the pretext of being lady-in-waiting to Mary Howard, at that time
the widowed Duchess of Richmond. It is interesting to note that
Surrey and his sister took the side of their father, the Duke, in this
family quarrel, even to the extent of receiving the cause of it in the
place of their own mother. Whatever may be the difference of
opinion in regard to the principals in the affair, there can be no
question of the unfortunate results to the children. The "home-
life" at Kenninghall could not have been conventionally "sweet."
Later it bore its inevitable fruit. One of the most telling witnesses
against Surrey, when he was accused of high treason, was his own
sister, the widow of his best friend. She deposed,--and it was con-
firmed by another witness,--that, when it was a question of her
marriage with Sir Thomas Seymour, Surrey had advised her to use
the marriage as a step to becoming the mistress of the king. ¹
"Cette sanglante ironie" Bapst calls it. ² Perhaps it was irony,--
at least one wishes to believe it,--but the previous events in the
family life scarcely tend to make one confident. At least her fur-
ther testimony that Surrey had placed a cipher upon his coat-of-
arms that resembled HR shows that she for one placed the worst
interpretation and bore him a bitter hatred. ³ In our necessary
ignorance, it seems rather useless first to impute motives and then
to explain by them. Yet surely the inference is justifiable that the
family life of the Howards was not happy. In spite of the Duke's
experience, gained from his own mercenary marriage, acting by the
direction of Anne Boleyn he married Surrey, February 13, 1532,
to Lady Frances de Vere, daughter of the Count of Oxford, for 2500
pounds. In Surrey's case, however, the union seems to have been
productive of happiness. The additional money was gratefully
received.

This union of very high rank and comparative poverty accen-

-510-