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

A considerable amount of research and professionalassistance from various disciplines will be required in order to verify thisthesis. In the present article I can only point to a number of indications,which seem to support the theory and my personal view. In this connexion, Iwill have to introduce a negative intelligence (or evidence) evaluationtheory (NIET), which may, for its own sake and on its own merits, attract ascholar’s attention. ³

I will summarise my initial observations andfindings under three headings :

1)Interpretation of Thomas More’s manuscript/book (1513-1518), The History ofKing Richard the Third  ;  ⁴

2)Interpretation of Holbein’s large portrait of More’s household, in comparisonwith the sketch he made in Chelsea (1526-1528) ; ⁵

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

Section 1

by Thomas More

(1477-1535)

A worrying featureof the material I have to present shows that these matters were being canvassedover a substantial period of time. ⁷ Interested parties raised the inherent contradictionsas a subject for discussion. It is not at all clear that the problems were readand minuted for systematic objections. My reservations concern the officialresponse to the public interest – which was required to assume that all waswell. ⁸ This is a little troubling and wewill revert to it later.

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

Section 2

The Group Portrait of Sir Thomas More and hisFamily

at Nostell Priory, West Yorkshire.

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.

Section 3

John Clement and negative intelligence

(or ‘evidence’) evaluation theory.

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.

Few records were better kept, if any, or were moreofficially authenticated. The royal genealogies are widely regarded asunchallengeable. And yet, we must return to the simple fact that the negativeevidence was overlooked. Because of this, the risk existed that any conclusionbased upon the positive evidence was solely the product of the criteria appliedand those criteria had omitted the negative evidence which was not there ;namely, the multiple births.

In a sample of some 50,000 royal births since thefifth century, there is not one set of twins recorded. And yet the incidence oftwins is well known and can be predicted : at least one in one hundred births,ten in a thousand, and some 500 in 50,000. We must not invent a new biology forroyal families. Clearly there is a case to answer concerning the apparentnon-records of the incidence of royal multiple births.

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.  However, an entry in the register of theUniversity of Louvain, for January 1551 (already quoted in Moreana No.97, p. 146), states (in full):

Dominus JoannesClemens, medecine doctor, anglus, nobilis (non juravit ex rationabili quadam etocculta causa), sed tamen promisit se servaturm juramenta consueta.

     Author’s translation :

The Lord John Clement, doctor of medicine,English, of noble birth ²⁴ (has not swornthe oath for a reasonable hidden cause), but has nevertheless promised to keepthe customary oaths.

The entry is in the rector’s hand, in accordance with universitycustom and rule. The rector’s bracketed explanation is unique for the period 31^stAugust 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 13^th February 1489, a John Clement was firstinscribed. (See : Matricule de l’Universitéde Louvain, Vol. III, ed. A. Schillings, publ. Louvain, 1958, p. 42. #128,  Johannes Clemens (non juravit)Feb 13 1489’. ²⁵)

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. ²⁸

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                                          Jack LESLAU

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  Moreana 87-88 (Nov. 1985), pp.175-176. Re. The actual fate of the princes, Cokayne documents conclusivelythat there exists no conclusive proof ! (See Appendix J, op. cit. pp.32-39).

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. Margaret Clement (d. 1570). Daughter of Thomas and Olive Gygges of Burnham in Norfolk.Kratzer says ‘Margaret’s cognata’, referring to More’s eldest daughter,Margaret (G. Marc’hadour conjectures co-born ). There isindeed pictorial evidence that they were born in the same year (1505, afterHolbein). More does not speak of adoption or wardship. He only ‘numbers heramong my own’ and ‘she’s no less dear to me than if she were my child’ (TheCorrespondence of Sir Thomas More, E. F. Rogers, ed., Princeton, 1947,letters 43 107). Curiously, More does not include her name in the poem tohis children, which unlike the letters from court, was published by him. About1526, she married Dr. John Clement, out of More’s house. (I wish to thank theCanonesses of Windesheim for kindly permitting publication of research intocontemporary and other material on the Clement family in the archives now atThe Priory of Our Lady, Sayers Common in West Sussex, formerly of St.Augustine’s Priory, Newton Abbot in Devon ; community now disbanded since1983).

7. See Cokayne, Note 1,above.

8. TheTudor theory concerning the disappearance of the princes: It is not at allclear, but there does exist a contemporary rumour, unsupported by documentationand from an uncertain source, that sometime during the period April 9-July 6,1483; i.e. from the death of Edward IV to the coronation of Richard III – aclaim was made that a pre-contract between Edward IV and Lady Eleanor Butlerinvalidated the king’s second secret marriage. The Bishop of Bath Wells,Robert Stillington, had claimed in Parliament that indeed he had performed theceremony. When challenged he protested that he had been overtaken by laterevents, but now that the question of the rightful royal succession was laidbefore him, his conscience made him speak out. Parliament agreed that if thesecond marriage was bigamous, the children were indeed illegitimate. A fullhearing of the case was envisaged and a date set down, but there is no officialrecord that it did indeed take place. It was about this time Richard saw hischance and usurped the throne. From other reports, the princes disappeared fromthe Tower later that year. The current rumour was that before the death oftheir uncle Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth (22 August 1485), the princeshad been murdered. The major implication is clear : Richard was responsible fortheir deaths.

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. The very fact that More did not go into printsuggests two possible motives : (a) a circulating manuscript has a strongergossip-effect ; (b) More would not like to see a pack–of-lies in print ; itmight make him more formally responsible to his friends for all the nonsensetherein.

10. Dirty(and other) Tricks: In security agency jargon, the person who tells anofficial lie, knowingly, is a conscious agent ; andthe person who repeats the lie, unknowingly, is an unconscious agent. If the princes indeed lived on, the investigation reveals theexistence of conscious and unconscious agents reporting the blackwashing of Richard III. Requiring assessment (see Cokayne, loc.cit.):

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. See Richard III, by R. S. Sylvester, TheComplete Works of St. Thomas More, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1963, Vol.2, p. lxxviii:

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.

12.Thomas More wrote that the bodies of the murdered princes had been buried atthe foot of a staircase in the Tower of London. There is no earlier account ofthe alleged place of burial. Like ‘The Man who Never Was’, the bodiesmay have been a plant. Alternatively, there may be some other reason for theirburial there. Upon the basic assumption that the princes lived to maturity, itfollows that the remains of the two young bodies now resting in WestminsterAbbey cannot be those of the princes. This still has to be assessed.

13. The remains of the bodies were found in 1674,during the reign of Charles II (1630-1638) who, we may assume, authorised theirreburial. Investigation reveals that Sir Edward Guildford ,allegedly a notional person whose real identity was Edward V (1470-1528?), theelder of the two princes, was appointed Standard Bearer by Henry VIII(1491-1547). His descendants remained close to the Court there after ; forinstance, his grandsons Guildford Dudley (1530?–1554), husband of Queen JaneGrey (1537-1554) and Robert Dudley (1532?–1588), the famous Earl of Leicester,during the reign of Elizabeth I (1533-1603). The rightful heir was courting thelegal heir. The present descendant is Viscount de L’Isle Dudley who, nodoubt, expects me to convince the historians of his descent from the Princes inthe Tower !

14.From the death of her husband in 1483 until her own death in 1492 there is noreport of a claim by Elizabeth Woodville, the one undoubtable source,that her children were either dead or missing.

15. Objectionby historians (See Cokayne, cf. Note 1). The principal objection ofsome historians, lest blame for murder be attributed to Henry VII, is that theprinces disappeared during the lifetime of Richard III. My reservations concernthe unsafe assumption of murder, and only murder, in order to account for theirdisappearance.

16. OnJuly 21 1978, an injustice done to Sir Thomas More more that 400 years ago wasremedied in the House of Commons by the passage through all its stages of theStatute Law (Repeals) Bill, a consolidated measure, which had already passed theHouse of Lords. The Bill repealed 222 Acts dating from 1421 to 1977 and 136parts of Acts and a Church measure on the grounds that they were no longerpractical. Among them was an Act of 1535 that had taken away from Sir ThomasMore a conveyance, on the grounds that he had obtained his land at Chelsea,fraudulently. Mr. Arthur Davidson, Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers’Department, in charge of the Bill said:

It seemsto suggest that in the court of Henry VIII there was a dirty tricks department,and a very effective one.

(Forsummary report, see The Times of London, July 22^nd,1978, p. 1)

17.Erasmus tells a story of More taking him to visit ‘the royal children’ atEltham in 1499. The impression is that More, as a young man, was on friendlyterms with the Queen of England. Remaining to be assessed. (See OpusEpistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, P S H M  Allen, Oxford, Vol. I, No. 1)

18.Investigation of reports from the National Gallery, London (1951), the CourtauldInstitute at the University of London, the Hamilton Kerr Institute at theUniversity of Cambridge (1981), and radiocarbon dating of the canvas in theDepartment of Geosciences of the University of Arizona at Tucson (1983),substantially verifies the family documentation. Despite a raging controversyin the art history world, that the Group Portrait is a copy, the evidence givesthe painting to Holbein. Upon receipt of the news from Arizona, the paintingwas re-dedicated before a distinguished audience, in the presence of the LordChancellor, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone – a tribute to a former LordChancellor, Sir Thomas More. (Reported in the Spectrum article HowHolbein hid a royal secret by Geraldine Norman, in The Times of London, 25. 3. 1983) See also Unveiling of the More FamilyPortrait at Nostell Priory by Thomas Merriam, Moreana 79-80(Nov. 1983) 111-116. The radiocarbon findings were challenged on thepossibility of error in the time scale. (See The Times ,loc. cit.) Merriam followed up the objections in The Times (see Moreana, loc. cit.)

19. It is not yet possible to quantify theprobability (so-called) of the cryptographic concealment. Such an assessmentmust be based on statistical arguments, and to be valid, large samples arenecessary. The evidence described here is sufficient to suggest that a thoroughinvestigation of the area is justified. Holbein’s paintings and drawings shouldbe brought together and assembled for open discussion in a public exhibition. Themathematical and cryptographic techniques needed to reach a conclusion shouldalso be of interest.

20.Clement is depicted in clothes normally associated with the Italian style,notably the sleeves and hat. John Clement was promoted M.D. at Siena, 30/31^stMarch 1525 : Mr Io Clemens, Anglus, filius mriRuberti, in art. et med. doctorandus , Arch. di Siena, Vol. III,fol. 59v. See also : inconclusive research of E. Wenkebach in John Clement,ein Englishcher Humanist und Arzt des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, Leipzig,1925, Anmerkungen, n. 49 ‘filius mri Ruberti’, et passim.

21. Richard III was known to be physically differentfrom his brothers. His badge was a white boar, given to him by his father, theold Duke of York. The colour white was a symbol of the House of York. Cingularis is the Latin word for a young boar at birth (when its back isstriped, not unknown in human babies) – a near-homophone of singularis or ‘one who is different’ or, ‘singular’. Only Moreattributed the famous humpback and withered arm. For a substantial period oftime, some thirty-three years, Richard III’s lifetime, there is no report thathe had some physical impediment. Investigation of certain portraits of RichardIII reveal subsequent over painting of a hump, a withered arm, and coarsefeatures – suggesting the dirty tricks department at a time when most peoplecould not read but, like children, understood pictures. Remaining to beassessed.

(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.)

22.The reader may not be surprised that investigation into the offspring, basedupon the theory of notional persons, has provided circumstantial evidence thatpoints retrospectively to a cover up of the noble ancestry of both SirEdward Guildford and Dr. John Clement .

23.Hans Holbein’s first visit to England began in 1526 as a guest in More’s house.He returned to Basel in 1528. He came back to England in 1532 and remained hereexcept for journeys abroad on the King’s business until he died of the plaguein 1543 in London.

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 (which the editor discusses in the text).

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 13^th 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 true year of birth of John Clement :

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. See : Testing Times for fathers byLiz Gill in The Times of London, 20^th July 1987,p. 15. See also DNA ‘advance of the century’ by Craig Seton in The Times of London, 14^th November 1987, p. 3 and, Geneticfingers in the forensic pie in New Scientist by SteveConnor, 28 Jan 1988, pp. 31-32.

28. Precedents : The coffinof Edward IV was opened at Windsor in 1789. (See : Dictionary of NationalBiography, Oxford, Compact Edition, Vol. I, D-F, p. 500). The supposedremains of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, were inconclusively examined in1933. (See Cokayne, op. cit.) The remains of Anne Mowbray(1472-1481), the child bride of Richard, Duke of York, were examined upon theinstruction of the coroner, after being found in a coffin buried in a sealedvault on the former site of a medieval nunnery belonging to the order of St.Clare. On May 31, 1965, with the approval of the Dean Chapter ofWestminster, she was re-interred in Westminster Abbey, where she had beenburied originally in the Chapel of St. Erasmus. (See: The Times of London, Jan 15^th 1965)

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 ?

Jack LESLAU

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. L’hypothèsede l’ascendance royale du personage est confortée – du moins elle n’est pasébranlée – par ce que nous apprennent de John Clement les registresd’inscription de l’Université de Louvain.Toutes ces pistes ne méritent-elles pas des investigations plus poussées ?

Henri GIBAUD

The holograph page 17^v 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)

Last Reviewed: 14 March 2004

ã2000 Holbein Foundation. All rights reserved. Termsof Use.

Click ç “Back”

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.

As we now knowfrom More's nephew, William Rastell : some thirty years later, in or about theyear 1513, the most famous intellectual in the reign of Henry VIII,our Thomas More, began to write down the central and most importantallegation in his History of King Richard the Third (Princesp. 18) : that the princes were dead.

We further knowthat Hans Holbein flatly contradicts Thomas More in his group portrait SirThomas More and his Family some fourteen or more years later, after 1527.Holbein shows the survival of the two princes (Princes p.31). Now, More and Holbein cannot both be right. One of them is wrong. Butwhich one ?

Holbein affirmsthe recent death (mid-July 1528) of Edward V (also known as Sir EdwardGuildford) and the continued existence of Richard, Duke of York, (also known asJohn Clement), married to More's adoptive daughter, Margaret (née JoanGiggs), ⁷ living openly with Margaret inMore's house in Chelsea. More was Clement's father-in-law.

If we want onesafe, single reason for More's Richard ; that would do. If we want onemore : William Rastall, More's publisher, was Clement's son-in-law (marriedto Winifred Clement). There is also More's part in saving Clement and hisfamily from an early death and England from a coup d'état and thehorrors of probable, almost certain, civil war in the 16th century. But thereis more.

I have to informyou, and first of all, that no one has come up with a better interpretation ofthe significance of the hidden messages in the Nostell painting to date. Second,if the central allegation of the survival of the princes is proven beyondreasonable doubt with science : then, More's Richard was indeed a“blind” to lay down a smokescreen over the continued existence of the twoprinces. Lastly, if true, it would certainly verify my 'no-other-option' of thesurvival of the two princes, making any contra-argument extremely difficult;  providing historians with anextremely strong case for a new approach to the study of Tudor history.

In thisconnexion, I am able to inform you that the former Harveian Librarian of theRoyal College of Physicians, Sir Gordon Wolstenholme, supports this view. Inaddition to missing official documents, presidential signatures and hisuniquely missing portrait in the archives, the evidence that Richard, Duke ofYork, was also known as John Clement might go some way to explain, firstly,Clement answering the royal challenge of Henry VIII at a pas d'armes tournamentat Greenwich on 1 June 1510 (See : Merriam T, John Clement: his identity,and his Marshfoot House in Essex, MOREANA XXV, Vol. 97, March1988, pp. 145-152). Henry's challenge was to his answerer-uncle, his mother'sbrother, the friendly Richard, Duke of York, also known as John Clement ; andHenry subsequently underwrote his meteoric rise to fame within the hierarchy ofthe Royal College.

If true, itmeans that More authorially killed-off the person known as John Clement(Richard, Duke of York, b.1473) in More's Richard (after 1513) ; andreplaced him with a notional John Clement (born about 1500) in Utopia(after 1515). The aim of the cleverest lawyer in Europe, as we should expect,was to dead-end any retrospective investigation into the real identity of eitherJohn Clement. If true, it also means that each odd detail of Clement's lifeshould now, theoretically, fit neatly into place and it does.

G. Wolstenholmeexpertly describes the rise to eminence in the Royal College as 'slow'.Clement's extremely rapid rise to fame is considered 'unique'. Aftergaining an MD abroad, 30/31st March 1525, in Siena, Clement was admitted aFellow, on 1 February 1527, and notwithstanding that we do not know the natureof the competition in those days, it is odd indeed that some three monthslater, on 16 April 1528, Clement was admitted an 'elect'...anextremely important position within the College. The seniority enabled highfees to be charged by holders of the office : conjecturally providingsubstantial (and essential) financial support for a VIP notional person,Clement, following the theory of notional persons. ⁸

If we continuethe case for just one minute : the conjectured case officer blundered by notfinding and destroying this particular record of the pas d'armes atGreenwich, as we should expect, since the document was not an officialrecord but merely a single parchment found hanging on a tree, pinned to ashield, at the tournament ground. (See : Letters Papers, Foreign Domestic, Henry VIII (2 Henry VIII), I, Part 2, Appendix, p. 1550 (f. 10d),'pas d'armes' 1 June 1510, H.M.S.O.)

Thanks to thisinterest of the Royal College in an early president, possibly King Richard IV,a successful recommendation was made to Clement's alma mater inFlanders, the ancient Catholic University of Louvain (KUL), to the departmentof human genetics (Centrum voor Menselijke Erfelijkheid), where certainnew techniques of DNA profiling have been perfected. Briefly, with the kindagreement and consent of the vice-rector, H. van den Berghe, the DNA scientistsand other forensic experts will test each separate strand of thetestable history theory on the princes and publish all findings forindependent assessment. They merely await the opportunity.

Those personswho would rather think good than ill of a person will indeed be delighted if itcan be shown that the two princes were not murdered by Richard III after all,as we had been brought up to believe. If ever there were a royal history inwhich believable myth was unnecessary, where simple fact could be leftunadorned, it would be the story of the Princes. For more than five hundredyears, that has not been the historical case. The case-list of myths andmisconceptions about the royal mystery in the Dictionary of NationalBiography is equally a long one. Politically correct historians declaredthat they died in the Tower : and authoritarian editors stuck limpet-like untilthey lost nerve and muscle. The location was then revised. The time, place andperpetrator, and new studies downplayed the part of Thomas More,suggesting that his part was smaller and grimmer than the view generallyaccepted today. ⁹ This is thehidden legacy of The Princes in the Tower. After investigation,another remarkable battle begins : who controls the meaning of the Louvainfindings ? After more than half a millennium : facts now prevail. But even inthe silence of their tombs the Princes cannot rest in peace. The name alonemeans instant recognition, a symbol of monstrous crime, the shedding ofinnocents' blood.

In the past,many erroneously believed that the story was created to denigrate Richard III.The facts are more complex. And if the facts are less well known, it is becausethere were almost no survivors who could testify to what happened withoutimmediate terminal risk to their families, property and themselves. Certainnews items began to spread some time before the war between the legal heirs andthe rightful heirs began in 1485. Subversive groups received word, and were heard,on the missing princes. In the post-war era, the Tudors imposed theirideological version of the fate of the York princes : oddly extolling thewisdom and heroism of their own timely ascent to the English throne. In the16th century, a dispute between Catholics and Anglicans triggered angryaccusations that each group was denying and refusing to acknowledge the trueMorean symbolism of the Princes for the other. To ease these tensions,officialdom set up loose-knit groupings made up of many groups. Althoughcritics charge that the pace was too slow, the situation has changedsignificantly since then. The expert British batting-list was ousted in theoffending Dictionary of National Biography and certain signs wereexchanged to emphasize that the new playing field was open to all-comers. Suchchanges have helped. In the new climate, different groups can finally recognizeeach other’s claims to the legacy of the history, no longer fearing that thissomehow diminishes their own scholarship. ¹⁰

Finally, asalready described and made clear, the work is on going. Research in thePlantin-Moretus museum, Antwerp, shows new evidence of the Clement family. Thisevidence was misread and therefore misinterpreted in the past : confirmed bythe museum authorities. ¹¹ Other newresearch suggests that if this case were presented for review in a court oflaw, with only the new scientific and documentary evidence obtained to date,and in the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, we would havejudgment and a positive verdict from the court...that we have probably foundthe two missing persons. However, the 'balance of probability' finding isprobably insufficient in this truly remarkable case.

In conclusion,one 30-minute television documentary programme ALLE VIJF BRT1 has been shown inBenelux (23 May 1995). A British TV documentary HOLBEIN AND THE PRINCES IN THETOWER has been made (by CLASS Productions) but not yet broadcast in UK. Eachprogramme argues the need for the higher proof of the DNA findings. I agree.Thank you.

Jack LESLAU                             Organized by Dr.H. Boventer

10 GlenwoodGrove                Thomas-Morus-Gesellschaft e,V.

Kingsbury                                 Deutsche Sektion der intenationalenVereiniging

London NW98HJ                      AmiciThomae Mori

                                                Hubertshöhe 9

                                                Bensberg 51429

b

                                                 Bergisch Gladbach

                                                Germany

These notes arehopefully in keeping with allotted space in the published volume.

1. '...the Clements were buried in Mechelen :'

    1. An English visitor abroad wrote downthe text of the epitaph on the tomb of John and Margaret Clement (d.1572 d.1570) near the High Altar in St Rombold's cathedral, Malines. (See: PITS J, Deillustribus Angliae Scriptoribus, 768, “De Ioanne Clemente” [BritishLibrary] publ. 1600 ) :

     ...falté hoc vnum epitaphium vxoris luxhic subnectere minimè pigebit :

^{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.}

In exilioConfessor obijt Mecliniae primo die Iulii, anno post adventum Messiae 1572, etsepultus est in Ecclesia S. Romboldi prope tabernaculum, iacentque in eodemtumulo coniuges, illa autem ante maritum integro ferè biennio diem suum obieratsexto videlicet Iulii anno Domini 1570, regnante in Anglia Elizabetha.

See also : 2

TheLife of Mother Margaret Clement (d.1612) by Sister Elizabeth Shirley(d.1641), in the Chronicles of St Monica's, Louvain withacknowledgement, and many thanks, to Sister Mary Salomé and the Canonesses ofWindesheim, at The Priory of Our Lady, Hassocks, Sussex :

...her body [MargaretClement, mother of Mother Margaret Clement] was buried at ye Cathedrallchurch of St. Romwals [Sint Romuldus, St Rombaut, or St Rombold] behindye hygh Aullter before ye memory of our Blessed Sauiour lyinge in his graue,wher allso her husband was layd by her within two years after. [p. 9]

2.  '...three children were buriedin Louvain :'

The Exhibitioncatalogue of the English Convent in Bruges (1972), item 161, refers to the ObituaryList of St Ursula's Monastery 1415-1786 (later, St Monica's). This documentshows that the prioress, Mother Margaret Clement, and her only brother, ThomasClement M.A., died and were buried at St Monica's, Louvain. Their sister,Winifred Rastell (née Clement) (d.1553), was buried beside her husband,William (d.1565), in the Rastell tomb, in St Peter's church, Louvain [SintPieterskerk, Leuven].

3.  '...Sir Edward Guildford wasburied in England :'

The deduced dateof death of Sir Edward Guildford, as seen in official correspondence of MasterSecretary Thomas Cromwell, is recorded as 4 June 1534. Holbein disputes thisdate and affirms that Edward V (also known as Sir Edward Guildford) had died inmid-July 1528. The official place of burial is given as Leeds Castle in Kent :no trace can be found. Holbein affirms the place of burial as Chelsea Church.If true, and Guildford's body is indeed found buried beside his daughter, LadyJane Guildford, Duchess of Northumberland, in the More chapel of Old Chelseachurch : this is evidence of precisely the kind of deception practiced by caseofficers, over a considerable period of time, in the case of notional persons.There is more. The criteria of the theory of notional persons suggest that theeminent case officer of Edward Guildford in 1534 was Master Secretary ThomasCromwell who perhaps instructed a Kent civil servant 'Antony' (cryptonyms arestill used in the civil service today) to write a certain letter to his master(See : Letters Papers, Foreign Domestic, Henry VIII, Letterto Thomas Cromwell from John Johnson, alias 'Antony', reporting the death ofSir Edward Guildford on 4 June 1534) :

'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.

See 2 : EenBezoek aan de Collegiale Sint-Pieterskerk te Leuven (Paul REEKMANS, publ.PEETERS-LEUVEN, 1989) shows the former chapel Sanctae Mariae now opened up aspart of the new choir screen (Fig.71, p.92). Cf. Le Jubé deSaint-Pierre placé en 1488 in Les Stalles et le Jubé del'Église Saint-Pierre by Van EVEN, p.355 Louvain dans lepassé et dans le présent, 1895.

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'.

See 6 :Post-1944, on page 25 of REEKMAN's book, Fig. 16 shows the point of impact of awartime British bomb, some fifteen metres approximately from the former SanctaeMariae chapel, which left the screen intact but destroyed the monument,organ and oxalus.

See 7 : Thereport of the geo-radar examination (Geo survey nv; Sint Pieters Leuven,Report no. R930107A WFK, January 1993, Client : Centrum voor MenselijkeErfelijkheid, Mr Jack Leslau, Heresstraat 49, 3000 Leuven) confirms theexistence of a hidden vault under the new marble flooring in theright hand side of the chapel (conjectured to be the long-lost Rastell vault)and that it was undamaged. It was perhaps protected from the blast by the outerwall of a pagan church on top of which St Peter's was built. This undergroundstone wall (some one and a half to two metres thick, approximately) can be seenon the 1958 plan of the church LEUVEN: ECCL. SANCTI PETRI byJ. MERTENS (see : centre pages of La Crypte Romaine on salein the church).

See 8 : The textof the epitaph of Winifred Rastall (d.1553), recorded by J. PITS in 1600 (DeRebus Anglicis) :

hic sita estWenefrida Coniux Guilhelmi Rastalli ac Joannis Clementia filia: quae Angliampatrium solum diuturna haeresum lue infestatam relinquens, Lovanium cum maritoac parentibus commigravit. Ubi transactis annis tribus cum dimidio Deo spiritumreddidit decimo septimo die Julii anno 1553. Vixit annos viginti sex cumdimidio, quorum nomen in coniugio egit, Latinae linguae non imperita, Graecamvero eximie callens, sed moribus et vitae sanctimonia nemini postponenda. Cui,pic lector, Deum quaeso deprecare propitium.

The epitaph ofWilliam Rastall (d.1565) :

PosteaGuilhelmus maritus, Ecclesiae jam pace restitute in Angliam rediens, cum nonita multis post annis Catholicae Fidei status illic denuo perturbaretur,amplissimo cum inter Regis confessus indices obtinebat, honore repudiato clamin Brabantiam remigravit, ibique postea annis plus minus tribus exactis, nonsine multorum ob merita sua moerore febri extinctus, nunc cum charissimaconiuge, a qua ne mortuum quidem illum secubare Deus voluit, hac humo quiescit.Vixit annos quinquaginta septem. Mortuus est 1565, Augusti 27.

5.  '...though not all expertsagree.'

The expertadvisors in the cathedral argue there is 'no substantive proof' (of the Clementvault in St Rombold's cathedral, in Mechelen). I disagree. First, there isnear-contemporary documentary evidence for guidance (See Notes 1 2).Second, there is a centrally placed tombstone or vault capstone, perhaps apalimpsest, half-hidden beneath a new marble floor behind the HighAltar. Thirdly, there is a matching walled area in the crypt preciselywhere one would expect to find the walls of the Clement vault underground'behind the High Altar'. Finally, a prima facie case exists for drillinga small hole and passing an endoscope into the disputed area, which is hiddenby 16th/17th century brickwork. The case has been discussed and favourablyconsidered on radio, television and in the serious press (See Note 7 below).

6.   '...DNA profiling of the remains.'

See : TheObserver 11 August 1991, an article by Annabel Ferriman, ThePrinces in the Tower lived on with secret identities'. p. 7

See : TheTimes 13 August 1991, comment by Alan Hamilton, Historian saysprinces did not die in tower. p. 14

See : TheDaily Telegraph, 13 August 1991, comment by Peter Pallot, Genetichunt for Princes in the Tower. p. 14

See : TheYork County Press 17 August 1991, an article by Alison Bramham,Richard is innocent. p. 3

See : TheBritish Medical Journal, 17 August 1991, a letter from Sir Gordon Wolstenholme,former Harveian Librarian, Royal College of Physicians, The Princes inthe Tower. Vol. 303, p. 382.

See :Knack Magazine, 4-10 September 1991, an article by Dirk Draulans,Een Prins onder het Altaar...Kardinal Danneels ligt dwars.p. 176-178

See : DeStandaard, 4 September 1991, an article by Pieter van Dooren, ElsGroessens, Hilde van den Eynde, '...Het gekste verhaal dat ik ooit hoorde',p. 1 p. 12

See : DeStandaard, 7 September 1991, an article by Pieter van Dooren, GrafJohn Clement nog niet meteen open, p. 6

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)'

The parents ofMargaret Clement (née Giggs) are conjectured as 'Thomas and OliveGygges' (See : Visitations of Norfolk 1563 1580, f. 1613[undated], Harleian Society, Vol. XXXII, 73, p. 159 'Olive, ux. ThomasGiggs of Burnham in Norfolk'; and, The Life of Mother MargaretClement by Sister Elizabeth Shirley (d.1641) in the Chronicles ofSt Monica's, Louvain, where Margaret's father is described as a'gentleman of Norfolk'). If true, the Will of Thomas Gygges shows that he diedin the same year Kratzer (and Holbein) suggest Margaret Clement was born(1505). If true, then the infant Margaret received a small bequest from herfather to whom she was known as 'Jone' (Joan). Norfolk Record Office, N.C.C.Wills 1505 (289, Ryxe). The Will of Olive Gygges shows that she died in 1510.Norfolk Record Office, N.C.C. Wills 1510 (24,25 Johnson). Both wereburied in the Chapel of Our Lady in the church of Burnham St Clement, inNorfolk. I am indebted to Dr John Giggs of the University of Nottingham for hiskind assistance : and his recent article Surname Geography : a Study ofthe Giggs Family Name 1450-1989. (See also: G. Marc'hadour More'sfirst wife...Jane ? or Joan ?, MOREANA XXIX, Vol. 109, March 1992,pp.3-22).

8. 'theory of notional persons'

In 1976, I wasinvited to discuss my discoveries with the late Sir John Masterman,self-declared amateur of the double-cross, whose work with MI5 during World WarII is described in the official record of the XX ('Double-Cross') Committee TheDouble-Cross system in the war of 1939-1945, Masterman J, publ. YaleUniversity Press, 1972. I was encouraged to continue and 'ignore all rebuffs'.Masterman's theory of notional persons is explained and made clear, for thefirst time, in my unpublished book The Princes are out of the Tower, 'Apersonal view of Thomas More by Jack Leslau'.

9. 'the view generally accepted today'...

R. W. Chambers (ThomasMore, London, 1976) shows that certain historians of the 19th and 20thcenturies could only see the author of More's Richard, as we should expect,as a man who 'allowed his sentiments to be moulded by the official theology ofthe court' (Lord Acton, Historical Essays and Studies, 1907, pp. 30-31); who 'turned his back on the ennobling enthusiasms of his youth' (ThomasLindsay, History of the Reformation), London, 1907, p. 91) and 'became amerciless bigot' (Mandell Creighton, Persecution Tolerance,London, 1895, pp. 107-108) ; 'an official engaged in justifying what wasconvenient for the moment', 'deceiving himself', 'repeating platitudes','putting his principles aside'. (James Froude, History of England from thefall of Wolsey to the defeat of the Spanish Armada, London 1856, (1) pp.73-74, 227 ; (2) pp. 344-345). And so we may, from these and other oddjudgments handed down by historians in the past, learn not to judge withoutscience : in an on-going method of inquiry.

10. '...diminishes their own scholarship.'

The changed newclimate for different groups of historians is the legacyof the 20th century.

11. 'confirmedby the museum authorities'.

Mr. G. Van den Boschof the Plantin-Moretus museum, Vrijdagmarkt 22, B-2000, Antwerp, confirms thatthe title page of the Epistolae diversorum philosophorum, oratorum... publishedby Aldus Manutius, Venice, in 1499, and recorded in Christophe Plantin'sprivate collection, shows the inscription 'dorothea cle. liber'. Thereis a further record in Plantin's account book : '29 October liber D. Clemensvendidit C. Plantin'. I have to draw attention that the inscriptionhas been mis-read 'Doctor' not 'Dorothea' Clement, by Leon Voet and MauritsSabbe, over a substantial period of time. Dorothy Clement studied Greek andLatin and was later professed a Poor Clare nun at Louvain.

Addendum :

Several yearshave passed since my Moreana article on The Princes, it is true, and Ido not know how well informed my audience is. The photocopies reproduced today,thanks to the kindness and trenchant generosity of amicus G. van denSteenhoven, are '...to fresh up the memory even of those who have read Moreanaand to dispel any notions of phantasmagoria among the participants at theSymposium'.

ã 2000 Holbein Foundation. All rights reserved. Termsof Use.

Clickç “Back”

§7 FAQsINDEX

REVIEWED; DEC 2001; MAY2002, JUL 2002, DEC 2002;

FEB 2003, MARCH2003, APRIL 2003, MAY 2003. JUNE 2003

LAST REVISION APRIL 2004

  CLICK  

TAGS:THOMAS MORE HOLBEIN SIR IN TOWER THE PRINCES 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Hot Websites