Page:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu/31

Rh each other; and king Edward IV. never forgave him his disloyalty.

But if the relations of our common historians are to be credited, Cecily's sons were as defective in maternal, as fraternal affection; they say, that king Edward IV. slighted the good advice she gave him, when she requested his majesty not to marry a subject, though he had thought it his duty to consult her upon it.

These writers relate that Clarence openly accused his mother of adultery, to stigmatize the king with bastardy, that he might claim the diadem at the expence of her honour, and that this was one of the accusations brought against him at his trial.

They also alledge that Richard, improving upon the hint, persuaded the infamous Dr. Shaw at St. Paul's, and the duke of Buckingham in Guildhall, that she had taken to her bed certain persons perfectly resembling Edward IV. and Clarence, by whom she had them, and that Richard only had the features of the duke of York her husband, and consequently was the only son she had by the duke.

All this is evidently only "Lancastrian tales." If Clarence was weak, the other brothers were not. All men would have looked upon Richard as such a monster, that he would never have gained his aim, if these relations had been made by his means.

The honourable Horatio Walpole, now earl of Orford, calls Cecily "a princess of spotless character," and she seems to have justly deserved it. Whatever Clarence might do against her fame, king Edward IV. and king Richard III. behaved with great honour and respect towards her.

The Paston Letters say she came to Coventry December 8, 1459, when her husband had just been attainted, with their eldest son, and many others, by the parliament. In January 1459, 60 she was "still again received in Kent," whilst the duke of Rh