Richard Roose: Tudor Poisoner?
Welcome to a Tudor whodunnit.
Richard Roose, Rose or Cooke may not have been born with any of those names and he might not have been the full-time cook at the Lambeth (London) property of John Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester; well known as King Henry VIII's enemy.
At lunchtime on the 18th February 1531, Richard Roose was in the bishop's kitchen. Before nightfall he was infamous. Several of the bishop's guests and the poor of London were victims of poisoning, allegedly at his hands, and two of them were dead. As conspiracy theories swirled about who, if anyone, asked Roose to poison the diners Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn and her family were implicated.
Henry VIII was paranoid about being poisoned. He was not the first ruler in history to use boiling as a method of execution (Emperor Nero was fond of boiling Christians) but he was the first to change the law so that poisoning was classed as treason punishable by boiling.
How John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester Knew Henry VIII
Yorkshire-born John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester (c.1469-1535) studied at Cambridge University and he was employed by Margaret Beaufort, Henry VIII's grandmother, as her chaplain and confessor.
In October 1504 he was awarded the role of Bishop of Rochester by the pope and Fisher helped to educate the future King Henry VIII. In 1509 he officiated at the funerals of Margaret Beaufort and her son Henry VII.
When Henry VIII decided to rid himself of Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn, John Fisher was Catherine's main supporter. As Henry attacked the Catholic church and subsequently declared himself the head of the Church of England, Fisher accepted the new church but only "so far as God's law permits." (He wanted to keep his head on his shoulders and not compromise his principles).
In early 1531 the Bishop of Rochester was secretly plotting with his church colleagues to overthrow Henry VIII. Did Henry know about this?
The 18th February 1531: Two Die, Numerous Left Sick
At lunchtime on the 18th February 1531, Richard Roose prepared some porridge (other records state pottage) for the bishop and his guests, the household staff and for Lambeth's poor. When the guests ate the porridge all sixteen became ill. One, Bennett Curwen, died.
Meanwhile, a beggar named Alice knocked at the kitchen door asking for food. She was an unlucky recipient of the porridge and she too died. John Fisher ate nothing for lunch, we don't know why.
The bishop's brother Richard, in charge of the household, swiftly drew the conclusion that Roose was to blame for the apparent poisoning. Roose ran from the house only to be captured later in another part of London.
He was tortured on the rack and he confessed to adding a powder to the porridge. The powder was passed to him by an unknown man and Roose believed that it was a laxative so that he could play a practical joke. The deed was intended to incapacitate the diners not to kill them. A lie or an odd sense of humour?
The Boleyn Connection to the Bishop of Rochester
While Roose awaited his fate, cannonballs were fired at Fisher's house and the trajectory suggested that they were fired from Anne Boleyn's father's property Durham House.
Anne Boleyn and the Boleyn family also found themselves under suspicion regarding the poisonings. Had one of them or their staff given the "laxative" to Roose? Fisher was unpopular with the Boleyns because he supported Catherine of Aragon. It was mooted that one of the family fired the cannonballs when the poison didn't deliver the desired deadly result.
Another theory emerged that cited King Henry VIII as the instigator of the poisoning. He and Fisher had a long and strained relationship so were the king's faithful servants, spies or courtiers sent to Fisher's Lambeth property to remove an enemy?
Was Roose a pawn in royal or Boleyn's plans? There was never any proof that Roose acted with or for someone else or that he knowingly added poison to the porridge.
The "Acte of Poysonyng" Rapidly Passed
Henry VIII was always suspicious about what his enemies might do. He was paranoid about his food being meddled with and the Richard Roose case apparently heightened his fears. Alternatively, was he worried that his guilt would be determined?
On 28th February 1531, King Henry spoke for well over an hour in the House of Lords. He intoned against the act of poisoning and he stressed the need for the meting of justice to be increased. The Spanish envoy Chapuys wondered if the king was concentrating on Roose's harsh punishment to divert attention from himself.
The speech achieved its goal. The "Acte of Poysonyng" was hastily passed. It made poisoning an act of treason punishable by boiling to death. Richard Roose was found guilty without a trial and he was told that he could not offer a defence. Part of the new law meant that no clergy were permitted at executions by boiling.
Why was Henry VIII so keen to accept Roose's guilt without any evidence and why did he petition for a swift change in the law?
"He roared mighty loud, and divers women who were big with child did feel sick at the sight of what they saw, and were carried away half dead; and other men and women did not seem frightened by the boiling alive, but would prefer to see the headsman at his work."
Two Hour Execution: Roose Boiled to Death
The public agreed with their great king about Roose's depravity and on the 15th April 1532 a crowd gathered in Smithfield, London to watch him die.
Roose was placed on a gibbet, hung but kept alive, and then at intervals he was lowered three times into a pot of boiling water. Contemporary records show that it took two hours for him to die. The punishment was intended to last as long as it would have taken him to prepare the poisoned porridge.
So, whodunnit? I'll let you decide whether Roose was guilty, a pawn in a powerful game or innocent.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment.