Right royal conspiracy?

It was an event that changed the course of English history, and there are now those questioning whether the prince was deliberately sacrificed to continuing ill-health, or even poisoned, in order to make way for his handsome, healthy and charismatic younger brother Henry.

Arthur was always a tiny and sickly child, and two portrait paintings are said to be "fanciful" in depicting him, not as plain and ailing, but as healthy and good-looking.

Even so, his father Henry VII spared no expense in laying on extravagant wedding celebrations for the marriage of the teenage Prince Arthur to Catherine of Aragon at St Paul's Cathedral on November 14, 1501. The nation was joyous, and there were even tournaments and jousting.

The event forged a vital alliance between England and Spain - in essence, a key European union - as Catherine was the daughter of King Ferdinand of Spain and Queen Isabella of Castille.

However, there are those now wondering why the newly-weds were despatched, just a month after their marriage, to spend the winter months in a remote spot on the Welsh borders - in the damp, cold and then dingy Ludlow Castle which had virtually no plumbing nor heating.

Why was such a sickly prince packed off to a remote and chilly castle with only one doctor? As heir to the throne, the unhealthy 15 year-old lad and his 16 year-old bride ought surely to have been accompanied by a team of physicians or, more appropriately, kept in the comfort of London, close to the best doctors in the land.

Little surprise, therefore, that Arthur did not survive the ordeal but succumbed to ill health and died of what was described as "the sweating sickness" on April 2, 1502, just as the spring was dawning.

"The emerging question - Was he pushed or did he fall? - is quite exciting," suggests Paul Vaughan, a member of the Prince Arthur Committee, a group of eminent folk drawn together by the Dean and Chapter of Worcester Cathedral to plan next May's commemorative events.

"Arthur's brother Henry might well have been seen as a much more promising heir to the throne and a ready spare if Arthur succumbed to illness. Unlike his sickly brother, Henry was long of limb, lusty, and handsome with red hair.

"The Tudor Dynasty, having been established in the wake of the Wars of the Roses and after Henry VII's marriage to Elizabeth of York, was blossoming forth at the time with a great outburst of Tudor architecture and building.

"The Tudor Dynasty obviously had great hopes for the future, but could these be founded on a sickly little lad who was then heir to the throne," asks Paul Vaughan. "There is evidence which seems to suggest that Arthur was allowed to die, or may even have been poisoned. And what better place to get rid of him than in what was then a back-of-beyond place like Ludlow?

"Everything that led up to Arthur's death has the makings of a mystery worthy of Miss Marple, or a problem for Poirot. The motive could have to do with the painful dilemma confronting those in power at the time over whom they would wish the Tudor crown to pass - a sickly child or a very lusty prince waiting in the wings?

"Whatever the truth, we know that Arthur's brother Henry did step in to take over the Tudor extravagance, the kingship as Henry VIII, and even his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon, as his Queen."

Those questioning the nature of Prince Arthur's fate also point to his burial in Worcester Cathedral as another indicator of the conspiracy theory.

His body was kept at Ludlow Castle for about three weeks while deliberations took place over what to do with it - but why didn't Henry VII order the immediate return of his heir's remains to London for burial in Westminster Abbey? Only five months had elapsed since the lavish celebrations in the capital for Arthur's marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

"Instead of bringing him back to London, it is surely remarkable that the prince's body was very quietly shoved off for burial in a remote monastery - that at Worcester Cathedral," says Mr Vaughan.

Significantly, Prince Arthur's parents, the King and Queen, did not come to Worcester for his funeral, neither did his widow, Catherine of Aragon. The chief mourners were to be simply three earls - those of Surrey, Kent and Shrewsbury. "It was all done a bit by proxy," adds Mr Vaughan.

Another strange factor is that the prince's body was placed straight into his grave at the Cathedral at the end of the funeral service. In those times, cathedrals, abbeys and priories were vying keenly with each another to attract pilgrims (tourists) to their relics of saints and royals. It would be thought therefore that Prince Arthur's banner-bedecked catafalque would have been left on display at Worcester Cathedral for at least six months as a draw to "pilgrims."

And though it's an impressive feature of Worcester Cathedral, Prince Arthur's Chantry - his resting place - on the south side of the High Altar is not, suggest experts, as grand as it might have been for a Tudor heir to the throne and Prince of Wales.

Recently retired Canon of Worcester Cathedral, Iain Mackenzie firmly believes that Prince Arthur's Chantry was fairly crudely grafted above the grandiose tomb of Bishop Godfrey Giffard - a structure which had been much criticised for its extravagance by the bishop's boss, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Though the Chantry was "regalised" with stonework friezes of favourite Tudor symbols, it is still considered something of a design hotch-potch and not the work, as one would expect, of a Royal stonemason or one of the great Tudor masons.

It is known too that the actual remains of Prince Arthur are not physically under the tomb chest in the Chantry but are believed to lie close by in front of the High Altar, not far from King John's Tomb. Tests with the latest in scanning technology are being carried out to trace the precise location of the prince's remains.

Incidentally, the heart and vital innards of Prince Arthur were not buried with him at Worcester. They were removed as part of embalming procedures at Ludlow Castle. Arthur's heart was buried at Ludlow Parish Church amid much religious ceremony before the body was brought in procession to Worcester.

And herein lies another mystery of the several surrounding Arthur's death and burial, says Mr Vaughan. What route did the funeral cortege take from Ludlow to Worcester or, more specifically, between Bewdley and the Faithful City?

Chroniclers of the time provide detailed accounts of the passage of the cortege from Ludlow, over the Clee Hills to Bewdley. That part of the journey was much hampered by appalling weather - rain, winds and mud which made necessary the drafting in of oxen to help pull the "chariot" bearing the coffin.

But which exact route did the cortege take on its final stage from Bewdley to Worcester?

Mr Vaughan says there are those who contend that the cortege would have come via the Severn, but he points out that in Tudor times the river would only have been navigable in parts and not a very dignified route. It is known too that the cortege did not enter the Cathedral via the Watergate which it would have done if arriving by river.

"Dr John Moore, former head of the King's School, says the river route theory does not hold water, if you will forgive the pun. The more likely theory is that the cortege came by the mediaeval road pattern, most likely passing through Ombersley and entering Worcester at the Fore Gate - the imposing stonework city fortifications structure which stood in The Foregate."

n Paul Vaughan has lived much of his life in Worcester and is manager to several stars of television, stage and radio.

He is well-known for his John Betjemen poetry reading sessions, has broadcast, and is vice-chairman of the Worcester Three Choirs Festival, running the Festival Fringe.

* 'With weeping and sore lamentation, the corpse was laid in the grave'

OFFICIAL chroniclers to the household of Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon left a detailed account of the aftermath of the prince's death at Ludlow Castle and his funeral service in Worcester Cathedral.

I quote here some significant passages from their writings:

"The corpse was disembowelled and well embalmed and seared and conveniently dressed with spices and other sweet stuff, so sufficiently that no lead coffin was needed. The coffin was upholstered with good black cloth, with a white cross upon it, and laid in his chamber beneath a table covered with a rich cloth of gold. Great candlesticks were continually burning.

"On the Feast of St George (April 23), the coffin was removed to Ludlow Parish Church." Three bishops and several noblemen sprinkled holy water on the coffin and three Masses were sung.

For the procession to Worcester, "a rich chariot was prepared, drawn by six horses and covered at its base in black velvet. A rich black cloth of gold was placed over the coffin. All the mourners followed with mourning hoods over their heads, and at every corner of the chariot, banners were borne by noblemen.

"In goodly fashion, 120 torch-bearers led the way through Ludlow and other towns on the route. When they were on the road between the towns, the torches were extinguished, with the exception of 24 about the chariot.

"St Mark's Day (April 25), from Ludlow to Bewdley, was the foulest, cold, windy and rainy day and the muddiest ways that we have seen - in some places we had to find oxen to draw the chariot, so dreadful was the way. As soon as the coffin was in the chapel at Bewdley, and with as many candles as there was room, the lords and others went to their dinners.

"Every parish church or religious place that the cortege passed rang their bells. Sir Richard Croft and Sir William Ovedale, Steward and Controller of the Prince's Household, rode before to Worcester, and none was allowed to enter the city until after the corpse had entered.

"That day was fair and, with the 120 torch-bearers, the cortege proceeded to the gate of that city where the bailiffs and the honest men of the city were on foot along the road on every side. All the torches of the town were as many as might well stand from the town gate to the great church gate" (from The Foregate to the Cathedral?).

"At the Cathedral were gathered the abbots of Gloucester, Evesham, Chester, Shrewsbury, Tewkesbury, Hailes and Borey together with the Prior of Worcester and Great Malvern, and the procession proceeded to the Choir. There were just under 400 lights and many standards and banners with Royal arms including those of Prince Arthur and the King and Queen of Spain.

"A service of Nine Lessons was held, and that night there was a goodly watch of lords, knights, squires, gentleman ushers, officers of arms, yeomen and many others."

On the day of the funeral and burial, three Masses were sung in the Cathedral by the bishops of Chester, Salisbury and Lincoln. The chief mourners were the earls of Surrey, Kent and Shrewsbury, and from Prince Arthur's Household were Sir Griffith Rice, carrying the prince's banner, Sir William Ovedale, Sir Richard Croft, Sir Richard Poole and Dr Edenham. Other leading figures were Lord Dudley and Lord Powys.

"He had a hard heart who did not weep at the scene. After the sermon, there was a great general dole of groats to every poor man and woman.

"A minister of the church took away the palls of rich gold cloth, and the gentlemen took up the corpse and bore it to the grave at the south end of the High Alter. Then, with weeping and sore lamentation, the corpse was laid in the grave. Sir William Ovedale, Controller of the prince's household, sore weeping and crying, took the staff of his office by both ends and over his head broke it and cast it into the grave. It was a piteous sight, who had seen it, and thus God have mercy on good Prince Arthur's soul. Amen."

* Commemorating the death of a prince

MAY 1 to 6, 2002 have been set aside for the commemoration in Worcester of the funeral service and burial in the Cathedral of Prince Arthur 500 years ago.

It is being heralded as a major tourist event of national importance, and the organisers, the Prince Arthur Committee at Worcester, are currently striving to raise the necessary monies to fund the weekend.

The centrepiece of the events will be the re-enactment in authentic Tudor costumes of the Requiem - funeral service - for Prince Arthur on the 500th anniversary of the solemn ceremony.

The hearse, colourful palls and banners, and the sword and tabard used during the service will be re-created and hopefully form the basis of an exhibition to go on permanent display in the Cathedral afterwards to honour Prince Arthur's memory and draw attention to his Chantry.

There will be torch-lit processions through the city's streets as there were at the time of the arrival of the prince's cortege at the end of its journey from Ludlow Castle.

The Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral will celebrate Mass for the repose of the soul of Prince Arthur and also for all those who have failed to reach the age of majority down the years. This gives modern meaning to the service and will involve hospices.

Seminars and lectures will be held, led by the nation's top experts on Tudor times including David Starkey whose recent acclaimed TV series on the Six Wives of Henry VIII was screened on Channel Four.

There will also be a commemorative dinner and possibly a mediaeval banquet at the Commandery, and the organisers hope it may be possible to lay on a mediaeval street market on the Monday, which will be a Bank Holiday. This would be something on a reduced scale from the city's Christmas Market.

City arts officer Steve Quick is to co-ordinate the events.

A television documentary on the commemoration is another distinct possibility, and it is planned to involve schools and colleges in the weekend so that it has the widest appeal and educational value in bringing history to life.

Tourist boards and the area's MPs and MEPs are already looking on the May weekend as being of substantial importance particularly in attracting overseas tourists.