HOLBEIN, SIR THOMAS MORE THE PRINCES IN THE TOWER
Time 2021-11-20 16:28:44Web Name: HOLBEIN, SIR THOMAS MORE THE PRINCES IN THE TOWER
WebSite: http://www.holbeinartworks.org
ID:241540
Keywords:
THOMAS,MORE,HOLBEIN,SIR,IN,TOWER,THE,PRINCES,Description:
keywords: description:“Princes in the Tower lived on with secret identities.”
“DNA may solve Princes’ riddle.”
“Will DNA prove the princes lived?”
“The Princes in the Tower”
‘Dear Jack Leslau, Thank you very much for coming toBroadcasting House to take part in our arts pilot programme.
‘A number of tests carried out during its recentrestoration, and extensive research carried out by Jack Leslau, have once again
Comment from abroad :USA, Europe, Asia and Oceania
“How Holbein hid a royal secret.’
“11 January 1990. Jack Leslau delivers a lecture, filmedfor a TV documentary, on the Princes in the Tower,
at the Athenaeum Club, London.”
“Historian findsclues to 500-year-old whodunit.”
“Centuries on, they’re still arguing about Richard III.”
“The Craziest Story I Ever Heard.”
§1
The mystery of the Princes in the Tower
The witness is POSITIVELY identified, the codetext decoded andinterpreted.
If you want to know more...click on.
JACK LESLAU : ‘I would liketo introduce you to the persons depicted in this painting. But first, I wantyou to see if there is anything strange about the picture itself. For instance,the clock door above Thomas More’s head is open.
To the right, in front of anunstrung table harp there is an extremely odd vase with each handle upside-downin relation to its companion handle.
In the right foreground, twosisters wear dresses with sleeves made from material of the other sister’sbodice : red velvet and cloth-of-gold.
There are more than eightyanomalies in this painting and you may conceivably decide to identify them,work out what they mean and what the artist is trying to communicate. You willhave help.
For the present, I have todraw attention that this painting has been in the possession of the More familysince it was painted by Hans Holbein
Pointand click first :
ThomasMERRIAM “Unveiling of the More Family Portrait at Nostell Priory” Moreana XX79-80 (Nov. 1983) 111-116
Thomas MERRIAM “John Clement : his identity and hisMarshfoot House in Essex” Moreana XXV 97 (March 1988) 145-167
Jack LESLAU “The Princesin the Tower” Moreana XXV 98-99 (Dec.1988) 17-36
Jack LESLAU “The More Circle : theAntwerp/Mechelen/Louvain Connexion”
(AmiciThomae Mori International Symposium MAINZ 1995)
Seealso: EUROPA: Wiege des Humanismus und der Reformation Publ. PETER LANG, 1997p.167-172
Sir Thomas More and his Family is reproduced by kind permission of the owner, the Lord St Oswald andTrustees, and is on view to the public at Nostell Priory, Nr. Wakefield, WestYorkshire, England. Further details are available from the National TrustOffice in York. Photograph, by Sir Geoffrey Shackerley.
Part Two
Notes References
THE JACK LESLAU NEWSLETTER NOTICEBOARD
What’s the difference between an overt and a covert rebus?
From direct inspection,this drawing above is obviously a puzzle and you are invited, in an open way,“Solve the puzzle !” This is an overt rebus and I am today inviting YOUto solve it. You will have help at jack.leslau@skynet.be.
On the other hand, the covertrebus is not at all obvious. Encryption adds the element of secrecy to the wordtransformations. OK ? Decryption strips away the secrecy leaving the linguisticequivalents, which make sense (they MUST make sense!), relevant to knownhistory.
Please don’t worry if you do not immediately graspthe significance of the remarkable covert rebus. You are in good company. Ittook nearly five hundred years to work out that Holbein was risking his life tocommunicate personal and political history for posterity, for US, andhow brave and clever he was.
Thomas MERRIAM
Onthe afternoon of Friday, 25th March 1983 (Lady Day), the RightHonourable, the Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, Lord Chancellor of England,unveiled the newly restored 8 x 12 foot (2,5 x 3,5 meters) Group Portrait ofSir Thomas More and His Family at Nostell Priory, Wakefield, WestYorkshire before a distinguished audience. It was a glittering occasion withflashbulbs and television lights, contrasting in their brilliance with thesombre stone hall. Lord Hailsham chose his words with care and precision worthyof the senior law officer. He spoke of his admiration of the painting and hisbelief it was by Holbein. He suggested a parallel between the situation of Moreand Boethius, whose De Consolatione Philosophiae features in the painting.
Thefamily portrait 1 is one of severalversions that appear to be based upon a Holbein sketch in Basel (No. 402). Amodified copy by Rowland Locky hangs in the National Portrait Gallery inLondon. This painting measures approximately 7 x 11 feet and is curious in itsincluding four descendants of More, who were alive in 1593, with seven of theThomas More family, as portrayed from life in the 1520s (No. 404). A muchsmaller Locky version in the Victoria and Albert Museum contains further minorvariations (No. 405).
SirRoy Strong states, in his Tudor and Jacobean Portraits in the National PortraitGallery, that the Nostell Priory painting is a copy by the same Elizabethanminiature painter, Locky 2. The evidence headduces for the attribution is the signature in the lower right-hand corner ofthe canvas. The name – Richardus, Rogerus, or Rolandus /Rowlandas Locky – bearswith it the date 1530 or 1532. Sir Roy has rejected the apparent date (Lockywas probably born in the 1540s) and has assumed it to be variously 1592 or1593. 3 The Holbein original painting, fromwhich it is presumed to have been copied, is believed to have been destroyed byfire in 1752 at Kremsier, Germany (No. 401).
TheWinn family have been in possession of the Nostell portrait since the marriageof Sir Rowland Winn to a Roper heiress in the eighteenth century. At that timeit was taken from Well Hall, Eltham, to Yorkshire. The family tradition hasheld the painting to be a Holbein painted for Margaret Roper and her husbandWilliam. Both John Lewis and George Vertue described it as a Holbein in theirtime. In 1717 Lewis remarked on items in the painting only three inches fromwhere the Locky signature appears today, without mentioning the Lockyattribution.
Isit possible that the signature was added after 1717 ?
Thepresent owner, Lord St. Oswald, had received some highly interestinginformation before the unveiling. On 7th January 1982, Dr. PaulDamon of the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry at the University of Arizonareceived for radiocarbon dating a strip of the original canvas, cut from thelower sight edge of the painting during restoration. After he had washed thelinen free of paint and animal glue, the original eight grams shrank to fourgrams of pure linen cord. These four grams were insufficient to create therequired volume of carbon dioxide gas for the 2.5 liter counters operated atthree atmospheres. Dr. Damon had to dilute the specimen gas with pure inert CO2,containing no carbon 14. Additional delays were caused bycontamination of the sample with radon gas ; a month was required for storingthe gas to allow the radon to decay to insignificance.
Finally, on February14, 1983, he produced his report with its startling conclusion the thecalendar age of the harvesting of the flax lies between A.D. 1400 and A. D.1520 . Thus it was compatible with the painting being anauthentic Holbein the Younger . It was, in other words, unlikely thatRowland Locky had chosen a seventy-year-old canvas to execute a difficult majorwork in or about 1593.
Armed with this newpiece of knowledge, Lord St. Oswald informed the press. The first announcementin the national press was a short article by Donald Wintersgill in TheGuardian of March 2, 1983, headed Painting of More could be aHolbein . Sir Roy Strong, Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum,was quoted as doubting the conclusion of Dr. Damon : How developed asa science is the carbon dating of the canvas ? he asked. Inmy opinion, in no way is this a Holbein. It is a very complicated subject. Theoriginal was confiscated when More fell from power.
One edition of The Guardian for the same day contained a further quotationfrom Sir Roy : If canvas can be carbon dated, it would be of greatsignificance. I would like to see it done on authentic paintings of which thedates are known.
When I queried thisquotation, he wrote me that it was not quite true that he stated that it wasdoubtful that canvas of the sixteenth century could be carbon dated. Theimportant point, he emphasised, was that the canvas was signed and datedRowland Locky, 1592. 4
Not only was thisprominent art historian opposed to the Arizona findings ; E. T. Hall, of theOxford Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, reported toGeraldine Norman of The Times (25 March 1983) that the odd hump in the radio carbon calibration chart for the sixteenthcentury made it impossible to distinguish the early years from the late ones.Dr. Damon’s dilution of carbon dioxide in order to stretch it, moreover, made the results liable to error of 150 years. Professor Hallwrote to me that he believed the dates 1580 and 1620 were as likely as the date1520 cited by Paul Damon. 5
Dr. V. R. Switsur,of the Sub-Department of Quaternary Research at the University of Cambridge,was more favourable to Dr. Damon’s report. He estimated the dates 1407 and 1495as the limits for the 95 per cent level of confidence, using the data fromArizona. Should the level of confidence be increased to 99 per cent, there wasa slight possibility of a confusion between 1525 and the 1600-1620 period.6
Writing in May to Mr.Jack Leslau, Dr. Damon referred to the successful completion of a blind inter laboratory test which gave confirmation to his findings onthe dating of the canvas of the Nostell portrait. Dr. Switsur was Dr. Damon’schoice as an expert on radiocarbon calibration in the United Kingdom.
Although thescientific controversy has still to be resolved, Lord St. Oswald wassufficiently satisfied by the reports from Dr. Damon and Dr. Switsur to invitethe present Lord Chancellor to officiate at the elegant ceremony at Nostell.After its restoration in a Chelsea stable, formerly part of More’s estate, thenewly framed painting was resplendent.
But what of thesignature on the painting and the disputed date, 1530/1532 ?
Aninfra-red photograph, taken in 1951 at the National Portrait Gallery, revealedinterference and a partially disfigured date, possibly 1752. An examination bymicroscope in January 1987 by the Courtauld Institute indicated that anoriginal eighteenth century date had apparently been changed by additions ofbrown/grey and blue/black semi-transparent overpaint tocreate the 1530 or 1532 now visible. 7Further examination by the Hamilton Kerr Institute of Cambridge indicated thatthe Locky signature was a later addition and spurious. A pig’s snout had beenclearly superimposed on the nose of the little dog, directly in front of St.Thomas More, probably at the same time as the other alterations.
Onthe day of the unveiling, The Times published a long articleby Geraldine Norman, entitled How Holbein hid a royal secret .It described the discovery by Jack Leslau in 1976 of a concealed rebus in theNostell painting, similar to others in the work of Hans Holbein the Younger.Seen from a special point of view, the single glove held by Elizabeth Daunceymay read le pair lui manque for le pèrelui manque , and covertly refers to the illegitimacy of her visiblepregnancy.
Thepurple peony on the left of the canvas is an unconventional symbol ; itsecretly marks one of the persons with the symbol of royalty and medicine . ( Peony was anickname for a doctor, as Paion was physician to the gods in Greek mythology).
Anotherflower is a Richard-Lion-Heart and marks analleged Plantagenet in the painting. The carpet on the sideboard signals acover-up -- faire la tapisserie à la crédence or cacher la crédence sous le tapis .
Thecover-up referred to is the concealed existence of the younger son of EdwardIV, Richard, Duke of York, as Dr. John Clement. His alleged murder by RichardIII, described by More thirty years after his disappearance, was a blind to protect him. Est-ce (esses) gauche ou réflexionfaite, est-ce (esses) à droite? ask the reversed S’s on the chain(of the Duchy of Lancaster) that hangs from More’s neck. Clement stands,depicted at half his age, in the doorway ; he is dressed in the Italian style,having studied medicine at Siena and probably at Padua.
The Times later published four letters referring to Geraldine Norman’sarticle. Mark Bostridge (April 4, 1983) argued that the Nostell painting was aLocky copy of the lost Holbein original, given to William Roper, son of Williamand Margaret Roper. Holbein would not have dared paint a huge canvas for theRopers while serving as court painter to Henry VIII after the martyr’sexecution. Furthermore, the date 1530 was incompatible with Holbein’s sojournin London. The cramped perspective was inconsistent with Holbein’s practice. IfJohn Clement was in fact Richard Plantagenet, he would have died at theunlikely age of ninety-nine in 1571.
One point should bemade in passing : the painting was not given to a son of William Roper of thesame name. No such person existed and the error is traceable to a publicationof the National Portrait Gallery ; Angela Lewi’s The Thomas MoreFamily (1974), p. 7. 8
A second letter,from Lady Jacynth Fitzalan-Howard (April 6, 1983), accused Mr. Leslau of anexuberant imagination. The single glove was merely a mark of rank in TudorPortraits. The customary place for carpets in the period was on tables and thetops of cupboards. The purple peony was a mistake by the artist, like thefive-petalled Madonna lilies in the Locky version at the National PortraitGallery.
A third letterfound fault with Mr. Leslau’s French. P. J. Barlow (April 9, 1983) claimed thatjoncachet was not French for a rush-strewn floor. Faire tapisseriemeans to be a wallflower . Crédence did not mean belief , and a Turkish carpet was a tapis, not a tapisserie.
Finally,a fourth letter by Eric Lyall (April 15, 1983) took issue with Mr. Barlow’scriticisms. Mr. Lyall claimed jonchée was near enough to Jean cachéto serve as a sixteenth century rebus pun for a hidden John Clement. Tapisseriecould also mean a carpet and crédence was belief . Heconcluded with an opinion based on a different interpretation of one of Mr.Leslau’s rebuses. Porter à faux means to be inconclusive.
Thusended the correspondence to The Times . Jack Leslau’srebuttals to the three critical letters were not printed. 9 Although many letters were received by The Times in connection with the Geraldine Norman article, popularinterest had by this time, no doubt, shifted to the feigned Hitler Diaries. Hadit not been for Jack Leslau’s absorbing interest and energy in the face ofnumerous rebuffs, however, the Nostell portrait would never have been closelyexamined by the Courtauld and the Hamilton Kerr Institutes. The carbon datingwould not have taken place. Without the carbon dating, is it likely that LordHailsham would have lent his dignity to the unveiling of a work commonly heldto be a copy ? Jack Leslau’s hours of work deserve more than an unconsidereddismissal by art historians and scholars, and, above all, lovers of St. ThomasMore.
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
6
7
8.
9
HOLBEIN’SCOVERT REBUS
In the summer 1983issue of Exeter, the bulletin of Phillips Exeter Academy, New Hampshire,Summer 1983, the leading article, by Thomas V. N. Merriam (class of 1950), isentitled The Hidden Rebus in Hans Holbein’s Portrait of the Sir ThomasMore Family. The illustrations, essential for the thesis, include theportrait of Richard III (p. 12), since Jack Leslau finds a resemblance betweenhim and the young man standing in the doorway of the Nostell painting, and usesthis air de famille as further evidence foridentifying the young man as Richard of York. The Basel sketch of the Morefamily group (p. 13) and the Nostell canvas (pp. 58-59) are reproduced, so weare challenged to detect some of the eighty-odd differences in lay-out anddetail which J. Leslau interprets as symbols giving cumulative support to his revisionist history of the Tudor period . A few photographsshow Jack Leslau with the author, and with Lord Hailsham and Lord St. Oswald.Much is made of negative evidence : thus the total absence of any portrait orany holograph record (were it only a signature) of Dr. John Clement while hewas President of the College of Physicians is exploited to confirm that he wasa notional person , merely destined to cover the identity ofPrince Richard, rightful heir to England’s throne from 1528,after the death of Edward V (covered by another notional person, Sir EdwardGuildford). Other elements – carbon dating against Locky’s claims, etc. – aretouched in much the same was as in Mr. Merriam’s article (supra,pp. 111-16). We reproduce the Basel drawing to invite comparison with theNostell painting.
G.M.
Click
ThomasMERRIAM Moreana XXV, 97(March 1988), 145-152
Students of More need no introduction to John Clement, the puermeus of Utopia. His origins and date of birth areunknown. He is said to have attended St. Paul’s School in London, studyingunder the classicist William Lily. There appears to be no independentcorroboration from school records. By the year 1514 he is reported to have beena member of More’s household, where he was tutor to More’s children in Latinand Greek. Unless this be part of More’s affabulation, he took the boyClement along to Bruges and Antwerp on his 1515 embassy. In More’shouse Clement met his future wife, More’s adopted daughter,Margaret Giggs, whose age in 1527, according to the sketch of the More familyportrait in Basel, was 22, exactly the same as her cognata Margaret MoreRoper.
In 1518 or 1519 Clement is reported to have been appointed CardinalWolsey’s reader in rhetoric (Latin) at Corpus Christi College, a collegefounded by Bishop Richard Foxe of Winchester and dedicated to the newhumanistic curriculum. 1 Somewhat later,Clement was made reader in Greek at Oxford 2and he lectured to a larger audience than anyone before. 3 Nonetheless he left Oxford in the 1520s in orderto study medicine in Italy. He appears to have travelled via Louvain and Basel,where he met Erasmus. 4 He brought a copyof Utopia to Leonico at Padua in 1524. 5 ByMarch 1525, he received his M. D. at Siena ; his combined skills in classicsand medicine enabled him to help Lupset, his successor at Oxford, complete theAldine edition of Galen at about the same time. 6
In 1525 Clement wasa member of the royal household as Sewer [Server] of the Chamber ultra mare.7 His name, listed as from London, is includedamong the other sewers of the chamber in the accounts for 1526. 8 On his return to England, Dr. Clement wasadmitted to the College of Physicians in London on 1 February 1527-8. He was inthe king’s service when sent with two other royal doctors under Dr. Butts in1529 to attend Cardinal Wolsey, now out of favour and languishing at Esher. 9 In 1535, he was consulted on the liver of JohnFisher, then a prisoner in the Tower. 10Three years later, the records show him receiving from the royal household asalary of £10 semi-annually. 11 In 1539,however, the salary was cancelled. 12 Clementwas made president of the College of Physicians in 1544. Jack Leslau has foundthat the College possesses no documents signed by him as president. This hasbeen confirmed the Wellcome Foundation. 13
The biographical articlein the DNB fails to mention a number of curiosities regarding JohnClement. It is customarily assumed that he was born around 1500 making him aboy when he first joined the More Household, and hence the puer meus of Utopia(1516). 14 There is, nonetheless, anentry in the register of the University of Louvain of the enrolment of a Johannes Clemens on 13 February 1489, with the note non juravit added. 15 Thename John Clement is not common on the Continent except as a combined Christianname. The note non juravit is unusual in the Louvainregister, and it is remarkable to find the undoubted John Clement of ouraccount appearing in an entry of January 1551 with the unique note :
Joannes Clemens, medicine doctor,anglus, nobilis (non juravit ex rationabili quadam et occulta sed tamenpromisit se servaturum consueta). 16
The chances ofthere having been two non-juring John Clements without family background orspecific place of origin within sixty-two years of each other are negligible.
It is interestingto read also of Clement’s imprisonment in the Fleet following More’s ownimprisonment in the Tower. A letter written by John Dudley to Thomas Cromwellon 11 October 1534 states :
farthermore as towchyng maistrClements mattr I beseche your maistership not to gyue to much credens to somegreat men who peraventure wyll be intercessours of the matter and to make thebeste of it for Mr Clement / by cause peraventure they theym selves be thegreatest berers of it / as by that tyme I have shewed you how whotly thesendyng of Mr Clement to the flete was taken, by some that may chawnce youthynke to be your frende / you wyll not a little marvayle / … 17
One authoritystates that Clement was imprisoned in the Tower with More refusing to take theOath of Supremacy. 18
In 1545 JohnClement and his wife were granted the lease of Friar’s Mede, Marshfoot inHornchurch, Essex, for thirty years at 20 shillings per annum by New College,Oxford. 19 In 1549, Friar’s Mede wasleased, as it were, from under Clement : the new regime under Edward had begun.Clement left the country for Louvain. He lost his extensive library at his townhouse in Bucklersbury, consisting of 180 books, and was unable to regain themon his return to England in the reign of Mary. 20
The site of Marshfootis discernible today at Ordinance Survey grid reference TQ 513 825. It lies notfar from the electric railway linking Rainham with Dagenham. Slightly sunkenfrom the lane, the plot can be made out on the edge of the former marsh landwhich stretches south towards an invisible River Thames.
The Public RecordOffice in Chancery Lane contains an inventory of Marshfoot house listing theitems which were confiscated by Sir Anthony Wingfield with the approval of no lessa personage than Sir William Cecil, the future Lord Burghley. The inventory isdated 28 August 1552, twelve days after the death of Wingfield. 21 The complete listing is too tedious totranscribe. In the chamber over the hall there were cusshins withdragons pictures and an olde turkey carpet amongother items including a shefe of arrows , ij paire ofsplents ij salletes / an armyngswerd(e?) a poole axe / iii bills .Whether such weaponry was common among physicians of the time, I am unable tosay.
Therewas a chapel chamber in Marshfoot and it contained the following items, whichwere notably Catholic : an awlter / a picture of our Lady / a pictureof the v wowndes / a masse booke / ij cruetes , a surples, iij latten candlesticks for tapers , ahallow water potte , a portesse with claspes of silver andgilte / .
Thepicture of the Five Wounds calls to mind the banner insignia of the Pilgrimageof Grace, the most serious of all the rebellions under Henry VIII. But thepicture may have been common in such a liturgical context. There is a touch ofpoetry in the dove house with a smalle flight of doves / with a hansomgarden place but overgrowne with grasse / . It is a description of aplace waiting for the overdue return of its owner. Clement was unable to regainhis lost possessions after he returned to England on 19 March 1554.Nonetheless, his former importance was restored under Mary. In 1554 his son,Thomas Clement, M.A., was granted a royal annuity of £20. 22 With Mary’s death and the accession ofElizabeth in 1558, the Clements took leave of England for the last time. Fouryears later (March 1562) John Clement appears in the Louvain register : Dominus Joannes Clemens, nobilis, Anglus. 23 The similarity with the previous entry inJanuary 1551 is unmistakable. What is the meaning of nobilis ?Why Dominus ? Nothing in the known history of the More family suggeststhat the Greek and Latin tutor was of noble birth.
Thelast Louvain entry, dated 1568, is brief : Dominus Joannes Clement,in theologia . 24 The possiblespan of the Louvain register entries is an astonishing 79 years ; it meritsfurther examination.
Shortlybefore his death Clement moved from Bruges to Malines. He took up residence at1 Blokstraat, a few feet from the church of Saints Peter and Paul, where liethe remains of Margaret of Austria,
ThomasMerriam
35Richmond Road
Basingstoke,Hants RG21 2NX
*Theauthor would like to acknowledge the kind assistance of the following : Dr.Marjorie McIntosh, Mrs. Anne Hawker, Mr. Jack Leslau, New College Oxford,Corpus Christi College, Essex County Records Office, the Rijksarchief Antwerp,the Royal College of Physicians, the Wellcome Foundation, the Institute ofHistorical Research of the University of London, and the Public Record Office.
6.
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
25. For the place of residence, DNB.Notice the proximity of 1 Blokstraat to the church. I was informed by theMechelen tourist office that part of the body of Margaret of Austria is buriedbehind the altar of the church.
Thefollowing additional document concerns the age and status of John Clement. Tomy knowledge, it is unique among written materials in tending to confirm theevidence otherwise available solely from continental sources ; first, forClement belonging to an earlier generation than indicated by the presumed birthdate of 1500, and, second, for being of noble birth.
Thereis a listing in Letters Papers Henry VIII (2 Henry VIII), I, Part2, Appendix, p. 1550 (f. 10d) of the challengers and those answering thechallenge at a feat of arms pas d’armes plannedfor the afternoon of Wednesday, 1 June 1510. The list is as follows :
King – Lord Howard King– John Clement
Knyvet – Earl of Essex Knevet– Wm Courtenay
Howard – Sir John Awdeley Howard– Arthur Plantagenet
Brandon– Ralph Eggerton
It would appear thateach challenger took on two opponents during the afternoon. Of the ten participantsbesides Henry VIII himself, Lord Howard, Thomas Knyvet or Knevet, the Earl ofEssex, William Courtenay, and Arthur Plantagenet were closely related by bloodor marriage to the king.
Two participants,Lord Howard and Charles Brandon, were to become the premier peers of the realmas the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk.
Those related to theking belonged all to the generation of the king’s mother, Elizabeth of York.Who were the five relatives ?
Lord Thomas Howardwas to become better known as the third Duke of Norfolk when his father, thesecond Duke, died in 1524. Born in 1473, he was 37 or thereabouts in June 1510.The king was less than 20. Thomas Howard II was then married to AnnePlantagenet, sister of King Henry’s mother. He was the king’s uncle bymarriage.
Sir Thomas Knyvet orKnevet was the son of Eleanor Tyrrell, sister of Sir James Tyrrell, reputedmurderer of the Princes in the Tower. He was married to the sister of LordThomas Howard. His brother Edmund seems to have studied under Colet, beingnamed in Colet’s Will.
Henry Bourchier,second Earl of Essex, was Henry’s cousin, the son of his great aunt, AnneWoodville, sister of Elizabeth Woodville. He too belonged to the oldergeneration, possibly born in 1471. If this is true, he would have been about 39in 1510.
WilliamCourtenay, 18th Earl of Devonshire, was married to Henry’s auntCatherine, sister of Elizabeth of York.
ArthurPlantagenet was the illegitimate son of Edward IV by his mistress DameElizabeth Lucy. He was therefore half-brother to the king’s mother and to thewives of Lord Howard and William Courtenay.
Howard, Bourchier,Courtenay and Plantagenet were of the blood royal in their own right,irrespective of other links in the case of ties by marriage.
Charles Brandon, futureDuke of Suffolk, would become Henry’s brother-in-law after his marriage to theking’s sister Mary on the death of her husband, the French king. He was youngerthan the others, having been born in 1484.
If we look at theages of the noble guests on the afternoon of 1 June 1510, we find that theconventional John Clement, puer meus of ten years of age, would benotably out of place. However, a John Clement who had been in his teens atLouvain in 1489 would be a contemporary. Furthermore, a noble John Clementwould be an appropriate answerer to the king’s challenge in the company of suchdistinguished companions.
Résuméen français.
Pourle Dictionary of National Biography, John Clement est un homme de naissance modestequi à 15 ans accompagne More à Bruges en 1515, étudie puis enseigne à Oxford,devient docteur en medecine a Padoue, épouse une fille adoptive de More,preside le Collège des Médecins, s’exile outre Manche sous Edward VI puis sousElizabeth, meurt à Malines en 1572. Ce curriculum vitae ne rend pas compte detout. Non content de l’étoffer en décrivant le manoir occupé dans l’Essex parClement et l’inventaire de ses biens, Thomas Merriam relève son nom dansplusieurs documents qui suggèrent une ascendance mystérieuse :
En1510 (postscript) John Clement participe à un pas d’armes avec Henry VIII etdes seigneurs de la plus haute noblesse, tous nés au 15e siècle. Un JoannesClemens anglais immatriculé à Louvain en 1489 puis en 1551 est dispensé duserment, la seconde fois pour une raison occulte . Les 62 ansd’intervalle peuvent suggérer deux personnages, mais ce nom est rare, et ladispense exceptionnelle. En 1534, Cromwell fait allusion à un secret concernantJohn Clement et parle des ‘grands porteurs’ de ce secret. Bref, le dernier motn’est pas dit sur le puer meus de l’Utopie. Jack Leslau essaie avec l’auteur derésoudre l’énigme de John Clement.
Last Reviewed: 14 June2000
Click
Jack LESLAU Moreana XXV, 98-99(Dec. 1988), 17-36
In her clever novel TheDaughter of Time (1951) Josephine Tey presents an intriguing defense ofRichard III (1452-1485) in the matter of the death of two princes in the Towerof London (1483?). In her book, it was not Richard III but the first Tudor kingHenry VII (1457-1509) who was responsible for the death by murder of Edward V(b. 1470) and Richard, Duke of York (b. 1473), the sons of Edward IV(1442-1483).
Since historicevidence to date has not produced conclusive proof that the two boys werekilled at all, 1 leaving the case open torenewed examination, I propose to consider a third option ; that they were notin fact killed but were destined to live on under false names and identities as notional persons (persons who only apparently exist). 2
3) Certain documentary evidenceregarding Doctor John Clement, one-time secretary of More and member of hishousehold, who married (in 1526?) More’s adoptive daughter Margaret Giggs. 6
A worrying featureof the material I have to present shows that these matters were being canvassedover a substantial period of time. 7
The time-honouredpractice before tackling a work on which official reliance is placed is to askwhether that reliance is well placed.
At the time ofwriting his book (which later circulated as a manuscript and was not printeduntil 1557), Thomas More was Reader at Lincoln’s Inn and Under-Sheriff of theCity of London. His public career ended as Lord Chancellor of England(1529-1532). He was put to death for High Treason, a martyr for the unity ofthe Church. He was also known as the cleverest lawyer in Europe and he indeedacts as a patron saint of common lawyers. He was canonised in 1935.
At another level, he was the most famous intellectual ofhis day in England. It might seem foolish to challenge the trustworthiness of abook written by an author of such high intellectual and moral standing. Andyet, at the time that the princes disappeared, he was not much more than sixyears old. Thomas More had no direct first-hand knowledge of the events he sographically and dramatically relates. He names no source. To be blunt, he wasrepeating thirty-year-old street gossip.
A lawyer risks hisreputation as a serious person by allowing his name to be associated with abook of unsubstantiated hearsay evidence. 9
The central mostserious allegation in the book – written down by a well-known and muchrespected person – is that the princes had been murdered at the instigation oftheir paternal uncle, Richard III.
The impression isof a lawyer lending respectability to the story that the princes were dead. 10
However, at no timedoes the author say that these things really happened. This is negativeevidence (see Note 3). Close reading shows that what the author does say isthat Men really say these things happened.
My reservations are concerned with those officials responsible forpermitting a misreading of matters of fact. 11
Some points are not contradicted and are not in dispute. It is amatter of common agreement that 191 years after the disappearance of the twoprinces (1483), the skeletons of two young bodies were found by workmen in the Towerof London (1674). Investigation reveals that the remains were of two children(sex uncertain) aged about 13 and 10 years respectively at death. 12 An inquirer may be surprised to read that noevidence of identity was present with the remains. What is the basis for theassumption that the bodies were indeed those of the princes ?
It is widely agreed that reliance has been placed upon the informationcontained in More’s book, commenced in 1513 (some 161 years before thediscovery of the bodies in 1674) ; i.e. the alleged murder of the two princesat the ages of about 13 and 10 years.
The time period between the undoubted disappearance of the princes(1483) and the date when the book was written (1513-1521), some 30 years,merits further investigation, just as does the evidence of identity based uponthe apparent ages of the remains of two young bodies.
For the moment, myreservations are concerned with the remains, which were removed to their finalresting place in Westminster Abbey. We may safely conclude that officialapproval was sought and was given – and the public interest required to assumeall was well. 13
And yet, we mustreturn to the simple fact that the negative evidence was omitted. The negativeevidence – what was not there and which, reasonably, we might have expected tofind there – was disregarded.
First, the negativeevidence concerning the mother of the two princes, Elizabeth Woodville(1437?-1492).
When a mother doesnot claim that her sons are dead or missing, we may reasonably conclude thather sons are neither dead nor missing. 14
Neither did the mother attribute responsibility for their undoubteddisappearance to her deceased brother-in-law (Richard III), nor to her livingson-in-law (Henry VII).
We may assume there was considerable risk of disclosure by the mothershould either her brother-in-law or her son-in-law attempt to abduct her twochildren against her will.
This negative evidence directly contradicts the official view that theprinces were murdered and that the person responsible was either the mother’sbrother-in-law or her son-in-law. 15
My reservations concern the possibility that the princes were neitherdead not missing but had disappeared from public view with the knowledge andconsent of the mother, her brother-in-law and, later, her son-in-law.
An inquirer may be surprised to read that the possibility of acollusive arrangement between the principals, which resulted in thedisappearance of two young children, was never tested.
It was overlooked that the disappearance of two male children from acontested dynasty might be directly related to the silence of their mother andthe subsequent marriage of their sister (in 1486) to the leader of thecontesting dynasty.
To save her life and children’s lives and ensure the continuedwell-being of her large family, the widow of Edward IV remained silent upon thecontinued existence of her two sons and consented for her daughter, Elizabethof York (1465-1503), to marry the newly-crowned Henry VII – a collusivearrangement with her son-in-law.
The impression is of danger to an entire country from Henry VII in theevent of any show of non-compliance ; and the activities required of a dirtytricks department and their conscious and unconscious agents in Richard III,Henry VII, Henry VIII and thereafter. 16
For the present, we may safely assume all was not well – far from it –and that there is a case to answer on why the official view prevails and isregarded as definitive.
We may also decide that there was a motive for the official relianceplaced upon a misreading of the book. Similarly, that there was a motive behindthe writing of the book. That motive becomes cogent if the princes lived on, asconjectured.
Fear of disclosure was that motive, from first to last.
Upon the assumption that secret history is true history, I must nowintroduce the new evidence of a contemporary witness, Hans Holbein the Younger(1497/8-1543), that More’s story was a blind to lay down a smokescreen over thecontinued existence of the two York princes, the uncles of Henry VIII, the brothersof the Tudor king’s mother. 17
The portrait is the property of the Lord St. Oswald and Trustees andhas not been out of family possession since it was painted for Margaret andWilliam Roper, daughter and son-in-law of Sir Thomas More. Family documentsshow that it was painted by Hans Holbein the Younger, probably in the GreatHall of the Roper family home of Well Hall, at Eltham in Kent, some time duringhis second visit to England, after 1532. The painting descended to the presentowner after the marriage, in 1729, of a young Roper co-heiress, SusannahHenshaw, to Sir Rowland Winn ; who, after payment to two brothers-in-law, inorder to gain sole ownership, brought the painting from Eltham to Nostell,where it is on view to the public. 18
I now have to draw attention to the discreet placement by the artist ofconventional symbols in an end-on relationship with unconventional symbols (andother unconventional elements) in the composition of this large oil-on-canvaspainting (approximately, 3,5 x 2,5 metres). But first, I have to inform thereader of the results of my own amateur investigations into the art world.
Because there is no authority in this particular field – indeed, theunconventional symbols are unrecorded – I tested the theory that these latterwere pictorial representations of linguistic equivalents ; and I repeated theexperiment upon several hundred similar unconventional elements contained inseventy-three works attributed to Holbein, successfully.
I concluded that the artist had left information for posterity –personal and political, concerning his sitters, mostly in the French language –in a hitherto unknown secret method of communication, some sort of rebus, whichI named a covert rebus. 19
I then made a comparative study of Holbein’s original sketch of thefamily group (made in 1526? and taken by him to Basel in 1528?) and observed onemajor and some eighty minor changes in composition in the post-1532 portrait.In each case the changes were relevant to the rebus. We may usefully considerone of those changes, which concern us.
The most striking change is the artist’s inclusion of another figurein the family group, omitted from the sketch, the man in the doorway.
For a substantial period of time this person has been conjecturallyidentified as John Harris, More’s secretary. And yet he is depicted highest inthe portrait (a position conventionally reserved for the person of higheststatus). The fleur-de-lys marks him (a symbol of the French kings, fromwhom the Plantagenets are descended). The artist also marks him with a buckler,a warrior’s status symbol (Oxford English Dictionary : ‘buckler’ – ‘todeserve to carry the buckler’, ‘to take up the bucklers’ – which has earlyassociations with ideas of ‘worthiness’, ‘to enter the lists’).
These conventional symbols are in close relationship withunconventional symbols – which conjecturally identify John Harris reading abook in a back room.
The person of highest status is marked by unconventional symbols whichindicate a notional person who holds the right and title of nobility, a doctorwho is royal, husband of Margaret Clement, whose real identity is Richard, Dukeof York (depicted wearing Italian style of dress), conjecturally identified asDr. John Clement, who did gain his M.D. in Siena. 20
Clement is depicted with dark hair, of medium height and build. Thepose is a close reflected mirror image of the standard portrait of Richard IIIand might be said to favour the cingularis image. 21 Althougha Neville descendant, like his uncle, Richard III, Clement does not favour thetall, blond, beefy Neville men. Perhaps it should be mentioned here, withoutwishing to imply that the artist’s information is prime evidence, that upon thedeath of his elder brother, Edward V (who conjecturally lived under the covername of Sir Edward Guildford and allegedly died in July 1528), Clement becamethe rightful heir to the throne of England.
We may conceivablyconclude that the story that Richard, Duke of York, was murdered (1483) isfalse and that the book was indeed More’s blind to lay a smokescreen over thecontinued existence of the princes and their descendants (who must be protectedfrom retrospective identification). 22
Although we cannotbe certain how the artist obtained his information, Holbein appears to say heis deeply concerned that More is risking his life in such a way, that thewriting of the manuscript and its circulation may be clumsy or clever –implying that time will tell.
However, More mayhave served rightful heirs as well as legal heirs. This remains to be assessed.The artist has sacrificed the aesthetic quality for the sake of the rebus insome 73 pictures, something unheard of in the world of great art and, inconclusion, I must return again to the witness, Holbein. 23
We will have toconsider carefully his paintings and whether he suffered from mythomania and ifwe should believe him. Or, was it all a pack of lies ?
We must also look for a motive and explanation for the method in whichhe left his information.
Clearly, he could have left his story in a diary, possibly in code,hidden somewhere in a building, or buried in the ground for someone to find ata later date. In this way, there would be little personal risk. But again, whyshould the story be believed at any future time ? It is this central point ofrisk to which I must finally draw attention.
It might seem undeniable that Holbein’s paintings were left by him,literally ‘on the wall’, for anyone to see. They were not hidden away. Therecould be no guarantee of security for his method of communication. At anymoment an enemy might have seen and understood. There was a considerable riskof discovery, of which we may assume he was aware. In the event, the risk wasnot merely confiscation of goods and chattels, but death.
Perhaps we should listen with respect, neither believing nor disbelieving,but just remembering one brave man among many. Alternatively, we may concludethat Holbein was a credible and independent witness at the English court, aGerman observer and competent reporter of the great persons and events of thesixteenth century – a man whose art concealed his art for posterity — which mayrequire some change to the recorded history of Tudor England. It is a matterfor the reader to decide what recommendations should be made and to ensure thatthose recommendations should not be shuffled off until another century.
A slightly worrying feature of the material I have to present shows thatwe have often allowed ourselves to rely on positive evidence, such as documentsand artefacts, over a substantial period of time, without a proper system ofchecks and balances. My reservations concern a system that apparently placedreliance upon positive evidence without proper checking of the negativeevidence as, for instance, in the case of the genealogies of the royal housesof Europe.
We may further conclude that positive evidence can be faked bycommission or omission -– but not negative evidence. This is our centralpoint.
In this section we are concerned with methods and, as in thisdeveloping case, the method of approach to a problem is sometimes moreimportant – in order to obtain a correct hypothesis – than the seeminglyall-important problem itself, which may be resolved by other means.
In the case of Dr.John Clement, we observe that he became president of the College of Physicianswithout any record of family credentials, place of origin or birth. Theposition was in the gift of the king.
The most careful search has revealed no official document bearing his signature.Signatures or records of their former existence remain extant for everypresident since the granting of the letters patent to the college in 1518 –except for Dr. John Clement. Similarly, portraits or records of their formerexistence remain for every president up to the present day – except Clement.This NIET negative evidence has been confirmed by the Royal College ofPhysicians and the Welcome Foundation Medical Museum, London.
Dominus JoannesClemens, medecine doctor, anglus, nobilis (non juravit ex rationabili quadam etocculta causa), sed tamen promisit se servaturm juramenta consueta.
The entry is in the rector’s hand, in accordance with universitycustom and rule. The rector’s bracketed explanation is unique for the period 31stAugust 1485 to February 1569, when a total of 49,246 names were inscribed.
We may assume the rector was not naïve and realised that Clement wasnot the name of a noble family, that he indeed knew who he was and that hecould not permit Clement to swear the oath under a false name, that perjury wasa serious matter, and the university might lose its right to the privilegiumtractus if discovered. Similarly, if this were to happen, that Clementwould no longer be protected from prosecution by the civil and ecclesiasticalauthorities and that his name must be on the register in order to gain theprivilege.
The open declaration by the rector of Clement’s noble status impliesthat he was aware Clement was living under an assumed name, though not for anyfraudulent purpose. This was not illegal. Clement’s profession and country oforigin are openly stated. The rector could prove that John Clement had neversworn nor had need to swear the customary oath, that he was a special case,for, as far back as 13th February 1489, a John Clement was firstinscribed. (See : Matricule de
In 1489 the customary age for entry to university was between sixteenand seventeen years. On August 17 in that same year, Richard, Duke of York,born 1473, would have reached sixteen years of age. More’s possible role inproviding a false early background for Clement, essential for a notionalperson, remains to be assessed. 26
Fortunately, advances in modern technology enablethe case to be tested, reliably and conclusively. 27
If Sir Edward Guildford and Dr. John Clement were indeed brothers, itis scientifically possible to prove (or disprove) consanguinity from a geneticstudy of a suitable sample taken from each body – a small residue of tissue, orhair. If the test proves negative, the present historical case falls to theground. If the test proves positive : we have grounds for further investigationof the claim that these men were notional persons, either one or the other, orboth. At the same time, since we know that the genetic material in every humanbeing is derived from each parent at conception and that approximately half ispaternal and the other half maternal in origin and identifiable in theoffspring, a reasonable point of departure might be a similar examination of asample taken from the bodies of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, the parentsof the two princes, in order to fully verify the present argument concerningthe real identities of Sir Edward Guildford and Dr. John Clement.
The solution to this scientific problem provides a solid core foron-going historical conjecture based on NIET criteria. (See Note 3 et passim)
If what Holbeinstates is found to be true on the point of the real identity of Dr. JohnClement, the reader may not be surprised that due to a family difference ofopinion the younger prince was exiled or exiled himself to Flanders where(except for the Marian period when he returned to England) he lived for therest of his life with his family and much of More’s circle. He remained true tothe old religion, lived to an advanced age, and was buried beside the highaltar of St. Rombaut’s Cathedral, Mechelen, in 1572. At the time, burial at thehigh altar was reserved for the scions of the royal house of Burgundy, thefamily-by-marriage of his paternal aunt, Margaret of Burgundy, née Margaretof York, whose court was at Mechelen, former capital of Flanders.
Finally, all thisdoes not imply that academia has failed in its duties. This is not the case.Those duties have been carried out with great care and undoubted success over asubstantial period of time. My reservations are concerned with what appears tobe a system that had developed which did not match advances and procedures inother scientific fields. There must be a proper and effective checkingprocedure and the inquiry will want to know what was the system for checking :was it a good one and was it operating properly.
I have argued that any method which omits to state criteria or failsto follow systematic verification (and falsification) or all known evidence,positive and negative, without offering a best-fit hypothesis basedsoundly upon a balance of probability, in an on-going method of inquiry, is aninherently inadequate procedure. However, I trust that the initial evidencepresented above, both positive and negative, is sufficient to sow the seeds ofreasonable doubt required to justify and make possible an open minded andmulti-disciplined re-opening of the case.
10 Glenwood Grove
Kingsbury
London NW9 8HJ
1. For the mostauthoritative argument, I will rely on The Complete Peerage ofEngland, Scotland, Ireland, ed. G. E. C. Cokayne, Vol. XII (2), 1959, Richard,Duke of York, with special reference to Appendix J. The impressionis that all writers on the princes, before and since Cokayne, omit the presentthesis, first presented by the author in 1976. See : Did the Sons ofEdward IV Outlive Henry VII? , The Ricardian, Journal of theRichard III Society, Vol. IV. No. 62. Sept 1978, pp. 2-14. See also Ricardiana in Moreana by M.-C. Rousseau, published in
2. For an insight intothe theory of notional persons, I recommend The Double-Cross System in theWar of 1939-1945 by J. C. Masterman, Yale University Press, New Haven,1972.
3. Evidence that is notthere is defined as negative evidence , and evidence, which isthere, is defined as positive evidence . We assume thatpositive evidence can be fake – negative evidence cannot – and thus investigatethe potentially more reliable evidence. The significant absence of informationis tested on the basis of negative evidence -- people, things and ideas –-which is not there and which we might reasonably expect to find there. We testthe assumption that negative evidence is, fundamentally, positive evidence(negative evidence does not mean ‘negative’ evidence, which latter uniquelyimplies falsification of an hypothesis). In Conan Doyle’s short story Silver Blaze , ‘the dog that did not bark’ is negative evidence.Sherlock Holmes stressed the importance of what was not there and what,reasonably, he expected to find there. The dog did not bark because the unknown thief was its master.
4. The History of KingRichard the Third written in or about 1513 (according to his nephew WilliamRastell, publisher of the 1557 edition of More’s Workes) facsimileby Scolar Press, 1978.
5. See The Paintingsof Hans Holbein the Younger by Paul Ganz, First Complete edition, PhaidonLondon 1950, pp. 282-283.
6.
7. See Cokayne, Note 1,above.
TheYork theory assumes that theprinces were not killed at all. If Stillington’s allegation was true as claimed– and he did not retract it – Richard III was the rightful and legal heir indescent from Edward III. However, the accession was announced openly anddefined narrowly in the highly unconventional ‘title of king’ (The Act of TitulusRegius). The negative evidence shows that Elizabeth Woodville and EleanorButler at no time are reported to have either publicly acknowledged or deniedor confirmed the central major implication of Stillington’s allegation.Information left for posterity in Holbein’s method implies Richard loyallytried to cover up his elder brother’s extremely bad behaviour but was obligedby force majeure to declare an impediment in the children. Thefuture victor at Bosworth (later Henry VII) saw the main chance and prepared toinvade England from France. For the protection of the realm, Richard tookcharge in the title of king. The two princes were hidden for their own safetywith friends, the Tyrrells, with maternal consent. The over-anxious andambitious Elizabeth Woodville still felt at risk from the traditional Yorkfamilies (who had not forgotten her undistinguished entrapment of the late king).Richard’s repeated attempts at reassurance failed. Rather than run with theYork hounds she knew, the widow of Edward IV fell prey to a Tudor fox she cameto know, whose dirty tricks department notionally murdered her sons. Tobe assessed.
9
1)Thomas More (conscious) – in The History of King Richard the Third.
2) Thecontemporary author of The Chronicles of Croyland (conscious) – whonever identified himself.
3).Dominic Mancini (unconscious) – an Italian visitor to England (See: DeOccupatione Regni Angliae, edited and translated by C. A. J. Armstrong,London, 1936.)
4)Polydore Vergil (conscious ?) – an Italian resident in England, royalhistoriographer, who for many years held the position of sub-collector toCardinal Adrian de Corneto, Bishop of Bath Wells, who held the office ofCollector for England in Henry VII’s reign. Arguably, in the pay of the Tudors.See Letters Papers, Foreign Domestic, Henry VIII, Vol. I,part I, 1509, ed. R. H. Brodie, publ. HMSO, London 1920, p. xiv. Seealso Polydore Vergil’s Anglia Historia, ed. Denis Hay, Camden Society 1950,and cf. Denis Hay, Polydore Vergil, Oxford, 1952.
We maybe surprised to read that the wartime technique is described as a tacticalmuddying of the waters – and leaving them muddy (Masterman). Wemay also be surprised that in order to cause harm to an individual orindividuals, false information is deliberately planted in fertile soil in orderto grow. Similarly, misinformation is scattered (also known as ‘trailingbirdseed’) to be picked up by hungry little chatterboxes and deposited far awayfor consumption by others. Essentially, the information is intended, quitedeliberately, to distort others’ perceptions of matters of fact, and the methodis widely used as part of the overall strategy of a special dirty tricksdepartment within a national security agency. (Masterman. See Note 2)
11
Inactuality his narrative seldom claims to be more authoritative than his sourcesit asks us first of all to credit not that what ‘men say’ really happened, butthat men really say that it did happen. If we construe these appeals toauthority as merely rhetorical devices which lend an aura of objectivity toarrant falsehood then we are forced to deny the demonstrable fact that othermen had indeed ‘said’ what More makes them say in his narrative.
Seealso Richard III and his Early Historians 1483-1535 by A. Hanham,Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975, p. 190, Sir Thomas More’s SatiricalDrama :
As a joke against historians,the History of King Richard the Third has indeed had a success brilliantbeyond anything that its creator can have intended
13
(Forsummary report, see The Times of London, July 22nd,1978, p. 1)
19
21
(I wish to thank M.-C. Rousseau for kindly revealing to me theconnexion of the cingularis/singularis homophone and its historicalsignificance. I also thank G. Marc’hadour for pointing out that sangliercomes from singularis and that, to some etymologists, this meansthe inherent ‘singleness’ [non-gregarious character] of the wild boar.)
24. In Utopia,More refers to John Clement as puer meus. This tallies with the vitathat places his birth about 1500. More does not refer to his nobleancestry. See : John Clement his identity, and his Marshfoot house inEssex by T. Merriam, Moreana 97 (March 1988), pp.145-152. Since publication of Merriam’s article, the College of Arms supportshis view, on the basis of the English documentary evidence, that Clement wasindeed of gentle or noble birth, and that this goes without saying. Similarly,the Rijksarchief in Antwerp, on the basis of the evidence in Flanders, issatisfied that the contemporary nobilis descriptions in the Matriculesde L’Université de Louvain conventionally reflect the status of nobility,and that John Clement was indeed of noble birth. In view of the absence of anyevidence of ennoblement (Lord Spiritual or Temporal), thisnegative evidence suggests the foregoing authoritative opinions uponsubstantive matters may also be correct in fact ; requiring verification (See :Note 27, below)
25. Matricules de l’Universitéde Louvain
See : (1) Vol. III, ed. A. Schillings, publ. Louvain,1958. 31 August 1485 – 31 August 1527. During this 42-year period, 23,479 nameswere inscribed : an average of 559 each year.
See : (2) id. Vol. IV, ed. A. Schillings, publ. Louvain,1961. Feb 1528 – Feb 1569. During this 41-year period, 25,767 names wereinscribed : an average of 628 each year.
Before entry, at minimum age of about 16 years, eachstudent was required to swear the following oath (text taken from Vol. III,fol. 2) :
Juramenta intitulandorumin manibus rectoris prestanda. Primo quod observabitis jura, privilegia,libertates, statuta, ordinationes et consuetudines laudibiles universitatisstudii Lovaniensis ad quemcumque statum deveneritis. Secundo quod observabitispacem, tranquillitatem et concordiam dicti studii in se, suis facultatibus etmembris, sub regimine et obedientia unius rectoris. Tertio quod universitati etejus rectori pro tempore existenti in licitis et honestis parebitis, ac debitumhonorem sibi impenditis. In principio libri precedentis habentur, et ibi videde stipendio rectoris quo ad sigillum de modo recipiendi scolares et familiaresad usum privilegiorum de qualificatione transportium et scolarium in quos fiunt.
See Schillings’s note inVol. III, (p. xii
Prendre un engagement solennel sousla foi du serment revient évidemment à accomplir un acte juridique pour lequel iffaut avoir la capacité requise.
Obviously, for a student to swear anoath under a false name would be a serious crime, namely perjury.
See also the note of FEES in Vol. III(p. xiii) :
Lesétudiants devaient payer un minerval pour leurs études. Au début, cette sommeétait remise entre les mains du recteur. Plus tard, elle sera payée au receveurde l’Université. Le montant de la somme était fixé.
It is not at all clear if Clement hadto pay his fees direct into the hand of the rector – or, as a politicalrefugee, whether he paid any fees at all. However, at a later date (see. p. xiv),we find :
…que les nobiles payaient plus queles divites et que la somme soldée par ces derniers était supérieure à celledes pauperes.
Nobility paid more for their tuitionthan the commoners and paupers. Dr. W. Rombaut, Director of the Rijksarchief atAntwerp, notes that upon occasion, nobles failed to declare their nobleancestry, in order to pay less !
See also Vol. III (p. xiv), re.the origin, significance and practical importance of privilegium tractus:
Lors de sa fondation l’Alma Materreçut beaucoup de privilèges notamment en matière d’impôts. Le plus importantde ceux-ci ètait incontestablement le privilegium tractus ou le privilège dejuridiction. Les fondateurs avaient estimé que l’Université ne pouvait pasjouir d’une indépendance complète si ses members n’étaient pas soutraits àtoute autorité ecclésiastique et civile autre que celle du recteur, presidentdu tribunal de l’Université.
And also, Vol. III (p. xv) :
Mais l’inscription dans lesmatricules était la condition indispensable pour pouvoir invoquer lesprivileges.
And, Vol. III (p. xv) :
L’étudiant n’était inscrit qu’uneseule fois, lors de son entrée à l’Université. Toutefois il n’était pas exclu quepour des motifs sérieux, par example une longue absence ou interruption, onjugeât utile d’immatriculer une seconde fois (renovavit juramentum). Le recteurdevait inscrire les noms des étudiants de sa main propre
According to custom and rule, therector is directly involved with the actual registration, which must be made inhis own hand. John Clement was unconventionally re-registered by more than onerector (see below) without the formally required renovavit juramentum.The impression is that the rectors are implicated in a collusive arrangementwith Clement. The best-fit hypothesis is that the rectors were loyallyprotecting the person known as John Clement, and that they knew his realidentity.
From the rectors’ point of view, it wasessential for Clement’s name to be on the register (in order to protect himfrom possible prosecution by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities) but theycould not permit him to swear the oath under a false name, which, in the caseof discovery or denunciation, might lose the university its right to the privilegiumtractus and cost the rector his job !
The impression is that the problem washonestly solved (almost !) by the earliest rector when he registered a JohnClement, without the students’ oath, on 13th February 1489.
Either this rector was an old man,forgetful and incompetent, or he deliberately omitted details of statusand origin.
In the latter case, the rector riskedthe possibility that the classification ‘non juravit’ (orsimilar) would be applicable (on just thirteen occasions from August 1485 toFebruary 1569) to privileged college servants (Schillings) and absentees, withcustomarily given status and/or origins – except in the case of John Clementand that this first entry would be revealed as unique for the period.
In Vol. III :
Tulpinus Causmans, servitor etpistor Mgri Johannis Moeselaer regentis in Castro, solvit juraintitulationis et non juravit. (p. 4, #58. 27.11.1485)
Denea filia Wissonnis ancilla MgriJohannis Petri de Capella, solvit jura intitulationis et non juravit.(p. 4, #59. 17.12.1485)
Johannes Clemens (non juravit).(p. 42, #128. 13.2.1489)
Bartolomeus de Stapel, servitorlaicus Spierinck non juravit. (p. 115, #103. 9.1.1495)
Urbanus Andree de Florenis, nonjuravit quia absens. (p. 368, #252. 2.10.1508)
In Vol. IV :
Joannes Pierz de Ostendis (nonjuravit). (p. 12, #1. 31.8.1528)
Jacobus de Namursi (iste nonprestitit juramentum quia non comparavit). (p. 87, #8. March 1533)
Carolus le Dusereau, Lymaliensis(non juravit). (p. 521, #435. 26.8.1555)
Arnoldus Proeven de TrajectoSuperiori, non juravit. (p. 526, #161. Feb 1556)
Nicolaus Bahuet, Bruxellensis, nonjuravit propter ejus absentiam. (p. 541, #95. Jan 1557)
Urbanus Beringerius, Cameracensis,non juravit quia absens erat. (p. 541, #101. Jan. 1557)
Johannes Op den Berch, Bruxellensis,non juravit quia absens (p. 543, #177. Jan 1557)
Wilhelmus Bonen, Velpensis, nonjuravit quia absens. (p. 544, #189. Jan 1557)
The unique John Clement entrypresupposes a unique cause and/or a most compelling reason. The rectorship ofMgr Balduinus Wilhelmi of Delft commenced the last day of August 1487. Therectorship of Conrardus de Sarto commenced on the sabbath before the last sabbathin the month of August 1488 and lasted until 26 February 1489, when the newrector was Petrus de Thenis. However, the Clement entry was recorded earlier,under the rectorship of Mgr Balduinus Wilhelmi, and the entry is in his hand.There is no fully satisfactory explanation except that pre-inscribing of anunder-age student was not unusual – indeed, it was common.
See also :
Dominus Doctor Joannes Clemens,nobilis, Anglus. (Vol. IV, [op.cit.], #3, March 1562)
Dominus Johannes Clement, intheologia. (Vol. IV, [op. cit.], #55, 3 June 1568)
26
The 1518 edition of Utopia containsa frontispiece showing Clement as a young boy. It is still uncertain who drew theoriginal sketch, either Hans Holbein or Ambrosius Holbein, his brother.However, the impression is that Hans Holbein deduced Clement’s age (as we havedone) from the text and may have further confirmed this with Erasmus who wasliving at the time in the home of the Basel printer, Johannes Froben, probablyseeing his friend More’s work through the press. We may imagine Holbein’ssurprise when he met John Clement for the first time in More’s house in Londonin 1526-1527. He was expecting to meet a man of about 27 years (born about1500) and instead he was introduced to a man of 54 years. There was littlepoint in Thomas More insulting his guest’s intelligence by denying what he hadwritten and that Erasmus was involved. This extraordinary story of Clement’salleged real age and true year of birth (1473) is referred to in the rebus inthe Group Portrait Sir Thomas More and his Family.
27
Footnote :
For the best defence of Richard III ina work of fiction (acknowledged by Cokaynes’s The Complete Peerage), seeThe Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey. (cf. beginning ofthe present article and Note 1)
Résumés
The Princes in the Tower disappeared in1483, aged 13 and 10 years. In his History of King Richard III, Morecuriously repeats what ‘men say’, that they mere murdered by their ambitiousuncle, Richard of Gloucester, later King Richard III. Why does a man of truthtake on board a rumour from a previous century – not to be printed during hislife time ? No less impressive : why doesn’t the mother of the princes,Elizabeth Woodville, claim that her children are either missing or dead ? Couldthe children have re-appeared under false names and identities, the elder asSir Edward Guildford and the younger as John Clement, the latter in the Morefamily ? The presence of Richard, Duke of York, is confirmed by the artistHolbein in the Group Portrait of Sir Thomas More and his family. Upon the deathof his elder brother, Clement-the-rightful-heir occupies the position ofhonour highest in the portrait, marked by fleur de lis. The theory ofroyal status is supported by what we find in the registers of the University ofLouvain. Do not these trails merit deeper investigation ?
Les enfants de la Tour, neveux etrivaux potentials de l’ambitieux Richard de Gloucester, disparurent en 1483,ages 13 et 10 ans. Dans son History of King Richard III, More accréditeleur assassinat en répétant ce que men say (les gens disent).Mais lui, l’homme intègre qui mourra pour la vérité, se garde bien de prendre àson compte cette rumeur. En outré, son oeuvre, rédigée entre 1513 et 1518, nesera pas publié de son vivant. Pourquoi une telle reserve ? Un autre silence n’est pas moins impressionnant ; celui de la mère des jeunesprinces, Elizabeth Woodville. Alors, les enfants n’auraient-ils pas simplementdisparu sous des noms d’emprunt, l’un de Sir Edward Guildford, l’autre de JohnClement, ce dernier appartenant à la maisonnée de More? C’est ce queconfirmerait la présence de ce John, sous ‘nom de guerre’ de Heresius,dans une grande composition, La Famille de Thomas More, par HansHolbein. Clement-Heresius-Richard d’York y occupe une position honorifiqueinattendue, et ce dans un cadre de fleurs de lis.
Henri GIBAUD
The holograph page 17v ofthe Louvain register shows the ‘Johannes Clemens’ entry with ‘nonjuravit’ abbreviated in the left hand margin (tenth line). The handwritingchanges with the entry : ‘Johannes Mere de Aldenardo filius Wilhelmi,Tornacen, dyoces, stud. in fac. artium.’ (12.2.1489, eighth line) Note thateach name in this section is followed by an identifying qualifier except ‘JohannesClemens’ (13.2.1489).
Reproduced by courtesy of the ArchivesGénérales du Royaume, 2-4-6 Rue de Ruysbroeck, 1000 Brussels with manythanks to Dr. E. Persoons. (See text above, p. 15)
Click
5th International Thomas More Symposium
Europe -- Cradle of Humanism and theReformation
Mainz, Germany, May 20-27, 1995.
MAINZ 1995
The More circle : the Antwerp/Mechelen/Louvainconnexion
Jack Leslau
This new research paper The More circle : theAntwerp/Mechelen/Louvain connexion (1985-1995) has numbered Notes Referencesjoined in its final printed version. Early research and findings (1976-1985)are described and explained in The Princes in the Tower (Leslau J, MOREANAXXV, Vol. 98-99, Dec. 1988, pp.17-36). Readers are cordially invited tosubmit questions on any matter under review.
The members of the More circle in Flanders have comeunder close scrutiny by readers of Moreana, as perhaps we should expect,following publication of The Princes in the Tower. We focus oncemore on John and Margaret Clement, their family and extended family ; firstly,the documentation that the Clements were buried in Mechelen, 1 three children were buried in Louvain, 2 and Sir Edward Guildford was buried inEngland. 3
Let me say, first of all, that thanks to advances incertain modern technology, namely the self-describing 'geo-radar', which, verysimply, finds holes in the ground -- we have found a vault in preciselythe location shown in an old painting, and confirmed by document, of thelong-lost Rastell tomb in St Peter's church in Louvain. 4 Of this, there can be no measure of doubt.Similarly, we have probably found the Clement tomb in St Rombold's cathedral inMechelen, though not all experts agree. 5Application has therefore been made to pass an endoscope into each vault with aview to possible exhumation and further investigation by DNA profiling of theremains. 6 Permission has not been grantedto date.
Thegrounds for these exhumations, as already described and made clear(Princes p. 28), are, firstly, that on the ninth day of April inthe year 1483, King Edward IV of England died. Secondly, that some three monthslater, on sixth of July 1483, his younger brother, Richard of Gloucester --oddly ignoring the hereditary claims of the two sons of Edward IV, namelyEdward V and Richard, Duke of York -- ascended the English throne as KingRichard III. Thirdly, and finally, the two boy-princes disappeared forever ;the greatest and most baffling case of missing persons in the royal history ofEngland.
b
1. '...the Clements were buried in Mechelen :'
Clementis coniux hoc Margarita sepulchro
Dormit, qua nulli charior vlla fuit.
Hac mihi plus quàm quadriginta et quatuor annos
Iuncta fuit, rara norma pudicitiae
Gnatos et gnatas docuit Graecè atque Latinè,
Sed magis instituit iussis tenere Dei.
Ex his pars nupsit Christo, pars altera mundo,
Utraque sed viuit dispare sorte Deo.
Posthabuit Christi fidei patriamque domumque,
Aula peregrino credere membra solo.
Margarita vale mihi dilectissima coniunx,
Moribus eximijs et pietate pari
Vos sursum pater et fili, nataque valete,
at pro ... abiduae fundite, quaeso preces
2. '...three children were buriedin Louvain :'
3. '...Sir Edward Guildford wasburied in England :'
'Yesterday,I was informed that Sir Edw. Goldford, warden of the Five Ports, was buried inthe morning at one o'clock at Ledys, and died without confession or any othersacrament of Church, neither had torch nor taper, nor bell-ringing, but was putinto the earth without ceremony. I shall be with you on Friday'. Rochester,Sunday morning. Hol. p. 1.
Sir Edward Guildford was a veryimportant person in his own right. He was not a criminal. You may conceivablydecide that the likelihood of Edward Guildford being buried unshriven, withouttorch, nor taper, nor bell-ringing, and without ceremony, at a midnight funeral,and unattended by his only child and sole remaining heir, Lady Jane Guildford,wife of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, their family and extended familyand friends : is so remote as to be readily dismissed. Holbein's word, oncemore, needs to be tested by science.
4. '...the long-lost Rastell tombin St Peter's church in Louvain.' See 1 : The Chronicles of St Monica's,Louvain (Dom Adam HAMILTON, Vol.1, p.10) : 'The Rastell chapel was in theright hand of the altar of the Virgin Mary', conjecturally identified as theright hand side of the altar 'Sanctae Mariae sub oxali' of VAN ESSEN inNotre-Dame de St Pierre siège de la sagesse [1129-1921],p.28, quoting MOLANUS, before 1585.
See3 : There is a fragment in Les Quatorze livres sur l'histoire de laVille de Louvain, 1861, p.785 (probably translated from MOLANUS'sLatin text) that William RASTELL was buried in the same TOMB as his wife ('ineodem sepulchro'), and a MONUMENT to his wife, Winifred, was placed underthe organ ('monumentum uxori suae Wenefridae...posuit ad S. Petrum suborganis').
See 4 : Pre-1944, on page 31 ofREEKMAN's book, Fig. 20 shows the chapel and organ (built by Jean CRIMONin`1556) in an engraving of the interior of St Peter's church (after a 17thcentury painting by an unknown artist).
See 5 : On page 92 of REEKMAN's book,Fig. 71 shows a monument, possibly the Rastell monument, on the wall in thelate 19th century 'under the organ'.
5. '...though not all expertsagree.'
See : Two-page Fax ('to allnewspapers'), dated 6 September 1991, from Dr Toon Osaer, Press Officer to HisEminence Godfried Cardinal Danneels, Archbishop of Malines-Brussels, Wollemarkt15, B-2800, Mechelen, Belgium. Tel (015) 21 65 01. Fax (015) 20 94 85. TheArchbishop states his side of the case. There is no mention of an examinationby endoscope (See : Note 6 above).
7. 'Margaret (née Joan Giggs)'
8. 'theory of notional persons'
9. 'the view generally accepted today'...
10. '...diminishes their own scholarship.'
ã 2000 Holbein Foundation. All rights reserved. Termsof Use.
Clickç “Back”
§7
REVIEWED; DEC 2001; MAY2002, JUL 2002, DEC 2002;
FEB 2003, MARCH2003, APRIL 2003, MAY 2003. JUNE 2003
LAST REVISION
TAGS:THOMAS MORE HOLBEIN SIR IN TOWER THE PRINCES
<<< Thank you for your visit >>>
Websites to related : Topcon Solutions Store | Solutio
keywords:Autodesk,survey equipment, construction equipment, Topcon, Sokkia
description:Topcon Solutions Store is a collaboration of successful indepen
keywords:
description:Discipleship Devotional Study Guides To Help You Grow As A Follower Of Christ
Growing As Disciples Discipleshi
keywords:
description:Cutting-edge programming you won’t find anywhere else. From concerts to intimate behind-the-scenes series, all our shows celebr
keywords:
description:
ip-address.comHomeMy IPSpeedtestSitemapProxy CheckerProxy ListVerify Email AddressTrace Email AddressIP to Zip CodeIP Address D
keywords:
description:World Concert Hall facilitates, selects and offers each day the best live broadcasts from concert halls and opera houses all aro
keywords:Hy Bender, New York City, NYC, comedy, comedic, comics, stand-up, standup, stand up, UCB, Upright Citizens Brigade, UCBT, improv, improvisati
Agilitas: Leading Global IT Chan keywords:
description:Agilitas’ provides a single-point-of-contact for all hardware support requirements. Delivering solutions across your whole tech
keywords:Send Gift Item (Flower, Cake and Others) to your dearest one.
description:Best Online Flowers , Cake Delivery & Most Trusted Indian Online Fl
keywords:
description:Your #1 Source for Video Games, Consoles & Accessories!
Home Categories Best Selle
keywords:Islam, way to allah, waytoallah, pierre vogel, as salah, das Gebet, islamische vornamen, Islamic, islamisch, islamische, Gottergebene, Moslem
adsHot Websites