Famous Imposters 35
Anne Boleyn was dead, so was her predecessor in title. Anne of Cleves
had accepted the annulment of her marriage--and a pension. Jane Seymour
and Catherine Howard were both dead. Nearly all those who as nurses,
governesses, or teachers, Lady Bryan, Richard Croke, William Grindal,
Roger Ascham, who knew the first period were dead or had retired into
other spheres. Those who remained knowing well the individuality of the
Princess and representing both periods were Mrs. Ashley, Thomas Parry
and the Queen (later dowager) Catherine Parr.
We know already of the faithfulness of the two former, the man who
was a clever as well as a faithful servant, and the woman, who having
no children of her own, took to her heart the little child entrusted
to her care and treated her with such affectionate staunchness--a
staunchness which has caused more than one historian to suspect that
there was some grave secret between them which linked their fortunes
together.
As to Catherine Parr we are able to judge from her letters that she was
fond of her step-daughter and was consistently kind to her. Those who
choose to study the matter further can form an opinion of their own
from certain recorded episodes which, given without any elucidating
possibilities leave the historians in further doubt. Leti puts in
his _Life_, under the date of 1543, “before her marriage to Henry,
Catherine Parr had seen often Elizabeth and admired her.” The Italian
historian _may_ have had some authority for the statement; but also
it may have been taken from some statement made by Elizabeth in later
years or by some person in her interest, to create a misleading belief.
In any case let us accept the statement as a matter of fact. If so
it may throw a light on another branch of this eternal and diverse
mystery. Martin Hume and F. A. Mumby approaching the subject from
different points confess themselves puzzled by Elizabeth’s attitude to
men. The former writes in his _Courtships of Queen Elizabeth_:
“No one can look at the best portraits of Elizabeth without
recognising at a glance that she was not a sensual woman. The
lean, austere face, the tight thin lips, the pointed delicate
chin, the cold dull eyes, tell of a character the very opposite
of lascivious.”
Mr. Mumby writing about Mrs. Ashley’s “Confession” and of the
horse-play between Elizabeth and Lord Seymour (whom Queen Catherine had
married immediately after the King’s death) makes this remark:
“The most surprising thing about this behaviour is that the Queen
should have encouraged it.”
There is plenty of room for wonder, considering that Admiral Seymour
had earlier wanted to marry Elizabeth. But Catherine was a clever
woman, who had already had three husbands--Seymour was her fourth--and
children. If any one would see through a boy’s disguise as a girl
she was the one. It is hard to imagine that Seymour’s wife had not
good cause for some form revenge on him of whom Hallam speaks of as a
“dangerous and unprincipled man” and of whom Latimer said “he was a man
farthest from the fear of God that ever I knew or heard of in England”
as it was believed at the time of her death that he had poisoned his
wife, the Queen dowager, to make way for a marriage with Elizabeth,
with whom according to common belief he was still in love, it would
be only natural that a woman of her disposition and with her sense
of humour, should revenge herself in a truly wifely way by using for
the purpose, without betraying the secret, her private knowledge or
belief of the quasi-princess’s real sex. Such would afford an infinite
gratification to an ill-used wife jealous of so vain a husband.
[Illustration: THE DUKE OF RICHMOND]
We now come to the crux of the whole story--the touchstone of this
strange eventful history. Could there have been such a boy as is told
of; one answering to the many conditions above shown to be vitally
necessary for the carrying out of such a scheme of imposture. The
answer to this question is distinctly in the affirmative; there _could_
have been such a boy; had the Duke of Richmond been born fourteen or
fifteen years earlier than he was, the difficulties of appearance,
intellect, education, and other qualifications need not have presented
themselves.
If the question to be asked is: “Was there such a boy?” the
answer cannot be so readily given. In the meantime there are some
considerations from the study of which--or through which--an answer
may, later, be derived.
H. THE SOLUTION
_The Duke of Richmond_
The points which must be settled before we can solve the mystery of the
_Bisley Boy_ are:
(1) Was there such an episode regarding the early life of the Princess
Elizabeth?
(2) Was there such a boy as was spoken of?
(3) How could such an imposture have been carried out, implying as it
did--
(a) A likeness to the Princess so extraordinary as not to have created
suspicion in the mind of anyone not already in the plot.
(b) An acquaintance with the circumstances of the life of the Princess
sufficiently accurate to ward off incipient suspicion caused by any
overlooking or neglect of necessary conditions.
(c) An amount of education and knowledge equal to that held by a child
of ten to twelve years of age who had been taught by some of the most
learned persons of the time.
(d) A skill in classics and foreign tongues only known amongst high
scholars and diplomatists.
(e) An ease of body and a courtliness of manner and bearing utterly
foreign to any not bred in the higher circles of social life.
If there could be found a boy answering such conditions--one whose
assistance could be had with facility and safety--then the solution is
possible, even if not susceptible of the fullest proof. Following the
lines of argument hitherto used in this book, let us first consider
reasons why such an argument is tenable. I may then perhaps be allowed
to launch the theory which has come to me during this investigation.
(_a_) _His Birth and Appearance_
A part--and no small part--of the bitterness of Henry VIII in not
having a son to succeed him was that, though he had a son, such could
not by the existing law succeed him on the throne.
Nearly ten years after his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and after
a son and other children had been born to them, all of whom had died
shortly after birth, Henry had in the manner of mediæval kings--and
others--entered on a love affair, the object of his illicit affection
being one of the ladies-in-waiting to Queen Catherine, Elizabeth,
daughter of John Blount of Knevet, Shropshire.
The story of this love affair is thus given in quaint old English in
_Grafton’s Chronicle_ first published in 1569 which covers the period
from 1189 to 1558:
“You shall understande, the King in his freshe youth was in the
cheynes of love with a faire damosell called Elizabeth Blunt,
daughter of Syr John Blunt Knight, which damosell in synging,
daunsing, and in all goodly pastimes, excelled all other, by the
which goodly pastimes, she wanne the king’s hart: and she againe
shewed him such favour that by him she bare a goodly man childe,
of beautie like to the father and mother. This child was well
brought up lyke a Princes childe.”
(_b_) _His Upbringing and Marriage_
This son of an unlawful union--born in 1519 it is said--was called
Henry Fitzroy after the custom applicable in such cases to the natural
children of kings. Naturally enough his royal father took the greatest
interest in this child and did, whilst the latter lived, all in his
power to further his interests. A mere list of the honours conferred on
him during his short life will afford some clue to the King’s intention
of his further advancement, should occasion serve. The shower of
favours began in 1525 when the child, as is said, was only six years of
age. On the 18th of June of this year he was created Earl of Nottingham
and Duke of Richmond and Somerset, with precedence over all dukes
except those of the King’s lawful issue. He was also made a Knight of
the Garter--of which exalted Order he was raised to the Lieutenancy
eight years later. He was also nominated to other high offices: the
King’s Lieutenant General for districts north of the Trent; and Keeper
of the city and fortress of Carlisle. To these posts were added those
of Lord High Admiral of England, Wales, Ireland, Normandy, Gascony and
Aquitaine; Warden General of the Marches of Scotland, and Receiver
of Middleham and of Sheriff Hutton, Yorkshire. He was also given an
income of four thousand pounds sterling per annum. In 1529, being then
only ten years of age, he was also made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
Constable of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque Ports--three of the
most important offices of the Nation. A few months before his death
in 1536 there was a general understanding that Henry VIII intended to
make him King of Ireland and possibly to nominate him as his successor
on the throne of England. That some such intention was in Henry’s mind
was shown by the Succession Act passed just before the close of the
Parliament which was dissolved in 1536. In this Act it is fixed that
the Crown is to devolve on the King’s death to the son of Jane Seymour
and in default of issue by him, on Mary and Elizabeth in succession
in case of lack of issue by the former. In the event of their both
dying before the King and without issue he is to appoint by will his
successor on the throne.
The various important posts conferred on the young Duke of Richmond
were evidently preparations for the highest post of all, which in
default of legitimate issue of his own legitimate children he intended
to confer on him.
The education which was given to the little Duke is of especial
interest and ought in the present connection to be carefully studied.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기