Famous Imposters 36

Famous Imposters 36

Early in 1532 the Duke resided for a while at Hatfield. Then he went to

Paris with his friend the Earl of Surrey, son of the Duke of Norfolk.

There he remained till September, 1533. On his return to England he

married by special dispensation, on 25 November, 1533, Mary Howard,

daughter of the Duke of Norfolk by his second marriage and sister of

Surrey. Incidentally he is said to have been present at the beheading

of Queen Anne (Boleyn), May 19, 1536. He did not long survive the

last-named exhibition, for some two months later--22 July, 1536, he

died. There was at the time a suspicion that he had been poisoned by

Lord Rochford, brother of Queen Anne (Boleyn).

 

Henry Duke of Richmond and Somerset had no legal issue. As a matter

of fact though he was married in 1533, nearly three years before his

death, he never lived with his wife. It was said that he was not only

young for matrimony, being only seventeen; but was in very bad health.

It was intended that after his marriage he should go to Ireland; but on

account of the state of his health that journey was postponed--as it

turned out, for ever.

 

A light on this ill-starred marriage is thrown in the quaint words of

another chronicler of the time, Charles Wriothesley, who wrote of the

time between 1485 and 1559.

 

“But the said younge duke had never layne by his wife, and so she

is maide, wife, and now a widowe; I praie God send her now good

fortune.”

 

In this summarised history certain points are to be noticed:

 

(1) The Duke of Richmond was like his father (Henry VIII) and his

mother who was “fayre.”

 

(2) A Dispensation was obtained for his marriage to Lady Mary Howard

which took place in 1533 but with whom he never cohabited.

 

There is a side-light here of the hereditary aspect of the case. Both

the Duke and Duchess of Richmond were “fayre,” and in the language of

the old chroniclers “fayre” means blonde. Wintown for instance speaking

of Macbeth’s supposed descent from the Devil says:

 

“Gottyne he was on ferly wys

“Hys Modyr to woddis mad oft repayre

“For the delyte of halesum ayre.

“Swa, scho past a-pon a day

“Tyl a Wod, hyr for to play:

“Scho met at cas with a fayr man.”

 

And Grafton thus speaks under date 7 September 1533 of Elizabeth’s

birth: “The Queen was delivered of a fayre Lady.”

 

Now Anne Boleyn is described as small and lively, a brunette with black

hair and beautiful eyes, and yet her daughter is given as red-haired by

all the painters.

 

It is somewhat difficult to make out the true colours of persons. For

instance Giovanni Michiel writing to the Venetian Senate in 1557 puts

in his description of Elizabeth “She is tall and well formed, with a

good skin, although swarthy” but in the same page he says “she prides

herself on her father and glories in him; everybody is saying that

she also resembles him more than the Queen [Mary] does.” As to the

introduction of the word “swarthy” as above; it may have been one of

the tricks of Elizabeth to keep the Venetian ambassador from knowing

too much or getting any ground for guessing. If so it looks rather like

Elizabeth concealing her real identity--which would be an argument in

favour of an imposture; if she was the real princess there would be no

need for concealment.

 

It is only common sense to expect, if the paternal element was so

strong in Henry as to reproduce in offspring his own colour, that had

the Duke of Richmond had any issue especially by a fair wife it too

would have inherited something of the family colour. Holbein’s picture

of the “Lady of Richmond,” as the Duke’s wife was called, shows her as

a fair woman.

 

These are two points to be here borne in mind; that Henry VIII was

probably bald, for in none of his pictures is any hair visible. It

would hardly be polite to infer that Elizabeth wore a wig for the same

reason. But it is recorded that she always travelled with a stock of

them--no less than eighty of various colours.

 

But there are other indications of such concealment. Why for instance

did she object to see doctors? So long as she was free and could

control them she did not mind; but whilst she was under duress they

were a source of danger. Perhaps it is this which accounts for her

taking the Sacrament on 26 August, 1554 when she was practically a

prisoner at Woodstock in the keeping of Sir Henry Bedingfield. About

the third week in June the Princess asked Sir Henry to be allowed to

have a doctor sent to her. He in turn applied to the Council who made

answer on the 25th that the Queen’s Oxford physician was ill and Mr.

Wendy was absent and the remaining one, Mr. Owen, could not be spared.

The latter however recommended two Oxford doctors, Barnes and Walbec,

in case she should care to see either of them. On July 4th Sir Henry

reported to the Council that Elizabeth in politely declining said: “I

am not minded to make any stranger privy to the state of my body, but

commit it to God.” Then, when through her submission to the Queen’s

religious convictions she had obtained her liberty, she took no more

concern in the matter.

 

 

_The Duchess of Richmond_

 

Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, married twice. His second wife was the

lady Elizabeth Stafford, eldest daughter of the Duke of Buckingham, and

he had issue by both marriages. In 1533 the only surviving daughter of

the second marriage was Mary, who was thus the Lady Mary Howard, sister

of the Earl of Surrey. It was this lady with whom the uncompleted

marriage of the Duke of Richmond took place. Doubtless they were early

friends. In her youth she used to spend the summer at Tendring Hall,

Suffolk, and the winter at Hunsdon, Hertfordshire, where was one of

Henry’s palaces; in addition Henry was one of the closest companions of

her brother, the Earl of Surrey. Lady Richmond’s part in the historical

episode before us is hardly direct. It only comes in through two

circumstances not unattended with mystery. It is not necessary that

the two were correlated; but no student can get away from the idea

that there was some connection between them, especially when there is

another inference bearing on the subject with reference to the second

marriage of the Duchess. This took place after an interval of some

years to Gilbert, son of Sir George Talboys of Goloths, Lincolnshire.

The name of the second husband is variously spelled in the chronicles

as Tailboise or Talebuse. She died in the year before Elizabeth came

to the throne. The two things to examine closely with regard to

this marriage to the Duke of Richmond were the Dispensation for the

marriage (together with the date of it), and its non-fulfilment. The

Dispensation was dated 28 November, 1533, but the marriage took place

three days earlier. Whether this discrepancy had anything to do with

her later marriage to Talboys we can only guess--unless of course more

exhaustive search can produce some document, unknown as yet, which may

throw light on the subject. It is a matter of no light mystery why a

Dispensation was obtained at such a time and by whom it was effected.

At this time Henry VIII was engaged in the bitterest struggle of his

life, that regarding the supremacy of the Pope, so that it was a direct

violation of his policy to have asked for, or even to recognise such a

Dispensation in the case of his own son whom he intended to succeed him

as King. Before a year had passed he had actually thrown over the Papal

authority altogether, and had taken into his own hands the headship

of the National Church. What then was behind such a maladroit action?

If it had been done as a piece of statecraft--the ostensible showing

that there was as yet no direct rupture between the British Nation and

the Papacy--it would have lost its efficacy if it might be cited as

a Court favour rather than a national right. Moreover, as it was to

sanction by then existing canonical law a marriage of Henry’s son with

a daughter of the head of the most powerful Catholic House in England,

it could not be expected that Rome would not use this in its strife for

the continuation of its supremacy. If Henry was directly concerned in

the matter, it was bad policy and unlike him to conciliate Catholicism

by a yielding on the part of one who would be in the future the Head

of the Reformed Church. Altogether it leaves one under the impression

that there must have been a more personal cause than any yet spoken of.

Something to be covered up, or from which suspicion should be averted.

There was already quite enough material for a controversy in case Henry

Fitzroy should come to the throne and it might be well to minimise

any further risk. But in such case what was there to be covered up or

from which suspicion should be averted? Already Richmond held under

his father all the threads of government in his own hand. If he ever

should need to tighten them it would be done by himself as ruler. There

must still be some reason which must be kept secret and of which Henry

himself did not and must not know. Beyond this again was the question

of the personal ambition of “Bluff King Hal.” It was not sufficient

for him that a barren heir should succeed him--even if that heir was

his own son. He wanted to found a dynasty, and if he suspected for

an instant that after all his plotting and striving--all his titanic

efforts to overcome such obstacles as nations and religions--his hopes

might fail through lack of issue on his son’s part he would cease to

waste his time and efforts on his behalf. It is almost impossible to

imagine that the Duke of Richmond had not had _some_ love affairs--if

indeed he was only seventeen (of which there is a doubt)--it must be

borne in mind that both the Lancastrians and the Yorkists who united

in the Tudor stock matured early. On both his father’s and mother’s

side Henry Fitzroy was of a pleasure-loving, voluptuous nature, and

as the masculine element predominated in his make-up there is not any

great stretch of imagination required to be satisfied that there was

some young likeness of him toddling or running about. But in a case

like his masculine mis-doing does not count; it is only where a woman’s

credit is at stake that secrecy is a vital necessity. We must therefore

look to the female side to find a cause for any mystery which there

may be. So far as a boy of the right age is concerned with a decided

likeness to Henry VIII it would not have required much searching about to lay hands on a suitable one.