The king enacts more wonders than a man, Alarums. Enter KING RICHARD. K. Rich. A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse! Cate. Withdraw, my lord; I'll help you to a horse. K. Rich. Slave, I have set my life upon a cast, And I will stand the hazard of the die: 10 I think there be six Richmonds in the field; Alarums. Re-enter KING RICHARD driving RICHMOND before him, attacking him with fury; they fight; KING RICHARD falls. [Retreat and flourish. Exit RICHMOND.] [SCENE V. Another part of the field. Enter RICHMOND, with STANLEY bearing the crown, and divers other Lords, and Forces. Richm. God and your arms be prais'd, victorious friends! The day is ours, the bloody dog is dead. Stan. Courageous Richmond, well hast thou acquit thee. Lo, here, this long-usurped royalty2 From the dead temples of this bloody wretch Have I pluck'd off, to grace thy brows withal: Wear it, enjoy it, and make much of it. 1 An opposite, i.e. an adversary. This long-usurped royalty, i.e. the crown which he has in his hand. VOL. III. Whither, if 't please you, we may now withdraw us. Richm. What men of name are slain on either side? Stan. John Duke of Norfolk, Walter Lord Ferrers, Sir Robert Brakenbury, and Sir William Brandon. Richm. Inter their bodies as becomes their births: Proclaim a pardon to the soldiers fled The brother blindly shed the brother's blood, 1483, having reigned twenty-two years. After the atrocious murder of Henry VI.'s son, Prince Edward, of which we have already given an account in III. Henry VI. note 2, Edward distinguished himself by the treacherous execution of a number of the Lancastrians, who had taken sanctuary in the church at Tewksbury after the battle. The Lancastrians, when victorious, had always respected the rights of sanctuary, which makes these murders, for they were nothing less, the more atrocious. According to the accounts of all the chroniclers, Edward tried to enter the church, but was prevented by the priest, who met him at the door with the consecrated host in his hand, and would not let him enter till he had granted pardon to those who had taken refuge in the church. This was on Saturday. On the following morning the Duke of Somerset, the Lord Prior of St. John's, seven knights and seven squires, according to Stow, were taken out and beheaded. The excuse, offered by the partisans of Edward for this cowardly crime, was that the persons executed had taken refuge not in the church, but in the abbey and its precincts. But there seems to be no doubt that all the persons executed were distinctly included in the promise given on Saturday. Whether Edward was an accomplice in the murder of King Henry is not known. In 1473 Edward accepted an invitation to hunt with Neville, the Archbishop of York, at his place in Hertfordshire; but, instead of paying the visit, Edward sent for the archbishop to Windsor, arrested him, confiscated the revenues of the bishopric, and kept him in prison for three years, partly in England, partly at Guisnes, till 1476; when he was released, but only survived his release a few weeks. Edward justly distrusted the security of his claim to the throne, and tried to get possession, by treachery, of the person of Henry Earl of Richmond, who, with his uncle the Earl of Pembroke, had taken refuge in Brittany. The duke, believing Edward's hypocritical assurances, thought he only wanted the Earl of Richmond in order to marry him to his daughter Elizabeth, and delivered up his young guest. But, fortunately, before they had sailed, he got wind of the intended treachery of Edward; and brought the young Henry back into sanctuary at St. Malo. The next quarter from which Edward foresaw danger was from his brothers, Clarence and Gloucester, who were both intriguing to get the fortune of the late Earl of Warwick. Clarence, having married the elder daughter, was sure of his portion; and Richard thought that by securing the younger daughter, the young widow of the late Prince of Wales, he would be able to obtain half the fortune. It mattered nothing to either of these noble personages that the Countess of Warwick was still alive, and entitled by law to most of the property in dispute. Matters were arranged in some way, by the help of an act of parliament, so that both the royal dukes got a share of the plunder, but they were not content. There seems to have been no love lost between any of the three brothers; for, in 1477, Clarence, then a widower, had been thwarted in his intrigues to obtain the hand of Mary, sole daughter and heiress of Charles the Bold, the Duke of Burgundy, mainly through the resolute opposition of Edward. The ill-feeling between the two brothers could no longer be concealed; and in the beginning of the next year Clarence was indicted for high treason, and condemned to death. Into the wars which Edward carried on with France and Scotland it is not necessary to enter. Both were connected with his projects of marrying two of his daughters, or rather affiancing them; for he looked a long way ahead in his attempts to provide for his children. Lewis XI., no doubt, sanctioned the contract of Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of Edward, to the dauphin; and Cicely, the next daughter, was contracted to the Prince of Scotland. By his quarrel with France Edward gained something; for Lewis XI. settled on him an annuity for life of 50,000 crowns besides paying him 75,000 crowns down, and 5000 crowns for the ransom of Margaret of Anjou. But in his transactions with King James of Scotland he did not fare so well, as he paid instalments of the dowry of Cecily without the marriage being carried out. Edward's death, which took place in April, 1483, was attributed by some to the intense disappointment which he felt with regard to the failure of his scheme for the marriage of his eldest daughter to the dauphin. By others the illness, which ended fatally, is attributed to his debaucheries and to his gluttony. He made an edifying end. Hall gives a long speech which he addressed to the nobles of his court on his death-bed. There is no doubt that Hall's very favourable estimate of Edward's character is not supported by facts. He had very great physical advantages, and a winning manner which stood him in good stead, when he made personal application for the benevolences, so called, which at one time he exacted from his subjects. He was accomplished and physically brave; but his self-indulgence gradually sapped the vigour of his mind, so that towards the end of his reign he left the management of many of the affairs of his realm in the hands of others. He had a wonderful memory, which never forgot a face or an injury. Though prodigal in his expenses, and profligate in his pleasures, he was of a suspicious and covetous nature. There is no shutting one's eyes to the many cruelties of which he was guilty. But he was undoubtedly very popular with the greater portion of his subjects; a popularity which he owed to his great personal beauty, and to that happy adaptability of disposition which enabled him to converse with his inferiors as if they were his equals. He had great abilities, both as a statesman and a general; but his moral qualities, as is the case with most kings, were in no wise admirable. errors. Edward had by his wife three sons and seven daughters, the exact dates of whose respective births it is not easy to ascertain. The old chroniclers are very vague on this point, and more modern authorities differ very much among themselves, while some have fallen into manifest The chief difficulty has been with regard to the exact date of the birth of the Duke of York (see Notes and Queries, 7th S. ii. 367, 471, and iii. 15). Besides the young princes, whose memoirs are given below, there was a third son, George, created Duke of Bedford, the date of whose birth does not seem to be known; but it must have been some time after 1474 some say in 1477. He died some time before 1482. Of the daughters, Elizabeth was born 11th February, 1465. In a MS. in the British Museum (Additional MS. 6113, Fol. 48 b)—appa rently a contemporary one with notes and additions made at a slightly later period-she is called "the Dolphinesse of Fraunce" (see above). She never married the dauphin; but, after having had a narrow escape of being the wife of Richard III., she became the queen of Henry VII. The second daughter, Mary, was born 14th August, 1467. She was betrothed in 1481 to the Prince of Denmark, but died unmarried in May, 1482. The third daughter, Cicely, born 1468 or 1469 (see above), married first John Viscount Welles, and secondly Sir John (?Thomas) Kyme, and died without issue, 1507. The fourth daughter was Margaret, born in April, 1472. She died in December of the same year (see Notes and Queries, 7th S. iii. p. 15). The fifth daughter was Anne, born at Westminster in 1475. She married Thomas Howard, third Duke of Norfolk, and died about 1511, leaving no issue. The sixth was Catherine, born at Eltham, 1479; she married the well-known William Courtenay, Earl of Devon, and died about 1527. Their only son, created Marquis of Exeter, was executed in 1556 by Henry VIII., and with him their line ended. The seventh daughter was Bridget, born at Eltham, 10th November, 1480; she became a nun and died at Dartford in 1517. The above list is compiled after reference to and collation of the best authorities; and the sequence of birth, in which the daughters are given, is confirmed by a memorandum of Richard III., dated 1483, the object of which was to induce the widow of Edward IV. to leave the sanctuary at Westminster with her daughters, "that is to wit Elizabeth, Cecill, Anne, Kateryn, and Briggitte" (Ellis's Original Letters, letter xlvii. p. 149). As Mary and Margaret were both dead at this date it will be seen that Richard enumerates the daughters according to the date of their birth. 2. EDWARD, PRINCE OF WALES, AFTERWARDS KING EDWARD V. This unfortunate prince was born in the Sanctuary, Westminster, 4th November, 1470, at a very critical period in the history of his father, who had just been compelled to fly from his kingdom, owing to the rebellion of Warwick and his brother, Clarence, through which Henry VI. was, for a short time, restored to the throne. Queen Elizabeth had been in the Tower with her family; but finding that the people were all declaring for King Henry she took refuge in the sanctuary at Westminster, where she, as Hall says (p. 285); “in great penurie forsake of all her frendes, was deliuered of a fayre sonne called Edwarde, which was with small põpe like a pore mans child Christened & Baptised, the Godfathers being the Abbot & Pryor of Westmynster, & the godmother the lady Scrope." He was proclaimed king, 9th April, 1483; but the council which unanimously proclaimed him king was rent by the most serious divisions. The favour, which Edward IV. had shown to his wife's relations at court, brought on them the bitter enmity even of those who like Lord Hastings were most attached to his own person; and, unfortunately for the young king, the party who were opposed to the queen too readily adopted the treacherous Gloucester as their ally. It was scarcely three weeks after the young king's proclamation when Gloucester had treacherously seized Earl Rivers and Lord Grey, and got the young king into his power. Queen Elizabeth with her second son Richard and her five daughters took refuge in the sanctuary at Westminster. This was on 1st May. Three days afterwards Gloucester brought his nephew, who was now little more than a prisoner, into London, when he was lodged in the Tower, and his uncle appointed Protector. The coronation had been fixed for 22nd June, but it never took place. On the 26th of that month, after some proceedings very properly described as hypocritical farce, Richard took his seat on the throne in Westminster Hall, having virtually elected himself king, and on the 6th July following he was crowned. Shortly afterwards, and probably in the next month, August, the two young princes, Edward and his brother Richard, were murdered in the Tower. The following curious accounts are given in Rastell's Chronicle, first printed in 1529. We have quoted the exact words of the Chronicler, because it is evident, from the details given, that these accounts must have been founded on some well-defined tradition: "But of the maner of the dethe of this yonge kynge, and of his brother, there were dyuers opinyons; but the most cōmyn opinyon was, that they were smolderyd betwene two fetherbeddes, and that, in the doynge, the yonger brother escaped from vnder the fetherbeddes, and crept vnder the bedstede, and there lay naked a whyle, tyll that they had smolderyd the yonge kyng so that he was surely dede; and after yt, one of them toke his brother from vnder the bedstede, and hylde his face downe to the grounde with his one hande, and with the other hande cut his throte bolle a sonder with a dagger. It is a meruayle that any man coude haue so harde a harte to do so cruell a dede, saue onely that necessyte compelled them, for they were so charged by the duke, the protec tour, that if they shewed nat to hym the bodyes of bothe those chylderne dede, on the morowe after they were so comaunded, that than they them selfe shulde be put to dethe. Wherfore they that were so comaunded to do it, were compelled to fullfyll the protectours wyll. "And after that, the bodyes of these .ii. chylderne, as the opinyon ranne, were bothe closed in a great heuy cheste, and, by the meanes of one that was secrete with the protectour, they were put in a shyppe goynge to Flaunders; and, whan the shyppe was in the blacke depes, this man threwe bothe those dede bodyes, so closed in the cheste, ouer the hatches into the see; and yet none of the maryners, nor none in the shyppe, saue onely the sayd man, wyst what thynges it was that was there so inclosed. Whiche sayenge dyuers men coniectured to be trewe, because that the bones of the sayd chylderne coude neuer be founde buryed, nother in the Towre nor in no nother place. "Another opinyon there is, that they whiche had the charge to put them to dethe, caused one to crye sodaynly, 'Treason, treason. Wherwith the chylderne beynge a ferde, desyred to knowe what was best for them to do. And than they bad them hyde them selfe in a great cheste, that no man shulde fynde them, and if any body came into the chambre they wolde say they were nat there. And accordynge as they counsellyd them, they crepte bothe into the cheste, whiche, anone after, they locked. And they anone they buryed that cheste in a great pytte vnder a steyre, which they before had made therfore, and anone cast erthe theron, and so buryed them quycke. Whiche cheste was after caste into the blacke depes, as is before sayde" (Dibdin's Reprint, 1811, pp. 292, 293). 3. RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, was born 17th August, 1473, at Shrewsbury. The date of his birth is generally given as 1472; but in a letter from Sir John Paston to his brother, written on the "last daye of Apryll," 1472, he says: "The Qween hadde chylde, a dowghter, but late at Wyndesor; ther off I trow ye hadde word" (Paston Letters, vol. iii. p. 40). This daughter was Margaret (see above, note 1), and Sir John Paston's statement is amply confirmed by the evidence of her tomb in Westminster Abbey, which existed in 1742 (see Notes and Queries, 7th S. iii. 15). It is pretty certain that this young prince shared the unhappy fate of his brother in the Tower, although the bodies were never found. In spite of the confession of the murderers, some doubt existed as to the fate of the younger brother. Taking advantage of these doubts, one Perkin Warbeck personated him. Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV., received Perkin with open arms; and James IV. of Scotland gave him in marriage the Lady Catherine Gordon, daughter of the Earl of Huntly. In 1497 he landed in Cornwall, where numerous sympathizers joined his standard and laid siege to Exeter. But when the royal army came in sight, he took to flight, and sought refuge in the sanctuary at Beaulieu in Hampshire. On a promise of his life being spared he surrendered himself on 8th June, 1498. He was compelled to stand for two days in the stocks, and to read a confession of his imposture. He was afterwards committed to the Tower; and, eventually, in 1499, having entered into a plot with the Earl of Warwick, his fellow prisoner, he was condemned to death, and executed on 16th November, having fully confirmed his previous confession in every particular. Although many writers of great ability have professed a belief in Perkin Warbeck, and have questioned the genuineness of his confession, there can be very little doubt that he was an impostor, and that both princes died in the Tower by foul means. Richard Duke of York was married in 1478, when about five years old, to Anne Mowbray, daughter of John Mowbray, the last Duke of Norfolk of that name. In one of the Paston Letters, dated November 6, 1479, John Paston writes to Sir John Paston that he wants to get for his brother Edmund the wardship of one John Clippesby "dwryng the nonnage of my Lord and Lady of York" (vol. ii. p. 258). These titles, applied to mere children, seem very absurd. 4. GEORGE, DUKE OF CLARENCE (see III. Henry VI. note 13) Shakespeare has invested the character of this worthless scion of the House of York with an interest which, as far as history shows, he did not deserve. He had all the vices of his two brothers without their courage. The enmity between him and Richard dated from the time when the latter proposed, soon after the murder of her youthful husband, to marry the widow of Edward of Lancaster, Prince of Wales, and sister-in-law of Clarence. Richard's object was to obtain some portion of the great wealth which the king-maker left behind him, and which, as already stated, Clarence had coolly appropriated without a thought. The quarrel began as early as 1472 In one of the Paston Letters (vol. iii. p. 38) written on 14th February, 1472, there is the following reference to this dispute: Yisterday the Kynge, the Qween, my Lordes of Claraunce and Glowcester, wente to Scheen to pardon; men sey, nott alle in cheryte. "The Kynge entretyth my Lorde off Clarance ffor my Lorde of Glowcester; and, as itt is seyde, he answerythe, that he may weel have my Ladye hys suster in lawe, butt they schall parte no lyvelod, as he seythe; so what wyll falle can I nott seye." There is also the following reference to this dispute given on p. 98 in the letter dated 6th November, 1473: “and it [is] seyd ffor serteyn, that, the Duke of Clarance makyth hym bygge in that he kan, schewyng as he wolde but dele with the Duke of Glowcester; but the Kyng ententyth, in eschewying all inconvenyents, to be as bygge as they bothe, and to be a stykeler atweyn them; and som men thynke that undre thys ther sholde be som other thynge entendyd, and som treason conspyred; so what shall falle, can I nott seye." In December, 1476, Clarence's wife died. For some time before that event he had withdrawn from court, and held hardly any intercourse with his eldest brother. The quarrel was, as usual, about money matters. The death of Clarence's wife is said to have had a great effect upon his mind; but it does not seem to have diverted it from its main object, the greed of gain. Scarcely was his wife, who was said to have been poisoned by one of her servants, consigned to the tomb, than Clarence solicited the hand of Mary, the only daughter of Charles the Bold by his second wife, Mary Isabella of Bourbon. The opposition of Edward to this match made the breach between the brothers still wider. In the same year one of Clarence's servants was accused of practising magic; and, on the rack, he denounced one of his accomplices, Thomas Burdett, "a gentleman in the Duke's family" (Lingard, vol. iv. p. 208). They were charged with having calculated the nativities of the king and the prince, and of having circulated certain rhymes and ballads of a seditious tendency" (ut supra, p. 209). They were both executed, protesting their innocence to the very last. Clarence warmly took up their cause, which apparently gave offence to Edward; and early in January in the next year, 1478, Clarence was impeached on the charge of high treason before the House of Lords. A very plausible indictment was framed against him, in which he was accused of aiming at the next succession to the crown by underhand means. It is very likely that Shakespeare, in representing Gloucester, for dramatic purposes, as instigating these accusations, was not far from the truth. Certain it is that some powerful influence over Edward must have incensed his mind against his brother, or he would not have consented to such an extreme measure as the impeachment and condemnation of Clarence. The reason which Shakespeare alleges, in this play, for the arrest of Clarence is one of the reasons given by Hall (p. 326): "The fame was that the king or the Quene, or bothe sore troubled with a folysh Prophesye, and by reason therof bega to stomacke and greuously to grudge agaynst the duke. The effect of which was, after king Edward should reigne, one whose first letter of hys name shoulde be a G;" a form of prophecy which was certainly fulfilled when Gloucester usurped the throne. Of course the |