Original size.
In the British Museum is a ring which belonged to one whose life had been a tissue of cowardice, cruelty, falsehood and weakness, Lord Darnley. If this was a ring he ordinarily wore, it probably was upon his finger when he led the way to the murder of Riccio and pointed him out to the slayers. However this may be, the story goes that when Darnley was reconciled to Mary and was in the house called Kirk of Field, she, one evening, on taking leave in order to attend a marriage of a servant, embraced him tenderly; took a ring from her finger and placed it upon his. It was on this night that a terrific explosion was heard, which shook the city of Edinburgh. Then it was that the Kirk of Field was blown up; and at a little distance, in the garden, were the dead bodies of Darnley and his page. We are not of those who believe that Mary’s hand or heart were in this murder, notwithstanding we read of the vote of the Scotch Parliament and peruse Buchanan’s suggested letters from the Queen to Bothwell—especially as these epistles are not forthcoming. It has been said that Buchanan expressed sorrow on his death-bed for what he had written against Mary. But he certainly was not a repentant. We have a proof of his indomitable disposition in the fact that when, at his dying hour, he was informed that the King was highly incensed against him for writing his books De Jure Regni and History of Scotland, he replied, “he was not much concerned about that, for he was shortly going to a place where there were few kings.”[281] Writers who show no esteem for Buchanan give him the character of an inveterate drinker even up to his death hour; he, “continuing his debauches of the belly, made shift to get the dropsy by immoderate drinking,” and it was said of him, by way of jest, that he was troubled vino inter cute and not aquâ inter cute (by wine between the skin and not water between the skin).[282]
There is a ring known in English history as the Blue Ring.[283] King James the First kept a constant correspondence with several persons of the English court for many years prior to Queen Elizabeth’s decease; among others with Lady Scroope, sister of Robert Carey, afterwards Earl of Monmouth, to which lady his majesty sent, by Sir James Fullerton, a sapphire ring, with positive orders to return it to him, by a special messenger, as soon as the Queen actually expired. Lady Scroope had no opportunity of delivering it to her brother Robert while he was in the palace of Richmond; but waiting at the window till she saw him at the outside of the gate, she threw it out to him and he well knew to what purpose he received it. Indeed, he was the first person to announce to James his accession to the crown of England; and the monarch said to him: “I know you have lost a near kinswoman and a mistress, but take here my hand, I will be a good master to you and will requite this service with honor and reward.” This Robert Carey wrote his own memoirs; and therein says: “I only relied on God and the King. The one never left me; the other, shortly after his coming to London, deceived my expectations and adhered to those who sought my ruin.”
Thomas Sackvil, Duke of Dorset, who was Lord High Treasurer of England in the times of Elizabeth and James I., has left a remarkably long and curious will, which shows exceeding wealth and a mixture of seeming humility, obsequious loyalty and pride of position. His riches appear to have mainly come from his father, who was called by the people Fill-Sack, on account of his vast property. A great number of personal ornaments are bequeathed; and among them many rings, which are particularly described. He often and especially notices[284] “one ring of gold and enamelled black and set round with diamonds, to the number of 20., whereof 5. being placed in the upper part of the said ring do represent the fashion of a cross.” This ring is coupled with “one picture of the late famous Queen Elizabeth, being cut out of an agate, with excellent similitude, oval fashion and set in gold, with 20. rubies about the circle of it and one orient pearl pendant to the same; one ring of gold, enamelled black, wherein is set a great table diamonde, beying perfect and pure and of much worth; and one cheyne of gold, Spanish work, containing in it 48. several pieces of gold, of divers sorts, enamelled white and of 46. oval links of gold, likewise enamelled white, wherein are 144. diamonds.” These rings, chain and picture are to remain as heirlooms; while particular directions are given to place them in the custody of the warden and a senior fellow of New College at Oxford during minority of his descendants, to be kept within the said college “in a strong chest of iron, under two several keys,” etc. The testator states how the “said rynge of gould, with the great table diamonde sett therein togeather with the said cheyne of goulde, were given to him by the Kinge of Spayne;” while the way in which he obtained the ring set round with twenty diamonds is thus elaborated in the will: “And to the intent that they may knowe howe just and great cause bothe they and I have to hould the sayed Rynge, with twentie Diamonds, in so heighe esteeme, yt is most requisite that I do here set downe the whole course and circumstance howe and from whome the same rynge did come to my possession, which was thus: In the Begynning of the monethe of June one thousand sixe hundred and seaven, this rynge thus sett with twenty Diamondes, as is aforesayed, was sent unto me from my most gracious soveraigne King James, by that honorable personage the Lord Haye, one of the gentlemen of his Highnes Bedchamber, the Courte then beying at Whitehall in London and I at that tyme remayning at Horsley House in Surrey, twentie myles from London, where I laye in suche extremitye of sickness as yt was a common and a constant reporte all over London that I was dead and the same confidentlie affirmed even unto the Kinge’s Highnes hymselfe; upon which occasion it pleased his most excellent majestie, in token of his gracious goodness and great favour towards me, to send the saied Lord Hay with the saied Ringe, and this Royal message unto me, namelie, that his Highness wished a speedie and a perfect recoverye of my healthe, with all happie and good successe unto me and that I might live as longe as the diamonds of that Rynge (which therewithall he delivered unto me) did indure, and, in token thereof, required me to weare yt and keep yt for his sake. This most gracious and comfortable message restored a new Life unto me, as coming from so renowned and benigne a soveraigne,”—but enough of this fulsome praise of the coward King of Holyrood. It makes us think of Sir Richie Moniplie’s scene: “But my certie, lad, times are changed since ye came fleeing down the back stairs of auld Holyrood House, in grit fear, having your breeks in your hand, without time to put them on, and Frank Stewart, the wild Earl of Bothwell, hard at your haunches; and if auld Lord Glenwarloch hadna cast his mantle about his arm and taken bluidy wounds mair than ane in your behalf, you wald not have crawed sae crouse this day.”
There is a ring in the Isle of Wight, shown as having belonged to Charles the First of England; and the following story is told of it.[285] When Charles was confined in Carisbrook Castle, a man named Howe was its master gunner. He had a son, a little boy, who was a great favorite of Charles. One day, seeing him with a child’s sword by his side, the King asked him what he intended doing with it? “To defend your Majesty from your Majesty’s enemies,” was the reply; an answer which so pleased the King that he gave the child the signet-ring he was in the habit of wearing upon his finger.
An engraving of the ring has been published. The article itself is in the possession of a descendant of Howe’s. It is marked inside with the letters A and T conjoined followed by E. The author cannot trace or couple these letters with Charles the First; and he is otherwise inclined to doubt the story. It is a tale to please loyal readers. Charles was an intelligent man; and he was not likely, especially under his then circumstances, to have given his signet-ring to a child. There is a very pretty incident connected with his passing to prison, where he might beautifully have left a ring with a true-hearted lady. As he passed through Newport, on the way to the Castle of Carisbrook, the autumn weather was most bitter. A gentlewoman, touched by his misfortunes and his sorrows, presented him with a damask rose, which grew in her garden at that cold season of the year and prayed for him. The mournful monarch received the lady’s gift, heartily thanked her and passed on to his dungeon.
It is true that Charles, when in the Isle of Wight, gave a ring from his finger. But the receiver of it was Sir Philip Warwick. This ring bore a figure cut in an onyx; and was handed to Sir Philip in order to seal the letters written for the King by that knight at the time of the treaty. This ring was left by Sir Philip to Sir Charles Cotterell, Master of the Ceremonies, who, in his will, (16th April, 1701,) bequeathed it to Sir Stephen Fox. It came into the possession of the latter’s descendant, the late Earl of Ilchester and was stolen from his house in old Burlington street, London, about seventy years ago.[286]
Just before his execution, the same monarch caused a limited number of mourning rings to be prepared. Burke, in his Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland, mentions the family of Rogers in Lota. This family was early remarkable for its loyalty and attachment to the crown. A ring is still preserved as an heirloom, which was presented to its ancestor by King Charles the First during his misfortunes. Robert Rogers of Lota received extensive grants from Charles the Second. In the body of his will is the following: “And I also bequeathe to Noblett Rogers the miniature portrait ring of the martyr Charles I. given by that monarch to my ancestor previous to his execution; and I particularly desire that it may be preserved in the name and family.” The miniature is said to be by Vandyke.
The present possessor of this ring says that when it was shown in Rome, it was much admired; the artists when questioned, “Whose style?” frequently answered, “Vandyke’s.”[287] Although many doubt whether Vandyke ever submitted to paint miniatures, yet portraits in enamel by him are known to be in existence.