Editing Amy Robsart (section)

==Aftermath==
[[File:Amy Robsart by T.F. Dicksee.jpg|left|thumb|''Amy Robsart''. 19th-century fantasy portrait by [[Thomas Francis Dicksee]]]]
[[File:Amy Robsart by William Clarke Wontner.jpg|thumb|Fantasy Portrait of Amy Robsart by [[William Clarke Wontner]]]]
Amy Dudley's death, happening amid renewed rumours about the Queen and her favourite, caused "grievous and dangerous suspicion, and muttering" in the country.<ref>Doran 1996 pp. 43, 42</ref> Robert Dudley was shocked,<ref name="ODRobert">Adams 2008</ref> dreading "the malicious talk that I know the wicked world will use".<ref>Skidmore 2010 p. 379</ref> William Cecil, the Queen's [[Secretary of State (England)|Principal Secretary]], felt himself threatened by the prospect of Dudley's becoming [[king consort]] and spread rumours against the eventuality.<ref>Haigh 2000 p. 16; Skidmore 2010 p. 239</ref>

Already knowing of her death before it was officially made public,<ref name="ODRobert" /> he told the Spanish ambassador that Lord Robert and the Queen wished to marry and were about to do away with Lady Amy Dudley by poison, "giving out that she was ill but she was not ill at all".<ref>Wilson 1981 pp. 115–116; Haigh 2000 p. 16</ref> Likewise strongly opposed to a Dudley marriage, [[Nicholas Throckmorton]], the English ambassador in France, went out of his way to draw attention to the scandalous gossip he heard at the French court.<ref>Doran 1996 p. 212</ref> Although Cecil and Throckmorton made use of the scandal for their political and personal aims,<ref>Doran 1996 p. 212; Gristwood 2007 pp. 108–109; Skidmore 2010 pp. 243–244</ref> they did not believe themselves that Robert Dudley had orchestrated his wife's death.<ref>HMC 1911 p. viii; Gristwood 2007 pp. 112, 119; Skidmore 2010 p. 223</ref>

In October Robert Dudley returned to court, many believed, "in great hope to marry the Queen".<ref name="Doran 1996 p. 45">Doran 1996 p. 45</ref> Elizabeth's affection and favour towards him was undiminished,<ref name="Doran 1996 p. 45" /> and, importuned by unsolicited advice against a marriage with Lord Robert, she declared the inquest had shown "the matter … to be contrary to which was reported" and to "neither touch his honesty nor her honour."<ref>Skidmore 2010 p. 253</ref>

However, her international reputation and even her position at home were imperilled by the scandal, which seems to have convinced her that she could not risk a marriage with Dudley.<ref>Doran 2003 p. 76; Doran 1996 pp. 43, 45</ref> Dudley himself had no illusions about his destroyed reputation, even when he was first notified of the jury's decision:<ref name="Wilson p. 122" /> "God's will be done; and I wish he had made me the poorest that creepeth on the ground, so this mischance had not happened to me."<ref>Skidmore 2010 p. 385</ref> In September 1561, a month after the coroner's verdict was officially passed, the [[Henry Fitzalan, 19th Earl of Arundel|Earl of Arundel]], one of Dudley's principal enemies, studied the testimonies in the hope of finding incriminating evidence against his rival.<ref>Doran 1996 p. 44; Skidmore 2010 p. 245</ref>

===John Appleyard===
John Appleyard had profited in terms of offices and annuities from his brother-in-law's rise ever since 1559; he was nevertheless disappointed with what he had got from Robert Dudley, now Earl of Leicester. In 1567 he was approached, apparently on behalf of the [[Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk|Duke of Norfolk]] and the [[Thomas Radclyffe, 3rd Earl of Sussex|Earl of Sussex]], to accuse Leicester of the murder of his wife for a reward of £1,000 in cash.<ref name="Wilson p. 182">Wilson 1981 p. 182</ref> He refused to cooperate in the plot, although he had, he said, in the last few years come to believe that his half-sister was murdered. He had always been convinced of Dudley's innocence but thought it would be an easy matter to find out the real culprits. He said he had repeatedly asked for the Earl's help to this effect, claiming the jury had not yet come up with their verdict; Dudley had always answered that the matter should rest, since a jury had found that there was no murder, by due procedure of law.<ref>HMC 1883 p. 350; Skidmore 2010 p. 300, 301, 363</ref> Now, as Leicester became aware of a plot against him, he summoned Appleyard and sent him away after a furious confrontation.<ref name="Wilson p. 182" />

Some weeks later the [[Privy Council]] investigated the allegations about Norfolk, Sussex, and Leicester, and Appleyard found himself in the [[Fleet prison]] for about a month. Interrogated by Cecil and a panel of noblemen (among them the Earl of Arundel, but not Robert Dudley), he was commanded to answer in writing what had moved him to implicate "my Lord of Norfolk, the Earl of Sussex and others to stir up matter against my Lord of Leicester for the death of his wife", and what had moved him to say that "the death of the Earl of Leicester's wife" was "procured by any person".<ref>Skidmore 2010 pp. 303-304</ref> Appleyard, instead of giving answers, retracted all his statements; he had also requested to see the coroner's report and, after studying it in his cell, wrote that it fully satisfied him and had dispelled his concerns.<ref>Gristwood 2007 p. 115</ref>

===Early traditions and theories===
[[File:Amy Robsart by W.Q.Orchardson.jpg|thumb|Amy Robsart walking to her death. 19th century fantasy portrait by [[William Quiller Orchardson|Sir William Quiller Orchardson]]]]
From the early 1560s there was a tradition involving Sir Richard Verney,<ref name="Adams / Archer / Bernard p. 66" /> a [[vassal|gentleman-retainer]] of Robert Dudley from Warwickshire, in whose house Lady Amy Dudley had stayed in 1559.<ref>Skidmore 2010 pp. 356, 358</ref> A 1563 chronicle, which is heavily biased against the House of Dudley<ref>Adams, Archer, and Bernard 2003 p. 41</ref> and was probably written by the Protestant activist [[John Hales (died 1572)|John Hales]],<ref>Adams, Archer, and Bernard 2003 pp. 46–51</ref> describes the rumours:<blockquote>[t]he Lord Robert's wife brake her neck at Forster's house in Oxfordshire … her gentlewomen being gone forth to a fair. Howbeit it was thought she was slain, for Sir ----- Varney was there that day and whylest the deed was doing was going over the fair and tarried there for his man, who at length came, and he said, thou knave, why tarriest thou? He answered, should I come before I had done? Hast thou done? quoth Varney. Yeah, quoth the man, I have made it sure. … Many times before it was bruited by the Lord Robert his men that she was dead. … This Verney and divers his servants used before her death, to wish her death, which made the people to suspect the worse.<ref name="Adams / Archer / Bernard p. 66" />
</blockquote>
The first printed version of Amy Robsart's alleged murder appeared in the satirical libel ''[[Leicester's Commonwealth]]'', a notorious propaganda work against the Earl of Leicester written by [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] exiles in 1584.<ref>Wilson 1981 pp. 251–253; Jenkins 2002 p. 291</ref> Here Sir Richard Verney goes directly to Cumnor Place, forces the servants to go to the market, and breaks Lady Amy's neck before placing her at the foot of the stairs; the jury's verdict is murder, and she is buried first secretly at the Cumnor parish church before being dug up and reburied at Oxford. Verney dies, communicating "that all the devils in hell" tore him in pieces; his servant (who was with him at the murder) having been killed in prison by Dudley's means before he could tell the story.<ref>Skidmore 2010 pp. 386, 387</ref>

Enhanced by the considerable influence of ''Leicester's Commonwealth'', the rumours about Amy Robsart's death developed into a tradition of embellished folklore.<ref>Chamberlin 1939 pp. 16–19, 420–421; Wilson 1981 p. 124</ref> As early as 1608, a [[domestic tragedy]] named ''[[A Yorkshire Tragedy]]'' alluded to her fall from a pair of stairs as an easy way to get rid of one's wife: "A politician did it."<ref>Chamberlin 1939 pp. 417–418</ref> In the 19th century her story became very popular due to the best-selling novel, ''[[Kenilworth (novel)|Kenilworth]]'', by [[Walter Scott]].<ref name="Adams 1995 p. 378" /> The novel's arch-villain is again called Varney.<ref>Chamberlin 1939 p. 22</ref> The notion that Amy Robsart was murdered gained new strength with the discovery of the Spanish diplomatic correspondence (and with it of poison rumours) by the [[Victorian era|Victorian]] historian [[James Anthony Froude]].<ref name="ODNB" /> Generally convinced of Leicester's wretchedness,<ref>Chamberlin 1939 pp. 23, 45–46</ref> he concluded in 1863: "she was murdered by persons who hoped to profit by his elevation to the throne; and Dudley himself … used private means … to prevent the search from being pressed inconveniently far."<ref>Chamberlin 1939 p. 25</ref> There followed the Norfolk [[antiquarian]] [[Walter Rye]] with ''The Murder of Amy Robsart'' in 1885: here she was first poisoned and then, that method failing, killed by violent means. Rye's main sources were Cecil's talk with de Quadra around the time of Amy Dudley's death and, again, ''Leicester's Commonwealth''.<ref>Gristwood 2007 pp. 115–116</ref> Much more scholarly and influential was an 1870 work by George Adlard, ''Amy Robsart and the Earl of Leycester'', which printed relevant letters and covertly suggested suicide as an explanation.<ref>Gristwood 2007 pp. 115, 122</ref> By 1910, [[Albert Pollard|A.F. Pollard]] was convinced that the fact that Amy Robsart's death caused suspicion was "as natural as it was incredible … But a meaner intelligence than Elizabeth's or even Dudley's would have perceived that murder would make the[ir] marriage impossible."<ref>Chamberlin 1939 p. 40</ref>

===Modern theories===
[[File:Amyrobsart.jpg|thumb|''The Death of Amy Robsart'', as imagined by [[Victorian era|Victorian]] artist [[William Frederick Yeames]]]]The coroner's report came to light in [[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] in 2008 and is compatible with an accidental fall as well as suicide or other violence.<ref>Adams 2011; Skidmore 2010 pp. 230–233</ref> In the absence of the [[forensic]] findings of 1560, it was often assumed that a simple accident could not be the explanation<ref>Doran 1996 pp. 42–44</ref>—on the basis of near-contemporary tales that Amy Dudley was found at the bottom of a short flight of stairs with a broken neck, her headdress still standing undisturbed "upon her head",<ref name="Jenkins 2002 p. 65">Jenkins 2002 p. 65</ref> a detail that first appeared as a satirical remark in ''Leicester's Commonwealth'' and has ever since been repeated for a fact.<ref>Jenkins 2002 p. 291</ref> To account for such oddities and evidence that she was ill, it was suggested in 1956 by [[Ian Aird]], a professor of medicine, that Amy Dudley might have suffered from breast cancer, which through [[metastatic]] [[cancerous]] deposits in the spine, could have caused her neck to break under only limited strain, such as a short fall or even just coming down the stairs.<ref name="Jenkins 2002 p. 65" /> This explanation has gained wide acceptance.<ref name="Doran 1996 p. 44" />

Another popular theory has been that Amy Dudley took her own life; because of illness or depression, her melancholy and "desperation" being traceable in some sources. As further arguments for suicide have been forwarded the fact that she insisted on sending her servants away and that her maid Picto, Thomas Blount, and perhaps Robert Dudley himself alluded to the possibility.<ref>Gristwood 2007 pp. 121–122; Doran 1996 p. 44</ref>

A few modern historians have considered murder as an option. [[Alison Weir]] has tentatively suggested William Cecil as organizer of Amy Dudley's death on the grounds that, if Amy was mortally ill, he had the strongest murder motive and that he was the main beneficiary of the ensuing scandal.<ref>Weir 1999 p. 109</ref> Against this idea it has been argued that he would not have risked damaging Elizabeth's reputation nor his own position.<ref>Gristwood 2007 p. 119; Skidmore 2010 p. 357</ref> The notion of Sir Richard Verney killing Amy Robsart after long and fruitless efforts to poison her (with and without his master's knowledge) has been revived by George Bernard and by [[Chris Skidmore]] on the basis that Verney appears in both the c.&nbsp;1563 chronicle by John Hales (also called ''Journal of Matters of State'') and the 1584 libel ''Leicester's Commonwealth''.<ref>Bernard 2000 pp. 169–174; Skidmore 2010 p. 355</ref> This coincidence has as often been evaluated as no more than a tradition of gossip,<ref>Adams, Archer, and Bernard 2003 p. 66; Adams 2011</ref> poison being a stock-in-trade accusation in the 16th century.<ref>Gristwood 2007 p. 97</ref>

That Robert Dudley might have influenced the jury has been argued by George Bernard, [[Susan Doran]], and by Chris Skidmore. The foreman, Sir Richard Smith (mayor of Abingdon in 1564/1565<ref name="Adams / Archer / Bernard p. 66" />), had been a household servant of Princess Elizabeth and is described as a former "Queen's man" and a "lewd" person in Hales' 1563 chronicle, while Dudley gave a "Mr. Smith", also a "Queen's man", a present of some stuffs to make a gown from in 1566; six years after the inquest.<ref>Doran 1996 pp. 228; Bernard 2000 pp. 170–171; Skidmore 2010 pp. 369–370</ref> It has, however, not been established that Sir Richard Smith and the "Mr. Smith" of 1566 are one and the same person, Smith being a "very common" name.<ref>Doran 1996 p. 228; Bernard 2000 p. 171</ref> Susan Doran has pointed out that any interference with the jury could be as easily explained by the desire to cover up a suicide rather than a murder.<ref name="Doran 1996 p. 44" />

Most modern historians have exonerated Robert Dudley from murder or a cover-up.<ref name="Doran 1996 p. 44">Doran 1996 p. 44</ref> Apart from alternatives for a murder plot as causes for Amy Robsart's death, his correspondence with Thomas Blount and William Cecil in the days following has been cited as proofs of his innocence; the letters, which show signs of an agitated mind, making clear his bewilderment and unpreparedness.<ref>Gristwood 2007 pp. 114, 115; Skidmore 2010 pp. 237–238; Adams 2002 p. 136</ref> It has also been judged as highly unlikely that he would have orchestrated the death of his wife in a manner which laid him open to such a foreseeable scandal.<ref>Weir 1999 p. 107; Wilson 2005 p. 275; Chamberlin 1939 p. 40</ref>