Chronicle of the Grey friars of London/Ricardus Tertius Rex

←

Chronicle of the Grey friars of London
by John Gough Nichols

Ricardus Tertius Rex

→

678660Chronicle of the Grey friars of London — Ricardus Tertius RexJohn Gough Nichols

Ricardus Tertius Rex.

And the two sonnyes of kynge Edward were put to cilence, and the duke of Glocester toke upone hym the crowne in July, wych was the furst yere of hys rayne. And he and hys qwene crownyd on one daye in the same monyth of July.

ij°.A°. Thys yere the duke of Buckyngham was be-heddyd at Salsbery, and is burryd at the Gray freres.^[1] And many lordes [and] knygttes with dyvers other flede into France at that tyme.

iij^o. A^o. This yere in August the erle of Richmond with the erle of Pembroke that long hade bene banyshed, came into Ynglond, and the other gentylmen that flede into France, [and] made a felde besyde Leyceter, and the kynge there slayne.

↑ This is a passage of some interest in relation to a matter which has been enveloped in considerable obscurity. Even some doubt has been entertained with regard to the place of Buckingham's execution, owing to the chronicler Grafton having stated that it was at Shrewsbury, and having been followed in that statement by Holinshed, Echard, and Rapin. This, however, has been entirely set at rest by Mr. Blakeway the historian of that town, and by Mr. Hatcher the historian of Salisbury, who agree that Salisbury was the place. Then, as to the duke's interment, Mr. Hatcher, perhaps encouraged by the triumph of having vindicated this historical incident in favour of his own town, proceeds so far as to say (History of Salisbury, folio, 1843, p. 207): "If the fact of Buckingham's execution at Salisbury be considered as indisputably established, we shall not be guilty of too great a stretch of imagination, in supposing that these were his mutilated remains interred clandestinely, or at least without ceremony, near the spot where he suffered"— referring to the discovery of a headless skeleton beneath the floor of an outhouse near the stone on which Buckingham was traditionally said to have suffered. From a quarter less authoritative than an historian in folio, such a conjecture might, perhaps, be disregarded. It is obvious that during the many generations which have passed since the execution of Buckingham, there might have been many opportunities of concealing in the out-buildings of an inn the remains of some way-laid traveller, or the victim of some alehouse brawl. But, an undue importance having been given to the notion that the skeleton was that of the princely Buckingham, the present passage comes in aid to correct the facility with which Mr. Hatcher yielded to an hypothesis so fanciful. It shows that the duke's body received that attention which the religious orders were always ready to bestow on such occasions, and that it was interred in the church of the Grey Friars at Salisbury. A MS. in the library of the Society of Antiquaries, No. 99, also states the same fact. Another misapprehension has been entertained in connection with this subject, namely, that a monument still existing in the church of Britford, near Salisbury, and engraved in Sir Richard C. Hoare's Hundred of Cawden, was that of the duke of Buckingham. It is unnecessary to repeat here the considerations which decidedly negative that appropriation; but they will be found in the Gentleman's Magazine for June 1836, and in Sir R. C. Hoare's History of Modern Wiltshire, Addenda, p. 61.

[1] This is a passage of some interest in relation to a matter which has been enveloped in considerable obscurity. Even some doubt has been entertained with regard to the place of Buckingham's execution, owing to the chronicler Grafton having stated that it was at Shrewsbury, and having been followed in that statement by Holinshed, Echard, and Rapin. This, however, has been entirely set at rest by Mr. Blakeway the historian of that town, and by Mr. Hatcher the historian of Salisbury, who agree that Salisbury was the place. Then, as to the duke's interment, Mr. Hatcher, perhaps encouraged by the triumph of having vindicated this historical incident in favour of his own town, proceeds so far as to say (History of Salisbury, folio, 1843, p. 207): "If the fact of Buckingham's execution at Salisbury be considered as indisputably established, we shall not be guilty of too great a stretch of imagination, in supposing that these were his mutilated remains interred clandestinely, or at least without ceremony, near the spot where he suffered"— referring to the discovery of a headless skeleton beneath the floor of an outhouse near the stone on which Buckingham was traditionally said to have suffered. From a quarter less authoritative than an historian in folio, such a conjecture might, perhaps, be disregarded. It is obvious that during the many generations which have passed since the execution of Buckingham, there might have been many opportunities of concealing in the out-buildings of an inn the remains of some way-laid traveller, or the victim of some alehouse brawl. But, an undue importance having been given to the notion that the skeleton was that of the princely Buckingham, the present passage comes in aid to correct the facility with which Mr. Hatcher yielded to an hypothesis so fanciful. It shows that the duke's body received that attention which the religious orders were always ready to bestow on such occasions, and that it was interred in the church of the Grey Friars at Salisbury. A MS. in the library of the Society of Antiquaries, No. 99, also states the same fact. Another misapprehension has been entertained in connection with this subject, namely, that a monument still existing in the church of Britford, near Salisbury, and engraved in Sir Richard C. Hoare's Hundred of Cawden, was that of the duke of Buckingham. It is unnecessary to repeat here the considerations which decidedly negative that appropriation; but they will be found in the Gentleman's Magazine for June 1836, and in Sir R. C. Hoare's History of Modern Wiltshire, Addenda, p. 61.

[1]