 Yn y gallu'r ysgawdd yma, yn ffordd i ni i gynwysiaeth i'r ysgawdd yn ffwrdd. A'r ystyried yma yn y Ffyrraedd yma, yn ddod yn yr ystod. Yn y gweithio Henry VIII, yn ymgyrchau yma'r ymgyrchau hynny, ond yna yn ymgyrchau. Yn ymgyrch, mae'n ddod yn olygu yn gwneud, yn ymgyrch ymgyrch. Yn yr ystod yna bob ymweld, diwethoedd achos y gynhywyl, yng angles, a cyfnod, ac ymweld. Roedd y porthraith, mor wrth gyffredinol, ac ymddangos, ymdyn nhw, bydd hwnnw i'r cheif. As unrhyw o'r frannwch sydd gennyn nhw, byddai'r cynmarach a cychynnwys. Caer o'u cyfrifod i'n ei hyffordd i'r cyffredinol cysylltiadol, sydd yn ffrifysgol i'r hynnyn hynny. Ymddangos ychydig yn unig, Henryuciones maen nhw'n cynnal y Prif. herd located into a new era of holiness and prosperity. Of course, all monarchs travelled the kingdoms they ruled and English kings moved their courts through around that infuded parts of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, as well as portions of France, but, despite this commonality with these contemporaries, sto Henry VIII'u в home ond how does it differ from the usual itinerant movements of the king's court, and most importantly, were royal progress is impactful or indeed successful, and how do we measure that? But despite the wealth of literature surrounding the mechanisms of government during the reign of Henry VIII, and there is a wealth literature surrounding the mechanisms of government during the reign of Henry VIII, there have been really very few attempts to examine Henry's progresses in the same depth. So, like Elizabeth, only a handful of scholarly work focuses on Henry's progresses specifically, and the majority of these are focused primarily on Henry's progress to the north in 1541. Government of course continued while the king's on progress, and the peripatetic nature of government was central to the anatomy of the body politic in this period. But exactly how this mechanism functions and the broader implications surrounding who remained in London and who travelled with the king definitely requires some further examination. But progresses allowed the king to consolidate his image, strengthen his authority in the localities, and to nurture his relationship with the political elite and indeed with his subjects. Now under Henry, the court was perceived as a unifier of the aristocracy, and it was this shift in focus that strengthened their loyalty to the king. Progresses also reflected a level of interaction between the king and the political elite, and they were large colourful spectacles seats in ritual and ceremony. During an era of personal monarchy where the court was restructuring to allow the king more privacy, progresses offered greater access to the monarch away from the formalities of the court. Hosting the king was a great honour, but it was an expensive one. And it also filmed part of the reciprocal conversation the king and his courtiers engaged in. That they were strategic complex mechanisms of government, and they each had their own unique motive and itinerary which were explicable to the context of each year. The individuality and flexible nature aided Henry in strengthening his relationships with his courtiers, while also executing his political and religious campaigns. Henry's reign saw a new focus on controlling ideas of power and kingship through material culture. And this was a movement that was spearheaded by Thomas Moore, Halden Wallsy and Thomas Cromwell. Influenced by the Renaissance, Henry was hugely successful in using the material and written world to negotiate and shape his image and power. So is it anachronistic of us to prescribe to him the concept of modern PR? Well, perhaps not the idea of constructing imagery and rhetoric in order to present a favourable representation doesn't originate with Henry. Just as governments today produce political adverts and campaigns to boost their image, early modern monarchs employed the best artists, architects and rhetoricians to communicate the prestige of their courts and the majesty of their role. Henry was no different, and his progress is functioned within a broader campaign to achieve political objectives and to foster loyalty. So dismissing the idea that Henry could have employed something as modern as a politically driven PR campaign, no matter how these images were constructed, it does limit the way his brain viewed. In this period image was authority, and it was essential that Henry maintained his image, not only within the court but outside of it. So is it anachronistic of us to consider Henry's and progress is all about image? Well, again, not really. Progresses have historically played a significant role within the broader function of the monarchy, and in the English political system at large. Now Henry the seventh success in consolidating his victory over Richard the Third of Bosworth was in no small amount due to his consistent and exhaustive cycle of progress. Henry Tudor often left his London residences for several progress at Northwoods. Hefyd, Cambridge, Lincoln, Northamshire and York, and they were all individually tailored to best assert his authority in the heartland of York's sympathies. So we can see that the peripatetic court was a consistent feature of kingship. But by the time Henry the eighth inherited the throne of 1509 England had seen a gradual trend towards a more settled court. The development of larger and more lavish policies in and around London, like the court is a more static settled institution. But under the false extension of the great fall at Eltham and Henry the seventh palace of Richmond are all symbolic of royal strength, the permanence of the monarchy, and they encouraged a more settled way of life. The same process is seen during the reign of Henry the eighth, who came to own over 60 royal residences by the time of his death in 1547. The development of whitewall as well as the central royal power in the 1530s also encouraged the further development of the court as a more static institution. So it's not a safe progress at all. Well as I mentioned earlier the reasoning behind each progress is unique. They represent no homogenous continuum, but they are each inexplicably bound to the political, social and religious context of each year. So for the sake of time, and clarity will focus on one progress today, Henry is 1535 progress to Bristol. He chafed at the Pope's authority in England, and meant to, and I quote, repair the error of King's Henry II and John, who had by deceit, bowed to the Pope's authority. He was determined to you reunite to the crown of the good which churchman held of it, which his predecessors could not alienate to his prejudice, and that he was bound to do this by the oath he had taken at his coronation. He stayed with notable reformers here was no coincidence. Overwhelmingly, the King's itinerary for that year was structured around visiting strong supporters of the Reformation, who also held positions in Parliament. During the 1530s Parliament was passing numerous statutes that would fundamentally alter the lives of the English people. But crucially, it was during this period that Henry realized his power was at its strongest when it was exercised through Parliament. Henry follows that he would visit those who held influence there. And as the most influential elite in England generally resided within Greater London and the Southeast of England, the progress of 1535 provided him with the perfect opportunity to cement the loyalty of the political elite in the area, following the act of the Union, the act of supremacy sorry in 1534. And the Reformation also provides an additional motive to this progress. Thomas Cromwell travelled alongside the King as part of his retinue. In a few days behind Cromwell, road surveyors assigned to value the monastic houses in the southeast with whom Cromwell kept infrequent contact. So he visited many monastic houses they would later dissolve, and that the sea wars and appoints acting courts also supported the dissolution of monasteries could have been why Henry chose to lodge there from the second to the seventh of September that year. And of course alongside these religious aims, the progress had another more personal motive. To promote Anne as the new Queen of England, a Berkeley visited by the King in the seventh to the 14th of August that year was known to be a hotbed of anti French sentiments and residents there saw Henry as an agent of the French King thanks to his marriage to Anne Boleyn. So, these are the reasons why Henry went on progress but what would it actually looks like what was the experience of the people watching progress move along the roads and byways of England. The 1511 tournament role gives a good indication of what Henry's progress is might have looked like. I will implore you at this point to use your imagination as I describe the image. But it's that of a large procession with Henry leading on his horse and he's wearing delicate blue and white silks, and they were embroidered with the initials H and K. Behind him follows a large entourage of pages and musicians dressed in yellow damask carrying the Royal Court of Arms. The tournament role displays the pageantry and extravagance of a tournament, and it was designed to celebrate the birth of a certain Henry. But it does provide a good idea of what the King's altar entourage might have looked like while arriving at the houses of his hosts or traveling on the roads in England towards the towns and his lodgings. The additional evidence indicating the size and structure of Henry's progresses can be found in a letter by Charles de Marillac. Marillac was a French prelate and diplomat who accompanied Henry and his court on the 1541 progress to York. And in a series of letters to Francis I he provided a detailed description of the Royal Party as they entered Lincoln on the 12th of August in 1541. He writes that the King's fashion of proceeding in this progress is so wherever they are dear numerous in clothes two or 300, and then send them in many great hands to kill them, that he might share them among the gentlemen of the country and his court. When he passes any town in which he has not been during his reign, without other solemnity than having the streets decorated and the inhabitants going before him on the little geldings in ordinary clothes. He himself mounted on a great horse with all the most notable Lords of England in front two and two, and 60 or 80 arches with drawn bows behind goes with the Queen, Lady Mary, his daughter, and some other ladies to the lodgings prepared for them. So we can see from this letter that the court on progress was roughly around the size and half the size of Henry's winter court. 500 or 600 people are simply moving such a large number of people around the countryside was no easy task. Henry and Anne had the royal stables, which contained around 300 horses, and most of the nobility, churchmen and ministers following the progress have their own mounts. But Simon Thurley's research suggests that the Lord Steward's department did not have access to such equine resources. And as such they outsource their transport to local towns and villages along the route of the progress, hiring horses and carts there as they went at a fixed rate of around 12, 2 pence a mile. Obviously this was a very unpopular practice amongst the localities, as not only was the usual rate 12 pence a mile, but oftentimes the horses were needed to aid with the summer's harvest. And during the 1526 progress while travelling through Kent, 16 villages were required to supply 26 carts for the king's progress so this was a very big requisition of scarce resources in the towns. Now we don't have time today unfortunately to go into any great detail about the makeup of this entourage but a reserved estimate of the number of carts travelling with the progress at any given time would sit at around 300 to 350. And moving such a large group through the lanes and byways of England was not an easy task, as you can imagine. In his hunting, it is identifying the trot roads of early modern England and Wales, Max Satchel argues that while England had an extensive road network they were either very narrow or were simply horseways, which were suitable only for pack horses. So consequently, the progress travelled slowly, averaging only 12 miles a day. And on more often travelled routes where the roads were marginally better, the court could manage as many as 18 miles. The security of course along the route was tight as the king and his court attracted vagabonds, vagas and other such opportunists. So alongside transport, of course provisions had to be made along the route for the royal kitchens which also travelled with the king. The royal clerk of the market would ride ahead of the progress by some days, ensuring that there was enough meat, bread and beer for the court. Now like tart taking this was an unpopular practice. Royal purveyors held the responsibility of acquiring food for the king and his court and they were entitled to the king's price, which was a discount that allowed them to buy goods cheaper. So for context in the 1520s, the fixed king's price for poultry was five shillings per swan, two shillings per peacock, seven pence for a hen and six pence for a dozen larks. So this is all to say that the arrival of the court did not always mean profit for the local producers. But the discount did not apply to the courtiers or churchmen the king lodged with and as such hosting the king was an expensive effort. During the progress of 1539 Henry lodged with Edward Seymour in World War 4. On the first night he gave supper for 70, 800 on the second night and 1500 on the third and fourth nights. The total expenses for the king's visit was 288 pounds, 19 shillings and 10 pence, which is approximately 120,000 pounds today. For context this could in the 1530s pay the wages of roughly 10,000 skilled tradesmen. So that is an extortionate amount of money to spend on a three day visit. This of course doesn't include the vast sums of money spent on erecting temporary structures like that, where the all of Essex erected on building a lake, a standing house and a temporary wooden structure to accommodate Queen Elizabeth in the household. And it also doesn't cover the cost of providing gifts and entertainment for the king, either. Indeed in Henry's 1519 visit to Penthurst, Richard Pace spent approximately 1500 pounds in the king's visit to provide him an excellent cheer, which is close to 70,000 pounds today. No wonder then that the Earl of Essex wrote to Lord Leall on the fourth of June in 1529 saying I beg for your help for wine and foul against the king's going on his progress into Essex, but except I may pay you for it, I will never send you for more. So we talked a little earlier about the impact of the progress. Now they were splendid, but that might not mean that they were viewed in any positive light. People found them to be disruptive, or an extravagant expense, or perhaps even more so in places like Yorkshire in the 1540s, where Henry was not the most popular of figures. And as with other aspects of the Henry's in progress, few examples survive of the type of entertainment Henry might have enjoyed, and as such reconstructing the King's Day once once he had arrived at his destination is difficult, but not impossible. So we can look elsewhere, and this provides enough detail to create a rough reconstruction of the King's revels and their significance to the progress. An analysis of the available material suggests that there were three main types of formal mechanisms used within the progress and these were hunting a gift giving a pageantry. I could talk for hours about the intricacies of all of these rituals, alas I don't have the time. These mechanisms were integral to the political objective of the progress and they functioned as agents through which the King and his host could participate in ritualized conversations to promote their individual political goals. For example, the 1535 progress contained a multitude of formal mechanisms, which allowed the King to both achieve his objectives, and to broadcast them to the elite. One of these mechanisms, and I believe the most effective was hunting Henry's enthusiasm for hunting is well documented I don't think that will come as a surprise to anyone in this room that Henry enjoyed hunting. And this is evidenced in songs, ambassadorial letters contemporary chronicles and even in the 1547 itinerary of his possessions. In addition, evidence can also be found in the extraordinary programme of empowerment, which was sort of forest creation from the 1530s to the 1540s, which was the biggest since Henry II. But importantly, hunting wasn't just a pastime for Henry. This was an era of personal politics access to the King mattered above all else and hunting provided an informal mechanism away from the rituals and intricacies of the court. Where courtiers could meet with the King and even influence him. This was a concern to Cardinal Wolsey, as you can imagine, as most things were, and the alpha ordinances were structured to limit the amount of people the King could take with him while hunting on progress, and indeed who could go with the King. So we can see that hunting and takes on a ritualistic meaning in the context of the progress though it's nowhere near the level of ritual that we see in Parliament, but showing in the King's hunt was an honour. Unlike jousting and other sports Henry enjoyed, where a smaller clique of Henry's closest friends could participate, hunting provided the opportunity to interact more closely with the King in an informal way. It was frequently used as a mechanism to overtly display friendly intent. A good example of this is in 1535, sorry, where Henry took amblin hunting and instead left Catherine of Arrogant at Windsor, which caused a bad fixture. The King's itinerary on progress was structured in a way that allowed him to achieve multiple objectives at once. Each progress was individually crafted by the King in his court to fulfill an objective unique to its political context, and every progress was indicative of the King's priorities that year. His 1535 progress to the southeast was tailored to achieve two main goals. To promote the reformation to the influential landed leader of the area, and to promote his new Queen Anne Boleyn. So here we see more clearly than ever that his progresses were multifaceted structures of government, each unique to their political and social context, and sophisticated enough to fulfill multiple objectives while continuing the daily running of government. Likewise, Henry's motives while traveling were a complex combination of personal and political concerns, and they reflected the nature of his kinship. Beyond their uniquely structured nature, all progress is bad, some similarities. They allowed the King to consolidate his image, strengthen his authority in the localities, and nurture his relationships with the elite. But alas they remain a rather understudied facet of his reign, and much more work needs to be done in the area. Thank you.