Page 3. last line. Burgundy.] Brittany is right; Mary, eldest daughter of John V. and sister of John VI. and Arthur, dukes of Brittany, was married to John I. duke of Alençon, father of the duke here mentioned. I can find no alliance between the houses of Alençon and Burgundy.
Page 12. line 3. Duke of Orleans.] A mistake. He was succeeded by Francis II. son of his younger brother, Richard, count of Etampes. See the table in note to vol. v. p. 390. Richard, count of Estampes, who died in 1438, married Margaret, daughter of Lewis, duke of Orleans, and Francis II. was the only son by that marriage.
Page 13. line 1. from the bottom. CHAP. IV. This chapter and the following afford a further instance of that want of connection and repetition which is before noticed to be so frequent in this latter part of the history. It is evident that Monstrelet set down his details respecting these transactions as they appear in Vol. IX. chapter 76. and Vol. X. chapter 1. from the information he had then acquired. The original documents themselves afterwards came to his hands, and these he transcribed in haste, without reference to his former accounts. It seems reasonable to conclude that death prevented him from arranging these different statements, and striking out all that appears superfluous in them.
Page 48. line 13. Fell.] Those of most note, on the king's side, were Humphry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, who was succeeded by his son Henry; and John, earl of Shrewsbury, lord treasurer of England, grandson to the great Talbot. The battle was fought at two o'clock in the afternoon on the 10th of July, and is said to have lasted only half an hour. Stow.
Page 49. line 9. from the bottom. Attempt.] Together with the queen and the prince of Wales, the dukes of Exeter and Somerset, the earls of Devon and Wiltshire, the lord Clifford and many other great lords, were on the king's side this day. The young duke of Rutland was murdered in cold blood by the barbarous Clifford. The duke of York himself was killed in the field, not made prisoner as in the text. The earl of Salisbury was made prisoner and carried to the castle of Pomfret, where "he had grant of life for a great ransome, but the common people of the country, who loved him not, tooke him out of the castle by violence, and smote off his head." The earl of March, now duke of York by his father's death, and afterwards king of England, was at Gloucester when this event happened.
Page 54. line 5. Uncle.] Probably Ralph Nevil, earl of Westmoreland, who is named among the slain at this battle.
Page 55. line 2. from the bottom. Earl of Northumberland.] Henry Percy, the second earl of that name and family who fell in this long conflict. The former was killed at the first battle of St. Alban's, mentioned before, vol. ix. p. 360. I believe that no earl of Shrewsbury fell on this occasion, and that the continuator of Croyland in this point confounds the battle of Towton with that of Northampton mentioned before, p. 48.
Page 58. last line. Towton.] He was created earl of Northumberland in 1463, and marquis of Montacute, or Montague, a short time after; but in 1466 he resigned the earldom in favour of Henry Percy, son of the earl who was killed at Towton.
Page 64. line 13. Lord de la Roche-Bourguignon.] Not de la Roche-Bourguignon, but de la Roche, a Burgundian. This Philip lord de la Roche, was afterwards in high favour with king Louis, and advanced him to the dignity of count of St Pol, on the attainder and confiscation of the constable.