BBC2 aired another episode in their Castle in the
Country series featuring Mount Stuart Castle on the Isle of Bute, seat
of the Marquess of Bute, on Thursday 30 November. Presenter John Craven
interviewed the Marquess's archivist Andrew McLean who produced a letter
allegedly written by King Richard III, entrusted to Sir James Tyrell
for delivery to a 'worthie govournour'. In the document the 'govournour'
is told that the king is 'transferring our confidence as hee shall speak
and doe signe', in other words Tyrell will tell all to the 'Governour'
and who will act accordingly.
The inference is, of course, that the governor
in question has responsibility for the Tower of London, and as Tyrell
has allegedly confessed to the murder of the Princes, the matter to
be discussed is their disposal. Significantly the letter is dated 29
June 1483, just three days after Richard was proclaimed king.
Mr McLean commented that 'this may well be a crucial
piece of evidence in solving the mystery of this most controversial
episode in English history'. He continued 'we don't know if it maybe
means something produced afterwards to discredit Richard or not but
it may well be the original'. John Craven's closing comment was that
'with the help of this letter, who knows it might even change history
as we know'. If genuine this would indeed be a document of great importance.
Members of the Research team of the Society have
had the opportunity to examine a photograph of the letter and wish to
express serious doubts as to its authenticity. Wendy Moorhen, Society
Research Officer summarises their conclusions. 'The signature is unlike
any known one of Richard's. The form of the 'R' is not consistent with
fifteenth century handwriting and it is more likely that he would have
signed himself as "Ricardus Rex" rather than "Richard Rex".
The layout of the letter is not medieval, the introductory
sentence in particular is a poor imitation of the usual format. The
language of the text is not medieval and some of the words used, such
as "speechlessness" and "reservatione" seem to have been chosen to be
unnatural in their context and so give a flavour of "antiquity" - as
if the forger thought that was how they spoke "in olden days".
The handwriting is wrong for the 15th century,
not only in the extensive capitalisation, but generally in the form
of almost every letter. A tentative dating of the document would be
18th - 19th century when literary forgery was not unknown.
The date and address at the top of the letter is
in a modern style, especially with the use of Arabic numbers. Dating
in the 15th century was complex. Dates could be linked to saint's festivals,
numbers shown as Roman numerals and the year again in Roman numerals
or in regnal years (these years begin with a monarch's succession or
an anniversary of it). A more accurate style would have been "the xxix
day of Juyn in the first year of our reign".
There were other inconsistencies that are being
investigated, such as the title of 'governour' when the appellation
in the 15th century would be "constable".'
Undoubtedly this is an interesting find but extreme
caution needs to be exercised with regard to its authenticity, which
the Society feels has to be in serious doubt. However, the letter raises
some very interesting questions as to its provenance, when it might
have been written and of course the motivation.
For further information contact: Richard Van Allen
Tel: 020 8402 8149 e-mail: richardvanallen@imagecomm.co.uk
