 Hiya, a question for Keeley, so Henry's progress in 1541 was more or less in response to a pilgrimage of grace, correct? Arguably, yes, depends on which historian you're asking. Yeah. So prior to that were pilgrimages up to the north of England, not all that common. No, so the furthest north Henry had been was to Warwick in 1511. Then he kind of was very much a sort of London commuter. I think Heiler Bramsdale wrote that he, you know, the north of England was terror, ignore to Henry so he didn't really. I don't want to say he didn't care because that's not true. But I don't think he saw the value in traveling so extensively until sort of later in his reign but I think I think it was Sam who said, you know, the, oh it wasn't someone earlier that the two to government was very much patching leaks as they appeared. You can kind of see the progress is kind of functioning in that way a little, especially when you consider the sort of northern progress in 1541. Thank you for three really great papers. My question is for Oscar, I was wondering if you could speak maybe a bit more about the institutions and the spaces situated around the Chapel Royal, like what's going on in physical space around the Chapel Royal. And sort of in terms of where the Chapel Royal is in palaces or, yeah, yeah, so there was a very, very good lunchtime lecture made here at the size of Antiquaries by Morris Howard and Chapel Royals are in that sort of placed at the end of a procession and sort of the actual procession almost where, whereby sort of, you know, the monarch can make a procession from the Royal apartments through the President's Chamber through various very sort of visual corridors up to the chapel. The actual sort of, so on Holy Days that is the procession that Elizabeth or whoever the monarch was would have made. Elizabeth had access to the chapel through her Royal Closet, which had a sort of back passage almost to her to her closet. She also had another Royal Closet which was used for sort of Ferial Days, where there was no procession and she just sort of scurried away and she didn't scurry away she walked state in a stately way. So she had to go and observe, you know, the daily devotion. I hope that answers the question. Just a small plug that the lecture you just mentioned is still available on our YouTube channel for anyone that's in the room or listening online, you can watch it later. Oh no sorry we'll go over that. Thanks for a wonderful triptych on Royal Governance. I was supposing it seemed to dance around all of the three talks sort of gender and the gendered nature of the various sovereigns and mechanics and sort of image making. And I wondered if you could perhaps all speak a little bit more about that and how gender informs and inflects the progressors and the Chapel Royal, respectively. Thank you. Yeah, so unlike James there's not really much evidence that Henry and his queens took progressors separately but we do know that they often progress together. One of the most obvious gendered aspects I suppose of progressors was space and privacy. So really where this comes to the fore really is on the 1541 progress to York, obviously with the whole scandal of Catherine Howard and the affair. And a lot of that was down to the way this sort of new informal spaces where progress is created liminal space where the sort of usual, usual gender roles didn't necessarily apply so it gave Catherine Howard that kind of space I suppose to perform acts in privacy where she would not usually have been afforded that privacy so we see a lot of kind of the making of space and the gendering of space on progress in Henry's reign where those kind of liminal spaces are exploited or can be built upon just because the court isn't where the court usually functions. As we had earlier you know the court is trying to recreate the usual chamber on the move. So that's kind of one area where gender plays into the progress. Unlike Henry, as Keely mentioned James, James's consort Anna of Denmark did make her own separate progresses. She was often with James but she often made her own separate ones and as part of my PhD I'm going to be looking at how she chose different areas of the country to go for example she went to Bath and Bristol a lot to take the waters. It's something that James ever did it's not anywhere he ever went. The princes also made their own separate progresses separate from both their parents. So I'm going to be looking at how Anna chose her progress destinations and whether there was a gendered, whether there was gendered decisions behind that if she wanted to go and see great ladies, which she did. Yeah, that's what I'm going to be looking at but there's definitely a gender theme running through progresses. I'll try and be as brief as possible because there's a lot to talk about with gender in the Chapel Royal, you know probably enough for some kind of undergraduate dissertation or more if anyone is watching or here. So, Elizabeth as a woman in sort of in the actual Chapel Royal doesn't evoke her gender much, and that's fairly sort of concordant with some prevailing theories of Elizabeth gender in that it's sort of it's the monarch as a position as a masculine in her office, and thus she kind of tries to inhibit those roles. However, she accepts the fact that she, she doesn't deny that she is a woman, the sort of gendered illusions are frequently made, more so in summons. So sort of illusions to Deborah as the mother of the church, made a lot and there's some argument to be made that various sort of churchmen who begins to criticize Elizabeth. So I'm going to cut out with my paper where Anthony Rudd in 1560 1596 says that Elizabeth then is the, it is in the climacterial the era of her life, which she interrupts and says the greatest clerks on the wisest man and leaves, as you would. There's a very sort of valid argument actually to be made for the fact that they wouldn't have done that to a father. So brother because when he was a child. But there's a very, there's a very interesting dynamic there to how Elizabeth uses her gender in those interactions, and the fact that she can sort of storm off and that could be acceptable is a very, very interesting avenue of exploration and one that I could talk about for much longer. These might all be really inane questions I don't know this isn't my field so I'm just sort of like cool. Thank you to Joe. So thinking about the, you're doing about the level of correspondence between James and and Council. How recognizable were the people carrying that correspond that correspondence and how much advance preparation was made for them traveling and is that an extension of progress of a real progress to have. Really good question and progress is were responsible for the enlargement of post horse routes at this time by the early 17th century. They were quite extensive. I think it went from a letter taking a week to get from Edinburgh to London to about two or three days because of the post horse routes. So they would have, it would have been done in post stages. So there would have been horses ready to take it from one stage to the next. And that was something that started early on I think in Elizabeth rain, and then just expanded by James is rain, the, the network was huge. But they would have been ready, they would have been primed for a progress and ready to go. Question for Keely, if I may, and thank you all for great papers. A question about your broader description of Henry and other early modern modern rulers. You are firing the best retritians writers builders artists sculptors etc. Is there anything particularly early modern about this, because I would have argued that Edward the surge, which is the second hand to the fifth to the same thing. Did the tutor though anyone else put their own unique spin on it. I'm not necessarily the authority on to, you know, to the image. Kevin shop is obviously a very, very good resource for that sort of thing. What I will say is I think Henry was the first monarch to really utilize the level of public literacy that people had in sort of image reading. So for example today I just use a sort of modern example you know when we scroll through Instagram does we will have a sort of expectation of what we're seeing we we are socialized in a way that we can read the sort of cues in people's posts or whatever so the early modern public would have had the same type of literacy for sort of tutor portraiture. But I think yeah, yes and no is the short answer to your question. No Henry was not the first monarch to recognize that you know he could manipulate his image in this way but I think he was the first monarch to really invest a lot of time and money in presenting himself as this Renaissance, scholar king by surrounding himself with good reticence like Tom's more painters like Hans Holbein to really push his image because of course the king people that people's only access to the king outside of the progress was coinage or indeed portraiture. So that's a good way to kind of get across the image that you're wanting outside of these sort of access to the king I hope that answers your question. And yeah thank you all three of you are really interesting series of papers. Just just following on from that question I kind of want to take it in the opposite direction chronologically if you see what I mean. And Joe I just wondered. Again I'm being slightly cheeky it's maybe going slightly beyond the scope of your paper but I just wonder whether you can give any idea at all of whether what James does in terms of progress is sets a precedent that is then followed by the later stewards or whether, whether they do their own thing or whether this is a tradition that dies out if you see what I mean. That's a really good question. Yeah, James was Charles the set Charles the first did lots of progressing but his. Even in James's reign, and statements were less public and they were starting to be brought into the courts masks and this is something that Charles first carried on. So he was less visible than perhaps James was to the majority of to the to the general populace. James the second does lots of progressing, but not to the same extent as James first and I would. I think I'd probably say that James the first was the last great progressing Stuart. Charles the first was a master on made a few progresses, but the tradition sort of display sort of came indoors after James and was Charles, Charles first was a massacre, rather than a progressor, but he did made them. I really enjoyed that as you can imagine. It's a question for all of you, in fact, you are in your various ways, you're emphasizing progresses in the Chapel Royal as places of propaganda performance, enhancing the image of the monarchy in a Kevin sharp, or even JPD Cooper sort of way, but you've also hinted at problems with that tensions where things go wrong. So particularly in progress is you've both hinted at ways in which progresses can impose enormous financial burdens can lead to the clearing away of human trash as well as piles of rubbish and presumably that does create fear in the localities. So clearly with with Oscars Chapel Royal clearly the Chapel Royal is not simply a place where Eucharistic kingship is sort of uncomplicatedly projected it's a it's a flashpoint of tension. So my question is simply how do you, how do you account for those tensions in your work how do you see both sides of the balance sheet in terms of what historians of political culture are often constructed as, you know, automatically effective for propaganda simply because they took place. Okay, I'll take this one first so yeah you raise a really good point and it's a question I think that we've been grappling with in the Henry Aethontal network as well, simply like how do you measure the success of the progress. You know, what was people's experiences they find them disruptive did they find them helpful. There's a lot we know about the progress there's a lot that scripted about a progress but there's also a lot that's unscripted especially with Henry I mean there's an example of I think Greg Walker talks about how there's kind of these popular myths of Henry that's kind of swanning into like towns or villages and unannounced. So, you know you do have these kind of unpredictable elements of progress is, and indeed like I said at the beginning of my paper just because they were grand and, you know, big and expensive really mean that they were effective. Because they were an extreme expense not only for the localities but also you know who like you mentioned had to go out and paint their houses and clear away everything but also for the crown he had to try and manage a government while the king was like putting off on hunting trips which were politically effective but ultimately a massive expense to try and manage the usual correspondence of government and indeed, especially dealing with petitions like Laura discusses in some of her work so it's kind of again like swings I don't know what you're talking about so I suppose Henry's progress is like there were goals for each and arguably you can say that he met them. But did the sort of downside of the progress outweigh whatever, you know, were the goals necessarily just Henry's goals and was he successful only not in his sort of inner circle and personal ambitions when did the localities see the benefit. I don't know. I think when it comes to James, his politicization was a bit more overt just because he was a king of Scotland and he was quite an unknown quantity in England. His Union project was something that he used pro-progresses to get out there. So for example in 1617 when he went back to Scotland for the first time since 1603 insisted on taking the full contents of an Anglican chapel up to Scotland with him, which was incredibly expensive. His thoughts were not happy with this at all understandably. He was trying to push his religious agenda onto Scotland. So I think when studying James it's actually easier to see the negatives in progressing and see how people would have seen them as negatives because his objectives were much perhaps clearer than the outset. But that was a nice teeing up of the Chapel Royal there. Because Elizabeth has similar struggles, as I was talking about tensions, as I sort of mentioned with her leading Protestant Churchmen or many of them were really quite upset by what Elizabeth is doing in a chapel royal. But beyond that, because that's talked about sort of fairly heavily thoroughly. So they're quite difficult to identify properly within the Chapel Royal beyond religious disputes and debates and sort of it's difficult to identify fractures in Elizabeth's image, partly because of the sort of the complete absence of, you know, there's not exactly a wealth of material surviving unfortunately. However, there are I mentioned Richard Morris, the one Welshman that we can find in the Chapel Royal, who runs away as a Catholic to the continent. And his colleague Nicholas Morgan and the fact that to Chapel Royal men and a third I've also found ran away, he was a child and then in the sort of 20s, when it became a Jesuit, the fact that three men of the sort of same generation of Elizabeth's chapel, all left in a fairly public way shows that Elizabeth authority wasn't complete by any means over her chapel, be it in a Protestant dimension or Catholic, which is never going to be complete in a Catholic way but yeah, that's, they are they are the identifiable tensions. I'm sure there are more. I was going to ask a very similar question to what John just asked in in probably a more articulate way than I could have done but I guess I'll push it a little bit further, which is, I think nowadays we do take the granted in this generation of scholars especially that Kevin sharp conceptualization and political culture in this period of a successful projection of monarchical image and sometimes even policies to all of the the wonderful things he illustrates and progresses and and things like the itinerant court whether it's progressing or not are key to that. I'm interested in in how far we can argue that there could ever be a transmission of ideas the other way. You know, we're quite used to talking about publicity and of course a lot of the stuff I'm your illustrating in your paper Joe about the number of people turning out to see James is one key source for that. I'm wondering how much we can be convinced that the more kind of ordinary sway of society could communicate ideas back or whether we should see the transmission of political cultural ideas as an entirely top down movement. Yes, good question. So these qualitative sources as I said in my in my paper, they're very. I mean, to get the audience reception of normal people into these things is obviously incredibly different because most of the people that you'd be interested in finding out what they thought about were literate and they left me a literate and they left nothing behind. It's, it's really hard to try and get to that. But I think when the qualitative ways, like I mentioned, are also not particularly useful. Of course, everybody is going to be out to see the brand new king they were. They were intrigued and they were doesn't mean they were fully supportive just because they were there. I like the quote that I said about the plane on a Scotsman that just give us an idea that people were there it still gets us no deeper to what. So I think, I think you have to look at the end results of these monarchs efforts. And as I said, James, James's subjects weren't particularly pleased with him by the end. So perhaps that says that they weren't as effective as you thought they were. But yeah, that's really difficult. I'm going to pass this on now. I suppose the Henry's reign is equally as difficult, especially when considering the progress there is just nothing on beyond some sort of popular mess I mentioned earlier around how people viewed the progress and indeed how they influenced Henry. It's kind of, it's kind of taken as a given in the historiography that Henry was particularly influenceable, that's the word. He was easily influenced. But I don't think necessarily by the general populace. I mean we can take the pilgrimage of grace as a kind of example, although the various uprisings but I'm just using that one because it's kind of, there was a progress almost as a direct results. Henry's entrance into York, kind of mapping that pilgrimage of grace route. And in the end, I mean none of the rebellions were arguably successful there was a lot of dissent in Henry's reign but nothing that ever changed his mind, especially in the first two of you know Anne Boleyn who was incredibly unpopular, especially in the southeast which was arguably the entire reason Henry took progress to Bristol so we kind of do see examples of where, if there were going to be any results from this bottom down approach, they didn't necessarily get very far that doesn't mean to, you know, that doesn't say that there weren't any examples just there aren't any that are incredibly apparent yet but I don't know maybe I'll find something later on in my research but that's, that's the pipe dream of every academic Yeah, again it's very difficult to talk about the chapel royal. Though I suppose sort of thinking about it. One of the clearest points that you know this clearly isn't that you know that there's more than room for a counter voice, though not sort of projected with the same, the same sort of volume is the fact that access to chapel access to the chapel rules fairly limited. And the music heard there was fair it was incredibly limited. Nowhere else in England, did you could you hear polyphony like that, unless you went to a cathedral on a particularly sumptuous holy day. And you know the French ambassador happened to be there as well. I think I think the fact that I think there's a real sort of lean in musicology and in history to see the chapel royal as a good thing. Something that sort of protected, you know, the polyphony of burden talus, and that's the reason that the Anglican church has lovely music now. And I think it's quite hard to get away from that actually. I think it's quite difficult to address the reason that parish churches, parish church choirs, really kind of began to dissolve. Obviously, puritanical puritanical and Calvinist inputs were instrumental in that. So there's room for, you know, a popular voice of the fact that people were quite frankly fed up of all of these of all of these parish choirs is a valid question. And could could possibly value from, you know, more more research. I am not putting myself on either side of the fence. No, yeah, I've just remembered it's particularly personally considering your research area as well that petitioning the king is a very big way in which Henry's well maybe not policy is influenced but there is an example of where two of his courtiers are executed as a direct result from petitioning the king. So that is one area of it's not my I've not looked much into it so you probably know more about this than me, but that's one area as well where the kind of, there's like a measurable in the impact of people, not necessarily on policy but on a sort of access to the king and more general areas of life. That was a really tough question, I apologize. And I think we don't know the answer to it yet. That's the kind of key thing. Okay, unless anybody else has any questions. I think we might wrap up there for a 20 minute tea and coffee break. I've been told to let you all know as well that the exhibition is still open upstairs for this next break so if you haven't had a chance to see it yet. We'll be right over there. And it remains to thank our speakers for three really great papers, I think fit together really well so thank you again.