(_a_) _Documents_
The next matter with which we have to deal is regarding the identity of
Elizabeth. This needs (if necessary) a consideration of the facts of
her life, and so far as we can realise them, from external appearance,
mental and moral attitudes, and intentions. On account of space we
must confine this branch of the subject to the smallest portion of
time necessary to form any sort of just conclusion and accepting the
available records up to 1543, take the next period from that time
to anywhere within the first few years of her reign--by which time
her character was finally fixed and the policy on which her place in
history is to be judged had been formulated and tested.
This implies in the first instance a brief (very brief) study of her
physique with a corollary in the shape of a few remarks on her heredity:
_Grafton’s Chronicle_ states, under the date of 7 September 1533,
“the Queene was delivered of a fayre Lady” which was his Courtly way
of announcing the birth of a female princess, blond in colour. In all
chronicles “fayre” means of light colour. In Wintown the reputed father
of Macbeth--the Devil--is spoken of as a “fayre” man; evil qualities
were in that age attributed to blondes.
In a letter dated from Greenwich Palace, 18 April, 1534, Sir
William Kingston said to Lord Lisle: “To-day, the King and Queen
were at Eltham” (where the royal nursery then was) “and saw my Lady
Princess--as goodly a child as hath been seen. Her Grace is much in the
King’s favour as a goodly child should be--God save her!”
In 1536, when Elizabeth was but three years old, Lady Bryan, the
“Lady-mistress” of both Mary and her half-sister, wrote from Hunsdon
to Lord Cromwell regarding the baby princess. “For she is as toward
a child and as gentle of conditions, as ever I knew any in my life.
Jesus preserve her Grace!” In the same letter she says “Mr. Shelton
would have my Lady Elizabeth to dine and sup every day at the board
of estate. Alas! my Lord it is not meet for a child of her age to keep
such rule yet. I promise you, my lord, I dare not take it upon me to
keep her Grace in health an’ she keep that rule. For there she shall
see divers meats, and fruits, and wines, which it would be hard for
me to restrain her Grace from. Ye know, my lord, there is no place of
correction there; and she is yet too young to correct greatly.”
Testimony is borne according to Leti to the good qualities of the
Princess Elizabeth in these early years, by the affectionate regard in
which she was held by two of Henry’s queens, the wronged and unhappy
Anne of Cleves and the happy-natured Catherine Parr. Anne, he says,
though she had only seen her twice loved her much; she thought her
beautiful and full of spirit (“pleine d’esprit.”) Catherine, according
to the same writer who had seen her often before her marriage to Henry,
admired her “esprit et ses manières.”
If Leti could only have spoken at first hand, his record of her would
be very valuable. But unhappily he was only born nearly thirty years
after her death. His history was manifestly written from records and as
Elizabeth’s fame was already made before he began to treat of her his
work is largely a panegyric of hearsay. There is, regarding the youth
of the Princess, such an overdone flood of adulation that it is out of
place in a serious history of a human life. In his account of the time
which we are considering, we find the child compared in both matters
of body and mind to an angel. She is credited at the age of ten with an
amount of knowledge in all branches of learning sufficient to equip the
illustrious men of a century. The fact is the Italian has accepted the
queen’s great position, and then reconstructed her youth to accord with
it, in such a way as to show that whatever remarkable abilities she
possessed were the direct outcome of her own natural qualities.[2]
[2] Amongst other branches of knowledge he credits her with
knowing well “Geography, Cosmography, Mathematics,
Architecture, Painting, Arithmetic, History, Mechanics.” She
had a special facility in learning languages; spoke and wrote
French, Italian, Spanish, Flemish. She loved poetry and wrote
it, but regarded it as a useless amusement and, as it was
distasteful to her, turned to history and politics. Finally
he adds: “She was naturally ambitious and always knew how to
hide her defects.”
The details above given are not merely meagre but are only explicable
by the fact that during the earlier years of her life the child
was not considered of any importance. The circumstances of Anne’s
marriage--which in any case was delayed till it became a necessary
preliminary to the legitimacy on which any future claim to the throne
must rest--did not make for a belief in the public mind for its
permanency. Things were fluctuating in the religious world and few
were inclined to the belief that the Pope (with whom lay the last
word and whose political leanings in favour of Catherine of Aragon
and the validity of her marriage to Henry were well known) would be
overthrown by the English King. And in any case, were Henry to be the
final judge of appeal in his own case no great continuity of purpose
could be expected from him. The first important event which we have
to consider with reference to the question before us is Elizabeth’s
first letter to Queen Catherine (Parr) in 1543. In this the girl then
ten years old writes to her new step-mother, at whose marriage she
together with her half-sister Mary had been present. It is in form a
dutiful letter, not entirely without an apparent compulsion or at least
intelligent supervision. As it stands, it is impossible to believe
that it emanated from a child of ten quite free to follow out its
inclinations. The dutifulness is altogether, or largely, due to the
training and self-suppression of the royal child of an arbitrary father
with absolute power. But it remains for each reader to consider it
impartially. The points which we should do well to note here are its
plain form of expression, and its entire absence of personal affection.
The latter is all the more marked in that it was a letter of thanks for
a kindness conferred. Elizabeth was very anxious to come to her father,
and Catherine had furthered her wish and secured its fulfilment. After
the marriage, the child, as is shown (or rather inferred), had been
sent away for more than a year, which absence had been prolonged for at
least six months--as already shown.
There is little evidence of Elizabeth’s inner nature in these early
days; but we have every right to think that she was of a peaceable,
kindly and affectionate nature. Lady Bryan her first nurse or governess
(after Lady Boleyn, Anne’s mother) thought highly of her. Catherine
Ashley, who had charge of her next, loved her and was her devoted
servant, friend and confidant till her death.
Thomas Parry her life-long friend was devoted to her, and when the
circumstances of their respective lives and the happenings of the time
kept them apart, she restored him at the first opportunity and made his
fortune her special care.
There is little base here on which to build an inverted pyramid; our
only safety is in taking things as they seem to be and using common
sense.
(_b_) _Changes_
Let us now take the years beginning with 1544. From this time on, more
is known of the personality of Elizabeth; in fact there is little
unknown, that is, of matters of fact, and to this only we must devote
ourselves. Whatever may have been Elizabeth’s motives we can only infer
them. She was a secretive person and took few into her confidence,
unless it was of vital necessity--and then only in matters required by
the circumstance. The earliest knowledge we have of this second period
of her history is in her letter to Queen Catherine (Parr) written from
St. James’ Palace on 31 July, 1544.
In the year which had elapsed since her last recorded letter
Elizabeth’s literary style had entirely changed. The meagre grudging
style has become elegant and even florid with the ornate grace and
imagery afforded by the study of the Latin and French tongues.
Altogether there is not merely a more accomplished diction but there
is behind it a truer feeling and larger sympathy. It is more in accord
with the letter accompanying the gift to the Queen, of her translation
of the _Mirror of the Sinful Soul_ which she had dedicated to her.
Historians have given various rescripts of certain earlier letters of
the Princess Elizabeth, but none of them seem in harmony of thought
with this, whereas it is quite in accord with her later writings.
Metabolism is an accepted doctrine of physiology; but its scope is
not--as yet at all events--extended to the intellect, and we must take
things as we find them within the limits of human knowledge.
It will perhaps be as well to reserve the consideration of any other
point, except the change in actual identity, till the complete analogy
of all natural processes is an established fact.
(_c_) _Her personality_
We have no letters of Princess Elizabeth before 1543 which are not open
to grave doubt as to date, but there is one letter to which allusion
must almost of necessity be made. It is a letter from Roger Ascham,
tutor to the Princess Elizabeth, to Mrs. Ashley. No date is given
by Mr. Mumby, but he states in his text that it was written “during
Grindal’s term of office” as tutor to the Princess. Mumby quotes from
the _Elizabeth_ of Miss Strickland, who in turn quotes from Whittaker’s
_Richmondshire_. Now Grindal’s term of office lasted from 1546
(probably the end of that year) till it was cut short by his death from
the Plague in 1548, so that he could not have known his royal pupil
_before_ 1544. The text of the letter leads a careful reader to infer
that it was written _after_ that date. The important part of the letter
is as follows:
“... the thanks you have deserved from that noble imp by your
labour and wisdom now flourishing in all goodly godliness.... I
wish her Grace (Elizabeth) to come to that end in perfectness
and likelihood of her wit and painlessness in her study, true
trade of her teaching, which your diligent overseeing doth most
constantly promise.... I wish all increase of virtue and honour
to that my good lady, whose wit, good Mrs. Ashley, I beeseech
you somewhat favour. Blunt edges be dull and dure much pain to
little profit; the free edge is soon turned if it be not handled
thereafter. If you pour much drink at once into a goblet, the
most part will dash out and run over; if ye pour it softly you
may fill it even to the top, and so her Grace, I doubt not, by
little and little may be increased in learning, that at length
greater cannot be required.”
If this letter means anything at all--which in the case of such a man
as Roger Ascham is not to be doubted--it means that Mrs. Ashley, then
her governess, was cautioned not to press the little girl overmuch
in her lessons. It is an acknowledgment of the teacher’s zeal as well
as affection, and in the flowery and involved style of the period and
the man, illustrates the theory by pointing out the error of trying to
fill a small vessel from a larger one by pouring too fast. She is not
a backward child, he says in effect, but go slowly with her education,
you cannot give full learning all at once.
Compare this letter with that of the same writer to John Sturmius,
Rector of the Protestant University of Strasbourg, on the same subject
in 1550:
“The Lady Elizabeth has accomplished her sixteenth year; and so
much of solidity of understanding, such courtesy united with
dignity, have never been observed at so early an age. She has
the most ardent love of true religion and of the best kind of
literature. The constitution of her mind is exempt from female
weakness, and she is endued with a masculine power of application.
“No apprehension can be quicker than hers, no memory more
retentive. French and Italian she speaks like English; Latin with
fluency, propriety and judgment; she also spoke Greek with me,
frequently, willingly, and understanding well. Nothing can be
more elegant than her handwriting, whether in the Greek or Roman
character. In music she is very skilful but does not greatly
delight. With respect to personal decoration, she greatly prefers
a simple elegance to show and splendour, so despising the outward
adorning of plaiting the hair and of wearing of gold, that in
the whole manner of her life she rather resembles Hippolyta than
Phædra.”
That such a scholar as Roger Ascham makes the simile is marked.
Hippolyta was a Queen of the Amazons and Phædra was an almost
preternaturally womanly woman, one with a tragic intensity of passion.
The Elizabeth whom we know from 1544 to 1603 certainly had brains
enough to protect her neck. In 1549 Sir Robert Tyrwhitt wrote to the
Protector Somerset, apropos of the strenuous effort being made to gain
from her some admission damaging to herself concerning Thomas Seymour’s
attempts to win her hand:
“She hath a very pretty wit and nothing is gotten out of her but by
great policy.”
In a letter from Simon Renard Ambassador to the Emperor Charles V dated
London September 23, 1553, there is incidentally a statement regarding
Elizabeth’s character which it is wise to hold in mind when discussing
this particular period of her history. Writing of Elizabeth’s first
attendance at Mass he said: “she, Mary, ... entreated Madame Elizabeth
to speak freely of all that was on her conscience, to which the
Princess replied that she was resolved to declare publicly that in
going to Mass as in all else that she had done, she had only obeyed the
voice of her conscience; and that she had acted freely, without fear,
deceit, or pretence. We have since been told, however, that the said
Lady Elizabeth is very timid, and that while she was speaking with the
Queen she trembled very much.”
Compare with this the letter of 16th March, 1554 to the Queen (Mary)
written just as she was told to go to the Tower. In this letter which
is beautifully written and with not a trace of agitation she protests
her innocence of any plot. Her mental attitude was thoroughly borne
out by a calm dignity of demeanour which is more in accord with male
than female nature. In very fact Elizabeth appears all her life since
1544 to have been playing with great thoughtfulness and yet dexterity a
diplomatic game--acting with histrionic subtlety a part which she had
chosen advisedly.
A good idea of the personality of Elizabeth during the period beginning
with 1544 may be had from a brief consideration of the risks which a
person taking up such an imposture would run, first at the time of
beginning the venture and then of sustaining the undertaken rôle.
At the outset a boy of ten or eleven would not think of taking it
seriously. At first he would look on it as a “lark” and carry out the
idea with a serious energy only known in play-time. Later thought
would give it a new charm in the shape of danger. This, while adding
to his great zest, would sober him; thence on it would be a game--just
such a game as a boy loves, perpetual struggle to get the best of
someone else. To some natures wit against wit is a better strife than
strength against strength, and if one were well equipped for such a
fray the game would satisfy the ambition of his years. In any case when
once such a game was entered on, the stake would be his own head--a
consideration which must undoubtedly make for strenuous effort--even in
boyhood.
The task which would have followed--which did follow if the Bisley
story is true--would have been vastly greater. If the imposture
escaped immediate detection--which is easily conceivable--a new kind
of endeavour would have been necessary; one demanding the utmost care
and perpetual vigilance in addition to the personal qualities necessary
for the carrying out of the scheme. Little help could be given to the
young boy on whom rested the weight of what must have appeared to all
concerned in it a stupendous undertaking. From the nature of the task,
which was one which even the faintest breath of suspicion would have
ruined, the little band, originally involved, could gain no assistance.
Safety was only possible by the maintenance of the most rigid secrecy.
All around them were enemies served by a host of zealous spies. If then
the story be true, those who carried such an enterprising situation
to lasting success, must have been no common persons. Let us suppose
for a moment that the story was true. In such case the Boy of Bisley
who acted the part of the Princess Elizabeth could have had only two
assistants--assistants even if they were only passive. _Whatever_ may
have happened we know from history that both Mrs. Ashley and Thomas
Parry were ingrainedly loyal to Elizabeth, as she was to them. For
convenience we shall speak of the substitute of the Princess as
though he were the Princess herself whom he appeared to be, and for
whom he was accepted thenceforth. That the imposture--if there was
one--succeeded is a self-evident fact; for almost sixty years there was
no question raised by any person of either sex and of any political
opinion. The statecraft of England, France, the Papacy, and the German
Empire were either unsuspicious or in error--or both. It is reasonable
to imagine that a person of strong character and active intelligence
might have steered deftly between these variously opposing forces. It
is conceivable that in the case of a few individuals there might have
been stray fragmentary clouds of suspicion; though if there were any
they must have come to those who were held to a consequent inactivity
by other dominating causes. We shall have occasion presently to touch
on this subject but in the meantime we must accept it that there was no
opinion expressed by any one in such a way as necessarily to provoke
action. Of course after a time even suspicion became an impossibility.
Here was a young girl growing into womanhood whom all around her had
known all her life--or what was equivalent--believed they had. It is
only now after three centuries that we can consider who it was that
formed the tally of those who knew the personality of Elizabeth during
both periods of her youth, that up to 1543-4 and that which followed.
Henry VIII manifestly not only had no doubt on the subject but no
thought. If he had had he was just the man to have settled it at once.
Anne Boleyn was dead, so was her predecessor in title. Anne of Cleves
had accepted the annulment of her marriage--and a pension. Jane Seymour
and Catherine Howard were both dead. Nearly all those who as nurses,
governesses, or teachers, Lady Bryan, Richard Croke, William Grindal,
Roger Ascham, who knew the first period were dead or had retired into
other spheres. Those who remained knowing well the individuality of the
Princess and representing both periods were Mrs. Ashley, Thomas Parry
and the Queen (later dowager) Catherine Parr.
We know already of the faithfulness of the two former, the man who
was a clever as well as a faithful servant, and the woman, who having
no children of her own, took to her heart the little child entrusted
to her care and treated her with such affectionate staunchness--a
staunchness which has caused more than one historian to suspect that
there was some grave secret between them which linked their fortunes
together.
As to Catherine Parr we are able to judge from her letters that she was
fond of her step-daughter and was consistently kind to her. Those who
choose to study the matter further can form an opinion of their own
from certain recorded episodes which, given without any elucidating
possibilities leave the historians in further doubt. Leti puts in
his _Life_, under the date of 1543, “before her marriage to Henry,
Catherine Parr had seen often Elizabeth and admired her.” The Italian
historian _may_ have had some authority for the statement; but also
it may have been taken from some statement made by Elizabeth in later
years or by some person in her interest, to create a misleading belief.
In any case let us accept the statement as a matter of fact. If so
it may throw a light on another branch of this eternal and diverse
mystery. Martin Hume and F. A. Mumby approaching the subject from
different points confess themselves puzzled by Elizabeth’s attitude to
men. The former writes in his _Courtships of Queen Elizabeth_:
“No one can look at the best portraits of Elizabeth without
recognising at a glance that she was not a sensual woman. The
lean, austere face, the tight thin lips, the pointed delicate
chin, the cold dull eyes, tell of a character the very opposite
of lascivious.”
Mr. Mumby writing about Mrs. Ashley’s “Confession” and of the
horse-play between Elizabeth and Lord Seymour (whom Queen Catherine had
married immediately after the King’s death) makes this remark:
“The most surprising thing about this behaviour is that the Queen
should have encouraged it.”
There is plenty of room for wonder, considering that Admiral Seymour
had earlier wanted to marry Elizabeth. But Catherine was a clever
woman, who had already had three husbands--Seymour was her fourth--and
children. If any one would see through a boy’s disguise as a girl
she was the one. It is hard to imagine that Seymour’s wife had not
good cause for some form revenge on him of whom Hallam speaks of as a
“dangerous and unprincipled man” and of whom Latimer said “he was a man
farthest from the fear of God that ever I knew or heard of in England”
as it was believed at the time of her death that he had poisoned his
wife, the Queen dowager, to make way for a marriage with Elizabeth,
with whom according to common belief he was still in love, it would
be only natural that a woman of her disposition and with her sense
of humour, should revenge herself in a truly wifely way by using for
the purpose, without betraying the secret, her private knowledge or
belief of the quasi-princess’s real sex. Such would afford an infinite
gratification to an ill-used wife jealous of so vain a husband.
[Illustration: THE DUKE OF RICHMOND]
We now come to the crux of the whole story--the touchstone of this
strange eventful history. Could there have been such a boy as is told
of; one answering to the many conditions above shown to be vitally
necessary for the carrying out of such a scheme of imposture. The
answer to this question is distinctly in the affirmative; there _could_
have been such a boy; had the Duke of Richmond been born fourteen or
fifteen years earlier than he was, the difficulties of appearance,
intellect, education, and other qualifications need not have presented
themselves.
If the question to be asked is: “Was there such a boy?” the
answer cannot be so readily given. In the meantime there are some
considerations from the study of which--or through which--an answer
may, later, be derived.