The condensed biographical sketches which follow, of such persons as figure principally in the story, will help to show to those who wish to read it intelligently, how much of it is genuine history. They will see that the tale is mainly constructed on a succession of hypotheses, but that every hypothesis rests on a substratum of fact, however slender, and in many cases on careful weighing and comparison of a number of facts together. Some of these conjectures are perhaps the only ones which will fully and satisfactorily account for the sequence of events. For convenience of reference, the names are arranged in alphabetical order.
Arundel, Thomas De, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Third son of Richard the Copped Hat, ninth Earl of Arundel, and Alianora of Lancaster; born 1352-3. Bishop of Ely, 1374; translated to York, of which see consecrated Archbishop, April 3rd, 1388, on the expulsion of Archbishop Neville. In 1390 he joined with Archbishop Courtenay of Canterbury in refusing assent to statutes passed in restraint of the Pope’s prerogative. In the winter of 1394-5 he went over to Ireland with the special purpose of exciting King Richard’s jealousy and suspicion against the political Lollards, after having for two years professed to favour them himself. He was translated to Canterbury on the death of Courtenay, and consecrated Archbishop, January 11th, 1397. On September 19th of the same year, Arundel was commanded to keep his house; and the day after was solemnly impeached by the House of Commons of high treason, “he having in the eleventh year of the King (1387-8) counselled the said Duke (Thomas of Gloucester) and Earl (Richard of Arundel, his brother), to take on themselves royal power.” (Rot. Pari, iii. 353.) The Commons entreated on the 25th that the Archbishop might be banished. The decree of banishment was issued, and he was ordered to sail from Dover, on the 29th of that month. His see was declared vacant, and Roger Walden was elected Archbishop in his stead. But Arundel came back, landing at Ravenspur with Henry of Bolingbroke, July 4th, 1399; and Roger Walden sank into such instant and complete oblivion that some well-informed writers have dogmatically asserted that there never was an Archbishop of that name. In October, 1404, Arundel signalised himself by a violent quarrel with the Speaker in full Parliament. He issued his rigid “constitution” against the Lollards in 1409; and he was the principal agent in the persecution of Lord Cobham. He died February 20th, 1414, lingering for a few days after a paralytic stroke, as stated in the story. His age was 61. The mantle of this cleverest man of his day—clever for evil—descended, a hundred years later, upon Stephen Gardiner. Any believer in transmigration could feel no doubt that the soul of the one man inhabited the other.
Cambridge, Richard Plantagenet, Earl of (“Dickon”).
Third and youngest child of Edmund Duke of York and his first wife Isabel of Castilla: born at Conisborough Castle, Yorkshire, whence, according to the custom of his time, he was usually known as Richard of Conisborough. The only record extant of his father’s visiting the castle is a charter dated thence, September 11th, 1376. (Rot. Pat. 50 E. III, Part 2.) This is probably therefore about the time of Richard’s birth. He was left in England with his sister during the eighteen months (May, 1381, to October, 1382) which his parents spent in Portugal. His mother, dying in 1393, bequeathed him to the care of King Richard the Second, who had been his godfather, though the King was only nine years older than his godson and namesake; and she constituted his Majesty her residuary legatee in trust for her son, desiring that he would allow him 500 marks annually for life. This sum would be equivalent now to about 6,500 pounds per annum. So long as King Richard was in power, the money was paid faithfully, 100 from the issues of the County of York, and 233 pounds 6 shillings 8 pence from the Exchequer. (Lansd. Ms. 860, A, folio 274; Nicolas’ Test. Vet, i. 134; Rot. Pat. 16 R. II, Part 3.) During the sanguinary struggles between King Richard and his cousin Henry the Fourth, nothing is seen of Richard of Conisborough. He was not with the King in Ireland nor at Conway, neither does he appear in Henry’s suite. He probably kept himself very quiet. When his brother and sister were imprisoned in 1405 for the attempted rescue of the Mortimers, no suspicion fell on Richard. Whether he was really concerned in the plot can only be guessed. In 1406 he was chosen to escort the Princess Philippa to Denmark, and on account of his poverty a grant was made to cover his expenses. The poverty was no great wonder, for though a show of confirming his royal godfather’s grant had been made, yet practically poor Richard’s income was reduced to 40 pounds per annum. (Rot. Pat. 1 H. IV, Part 3; Rot. Ex, Pose, 3 H. V.) He was probably created, or allowed to assume the title of, Earl of Cambridge, which really appertained to his brother, only a short time before his death; for up to December 5th, 1414, he is styled in the state papers Richard of York. The accusations brought against him, by which he was done to death, were so absurdly improbable as to be incredible. It was asserted that Charles the Sixth of France had sent over “a hundred thousand in gold,” (which probably means crowns) to Richard Earl of Cambridge, Henry Lord Scrope of Upsal, and Sir Thomas Grey de Wark, urging them to betray Henry the Fifth into his hands, or murder him before he should arrive in Normandy; that thereupon the trio conspired to lead March into Wales (a simple repetition of Constance’s defeated attempt), and to proclaim him King, if King Richard were dead—which Henry the Fifth perfectly well knew he was, and so did the accused trio; that they carried into Wales the banner and crown of Spain, for the purpose of crowning March, the said articles being pawned to the Earl of Cambridge—which crown had in reality been bequeathed by the Infanta Isabel to her son Edward, and in default of his issue to Richard, and had never been in possession of the House of Lancaster at all; that they had sent to Scotland for two personators of King Richard, Trumpington and another (probably John Maudeleyn) whom they intended to pass off to the people as King Richard—which is in itself a contradiction to the charge of setting up March as King. Cambridge and Scrope pleaded their peerage. A commission was issued, August 5th, 1415, by which their judges were appointed—Thomas Duke of Clarence, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester (brothers of the King), Thomas Earl of Dorset (the King’s half-brother), who sat as proxy of Edward Duke of York; Edmund Earl of March, the very man whom they were accused of making King; and fourteen other peers. Neither Cambridge nor Scrope was allowed to speak in his own defence. Sentence was passed at once, and they were beheaded the day following on Southampton Green. There is no evidence that Richard had conspired for any purpose; the whole affair was apparently a mere pretext to be rid of him. In character, Richard seems to have been noble and honourable, with a slight taint of his father’s indecision: there is no portrait of him known. The traces of Lollardism are very slight, but I think they may be fairly considered “proven;” and if this be the case, it fully accounts for the acrimony with which he was hunted to death. His age when he died was about 39. Richard of Conisborough was twice married; his wives were—1. Anne, eldest child of Roger Mortimer, fifth Earl of March, and his wife Alianora de Holand; born about 1390; very likely imprisoned in Windsor Castle with her brothers on the usurpation of Henry the Fourth, 1400; released, if so, with her sister Alianora, and both provided for by the King (being described as “omnibus suis parentibus et amicis destitutis”), and all fiefs of their mother granted to them, May 13th, 1406 (Rot. Pat. 7 H. IV, Part 2); married, probably, 1408; most likely died in childbed, September 1410-11, aged about 20 years. 2. Maude, only daughter of Thomas, Lord Clifford of Cumberland (one of the two most uncompromisingly Lollard houses in the kingdom) and his wife Elizabeth de Ros of Hamlake; born probably about 1390, married, 1412-15; married, secondly, John Neville, sixth and last Lord Latimer of Danby; died without issue, August 26, 1446 (Inq. Post Mortem 25 H. VI, 21), aged about 56. The children of Richard of Conisborough (both by Anne Mortimer) were:—1. Isabel, born about 1409, married (1) to Thomas Grey de Wark (son of the man condemned with her father), before February 18, 1412 (Rot. Pat. 13 H. IV, Part 2); (2) her second cousin, Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex and Count of Eu; died (leaving issue by second marriage) October 2nd, 1484, aged about 75. (Inq. Post Mortem 2 R. III, 53.) 2. Richard, Duke of York and Albemarle, Earl of Cambridge, Lord of Teviotdale and Holderness: born September 21st, 1410 or 1411 (more likely the earlier year. (Inq. Post Mortem 11 H. VI, 39, Anna Comitissa Marchia; 3 H. VI, 32, Edmundi Comitis Marchice; 3 H. V, 45, Edmundi Duds Ebor; 12 H. VI, 43, Johanna Ducissa Ebor.) He afterwards set up his claims against the House of Lancaster, which were brought to a successful issue by his sons, though he himself never was King. Married about 1438, Cicely Neville, daughter of Ralph, first Earl of Westmoreland and his wife Joan Beaufort; called the Rose of Raby. Beheaded after the battle of Wakefield, December 30th, 1460 (Inq. Post Mortem 18 E. IV, 60), aged 50; buried at Pomfret, 1466; Fotheringay, 1476.
Despenser, Constance Plantagenet, Lady Le, Countess of Gloucester.
Only daughter of Edmund Duke of York and his wife Isabel of Castilla; most likely born at Langley, in or about 1374. On the 16th of April, 1378, the marriage of Edward, son and heir of Edward late Lord Le Despenser, was granted to her father for her benefit. (Rot. Pat. 1 R. II, Part 5.) But the infant bridegroom was dead on the 30th of May following, and his brother Thomas was evidently substituted in his stead. (Rot. Pat. 1 R. II, Part 6.) Thomas and Constance were married before the 7th of November, 1379, as on that day her uncle, John of Gaunt, paid 22 pounds 0 shillings 4 pence for his wedding present to the bride, a silver-gilt cup and ewer on a stand, and he speaks of the marriage as then past (Register of John Duke of Lancaster, ii, folio 19, b.) Constance remained in England during the absence of her parents in Portugal, 1381-2. Eighty marks per annum were granted to her from the Despenser lands, January 14th, 1384. When she took up her residence at Cardiff with her husband is uncertain; but there is every probability that it was not till after the death of her mother, in February, 1393, and very likely not till after her father’s second marriage, about the following October. The approximate date may be given as 1394-5. Two pardons are recorded of persons accused of murder, June 22nd, 1395, and April 27th, 1396, “at the request of our beloved kinswoman the Countess of Gloucester.” There was no Countess of Gloucester at the time, for Constance had not yet attained that title. The words may be slips of the scribe’s pen for the Duchess of Gloucester. It was not until September 29th, 1397, that Thomas Le Despenser was created Earl of Gloucester. There is no evidence to show the presence of Constance in London during the stormy period of her cousin Henry’s usurpation; she seems to have remained at Cardiff. On the 22nd of February, 1400, about six weeks after her husband’s murder, a grant of 60 pounds per annum was made to the King’s son, John Duke of Bedford, out of the issues of her lands (Rot Pat. 1 H. IV, Part 8); but on the 3rd of March, the custody of her son Richard was granted to her, and 30 pounds worth of gold and silver of her late husband’s goods in the hands of the Mayor of Bristol. (Ibidem, Part 6.) Moreover, on the 19th of February, a concession was made to her of eleven manors, two towns, two castles, two lordships, and other lands (Ibidem, Part 5); followed by a grant of “the price of certain vessels of silver, brooches, jewels, and other goods” which had belonged to her husband. (Rot. Ex, Pasc, 1 H. IV.) In 1404 she was restored to her dower by Act of Parliament. (Inq. Post. Mortem 4 H. V 52.) When and where she met with her second husband can only be guessed; for that Edmund Earl of Kent was really her second husband I think there is the strongest reason to believe. His sisters afterwards chose to deny the marriage; it was their interest to do so, for had the legitimacy of his child been established, they would have been obliged to resign to her her father’s estates, which, as his presumptive heirs, they had inherited. Their excessive anxiety to prove her illegitimate, the persecution which Constance subsequently underwent, the resolute determination of Henry the Fourth that Kent should marry Lucia, and the remarkable coincidence of time between Constance’s imprisonment and Lucia’s marriage, go far to show that the marriage (though perhaps clandestine) was genuine, as alleged by Alianora; and I cannot avoid a strong conviction that a great deal of this hate and persecution were due to the fact that Constance was actually or suspectedly a Lollard. The denials of Kent’s sisters may be attributed to their wish to retain his estates; while as for his nephews and nieces, who nominally joined in the petition, they could only know what they were told; for Joyce Lady Tibetot, the eldest of the group, was only three years old at the death of Kent. But to what cause can be attributed the violent determination of Henry the Fourth? If it be supposed that he wished to benefit and advance Kent, how did he do it by preventing his acknowledged marriage with a well-dowered Princess of England?—or if to lower him, how was this done by purchasing for him, at the cost of 70,000 florins, the hand of a foreign Princess? Beside this, Henry showed throughout that while he had no mercy for Constance, he was on the best possible terms with Kent. Modern writers are altogether at fault on the subject, most of them alleging that Constance’s daughter Alianora was born before her marriage with Thomas Le Despenser; whereas it is shown by the Register that when Le Despenser and Constance were married, the latter was only four or five years old, while Kent was not even born. The rescue of the Mortimers comes in to complicate matters; but what shall be said, from the point of view of some writers, who submit that the whole was a mere pretext to imprison Constance and her brother, that the Mortimers were never stolen away at all, or that the real agents remained undiscovered, and that Constance’s alleged confession is a pure fiction from beginning to end? One thing is plain: there was evidently some reason in the mind of the King why Kent must not openly marry Constance: and knowing Henry’s character, and Kent’s character as well, I can see none that suits all the facts of the case, unless Constance were one of the hated and proscribed Lollards. The marriage of Constance and Kent, if it really occurred, of which I cannot feel the least doubt, must have taken place between 1401 and 1404 inclusive. It was about February, 1405, that (if this part of the story be true) she broke into Windsor Castle and carried off the young Mortimers, by means of false keys; and she and they had nearly reached Wales when they were recaptured. She was tried before Parliament. Henry the Fourth’s records (but he was an atrocious falsifier of state papers) tell us that she confessed that her brother Edward had been her instigator; and that he had attempted, the Christmas before, to scale the walls of Eltham Palace, and assassinate or at least imprison King Henry. This may or may not be true. What is undoubtedly true is that Edward and Constance were arrested and imprisoned; the latter in Kenilworth Castle, whither she was taken at a cost of 10 pounds, in charge of Elmingo Leget (Rot. Ex, Michs, 6 H. IV); and that all the estates, goods, and chattels of both were seized by the Crown. (Ibidem.) But Kent remained in favour. The length of time which must necessarily have elapsed shows that no sooner was Constance safely shut up than Henry began negotiating with his old friend, Galeazzo Visconti, for the hand of his beautiful cousin Lucia as the bride of Kent. When all was arranged, but not sooner, in November he presented himself at Kenilworth. (Rot. Pat, 7 H. IV, Part i.) What means were taken to torture his unhappy cousin into compliance with his iron will can only be conjectured. She did at last consent to disown her marriage, unless the facts alleged in the petition of Kent’s sisters are fictions. On January 19th, 1406, “all the goods that belonged to the said Constance, in the custody of the Treasurer of our Household, and were lately seised in our hands for certain causes,” were munificently granted to her “of our gift.” (Ibidem.) On the 24th of the same month, Kent and Lucia were married, and—if his sisters may be believed—Constance was present. (Rot. Pari, iv. 375.) And on the 18th of June following, all the lands and tenements of Thomas Le Despenser were restored to his widow. (Rot. Pat, 7 H. IV, Part 2.) In May, 1412, she had again offended; for her son was taken from her, and his custody and marriage were granted to trustees, one of whom was his uncle, Edward Duke of York. (Ibidem, 13 H. IV, Part 2.) No more is heard of her until the accession of Henry the Fifth, when the immediate favour shown to her confirms the suspicion that her offence was in some way connected with political, if not religious, Lollardism. On the 18th of July, 1413, the young King confirmed all his father’s grants to Constance (Ibidem, 1 H. V, Part 3), which concession restored her boy to her custody. But when Henry the Fifth turned against Lollardism, he turned against his cousin with it. All the Despenser lands were granted to her brother Edward for life, April 16th, 1414, in compensation for the loss which he had sustained by Richard Le Despenser’s death (Ibidem, 2 H. V, Part 1); the truth being that the grant to him in 1412 had been cancelled by the subsequent concession to his sister, so that he had sustained no loss at all. Troubles came thickly upon Constance now. The sudden and violent deaths of her brothers, within three months of each other, must have been no slight shock to her; and shortly after that she was again under royal displeasure. The nature of her offence is matter for conjecture. We only know with certainty that she died on the 28th of November, 1416, aged about 42 (Inq. Post Mortem, 4 H. V 52); and that she died under a dark cloud of royal wrath, which was manifested by the withholding of permission for honourable burial for four years. Constance was interred in Reading Abbey, in 1420. No portrait of her is known. Her character appears to have been as I have represented it—warm-hearted, impulsive, and eager, but wayward and obstinate. Her children were four in number; three by her first marriage, who were:—1. Richard, born at Cardiff, November 30th, 1396. On the 23rd of May, 1412, he was removed from his mother’s keeping, and his custody and marriage were granted, “at the request of Edward Duke of York,” to ten trustees: Archbishop Arundel, Thomas Bishop of Durham, Edward Duke of York, Sir John Pelham, Robert Tirwhit, Robert W yntryngham, clerk, John Bokeland, clerk, Thomas Walwayn, Henry Bracy, and John Adam. They were charged with the custody of “all lands whatsoever now inherited by the said Richard, and in our hands, or any lands that may or can descend to him; and all that since the death of Thomas his father, for whatsoever cause or pretext, has been seized by us.” More comprehensive terms could scarcely be used. Richard’s marriage took place immediately under this grant. The bride chosen by the trustees was Alianora, second daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by his second wife Joan Beaufort, half-sister of King Henry. On the accession of Henry the Fifth, March 20th, 1413, this grant was revoked, and Richard restored to his mother. He survived his return home only six months, dying at Merton Abbey, Surrey—to all appearance unexpectedly—October 6th, 1413, aged nearly 17. How he came to be at Merton is an unsolved question; for it looks as if he were in Arundel’s keeping still, and as if the concession to Constance had remained ineffectual. His child-widow re-married Henry Percy, second Earl of Northumberland, and became the mother of a large family.—2. Elizabeth, born and died at Cardiff, probably in 1398.—3. Isabel, born at Cardiff, “on the feast of the Seven Holy Sleepers,” July 10th, 1400; baptised in the Church of Saint Mary in that town, the same day, by Thomas Bishop of Llandaff (Prob. at. dicta Isabella, 2 H. V 23); married (1) July 10th, 1411, Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Worcester (2) 1422—4, his cousin, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick; died December 26th, 1439, aged 39 (Inq. Post. Mortem 18 H. VI 3), leaving issue by both marriages; buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. (Harl. Ms. 154, folio 31.);—The fourth and last was the unfortunate, disinherited Alianora, born between 1402 and 1405, both inclusive, and most likely, at Kenilworth, in 1405; married (date unknown) James Touchet, Lord Audley of Heleigh; date of death, portrait, and character unknown: left issue. In 1430 she claimed the coronet and estates of her father, alleging herself to be the legitimate daughter of Edmund Earl of Kent, and Constance his wife. A counter-petition was presented by Joan Duchess of York, Constance’s step-mother; Margaret Duchess of Clarence, her sister (and contrary to all mediaeval usage, the younger sister is named first); and five nephews and nieces, all of whom were unborn or in the cradle when the events referred to took place. The sisters of Kent pleaded that “never any espousals were had ne solemnised in deed betwixt the said Edmund and Custance; but that the said Edmund, by the ordinance, will, and agreement of the full noble Lord late King Henry the Fourth, that God rest, after great, notable, and long ambassad’ had and sent unto the Duke of Melane for marriage to be had betwixt the said Edmund and Luce, sister to the said Duke of Milan, took to wife and openly and solemnly wedded the said Luce at London, living and then and there present the said Custance, not claiming the said Edmund unto her husband, ne any dower of his lands after his decease. The said espousals so had and solemnised betwixt the said Edmund and Luce continued withouten any interruption of the said Custance, or any oyer during the life of the said Edmund.” These ladies were very wrathful against the “subtlety, imagined process, privy labour and coloured means” whereby certain persons had been so wicked as to depose that the said Alianora was born “in espousals had and solemnised between Edmund and Custance,” particularly considering that “the said suppliants” were “none of them warned” of her intention to appear and make her claim. (Rot. Pari. IV. 375-6.) The passage in Italics, when viewed with the surrounding circumstances, told as much, if not more, in Alianora’s favour, as against her. And it did not please the Duchess Joan to mention a few other little circumstances, which it was more convenient than just to leave out of the account. The fact that it was not the first time that Henry had applied to Galeazzo for assistance in what is expressively termed “dirty work” (Froissart, book iv chapter 94); that Constance, however willing to protest against the projected marriage of Edmund and Lucia, had been physically unable, being a prisoner in Kenilworth Castle; that she had been set free just in time to appear at the wedding (if she did appear); and that the bundle of grants to her, dated about the same time, suspiciously point to a purchase of her consent:—such facts as these, it was more convenient to leave in the background. The petitions were received by Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, a Gallio who car ed for none of these things, whose cruel treatment of his own hapless wife shows that no chivalrous feeling could actuate him, and no desire to right a wronged woman influence his acts; but who probably was not desirous to blacken the memory of his father, and had no
wish to disturb his brother’s wife in the enjoyment of Kent’s estates. So the answer returned to Joan’s petition was—“Soit fait comme il est desiré”—an answer fatal to the hopes the claim, and the birthright, of the unfortunate Alianora.
Despenser, Elizabeth Le, Baroness of Cardiff.
Only daughter and heir of Bartholomew, fourth Baron Burghersh, by his first wife Cicely de Weyland; and Baroness Burghersh in her own right. She was born probably about 1340, and brought up under the care of her step-mother Margaret de Badlesmere. About 1360 or earlier, she married Edward Lord Le Despenser, who left her a widow November 11th, 1375. Her family numbered eight, of whom Edward, Hugh, and Cicely, died infants; Elizabeth married John de Arundel and William third Lord de La Zouche; Anne married Hugh Hastings and Thomas fourth Lord Morley; Margaret married Robert, fifth Lord Ferrers of Chartley; Philippa apparently died unmarried; for Thomas, the youngest, see the next article. Elizabeth stood sponsor in 1382 to Richard Neville, afterwards the second husband of her grand-daughter Isabel. (Prob. cet. dicti Ricardi, 4 H. IV 44.) The custody of her son Thomas was granted to her during his minority (Rot. Pat. 11 R. II, Part 2.) She died “on the feast of Saint Anne,” July 26th, 1411, aged probably about 70. (Ing. Post Mortem 4 H. V 52, Constancies Le Despenser.) The inferences are slight which tend to show her Lollardism. The terms of her last will are decidedly Lollard; she was joined in the baptism of Richard Neville by Alice, widow of Sir Richard Stury; and she was niece of Joan, Lady Mohun of Dunster—two of the most prominent Lollards of the period. Le Despenser was a Lollard house by tradition and inheritance. No portrait known; character imaginary.