This article is a revised version of the paper awarded the 2012 Sir John Neale Prize in Tudor History. The author would like to thank Steven Gunn, Tracey Sowerby, Susan Doran, Natalie Mears and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.
The Elizabethan succession question in Roger Edwardes's ‘Castra Regia’ (1569) and ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ (1576)†
Article first published online: 6 MAY 2014
© 2014 Institute of Historical Research
Volume 87, Issue 238, pages 633–654, November 2014
How to Cite
Smith, V. (2014), The Elizabethan succession question in Roger Edwardes's ‘Castra Regia’ (1569) and ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ (1576). Historical Research, 87: 633–654. doi: 10.1111/1468-2281.12066
- Issue published online: 15 OCT 2014
- Article first published online: 6 MAY 2014
Roger Edwardes's ‘Castra Regia’ challenges the perception that Elizabethans were diametrically opposed to the queen's refusal to establish the succession in the fifteen-sixties and provides an insight into the undervalued dimension of support for Elizabeth's royal prerogative in matters of succession. Charting the changing nature of Edwardes's views on the succession into the fifteen-seventies with his second succession tract, ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’, this article provides a guide to the development of the succession debate from the polemical tracts of the fifteen-sixties to the well-documented concerns of William Cecil and Thomas Digges in the fifteen-eighties.
In 1569, at the end of a decade of intense debate over the succession to Queen Elizabeth, Roger Edwardes wrote a tract designed to ‘repugne the generall opinione, that somuche urgeth the limitinge of Successione to the Croune’.  The tract, ‘Castra Regia’, was unique in its argument against an establishment of succession. It stood apart from the wider pamphlet debate on the succession initiated by the M.P. John Hales, which aimed to forward the claims of particular candidates.  Edwardes deplored the public examination of titles: ‘Touchinge the title I will not deale with the foolishe and wanton opynion of any man, leavinge hales his office to himself’.  Edwardes's emphasis on the personal nature of monarchical rule further distinguished ‘Castra Regia’ from other tracts of the fifteen-sixties. The tract received ‘suche misliking’ that Edwardes was ‘callid before all the counsaille attendant for the lyvelier feelinge of his opynion touching the greate purpose of the worke’.  Seven years later, in ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’, Edwardes changed tack and claimed that there was ‘no hart in England more desierous [than his] to have succession established’.  Writing a succession tract in the fifteen-seventies was dangerous; Edwardes observed that most men had ‘not omitted, but quite forsaken’ the succession for fear of contravening the Treason Statute (1571).  This time, Edwardes was fined and spent fifteen months imprisoned in the Tower because ‘some of the copies of the booke went abroade in other mens hands’. 
Edwardes's tracts reflect the fundamental importance of the succession question in Elizabethan England. During the fifteen-sixties, the queen was consistently pressured for a resolution by parliamentary petitions, the circulation of succession pamphlets, and the production of plays like Gorboduc. Yet, the universality of this opposition has to be questioned in light of Edwardes's unmitigated support for, and propagation of, the queen's refusal to establish the succession in ‘Castra Regia’. Edwardes's tract demonstrates that Elizabeth's concerns about the effects of declaring an heir resonated with some of her subjects. Edwardes's revisions to ‘Castra Regia’ in the aftermath of the Northern Rebellion (1569) and his composition of ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ help to elucidate the impact on the succession question of anxieties about international Catholic conspiracies to subvert Protestantism in England during the fifteen-seventies. The importance of personal monarchical rule in Edwardes's tracts provides an important, and unique, balance to the nascent republican sentiments identified by Patrick Collinson and Stephen Alford. Collinson located in the evolution of the succession crisis a move towards monarchical republicanism.  Similarly, Alford has shown how Elizabeth's near fatal attack of smallpox in 1562 led William Cecil to contemplate a quasi-republican style of government in the event of her death.  In contrast, Edwardes, like Cecil, influenced by the acephalous conditions of Edward VI's minority, constructed a view of the Elizabethan succession question that was founded on the monarch's personal prerogative in government. 
The early Elizabethan pamphlet debate has received little attention from historians since Levine's seminal study of The Early Elizabethan Succession Question.  Marie Axton used Levine's approach to analyse Edmund Plowden's succession tract in conjunction with those of Anthony Browne and John Leslie, bishop of Ross.  Victoria de la Torre considered the effect of female monarchy on Hales's perception of the succession question, a theme which is also explored in Anne McLaren's work on Elizabeth's counsellors' and subjects' desires for a male monarch.  More recently, McLaren explored succession tract authors' arguments in favour of Lady Katherine Grey and Mary, Queen of Scots, and highlighted how these tracts could undermine the legitimacy of Elizabeth's own right to the English throne.  Otherwise attention has shifted to the rather different succession debates of the end of the reign. 
Edwardes presents a new figure through which to consider one of the most enduring and controversial political issues of Elizabeth's reign: the succession debate. His tracts, ‘Castra Regia’ and ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’, provide an unparalleled opportunity to follow the development of an author's approach to the changing nature of the succession question from the public debates of the fifteen-sixties to the more inaccessible succession discourse of the fifteen-seventies: in Edwardes's case from unorthodox resistance to enthusiastic support for a settlement. ‘Castra Regia’ has attracted limited interest from commentators, who have used it as a convenient prop for many different historical arguments. On the other hand, the one surviving copy of ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ has been overlooked. For Karl Stählin and A. F. Pollard, ‘Castra Regia’ provided important insight into English foreign policy, warning of the dangerous position of the captive Queen of Scots, and evidence that, in the late fifteen-sixties, English people believed they had no reason to fear the power of Spain.  Stephen Alford used Edwardes's argument that within the monarch ‘consistethe the politique lyf’ of all his or her subjects as a litmus test for how people perceived the role of the queen within the Elizabethan polity during the fifteen-sixties.  Lacey Baldwin Smith briefly engaged with Edwardes's concerns about the English succession in the fifteen-sixties, but he did so in the light of the fifteen-forties and the final months of the Henrician regime.  More recently, McLaren fundamentally misinterpreted Edwardes's position in ‘Castra Regia’ by arguing that the tract was fuelled by the author's fears of the consequences of female rule.  But none of these commentators grappled with the fundamental purpose of ‘Castra Regia’: Edwardes's unique defence of Elizabeth's refusal to declare her successor.
This article will, first, expose the elusive character of Roger Edwardes and explore the social milieu in which he operated. Second, the article will analyse the problematic nature of the extant manuscripts of ‘Castra Regia’, including the confusion in authorship and Edwardes's revisions to the tract in the wake of the Northern Rebellion. In so doing, it will consider the intended readership and circulation of the tracts. In order to understand Edwardes's perspective on the succession it will be necessary to assess his views on the monarch's role in governance. This provides an opportunity to explore Edwardes's mental world; how his experience of the Edwardian culture of kingship, politics and religion influenced his sense of the personal nature of monarchical government and Elizabeth's role within the Church of England. Finally, this article will explore the development of Edwardes's position on the succession between 1569 and 1576. In 1569, ‘Castra Regia’ was a reaction to the presumption within Elizabethan political society that Elizabeth should settle the succession and, in particular, was designed to defend the queen's position on the succession against her opponents: succession tract writers, common lawyers and M.P.s. In 1576, ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ represented a desperate attempt to provide for the long-term security of England's Protestant commonwealth while protecting Elizabeth from the predatory advances of a declared heir apparent.
Edwardes remains an elusive character: his date of birth and death remain unknown.  He was Welsh, probably of gentry origins, a ‘cousyn Germayne’ of the elder Sir William Herbert of St. Julians and consequently distantly related to the Herbert earls of Pembroke.  On two occasions Edwardes admitted his ‘profession, and occupation hath byn more in warrefare then in studye’.  This is certainly borne out by his Marian and Elizabethan careers. As a Marian exile in Paris Edwardes played the part of a double agent; employed by Anne de Montmorency, constable of France, to spy on the English he reported all his dealings to the English ambassador in France, Nicholas Wotton.  Elizabeth's lack of involvement in continental warfare during the late fifteen-sixties left Edwardes out of work, at which time he turned his attention to writing ‘Castra Regia’.  Within a few months of finishing the original version Edwardes was back in the field, suppressing the Northern Rebellion under the command of Walter Devereux, earl of Essex.  In the early fifteen-seventies Edwardes was part of the English army in the Netherlands, where there was a substantial Welsh contingent.  But Edwardes also had a scholarly side and expressed the hallmarks of a good education: he was well versed in foreign and classical history; he wrote good secretary and italic hands; and was a capable Latinist.  The watershed in Edwardes's military career came as a consequence of his year-long imprisonment in the Tower for writing ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’. For the first time Edwardes ‘reade Gods book Simpliciter’; it appears he had a revelation, for he devoted the rest of his known life to exploring the biblical providential narrative on the conversion of the Jews.  Already the author of two succession tracts and a published collection of the psalms, Edwardes wrote another pamphlet, ‘Collectiones of the prophetes’ (1580).  In the late fifteen-eighties, with the support of Francis Walsingham, he took his pamphlet to Germany ‘to feele the discretione of the divins concerninge the Restitutione of Israel’.  He failed to gain support for his theological ideas in Germany but, closer to home, John Dee and many of Elizabeth's councillors expressed interest in the pamphlet.  ‘Collectiones of the prophetes’ was the culmination of a providential outlook that Edwardes first expressed in ‘Castra Regia’.
It was during the reign of Edward VI that Edwardes forged the critical personal connections on which he would rely when producing his tracts during Elizabeth's reign. Initially, he served in the household of Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset and lord protector. As a member of Somerset's household Edwardes spent time at the heart of monarchical government: the royal court, where the households of the protector and the king were closely interlinked.  At Somerset's fall, Edwardes navigated the political tide adeptly, securing a position in the household of Somerset's successor, John Dudley, duke of Northumberland.  It was in Somerset's household that Edwardes made the acquaintance of Cecil, a relationship on which he presumed throughout his life: Cecil was the first recipient of the original draft of ‘Castra Regia’ in March 1569 and one of several patrons of ‘Collectiones of the prophetes’.  Cecil's involvement with ‘Castra Regia’ is unlikely to have been more than superficial. His opinion on the succession did not correspond with Edwardes's; he was among those criticized in ‘Castra Regia’ for petitioning the queen for an establishment of the succession in 1566; and in 1569 he proposed a political settlement that involved establishing the succession.  Nevertheless, despite their very different stances on the issue, Cecil sponsored the production of the presentation copy of ‘Castra Regia’ and passed the tract on to the queen.  Thus Cecil cannot have been among the ‘wisemen’ who despised Edwardes for writing ‘Castra Regia’. 
It is likely that another of Edwardes's Edwardian connections, his ‘good frende’ Thomas Chaloner, had an influence on the composition of ‘Castra Regia’. Chaloner wrote the poem on Richard II in A Mirror for Magistrates.  The format of the Mirror heavily influenced Edwardes's use of historical exemplars in ‘Castra Regia’; in the revised version he implored all English monarchs to ‘behold the mirror’, reciting the quotation from the Mirror's title page: ‘Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum’.  Although Chaloner's Richard II bears little resemblance to Edwardes's, Chaloner's mirror for a king was probably a particularly influential section of the Mirror for Edwardes, who employed only royal exemplars.  Likewise, Edwardes's comparison of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, and his son, Philip II, probably had its origins in Chaloner's ambassadorial experience at their courts. 
Although Edwardes was connected to Cecil, he was not another Thomas Norton or John Hales commissioned to write conciliar propaganda.  Of the privy council only William Paulet, marquis of Winchester, had opposed an establishment of succession in 1566, and it must be remembered that Edwardes was questioned by the privy council ‘for the lyvelier feelinge of his opynion’ in ‘Castra Regia’.  It was not just Edwardes's arguments on the succession that were unlikely to have attracted government support for the tract: in the original version of ‘Castra Regia’ he had encouraged Elizabeth to help restore Mary, Queen of Scots to her kingdom and ‘defende her from the rage of [her] enimies’.  Moreover, it was as a result of striving against the tide of public opinion on the succession in ‘Castra Regia’ that Edwardes endured public humiliation at the hands of ‘manie godlie and wisemen’, who were so disgusted with the tract that they judged him unworthy to enjoy his country.  In ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ Edwardes was particularly keen to justify what he feared his critics would see as his hypocritical change of opinion: the tract was presented as a dialogue between him and one of his critics. Although Edwardes presented ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ to Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, as a New Year's gift, it would be misleading to assume that this was anything other than Edwardes presuming on an existing patronage relationship as he had done with Cecil in 1569.  Yet, there are indications that Edwardes at least had tacit support for this tract: once the dust had settled, in March 1578, one of his powerful connections interceded with the queen to secure his release from the Tower.  Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that Edwardes wrote ‘Castra Regia’ and ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ at his own inclination. The Elizabethan succession question, as the fundamental basis for a secure monarchy, was so important to him that he was willing to undergo public humiliation and knowingly contravene the Treason Statute (1571) in order to put forward his opinion.
Edwardes and ‘Castra Regia’ have escaped any detailed consideration for two reasons. First, confusion about the authorship has arisen from the mistaken attribution of two of the manuscripts to Sir Nicholas Throckmorton.  There is no surviving evidence to connect Throckmorton to Edwardes or the manuscripts. Throckmorton's view on the succession question could not have been more different to Edwardes's: he was among the M.P.s that Edwardes criticized for pressuring the queen to settle the succession in 1566, and he consistently supported the Scottish claim, which Edwardes abhorred.  Second, the manuscripts survive in several variant versions: a draft (British Library, Lansdowne MS. 95), composed sometime after the Scottish queen's flight to England in May 1568; a finely worked presentation copy (British Library, Additional MS. 36705) dated March 1569; and several later copies that stem from a version revised in the wake of the Northern Rebellion, provisionally dated to December 1569. 
The biggest variation between the two versions is in terms of structure. Originally, Edwardes employed a four-part structure that reflected the priority he assigned to his arguments: the preface dealt with the reform of the church, for that was ‘the lesson of surest skille and foundation, which beinge well plaied, will bringe all the reast to perfection’; next came his consideration of the succession question, interlaced with relevant historical precedents; and the final two sections advised the queen on the monarch's central role in the execution of government. Edwardes restructured the later version of ‘Castra Regia’ to give his argument greater clarity: he created a separate section for his discussion of the succession and produced an extensive addendum of points on the practical application of monarchical governance. So clear were the divisions that these two sections were copied in Scotland in 1592 as two separate tracts: ‘Reulls To be keipt be the prince’, which comprised Edwardes's directives for personal monarchical governance, and ‘Reasones quhy it was better to leave the successioune To the crowne uncertaine than to establich it by parliament’.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, the reorganization of material between the two versions of ‘Castra Regia’ confused some commentators: Stählin mistook them for two different tracts.  These misunderstandings were further exacerbated by the unknown existence of Edwardes's second succession tract, ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’, which led McLaren to assume that Edwardes was fined and imprisoned for writing ‘Castra Regia’.  These difficulties appear to have persisted despite the existence of a printed edition of the revised version of ‘Castra Regia’ in Historical Papers, part i. 
Edwardes's over-arching arguments showed no visible change from the first draft to the revised edition of ‘Castra Regia’: he continued to attack the limited reform of the English church, to advocate strong personal monarchy, and to argue against an establishment of the succession. The occasional removal, addition and alteration of material were necessitated by the rapidly changing political climate of the late fifteen-sixties. Edwardes himself admitted that several obsolete passages in the original draft were removed because it had been ‘compiled before the late proceedinges in thinges … [but] weare by the sicknes and other lettes of the same, defrauded of the proposed time of theire delyverie’.  But in one respect the careful editing of Edwardes's first draft, prior to its presentation to the queen, is particularly important, as it reveals that although he supported Elizabeth's right to settle the succession at will, he disapproved of her preferred successor. He scored through a section that explicitly criticized Elizabeth's ‘good liking’ for the Scottish claim and suggested that those who forwarded a Scottish succession should be ‘repulsed with stiffer checkes, then ye gave for the generall motion’.  Even more interestingly, Edwardes appears not to have been concerned by the possible succession of Mary, but that of James VI: ‘This ladde beinge brought up in Scotlande’.  Although 1569 seems early to be considering James there was some disquiet about his ambiguous claim to the succession: in 1566 a pamphlet declaring James prince of England was discussed in the Commons, and in January 1569 a royal proclamation was issued to deny rumours that James was to be brought into England. 
Edwardes's final revision of ‘Castra Regia’ was a result of the political and religious implications of the Northern Rebellion. His personal involvement in suppressing the ‘northern Commotione’ – as he termed it – brought him face to face with an amalgamation of the threats to Elizabeth's monarchical authority that he had theorized in the original version of ‘Castra Regia’: the danger an heir apparent presented to Elizabeth's position; the peril of powerful nobles supporting such an heir; and, in turn, the people of England following the lead of the nobility.  Most of Edwardes's post-rebellion revisions were designed to strengthen these arguments. But, in light of the rebellion, he was also forced to reconsider his position on several points: England's religious conformity, the place of religion within the succession question, and whether the queen was willing to administer the severe justice necessary in the face of rebellion. Edwardes's assertion in the later versions that ‘Great and many ar the bourdenes of a kinge, and his seate is besette with teanne thousand dangiers’ was a powerful reminder of the threat that the rebellion posed to Elizabeth's queenship: the rumoured number of troops raised by the northern earls in 1569 was 10,000. 
The two versions of ‘Castra Regia’ were tailored to different audiences. In May 1569, Edwardes requested that Cecil present the original version to the queen, ‘to whose grace it onely pertaineth’.  The tract addressed Elizabeth directly and aimed to help the queen ‘increase [her] politique prudence, that canne make youre hart skillefull in all pointes belonginge to youre state and office’.  Edwardes later reported that ‘Never prince acceptid any booke better then the queene doth this’, which is perhaps not surprising given his support for Elizabeth's position on the succession.  The later version of ‘Castra Regia’ was intended as a political guide not only for the queen but for English monarchs generally. Edwardes hoped that upon reading it a future ‘unexperte and abused kinge’ would ‘sturre his minde to thinke and to doe thinges of noe smale value to the availe of hym, of his people and governement’.  It seems that Edwardes may have achieved this broader readership in Scotland: James VI may have been the target audience of ‘Reulls To be keipt be the prince’ for it retained Edwardes's advice verbatim – including his references to English statutes – rather than converting it for a Scottish audience. 
The later version of ‘Castra Regia’ circulated widely in government circles, with extant copies found in the personal papers of Elizabeth's councillors, Cecil and Walter Mildmay, and one of the clerks of her council, Robert Beale.  This appears to have been Edwardes's intention: he replaced the original preface that depicted ‘Castra Regia’ as a work ‘frutefull for the Soule person, and purse of his gracious sovereigne lady’ with a dedication that targeted those who ‘of late, have shewede theymselves farre more busie then provident’ in urging the queen to establish the succession.  Certainly, it was his position on the succession that appears to have attracted the attention of government officials: in Mildmay's archive ‘Castra Regia’ was filed with John Hales's succession tract, and Beale collected copies of both ‘Castra Regia’ and ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’.  That the only extant copy of ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ resides in Beale's archive suggests that this tract too circulated at the heart of the regime. 
The primary focus of ‘Castra Regia’ was not the royal succession but monarchical authority. Whereas authors of other Elizabethan succession tracts placed monarchical rule as a secondary issue to the succession, Edwardes engaged with the problematic dependence of monarchical government on the inconstant nature of succession. In this he drew on the problems of hereditary and elective succession discussed by Thomas Starkey and Thomas Elyot.  Edwardes's argument against the establishment of succession was founded on his perception of the monarch's personal role in government.
Edwardes's conceptualization of monarchical government in ‘Castra Regia’ was a manifestation of his experience of the conduct of kingship and government under Edward VI. His approach to the monarch's role as ‘a fatherlie kinge to his people, imploying all his lyf, care and laboure to benefyte and to nurishe the commonwealth’, reflected the Edwardian ideal of the divinely appointed monarch, minister to the commonwealth.  Edwardes offered advice to the queen on government policy because he believed that she alone was able to provide redress to the grievances of the commonwealth. This was a view adopted by Edwardes's old master, Somerset, during the risings of 1549: Somerset told the rebels that they should be ‘referring yo[u]r griefes and wronges to be remedied by his ma[jes]tie as onlye the ruler of this co[m]men wealthe’.  Edwardes's monarch was ‘the lyf of his lawes’; law and order within the commonwealth rested on royal authority.  He advised the queen to ‘remember the majestie of youre persone, whearin consistethe the politique lyf of all youre people, and eke the health of youre awne state and theirs’. 
Edwardes's reaction to the acephalous conditions of Edward VI's minority contrasts with that of many of his contemporaries, who moved towards an embryonic form of monarchical republicanism or, at least, contributed to the proliferation of the concept of a ‘mixed polity’ during the fifteen-sixties.  Instead, the challenges of Edward's ‘nonage’, when ‘Everie man [was] for himself, fewe or none for kinge or commonwealth’, encouraged Edwardes's belief in the central, and personal, role of the monarch in maintaining the efficacy of government.  Edward, as a minor monarch, had not possessed the authority required to keep his councillors in check, so that ‘fallinge at enimitie for the praie, eche requited [the] other’.  As a result, Edwardes learnt that ‘wheare neither the feare nor love of God or kinge is, it is a verie monster’.  His depiction of the Edwardian period in ‘Castra Regia’ centred on the personal ambitions, and desire for power, of those in government and the long-lasting effects of their foolhardy policies. In particular, Edwardes condemned the reckless pursuit of foreign warfare in the late fifteen-forties that had resulted in ‘the Realme [being] bourdenid with forren debtes, and fillid with coppor Drosse’.  It was this that led him to criticize Elizabeth's desire to regain Calais and the debacle at Newhaven in the early fifteen-sixties, which ‘bare[d] noe showe of police or profitable meaninge no more shall any other peece of that lande so possessed hereafter’.  Edwardes pointed to the policy of Henry VII as a model for the queen: in ‘Castra Regia’ Henry was upheld as a monarch that ‘dyd wieselie see that the honor, renowne, and safetie of this realme reasteth in peace and riches, not in warre, and foren victories’. 
In ‘Castra Regia’ the monarch's character determined the nature of the polity: Edward I's ‘prudence, made prudent counsalors, his gravitie, and noblnes made his nobilitie, grave and vertues’.  Edwardes adopted Elyot's view that the hereditary nobility and landed elites, as the amici principis, were the monarch's natural counsellors; it was their prerogative to counsel the monarch on great matters of state, including the succession.  Thus, he reserved the succession to the queen and her noble counsellors. Elizabeth was obliged to hear the nobility's advice but was not constrained to follow it.  Edwardes, like Elyot, believed that education, wisdom and manners enabled the amici principis to counsel the monarch.  He saw the education of the monarch's ‘cheef men’, the ‘verteouse’ nobility, as the queen's responsibility. He proposed that Elizabeth choose several children ‘owt of the noble and worshipfulleste families in the lande’.  These children would train in ‘manors tongues and chivalrie’ to become the monarch's ‘trustie Counsailor in secretes, a faithful officer, a true Commissioner, a worthy Capitaine, and his grave embassador’.  Edwardes's educated and virtuous noble counsellors represented a fusion of humanist-classical ideals of virtue and education and feudal-baronial notions of noble counsel.
Edwardes's theory of the nobility's pre-eminence as counsellors accorded with the ‘descending’ political theory of Elizabeth, rather than the ‘ascending’ ideal of her subjects in their claims of ‘mixed polity’.  Elizabeth accepted the prerogative of the nobility to counsel her but reserved the right to choose her other counsellors, who Edwardes argued should be ‘wiese and carefull’.  In ‘Castra Regia’ a monarch was ‘asysted withe counsailores’ who were to be his ‘helpes’ in government but their advice was mitigated by the will of the monarch.  Edwardes's position resembles Natalie Mears's portrayal of Elizabeth's councillors as deferential, accepting the queen's right to dismiss their advice. 
Edwardes's views on female monarchy are more ambiguous than those of many of his contemporaries: his support for the queen's complete authority in government implied that he viewed Elizabeth as the equal of her male predecessors. Nevertheless there are signs of tension in his portrayal of powerful women. Edward II became ‘a dead praie to his monsterus wyf’, while Edwardes's Henry VI was ‘ruled over by an improvident woman, whoe reastinge upon flatterers and newe-made pillores, suspecteth and contempneth theyme of the blodde roial’.  Was this an example of a weak king or a subtle hint to Elizabeth to choose her counsellors wisely? Henry's wife, Margaret, was a queen consort, Elizabeth a queen regnant, and, in this respect, Edwardes veered away from criticism. Like John Aylmer, he viewed Elizabeth's reign as part of God's providential design and thus acceptable.  Yet, Edwardes's willingness to lecture the queen on the responsibilities of her position implied that he believed she needed guidance. Although mercy was a political tool of the early modern state, in the wake of the Northern Rebellion, and the queen's ‘excessive clemencie’, he encouraged Elizabeth to eschew her feminine inclinations and ‘beware of womanishe leynitie’ for ‘the hurt of a fewe maie geeve longe peace to the kinge and quietnes to the state’. 
The emphasis in ‘Castra Regia’ on the providential nature of Elizabeth's queenship reflected the Edwardian providential model of kingship and the wider context of the Protestant providential narrative. This narrative attempted to explicate the inconstant fortunes of the English reformed community: the collapse of Somerset's reforming regime, the death of ‘the blessid prince’ Edward VI, and the accession of Mary, with her ‘Spaniardes and owglie prelates’.  Culminating in Elizabeth's accession, this providential narrative instilled within the English reformed community an expectation that the queen would actively reform the Church of England.  For Edwardes, Elizabeth was God's ‘minister’ and thus personally responsible for ‘bringinge the Gospell of oure Saviour Christe to her franke passage ∧againe∧’.  This reflected John Hales's argument that God had made Elizabeth ‘the governess and head of the body of this realm, to have the charge and cure thereof’; as queen, Elizabeth had a central role in providing pastoral care and spiritual, as well as temporal, governance for her people.  Writing in the wake of the vestiarian controversy, Edwardes reflected widespread frustration at the queen's neglect of her divinely ordained duty: ‘my deare Queene, look to youre charge, and refourme the faultes so muche as in you lieth’.  John Foxe vented similar dissatisfaction in his second edition of Actes and Monuments (1570).  Edwardes was particularly vexed by Elizabeth's personal preference for papistical ‘premeditatid and payntid orationes’; the queen was known to favour rhetorical figures and tropes in sermons.  He believed that the personal predilections of the queen, as supreme governor of the church, defined more than the shape of that church: good government was dependent on the monarch laying ‘his foundation in the woorde of God [by] establishinge the forme and observance of true religion’. 
In both 1569 and 1576 Edwardes's succession advice was predicated on his concern to preserve the authority of monarchical government, which he perceived to be vested entirely in the person of the monarch. He wrote ‘Castra Regia’ in reaction to the 1566 parliament's petition for an establishment of the succession.  The succession section was designed as a ‘brief argument against the mover’ of the parliamentary motion (the common lawyer Molyneux).  Molyneux's speech is no longer extant, thus Edwardes's exposition of his argument provides an important window into the succession debate during the parliament of 1566.  Edwardes's main contention, that parliament's ‘motion’ for an establishment of the succession ‘observid due forme, neither in time, place nor purson’, set the tone for his discussion of the succession question in both tracts.  In ‘Castra Regia’, he considered these points using questions that allegedly formed the basis of Molyneux's ‘devise’: ‘whether the parliament shoulde deale with the lymitinge, or ratifyinge, of Successione to the Crowne’; ‘whether suche establishment mighte staie all claymes and factiones’; and ‘whether the establishement of Successione weare to be done without respecte of time’. 
Edwardes believed that parliament, especially the house of commons, was not an appropriate forum for a debate on the ‘highe’ and ‘misticall’ matter of the succession.  He was the only succession tract author of the fifteen-sixties to contend that ‘parliament hath not to deale in the matter’.  Most tracts assumed parliament's involvement; one was deeply troubled that the succession might be decided outside parliament.  Parliament's participation in the establishment of the succession was widely recognized. During the fifteen-sixties Thomas Smith observed that parliament ‘giveth forms of succession to the crowne’, and in 1565 Mary, Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley petitioned for an establishment of their claim in parliament.  In 1572, Thomas Norton argued ‘that whosoever shall say the court of Parliament hath not the authoritie to enact and binde the title of the crowne, to be adjudged a traitor’.  Edwardes, on the other hand, purposefully undermined the power of parliamentary statute to enforce the succession by highlighting Northumberland's disregard of Henry VIII's succession statute (1544) when putting Lady Jane Grey on the throne: ‘What force olde statutes, consentes, and actes of the dead ar of to staye the rage of ambitiouse factiones’.  For Edwardes it was the sword and not the rod that determined the outcome of the succession: thus Queen Mary was ‘the victrix’, the implication being that she received her throne through overthrowing Northumberland rather than by act of parliament. 
Edwardes's denial of parliament's perceived right was not necessarily unprecedented. Parliament's involvement in the succession changed during the reign of Henry VIII: M.P.s were given the authority to ratify the monarch's prerogative in disposing of the succession. However, this new authority did not extend to petitioning the monarch for a settlement or discussing the validity of claims: parliament ‘did not decide who wore the crown, it recognized and registered the right of the monarch who was already wearing it or the heir who was about to wear it’.  In 1544, Henry VIII's nomination of his bastard daughters removed the succession from common law inheritance rules. Parliament's ratification thus acknowledged Henry's authority, ex officio, to determine the succession.  The situation was the same for Elizabeth: in 1559, the Venetian ambassador thought that parliament would refer the succession ‘to the Queen, authorising her to make a will and elect successors as her father Henry VIII did’.  Thus Edwardes was not straying too far from historical convention when he reserved the limitation of the succession to the queen and repudiated the Commons' authority to meddle therein.
Equally, Edwardes was infuriated by the insult to the royal prerogative provided by the attempt of common lawyers, like Molyneux, to limit the succession through common law inheritance rules. It was not ‘the occupation of suche men to devise kinges nor kinges heires’.  In defending the succession question from public disputation by common lawyers, as happened in September 1566, Edwardes touched on one of the central issues of the pamphlet debate: alien inheritance.  The applicability of the alien inheritance rule to the royal succession probably featured in the parliamentary debate, as Edwardes accused Molyneux of presuming ‘that the inheritance of a kingedom maie ∧be∧ past over, as common heredimentes: sclender was his foresight’.  He observed that ‘Of all the Strifes that ever weare in England for the seat and Crown, I never heard nor read … of one determined in Chancery or common plees’.  This refutation is consonant with the arguments of writers who supported the Scottish claim.  Paradoxically, in the original draft, Edwardes emphasized the inherent danger of the succession of ‘a stranger; a Scotte by bloodde’. 
A concern to preserve royal authority in matters of state compelled Edwardes to reiterate and embellish the queen's arguments against parliament's petition using ‘fewe ∧wordes∧, bicause youre awne provident wiesedome, timelie and profitablie rejectid the same’.  The public nature of the debate, and hoped for declaration, offended Elizabeth, who complained that ‘the prince's opinion and good wyll ought in good ordar have bine felt in other sort than in so public a place’.  The queen felt that through their petition the Commons had overstepped their place, for it was ‘monstrous that the Feete sholde dyrecte the hed’ in ‘so weighty a cause’.  Likewise, Edwardes emphasized that through parliament's petition ‘a mervailouse injurie is offered to the monarchical majestie’.  The ‘mervailouse injurie’ was twofold: the petition for an establishment of the succession disregarded the safety of the queen and risked damaging the commonwealth; and its expression ‘from a common person, in the publique audience of the Realme’ subverted the hierarchy of government and degraded the sacrosanct nature of the succession as a great matter of state.  Instead, Edwardes argued that ‘The nobilitie of greatest gravitie wiesedome and auctoritie, should first have privatly and throughlie, moved, arguid and resolvid the case, with your grace’.  Ralph Sadler concurred. Addressing the Commons in 1566, he argued that the succession was a ‘matier farre out of our reche and compase’ and reserved it to ‘the Queen's Majeste and her nobilitee (whom it doth most chiefely concerne and belong unto)’.  Sadler, Edwardes and Elizabeth defined the succession as a matter of state, the territory of the monarch and nobility.
Elizabeth was obliged to communicate ‘her devise, in the premises, to the nobilitie, callinge to conferance suche as for gravitie and learninge her grace and her counsaile shall thinke worthie’.  Edwardes reserved the final decision to the queen: ‘hear acte whearin, shall, conclude all her subjectes. Whoe soever resisteth the same’ – even parliament itself – ‘is a violator and distroier of the sovereigne majestie of our anciente state and policie’.  His account creates the impression of a medieval magnum concilium, in which the monarch together with his or her nobles would deliberate the great matters of state.  The concept remained an active possibility within the Elizabethan polity: Cecil toyed with a ‘great council’ ruling the realm in the event of the queen's sudden death in 1563 and 1584−5. 
The acknowledgement that the nobility were legitimately able to petition the sovereign to settle the succession made the house of lords' involvement in the Commons petition of 1566 problematic for Elizabeth. That the Lords joined the Commons' public petition to the queen rather than advising her in private undermined Edwardes's conceptualization of monarchical government. He marvelled ‘that suche rashe handelinge of so highe and misticall a matter was so well liked amongest the wiese and noble sorte’.  Elizabeth reacted by expelling two nobles from her presence.  By ‘assenting thereto of the nobilite, and by publication abrode of the necessitie of the matter’ her royal prerogative had been endangered to the extent that she was concerned ‘of the imminent perrill if it wer not graunted’.  Edwardes perceived that by declining parliament's petition, ‘the Queene mighte (in the face of the state) apeere a lover of herself, without regarde of her people; wheareby willful and improvident headdes wold perhappes gather hatereadde and falle to lewde inventiones’. 
Parliament argued that the commonwealth ‘muste needs peryshe and cum to confucion onles sum ordere were taken for the lymytacion of the succession of the crowne’.  Edwardes, on the other hand, echoed Elizabeth's belief that establishing the succession would cause ‘great peryll to the realme, and most dangere to myself’.  He contended that parliament's petition would ‘distroie the monarchiall state: rent and teare the whole order of weale publique’,  for ‘whiles thes [men in parliament] goe aboute to staie their totteringe kingedome with ∧the establishement∧ of succession ∧they leye artillery to beate it down altogether∧’.  A parliamentary establishment of the succession entailed a public declaration of the heir apparent, which Edwardes perceived would endanger the queen and her successor.
Edwardes was the only commentator to mention the danger to Elizabeth's established successor. He pointed to Edward IV, who, Edwardes claimed, was forced to rebel in 1460–1 because ‘it was not possible for him to lyve in safetee as a subjecte, and thearefore hee attempted the sovereigntie’.  In 1566 Elizabeth argued that her sister's mistrust had endangered her life and she would not have her successor suffer the same fate.  Edwardes agreed; the heir ‘without this poyesoninge title mighte well have leeved in the commone safetie of conteynted subjectes: and of noe lesse value to enjoy his righte’.  The key to an heir's security was ‘not to crave for it, nor in any wiese ∧seeme∧ to looke or stande in hope for it’. 
For Edwardes, history taught that it was ‘dangerouse for a ∧prince∧ to haue his awne or a subjecte of his obedience, erected in the rage of this hope and possibilitie’.  He emphasized the deleterious effect of parliament's Act of Accord (1460), which declared Richard, duke of York Henry VI's successor rather than Henry's son, Edward. As a result ‘The kinge [was] mortherid, his howse distroiede, the commonwelth spoiled, and all for the kingedomes sake’.  Once the heir was declared ‘It was not like, by any argument, that thes twoe could longe be comprehended under one crowne. This was either an imprudent, or elles a conspiringe, Parliament’.  Edwardes drew a parallel between the threat to Elizabeth of Mary Stuart's claim to the throne and the usurpation of Richard II by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, who was not Richard's declared heir apparent.  For Edwardes, Richard's deposition emphasized ‘that the kinge lyveth surest, that hath fewest cosenes’.  Richard became a synonym for Elizabeth at the end of her reign; he was one of the ‘red flags trotted out by queen and Council at the first sign of trouble from a factious Commons, a troublesome noble or an indiscreet author’.  Edwardes's Richard provided an equally ominous warning: Elizabeth was to beware of the ‘farre cosen’ that sought to claim her crown.  He praised monarchs who acted against such threats, as Edward IV had done with his brother George, duke of Clarence, for ‘a wiese kinge … beinge provident of his state will not leeve in danger of an emulouse kynnesman’.  After the Northern Rebellion, Edwardes underscored this point by adding the more recent precedent set by Henry VIII and his cousin Henry Courtenay, marquis of Exeter. Exeter was executed for treasonous conspiracy in 1538; in 1531 he had aroused royal suspicion when his servants had spread rumours declaring him Henry's heir apparent.  Edwardes emphasized the importance of Exeter's execution in securing Henry's crown.  The cries of Exeter's servants echoed Thomas Norton's observation that when the northern rebels shouted ‘God save the Queene … they have plainely shewed it is not our Queene, Queene Elizabeth that they meane’.  Edwardes's emphasis on monarchs destroying their dynastic rivals presents an ominous precursor to the arguments that would be made for Mary's elimination in the parliament of 1572. 
Edwardes argued that an established successor presented a target for ‘mightie subjectes’ to undermine the monarch, for they ‘never cease blowing vayne furies into the eares of the crownegreedie hart, not suffering it to reaste one howre in a loial minde’.  This was exemplified by ‘warwick the maker of kinges’, who used his authority to support heirs in rebellion against the anointed monarch.  To counteract this threat Edwardes recommended that ‘a kinge limite owt, by a wiese measure, the strengthe of haute subjectes’; nobody should be advanced above the rank of an earl.  He applauded Henry VII for his meagre distribution of titles: ‘for hee knewe it to be a verie infective poisone to greedie stomoches’.  The attempt of England's only duke to marry Mary Stuart in 1569 underscored Edwardes's concerns and prompted him to warn the queen that ‘youre soule must be bytter towarde him whose harte you see inclined to ambitione and coveteousenes’. 
Edwardes believed that the people's fickle loyalties were prey to ‘mightie subjectes, who … never want matter of shewe to delude the people’.  This argument gained weight in the wake of the rebellion, when Edwardes observed that Norfolk through ‘the devise of his mariage with the Queen of Scottes … drew manie wise and honest hartes to favour … his Cause’.  He contended that the people only care ‘that they have a kinge, they waye ∧not∧ muche whoe it be’.  Elizabeth shared Edwardes's concerns; in 1561 she complained about ‘the inconstancy of the people of England, how they ever mislike the present government, and have their eyes fixed upon that person who is next to succeed’. 
Edwardes never ruled out an establishment of the succession in ‘Castra Regia’. Instead he objected to the untimely public approach of the Commons. By 1576 he deemed the time for determination of the succession to be politically expedient. There are clear contextual reasons for his change of opinion: in 1569 Elizabeth was ‘not yet above half her age’, but by 1576 she ‘wireaethe in yeares’ and ‘drawethe toward the end of all mortall fleshe’.  One factor in Edwardes's reassessment of the succession question was his belief that the ageing queen, only three years away from her last marriage negotiations, was unlikely to bear an heir.  In 1569 he had argued that while Elizabeth ‘maie marie and have issue of hir owne bodie’ it would be ‘imprudentlie done, to establish the inheritance in an other fameilie’.  An established heir whose title would be undermined by the birth of an heir to the queen might have presented a dangerous force to reckon with. Even if Elizabeth did not marry and bear a child, a declaration of succession too soon might still ignite civil war in that ‘the Quene and hear heire apparent … maye not lyve together … under one crowne’.  Edwardes originally contended that the most beneficial settlement would occur days, rather than years, before Elizabeth's death.  It is improbable that he considered the queen to be days from death when he wrote ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’, thus Elizabeth's advancing age was not the only factor in his reassessment of the situation.
The development of Edwardes's treatment of the succession question reflected England's uncertain political and religious position in Europe. Revising ‘Castra Regia’ in the wake of the Northern Rebellion, he highlighted the escalating danger to Elizabeth's throne from foreign and domestic enemies, who were willing to plot with a possible heir:
oure sovereigne neighboures ar servile vassales and confederates to and with oure intractable ennymye the Pope … Thes woold omitte noe charges, counsailes, practises, nor travailes, to remove oure present state … They see that commone rebellions never prevaile; but howe the mightie cosenes of the bloodde roial … have heere achived theire attemptes againste theire sovereigne princes. They also knowe full well, an heire apparant weare such a stage for domestical treasones, and foren practises. 
In the Northern Rebellion ‘the mightie cosenes’ were Mary Stuart and Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk. As Edwardes's revisions highlight, the rebellion led to increased anti-Catholic anxiety and gave support to the view of a Spanish-backed Catholic conspiracy against England.  Moreover, it exposed the imminent danger to Elizabeth's position from Mary's Catholic claim to the throne. Edwardes emphasized the catastrophic consequences for English Protestantism of a Catholic succession by rewriting his depiction of Mary Tudor's reign to stress her promotion of Catholic ‘Fooles’, burning of the ‘faithfull’ and exile of ‘the goddelie’.  His fear of such a repetition is palpable: revising his portrayal of Elizabeth's accession he implored the people ‘to be thankfulle, least oure next change turne to our perpetual woe’.  By emphasizing the danger of a Catholic succession, Edwardes was forced to rethink his original portrayal of Elizabeth as a queen opposed to church reform and place a greater emphasis on the resistance of her ‘ungreatefull people’ to further reform.  He further developed this reanalysis in ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’. Tapping into the language of ‘true religion’ under threat, he described England as a ‘Gate … left at a single Barre’; the bar was Elizabeth, whose monarchical authority upheld the godly commonwealth.  It was a telling sign of the increased anxiety of English Protestants that in seven years Edwardes's position had transformed from attacking the queen's unwillingness to reform the church to presenting her as the mainstay of English Protestantism.
In the years following the Northern Rebellion anti-Catholic anxieties were further exacerbated by the publication of the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis (1570), which excommunicated the queen and released Catholic subjects from their obedience to her, and the Ridolfi Plot (1571), which aimed, with Spanish help, to set Mary on the English throne. By the time Edwardes composed ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ his concerns about international Catholic conspiracies had been reinforced by his first-hand experience of religious warfare in the Netherlands.  He was no longer able to see the Elizabethan succession in isolation, and drew on the unstable situation in the Netherlands and the outbreak of the sixth religious war in France to demonstrate what might occur in England in the wake of Elizabeth's death.  For Edwardes the Elizabethan succession became part of a pan-European religious war of the kind which had concerned Cecil and other councillors for over a decade.  He argued that on Elizabeth's death, ‘the Crowne for want of established certeintie should fall in Tryall betwixt sundrie armed factiones enraged with furies of sundrie affections for title and also for religion erected and reenforced by foreine and domesticall partes’.  This demonstrates the way in which succession arguments articulated in the fifteen-sixties became imbued with anxieties about foreign religious intervention by the fifteen-seventies. If Elizabeth were to die without naming a successor a religious civil war might ensue. This, coupled with the alarming prospect of Elizabeth's assassination, was what perturbed Cecil and Walsingham in the fifteen-eighties.  Although Edwardes remained concerned that the nomination of an heir in itself might cause a civil war, he now recognized that a settlement was the only way to prevent a religious civil war between rival claimants on the death of the queen.
Edwardes aimed to provide a solution to both prospects of civil war through his tailor-made plan to establish the succession secretly. Although his opinion on the establishment of the succession had changed since 1569 his principal arguments remained the same: he continued to oppose ‘the publique examinacions and apparant preferrement, of descentes and titles, and eke the publishinge of the limitacions’.  He envisaged that the queen would publicly declare her intention to settle the succession in parliament, but the actual limitation would be conducted in secret by the queen in counsel with the nobility and several ‘coadjutors’.  Following parliament's ratification of Henry VIII's authority to dispose of the succession, Edwardes begrudgingly accepted its ratification of the limitation, though its provisions were to remain unknown to the Commons. The document would be kept in a locked box in the Tower and the keys divided between ‘the lordes of the parliament and Sheriffes of Counties’.  ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ was to be the chest containing the limitation, which was to provide for the peace of England.
Although Edwardes continued to support the right of the nobility to be involved in the succession, he had not forgotten his examples of over-mighty subjects. In an effort to restrain noble ambitions, he bound the nobility to observe the secrecy of the limitation by attaching their seals to it; ‘suche a Consent as bindeth the Sealers and their heires more firmelie … then anie Statut cane or maie doe’.  The reason behind his mistrust of parliamentary statute here can be found in his reference to Northumberland's flagrant disregard of it in ‘Castra Regia’.  Edwardes intended each of the nobles to take a further bond of ‘double the value of his possessions … to render sound loyaltie to Quene Elizabethe during her lyf, and afterward to the prince lymited orderly Succedinge’.  The notion of being bound together in loyal service to the queen during her lifetime was reflected in the Bond of Association (1584). Maintaining the secrecy of the establishment was crucial to safe-guarding the key issues in ‘Castra Regia’: the safety of both the queen and the heir; the removal of the heir as a platform for rebellion staged by foreign and domestic enemies; and the security of the commonwealth from the ‘threatning thunders of intestine dissention’. 
Edwardes's method of settlement involved an interregnum, during which time ‘Suche lordes of highest honour & Creditt as must be appointed to enter in the Sovereigne aucthoritie to Commande the State from her majesties decease till the newe kinge be proclaimed forth roial aucthoritie maie not Surcease one howre’.  His conceptualization of an interregnum derived from his concern to ensure the continuance of ‘roial aucthoritie’ during a time when traditionally law and governance were dissolved until their reinstitution by the succeeding monarch. By transferring the monarch's constitutional powers to a great council of nobles, an interregnum would allow for a smooth and controlled handover of power to the declared successor, and ensure the maintenance of government in the meantime. This reflected Cecil's 1563 proposition and the direction that the succession debate would take in the fifteen-eighties, when Cecil and Thomas Digges both considered the possibility of an enlarged council, invested with the royal authority, running the country in the event of the queen's death. While Digges's council was not specifically noble, Cecil's ‘Magnum Consilium Coronae Angliae’ envisaged recruitment by the privy council from the house of lords. Edwardes differed from Digges and Cecil in that the latter two, anticipating that Elizabeth would not provide for the succession before her demise, bestowed on parliament the authority to consider the claims.  This marks a far more radical departure from the royal prerogative in matters of succession than Edwardes's interregnum. For Edwardes an interregnum was a stopgap measure designed to ensure the continuance of government through ‘roial aucthoritie’.  His proposal referred to the ‘state’ as part of the monarchical ‘estate’ and not as a separate entity; not all Elizabethans envisaged a division of the ‘state’ from the authority of the monarch in the republican sense defined by Collinson.  Nevertheless, the idea of an interregnum as part of an establishment of the succession was consistently employed in the fifteen-sixties, seventies and eighties: Edwardes, like Cecil and Digges, could think of no other way to ensure the continuance of monarchical government.
Edwardes's tracts are important for their legacy, their style of argument, and the light they shed on the politics of the succession and Elizabeth's personal rule. During the century and a half after its composition, ‘Castra Regia’ was a reference work for Elizabethan nostalgia, the nature of monarchical rule, and the problems of succession. In the mid seventeenth century, when civil war was rife and royal authority demolished, ‘Castra Regia’ was copied into a collection of tracts relating to the government of Elizabethan England.  This copy was interfoliated with Robert Naunton's Fragmenta Regalia, a work renowned for its nostalgia for an Elizabethan golden age. George Harbin owned a copy of ‘Castra Regia’ and probably used it as a reference work for his review of the hereditary descent of the English crown during the succession crisis of 1713–14. 
Edwardes's use of ‘the Tragical Epitome of oure Chronicles’ is demonstrative of the politicization of history in Elizabethan England.  His historical precedents differ from those of other succession tract authors and speakers in parliamentary debates. They used the examples of Stephen, Henry II and John to debate the legal precedents for the succession of an alien.  Edwardes exemplified ‘howe brytle, howe slypper, uncerteyne and perelouse Kinglie state is’ for a monarch whose heir apparent is declared.  Equally, he elucidated his model of monarchical governance for Elizabeth by highlighting the impact of her predecessors' virtues and vices on their rule.
‘Castra Regia’ stands apart from the frequent challenges to Tudor monarchical supremacy; Starkey's limited monarchy, Smith's mixed polity and Fortescue's dominium politicum et regale.  By excluding the Commons from involvement in the succession and reserving the final nomination to the queen, Edwardes cut across the notion of ‘mixed polity’, in which the queen, nobility and Commons were equal partners in government. In so doing, he undermined the quasi-republican sentiments of counsellors who viewed their relationship with the queen as mutually incorporative. Instead, Edwardes built on Elyot's perception of the counsellor's role in aiding not directing the monarch's rule.  His view of the hierarchy of royal government favoured the pre-eminence of noble counsel: the nobility were the monarch's natural counsellors who had a right to give counsel on the great matters of state. Thus Edwardes, like the queen, was offended at parliament's petition to establish the succession, not simply because of the danger of the request, but because it came from ‘a com[m]on person’ who did not possess the authority to deal in such matters. 
Edwardes saw the monarchical estate and commonwealth as intrinsically linked; the commonwealth relied upon the security of monarchical authority. This theoretical interpretation contravened the practical concerns of Elizabeth's counsellors, who sometimes found it difficult to reconcile their obligations to queen and commonwealth.  Moreover, Edwardes's configuration of government was dependent on the personal effectiveness of the monarch rather than on the ruler's sex. Although Mary was portrayed as ‘easie to be allurid by flatterers’, Edwardes issued the same verdict for Richard II, Edward II and Henry VI. This poor choice of counsel was a facet of the monarch's weak personality, not female rule.  He believed that Elizabeth was capable of exercising strong authoritative government. ‘Castra Regia’ and ‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ emphasize the fact that the early Elizabethan perception of government was not homogeneous: while men like Smith believed that England was a mixed polity, others like Edwardes clung to older traditions of personal monarchical rule.
‘Cista Pacis Anglie’ is a unique transitional text, between the early Elizabethan succession question, in which the youth and fertility of the queen were of seminal importance, and the later succession debates, when it was clear that Elizabeth would not provide for the succession. Indicative of the infiltration of religious anxieties into the succession debate by the mid fifteen-seventies, it supports Collinson's conceptualization of an ‘exclusion crisis’.  As Edwardes disapproved of the Scottish claim in 1569, it is self-evident that his proposal for protecting Protestantism in England by a secret establishment of the succession would necessarily entail excluding Mary Stuart. His attitude corresponds with widespread agitation about threats to English Protestantism during the fifteen-seventies. His references to the religious situations in the Netherlands and France emphasize the impact of the European confessional divide on the English succession, leading Edwardes to depict Elizabeth as the mainstay of true religion, the political agent of God's grace, well before she intervened in the Netherlands in 1585.  His change of opinion, despite his continuing devotion to Elizabeth's royal prerogative, testifies to the significant impact on the succession question in the fifteen-seventies of external threats to English Protestantism and the queen's advancing age.
- 1British Library, Additional MS. 48063 fo. 12.
- 2The Early Elizabethan Succession Question, 1558–68 (Stanford, Calif., 1966).,
- 3Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 21.
- 4Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 74v; The National Archives of the U.K.: Public Record Office, SP 12/49 fo. 232.
- 5Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 75.
- 6Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 75; Statutes of the Realm (11 vols. in 10, 1810–28), iv, pt. i, pp. 526–8, 1571 Eliz. I, c. 1.
- 7Brit. Libr., Cotton MS. Vitellius C.VII fo. 325r–v.
- 8The monarchical republic of Queen Elizabeth I’, in Elizabethan Essays, ed. P. Collinson (1994), pp. 31–58., ‘
- 9The Early Elizabethan Polity: William Cecil and the British Succession Crisis, 1558–69 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 111–118.,
- 10Sir William Cecil, Sir Thomas Smith, and the monarchical republic of Tudor England’, in The Monarchical Republic of Early Modern England: Essays in Response to Patrick Collinson, ed. J. F. McDiarmid (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 37–54., ‘
- 11Elizabethan Succession Question, pp. 99–162.,
- 12The influence of Edmund Plowden's succession treatise’, Huntington Libr. Quarterly, xxxvii (1974), 209–226., ‘
- 13“We few of an infinite multitude”: John Hales, parliament, and the gendered politics of the early Elizabethan succession’, Albion, xxxiii (2001), 557–582; The quest for a king: gender, marriage, and succession in Elizabethan England’, Jour. British Stud., xli (2002), 259–290., ‘
- 14Political ideas: two concepts of the state’, in The Elizabethan World, ed. S. Doran and N. Jones (2011), pp. 100–104., ‘
- 15The Struggle for the Succession in Late Elizabethan England: Politics, Polemics and Cultural Representations, ed. C. J. Mayer (Montpelier, 2004); Doubtful and Dangerous: the Question of the Succession in Late Elizabethan England, ed. P. Kewes and S. Doran (Manchester, forthcoming).
- 16Sir Francis Walsingham und seine Zeit Walsingham (Heidelberg, 1908), pp. 16, 210–11; , The History of England: from the Accession of Edward VI to the Death of Queen Elizabeth (1547–1603) (1910), p. 346.,
- 17Following the Northamptonshire manuscript, Alford attributed the authorship to Nicholas Throckmorton (Elizabethan Polity, p. 34).,
- 18The last will and testament of Henry VIII: a question of perspective’, Jour. British Stud., ii (1962), 14−27, at pp. 19–20., ‘
- 19Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I: Queen and Commonwealth 1558–85 (Cambridge, 1999), p. 94.,
- 20He was last actively referenced in John Dee's diary in 1591 and may have died shortly afterwards (The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee, and the Catalogue of his Library of Manuscripts, ed. J. O. Halliwell (1842), p. 38).
- 21As Herbert is referred to as deceased he has to be the elder Sir William (c.1512–1567) (Brit. Libr., Cotton MS. Vitellius C.VII fo. 312).
- 22Brit. Libr., Cotton MS. Vitellius C.VII fo. 312; Edwardes also states this in Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 29v.
- 23T.N.A.: P.R.O., SP 69/5 fo. 129.
- 24Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 29v.
- 25Edwardes was Essex's vassal (A boke of very Godly psalmes and prayers dedicated to the Lady Letice Vicountesse of Hereforde (1570) (Short Title Catalogue of Books Printed 1475–1640 (2nd edn., 3 vols., 1976–91) (hereafter S.T.C.), no. 7510), sig. Aiir; Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 99 fo. 4.,
- 26Brit. Libr., Cotton MS. Galba C.V.18 fo. 40r–v; Elizabeth's Wars: War, Government, and Society in Tudor England, 1544–1604 (Basingstoke, 2003), pp. 90–91.,
- 27Edwardes referred to Xerxes and Persia, Sicily, Rome, Sardinia, Mars and Minos, and Scylla and Charybdis in Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fos. 21, 25, 17, 23.
- 28Brit. Libr., Cotton MS. Vitellius C.VII fo. 314.
- 29Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 353 fos. 192–230, ‘Collectiones of the prophetes and of the newe Testament, concerninge the conversione and restitutione of Israel’.
- 30T.N.A.: P.R.O., SP 84/9 fo. 82.
- 31Brit. Libr., Cotton MS. Vitellius C.VII fos. 312–328v; Longleat House, Dudley papers, vol. II, fo. 204; Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 99 fos. 4, 6.
- 32The illusion of decline: the privy chamber, 1547–58’, in The English Court: from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War, ed. D. Starkey (1987), pp. 124–127., ‘
- 33T.N.A.: P.R.O., SP 69/5 fo. 129v.
- 34T.N.A.: P.R.O., SP 12/49 fo. 169; Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 99 fos. 4, 6; Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 353 fo. 194.
- 35Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I, ed. T. E. Hartley (3 vols., Leicester, 1981–95), i. 145–6; , Elizabethan Polity, pp. 197–198.
- 36For Cecil's sponsorship, see his arms on the undercover of Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 36705; T.N.A.: P.R.O., SP 12/49 fos. 169, 232.
- 37Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 74v.
- 38T.N.A: P.R.O., SP 12/49 fo. 232; A Mirror for Magistrates and the Politics of the English Reformation (Amherst Mass., 2009), pp. 49, 140.,
- 39Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 16; Brit. Libr., Harleian MS. 6243 fo. 9; Northamptonshire Record Office (hereafter N.R.O.), Fitzwilliam (Milton) political papers (hereafter F.(M.)P.), MS. 102 fo. 3v; A myrroure for magistrates (1559) (S.T.C., no. 1247); (1563) (S.T.C., no. 1248).,
- 41Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 19; Chaloner, Sir Thomas, the elder (1521–65)’,Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5040> [accessed 15 Apr. 2013]., ‘
- 42For more on ‘men of business’, and especially Thomas Norton, see Thomas Norton: the Parliament Man (Oxford, 1994); , ‘The management of the Elizabethan house of commons: the council's “men of business”’, Parliamentary Hist., ii (1983), 11–38; , ‘Managing Elizabethan parliaments’, in The Parliaments of Elizabethan England, ed. D. M. Dean and N. L. Jones (Oxford, 1990), pp. 37–64.,
- 43The Life and Career of William Paulet (c.1475–1572): Lord Treasurer and 1st Marquis of Winchester (Aldershot, 2008), p. 155; T.N.A.: P.R.O., SP 12/49 fo. 232.,
- 44Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 19v.
- 45Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 74v.
- 46It is probable that Edwardes came into contact with Leicester through Lettice Knollys, to whom Edwardes dedicated his printed collection of the psalms (Boke of very Godly psalmes, sig. Aiir).,
- 47T.N.A.: P.R.O., PC 2/12 fo. 141v.
- 48N.R.O., F.(M.)P., MS. 102; National Library of Scotland (hereafter N.L.S.), Advocates MS. 33.1.7 fos. 52–53v, 61–62v.
- 49Hartley, i. 146; Throckmorton's involvement in the court plot of 1569, which favoured Mary, is well documented (see Elizabethan Polity, pp. 199–201).,
- 50The early Elizabethan succession and monarchical government in Roger Edwardes's “Castra Regia”’ (unpublished University of Cambridge M.Phil. thesis, 2010), pp. 17–28; the variant copies are N.R.O., F.(M.)P., MS. 102; Brit. Libr., Harleian MS. 6243; N.L.S., Advocates MS. 33.1.7 fos. 52–53v, 61–62v; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063; Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 238; Brit. Libr., Egerton MS. 3876., ‘
- 51N.L.S., Advocates MS. 33.1.7 fos. 52–53v, 61–62v.
- 5216, 210–11., pp.
- 53Political Culture, p. 94.,
- 54Historical Paper, pt. i, ed. P. Bliss and B. Bandinel (1846), pp. 1–40.
- 55Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 5.
- 56Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fos. 23r–v.
- 57Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 23v.
- 58Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I, ed. T. E. Hartley (3 vols., Leicester, 1981–95), i. 158–159; Tudor Royal Proclamations, ed. P. Hughes and J. Larkin (3 vols., 1964–9), ii. 307–309.
- 59Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 99 fo. 4.
- 60Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 13v; Queenship and Political Discourse in the Elizabethan Realms (Cambridge, 2005), p. 145.,
- 61T.N.A.: P.R.O., SP 12/49 fo. 169.
- 62Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 13.
- 63T.N.A.: P.R.O., SP 12/49 fo. 232.
- 64Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 22v.
- 65N.L.S, Advocates MS. 33.1.7 fo. 52v.
- 66Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95; N.R.O., F.(M.)P., 102; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063.
- 67Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 5; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 12.
- 68N.R.O., F.(M.)P., 113; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114.
- 69Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114.
- 70A Dialogue between Pole and Lupset, ed. T. F. Mayer (1989), pp. 72, 123; , The Book Named the Governor, ed. S. E. Lehmberg (1962), p. 13.,
- 71Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 20; for the Edwardian view on divine kingship, see Kingship and Politics in the Reign of Edward VI (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 74–75.,
- 72Protector Somerset and the 1549 rebellions: new sources and new perspectives’, Eng. Hist, Rev., cxiv (1999), 34−63, at p. 59., ‘
- 73Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 25v.
- 74Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 23.
- 75Hoak, pp. 37–54.
- 76Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 18.
- 77Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 14.
- 78Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 18.
- 79Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 14.
- 80Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fos. 17, 18v (author's emphasis).
- 81Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 21r–v; for contemporary observations on Calendar of State Papers, Milan, 1385−1618, pp. 325, 327–9.'s riches, see
- 82Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 8.
- 83Tudor monarchy and its critiques’, in The Tudor Monarchy, ed. J. Guy (1997), pp. 78−109, at p. 85., ‘
- 84Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fos. 22v, 25.
- 85Elyot, p. 238.
- 86Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 24.
- 87Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 27v.
- 88Mears, p. 19.
- 89T.N.A.: P.R.O., SP 12/1/6A fo. 12; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 23.
- 90Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 22v.
- 9193–94, 258, 271–2., pp.
- 92Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 9; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 15.
- 93An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes: agaynst the late blowne blaste, concerninge the gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a breife exhortation to obedience (1559) (S.T.C., no. 1005), sig. B2v.,
- 94Mercy and Authority in the Tudor State (Cambridge, 2003); To the Queenes Maiesties poore deceiued subiectes of the northe contreye, drawne into rebellion by the Earles of Northumberland and Westmerland (1569) (S.T.C., no. 18679.5), sig. A4v; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fos. 21v, 23.,
- 95Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fos. 14r–v; Providence and prescription: the account of Elizabeth in Foxe's “Book of Martyrs”’, in The Myth of Elizabeth, ed. T. Freeman and S. Doran (Basingstoke, 2003), pp. 27–55., ‘
- 96Thanksgiving from Germany in 1559: an analysis of the content, sources and style of John Foxe's Germaniae ad Angliam Gratulatio’, in John Foxe at Home and Abroad, ed. D. M. Loades (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 197–215; , ‘An oration of John Hales to the Queen's Majesty’, in Acts and Monuments of John Foxe, ed. G. Townsend and S. R. Cattley (8 vols., Oxford, 1837–41), viii. 673–679., ‘
- 97Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fos. 15r–v.
- 98viii. 678.,
- 99Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 12v.
- 10037., p.
- 101Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 6v; Sermons at Court: Politics and Religion in Elizabethan and Jacobean Preaching (Cambridge, 1998), p. 79.,
- 102Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 7.
- 103Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 12.
- 104Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 12; Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 20v; Commons Journals, i. 74 and Cambridge University Library (hereafter C.U.L.), MS. Ff.v.14 fo. 83v; Molyneux's identity is uncertain (Elizabethan polity, p. 144).,
- 105A possible copy is in Hartley, i. 120.
- 106Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 20.
- 107Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fos. 24v, 25, 26.
- 108Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 20.
- 109Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 25.
- 110A “letter” on the Elizabethan succession question, 1566’, Huntington Libr. Quarterly, xix (1955), 13−38, at p. 19., ‘
- 111De Republica Anglorum, ed. M. Dewar (Cambridge, 1982), p. 78; Calendar of State Papers, Scotland, 1563−9, pp. 192–193.,
- 113Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 23.
- 114Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fos. 23, 15.
- 116Lady Jane Grey: a Tudor Mystery (Chichester, 2011), p. 143.,
- 117Calendar of State Papers, Venice, 1558−80, p. 68.
- 118Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 24 (author's emphasis).
- 119Elizabethan Succession Question, pp. 170−171.,
- 120Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 21.
- 121Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 21.
- 122C.U.L., MS. Gg.iii.34 pp. 107–17.
- 123Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 23v.
- 124Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 20.
- 127Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 25.
- 128Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 20v.
- 129Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 95 fo. 20r–v.
- 131Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 25.
- 132Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 25.
- 133The Governance of Late Medieval England, 1272–1461 (Stanford, Calif., 1989), p. 171; , ‘The great council in the reign of Henry VII’, Eng. Hist. Rev., ci (1986), 840–862.,
- 13437; , Elizabethan Polity, pp. 111–115., p.
- 135Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 20.
- 136Leicester and William Parr, marquis of Northampton (Elizabethan Polity, p. 146; , The Shaping of the Elizabethan Regime (1969), p. 146).,
- 138Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 25.
- 141Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 21.
- 142Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 12.
- 143Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 15v.
- 145Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 25v.
- 146Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 23.
- 147Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 23v.
- 148Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 10v.
- 149Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 15v.
- 150Richard's heir-general was Roger Mortimer, earl of March; his heir male was Henry (Richard II (1367–1400)’, O.D.N.B. <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23499> [accessed 15 Apr. 2013])., ‘
- 151Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 10.
- 152The power of the past: history, ritual and political authority in Tudor England’, in Political Thought and the Tudor Commonwealth: Deep Structure, Discourse and Disguise, ed. P. A. Fideler and T. F. Mayer (1992), pp. 19−50, at p. 34., ‘
- 153Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 25v.
- 154Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 10; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 16v.
- 155Courtenay, Henry, marquess of Exeter (1498/9–1538)’, O.D.N.B. <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6451> [accessed 15 Apr. 2013]., ‘
- 156Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 17v.
- 159Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 16; Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 10.
- 160Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fos. 10, 11.
- 161Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 21v; Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 13v.
- 162Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 15.
- 163Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 23.
- 164Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fos. 9v–10.
- 165Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fos. 76v–77.
- 166Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 10.
- 167Elizabeth I: Collected Works, ed. L. S. Marcus, J. Mueller and M. B. Rose (Chicago, Ill., 2000), p. 66.
- 168Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 25; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fos. 77, 73.
- 169Monarchy and Matrimony: the Courtships of Elizabeth I (1996), pp. 158–159.,
- 170N.R.O., F.(M.)P., 102 fo. 10.
- 171Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 25v.
- 172Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 26.
- 173Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 26.
- 174Elizabeth I and Foreign Policy, 1558–1603 (2000), p. 8.,
- 175Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 18v.
- 176Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 18v.
- 177Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fos. 12–13.
- 178William Cecil and the Antichrist: a study in anti-Catholic ideology’, in Politics, Religion and Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe: Essays in Honor of DeLamar Jensen, ed. M. R. Thorpe and A. J. Slavin (Kirksville, Mo., 1994), pp. 290–295; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 74., ‘
- 179Brit. Libr., Cotton MS. Galba C.V.18 fo. 40.
- 180Brit. Libr., Add. 48114 fos. 71v–73.
- 181290–295., pp.
- 182Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fos. 73v–74.
- 183Loyal or rebellious? Protestant associations in England 1584–1696’, Seventeenth Century, xvii (2002), 1−23, at p. 2., ‘
- 184Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fos. 74v–75.
- 185Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fos. 77v–79v (original emphasis).
- 186Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 81.
- 187Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 80.
- 188Discussed above.
- 189Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fos. 81v–82.
- 190Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 80v.
- 191Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 82v.
- 192Monarchical republic’, pp. 52–55., ‘
- 193Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48114 fo. 82v.
- 195Brit. Libr., Egerton MS. 3876 fos. 46–99 (rectos only).
- 196This was certainly the case with his copy of Hales's succession tract (The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England Asserted (1713) (E.S.T.C., no. 17449); for the reference to Hales's tract see pp. 203–205). For George Harbin's ownership, see , Phillipps Studies (5 vols., 1971), iii. 56, 159.,
- 197History and its uses’, in The Uses of History in Early Modern England, ed. P. Kewes (San Marino, Calif., 2006), pp. 1−30, at pp. 13–15; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 12., ‘
- 198Stephen and Henry were aliens; John was born at Oxford but his rival Arthur was an alien (C.U.L., MS. Gg.iii.34 pp. 111–13; 164–165)., i.
- 199Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 16.
- 200113; , pp. 78–88; , On the Laws and Governance of England, ed. S. Lockwood (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 83–92., p.
- 20113., p.
- 202Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fo. 20v.
- 203Elizabethan Polity, p. 33; , Political Culture, p. 141.,
- 204Brit. Libr., Lansdowne MS. 95 fos. 14v, 9r–v; Brit. Libr., Add. MS. 48063 fo. 15.
- 205The Elizabethan exclusion crisis and the Elizabethan polity’, Proc. British Academy, lxxxiv (1994), 51–92., ‘
- 206Political Culture, pp. 238–240.,