Oh these are the historical points on which entire novels can be created. If it wasn’t Elizabeth, who would it be? One of her maids (hence the poor Latin, assuming she had some passing knowledge?) Would there be a ... time difference? Like years passed between the two notations? This is juicy! Good luck! I’m off to check your other essays because sticking to a historical timeline can be really tricky.
Exactly, Leanne! I've concluded it would likely be Audrey Malte Harington, one of Elizabeth's closest attendants (and likely her half-sister, raised by Henry VIII's tailor). She's Elizabeth's age, and not princess-schooled, hence the poor handwriting and Latin. Also, as an attendant, her job might entail handing mail off to a courier.
It's possible that there was a time difference, but I don't think so. The letter was sent immediately to Sir Thomas Seymour, and so it would have been in his possession. (Curious that he — or his secretary — held onto it.) Another fly in the potential ointment: Audrey was Seymour's secretary's wife.
Doubt that he was so enamoured with his wife's unschooled ways. He was impoverished gentry, she an unexpected heiress (via Henry VIII) and of the Blood Royal (surprise surprise). I would love to know why this letter was kept, but most likely only because it was a disorderly pile that was never sorted. That's one guess. The other is that the secretary — Harington — was an archivist by nature. And we all know that likely means he Never Threw Anything Out.
I am impressed at your process, Sandra. And the commitment to the accuracy of the history.
That you have been patient with the book taking a while to write because of this. Congratulations that you have got to the zero draft.
I’m curious. Has substack or any other platform/network been helpful with this?
A platform where you can put some aspects of your research out in front of more eyes and then get contributions on what direction you could go?
Or perhaps even chancing upon a writer with similar interests (like Leanne) or a subject expert who gives you some pointers that have been helpful to speed things along?
Thank you, Susanna! I'm fairly new to Substack, but the response I've gotten to this one post has been helpful. I love the site and I won't be surprised if helps my writing in unexpected ways. I feel I can be candid here. BTW, I see that you are on Simon Haisell's War and Peace. I'm on the WolfCrawl! He's amazing.
Let’s imagine that both these notes were written by Elizabeth and within hours of each other, in light of how quickly the letter was dispatched. And let’s also imagine this scenario:
• The first note was written in haste, shown by the relatively hasty letters, particularly the initial “N” and the misspelled Latin and strikethrough. Elizabeth was angry at her uncle’s presumption and familiarity, repelled by it, or even excited by it if you believe the version that she actually had a sexual relationship of sorts with Seymour.
• The second note, correct in all aspects, was written boldly and formally—again, look at the initial “N”—after Elizabeth had conquered whatever emotion had dominated her earlier. Her message here is clear: “Don’t touch me again. Ever.” After all, I think we recognize that Elizabeth would be the master of her outward emotions and conduct for virtually all of her reign, and she was learning how at this point.
It seems to me if you use something like this premise, you’ll have ample material for some excellent plot points. Also, this way, you don’t upset all those rabid Tudor historians.
Hi Maggie! This was my first interpretation of the note, but I think there are too many inconsistencies for the lines to have both been written by Elizabeth. (See my comment below.) I may very well return to this interpretation for reason of story, but right now I'm feeling like I really want to figure this out!
A friend, Doug DeLaMatter, used Topaz Gigapixe to produce a clearer image of the two lines (now seen above), and concluded:
"You can see that the top of the right stem of the N points to the left in #1 and to the right in #2.
The swoosh comes from the bottom in #1 and from the top in #2.
I would argue that the writer in #1 started at the right stem of the N and went to the left generally up the diagonal, lifted the pen and placed it again to draw down the vertical, almost lifted it at the bottom to draw the swoosh.
In #2, the swoosh was probably drawn first and the pen lifted and placed on the top of the left vertical on the swoosh, and then down to a right-side foot. The pen was placed again at the top (3 chances to add ink to the spot), down the diagonal and up the right vertical ending in a right-directed top. The Os both have the same general shape but the #2 has a thin line between it and the swoosh showing it was written after the swoosh.
The #1 O was written over the swoosh and the quill extended toward the next letter. The el was started at the top and continued into the “ i “. More ink was needed so the “ i “ was started at the swoosh, went up and to the left then down to the connection where the quill ran out of ink.
All of that to say, I agree with you.”
Thank you, Doug! Readers, if you compare the N's in both lines you can see the difference clearly.
Oh these are the historical points on which entire novels can be created. If it wasn’t Elizabeth, who would it be? One of her maids (hence the poor Latin, assuming she had some passing knowledge?) Would there be a ... time difference? Like years passed between the two notations? This is juicy! Good luck! I’m off to check your other essays because sticking to a historical timeline can be really tricky.
Exactly, Leanne! I've concluded it would likely be Audrey Malte Harington, one of Elizabeth's closest attendants (and likely her half-sister, raised by Henry VIII's tailor). She's Elizabeth's age, and not princess-schooled, hence the poor handwriting and Latin. Also, as an attendant, her job might entail handing mail off to a courier.
It's possible that there was a time difference, but I don't think so. The letter was sent immediately to Sir Thomas Seymour, and so it would have been in his possession. (Curious that he — or his secretary — held onto it.) Another fly in the potential ointment: Audrey was Seymour's secretary's wife.
Yes: juicy!
The secretary held on to it because it was his beloved wife's handwriting, bless her heart for trying the Latin?
Doubt that he was so enamoured with his wife's unschooled ways. He was impoverished gentry, she an unexpected heiress (via Henry VIII) and of the Blood Royal (surprise surprise). I would love to know why this letter was kept, but most likely only because it was a disorderly pile that was never sorted. That's one guess. The other is that the secretary — Harington — was an archivist by nature. And we all know that likely means he Never Threw Anything Out.
I am impressed at your process, Sandra. And the commitment to the accuracy of the history.
That you have been patient with the book taking a while to write because of this. Congratulations that you have got to the zero draft.
I’m curious. Has substack or any other platform/network been helpful with this?
A platform where you can put some aspects of your research out in front of more eyes and then get contributions on what direction you could go?
Or perhaps even chancing upon a writer with similar interests (like Leanne) or a subject expert who gives you some pointers that have been helpful to speed things along?
Thank you, Susanna! I'm fairly new to Substack, but the response I've gotten to this one post has been helpful. I love the site and I won't be surprised if helps my writing in unexpected ways. I feel I can be candid here. BTW, I see that you are on Simon Haisell's War and Peace. I'm on the WolfCrawl! He's amazing.
Yes. I am reading WAP. I missed some weeks but got back in this weekend. Fun stuff.
The handwriting looks completely different to me.
I agree!
What fascinates me is why, given the apparent difference in handwriting, scholars would have asserted that it WAS written by the same hand.
Let’s imagine that both these notes were written by Elizabeth and within hours of each other, in light of how quickly the letter was dispatched. And let’s also imagine this scenario:
• The first note was written in haste, shown by the relatively hasty letters, particularly the initial “N” and the misspelled Latin and strikethrough. Elizabeth was angry at her uncle’s presumption and familiarity, repelled by it, or even excited by it if you believe the version that she actually had a sexual relationship of sorts with Seymour.
• The second note, correct in all aspects, was written boldly and formally—again, look at the initial “N”—after Elizabeth had conquered whatever emotion had dominated her earlier. Her message here is clear: “Don’t touch me again. Ever.” After all, I think we recognize that Elizabeth would be the master of her outward emotions and conduct for virtually all of her reign, and she was learning how at this point.
It seems to me if you use something like this premise, you’ll have ample material for some excellent plot points. Also, this way, you don’t upset all those rabid Tudor historians.
Hi Maggie! This was my first interpretation of the note, but I think there are too many inconsistencies for the lines to have both been written by Elizabeth. (See my comment below.) I may very well return to this interpretation for reason of story, but right now I'm feeling like I really want to figure this out!
This puzzle has occupied me much of today!
A friend, Doug DeLaMatter, used Topaz Gigapixe to produce a clearer image of the two lines (now seen above), and concluded:
"You can see that the top of the right stem of the N points to the left in #1 and to the right in #2.
The swoosh comes from the bottom in #1 and from the top in #2.
I would argue that the writer in #1 started at the right stem of the N and went to the left generally up the diagonal, lifted the pen and placed it again to draw down the vertical, almost lifted it at the bottom to draw the swoosh.
In #2, the swoosh was probably drawn first and the pen lifted and placed on the top of the left vertical on the swoosh, and then down to a right-side foot. The pen was placed again at the top (3 chances to add ink to the spot), down the diagonal and up the right vertical ending in a right-directed top. The Os both have the same general shape but the #2 has a thin line between it and the swoosh showing it was written after the swoosh.
The #1 O was written over the swoosh and the quill extended toward the next letter. The el was started at the top and continued into the “ i “. More ink was needed so the “ i “ was started at the swoosh, went up and to the left then down to the connection where the quill ran out of ink.
All of that to say, I agree with you.”
Thank you, Doug! Readers, if you compare the N's in both lines you can see the difference clearly.
Who else might have had access to this letter?
That's a good question, Kate. Elizabeth's attendants? Her cousin Lady Jane? Her governess Kat? People in Parr's employ? We can only guess.