CARR, Robert (c.1586-1645)

Despite being the dominant figure at court during the first half of the 1610s, Robert Carr has received surprisingly little attention from biographers. Interest in him has been limited to his years in power and his spectacular fall from grace. In part this reflects an archival problem, since the materials needed to reconstruct his life in detail prior to 1607 and after 1616 are now thin, but it also reflects his political unimportance during these two periods.

Background, and rise to power, 1601-12

According to the mid-seventeenth century writer Roger Coke, Carr was ‘a man of mean and scarce known parents’. In point of fact, he was the youngest of the five sons of Sir Thomas Kerr, laird of Ferniehirst and warden of the Middle March.29 R. Coke, Detection of the Court and State of Eng. (1719), i. 82. Kerr was a leading follower of Mary, queen of Scots, and suffered in her cause. However, his loyalty was rewarded by Mary’s son, James VI, who restored him to his estates. Following Kerr’s death in March 1586, James brought up his infant son, Robert, at court.30 Coke, 82; HMC Hatfield, xx. 269. By 1601 young Carr was serving as a page to George Home, newly created lord treasurer of Scotland. He subsequently transferred his services to the king,31 Add. 15476, ff. 92v, 94v. who ascended the throne of England two years later.

Carr accompanied James to London, where he and fellow pages were dismissed and given £50 apiece. Such a large sum enabled the 18-year old Carr to journey to France, where he learned the language and developed a taste for fine clothes.32 Wilson, 54; ‘Narrative Hist. of King Jas.’, Somers Tracts, ii. 268. However, his money having run out, he was soon forced to return. By 30 Aug. 1604 he was serving as a groom of the bedchamber, a position he probably obtained with the help of his maternal uncle, Sir Walter Scott of Branxholm, who had been sworn a gentleman of the privy chamber in May 1603.33 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 147; Harl. 6166, f. 68v; Secret Hist. of the Ct. of Jas. I ed. W. Scott, i. 374. He quickly learned to exploit his physical proximity to the king for financial gain. In January 1605 he approached James on behalf of the borough of Chester for the renewal of the city’s licence to export calf skins. Later that same year, he was paid £80 by Richard Fiennes^*, 1st or 7th Lord Saye and Sele, for help in obtaining a grant of the lands of six recusants.34 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 21, 290, 451.

Carr might have continued in this vein were it not for a sudden quirk of fate. At the accession day tilt of March 1607 he accompanied one of the Scottish gentlemen of the bedchamber. Some accounts say it was Richard Preston, later 1st Lord Dingwall [S], while others specify James Hay^*, later 1st earl of Carlisle. On dismounting his horse to present the shield and device of his master to the king, he was thrown to the ground and broke his leg. He was immediately carried to a nearby house at Charing Cross, where he was visited by an anxious king, who lost all further interest in the tournament. James subsequently had the young man transferred to lodgings at court and ordered his physicians to attend him. Over the next few weeks he called in regularly on the patient, whom he found to be delightful. On learning that Carr had been but poorly educated, James took him under his wing, and taught him Latin. This extraordinary level of royal attention naturally did not go unnoticed, and soon Carr became the object of attention of many courtiers as well as the king. Indeed, Carr was so inundated with well-wishers that James was obliged to order a restraint, ‘lest it might retard his recovery’.35 Secret Hist. of the Ct. of Jas. I, i. 375-7; Wilson, 54-5; ‘Narrative Hist.’, Somers Tracts, ii. 268.

It was clear that the straw-haired Carr had captivated the heart of the king, who had a weakness for handsome young men. He initially expressed his affection with small grants of money and land. In May 1607 he ordered that two manors in Ireland, confiscated from rebels, be conveyed to Carr.36 CSP Ire. 1606-8, pp. 154-5. Six months later, Carr was awarded a yearly rent charge of £600 for 15 years.37 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 385. However, these gifts were merely the beginning. On Christmas Eve he knighted his young companion, and appointed him a gentleman of the bedchamber.38 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, iii. 338; Stowe 169, f. 248. Three months later, as the anniversary of Carr’s accident approached, James bestowed upon his new favourite ‘a tablet of gold, set with diamonds’, worth £300.39 F. Devon, Issues of the Exchequer, 81. He also subsequently gave him an annual pension of £800.40 HMC Hatfield, xx. 305.

These ever greater marks of favour transformed Carr’s position at court. The king’s chief minister, Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, began to cultivate the young man, directing letters to Carr for delivery to James. In November 1608 he urged the king to bestow upon Carr the Dorset estate of Sherborne, confiscated from the disgraced Sir Walter Ralegh^‡. James was delighted at this suggestion, as Sherborne was worth £25,000 p.a. However, this idea had already been planted in his mind by Salisbury’s rival, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton,41 Ibid. 150, 269. On the value of Sherborne, see Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, vi. 116. who was no less eager than Salisbury to ingratiate himself with the young Scot. In this war to win Carr’s affections, Northampton had one key advantage over Salisbury, for his family, like Carr’s father, had suffered for the cause of Mary, queen of Scots. He could also point to the fact that, during the 1570s, his brother-in-law Charles Neville^†, 6th earl of Westmorland, had received shelter and assistance from Carr’s father. Not surprisingly, therefore, it was Northampton rather than Salisbury to whom Carr eventually gravitated.

James granted Carr the Sherborne estate in January 1609.42 C54/2014; Chamberlain Letters, i. 280. However, for reasons that remain unclear (but which may owe something to the opposition of Prince Henry), the conveyance failed to take effect.43 R. Strong, Henry, Prince of Wales, 33. In April 1610 James ordered that Carr be given £20,000 cash by way of compensation. This instruction horrified Salisbury, now lord treasurer, who was then in the midst of trying to rescue the royal finances with the aid of Parliament. In order to persuade James to moderate his generosity, he had his servants lay out £5,000 in gold for the king. When James learned that the sum before him represented only a quarter of the amount he had promised Carr, he was so shocked that he cancelled the former grant and ordered the favourite to content himself with just £5,000.44 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, ii. 344-5. Carr was furious at being thus short-changed, and determined to revenge himself upon Salisbury at the first opportunity. In the meantime, he tried without success to persuade James to bestow upon him the lands and possessions of the Catholic peer Anthony Maria Browne^*, 2nd Viscount Montagu, after learning that Montagu had urged the pope to create bishops for England.45 Letters of Thomas FitzHerbert 1608-10 ed. L. Hicks (Cath. Rec. Soc. xli), 6n. He also set his sights on acquiring the office of prothonotary of King’s Bench, worth £4,000 a year. This position was currently held by the elderly Sir John Roper^* (later 1st Lord Teynham), but the reversion was owned by James Elphinstone, 1st Lord Balmerinoch [S], who proved only too eager to accommodate the favourite, having recently been condemned as a traitor.46 Elphinstone Fam. Bk. ed. W. Fraser, ii. 182-3; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 172-3; SP14/54/10; Chamberlain Letters, i. 331.

It was not until early December 1610 that Carr sought revenge on Salisbury. Even then, he only did so on learning that the lord treasurer was plotting with James Hay, now Lord Hay, to drive a wedge between himself and Northampton.47 CUL, Dd.iii.63, f.22. After noticing a sharp outbreak of hostility towards the Scots among Members of the House of Commons, he spread a report that the lower House was about to demand that James send home those Scots ‘who so much consumed their supplies’. He thereby hoped that an enraged James would immediately dissolve Parliament, thereby putting an end to Salisbury’s increasingly desperate attempts to persuade the Commons to vote supply, and damaging beyond repair the lord treasurer’s reputation, which was already in tatters following the collapse of the Great Contract. In the event, matters did not proceed as Carr planned, as James did not act precipitately, but ordered an investigation instead. As a result, it was not long before Salisbury discovered that Carr had sought to undermine him. Wisely, perhaps, the lord treasurer refrained from complaining to James, who continued to dote on the favourite. Instead, he tried to mend his fences with Carr, who responded in mid December by thanking the lord treasurer, and promising ‘to owe much of my fortune to your care and favour’.48 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 263-5, 270.

Although Carr had tried to sabotage the Parliament, he himself benefited from its sitting. Early in the proceedings, in March 1610, an act was passed granting him naturalized status.49 CJ, i. 403b; LJ, ii. 562b. This not only removed any lingering doubt regarding his status, it also suggested that the king was contemplating integrating Carr fully into English society by admitting him to the ranks of the English nobility. A recent precedent for admitting a Scot to the English peerage existed, as five years earlier James Hay had been granted an English barony. However, Hay had been denied the right to sit in the House of Lords. James intended to place no such restrictions upon Carr.

One obstacle to the admission of Carr to the English nobility was presented by George Home, earl of Dunbar [S]. Dunbar had long been the king’s most trusted Scottish adviser, and might feel hurt if Carr was granted admission to the English nobility and he was excluded. However, in January 1611 Dunbar died, thereby removing a potential source of difficulty. A further problem was posed by the English Parliament, where anti-Scots feelings ran high. However, this difficulty also disappeared early in 1611, as the assembly was dissolved in February, leaving James free to deliver a snub to his English critics. Consequently, in March 1611 Carr was created Viscount Rochester, to the intense displeasure of many English observers.50 CSP Ven. 1610-13, pp. 135-6. The following month James further antagonized anti-Scottish feeling by nominating the favourite to the order of the Garter, the premier order of knighthood in England, and in June the new Viscount Rochester was also installed as keeper of the palace of Westminster. This appointment came at a price to the royal finances, however, as the previous incumbent, Thomas Knyvett^*, Lord Knyvett, had only agreed to surrender this office in return for a payment of £2,000.51 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 43; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 104.

Rochester had won over the king, heart and soul, but shrewdly he realized that his long term future was likely to depend upon securing the friendship of the prince of Wales. Prince Henry was eight years Rochester’s junior, and, without careful handling, might easily come to regard the favourite as an unwelcome rival for his father’s affections. Rochester therefore took great pains to cultivate the prince, even changing his tailors many times in order to please Henry, who soon became as captivated with the favourite as James. Before long the two young men were to be found strolling together arm in arm, with Henry pinching the cheeks of his friend and smoothing his ruffled clothes.52 J. Harington, Nugae Antiquae ed. T. Park, i. 392. In March 1612, Rochester was on such good terms with the prince that the latter included him in the team which competed in running at the ring against another led by the king’s second cousin, Ludovic Stuart^*, 2nd duke of Lennox (later duke of Richmond).53 Chamberlain Letters, i. 339-40.

Although Rochester made short work of winning over Prince Henry, it was a different story with respect to the queen, Anne of Denmark. Anne showed a marked distaste for Rochester, whose sexual appeal to her husband was embarrassingly obvious. In late May 1611 she laughed contemptuously at Rochester and his close friend, Sir Thomas Overbury, while the two men were walking in the garden at Greenwich. They responded in kind, whereupon Anne complained to the king, who banished Overbury from court. Unhappy that his friend had been singled out for punishment, Rochester rebuked James for giving way to the rage of a jealous woman. Until he was righted, he declared, he would share in Overbury’s misfortune. James, however, could not back down immediately, and was forced, for the time being, to shelve plans to bestow an earldom on Rochester. Nevertheless, over the late summer, and after repeated badgering by Rochester, he gradually allowed Overbury to resume his place at court, to the fury of Anne, who was not reconciled to the favourite until the spring of 1612.54 HMC Downshire, iii. 83, 138-9. For the rumour, circulating in early May, that Rochester would soon become earl of Devonshire, see HMC Rutland, i. 431; Stowe 172, f. 28r-v.

Shortly before this storm blew up, in April 1612, Rochester was appointed to the English Privy Council. It seems likely that Prince Henry had a hand in this promotion, for, shortly thereafter, Rochester seconded the prince when Henry asked the king (without success) for the right to preside over the Council.55 Strong, 34. Appointment to the Council indicated that James now regarded Rochester as more than merely his mignon. It suggested that he thought him capable of participating in the business of government. Following the death of Salisbury in May 1612, James contemplated naming Rochester to the commission which took over the running of the Exchequer.56 CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 376. However, he eventually decided against the idea, perhaps because Rochester had little experience of handling large sums of money.

Rochester himself was eager to obtain high office. By late May he was in the throes of negotiating with the elderly Edward Somerset, 4th earl of Worcester, for the mastership of the horse.57 HMC Downshire, iii. 306. This position, though relatively junior, would serve his turn very well until such time as his ally, the earl of Northampton, became lord treasurer, whereupon he intended to succeed Northampton as lord privy seal.58 Chamberlain Letters, i. 359-60. However, Rochester was disconcerted to discover that William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, claimed that the mastership of the horse had been promised to him long since. Although this was denied by James, by early August Rochester and Pembroke were reportedly ‘so far out that it is almost come to a quarrel’. Rochester was also dismayed to learn that Worcester wanted an exorbitant sum for surrendering his interest. The disgusted favourite declared that he would rather wait until the office fell vacant than ‘give unreasonably for it’.59 Letters from Redgrave Hall ed. D. MacCulloch (Suff. Rec. Soc. l), 94-5; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 191.

These encounters with Pembroke and Worcester left Rochester feeling bruised. Pembroke had claimed publicly that Rochester was seeking to deprive him of his rights, while at the same time it was rumoured that Rochester had tried to brow-beat Worcester into submission. Wounded by these allegations, Rochester wrote to his friend Northampton denying that he had behaved dishonourably. He had not sought the mastership of the horse, he declared, but had been invited by the king to approach Worcester. Once the latter had stated his terms, Rochester had withdrawn rather than ‘invade the right of any’. Sensitivity to the rights of others, he claimed, characterized his dealings at court. After all, had he not refused the offer of Cobham Hall, forfeited to the crown on the attainder of Henry Brooke^†, 11th Lord Cobham? Moreover, he had refused the offer of Sir John Roper to trade the prothonotaryship of King’s Bench for a peerage, ‘because I would not set titles to sale for my private end’. He prided himself on being ‘the courtier who never took bribe’.

There was, of course, more than a grain of truth in all of this. The sale of peerages, for example, was a trade that only began after Rochester’s fall from power. However, it would be naïve to overlook the favourite’s grasping nature. He had, after all, tried to obtain for himself both the Sherborne estate and the lands of the 2nd Viscount Montagu. It would also be unwise to assume that Rochester’s letter was intended solely for Northampton. Copies are to be found in numerous manuscript collections, indicating that it enjoyed a wide circulation.60 Aside from the copy printed in extenso in Letters from Redgrave Hall, see Egerton Pprs. ed. J.P. Collier (Cam. Soc. xii), 454-6; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 151; I. Temple, Petyt ms 538, vol. 36, f. 81v; Harl. 354, ff. 43-4. This in turn suggests that, between them, Rochester and Northampton moved quickly to repair the damage to the favourite’s reputation.

Rochester’s failure to secure the mastership of the horse was not the only serious setback experienced by the favourite in 1612. Following the death of Salisbury in May, competition for the office of principal secretary of state was fierce. Rochester supported the candidacy of Sir Henry Neville^‡ against Sir Henry Wotton^‡, who enjoyed the backing of the queen and Prince Henry. In return for the secretaryship Neville, whose connections among former Members of the Commons were impressive, promised to manage a future Parliament for the king. However, James, though initially tempted by this offer, took fright after learning that former Parliament-men were flocking to Neville at Rochester’s Whitehall apartment. Declaring that he would not have a secretary foisted upon him by Parliament, James rebuffed Neville, doubtless to the dismay of Rochester, whose support for Sir Henry had thus far succeeded only in antagonizing both the queen and Prince Henry.61 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 41.

Although James refused to confer the secretaryship upon Neville, Rochester could console himself with the thought that the king also declined to appoint anyone else. For the favourite this presented an opportunity. As early as November 1611 Rochester had been acting as the king’s amanuensis, and now, in July 1612, the secretary’s seals were delivered to him for safe-keeping.62 CSP Dom. 1611-19, p. 95; HMC Downshire, iii. 377, 344. By August it was being reported that Neville, who was once more in the running, would serve as secretary under Rochester himself.63 Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead ed. M.C. Questier (Cam. Soc. 5th ser. xii), 192. This was perhaps somewhat fanciful, but over the coming months Rochester, who continued to advance the cause of Neville,64 HMC Buccleuch, i. 114. was transformed into secretary of state de facto, if not de jure. By September 1613 he was so comfortable with this arrangement that it was reported that he ‘means not to leave his hold ... for ... by degrees he may as well grow into the title as he hath done the possession, and commit the managing of ordinary matters to underlings and substitutes’.65 Chamberlain Letters, i. 474.

For reasons now unknown, Rochester incurred James’s displeasure in December 1612. However, he made up for his misdemeanour by tenderly administering to the king after the latter was afflicted with a pain in his right side.66 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 161; CSP Ven. 1610-13, pp. 471-2. James was so delighted at this display of affection that he secretly arranged for lands in Northamptonshire, previously granted to Rochester in capite, to be re-conveyed to the favourite in common socage, so that they were no longer liable for wardship. He also ordered that Rochester was to receive the Essex lands of Thomas Darcy^*, 3rd Lord Darcy of Chiche, which, for want of male heirs, were likely to escheat to the crown on the latter’s death.67 HEHL, EL1479; SO3/5, unfol. (Dec. 1612).

Marriage to Frances Howard, 1613

On 21 Apr. 1613 the Council ordered the lieutenant of the Tower to take into custody Rochester’s closest friend and confidant, Sir Thomas Overbury.68 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 181. Eight days later, Rochester was conspicuous by his absence from the annual St George’s Day feast, held at Windsor.69 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, ii. 22; Bodl., Ashmole 1108, f. 89. To the world at large, it looked as though Rochester had fallen into disgrace. In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth. Rochester was merely unwell, and early in May James assured the Council that he ‘took more delight and contentment’ in his company and conversation than in that of ‘any man living’.70 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, ii. 21; Chamberlain Letters, i. 444, 448-9.

Rochester was secretly pleased at the arrest of Overbury. For some time he had been courting Frances Howard, the daughter of the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk. In this romantic pursuit he had been assisted, at least initially, by Overbury, who composed a series of love letters for his friend. However, Rochester had subsequently fallen in love with Frances, and hoped to marry her. Overbury was appalled, as he hated the entire Howard clan, as did many of the allies he had been assiduously cultivating, among them Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton. Moreover, Frances was already married to Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex. Far from giving Rochester his blessing, Overbury took every available opportunity to denigrate both Frances and her family. Matters came to a head early one morning in March 1613. Returning to his rooms at Whitehall, having paid a nocturnal visit on Frances, Rochester was confronted by Overbury, who demanded to know whether he would ‘never leave the company of that base woman?’ Did he not realize that by continuing his liaison with Frances, he was putting at risk everything he had obtained from the king? If Rochester would not end the relationship, Overbury no longer desired to be associated with him. Indeed, from now on, he declared, Rochester could stand on his own two feet. Not surprisingly, Rochester was deeply angry at being threatened, and announced that he would have little trouble in looking after himself.71 A. Somerset, Unnatural Murder, 85-6, 125.

Although he affected to be unconcerned by Overbury’s threat, Rochester was in fact deeply worried. Overbury had concrete evidence that Frances was guilty of adultery. Were he to reveal what he knew, there was little likelihood that Frances would receive a sympathetic hearing when she asked the king to annul her marriage on the grounds that Essex had failed to consummate the relationship. At the very least, Overbury might incite Essex to contest the suit once it came to a hearing.72 Ibid. 126. It was therefore imperative that he be silenced as quickly as possible. Fortunately for Rochester, help was at hand in the form of the earl of Northampton. For some time Northampton had been dismayed by the hatred that existed between his nephew Suffolk, and Rochester. This enmity had poisoned the atmosphere at court, where Suffolk’s supporter vied with Rochester and his clients for the succession to the secretaryship.73 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, ii. 19. An alliance between Rochester and Suffolk, brokered by Northampton, would create a powerful triumvirate. Sometime in mid April, Northampton (or so it would seem) proposed that Overbury be sent abroad on ambassadorial duty. James had little liking for Overbury, as there had long been an unfortunate impression ‘that Rochester ruled him and Overbury ruled Rochester’, and therefore readily agreed to the suggestion.74 Chamberlain Letters, i. 443. For the popular perception of Overbury’s influence, see also Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead, 225. When Overbury, who sensed that an attempt was being made to put him out of harm’s way, refused the assignment, he was sent to the Tower for contempt.

Following Overbury’s arrest, Northampton revealed to the king that Rochester and Frances Howard were in love, and that Essex was impotent.75 Wilson, 67-8. At around the same time, Suffolk asked James to appoint a commission of inquiry to annul his daughter’s marriage.76 Somerset, 118; Harl. 39, f. 416r-v. James, who remained eager to please his favourite, saw the advantages of a union between Rochester and Suffolk, and readily agreed, appointing George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, to head the desired commission. Meanwhile, in order to prevent Overbury from influencing the proceedings from his prison cell, Northampton had the lieutenant of the Tower, Sir William Waad^‡, replaced with Sir Gervase Elwes^‡, a man whom he could trust. Rochester was so satisfied with the course of events that he invited the officers of the Exchequer to take £25,000 in gold from a chest in his apartment to help meet the king’s expenses. This money was intended as a short term loan, repayable in 20 days, but given the extent of the crown’s financial difficulties it is not surprising that £20,000 was still outstanding in May 1615.77 Chamberlain Letters, i. 448, 480; SO3/6, unfol. (May 1615).

The annulment commissioners commenced work sometime during the second half of May. It quickly became clear that Essex, unwilling to admit to being impotent, intended to shift the blame for the failure to consummate his marriage to his wife. Instead of a swift end to the proceedings, as Rochester and Frances had hoped, the case was therefore likely to drag on for some time. The longer it went on, the greater was the risk that Overbury would somehow find a way of informing the court of Frances’ adultery. At the beginning of June, therefore, Frances set about poisoning Overbury’s food. Her instrument was one Richard Weston, who had previously conveyed messages between Rochester and herself during the time of their illicit affair, and who now, on the recommendation of Northampton, served as Overbury’s gaoler.78 5th DKR, appendix ii, 145; Somerset, 176-7.

It is not known when Rochester discovered that Frances and Northampton were engaged in murder, but it seems likely that he connived at their scheme, at the very least. It also seems clear that he cynically sought to cover his involvement by pressing the king, somewhat half-heartedly, to release his former friend. In November 1615, during the trial of Anne Turner, one of the accessories to Overbury’s murder, it was revealed by Weston’s friend John Simcock that Overbury looked to Rochester for his release, ‘but that lord does mock him, and never means to effect it’. Simcock, a credible witness (although his testimony would now be dismissed as hearsay), also revealed that Rochester told Weston to keep Overbury ‘safe’, for if Overbury were ever freed ‘he or I must die for it’. Rochester, however, coolly kept up his pretence right up until Overbury died in mid September, when he kept to his chamber, a public sign of grief.79 HMC Downshire, iv. 170, 205; Egerton Pprs. 471-2; Somerset, 307, 399-400. See also APC, 1613-14, p. 145.

Ten days after the death of Overbury, Frances’ marriage to Essex was annulled, thereby paving the way for Rochester to wed his lover and cement his alliance with Suffolk, with whom he now got along extremely well.80 D. Lindley, Trials of Frances Howard, 85. From the outset it was assumed that the favourite’s marriage to the lord chamberlain’s daughter would be preceded by Rochester’s elevation to an earldom. In part this was because, until recently, Frances Howard had enjoyed the status of a countess. However, it was also because of a quarrel between Rochester and the king’s second cousin, the duke of Lennox. In August 1613, Lennox, resentful that this fellow Scots Rochester and Hay had both secured membership of the English aristocracy, insisted on being created earl of Richmond. Such a promotion, however, would have the effect of leapfrogging the favourite, and therefore it was not surprising that Lennox’s demand sparked off a furious a quarrel with the favourite. Indeed, before long the two men were ‘almost past speaking kindness’.81 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 53. However, this disagreement was quickly smoothed over by the king, who agreed to Lennox’s demand while at the same time promising to raise Rochester to an English earldom.

Following Lennox’s creation as earl of Richmond (6 Oct. 1613), it became important to decide which title Rochester would adopt. One possibility was that he would become earl of Westmorland, this title having fallen into abeyance in 1571. Over the autumn, Rochester set about buying from the king lands that had formerly belonged to the 6th earl, worth £1,000 p.a. Part of the purchase price of £36,000 came from the money that Rochester had lent to the king the previous Easter, but the rest the favourite found himself.82 Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. 4th ser. xii), 56; Chamberlain Letters, i. 480. This was far less difficult than might be supposed, for despite having begun to amass a costly art collection,83 HMC Downshire, iii. 369. and despite also finally snapping up Sherborne,84 Berks. RO, D/EN F44/4; HMC Buccleuch, i. 115. Rochester was a careful husband of his financial resources, and had no large London house to maintain. Moreover, he was now enormously wealthy, having been enriched by the king over the last five years. Indeed, as recently as 8 Oct. 1613 James granted him for 21 years the sole right to provide the royal household with Rhenish and Gascon wine, a monopoly which yielded him a profit of £900 p.a.85 The lease was made out to Sir John Dackombe^‡, in trust for Rochester: C54/2162/2; E124/25, f. 100. For the profits, see Eg. 2978, f. 316; Univ. London, Goldsmiths’ Lib., ms 195, i. f. 33. Rochester also benefited financially by reaching agreement with Sir Thomas Savage^* (later 1st Viscount Savage), who had married the sole heir of Lord Darcy of Chiche, regarding the descent of Lord Darcy’s lands. Savage paid the favourite no less than £24,000 in order to secure his wife’s right to inherit some of these properties.86 Chamberlain Letters, i. 489; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 212.

Rochester was pressed to assume the Westmorland title by Northampton, whose brother-in-law had been the last earl. However, the favourite was reluctant to follow this advice, as the 6th earl’s son and heir refused to accept his loss of status and continued to use the Westmorland title himself from the safety of the Continent. He therefore chose to be known as earl of Somerset.87 CUL, Dd.xiii.63, f. 54r-v. The reason for this is not entirely clear, but the earldom of Somerset, unlike that of Westmorland, had royal connotations. John Beaufort, the eldest of the three illegitimate sons of John of Gaunt, had been earl of Somerset, as had Henry Fitzroy^†, duke of Richmond, the bastard son of Henry VIII. Moreover, Edward Seymour^†, uncle of Edward VI, had been created duke of Somerset in 1547. If these royal connotations did indeed influence Rochester’s decision, then it means that, by the autumn of 1613 at the latest, the favourite had come to regard himself as an associate member of the royal family. This would not be altogether surprising, perhaps, as Rochester’s successor as favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, later underwent the self-same transformation.

A warrant to prepare a patent creating Rochester earl of Somerset was issued on 20 October.88 SO3/5, unfol. The patent itself was completed on 3 Nov. following, by which time the king announced that he intended to bestow the office of lord treasurer of Scotland – vacant since the death of Dunbar – on the favourite.89 HMC Downshire, iv. 242; CSP Ven. 1613-15, p. 68. This position was highly symbolic, for at long last Rochester had been accorded the high office he craved. It also raised his profile in his native Scotland.90 Wilson, 55. However, it was not particularly valuable, nor did it result in an increase in his workload, as the duties involved were largely discharged by deputy. The ceremony creating Rochester an earl was held on 4 Nov. in the Banqueting House. During these proceedings, Rochester was assisted by six earls, among them Northampton.91 Chamberlain Letters, i. 485.

Now that he had been elevated to an earldom, there was nothing to prevent Somerset from marrying Frances Howard. After a brief period of indecision over the venue – Suffolk seems to have favoured using his newly built house at Audley End - it was decided to hold the wedding on St Stephen’s day in the Chapel Royal, and that the cost would be borne by the king.92 Ibid.; HMC Downshire, iv. 259, 267. The occasion was suitably splendid, and was followed by a feast in the Banqueting Hall and the performance of three masques. Gifts worth an estimated £100,000 were showered on the couple, the king having previously announced that generosity to Somerset would be construed as proof of the giver’s love of the monarch.93 HMC 2nd Rep. 18; Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead, 270. However, rumours that the occasion would see Somerset become marquess of Orkney proved to be groundless.94 HMC Downshire, iv. 252, 267.

The Addled Parliament, promotion, and the rise of Villiers, 1614-15

Somerset’s marriage took place against the backdrop of negotiations for a French bride for Prince Charles (Stuart,^* later prince of Wales). The chief advocate of a French marriage at court was Lennox, whose mother was French. However, Somerset, like his close ally and mentor Northampton, favoured a Spanish infanta instead.95 Archaeologia, xli. 152. Consequently, as late as mid January 1614, the Spanish ambassador, Don Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, said that Somerset was trying to prevent a French marriage.96 Add. 31111, f. 39. Somerset’s position changed, however, on the sudden return to England later that month of Sir Thomas Edmondes^‡, ambassador to Paris. Edmondes brought with him promising terms, and the favourite, not wishing to be on the losing side, immediately switched his support to Lennox.97 Add. 32023B, f. 185r-v. By contrast, Somerset’s father-in-law, Suffolk, tried to have Edmondes punished for returning to England without leave.98 S. Adams, ‘The Protestant Cause: Religious Alliance with the West European Calvinist Communities as a Political Issue in Eng. 1585-1630’ (Oxford Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1973), 261.

Somerset’s belated decision to abandon his support for a Spanish Match undoubtedly strained his relationship with Suffolk. Their alliance was placed under further tension by their inability to agree over the choice of successor to Salisbury as secretary of state. Previously Somerset had backed Sir Henry Neville for this position, whereas Suffolk wanted the office filled by one of his own clients, Sir Thomas Lake^‡. In December 1613, Somerset transferred his support to Sir Ralph Winwood^‡, England’s ambassador to The Hague, who helped make the arrangements for the favourite’s wedding to Frances Howard.99 Chamberlain Letters, i. 492; HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 819. For Suffolk, however, the pro-Dutch Winwood was no less objectionable than Neville. Nevertheless, in February 1614 Somerset and Suffolk briefly made common cause. They both agreed to support Neville after the king decided, on the advice of Suffolk and Pembroke, to summon another Parliament.100 Cott., Titus F.IV, f. 340; HMC Buccleuch, i. 148. This sudden unity occurred because Neville had promised that, if appointed secretary, he would use his considerable influence and connections to manage a Parliament on behalf of the king. However, neither Somerset nor Suffolk had any real intention of helping Neville to the secretaryship. Their offers of support were merely designed to persuade Neville to devise a scheme for managing a Parliament. When push came to shove, in late March, Somerset backed Winwood, while Suffolk supported Lake. The competition between them was so fierce that they came perilously close to falling out. Perhaps not surprisingly, it was Somerset, whose influence over James was greater than ever, rather than Suffolk who prevailed. However, the successful candidate, Winwood, was dismayed to discover that he was denied the seals of office, despite having paid Somerset handsomely for his appointment. He was also not permitted to describe himself as principal secretary or open packets sent from abroad.101 HMC Downshire, iv. 340, 354, 385. For the rumours that Winwood paid Somerset for the office, see HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 820. Somerset had become accustomed to serving as acting secretary, and intended to continue doing so, despite being weighed down by other business.102 On Somerset’s inability to cope with the demands of the secretaryship, see HMC Downshire, iv. 319. Winwood, though titular holder of the office, would be little more than a cipher.

Somerset had never exercised influence over parliamentary elections before, and therefore called upon the Navy Treasurer, Sir Robert Mansell^‡, to manage his rather limited electoral patronage for him. The chief borough in which Somerset could claim an interest was that of Rochester, in north Kent, where he had been granted ownership of the castle by the king in July 1611.103 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 52. On 23 Feb., four days after the writs of election were issued, Mansell informed Somerset that Rochester had agreed to elect the earl’s nominee to its premier seat.104 Gent. Mag. (1826), i. 484. Somerset subsequently chose as his candidate Sir Edwin Sandys^‡. This was a surprising choice, perhaps, as Sandys was hated by the king for having led the Commons’ opposition to the proposed union of England and Scotland between 1604 and 1607. However, Somerset may have hoped that, by endorsing Sandys, Sir Edwin would prove more amenable to the crown’s interests in the forthcoming assembly. In the event, Sandys almost failed to secure the Rochester seat, as Somerset’s letter of nomination arrived too late.105 Staffs. RO, D593/S4/60/11. It was only because the successful candidate, Sir Anthony Aucher^‡, resigned his place, that Sandys finally prevailed. Sandys seems to have been the only Member elected to the Commons in 1614 who owed his seat to Somerset, although Mansell initially had high hopes of a nomination at another, unnamed borough.

When Parliament opened on 5 Apr., Somerset discharged the duties of the master of the horse – which office he still coveted – in the absence of the earl of Worcester. These included leading a spare mount in the procession to Parliament.106 Harl. 5176, f. 219; ‘Camden Diary’, 10. His selection for this task led the newsletter-writer John Chamberlain to observe that Somerset ‘hath already the possession of that office as it were by anticipation’.107 Chamberlain Letters, i. 522. Although he was sitting in Parliament for the first time, Somerset was appointed by the crown one of the triers of petitions for Gascony and England’s overseas territories, a largely honorific position but one which signified royal favour. He also held the proxy of Francis Norris^*, 1st Lord Norreys.

Somerset missed four of the ten sittings of the Lords before the House rose for Easter on 19 April. During this period he made no recorded speeches and was appointed to three committees. The first was to consider a bill to prevent the wasteful consumption of gold and silver, a measure with which he is unlikely to have had much sympathy, given his love of fashion. His second appointment was to confer with the Commons on the bill to naturalize, and thus ensure the succession rights of, the children of the Elector Palatine. His final appointment before Easter was to consider a bill to prevent lawsuits regarding property bequeathed by testators.108 LJ, ii. 691a, 692a, 694a.

When Parliament reconvened after the holiday, Somerset’s attendance was no more impressive than it had been before Easter, as the earl missed nine of the 19 sittings. However, his longest period of absence – six consecutive sittings, beginning on 7 May – was probably necessitated by his wife, whom he adored and who fell ill at around this time.109 Chamberlain Letters, i. 534-5. It was probably during this time that he gave his proxy to Philip Wharton^*, 3rd Lord Wharton.110 HMC Hastings, IV, 284. As before Easter, Somerset made no recorded speeches, but, during the debate on whether to confer with the Commons on the subject of impositions, he sided with his father-in-law Suffolk, who voted (in accordance with the king’s wishes) not to do so.111 Chamberlain Letters, i. 533. His only committee was to consider the bill to preserve timber. On 7 June he served as a commissioner for the dissolution.112 LJ, ii. 697b, 717a.

Shortly after the Parliament ended, Somerset’s friend and mentor, Northampton, died. Although he left most of his lands to his Howard kinsmen, Northampton did not forget Somerset, to whom he bequeathed his second best george.113 HMC 5th Rep. 408b. He also urged the favourite ‘to stay, with all the power you can’, the conferring of his office of lord warden of the Cinque Ports on either the earl of Pembroke or Robert Sidney^*, Viscount Lisle (later 1st earl of Leicester), both of whom he detested.114 CUL, Dd.iii.63, f. 16. Within days of Northampton’s death, it was rumoured that Somerset had procured not only the wardenship for himself, but also Northampton’s chief office, that of lord privy seal.115 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, ii. 40, 41; HMC Downshire, iv. 432; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 325; Chamberlain Letters, i. 542. In fact, these reports were misleading. Although the king entrusted him with custody of the privy seal, and announced that he would discharge the duties of the lord warden, Somerset was never formally appointed to either position. Like the secretaryship, Somerset occupied both offices de facto rather than de jure. One reason for this, perhaps, was that James wished to leave the way clear to appoint others should Somerset, who was already struggling to manage his duties as acting principal secretary, find himself overwhelmed. Another reason was that, during the second half of June, the king decided to elevate Suffolk to the treasury and to bestow the latter’s office of lord chamberlain on Somerset.116 Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, ii. 41. At a stroke, Somerset was propelled into one of the most important offices of state. It was an astonishing decision, not least because Somerset already had more than enough on his plate. However, on 10 July James attempted to forestall any criticism by announcing that ‘no man should marvel that he bestowed a place so near himself [i.e. the chamberlainship] upon his friend, whom he loved above all men’.117 Chamberlain Letters, i. 548.

Somerset’s appointment as lord chamberlain certainly dismayed Pembroke. Earlier that year, ahead of the meeting of Parliament, he and Suffolk had agreed to divide the offices of lord treasurer and lord chamberlain between them.118 HMC Downshire, iv. 296. Now that the Parliament had ended, and Suffolk no longer had any use for him, Pembroke found himself unceremoniously discarded (not for the first time as he supposed) in favour of the upstart Scot. In vain he renewed his earlier attempt to compound with Worcester for the mastership of the horse. He also appealed to the king, who offered to find him some other position, a promise which proved to be entirely worthless.119 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 336, 339.

Somerset was now at the height of his powers. Not only was he lord chamberlain, he was also, as Neil Cuddy has observed, ‘Lord High Everything Else’.120 N. Cuddy, ‘Revival of the Entourage’, English Court: from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War ed. D. Starkey et al., 213. In September the groom of the stole, Thomas Erskine, Viscount Fentoun [S], described him as ‘more absolute than ever’. The following month the Venetian ambassador observed that Somerset was the man ‘with whom the king decides everything and in whom his Majesty confides above all others’. However, Somerset’s continued pre-eminence was far from guaranteed. In early August, while staying at the Northamptonshire seat of Sir Anthony Mildmay, the king encountered the 24-year old George Villiers. Taller, younger and more handsome than Somerset, Villiers immediately captivated James, who remained as susceptible to beautiful, charming young men as ever. Villiers’ appeal was quickly noticed at court by Somerset’s fellow Scots, many of whom resented the fact that Somerset regarded himself as an honorary Englishman.121 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 73. The young Englishman also attracted the support of George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, who hated the Howards and their affinity. In November, Abbot and a Scottish gentleman of the bedchamber named Sir John Graham, tried to have Villiers sworn in as a groom of the bedchamber. However, they were thwarted by Somerset, who instead conferred the vacant position on his nephew, William Carr^‡.122 Letters of John Donne ed. E. Gosse, ii. 61; HMC Downshire, v. 58; Chamberlain Letters, i. 559. Undeterred, Villiers performed in a masque at court over Christmas, and stole the show.123 Letters of John Donne, ii. 65; Lincs. AO, 10ANC/Lot338.

Initially, at least, it was possible to suppose that Villiers posed no threat to Somerset. Fentoun, for instance, observed that the young Englishman would merely ‘kindle a new fire’ rather than ‘extinguish the old one’.124 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 59. Moreover, James was anxious to reassure Somerset that his position was safe. Indeed, it was with his blessing that William Carr rather than Villiers had been appointed to the bedchamber.125 Letters of King Jas. VI and I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 336. However, James’s attraction to Villiers served to embolden Somerset’s enemies. In February 1615 the Lord Chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley), a close ally of Archbishop Abbot, refused to issue a patent to the favourite’s friend and ally Sir William Uvedale^‡, even though Somerset had informed Ellesmere that Uvedale had ‘a priority of my affections and of my care’.126 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 599; J. Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors (1848), ii. 251-2. The following month, after James admired Villiers’ performance in a play at Cambridge, Pembroke secretly met the 1st earl of Hertford (Edward Seymour^*) and the 3rd earl of Bedford (Edward Russell^*) at his Thames-side residence of Baynard’s Castle, and plotted to topple Somerset and replace him with Villiers. The conspirators agreed to buy for Villiers a cupbearer’s place, which they did the following day.127 D. Lloyd, State Worthies (1670), 844. At around this time, Pembroke also bought the impoverished young man a suit of new clothes.128 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, i. 86.

By the spring of 1615 at the latest it was clear to Somerset that Villiers posed a real threat. In April, after Villiers boxed the ears of one of Somerset’s servants, the favourite persuaded the king to remove Sir John Graham from his position in the bedchamber. However, his revenge was short-lived, as Graham’s dismissal merely created a vacancy which Villiers proceeded to fill. Supported by Abbot and the queen (who still hated Somerset), the young Englishman was sworn a gentleman of the bedchamber on 23 Apr. and knighted the following day.129 GEORGE VILLIERS. To make matters worse, at around the same time the queen and her allies blocked an attempt to elect Somerset’s brother-in-law, Theophilus Howard^*, Lord Howard de Walden (later 2nd earl of Suffolk), to the order of the Garter.130 Stowe 175, f. 310.

Somerset was beside himself with rage, and vented his fury on the king, whom he accused of giving credit to those who sought to undermine him. Indeed, he was so angry that, despite James’s incessant pleading, he no longer slept in the king’s bedchamber, and showed James little kindness, even when the latter fell from his horse. He also threatened that if he could no longer hold the king in thrall by means of love he would do so by means of terror. James, although he allowed Somerset considerable freedom of speech, even to the point of permitting the favourite to rebuke him from time to time like his old schoolmaster, George Buchanan, was taken aback by this flood of anger, which ‘cannot come within the compass of any liberty of friendship’. Had he not shown his continued love for Somerset by admitting his nephew to the bedchamber and by dismissing Graham? Was Somerset not lord chamberlain, and was not his father-in-law lord treasurer? He had hoped, at first, to abate Somerset’s fury ‘with many gentle admonitions’, but, having been deprived of rest by the favourite’s ceaseless complaints, his patience was now exhausted. Somerset must demonstrate that he intended to amend his insolent behaviour. ‘Remember’, he wrote, ‘that all your being, except your breathing and soul, is from me’. While Somerset might lead James by the heart, he could not do so ‘by the nose’. ‘If ever I find that you think to retain me by one sparkle of fear’, he added, ‘all the violence of my love will in that instant be changed into as violent a hatred ... Hold me thus by the heart, you may build upon my favour as upon a rock that never shall fail you’.131 Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 335-40.

It seems unlikely that Somerset was greatly reassured by James’s letter, not least because the king denied the existence ‘of any such court factions as you have apprehended’. (In late April, Winwood remarked that he had never known the court ‘fuller of faction’.)132 Stowe 175, f. 310. In early July, fearing that his enemies would soon seek to discredit him by accusing him of some relatively minor crime, such as the stealing of crown jewels, he persuaded James to grant him a general pardon covering all offences short of murder or the causing of physical injury.133 CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 58. For the pardon, see CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 293. However, to his dismay, Ellesmere refused to seal this document. When, the following month, James publicly ordered Ellesmere to obey his instruction, the lord chancellor demanded to know whether it was the king’s intention to allow Somerset to help himself to the contents of Whitehall Palace, ‘since it was in the pardon that no account should be taken of him for anything’. These words struck home, as the pardon was never sealed, although it was also the case that the queen, hearing of what had happened, quietly persuaded her husband to think again.134 Archaeologia, xli. 166-8.

Somerset’s discomfiture over the pardon was compounded by a growing inability to retain control of the offices of which he was custodian. In May 1615 it was rumoured that James intended to bestow the lord wardenship of the Cinque Ports on Edward La Zouche, 11th Lord Zouche. On hearing this, Somerset ‘makes profession to hold it still’, but in mid July James appointed Zouche after one of Somerset’s dependents, Henry Gibb, misbehaved himself.135 Chamberlain Letters, i. 609. At around the same time, Winwood began to assume greater control of the secretaryship, as foreign packets were now addressed to him rather than Somerset. By the middle of July it was rumoured that he would soon receive the seals of his office, and by 24 Aug. Winwood believed that their delivery was imminent.136 HMC Downshire, v. 280, 288; Chamberlain Letters, i. 611.

Power was now fast slipping through Somerset’s fingers. His anger and coldness towards James, far from leading to the restoration of his former favour, succeeded only in driving the king into the arms of his rival, who was now being secretly bankrolled by Pembroke. Indeed, over the late summer, James finally took young Villiers into his bed. However, it was not Villiers who delivered the coup de grace but Winwood who, sometime over the summer, discovered from the imprisoned countess of Shrewsbury that Sir Thomas Overbury had been murdered, a fact she had gleaned from the loose-tongued lieutenant of the Tower, Sir Gervase Elwes. When Winwood confronted Elwes with the countess’ story, the lieutenant privately admitted that it was true, adding that he had been forced to connive in the murder which, he claimed, had been carried out on the orders of Somerset and his wife.137 HP Commons, 1604-29, vi. 824. Not surprisingly Winwood, resentful at the continued detention by Somerset of the seals of his office, immediately notified a horrified king, who, on or about 21 Aug., instructed Elwes to provide him with a written summary.138 Somerset, 289-90. For the summary, see HMC Buccleuch, i. 160.

Although Elwes’s summary made no mention of Somerset or his wife, it was clear that a thorough investigation into the circumstances of Overbury’s death was now warranted. The lord chief justice of King’s Bench, Sir Edward Coke^‡, quickly concluded that both Somerset and his wife were implicated. Early on the morning of 11 Oct., he rode to Royston to inform the king. Three hours later, Somerset himself arrived, having ridden from London on horseback rather by coach, ‘which his lordship doth not usually do’.139 M.F. Hervey, Life, Corresp. and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, 96. Shortly thereafter, Somerset was permitted to return to Whitehall, from where he issued an order to a messenger of the chamber five days later.140 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 315. However, James, who evidently bade the disgraced favourite an emotional farewell, also instructed Ellesmere, Lennox and Zouche to assist Coke with his investigation.141 Secret Hist. of Jas. I, i. 411-12; Somerset, 305. Roger Coke’s claim that Somerset was arrested at Royston in the king’s presence is nonsense: Coke, 87.

Somerset was so aghast that he was to be examined, and so outraged that Ellesmere, one of his bitterest enemies, was to be among the investigating commissioners, that he accused the king of partiality. James replied that Ellesmere was above reproach, and that the lord chancellor’s known antipathy could only redound to Somerset’s benefit for, were the favourite to be cleared by someone who hated him, his innocence would be apparent to all. However, James suspected that Somerset had something to hide, as he also remarked that ‘from the beginning of this business both your father-in-law and you have ever and at all times behaved yourselves quite contrary to the form that men that wish for the trial of the verity ever did in such a case’.142 Letters of King Jas. VI and I, 343-4. This observation was perceptive. On the evening of 17 Oct., after receiving a letter from the investigating commissioners confining him to his chambers, Somerset burned his letters to the late earl of Northampton, which had been returned to him by the latter’s former client, Sir Robert Cotton^‡.143 State Trials ed. T.B. Howell, ii. 987.

Trial and punishment, 1615-24

The day after he made a bonfire of his correspondence, Somerset was committed to the custody of the dean of Westminster (George Montaigne^*, later bishop of London) after it was discovered that he and his wife had sent a message of good to Anne Turner, one of their principal agents in the poisoning of Overbury. One week later, he was examined by the investigating commissioners, who subjected to him to a further interrogation on the 28th.144 ‘Camden Diary’, 14; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 317. However, the now disgraced favourite refused to answer, but instead offered to relay valuable information on other matters to the king. On 2 Nov. the commissioners, exasperated by these evasions, and finding the evidence against him compelling, ordered that Somerset be committed to the Tower. At the same time, the now former favourite was also deprived of the lord chamberlain’s staff of office, which he surrendered with very bad grace.145 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, i. 69-70; Surr. Hist. Cent., LM/COR/4/38; J. More Molyneux and J. Spedding, ‘Message from King Jas. I to the Earl of Somerset ...’, Archaeologia, xli. 75; CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 65.

It was initially intended that Somerset should stand trial on 5 December. However, by 4 Dec. at the latest it had been decided to postpone the arraignment, allegedly because other matters, aside from murder, were now to be laid at his door. These included the plundering of the royal jewels – the house of Sir Robert Cotton was raided and jewellery belonging to Somerset allegedly worth £60,000 was seized – and the taking of Spanish bribes (although others, such as Suffolk and the late earls of Northampton and Salisbury, were equally guilty of this offence). Somerset, however, could not bring himself to believe that he would ever stand trial. On the contrary, he told the new lieutenant of the Tower, Sir George More^‡, that it was only a matter of time before he was restored ‘to his wonted station and brightness’.146 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 152-3; CSP Ven. 1613-15, p. 79. Far from confessing his guilt to the investigating commissioners, he complained of hard dealing. A man of his quality, he argued, should not be held in the Tower, but placed in the keeping of some gentleman or other. After all, he had not been convicted of treason. And it was intolerable that James had not seen fit to end the judicial proceedings. Not surprisingly, in late December, these complaints drew from James a detailed response. It was entirely appropriate that Somerset had been incarcerated in the Tower, he said, as the principal offence of which he was suspected came very close to treason, Overbury having been the king’s own prisoner. James also observed that he had had little choice but to allow the judicial proceedings to run their course. Had he halted the investigation, ‘I might have been thought to have been the author of that murder, and so be made odious to all posterity’.147 Molyneux and Spedding, 75-8.

Somerset was formally charged on 19 Jan. 1616. The indictment claimed that he did ‘voluntarily ... incite and command, hire, aid and abet’ Richard Weston to murder Overbury.148 5th DKR, appendix ii. 145. Somerset was incredulous, for, as he later admitted, ‘I did not look for that way’. However, instead of confessing his crime, he admitted only to having contrived to have Overbury arrested, and asked Sir Edward Coke to acquaint the king with ‘certain petitions’. Coke duly passed these on, ‘although I know them not worthy of the time your Majesty shall bestow in reading of them’.149 State Trials, ii. 982-3; A. Amos, Great Oyer of Poisoning, 398.

On the face of it, Somerset’s astonishment at being charged, and his confidence that he would soon be restored to power, suggests that the disgraced favourite was out of touch with reality. However, there was, perhaps, another, more sinister explanation for this otherwise extraordinary behaviour: Somerset may have believed that James was bluffing, and that the king dared not put him on trial for fear of being incriminated. He intimated as much to James, who responded by observing that Somerset was trying to make him ‘in some sort accessory to his crime’. This fear, that Somerset would use his trial to incriminate the king, clearly exercised James’s legal advisers. Indeed, one of them suggested that if Somerset ‘should break forth into any speech of taxing the king’, he should not only be ordered to remain silent but also warned that, if he persisted, evidence against him would be heard in his absence.150 State Trials, ii. 962. James’s fear of what Somerset might say in the dock goes some way towards explaining why Somerset was not brought to trial for another four months. During this period, James tried, through various intermediaries, to persuade Somerset to admit his guilt. A full confession would obviate the need for a trial, he said, and would also allow mercy to be shown.151 Cabala Sive Scrinia Sacra (1663), 38; W. Bray, ‘Orig. Letters of King Jas. I to Sir George More’, Archaeologia, xviii. 356.

Another reason why the trial was delayed is that, by the end of February, the crown began to suspect that Overbury’s murder might not be the worst of Somerset’s crimes. It was rumoured that Somerset had also murdered Prince Henry, who had died suddenly in November 1612, and that he had been plotting with Spain to spirit away the late prince’s younger brother, Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales).152 State Trials, ii. 962. The crown needed time to discover whether there was truth in any of these wild accusations. For this reason, in early March, the findings of the ambassador to Madrid were eagerly awaited.153 Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 118. In fact, these fresh accusations were entirely without foundation. Nevertheless, as late as early May, Somerset was examined in respect of ‘the prince or some foreign practice’.154 Cabala Sive Scrinia Sacra (1663), 38. This undated letter by Bacon can be assigned to early May from internal evidence.

Postponement of Somerset’s trial might have continued almost indefinitely were it not for the fact that in April his wife decided to confess. At the time of her husband’s arrest, the countess of Somerset was heavily pregnant, and had therefore been spared imprisonment in the Tower. However, in March 1616, her baby having been delivered the previous December, she was conveyed to the Tower,155 Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 20; Bray, 358. where she was held separately from her husband. Within weeks of being incarcerated, Frances admitted her guilt, and although she also declined to incriminate Somerset, the Council felt confident enough on 24 Apr. to begin making arrangements for holding a trial on 15 May.156 Somerset, 454; APC, 1615-16, p. 504; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 126. This confidence proved to be well founded, for when, on 24 May, following a further postponement, the countess was tried, she pleaded guilty.

In the days leading up to his own trial on 25 May, Somerset began to panic. In desperation, he offered to reveal ‘secrets of great importance’ in return for the abandonment of the case.157 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 11. Moreover, the day before his trial, he announced to Sir George More that he would not attend. They would have to carry him to Westminster Hall in his bed, he declared, as he had been assured by the king that the matter would never come to trial, ‘neither durst the king bring him to trial’. James was immediately informed, and instructed the lieutenant to determine whether ‘this strange fit’ was the result of illness or merely a burst of histrionics.158 Secret Hist. of Jas. I, i. 421; Loseley Mss ed. A.J. Kempe, 405-6. The following morning More, persuaded that the latter was the case rather than the former, told Somerset he was prepared to carry him to his trial by force. In the event, it proved unnecessary to carry out this threat. Nevertheless, Somerset delayed so long that he arrived an hour or two late for the proceedings.159 HMC Downshire, v. 514.

Somerset cut a very sorry figure at his arraignment. Although he wore the emblem of the Garter, his features were pale, his beard was long, and his eyes were hollow.160 State Trials, ii. 967. After refusing the offer to confess, he was given pen and ink with which to take notes. Over the course of the next ten hours, he denied all the charges, and claimed that he was unacquainted with Richard Weston. He also condemned as forgeries incriminating letters by him, but then undermined his case by declining to provide a specimen of his handwriting. Not surprisingly, his arguments were found to be unconvincing, and he was pronounced guilty and sentenced to be hanged. On hearing the verdict, a panic-stricken Somerset protested that, through weakness of memory, he had forgotten to mention some pertinent facts, and that the jury had therefore condemned an innocent man. He was thereupon ordered to desist by Ellesmere, the lord high steward for the occasion, who advised him instead to beg for mercy. However, Somerset continued to protest his innocence.161 HMC Downshire, v. 510-11; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 4-6.

Following his trial, it was widely expected that Somerset would soon be executed. Indeed, during the first half of June, crowds gathered three times on Tower Hill in the hope of witnessing the spectacle.162 CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 372, 373; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 129. However, it quickly became clear that James, who disliked bloodshed, intended to spare the lives of both Somerset and his wife. He was not, as he explained to members of the Scottish nobility the following year, ‘like many other kings’. He was certainly not like Henry VIII, ‘who made up mignons to undo them for his own ends’. Instead, ‘those whom I once loved, I have no place to a hatred of them’.163 Corresp. of Sir Robert Kerr, First Earl of Ancram ed. D. Laing (Roxburghe Club, c), 5. This natural inclination towards clemency, coupled with residual feelings of affection for his former favourite, meant that James, far from inflicting severe punishment on Somerset, showed an extraordinary degree of kindness towards him. It is true that Somerset was stripped of his lands and possessions in England. It is also the case that the crown no longer considered him a peer - he was now referred to in official documents either as ‘the late’ earl or as Sir Robert Carr – even though felony and membership of the aristocracy were not normally regarded as mutually exclusive.164 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 385; 1619-23, p. 336; E124/25, f. 100. (Charles Stourton^†, 8th Lord Stourton, was executed for murder in 1557 without forfeiting his title, while James Tuchet^*, 1st Lord Audley, was not deprived of the earldom of Castlehaven on his conviction for felony in 1631.) However, Somerset’s lands and possessions in Scotland evidently escaped seizure, though they were certainly forfeit.165 NRS, GD156/2/12/47. On the liability of his Scottish lands to forfeiture, see GD40/2/12/4. (Despite being a younger son, Somerset had inherited some of his father’s lands, while James had granted him some miscellaneous properties in Scotland in 1610.)166 Reg. PC Scot. 1610-13, p. 232; Reg. Gt. Seal of Scot. 1609-20, pp. 79-81. Furthermore, in July James announced that Somerset was to remain a member of the order of the Garter, on the grounds that felony was not among the list of offences requiring a member to be expelled.167 ‘Camden Diary’, 19; Bodl., Ashmole 1108, f. 90v; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 381. In addition, after a brief period of close confinement, Somerset was permitted first to visit his wife in her lodgings, and then to move in with her.168 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 387; Carew Letters, 44, 60; HMC 7th Rep. 672b. Perhaps the king’s most extraordinary act of generosity was made in December 1616. James had already pardoned Somerset’s wife (in July),169 CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 381-2; State Trials, ii. 1008. and now offered not only to pardon Somerset himself, but also to return to him his personal estate, to bestow upon him lands worth £4,000 or £5,000 p.a., and to release him.170 HMC Downshire, vi. 68, 81; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 45.

James’s offer of a pardon was evidently conditional, meaning that, before it was given, Somerset would first have to admit his guilt, as Frances had done. However, to James’s consternation, Somerset remained unwilling to confess, and continued to plead his innocence, claiming that he had been condemned only because he had put up a poor defence.171 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 6; Cabala Sive Scrinia Sacra (1663), 221 (reprinted, but misdated, in King Jas. and Letters of Homoerotic Desire ed. D.M. Bergeron, 88-91). Not surprisingly, therefore, all talk of pardoning and releasing Somerset ended in late January 1617.172 For the last recorded occurrence of such talk, see HMC Downshire, vi. 101. However, James did not require a confession before restoring the fallen favourite to part of his former estate. In mid April, and despite the fact that the crown’s finances were now desperate, James ordered lands worth £3,000 p.a. to be transferred to Somerset. He also subsequently instructed the Exchequer to pay Somerset almost £6,000 in cash, part of which sum was due on the earl’s annuity.173 SO3/6, unfol. (Apr. and June 1617); HMC Downshire, vi. 262; CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 297. Perhaps James’s most generous gift to Somerset, made in August 1618, was the manor of Winwick, in Northamptonshire, worth around £900 p.a., which the earl promptly sold for £17,000 to the mother of William Craven^* (subsequently earl of Craven).174 SO3/6, unfol. (Aug. 1618); Bodl., Dep.Craven.Estates 74, acct. bk. 1618 to 1629/30, unfol., payments of 17 and 21 Apr. 1619. Little wonder, then, that in April 1618 Somerset was reported to be living ‘plentifully’ in the Tower.175 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 156.

Despite their wholly exceptional nature, these arrangements were not regarded by Somerset as final. On the contrary, he continued to hope that the judgement against him would be overturned, and that his former estate would be returned in its entirety.176 Somers Tracts, ii. 361-2. The latter expectation was wildly improbable, since many of Somerset’s land had long since been given away. Sherborne, for instance, had been granted to Sir John Digby^* (later 1st earl of Bristol), while the northern properties had been bestowed on Prince Charles.177 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 25; HMC Downshire, vi. 51. However, the former hope was not beyond the realms of possibility.

The first step towards exonerating Somerset was taken in January 1622, when George Villiers, now marquess of Buckingham, offered to buy Wallingford House, on the Strand, from William Knollys^*, Viscount Wallingford (later 1st earl of Banbury). The latter agreed to the sale, but only on condition that Somerset, his wife’s brother-in-law, was released. Since he had no reason to fear either the former favourite or the Howards – Suffolk had fallen from power less than four years earlier – Buckingham prevailed upon the king to issue the necessary order. However, Somerset and his wife were subsequently instructed to stay at one or other of Wallingford’s properties in Oxfordshire, there to remain until further order.178 Add. 72360, f. 24v; ‘Camden Diary’, 77; APC, 1621-3, p. 116; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 336. The Somersets thereupon moved to Wallingford’s principal house, known as Rotherfield Greys, where they remained until the beginning of July. Thereafter they resided, with permission, at Aldenham, in Hertfordshire, the seat of Henry Carey, 1st Viscount Falkland [S], who was related to Wallingford through the latter’s mother.179 APC, 1621-3, 279.

By the winter of 1623 Somerset was weary of living in another man’s property. In November he applied for permission to view a house in Surrey with an eye to purchasing it. James not only gave his consent, but also permitted the couple to view a second property in Surrey the following July. In the event, the Somersets rejected both houses in favour of another at Chiswick, which they purchased sometime before the middle of August 1624. At around the same time, the travel restrictions previously imposed on the pair were relaxed. Although still forbidden to come to court, Somerset and his wife were now free to travel where they willed.

It was against this backdrop that Somerset finally applied for a royal pardon.180 State Trials, ii. 1019. Significantly, his request was not accompanied by a confession. This is apparent because, in September 1624, his legal adviser, the former attorney general, Sir Henry Yelverton^‡, asked him whether the king was willing to allow him ‘to take benefit of a writ of error’.181 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 296. Astonishingly, in early October James not only issued the desired pardon but also authorized Somerset’s restoration to his former dignity.182 State Trials, ii. 1010-18; Rymer, vii. pt. 4, pp. 157-9; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 582. Why he did so is unclear. Perhaps he felt that he now had more important matters to worry about, such as marriage negotiations with France and the impending war with Spain. Perhaps too he now looked back wistfully at happy times shared with Somerset. This would not be entirely surprising, for by the summer of 1624 James’s relations with Buckingham were severely strained.

Later life, 1624-45

Somerset interpreted his pardon as evidence that the judgement against him had now been overturned. Although this was far from accurate, he lost no time in petitioning the king to restore the rest of his estate. James received the request sympathetically, telling its bearer, Sir Henry Gibb, ‘that what Somerset had to demand of him in that matter he should have it, if he had so much land in England’.183 Somers Tracts, ii. 361. However, no further lands were conveyed to Somerset prior to James’s death in March 1625.

The view that the former favourite had now been exonerated was not restricted to Somerset alone. In November 1624 Dudley Carleton^* (later Viscount Dorchester) claimed that the verdict reached in 1616 had now been overturned.184 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 390. This belief undoubtedly helped Somerset become reintegrated into English society. It was certainly not long before former clients, such as Sir Humphrey May^‡, now chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, came calling. In January 1625 he also received a visit from Sir George Goring^* (later 1st earl of Norwich), to whom he had lent £3,000 in April 1622, shortly after his release from the Tower. Goring was one of the clients of George Villiers, now 1st duke of Buckingham. On the face of it, Somerset had little reason to feel much warmth towards Buckingham, who had replaced him in the king’s affections. However, the latter had helped bring about his release from the Tower, and showed little sign of wanting to resume their earlier hostility. On the contrary, in late January, Buckingham asked to buy a particularly valuable sword from Somerset.185 NRS, handlist of Darnaway Castle, Moray mss, vol. xii, box 43, nos. 334-7, 344-5. On the loan to Goring, see Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, ii. 58; C2/Chas.I/S95/53; and also below. How long Somerset remained on cordial terms with Buckingham is unclear. However, in August 1625, while Parliament was sitting at Oxford, Sir Robert Phelips^‡, one of the leading Members of the Commons, compared the duke unfavourably with Somerset. Unlike Buckingham, he declared, Somerset had never ‘induced’ monopolies that grieved the people, or put titles of nobility up for sale.186 Procs. 1625, p. 558. Comparisons such as these were unlikely to endear Somerset to Buckingham.

Somerset himself was not summoned to the 1625 Parliament, nor was he initially invited to attend the 1626 assembly. It is possible that Buckingham was behind his exclusion, but it seems more likely that the new king, Charles I, whose coronation in February 1626 Somerset also did not attend, was the real culprit. Either way, the House of Lords took notice on 24 Apr. 1626 that Somerset had now received his writ.187 Manner of the Coronation of King Chas. I ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. li; Procs. 1626, i. 308. At the same time an attempt was made to persuade Charles to issue writs to two other excluded members, John Williams, bishop of Lincoln and John Digby, 1st earl of Bristol. There is no evidence that Somerset was summoned to Parliament in 1628, despite the fact that in May 1628 the earl of Melrose [S] claimed that a firm friendship had now developed between Somerset and Buckingham,188 NRS, GD40/2/15/3. whose need to pacify his enemies had become urgent. His report seems to have been accurate, for in early August Buckingham paid a visit on Somerset at Chiswick before travelling down to Portsmouth.189 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 387.

In June 1629, ten months after Buckingham’s murder, it was reported that Somerset and his wife were contemplating moving to Ireland. However, this plan seems to have been conditional on a marriage between the son and heir of Richard Boyle, 1st earl of Cork [I], and the Somersets’ 13 year-old daughter Anne, which never took place.190 Lismore Pprs. (ser. 1) ed. A.B. Grosart, ii. 329. A few months later, Somerset was shown a tract sent to the late Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, by Sir Robert Dudley, self-styled earl of Warwick, on the subject of raising money by the crown without reference to Parliament. Somerset became highly interested in this document, which was lent to him by his Chiswick neighbour, Francis Russell^*, 4th earl of Bedford, for not only did he make a copy, he also showed it to his friend, John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare. However, the Council came to hear of this, and suspected Somerset of telling Clare that the tract was ‘a thing intended to be put in practice by his Majesty’, whose reputation for raising money without recourse to parliaments made him sensitive.191 Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 400; Eg. 2553, f. 85. Accordingly, on the evening of 4 Nov., Somerset was committed to the custody of the bishop of London, William Laud^* (later archbishop of Canterbury).192 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 344; CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 88, 89. At around the same time, Clare and Bedford were also arrested, as were Bedford’s lawyer, Sir Oliver St John^‡, and the antiquary Sir Robert Cotton, in whose study the tract was originally found.

Charles was initially determined to make an example of Somerset and his fellow peers, and gave orders to prosecute all three men in Star Chamber. A bill was duly submitted, whereupon Somerset petitioned the king disclaiming any intention of attributing the schemes in the tract to Charles himself.193 Eg. 2553, f. 85r-v. However, Charles was so dissatisfied with Somerset’s explanations that in January 1630 he considered dismissing the other defendants and prosecuting the former favourite alone.194 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 52-3. In the event, the prosecution of all those involved was abandoned, ostensibly in honour of the birth of the future Charles II. However, Somerset was so unsettled by his mistreatment that in September 1630 he fell ill.195 Autobiog of Sir John Bramston ed. P. Braybrooke (Cam. Soc. xxxii), 61; Holles Letters (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 415.

The king’s hostility towards Somerset may have been mirrored by the animosity of his wife. As fellow prisoners in the Tower, Somerset and Frances had originally delighted in one another’s company. However, in June 1617 they had fallen out. In October 1618 they had quarrelled again after Somerset caught his wife ‘tripping’ – a euphemism for sexual infidelity.196 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 80, 170-1. Thereafter, the two lived together ‘as strangers to one another’. It may therefore have come as something of a relief to Somerset when Frances died in August 1632 of a vaginal disease.197 Wilson, 83.

Although the prosecution in Star Chamber had now been abandoned, Charles was determined to continue pursuing Somerset, whom he believed had robbed his father while he was in power. By May 1633 he was demanding that Somerset return a great jewel that had once belonged to James I.198 CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 58; HMC Cowper, ii. 11, 15. Two years later, the Exchequer was instructed to prosecute Somerset for having detained from James the sum of £60,000 paid by Henri IV of France. Were the earl to be found guilty of this offence, he would not only be ruined but left friendless.199 Strafforde Letters, i. 359, 446; CSP Dom. 1635, pp. 45, 244. In the event, however, no action seems was taken. The reason is unclear, but at around this time Somerset began to demand that the king honour his father’s pledge to grant him an estate worth around £5,000 p.a., he having as yet received lands worth only about £3,000 p.a.200 CSP Dom. 1635-6, pp. 78-9; 1636-7, p. 297.

Somerset’s decision to demand full payment of the money promised to him by James I certainly caused Charles to adopt a more conciliatory approach towards the former favourite. In April 1636 he proposed that Somerset’s daughter Anne, now aged 19, should marry William Russell^† (later 5th earl of Bedford), son and heir of the 4th earl of Bedford. Such a match would confirm Somerset’s social respectability and ultimately enhance the fortunes of the Russell family, as Anne, being an only child, stood to inherit her father’s entire estate. It would also serve to divert Somerset from pressing the king for the lands he believed he was owed. (The duchess of Buckingham and Philip Herbert^*, 4th earl of Pembroke both sought to dissuade Somerset from continuing his suit.) However, Bedford, despite his earlier association with Somerset, was initially opposed to Charles’s proposition, and gave his son leave ‘to choose in any family but that’.201 Strafforde Letters, ii. 2; Somers Tracts, ii. 362.

Bedford subsequently relented, as the prospect of acquiring Somerset’s entire estate was too good an opportunity to miss. The lands involved included not only Somerset’s holdings in England but also the Fernhirst lands in Scotland, for in 1633 Somerset’s childless elder brother, Andrew Kerr, 1st Lord Jedburgh, had appointed Somerset as his heir.202 NRS, GD40/3/248. By mid June 1636 one observer reported that terms had now been agreed.203 Arundel Castle, autograph letters, no. 365. See also HMC 6th Rep. 280. In fact, this news was somewhat premature, as marriage articles were not finally drawn up for another 12 months.204 NRS, GD40/5/60. The delay was occasioned by the difficulty Somerset encountered in raising the enormous dowry that Bedford demanded – around £13,000.205 G.F. Scott Thomson, Life in a Noble Household, 1641-1700, p. 30. By March 1636 Bedford had been persuaded to lower his demands to £12,000. Nevertheless, Somerset was constrained to sell his house at Chiswick, together with all its contents, in order to raise an initial down-payment of £1,000. He was also obliged to demand that Sir George Goring, now Lord Goring, repay the £3,000 he had lent him in 1622. To his dismay, however, Goring responded by claiming that this money had actually been a payment for services rendered rather than a loan. Not surprisingly, Goring’s refusal precipitated a quarrel at court.206 Strafforde Letters, ii. 58. It also led Somerset to take legal action. However, his suit failed, because Goring pleaded that legislation enacted in 1624 to restrict the number of lawsuits required that all actions relating to financial accounts were to be brought within three years of the dissolution of the Parliament. Since the 1624 Parliament had been dissolved on the death of James I in March 1625, the time in which Somerset could sue had ‘long since elapsed and run up’.207 C2/Chas.I/S95/53.

Despite these difficulties, Anne Carr was married in July 1637, Somerset having first made a down-payment of £1,000 to Bedford. Thereafter Somerset failed to honour his financial promises to Bedford. This was partly down to his Scottish relatives, who intervened to prevent him from transferring land belonging to his family to Bedford.208 Scott Thomson, 31-2. However, it was also clear that he had misled Bedford regarding the soundness of his finances. These were so weak that he could not even pay in full the London draper who had provided blacks for his wife’s funeral five years earlier, while a debt of £40, owed to the treasurer of the order of the Garter in 1630, was still outstanding in 1638.209 C2/Chas.I/G32/25; 2/Chas.I/S102/31; Bodl., Ashmole 1111, ff. 65, 66v. Somerset may have hoped that his prosecution of Goring in 1639 would ultimately bear fruit. Perhaps, too, he pinned his hopes on the king, for were Charles to honour the promises made by his father, his difficulties would be at an end. Sometime following the death of Bedford in May 1641, Somerset renewed his suit to Charles ‘for the repairing him again, either out of the estate that was his own, or otherwise’.210 State Trials, ii. 1018-20. However, Charles was now embroiled with financial and political difficulties of his own, and had neither the time nor the inclination to deal with Somerset’s plea.211 NRS, GD40/9/19.

Somerset cut a sorry figure during the final years of his life. He had promised, on her marriage, to pay off all his daughter’s debts,212 C6/139/160. but in fact he seems to have ended up living on the charity of Anne and her husband, the 5th earl of Bedford. The latter certainly settled a bill for £1 that Somerset owed a tradesman in January 1642.213 Scott Thomson, 54. Where Somerset lived immediately after he sold his Chiswick house is unclear, but in 1644/5 he resided in Russell Street, in the parish of St Giles-in-the-Fields, Middlesex, presumably in a house belonging to Bedford.214 LCC Survey of London, xxxvi. 192.

Somerset played little recorded part in the political upheavals which followed the Covenanter rebellion. He was not summoned to the Great Council of Peers at York, nor was he required to attend either the Short or Long parliaments. His political sympathies during the Civil War are unclear, but, since he lived on the fringes of London, he felt it politic to pledge support to the parliamentarians. Indeed, in January 1643 it was reported that ‘Rochester’ had promised to contribute £5,000 towards the parliamentarian cause. However, as one newsletter-writer observed, he might just as well have pledged £50, ‘being able to pay neither’.215 HMC Portland, i. 86.

Somerset is said to have died in 1645, when all his titles became extinct. He is also stated to have been buried, on 17 July, at St Paul’s, Covent Garden.216 CP, xiia. 68. The accuracy of this latter claim remains unconfirmed – neither parish register nor bishop’s transcripts survive - but the church mentioned was built by the earl of Bedford during the 1630s. Letters of administration regarding Somerset’s estate were issued to a creditor on 26 May 1646.217 PCC Admons VI: 1631-48 ed. M. Fitch (Brit. Rec. Soc. c), 385. Following Somerset’s death, Bedford laid claim to the Ferniehirst estate for his son, Francis, Lord Russell, saying that it had been Somerset’s dying wish that Francis should inherit. However, his demands were resisted by Somerset’s relatives.218 Corresp. of Sir Robert Kerr, 197.