUCTION OF LADY JANE GREY INTO THE ANNALS OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY

The Execution of Lady Jane Grey, Paul Delaroche, 1833, National Gallery London

As the 465th anniversary of the brief reign of England’s “9 Days Queene” reaches it’s apex today (Queen Jane ruled from the 10th of July to the 19th, 1553, until she was infamously overthrown by Mary I of the House of Tudor), much speculation continues to abound as to whether the young royal can be – or ever was – recognized as a legitimate "Queen."

Nearly half a millennium has passed since the execution of Grey, yet it seems the very same theocratic and social divides which so infamously undermined Jane’s blink-of-an-eye reign remain today the chief and aggregate source of groups both denying, and validating the legitimacy of her rule.

Compounding the issue is the careful attribution of “Lady” to Jane Grey – not “Queen” on the Official website of the British Monarchy - a title of peerage granted the former monarch via her marriage to Lord Guildford Dudley, son of the Duke of Northumberland in May of 1553. Although the same site references Jane’s “reign” and acknowledges that the young royal was deposed, the choice of assigning her to a lesser title has only served to further confuse the issue of legitimacy.

The reality of Jane’s reign, as de-facto Queen of England and Ireland, and the legitimacy of her claim to the British throne can be traced through the Tudor family tree, and the various Acts of Succession, including the “Devise for the Succession” written, and amended by King Edward VI in 1553.

King Henry VIII would inadvertently continue to make
heads roll well after his death thanks to his various Acts of
Successions. His only legitimate son, sired by Jane Seymour,
Edward VI, would pick up where his indecisive father left off
with the creation, and later amendment, of his own "Device"

Jane was of re-instituted royal stock: as Great-granddaughter to Henry VII, founder of the House of Tudor, and Great-grand niece of King Henry VIII, the former monarch had blue blood coursing through her veins. She famously made an appearance in the Third Succession Act of Henry VIII (which I will discuss in detail below), which granted the King license to bequeath the Crown of England in his Will. 

Forgoing his children to death or sterility, the throne would by legitimate default fall to the heirs of Mary Tudor (note: not the same person as "Bloody Mary"),  the younger sister to Henry VIII and present Queen of France. Out was the line of sister Margaret (which would have (eventually) favored Mary, Queen of Scots), who defiantly wed Scotch king James IV, much to her brother’s disapproval – Scotland being a historical enemy of England.

Jane was the granddaughter of Mary Tudor, through Mary’s daughter Frances, Duchess of Suffolk. Henry’s Third Act of Succession, which directly included Jane as a default to the throne (she would even bypass her mother, who, for reasons unspecified by the king, was omitted from inheriting the Crown), would prove to be the young girl’s undoing.

Legitimacy often proved to be a fleeting construct of the Tudor court: Henry VIII’s second Act of Succession, passed in 1536, would infamously declare both of the king’s daughters, Elizabeth and Mary, as bastards of invalid unions, thus prohibiting either from inheriting the Crown.

It was only at the persistent prodding of Henry’s final consort, Catherine Parr, that a third Act of Succession would be passed some 7 years later, which would restore both Princesses to the line of succession, and which was further supported by Henry’s Will. Quite problematically, however, both were still declared as illegitimate spawn.

*CLICK TO ENLARGE* Edward VI's edited "Devise for the Succession"

Edward, the King’s only legitimate son, did issue a “Devise for the Succession,” which he revised shortly before his death – which initially listed the “heirs masles [males]” of Lady Frances as heirs apparent. However, as the sickly king grew ever more ill, and as it became increasingly apparent that he may not live to see Lady Frances conceive a son, he was inclined to favor the sons of Lady Jane. 

This too was an issue, as young Jane also had not yet sired any children – let alone a son. Again, the Devise was adjusted accordingly: “L Jane and[*] her heires masles [male heirs]” would be hastily scrawled on the document. 

Legally, Edward’s Devise fell into a grey area of validity. It was issued under Letters Patent, which by law could not overturn an Act of Parliament. Thus, Henry’s Third Succession Act, which was passed by the Parliament of England in 1543, remained the de-facto Act of Succession.

The Tudor era was fraught with religious turmoil – Edward was of staunch Protestant faith, as was Lady Jane Grey, and an ever-increasing segment of the English population, who frequently engaged in violent quarrels with old school Catholics. Edward’s duplicitous Uncle, Thomas Seymour (the very same who would later slice at the skirts of a young Elizabeth) married Catherine Parr after Henry’s death and took Jane under his wing and raised her in the faith. Jane would likewise be wedded to a devout Protestant in Lord Guildford Dudley, whose father, John, 1st Duke of Northumberland, was as eager to install himself or his heirs to the throne of England as was Seymour. He was also adamant on a wholly Protestant England – having Mary restored to the line of succession simply would not do.

Boy-king Edward VI was only 9 years old when he
inherited the throne from his father, Henry VIII. The Duke
of Northumberland, John Dudley would effectively rule
in the young monarch's stead during his brief minority.
Dudley's leadership would come to an abrupt end by the
early death of the King. His execution would soon follow.

Northumberland would strong arm Edward into adhering to the principles set forth by Henry VIII's second Act of Succession, which had previously made Mary illegitimate, and thus ineligible for the throne - taking full advantage of Edward’s shared conviction in the Protestant faith by further unleashing a campaign of fear in the mind of the king over Mary’s intense devotion to Catholicism. Of course, this was but a clever ploy by Northumberland to segue into talks of issuing a Devise of Succession, installing his daughter in law, Lady Jane, in Mary’s place. Northumberland certainly held influence over the young and impressionable king – he was the second most powerful person in the realm next to the Monarch – he served as de facto Regent during the minority of Edward.

There is much evidence to support Mary’s desire to keep Jane imprisoned for an indefinite period – but as civil war threatened to erupt and as Dudley’s underhanded machinations to strengthen his claim to a dynastic line of his own became known to the greater public, the pressure was on Mary to order for Jane’s execution. In fact, a sentence of death for both Jane and Dudley was ordered in 1553 – in Renaissance times, one did not typically linger for long periods of time after a warrant of execution was issued, yet Mary chose to allow both to languish in prison until 1554.

It was a tragic time for all involved – fighting crises of faith and with each party struggling to uphold the same, whilst simultaneously taking measures to preserve their own life. It was a fate that did not discriminate: even Mary had to make the call that meant life or death for Jane, versus life or death for herself and the followers of her faith – the very subjects a future Queen was duty bound to protect. Mary was left with little choice: Jane’s own father was a member of the recently formed Wyatt rebellion – an insurgent sect dead set on preventing Mary’s marriage to the Catholic Philip II of Spain by any means necessary. The rage was palpable: not only was Philip a devout Catholic, but a foreigner, from a historically rivalrous nation to England. This made Mary’s life, as much as Jane’s (if not more so) disposable.

Villain or victim? In an age not far removed from Kings
earning crowns on the battlefield, Mary Tudor was left
with little choice but to eliminate the competition.
Unfortunately, this meant sending a reigning Queen and
her young husband to their violent deaths. The fallout
for Mary was great - she may have gained the Crown,
but in death, Lady Jane Grey earned the distinction of
a martyr. Her execution was not one Protestant England
would forget. Mary's reign was infamously marked by
an onslaught of terror against members of the faith: bloody
scenes of protestants burned at the stake became her calling
card, and history has henceforth assigned her the pejorative
moniker "Bloody Mary."

In the end, Mary chose to save herself and her country by eliminating the very real threat posed by Jane’s continuing existence. The age of kingship through battle was still very much a recent reality for sixteenth century Britons - it was not unheard of for a contender to the throne to kill off the competition: the Tudor line of Monarchs was established by this very method in 1485, at the infamous Battle at Bosworth Field, which saw the forces of Henry Tudor (future Henry VII, grandfather to Edward) outnumber and assassinate the “usurper” to the throne, Richard III, Duke of York. That battle not only established the Tudor royal line – it effectively brought about the culmination of the 3 decades long war between the houses of York and Lancaster, the so-called “Wars of the Roses.”

In the same vein, the unfortunate Jane was little more than a pawn in the political and power hungry aspirations of the men sworn to honor and protect her – it didn’t start with Dudley, although he would be the one to effectively end her life. Thomas Seymour himself also envisaged a Protestant England, and did everything in his power – from visiting the private bedchamber of a pubescent heiress in Elizabeth (while scantily clad to boot) to marrying Henry’s widow, and ‘adopting’ Jane, conditioning her from an early age to follow the Protestant agenda (in the blind hope that he could achieve untold power through her, as it appeared all of his previous, lofty efforts for regal status amounted to naught.)

Seymour would later be executed for his treason.

Then there is the issue of Jane’s own father, the newly minted Duke of Suffolk, who was presently riding high on the power extolled by his recently acquired status, and who sought to add to his fortune though the wedded unions of his daughters. It was he who agreed to the arranged marriage of Jane to Dudley (the aforementioned son of the powerful Duke of Northumberland – who, incidentally, had aspirations of his own: should his offspring (Dudley) impregnate Jane with a son of her own, Northumberland would become grandfather to a future King). By allowing Jane’s marriage to Northumberland’s son, the Duke of Suffolk was, in effect, arranging a union for his own daughter with the young man who, thanks to a parent who cared less for the life of his child than his own prosperity, would become instrumental in securing her untimely death.

Jane was surrounded by duplicitous, ruthless men from every corner and though every stage of her young life. Her fate was sealed long before her guilty sentence was passed.

She was, however – and will forever remain, a former de-facto Queen of England.

Afterword:

Queen Jane’s tragic life would prove to be a rich source of inspiration in the artistic realm: Delaroche famously captured her likeness (and execution) in an imagined portrait (seen at the header of this article). In the stunning piece, the angelically clad 17 year old deposed monarch stumbles before the execution block, her arms outstretched, searching in vain for what is to become the final place where she will rest her head. The Delaroche portrait draws on contemporary eye witness accounts to the execution, which depict the teenager as having so pitiably uttered “where is it?” as she fell to her knees before the wooden block. Her eyes bound by a kerchief, the last gentle touch she would feel in her all too short life was by a deputy of the frigid, damp prison which had been her home for over a year, who guided her to her death.

In music, Jane would be the subject of the English balladeer. Her legacy would permeate the realm of muses, becoming fodder for poets and composers well into the 20th century, branching out of the Scepter'd Isle and into Western Europe. Arnold Schoenberg would borrow from the text of poet Heinrich Ammann (1864-1950), in the latter’s "Jane Grey" for his 12th opus, "Zwei Balladen" (two ballads). Jane Grey is the first of the two balladen. It was composed by Schoenberg very early in his career, falling in line with the famous Austrian’s oeuvre of lieder, which would come to symbolize his pre-atonal period (although Schoenberg described the balladen as "direct forerunners of the Second String Quartet" [op.10]). He would compose Zwei Balladen between March and April of 1907 for entrance into a ballad competition (he did not win).

Ammann's moving prose takes much poetic license – it favors displaying the grief of both executioner and Lord Dudley (in contrast to Jane, who walks to her death bravely, her head held high) as the young, equally condemned former consort king bids farewell to his wife, who is watching the progression of his death march from behind the window of her prison cell. It is this tender moment – when Dudley greets Jane for the final time, that Schoenberg’s ballad reveals it’s climax.

Listen below to “Jane Grey” by Arnold Schoenberg, from “Zwei Balladen" (Glenn Gould accompanies mezzo-soprano Helen Vanni:)


text (in English - click on "Continue Reading Here" for the German text):

They led him out through the courtyard, grim
The price of death to pay
Behind the casement stood his young wife,
The lovely Princess, Jane Grey.

Her fair young head
From the lattice leaned out,
Her throat gleamed white by my fay,
He raised his clanking fetters high,
And greeted his wife Jane Grey.

And as they returned with his headless form
She saw them bear it away,
Then she with joy trod the self-same path,
This fair young princess Jane Grey.

The headsman quailed at her comely grace
And wept for his gentle prey;
To join her Lord in eternity then went
The Princess Jane Grey.

The world has seem blooms young and fair
Unnumbered passed away
Yet none was more lovely, more pure and fair
Than Dudley’s wife Jane Grey.

And still the wind as it sighs
And moans through the leafy branches that sway,
Doth whisper low how untimely died
The fair young Princess Jane Grey.

English translation by Claude Averling.

THAT SWEETLY DIABOLICAL LUTE

In honor of the 390th anniversary of renowned lutenist and composer John Dowland, who left this musical, this earthly sphere on this 20th day of February in 1626^[1], unravlingmusicalmyths.blogspot.ca takes a look back at that delicate sounding, calm inducing instrument known as the lute and it’s otherwise deranged and diabolical practitioners (and those who were disenchanted by them) of the famed precursor to the modern guitar by re-examining the fates of four of the lute’s most infamous historical figures.
 
   
1. JOHN DOWLAND 

John Dowland and his lute.

Dowland is often referred to as an Elizabethan composer. In reality, this British lutenist^[2] never, in fact, secured the patronage or a post under the 16th century Queen (although he did dedicate two compositions, in the form of galliards, to her – one of which had been recycled from a previous dedicatee – posthumously). It’s not that Dowland didn’t try: upon arriving in England from a four-year aristocratic post in France in 1594, the hopeful lutenist arrived in the British Isle fully expecting to win Elizabeth’s favor and secure for himself a post with the ‘Virgin Queen’. He was flatly denied the position. England in the late 16th century was at the height of a religious unrest and, while the Queen herself attempted to present to her citizens (to whom she declared herself “wed”) the exterior façade of neutrality within the confines of England’s’ tumultuous secular divide, her administers and advisors remained largely Protestant. Dowland naturally attributed his rejection at Court to have been the direct result of his recent conversion in France to Roman Catholicism (there could be more at play here, however – court composer and member of the Chapel Royal – over the course of four monarchs Tudor – Thomas Tallis,was an open and indefatigable “unreformed Catholic”. He was also, as we have seen in my recent posts on the 16th century composer, a favorite of the Queen).

Whatever the reason(s) for Dowland’s rejection, rejoicings of the undeniable talent of the lutenist-composer reached beyond the religious divide and even beyond borders: the ever-hopeful Dowland published in England in 1597 the first ever publication of English lute songs, “The First Booke of Songes or Ayres of Foure Partes with Tableture for the Lute” which earned him high praise from both members of aristocracy and 16th century intelligentsia. Even members of royalty took notice: at some point after the year 1598, Dowland moved to the Danish Court of Christian IV of Denmark, where the melophilic King lavished the now infamous composer with the then-grand annual salary of 500 daler – far more than the going rate for the position, making the lutenist one of the Courts highest paid servants (this was still the 16th century, where musicians were considered not as idols, but as common workers – making the donation of largesse bestowed upon the composer even more impressive).

An excerpt from Dowland's "First Booke of Songes or Ayres of Foure Partes with Tableture for the Lute"

Dowland continued, in spite of the generosity of the Danish King, to publish his works in England in the hopes he could garner the interest of the Queen. His life-long wish to secure for himself a placement at the English court was not achieved until the year 1612, after a 6 year otherwise uneventful stay back in the Scepter'd Isle following his dismissal at the Danish Court due to his over-extended stays in the country whilst on publishing duty. It would not be under Elizabeth that Dowland would compose his future works – she was already nine years into the grave – instead, he  was appointed one of the lutenists to the Father of the Union of the Crowns that would eventually see England and Scotland merge into Great Britain – the King James I (son to the fateful queen in our next story). 

In a conclusion most peculiar to a life chasing patronage at the English Court, Dowland would produce very few compositions during his lifelong post under James I.



 2. DAVID RIZZIO

The Murder of David Rizzio

Across England’s border, in its frequently warring counterpart of Scotland, a diminutive Italian had infiltrated the Royal Stuart Court (and, allegedly – but likely falsely – it’s Queen, Mary Stuart, the so-called “Queen of Scots”). Rizzio was first brought to the attention of the hapless Queen as a singer most excellent (he sung as a bass) through a carefully orchestrated set of meetings with Mary’s own set of musicians, whom she had brought over from her exile in France following the death of her husband, King François II of an abscessed ear and the seizing of power by the indomitable ex-queen Catherine de’ Medici, Mary’s former mother-in-law.

Mary’s time in Scotland, where she had been rightful Queen since her succession at six days old following the death of her father King James V was never prosperous, and had been doomed from the beginning: her father, upon finding out the birth of his child and successor to the crown of Scotland was but a lowly girl, on his deathbed, foretold the disaster to come, protesting "It cam wi' a lass and it will gang wi' a lass!" (this was repeated in even more disparaging tones by protestant leader John Knox immediately upon the queens arrival at the shoreline of Scotland, where he had traveled through the night to greet her with his disapproving orations.

Unlike England to the South, Scotland, although possessing a monarch, was in fact ruled by rivaling noble factions, who it seemed were always engaged in civil war.

Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots

By the time Mary had arrived back in Scotland, she had already experienced attacks on her life and livelihood by the former English King Henry VIII, who had orchestrated a devious plan to secure for his only legitimate son Edward VI, a marriage with the young Queen. Mary was to be removed from Scotland at once and brought to England to learn it’s ways and it’s customs before reaching marriageable age. There was nothing romantic about this "deal” – Henry’s entire objective was to secure hegemony over the North through a marital union between England and Scotland – creating a forced ally in his neighbor, and in turn removing it from the grips of it’s friendly relationship with France (with whom England was frequently engaged in battle). By wedding a royal Scot to a future English King, Henry would effectively secure the border between both nations from invading enemy troops from "L’hexagone." Mary of Guise, mother to the Queen of Scotland had second thoughts, and after a violent series of attacks on the Heathered Isle by the King, known as the rough-wooing - where orders were to destroy, to kill and eventually to kidnap the young queen - was forced to appeal to France, begging the French King, Henri II exile for the little royal and for the countries’ protection – to which Henri unreluctantly obliged (at a cost - Mary would have to marry Henri’s first son, the sickly dauphin François).

By the time Mary had returned to Scotland thirteen years later at the age of eighteen, she found her country, formally Roman Catholic, had begun to go the way of the English, with many of it’s citizens converting to the protestant faith.

It was to this turmoil the person and character of Mary was related, and to this turmoil that she returned to her motherland. It was of little surprise when Mary appointed Rizzio as Queen's secretary for relations with France - a diplomatic and administrative post extremely close to the crown - the Scottish populous found themselves in an outrage. Most outraged of them all was the narcissistic (and probably sadistic) husband to the Queen of Scots, Lord Darnley – whose jealousy and source of vitriol went beyond Rizzio interfering with matters of state. Seeking to find any legitimate reason to find the musician and his wife guilty of a treasonous offense in order to secure for himself the throne of Scotland, a close circle of Darnley’s political cohorts convinced the indignant King consort of an illicit affair occurring between Rizzio and his Queen, citing the many late nights spent in her chambers serenading the Queen with music performed on his trusty lute, which he could often be heard playing and seen carrying about the court.

It was those late night jam sessions on the lute and an outrageous accusation of impregnation of the Queen by Rizzio that would cause the unfortunate musician to meet his early – and excessively violent – end.

Lord Henry Darnley and Mary Queen of Scots

On the evening of March 9th, 1566, whilst dining alongside Mary and several intimate guests of the Queen in her private dining room at the palace of Holyroodhouse, Darnley and his group of rebels stormed into the tiny supper chamber, turning up the table in the process of rushing the terrified lutenist, who instinctively ran to hide behind the Queen’s skirts. Mary begged for leniency, but was both rebuffed and overpowered by the rebels.

Darnley and his men seized the diminutive Italian, began to stab him in count reported to be as high as 56 wounds inflicted by both sword and knife, before throwing him down a flight of stairs - possibly still alive and dying from his many fatal wounds - and stripping him nude of both jewelry and clothing for added humiliating measure.

Darnley would get his just desserts for the crime – It is believed Mary and alleged future lover Lord Bothwell orchestrated a nearly aborted coup d’état to end the king’s life – first by attempting to blow him up, finally by strangulation as the murderous prince fled his temporary residence in only his nightshift.  


3. THE "FROTTOLE INTABULATE DA SONARE ORGANI LIBRO PRIMO"

Fans of composer and music publisher Andrea Antico may be familiar with this rather biting woodcut of a musician at the keyboard (believed to be Antico himself), the Medici coat of arms before him in place of a score (Pope Leo X famously supported Antico’s printing ventures, even granting the composer the exclusive right to print organ tablature – see below the table of contents from Antico’s Liber Quindecim Missarum of 1516 – the first ever piece of sacred music published in Rome). 



Situated in the middle of the engraving is the figure of a woman, pointing to what appears to be a monkey playing a lute. The feminine figure is holding up a score for all to see. Musical scholars of this period translate the woman and the monkey as a rather insulting jab at the composer Ottaviano Petrucci, a frequent rival and competitor of Antico who was only made allowed to publish polyphonic music for the comparatively lowly instrument of the lute after his request to the Pope for the "privilege" (equivalent to the modern "copyright") to be the exclusive printer of polyphony was granted, minus the rights to the keyboard. 

It seems Petrucci's nemesis liked to rub salt in the wound!

4. NERO & HIS FIDDLE

“Plantagenet, I will; and like thee, Nero,

Play on the lute, beholding the towns burn.”


 -Henry VI, Shakespeare


I will close this post with a little myth-busting. Hard pressed is any lover of history or music to find any scholar or layman ignorant of the plight of Rome and it’s nefarious ruler Nero, who was said to have arrogantly played his fiddle while Rome burned. 


Perhaps this perception came from the former Emperor’s macabre playboy lifestyle that involved immense psychological and physical cruelty to both man and animal, kin and commoner.

The common expression “Nero fiddled while Rome burned" is highly problematic, and at best, one of mere suggestion popularized by the Roman historian Tacitus – who himself admitted, the story of Nero and his infamous fiddle was only but a rumor. One of the major issues with the legend is the presence – or more accurately the absence – of the fiddle. At the time of Nero, the fiddle (later referred to as the lute) did not yet exist! In fact, the class of instruments to which the ‘fiddle’ belongs, the viol class – would not be developed until the 11th century AD. There did exist, however, a precursor to the fiddle, or lute – a four-to-seven stringed instrument known as the cithara. It is also the subject of rumor that Nero enjoyed partaking in playing this instrument, however later biographers of the controversial Emperor would add even more doubt to the fiddle story when they placed the ruler at his villa, some 35 miles outside of Rome – at Antium, at the onset of the blaze. 



And you thought the lute delicate?



Footnotes:

^[1]The actual date of Dowland's death is uncertain, however he was buried on February 20th in the year 1626.
^[2]Dowland may not even have been English: later biographers would place his origin of birth in Dublin, making him (possibly) Irish.

-Rose.

BACK TO HOME PAGE

THE TUDOR DYNASTY & THE MUSIC OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL IN 16th CENTURY ENGLAND

The exquisite vaulted ceiling and one of the many frescoes of the Chapel Royal at Hampton Court Palace

In a followup to Tuesday's post on the historic Latin Vespers Service at the Chapel Royal at Hampton Court Palace, this post will discuss what the press who reported on the monumental occasion missed.

If you found yourself clicking on the external links provided, or simply perused other news articles in print or on the web, you may have noticed an not-altogether insignificant discrepancy in the dates provided in regards to the beginning of the reformation under Henry VIII (which, as stated in Tuesday's post here on unravelingmusicalmyths.blogspot.ca began in 1534) and the last Latin Service performed at the Palace's Chapel Royal,  documented by the press as "450 years ago... in the 1550's": 

 in regards to the Latin Mass ultimus, the reference is made to the King Henry VIII and the "mid-16th century"- but the reality is, the patriarch Tudor was already dead by 1547! According to the given timeframe of "450 years ago" (from today), the 'last Latin Service' would have been employed in the year 1566 - making Henry almost a full two decades into his grave - and three successive monarchs Tudor in.

So what exactly happened to music at the Chapel Royal, and to Cathedrals and Churches across England in the 32 year time span since Henry VIII initiated reformation proceedings with the issue of Act of Supremacy in November of 1534?

Read below to find out!

The boy-king Edward VI, the only
legitimate son of Henry VIII and his third wife, Queen
Jane Seymour, who died in less than two weeks of
Edward's birth due to post-natal complications.
Half-brother to Mary I and Elizabeth I.

KING EDWARD VI (Reigned: 28 January 1547 – 6 July 1553):

Six months into the reign of the nine-year old newly crowned King of England, the incorrigible Edward VI, under the influence of Lord Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset and the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (the same Archbishop who aided Henry VIII in his annulment from his Queen, Catherine of Aragon and his subsequent break from Rome), both Protestants like the boy-king, would orchestrate a series of ‘royal visitations’ at the countries’ major Cathedrals (including Winchester, York, Canterbury, and Windsor) with the explicit intent to ensure ‘Popish Rituals’ were abolished. Although the minutiae of details regarding who would be made allowed to participate in the act of singing the mass and by what frequency it would be permitted varied according to church, an edict issued by the Archbishop Cranmer at Lincoln Cathedral in 1548 made the changes to both language employed and the use of ornate polyphony within the music itself unmistakably transparent. In the demand, Cranmer (and effectively, the Monarch) decreed that “the choir shall henceforth sing or say no anthems of our Lady or other saints, but only of our Lord, and them not in Latin; but choosing out the best and most sounding to Christian Religion they shall turn the same into English, setting thereunto a plain and distinct note, for every syllable one: they shall sing them and none other.”

The Chapel Royal, the reigning Monarch’s personal Church (and establishment of musicians) at court, had already introduced the first English form of the compline (the evening service) three months prior. This is of interest to note, as it was one of the first precursors of what was to become of liturgical services across the nation. The Chapel Royal, under it’s Sovereign held the distinction of immunity from the actions of reformists. Nonetheless, the conversion from Latin to English at the Chapel set a precedent for the Church of England and all major Cathedrals across the nation.^[1] Within five months of the first compline at the Chapel Royal in May of 1547, the Mass Ordinary was sung entirely in English at Westminster Abbey in London.

Two years later, the Act of Uniformity would declare the English-language “Book of Common Prayer” as the ‘dictation of God’ to be used in the Church in replacement of the Latin Service books. By the time the second edition was issued, revised under the hand of the Archbishop Cranmer, music itself in regard to liturgical services was reduced to a diminutive role, considered by the ‘church’ as an unnecessary distraction, and as a result, received scant mention. As the new King, the Archbishop and members of Edward's Regency Council began whitewashing Cathedrals, stripping them of ‘Popish iconography’ - including the organs used for music - so suffered the choirs, and their choir books, which were systematically sold, destroyed and burnt.

Queen Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII & the
annulled ex-Queen Catherine of Aragon; half-sister to
Edward VI & Elizabeth I.

QUEEN MARY I: “BLOODY MARY” (Reigned: July 1553 –17 November 1558)

Edward's whitewashing and dissolution of Services according to the Latin Rite would briefly change under his successor and half sister Mary I, whose stalwart dedication to Catholicism and her invasive measures to restore it as the religion of England and it's peoples earned her the moniker “Bloody Mary” as she systematically rooted out present and ex-conspirators, enemies of Catholicism, potential threats to the throne (this period included the sad tale of Lady Jane Grey, the sixteen year-old "Nine Day Queen” – a sobriquet earned upon her execution at the command of Mary in 1554) and protestants alike for public burnings-at-the-stake. Portions of the Acts of Uniformity were overturned, organs were restored to their Cathedrals and icons returned - and by 1557, around 13 Latin Service books, hoarded in secret by citizens during the Protestant reign of Edward VI - suddenly came to light under the ‘protection’ of the Catholic Queen Mary. 

For roughly five years, Latin Order was restored, and composers were encouraged to revert to the old style of elaborate and ornate polyphony. Such works of note to come from this period were indeed composed by - and for - members of the Chapel Royal, including "Videte Miraculum"^[2] and "Gaude Gloriosa"^[3] by Thomas Tallis (a staple at the Tudor court, and ‘non reformed Catholic’, who would serve four Tudor Monarchs – Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I, respectively) and the "Cantate Mass"^[4] by composer John Sheppard.

In fact, it has been written that immediately upon a thrice-echoed proclamation of “God Save the Queen!” (shouted in earnest by awaiting crowds after the announcement of Mary’s ascension to the English throne was made - at Cheapside Cross by the Lord Pembroke in July of 1553) overjoyed civilians celebrated with a ringing of bells and festivities that lasted through the evening and into the following day. They also celebrated in song: as Pembroke and various Lords of the Council walked in state to St. Paul’s Cathedral, the building’s choir was already preparing to sing a Te Deum Laudamus in honor of the Queen. Formerly stowed organs were dusted off and rolled out to accompany the music: England had not heard it’s like for nearly six whitewashed years of Edward’s reign and imposed reformations.

Such (Latin) musical festivities appear to have been celebrated nation-wide: there are multiple documented accounts of public organ playing, bell ringing and singing well up until Mary’s procession. There is even evidence English composer William Mundy’s six voice Vox patris caelestis was penned for the Queen’s pre-coronation procession, or perhaps even for the coronation itself.

Learn about Mundy’s possible connection with Queen Mary at Oxford Academic.

Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII &
executed ex-Queen Anne Boleyn; half-sister to
Edward VI & Mary I.

QUEEN ELIZABETH I: “GLORIANA; THE VIRGIN QUEEN” (Reigned: 17 November 1558 – 24 March 1603)

The great neutralist Elizabeth I, half-sister to Edward VI and Mary I and daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife, ex-Queen Anne Boleyn (the seductive spark that fueled the reformation’s fire under the King) herself employed Latin Services at the Chapel Royal and in her own private Services at the beginning of her reign. Under the new Acts of Uniformity, issued by Elizabeth in 1559, reformist theology and tradition would also be included into the doctrine: lessons and readings from the gospel were to be in English, and some of the Latin Rites would be suppressed - including the Elevation of the Host - in an attempt to placate Protestant zealots. This combination of half-measures, of course, did not sit well with extremists: in Easter of 1559, reformist John Jewel, who had witnessed  Elizabeth attending a Latin Mass at the Chapel Royal rebuked the Queen, declaring the “masses and all the follies and abominations of Popery [were] everywhere sanctioned by the authority of the laws.”

Elizabeth’s seemingly relaxed and neutral stance on religion was not to be taken at face value. The so-called "Virgin Queen" was notorious for her fickle indecisiveness and famously maddening ability to ride the fence on almost all major decisions affecting the State. She would, over the course of her 45 year reign on the throne of England, execute more Catholics than the Protestants killed by her late half-sister Bloody Mary and the victims of the Spanish inquisition combined. 


Footnotes:

^[1]This transition, however, did not happen overnight, but rather gradually. There is some evidence that suggests the composition of additional church music in the Latin tongue during this period, including the works of composer Christopher Tye (the Quaesumus Omnipotens and Domine Deus Coelestis, among others).

In fact, for the two year span between Edward’s coronation and the indoctrination of the first edition of the English Prayer Book in 1549, it is believed most of the attendees to church would have experienced worship according to the Latin rite, using recycled music as compositions in the official Roman tongue began to phase out.

It was, naturally, at the Chapel Royal under King Edward VI that experimentation with English liturgy first occurred, eventually branching out across English churches and cathedrals at St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey, both of which performed the mass ordinary entirely in the native English tongue in suit of the Kings establishment at the Chapel Royal.

A deeper look into the minutiae of the Act of Uniformity issued in 1549 reflects a gradual transition from Latin liturgy into English:

“it shall be lawful to any man that understandeth the Greek, Latin and Hebrew tongue, or other strange tongue, to say and have the said prayers heretofore specified, of Matins and Evensong in Latin, or any other such tongue, saying the same privately, as they do understand…though it be appointed in the afore-written preface that all things shall be read and sung in church in the English tongue…yet it is not meant but when men say Matins and Evensong privately, they may say the same in any language that they themselves do understand…”

MUSIC IN THE REIGN OF MARY I:

Latin works from the Composers Thomas Tallis: Videte Miraculum^[2] & Gaude Gloriosa;^[3] and John Sheppard: Missa Cantate^[4]

 
         Thomas Tallis, Videte Miraculum             Thomas Tallis, Gaude Gloriosa                 John Sheppard, Missa Cantate

-Rose.

BACK TO HOME PAGE

A MOST ROYAL COLLABORATION: 6TH WIFE OF KING HENRY VIII CATHERINE PARR NAMED LYRICIST FOR TALLIS’ ‘BATTLE PRAYER,’ SET TO DEBUT IN LONDON, IN ENGLISH, UNDER ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP (LAST PERFORMED IN THE CITY MORE THAN 470 YEARS AGO) feat. Did You Know?

Tudor fans in London will be treated this Easter season with a historic performance in English of 16th century composer and Gentleman of the Chapel Royal Thomas Tallis’ “Gaude Gloriosa Dei Mater,” a so-called “prayer for battle” penned by the composer sometime after 1544 whilst in the service of King Henry VIII.

The English-language version of the nearly 5 century’s old composition was first brought to the attention of both musical and monarchial spheres in 1978, when the manuscript was discovered tucked inside of a cavity behind the plastered walls of Oxford’s Corpus Christi College. It has since undergone much scrutiny by scholars in regards to the date the music was written and for which English Monarch – King Henry VIII, or his daughter by Katherine of Aragon, Queen Mary Tudor. Researchers in favor of Mary cite the prevalence of like-Marian votive antiphons made popular during the Queen’s reign (a much frequented source of propaganda for the Monarch which conveniently contrasted both Mary’s - the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the exalted Queen Mary on earth – in the minds of loyal subjects; and a musical format of which composers living in Mary's time would often use to their advantage). Researchers in favor of Henry VIII note the unusual presence of an English text for the music – a practice most uncommon for such a composition – likening it to the newly protestant services mandated by the King’s son and future monarch, Edward VI. Supporters of this theory date the music to the late term of Henry VIII, and believe the work’s lyrics to have been translated from their original Latin into English just prior to the ascension of the royal heir.

Such has been the lyrical controversy for the past four decades – that is until very recently, when one eagle-eyed Cambridge scholar noticed a direct match between the text of Gaude Gloriosa Dei Mater and a particular psalm authored by English Queen Catherine Parr sometime in 1544. Parr’s ninth psalm “Agaynst enemies” was part of a larger work penned by the former Monarch during her marriage to King Henry VIII – a book of "Psalms or Prayers" which the Queen had published (as an English translation of a Latin devotional text penned by Catholic Saint John Fisher) in support of her royal husband’s highly contested campaign against the French.

Henry VIII's sixth (and final) wife, consort Queen of
England and Ireland Catherine Parr.

According to David Skinner, the director of music at Cambridge’s Sidney Sussex College (and the scholar who made the recent royal attribution), the King sought to rally English support and instill zeal, telling reporters

 “Henry wanted the people to rise up and ‘pray’ him into battle, as later that July he was to lead his armies at the Siege of Boulogne…”

But in order to accomplish such a feat, Henry would have to replace the use of traditional Latin litany and prayer – incomprehensible to most outside of the clergy – into a language that could be understood even by the “common man.” For this, it seems Henry would turn to his then-wife – ardent supporter of the King and skilled linguist Catherine Parr. The Queen certainly delivered – Parr’s translation of Fisher’s text is aptly described by Skinner as both “searing and wrathful… very much at odds with the original devotional nature of the Latin.”

He cites an example of Parr’s text:

“[C]ast them down hedlonge, for they are treatours & raybels agaynst me … let the wicked sinners returne in to hell”

Further lending support to Skinner’s conclusion of Royal authorship lay in the books’ penultimate and final prayers, entitled “A prayer for the King” and “A prayer for men to say going into battle,” both of which give credence to the notion that Gaude Gloriosa Dei Mater was indeed composed much prior to Mary's ascension to the throne in 1553 - likely during the latter half of King Henry VIII's reign, when England was embroiled in a bitter war with both Scotland and France.

Indeed, it is easy to imagine the gusto that must have been felt by English troops as they rushed into battle, armed with this fully comprehensible, and supremely aggressive anthem freshly ingrained in their minds.

The Gaude Gloriosa Dei Mater is set to premiere in London, both under its correct authorship, and in the English tongue for next month’s Holy Week (from Palm Sunday on the 9th to Holy Saturday on the 15th). The Alamire choir (of which Skinner is director) is slated to perform.  Click here for more details.

Listen below to Tallis' Gaude Gloriosa Dei Mater, in it's original Latin form:



Did You Know?

No one really knows with any certainty what Thomas Tallis looked like - the famous engraving of the composer (left) dates from the mid-18th century, and is nothing more than the product of one artists' perception (i.e. imagination). There are no official portraits of the composer that survive.

 
Learn more: 

• article (with images of manuscript) at the Telegraph 
• David Skinner's published findings, Aug 2016 at Oxford Academic (*membership/purchase)

-Rose.

BACK TO HOME PAGE