Froissart tells us that the Duke of Gloucester plotted the destruction of the king, his nephew; and, in his evidently implicit faith in the divine right of kings, appears much shocked at the enormity of the duke’s delinquency; nevertheless, in the so-called treasonable conversations which he makes him hold with his confidant, Sir John Lackingay, the duke states nothing but the reasonable causes of complaint which so glaringly existed. He says, “If the King of England had a good head, &c., &c., he would take some pains to recover the inheritance the French have so shamefully stolen from him, &c., &c.; but things are not so: we have an unwarlike king, who is indifferent to arms,” &c., &c. And again: “The king raises heavy taxes on our merchants, who are greatly discontented, squanders the money no one knows how, and thus the country is impoverished[16];” with much more, all of which was too true. But our chronicler relates also, with less authority, that the duke actually proposed to his nephew, the Earl of March, to depose the king, and, with the help of the discontented Londoners, seize upon the government.
In justice, however, to Froissart, we must remark that he expresses the greatest indignation and horror at the treacherous arrest and cruel murder of the duke, consequent upon these reports.
The illumination is carefully drawn, especially the mantle of the duke, which has a picturesque and graceful effect.[Pg 135][Pg 134]
The death of Anne of Bohemia, Queen of Richard II.
PLATE XXXI.
THE DEATH OF ANNE OF BOHEMIA, &c. &c.