Charles Gustavus Anderson


See Charles Augustus (or Gustavus) Anderson [Laws D19] (File: LD19)

Charles J. Guiteau


See Charles Guiteau [Laws E11] (File: LE11)

Charleston Gals


DESCRIPTION: Floating verses: The terrapin and the toad, the overworked old horse whose owner will tan its hide if it dies, dancing with the girl with the hole in her stocking. Chorus: "Hibo, for Charleston gals, Charleston gals are the gals for me."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1867 (Allen/Ware/Garrison)
KEYWORDS: animal death dancing floatingverses
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Allen/Ware/Garrison, p. 88, "Charleston Gals" (1 text, 1 tune)
Scarborough-NegroFS, pp. 162-163, "" (1 text, 1 tune)
Botkin-AmFolklr, pp. 905-906, "Charleston Gals" (1 text, 1 tune)
ST ScaNF162 (Full)
Roud #12046
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Old Virginny Never Tire" (style)
NOTES: This, like "Old Virginny Never Tire" and similar songs, is a pure collection of floating verses with its own chorus. It's hard to know what to do with such things; for the moment, we're splitting them on the basis of the chorus. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: ScaNF162

Charley Bell


DESCRIPTION: "If you ever go to lumbering woods, Please take my advice": don't work for Charley Bell. His spruce is rotten, his road is too crooked to be steered, his food squeals when bitten, and you get eaten alive by lice from Charley.
AUTHOR: Patrick Murphy
EARLIEST DATE: 1950 (Manny/Wilson)
KEYWORDS: warning lumbering ordeal humorous nonballad
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Manny/Wilson 10, "Charley Bell" (1 text, 1 tune)
ST MaWi010 (Partial)
Roud #9201
NOTES: And he's ugly, too.
(No, amazingly enough, the song doesn't say that. Author Patrick Murphy is said to have been a circus performer. His act must have been interesting, to say the least.) - RBW
File: MaWi010

Charley Brooks


See The Two Letters (Charlie Brooks; Nellie Dare) (File: R735)

Charley Hill's Old Slope [Laws G8]


DESCRIPTION: Nine miners are riding a car out of the mine when the chain breaks. The car falls back into the mine, and all nine are killed
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE:
KEYWORDS: mining disaster death
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1865 - The mine car accident
FOUND IN: US(MA)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Laws G8, "Charley Hill's Old Slope"
DT 785, OLDSLOPE
Roud #3251
File: LG08

Charley Snyder


See Joseph Mica (Mikel) (The Wreck of the Six-Wheel Driver) (Been on the Choly So Long) [Laws I16] (File: LI16)

Charley Warlie had a cow


See Katie Bairdie (File: MSNR092)

Charley, He's a Good Old Man


See Weevily Wheat (File: R520)

Charley's Escape


See Geordie [Child 209] (File: C209)

Charlie (I)


DESCRIPTION: The singer sets out "to gain the heart o' Charlie." She milks his cow, churns his cream, washes his clothes, shines his shoes and has sex. The midwife delivers little Charlie. Now she is bound for life as wife while her friends can all go to Fife.
AUTHOR: William Lillie (1753-1840) (source: GreigDuncan7)
EARLIEST DATE: 1907 (GreigDuncan7)
KEYWORDS: love marriage sex childbirth
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan7 1273, "Charlie" (10 texts, 5 tunes)
Roud #7188
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Woods o' Tillery" (tune, per GreigDuncan7)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Bold Charlie
A' the Hoose Was in a Steer
NOTES: GreigDuncan7: "Lines by William Lillie ... composed on Elspeth Kidd or Mrs Andrew Mitchell ... about 1810." - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD71273

Charlie (Ii)


See Weevily Wheat (File: R520)

Charlie and Mary


See The Sailor and His Bride [Laws K10] (File: LK10)

Charlie Hurley


DESCRIPTION: "Foremost of all in the battle's red lightning with the boys from West Cork was this man from Barr Lia." While wounded and surrounded Hurley continued to fight. "Soon his cruel rivals were lying at his feet." He died the same day as the Crossbarry ambush.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1978 (OCanainn)
KEYWORDS: rebellion battle death Ireland patriotic IRA
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
March 19, 1921 - Nationalist victory at Crossbarry
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
OCanainn, pp. 32-33, "The Ballad of Charlie Hurley" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Piper of Crossbarry" (subject: Irish Civil War) and references there
cf. "The Bold Black and Tan" (subject: Irish Civil War) and references there
NOTES: OCanainn: "Charlie Hurley is one of the great heroes of West Cork. He was a Commandant in Tom Barry's famous Flying Column (1919-1921) and noted for his bravery." - BS
For Crossbarry, and for the beloved terrorist Tom Barry, see the notes to "The Piper of Crossbarry." - RBW
File: OCan032

Charlie Is My Darling


DESCRIPTION: Charlie comes to town; he spies a lass. He runs up the stairs; she opens the door, and he sets her on his knee. The rest is left to imagination. Chorus: "Charlie he's my darling, my darling, my darling/Charlie he's my darling, the young Chevalier"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: c.1775 (Ritter and Henderson)
LONG DESCRIPTION: [Based on Ritter] Charly came to town "recruiting grenadiers" A "maid both young and sweet" saw him from her window and, being alone at home invited him in "to please a bonny lass" He gave a her purse of gold "as long as her arm" She sings, "up the rosy mountains and down the scroggy glen; We dare not go a milking for Charly and his men. Yet we will go a milking let them say what they will, And if we dare not milk the cow our maids will milk the bull" She put on her best, met him in Aberdeen, and followed him to Inverness. "Her true love was forc'd to fly, and leave Culloden muir," leaving her behind. She says she'll wait for him till he comes home; if she could, she would follow him over the sea.
KEYWORDS: courting army soldier Jacobites seduction
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1745-1746 - The '45 Rebellion, led by Bonnie Prince Charlie
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (10 citations):
Hogg2 49, Hogg2 50, "Charlie Is My Darling" (2 texts, 1 tune)
GreigDuncan4 803, "'Twas on a Monday Mornin'" (1 fragment)
Silber-FSWB, p. 140, "Charlie Is My Darling" (1 text)
DT, CHARDARL*
ADDITIONAL:Robert Chambers, The Picture of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1828 ("Digitized by Google")), Vol. I, p. 166, ("Blythe, blythe, and merry was she")
Otto Ritter, Neue Quellenfunde zu Robert Burns (Halle, 1903 ("Digitized by Google")), pp. 9-11, "Charlie is my Darling"
(no author listed), _The Vocal Companion_, second edition, D'Almaine and Co., 1937 (available from Google Books), pp. 74-75, "Charlie Is My Darling" (1 text, 1 tune)
James Kinsley, editor, Burns: Complete Poems and Songs (shorter edition, Oxford, 1969) #562, pp. 666-667, "Charlie he's my darling" (1 text, 1 tune, from the Scots Musical Museum)
Walter de la Mare, _Come Hither_, revised edition, 1928; #195, "Charlie He's My Darling" (1 text)
Charles W. Eliot, editor, English Poetry Vol II From Collins to Fitzgerald (New York, 1910), #336, p. 566, "Charlie Is My Darling" (by Carolina Oliphant, Lady Nairne)
Roud #5510
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Shane Crossagh" (floating lyrics)
cf. "Twas on a Monday Mornin'" (form and some lines)
NOTES: This is a mess; the song sounds like a fragmentary remnant of a Jacobite song (there is a final verse, "We daurna gang a-milking/For Charlie and his men") but the political content is virtually gone, and we're left with a song of seduction, and a bowdlerized one at that. - PJS
The Hogg2 50 and Burns texts are virtually the same. The Nairne and Digital Tradition texts are virtually the same. The two sets of texts share their first two verses. - BS
Hogg2 49 is a more political version, though it shares only the first verse with the Digital Tradition version. Hogg2: "I wrote [Hogg2 49] some years ago, at the request of a friend, who complained that he did not like the old verses. I have, however, added [Hogg2 50, which is the same as the Burns text] that those who delight in the fine original air may take which they choose." In Hogg2 49, The lasses sing at the king's return for Charlie and his men being "Out-owre yon moory mountain, And down yon craigy glen." - BS
The common version of this, which Paul describes (probably correctly) as bowdlerized, is also rather slanderous; although most of the single women of Scotland (and more than a few of the married ones) swooned after Bonnie Prince Charlie (1720-1788), his behavior was generally above reproach.
It is reliably reported that Charlie left only one illegitimate child -- Charlotte (1753-1789), by Clementina Walkinshaw, with whom he lived for several years. Walkinshaw seems to have been the great love of his life; he did not marry until 1772, and this marriage was dissolved. It is possible that Charlie was nearly sterile, as his marriage produced no children, but it seems more likely that his wife Louisa was infertile, as she had no children despite repeated proofs of adultery.
The Digital Tradition version of this song is much more political than the common text, and lacks the sexual element; I wish I knew more about its origin.
Long after this song was collected, William Allingham (1824-1889; for his history, see the notes to "Lovely Mary Donnelly") wrote his poem "The Fairies" ("Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men..."). That that verse and this song are related seems undeniable -- though the nature of the link is unclear. For Allingham's complete poem, see Kathleen Hoagland, editor, One Thousand Years of Irish Poetry (New York, 1947), pp. 509-510, "The Fairies"; Walter de la Mare, Come Hither, revised edition, 1928; #133, "The Fairies"; or Donagh MacDonagh and Lennox Robinson, The Oxford Book of Irish Verse (Oxford, 1958, 1979), pp. 82-84, "The Fairies (A Child's Song)."
Incidentally, the reference to Charles as the "Young Chevalier" is quite proper; one of the titles of James III was the Chevalier de Saint George, which would eventually pass to Charles. - RBW
Henderson -- T.F. Henderson, "'Charlie He's My Darling,' and other Burns's Originals" in The Scottish Historical Review (Glasgow, 1906 ("Digitized by Google")), Vol. III, pp. 171-178 -- prints and comments on "the original 'Charlie He's My Darling,' or at least a portion of it, for there are several stanzas, which, after the lapse of a century and more, no longer quite accord with the current notions of propriety." Ritter quotes the same text but includes the four of fourteen verses Henderson omits. Ritter's source is a volume of broadsides in the British Muuseum (shelfmark 1346.m.7(24), undated, c.1775). Henderson's source is "a volume containing a large number of rare white-letter broadsides, the majority of which are dated either 1775 or 1776. The 'Charlie He's My Darling' broadside ... is undated, but print and paper are identical with those of the 1775 and 1776 sheets ...."
Henderson makes the case that the Scots Musical Museum "Charlie He's My Darling" (1796) is a Burns work based on the 1775-1776 broadside text.
Looking at the broadside text, rather than the Museum text, Henderson writes that "Most probably it has reference to the affair of Clementina Walkinshaw. She rejoined Prince Charlie in France on his escape from Scotland and became the mother of Charlotte Stewart, whose hard fate in being debarred from her supposed heritage, the throne of her ancestors, is lamented by Burns in 'The Bonie Lass of Albanie."
"Milk the bull" is usually taken as a metaphor for a foolish attempt, in the absence of a "cow" readily yielding milk, to do the impossible. Here the metaphor is entirely realizable.
The GreigDuncan4 fragment, Roud #6204, has four lines - "'Twas on a Monday mornin', / Richt early in the year / That Johnnie cam' tae oor toon /Tae meet wi' me his dear" - of which the first three are from "Charlie Is My Darling." - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: FSWB140A

Charlie Jack's Dream


DESCRIPTION: The singer, asleep in Philadelphia, dreams of Glen Ullin church. The McLaughlins are preaching, and Irish heroes such as the Parnells and Dan O'Connell are present. His wife shakes him awake, and he realizes he is far from the old home
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1939 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: homesickness patriotic dream
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H799, p. 221, "Charlie Jack's Dream" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Daniel O'Connell (I)" (subject: Daniel O'Connell) and references there
cf. "The Bold Tenant Farmer" (subject of Charles Stewart Parnell) and references there
NOTES: I must assume that the several clergymen mentioned here are local figures; I cannot find any clear historical references to any of them. The political figures are another matter. They include:
The Parnell Family - Charles Stewart Parnell (1845-1891) was leader of the Land League from 1879, and supported Home Rule for Ireland for the rest of his life. Imprisoned in 1881, he became an Irish hero, and from 1885-1890 he held the balance of power in the English parliament, but found himself distrusted by both sides and, eventually, discredited by a personal indiscretion (see "We Won't Let Our Leader Run Down").
Dan O'Connell - Daniel O'Connell (1775-1847), a crusader for tenant freedom, for whom see Erin's Green Shore [Laws Q27]
Brian Boru - an odd name in the list; Brian Boru was King of Clare from 976, and died in battle against the Vikings at Clontarf in 1014. Held up as an Irish hero, he was never actually King of Ireland, and did not fight against the Anglo-Normans, who invaded centuries after his death.
The Redmonds -- The date of the song here becomes important. I am guessing that it is a reference to John Redmond (1856-1918), who managed in 1900 to recreate Parnell's Irish coalition and restore the Home Rule campaign in the British parliament.
The O'Sullivans -- perhaps Sheamus O'Sullivan, a minor poet who wrote in support of Parnell, and/or Sean O'Sullivan, a minor leader in the 1916 Rising. - RBW
File: HHH799

Charlie Mackie


DESCRIPTION: "There was a farmer on Isladale, Possessions he had mony. He had an only daughter fair...." The girl Annie falls in love with her father's servant Charlie Mackie. The father dismisses Charlie. She grows sick, is sent to the sea, and finds Charlie
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1906 (GreigDuncan5)
KEYWORDS: love courting servant separation reunion disease
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Greig #71, p. 1, "Charlie Mackie" (1 text)
GreigDuncan5 1032, "Charlie Mackie" (13 texts, 10 tunes)
Ord, pp. 452-454, "Charlie Mackie" (1 text)
Roud #5621
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Andrew Lammie" [Child 233] (lyrics, form, themes)
cf. "The Dowie Dens o' Yarrow" (tune, per GreigDuncan5)
cf. "Tifty's Annie" (tune, per GreigDuncan5)
NOTES: This shares not only a general theme but a metrical form and even quite a few words with "Andrew Lammie," though this is a much feebler thing. There can be no question that the two songs are related. All evidence points to "Andrew Lammie" as the elder song; it is stronger, it employs fewer cliches; it omits the sea cure. Nonetheless the references in Ord and Grieg make it clear that "Charlie Mackie" is traditional in its own right. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Ord452

Charlie MacPherson [Child 234]


DESCRIPTION: MacPherson comes to (Kinaldie) to wed Helen. Arriving, he is told that she has gone to wed at Whitehouse. MacPherson sets out for Whitehouse, but finding her apparently truly married, he wishes her well.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1800
KEYWORDS: courting marriage separation
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Child 234, "Charlie MacPherson" (2 texts)
Roud #3881
NOTES: This ballad is lost except for the two fragments in Child, and leaves many questions. Throughout the ballad, one expects MacPherson to abduct the girl (as in "Katherine Jaffray"); why else go to all that effort? Yet there is no indication of this happening; all ends quietly. If we had a truly complete text, it might be much more interesting. - RBW
File: C234

Charlie Mopps


DESCRIPTION: "A long time ago... all they had to drink was nothing but cups of tea." Then came Charlie Mopps, who invented beer. This brought him great praise and even a ticket into heaven. "Lord bless Charlie Mopps, the man who invented beer!"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1973
KEYWORDS: drink talltale
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Fahey-Eureka, pp. 150-151, "Charlie Mopps" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #10678
NOTES: The amount of truth in this song is, to put it mildly, limited. - RBW
File: FaE150

Charlie Napier Gordon


DESCRIPTION: Charlie Napier Gordon gives a girl and her father a ride in his gig. He has the father get out and abducts the girl. She screams, the gig overturns and a weaver sees Charlie try to rape her. She gets away and Charlie bribes the weaver to keep quiet.
AUTHOR: William Dalgarno (source: GreigDuncan6)
EARLIEST DATE: 1906 (GreigDuncan6)
KEYWORDS: abduction escape rape father
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan6 1266, "Charlie Napier Gordon" (7 texts, 3 tunes)
Roud #6795
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Laird o' Esselmont
NOTES: The alternate title is Charles Napier Gordon's title. The last verse attributes the ballad to Willie Dalgairn of Aucterlethen. GreigDuncan6 quotes Greig: "I learned from my father and if my memory turns aright it was sold in the markets (the composer William Dalgarno being at one time a servant with my father). Charlie Napier Gordon raised an action against William Dalgarno and he had to pay some few grounds of damages." - BS
Digging around online, I find that Charles Napier Gordon of Esslemont apparently lived 1811-1864 and had no children. So the dating, at least, fits. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD61266

Charlie over the Ocean


DESCRIPTION: "Charlie over the ocean (x3), Charlie over the sea." "Charlie caught a (blackbird/blackfish) (x2), Can't catch me."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1950 (recording, children of East York School)
KEYWORDS: playparty
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Courlander-NFM, pp. 159-160, "(Charlie Over the Ocean)" (1 text)
Roud #729
RECORDINGS:
Children of East York School, "Charlie Over the Ocean" (on NFMAla6m RingGames1)
NOTES: Both the reference to "Charlie over the ocean" and the mention of a blackbird hint at a Jacobite background -- but the keyword is "hint." This clearly has been long forgotten in the American tradition (though Roud links it to several Bonnie Prince Charlie songs). - RBW
File: CNFM159

Charlie Quantrell


DESCRIPTION: A story of Charlie Quantrell, the Kansas highwayman who raided Nebraska and Missouri (during the Civil War). He is held up as a noble robber who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. The plot follows "Brennan on the Moor," on which the song is based
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1938
KEYWORDS: outlaw trial punishment execution
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Aug 21, 1863 - Quantrill's Raiders destroy Lawrence, Kansas, killing about 150 men.
May 10, 1865 - Quantrill is mortally wounded on his way to Washington (where he hoped to stir up trouble by assassination). He dies 20 days later.
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Lomax-FSNA 179, "Charlie Quantrell" (1 text, 1 tune)
Ohrlin-HBT 26, "Charlie Quantrell, Oh" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #476
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Brennan on the Moor" [Laws L7] (tune & meter, theme, floating lyrics)
cf. "Quantrell" (subject)
cf. "The Call of Quantrell" (subject)
NOTES: This pretty picture of William Clarke Quantrill (1837-1865), also known as "Charlie (Hart)" or "Billy" Quantrill, is even more deceptive than the typical outlaw ballad.
Quantrill (this is the spelling used in the official records) was born July 31, 1837, in Canal Dover, Ohio, son of Thomas Henry and Caroline Clarke Quantrill (Wellman, p. 26). He seems to have been somewhat strange-looking but in an attractive way; Wellman, p. 22, quotes an 1872 description: "Quantrell might be likened to a blond Apollo of the prairies. His eyes were very blue, soft and winning. Looking at his face, one might say there is the face of a student."
If he was a student, his degree must have been in violence. His public career actually began life as a jayhawker in an anti-Slavery force; this was when he first used the name "Charley Hart." But Wellman tartly remarks that he was happy to liberate other property while allegedly devoting his efforts to liberating slaves. Wellman, p. 27, observes, "By 1860 Quantrill had become a confirmed bandit, thief, and murderer, yet as a criminal he might have remained relatively obscure... had not the dislocations of the Civil War enabled him to capitalize on the inflamed emotions of the period and win his page in history -- deserved or not -- as the arch-ogre of the border."
Wellman, pp. 28-29, tells a legend about how Quantrill during one of these raids was called upon to attack the family of a girl he was involved with, and betrayed the raiders. Whether true or not, he clearly saw more opportunity on the Confederate side of the Civil War -- and came up with a tall tale about being from Maryland and having headed west where he survived some sort of massacre (Settle, p. 19; Wellman, pp. 29-30).
Perhaps one can best measure the amount of legend in all this by noting that Quantrill's horse at this time was allegedly named "Black Bess" (Wellman, p. 29). And, yes, Black Bess was exceptionally fast (Wellman, p. 31)
Having officially changed positions, he became a pro-Confederate terrorist (having fought at Wilson's Creek -- Wellman,p. 31 -- he was commissioned Captain C.S.A. in August 1862) whose raiders brought fear and pillage to Nebraska and any other Union area that looked vulnerable.
Although there were many other guerrilla bands in Missouri and Kansas at this time, and Bloody Bill Anderson in fact commanded what we might call Quantrill's Raiders for much of the war, it was Quantrill who developed their terrorist tactics. As a result, an order was issued that they were to be killed without trial if caught in an act of terrorism (Wellman, p. 35).
Murder without trial is probably never justified, but it must be admitted that that was just what Quantrill's raiders did to Lawrence, Kansas -- admittedly a Unionist stronghold, but still, they were civilians. And Quantrill shot them down without checking their characters (Wellman, p. 39ffff.)
Different sources cite different casualty totals, usually between 150 and 200. McPherson, p. 786, credits them with killing 182 men and burning 185 buildings. McPherson reports that Quantrill told his men to "Kill every male and burn every house."
Ironically, Quantrill's men missed the pro-Union extremist and sometimes Senator James Lane, the #1 target. (Wellman, p. 46, notes that Lane would respond by inducing the authorities to issue General Order #11, which caused the forced evacuation of four counties of Missouri -- the worst official act of the war in its effect on the civilian population.) This order much inflamed anti-Union sentiment, causing the locals to support Quantrill's men, such as the James Brothers, after the war (Wellman, p. 48) -- even though, as McPherson notes (p. 785), Quantill "attracted to his gang some of the most psychopathic killers in American history."
To give the Confederacy credit, Quantrill apparently travelled to Richmond at one point to seek a colonel's commission, and was turned down cold (Wellman, p. 38). McPherson, p. 785, states that he was given a captain's commission "and thereafter claimed to be a colonel."
Massacre though it was, the attack on Lawrence apparently had some propaganda value; it came in the period after Gettysurg and Vicksburg, when the Union forces were feeling triumphant, and reminded them that there was a lot more fighting still to come (Nevins, p. 180).
In 1864, Quantrill and his gang headed for Texas -- where a regular officer tried to arrest Quantrill. The outlaw escaped (Wellman, p. 51), but his informal army started to break up after that (Wellman, p. 52).
Union attempts to suppress the guerillas largely failed -- but, in the end, their own side ruined them. In late 1864, the former Missouri governor Sterling Price invaded Missouri from Arkansas. He used the guerillas as scouts and raiders -- and, being forced to attack fixed positions, were defeated and their formations broken up. (Price ended up back in Arkansas, having lost half his command.) Bloody Bill Anderson was killed. Quantrill lived, but headed off east with a few followers (supposedly on a quixotic plot to kill Lincoln; McPherson, pp, 787-788). getting himself killed in the process. Wellman, p. 61, claims that the commander of the cavalry troop that killed him was himself a Confederate deserter.
Wellman, pp. 62-63, tells two stories about his legacy which may or may not be true, but which surely illustrate his legend. According to one, he left a legacy of $2000 to his old flame Kate Clarke, which she used to establish a house of prostitution. According to the other, his mother eventually found his body, had it brought home to Ohio -- and then disposed of the property on which he was buried. As Wellman puts it, she "sold her son's bones as curios." (In fairness, the mother of Jesse James did something similar -- but she merely sold stones she scattered over his grave. She kept the corpse itself safe.)
After the war was over, a number of Quantrill's followers (including the James Brothers) took off on their own -- but in fact used the techniques they learned from Quantrill. (This, in fact, is the whole theme of Wellman's book -- how there was a continuous linkage of outlaws stretching all the way from Quantrill to Pretty Boy Floyd three-quarters of a century later.)
To tell this song from other Quantrell pieces, consider this first stanza:
Young people, listen unto me, a story I will tell.
His name was Charlie Quantrell, in Kansas he did dwell.
'Twas on the Kansas plains that he made his wild career,
Then many a wealthy nobleman before him stood with fear.
This, obviously, derives from "Brennan on the Moor," and Roud lumps them (!). - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 2.5
File: LoF179

Charlie Rutledge


DESCRIPTION: "Another jolly cowboy has gone to meet his fate. We hope he'll find a resting place inside the Golden Gate." Charlie Rutledge is the third man to die on the XIT range. One of the cattle tries to escape, Charlie heads it off; in the confusion, Charlie dies
AUTHOR: Words: D. J. O'Malley
EARLIEST DATE: 1891 (Miles City, Montana Stock Grower's Journal)
KEYWORDS: death cowboy horse
FOUND IN: US(SW)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Logsdon 1, pp. 27-31, "Charlie Rutledge" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, CHRLRTLG*
Roud #8024
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Charlie Rutlage
ACowboy's Death
NOTES: D. J. O'Malley is also credited with "The Horse Wrangler (The Tenderfoot)" [Laws B27], which also appeared in the Miles Ciry journal in the 1890s. - RBW
File: Logs001

Charlie You Can't Lose-A Me


See You Cain't Lose-A Me, Cholly (File: LoF264)

Charlie, Charlie, rise and rin


See The Fraserburgh Meal Riot (File: GrD2240)

Charlie, O Charlie (Pitgair)


DESCRIPTION: The farm owner prepares for a trip, instructing Charlie in how to run the farm in his absence, e.g. "To the loosin' ye'll put Shaw, Ye'll pit Sandison to ca'." He gives orders to the workers also, including Missy Pope, who will "sit in the parlor neuk."
AUTHOR: "Mr. Shaw" (source: Greig #51, p. 2 and #102, p. 3)
EARLIEST DATE: 1906 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: farming travel humorous
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Greig, "Folk-Song in Buchan," pp. 74-75, "Pitgair"; Greig #51, pp. 1-2, "O Charlie, O Charlie" (2 texts, 1 tune)
GreigDuncan3 401, "Pitgair" (7 texts, 6 tunes)
Ord, p. 216-217, "Oh Charlie, O Charlie" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #2584
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Binorie" (tune, per GreigDuncan3)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Come O'er frae Pitgair
NOTES: The best-known recording of this is probably Ewan MacColl's, on "Popular Scottish Songs," learned from John Mearns of Fyvie. MacColl speaks of the "thread of tender irony which runs through it," but ironically, MacColl failed completely to understand the song. It is line-by-line parallel to Ord's text, but what MacColl sings (or, at least, what is transcribed in the Folkways booklet) is frequently nonsense -- though Ord's transcription makes clear sense. - RBW
GreigDuncan3: "August 1906. Learned at Northfield of Gamrie, 1869."
GreigDuncan3 has a map on p. xxxv, of "places mentioned in songs in volume 3" showing the song number as well as place name; Pitgair (401) is at coordinate (h6,v7-8) on that map [near Banff, roughly 35 miles NNW of Aberdeen]. - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: Ord216

Charlie, Won't You Rock the Cradle


See What'll I Do with the Baby-O (File: R565)

Charlie's Neat


See Weevily Wheat (File: R520)

Charlie's Sweet


See Weevily Wheat (File: R520)

Charlotte the Harlot (I)


DESCRIPTION: When a rattlesnake slips into the vagina of Charlotte the Harlot, "the pride of the prairie," her cowboy boyfriend draws his pistol, shoots at the snake, but kills Charlotte instead. Her funeral procession is forty miles long.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1961 (Austin E. Fife collection)
KEYWORDS: bawdy funeral humorous animal whore
FOUND IN: Australia Britain(England) US(SW)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Cray, pp. 162-169, "Charlotte the Harlot I" (1 text, 1 tune)
Logsdon, pp. xviii-xix, "Charlotte the Harlot" (1 text)
DT, CHARLTT
Roud #4839
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Charlotte the Harlot II, III, IV"
cf. "The Sewing Machine"
NOTES: According to Walker D. Wyman, Wisconsin Folklore, Univeristy of Wisconsin extension (?), 1979, p. 3, a graveyard in the infamous town of Tombstone, Arizona, has a grave marker which reads
Here lies the body of good old Charlotte,
Born a virgin, died a harlot,
For 14 years she kept her virginity
Which is quite unusual in this vicinity.
Wyman suspects it's a fake to attract tourists. - RBW
File: EM162

Charlotte the Harlot (II)


DESCRIPTION: Not a ballad at all, this song is a paean to Charlotte's promiscuity.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE:
KEYWORDS: bawdy nonballad whore
FOUND IN: US(SW)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Cray, p. 169, "Charlotte the Harlot II" (1 text)
Roud #4839
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Charlotte the Harlot I, III, IV"
cf. "The Sewing Machine"
File: EM169

Charlotte the Harlot (III)


DESCRIPTION: Charlotte, or Lupe, is now the singer's "Mexican whore." The song celebrates her sexual career from cradle to grave.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE:
KEYWORDS: bawdy humorous whore
FOUND IN: US(Ap,MW,SW)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Cray, pp. 169-171, "Charlotte the Harlot III" (1 text, 1 tune)
Randolph-Legman I, pp. 523-524, "Charlotte the Harlot" (3 texts, 1 tune)
Roud #4839
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Charlotte the Harlot I, II, IV"
cf. "The Sewing Machine"
cf. "Down in the Valley" (tune) and references there
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Lupe
File: EM169B

Charlotte the Harlot (IV)


DESCRIPTION: In this formula song, Charlotte wears differently colored clothing in each stanza.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE:
KEYWORDS: bawdy clothes humorous whore
FOUND IN: Australia Britain(England) US(SW)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Cray, pp. 171-173, "Charlotte the Harlot IV" (1 texts, 1 tune)
Roud #4839
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Charlotte the Harlot I, II, III"
cf. "The Sewing Machine"
File: EM171

Charlotte, the Frozen Girl


See Young Charlotte (Fair Charlotte) [Laws G17] (File: LG17)

Charming Beauty Bright [Laws M3]


DESCRIPTION: The singer and a girl are in love. When her parents learn of it, they lock her away from him. At last he goes away and serves in the army for seven years, hoping to forget. When he returns home, he learns that she has died for love; he goes mad or nearly
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1915 (Brown); +1907 (JAFL20)
KEYWORDS: love separation family father mother death
FOUND IN: US(Ap,MW,NE,SE,So) Britain(England)
REFERENCES (16 citations):
Laws M3, "Charming Beauty Bright"
Belden, pp. 164-165, "Charming Beauty Bright" (1 text)
Randolph 86, "The Beauty, Beauty Bride" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 81-83, "The Beauty, Beauty Bride" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 86A)
Eddy 36, "Charming Beauty Bright" (1 text)
BrownII 88, "Charming Beauty Bright" (3 texts plus 1 excerpt)
Chappell-FSRA 73, "The Lover's Lament" (1 text plus a fragment, 1 tune)
Scarborough-SongCatcher, pp. 311-312, "The Lover's Lament" (1 text, with local title "A Soldier's Sweetheart"; 1 tune on p. 439)
Brewster 33, "Charming Beauty Bright" (1 text)
Wyman-Brockway II, p. 76, "Charming Beauty Bright" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fuson, p. 136, "The Fair Beauty Bride" (1 text)
McNeil-SFB1, pp. 70-71, "Charming Beauty Bright" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lomax-FSNA 98, "A Fair Beauty Bride" (1 text, 1 tune)
JHCox 103, "Charming Beauty Bright" (1 text, 1 tune)
Abrahams/Foss, pp. 112-113, "Charming Beauty Bright" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT 575, CHRMBRT BEAUTBRT
Roud #405
RECORDINGS:
Pearl Jacobs Borusky, "Once I Courted a Charming Beauty Bright (Lover's Lament)" (AFS, 1940; on LC55)
Ollie Gilbert, "Once I Courted a Lady Beauty Bright" (on LomaxCD1707)
Lisha Shelton, "Don't You Remember" (on OldLove)
File: LM03

Charming Belfast Lass, The


DESCRIPTION: "Passing down by York Street mill" the singer meets Mary Brown, "charming Belfast Lass." She agrees go with him "to yon rural plain." "Our talk of love was all sincere As on the flowery banks we lay." The next day they go to church and are married.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1825 (according to Leyden)
KEYWORDS: courting marriage sex
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Leyden 24, "The Charming Belfast Lass" (1 text, 1 tune)
File: Leyd024

Charming Betsey


See Coming Round the Mountain (II -- Charming Betsey) (File: R436)

Charming Blue-eyed Mary


DESCRIPTION: Jimmy meets Mary, "got the will of" her, and gives her a diamond ring as a token. He returns from sea after eight months as a captain. He proposes. She accepts.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1928 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: marriage ring sex reunion separation lover
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf) Ireland
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Lehr/Best 19, "Charming Blue-eyed Mary" (1 text, 1 tune)
SHenry H785, p. 399, 'My Darling Blue-Eyed Mary" (1 text, 1 tune)

RECORDINGS:
Mary Delaney, "Charming Blue Eyed Mary" (on IRTravellers01)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 11(3354), "Blue Ey'd Mary" ("As I walked out one morning"), J. Pearson (Epworth), n.d.
Murray, Mu23-y1:031, "Blue Ey'd Mary," James Lindsay Jr. (Glasgow), 19C
NLScotland, L.C.Fol.178.A.2(041), "Blue Ey'd Mary," James Lindsay (Glasgow), c. 1855
NOTES: There may be one broadside for this ballad as "Charming blue-eyed Mary" at Bodleian Library site Ballads Catalogue printed at Glasgow between 1851 and 1910, shelfmark 2806 c.13(72); I could not read this copy. - BS
File: LeBe019

Charming Buachaill Roe


See The Buachaill Roe (File: RcTMCBR)

Charming Judy Callaghan


See Barney Brallaghan (File: OCon045)

Charming Mary O'Neill


See Mary Neal [Laws M17] (File: LM17)

Charming Moll Boy, The


See Pretty Polly (I) (Moll Boy's Courtship) [Laws O14] (File: LO14)

Charming Nancy


See Farewell, Charming Nancy [Laws K14] (File: LK14)

Charming Sally Ann


DESCRIPTION: The singer falls "head 'n heels in love with charming Sally Ann." He finds her "frying sausingers for Bob." When he asks her to return his jewelry she runs off with Bob. Eventually Bob and Sally Ann are taken prisoner. The singer gets his jewelry back
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1980 (Lehr/Best)
KEYWORDS: infidelity love sex crime punishment
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Lehr/Best 20, "Charming Sally Ann" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "A Week's Matrimony (A Week's Work)" (imagery)
cf. "In Duckworth Street There Lived a Dame" (imagery)
File: LeBe020

Charming Sally Greer


See Sally Greer (File: FMB092)

Charming Young Widow I Met in the Train, The


See The Charming Young Widow I Met on the Train (File: R390)

Charming Young Widow I Met on the Train, The


DESCRIPTION: The singer meets a young widow with a baby on a train. They talk; she claims to see her husband's partner and flees the train, leaving him the baby. As the train pulls out, he finds she has stolen his watch and purse and left him a fake child
AUTHOR: W. H Gove
EARLIEST DATE: before 1867 (broadside, Bodleian Harding B 11(4400))
KEYWORDS: trick money theft train
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (8 citations):
Randolph 390, "The Charming Young Widow I Met on the Train" (1 text, 1 tune)
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 315-317, "The Charming Young Widow I Met on the Train" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 390)
Dibblee/Dibblee, pp. 95-96, "The Charming Young Widow I Met on the Train" (1 text, 1 tune)
Spaeth-WeepMore, pp. 145-147, "The Charming Young Widow" (1 text, 1 tune)
Gilbert, pp. 49-50, "The Charming Young Widow I Met in the Train" (1 text)
JHJohnson, pp. 45-47, "The Charming Young Widow" (1 text)
Cohen-LSRail, pp. 46-51, "(The Charming Young Widow I Met in the Train)" (2 excerpts plus photos of two versions of the sheet music)
DT, CHRMWIDW*
Roud #3754
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 11(4400), "The Charming Young Widow I Met in the Train," J. Harkness (Preston) , 1840-1866
NLScotland, L.C.Fol.178.A.2(071), "The Charming Young Widow I Meet in the Train" (sic.), unknown, c. 1860
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Quare Bungo Rye" (theme: the singer is left with a baby; but not "The Basket of Eggs" where the girl gets the baby back)
cf. "The Black Velvet Band" (I) (theme: the woman pick-pocket)
NOTES: Cohen believes that there are "two closely related ballads, both dating from the 1860s" with this title. It doesn't seem worthwhile to split them, though. - RBW
I think there are three ballads here:
1) Dibblee/Dibblee has the singer going to Montreal on the train to pick up an inheritance left by an uncle. He meets the "widow" and "baby." She leaves him with the "baby" after picking his pocket, but there is no mention of the baby being dead or "fake."
Broadside Harding B 11(4400) has the singer going to London on the train to pick up an inheritance left by an uncle. He meets the "widow" and "baby." She leaves him with the "baby" after picking his pocket. The baby is a "dummy." The singer has no money to pay for his ticket and must settle the next day. This one is at least recognizable as Dibblee/Dibblee and the ballad behind the DESCRIPTION above.
Broadside NLScotland L.C.Fol.178.A.2(071)f like Bodleian Harding B 11(4400); the difference is that the singer is on the train to Glasgow. The commentary includes this statement: "There are many broadsides which warn more naive citizens against charming women pick-pockets."
2) See LOCSinging, sb10057a, "The Charming Young Widow I Met In The Train," H. De Marsan (New York), 1864-1878: the uncle is dying in Boston. The singer meets the "widow" and "baby" on the train to Boston. She leaves him with the "baby" after picking his pocket. The baby is dead and she leaves a note asking that he bury it. He does. There are no lines in common with the other two ballads; tune: "Jenny Jones." (This version is a variant of Bodleian, Harding B 11(1684), "The Charming Young Widow I Met in the Train," W.S. Fortey (London), 1858-1885 that takes place on the way to London; tune: "Jenny Jones" )
3) See LOCSinging, sb10056b, "The Charming Young Lady I Met in the Rain," H. De Marsan (New York), 1864-1878: this one takes place in London: There is no inheritance, no train, no baby; the pick-pocket trick remains. A crowd blocks his pursuit and he is charged with assault. When he can't pay the fine -- because he has lost all his money -- he must spend a fortnight in jail. There are no lines in common with the other two ballads. This is attributed, on the broadside, to J.G. Peters. (There is a duplicate at Bodleian, Harding B 18(83), "The Charming Young Lady I Met in the Rain," H. De Marsan (New York), 1864-1878.) (This version is a variant of Bodleian, Firth b.26(366), "The Charming Young Widow I Met in the Train," H. Such (London), 1863-1885.)
The H. De Marsan New York broadsides are so close to each other and to "The Charming Young Widow I Met on the Train" -- without being the same ballad -- that it is clear that two are derived from a third. [H. De Marsan dating per Studying Nineteenth-Century Popular Song by Paul Charosh in American Music, Winter 1997, Vol 15.4, Table 1, available at FindArticles site] - BS
File: R390

Chase of the O. L. C. Steer


DESCRIPTION: "Did you ever hear of the O L C Steer With widely flaring horns He smashes the trees as he splits the breeze And the cowboy ropes he scorns." Cowboys Rap, Johnny, and Bob vow to catch the steer, but it escapes and they spend their lives making excuses
AUTHOR: Agnes Morley Cleveland ?
EARLIEST DATE: 1908
KEYWORDS: animal escape cowboy
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Thorp/Fife XVII, pp. 225-227 (36-38), "Chase of the O. L. C. Steer" (1 text)
Roud #12500
NOTES: The only claim of authorship of this piece was made by Agnes Morley Cleveland in a 1945 letter to Neil M. Cleveland. She gives the initials as "A. L. C.," pronounced "Alcy." - RBW
File: TF017

Chase the Buffalo (I)


DESCRIPTION: Lads and "girls of New England," let's seek "new pleasures ... on the banks of the pleasant Ohio." There's plenty of fish, grain in Kentucky, gold from the New Mexico. Girls spin, lads farm, and we'll range the wild woods and hunt the buffalo.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1860 (broadside, LOCSinging sb20164b)
KEYWORDS: travel farming fishing gold hunting America nonballad settler
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan6 1103, "To Chase the Buffalo" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #1026
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 11(1742), "The Buffalo" ("Come all you young fellows that have a mind to range"), H. Such (London), 1863-1885
LOCSinging, sb20164b, "Hunt the Buffalo" or "The Banks of the Pleasant Ohio" ("Come all ye likely lads that have a mind for to range"), J. Andrews (New York), 1853-1859
NOTES: Roud splits the British song from the US play-party song, though the structure and tunes are similar. The songs are certainly related, if not deserving of being lumped. The phrase "chase the buffalo" shows up in the poem "I Think of old Ireland, Wherever I Go" attributed to J. H. Howard:
And 'tis soon I'll be home, in the land I love best,
In my own dearest Emerald Isle of the West,
Though now I am chasing the wild buffalo,
For I think of old Ireland wherever I go.
[from] LOCSinging, as106400, "I Think of Old Ireland Wherever I Go," J. Andrews (New York), 1853-1859
Broadsides LOCSinging sb20164b and as106400: J. Andrews dating per Studying Nineteenth-Century Popular Song by Paul Charosh in American Music, Winter 1997, Vol 15.4, Table 1, available at FindArticles site. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD61103

Chase the Buffalo (II)


See Shoot the Buffalo (File: R523)

Chase the Squirrel


DESCRIPTION: "Ev'rybody teeter up and down, Grab 'em by the waist an' a whirl them around, An' around an' around an' around." "Chase the squirrel, chase the squirrel, Chase the purty girl round the world...." "First to the center, then to the wall...."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1911 (JAFL 24)
KEYWORDS: playparty animal
FOUND IN: US(MW,So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Randolph 537, "Chase the Squirrel" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #7645
File: R537

Chased Old Satan Through The Door


DESCRIPTION: "I chased old Satan through the door, Hit him in the head with a two-by-four, I'm gonna wear a starry crown over there." Humorous verses about the singer's religious progress.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE:
KEYWORDS: religious humorous floatingverses
FOUND IN: US
RECORDINGS:
The Woodie Brothers, "Chased Old Satan Through the Door" (Victor Vi-23579)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "I Never Will Turn Back Any More" (floating verses)
NOTES: This reads like a humorous take on a church hymn; several of the verses float. It looks a lot like "I Never Will Turn Back Any More," but that seems to be built on a different hymn. - RBW
File: RcCOSTTD

Chatsworth Wreck, The [Laws G30]


DESCRIPTION: A train is bringing happy travelers to Niagara Falls when it crashes through a burned bridge and is wrecked. A hundred people are killed
AUTHOR: Thomas P. Westendorf
EARLIEST DATE: 1913 (Belden)
KEYWORDS: train death disaster wreck
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Aug 10, 1887 - A train from Peoria, Illinois goes through a bridge near Chatsworth, Illinois on its way to Niagara Falls. 81 people are killed and 372 injured
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (6 citations):
Laws G30, "The Chatsworth Wreck"
Belden, pp. 422-423, "The Chatsworth Wreck" (1 text)
Randolph 681, "The Chatsworth Wreck" (1 text, 1 tune)
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 447-449, "The Chatsworth Wreck" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 681)
Cohen-LSRail, p. 272, "The Bridge Was Burned at Chatsworth" (notes only)
DT 641, CHATWRCK*
Roud #2198
NOTES: Called "The Bridge Was Burned at Chatsworth" by the author, though this name hardly seems to exist in the tradition. - RBW
File: LG30

Chauffe Fort!


DESCRIPTION: French: "C'etait l'automn' dernier, J'etais travailer, Je m'en vas au Grand Tronc, c'etait pour m'engager." The penniless singer goes to the Grand Trunk (railway) to look for a job. He is made to shovel coal till he is exhausted. He warns of the work
AUTHOR: unknown/English words by Allan Bernfeld
EARLIEST DATE: 1919
KEYWORDS: railroading work hardtimes foreignlanguage
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1836 - Building of Canada's first railway, the Champlain and St. Lawrence
1852 - Incorporation of the Grand Trunk Railway (financed mostly by British rather than Canadian interests)
1853 - The Grand Trunk becomes a major player by taking over Canada's first international line, the St. Lawrence and Atlantic
1862 - First government cleanup of the Grand Trunk, brought about by the Grand Trunk Arrangements Act
FOUND IN: Canada(Que)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Fowke/Mills/Blume, pp. 203-205, "Chauffe Fort!" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: Fowke/Mills reports that the Canadian railroad system grew by over 60% between 1900 and 1914. Most of this new track was laid by the Grand Trunk, which finished the second trans-Canadian railway and also ran the line from Montreal to Ottawa.
Always badly undercapitalized and overambitious, the Grand Trunk faced financial crises at regular intervals.The problem was rendered that much worse by the early twentieth century boom in railroad building. One Trans-Canadian railroad already existed, and the time had seemingly come for another. But there were two companies which wanted the rights (and the government's help): The Grand Trunk, which wanted to extend its eastern routes to the west, and a western conglomeration, which wanted to enter the eastern markets.
The government made a slight attempt to get the two to work together, but nothing came of it, and the two rail companies proceeded, with government subsidies, to create two different networks.
Not surprisingly, neither was successful. The Grand Trunk vanished in 1923, when it went bankrupt and was taken over by the Canadian National Railway.
The title means "Shovel hard." - RBW
File: FMB203

Cheer Up, Cheer Up Ye Auld Horse


DESCRIPTION: "Cheer up, cheer up, ye auld horse Ye'll never harrow here again"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1907 (GreigDuncan8)
KEYWORDS: farming horse
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan8 1776, "Cheer Up, Cheer Up Ye Auld Horse" (1 fragment, 1 tune)
Roud #13526
NOTES: The current description is all of the GreigDuncan8 text. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD81776

Cheer Up, Sam


DESCRIPTION: Minstrel song. Former slave tells of his love for Sarah Bell. He offered all he had, but she left him for a white man with money. Cho: "Cheer up Sam, now donât let your spirits go down, for there's many a belle that we know is lookin for you in town."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1850s (American broadsides)
KEYWORDS: minstrel slavery love rejection foc's'le
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Hugill, p. 562, "Cheer Up, Sam" (1 text, 1 tune)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Sarah Bell
NOTES: Popular "shore song" adapted for use at the capstan. - SL
Popular it may have been, but I've searched without success for any sign of it. I suspect a better description is "widely touted." - RBW
File: Hugi562

Cheer, Boys, Cheer (I)


See Sebastopol (Old England's Gained the Day; Capture and Destruction of Sebastopol; Cheer, Boys, Cheer) (File: SmHa041)

Cheer'ly Man


DESCRIPTION: Shanty. "Oh, Nancy Dawson, hio! Cheer'ly, man! She's got a notion, hio! Cheer'ly, man! For our old bosun, hio! Cheer'ly, man, Oh! hauley, hio! Cheer'ly, man!" Various women are mentioned, perhaps linked to members of the crew, who are urged to pull hard
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1927 (Whall)
KEYWORDS: shanty nonballad
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Shay-SeaSongs, pp. 32-34, "Cheer'ly, Man" (2 texts)
Colcord, p. 77, "Cheerly, Man" (1 text, 1 tune)
Hugill, pp. 312-315, "Cheerily Man," (2 texts, 2 tunes) [AbEd, pp. 234-237\
Sharp-EFC, XLV, p.50, "Cheerly Man" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, CHEERLY
Roud #395
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Haul 'Er Away (Little Sally Racket)" (form, lyrics)
NOTES: Shay believes that this is mentioned in Dana's Two Years Before the Mast. The section quoted makes it appear likely, but Dana did not actually quote text, merely the singing of "Cheerily, men," which might just possibly be ship's idiom. Still, it is likely that the song is much older than the known texts.
Lloyd and others lump this with "Haul 'Er Away (Little Sally Racket)." There is certainly similarity in the form, and in some of the lyrics, and in the idea, but the choruses are different enough that I tentatively split them. - RBW
File: ShayS032

Cheerily, Man


See Cheer'ly Man (File: ShayS032)

Cheerly Man


See Cheer'ly Man (File: ShayS032)

Cherokee Hymn (I Have a Father in the Prog Ni Lo)


DESCRIPTION: "I have a father in the prog ni lo, And you have a father in the prog ni lo, We all have a father in the prog ni lo." "Nee I ravy, Nee-shi, nee-shi ni-go, Three I three-by an shee prog no lo." "I have a (brother/mother/sister) in the prog ni lo."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1935 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: religious nonballad foreignlanguage
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
BrownIII 658, "Cherokee Hymn" (1 text, supposedly partly in Cherokee; "Prog Ni Lo" is said to be Cherokee for "Promised Land")
Roud #4213
File: Br3658

Cherries are Ripe


DESCRIPTION: "Cherries are Ripe, cherries are ripe, (The robin sang one day)." Various endings: cherries are given to the baby, or the students greet their teacher. The origin might be a cherry-sellers cry: "Cherry ripe, cherry ripe, Some are black and some are white"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1963 (recording, Margaret MacArthur)
KEYWORDS: bird nonballad food
FOUND IN: US(NE)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Pankake-PHCFSB, p. 99, "Cherries are Ripe" (1 text, possibly a parody of more normal texts, but the other versions I've seen of this are so short that it could also be a "straight" fragment that didn't survive elsewhere)
ADDITIONAL: Roy Palmer, _The Folklore of Warwickshire_, Rowman and Littlefield, 1976, p. 121, (no title), a cherry-seller's rhyme from Warwickshire in the 1920s, which might be related to the original source of the piece
RECORDINGS:
Margaret MacArthur, "Cherries Are Ripe" (on MMacArthur01)
File: PHCFS099

Cherry Tree Carol, The


See The Cherry-Tree Carol [Child #54] (File: C054)

Cherry Tree, The


DESCRIPTION: "Oh, a cherry tree's a pretty tree When it is in full bloom; And so is a handsome young man When he a-courting goes." The young man claims to be well to do, and wins the girl; now she finds herself poor, with no land and no home
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1968
KEYWORDS: courting marriage poverty promise lie
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Meredith/Anderson, pp. 169-170, "The Cherry Tree" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #2947
NOTES: Whether this has anything to do with the folklore associating the cherry tree with female sexuality I do not know. But I mention it because it might. - RBW
File: MA169

Cherry-Tree Carol, The [Child 54]


DESCRIPTION: Joseph and Mary are walking. Mary asks Joseph for some of the cherries they are passing by, since she is pregnant. Joseph tells her to let the baby's father get them. The unborn Jesus orders the tree to give Mary cherries. Joseph repents
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1768 (Gilbert MS)
KEYWORDS: carol Jesus religious
FOUND IN: US(Ap,NE,SE,So) Britain(England,(Scotland(Aber)) Canada(Mar,Ont,West)
REFERENCES (29 citations):
Child 54, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (4 texts)
Bronson 54, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (30 versions + 2 in an appendix, one of them being "Mary With Her Young Son"' in addition, #27 contains "The Holly Bears a Berry" and #29 a scrap of "The Holly and the Ivy")
Greig #160, p. 1, "The Cherry-Tree Carol" (1 text)
GreigDuncan2 327, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (2 texts plus 6 verses on p. 579)
BarryEckstormSmyth p. 446, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (notes only)
Flanders-Ancient2, pp. 70-73, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #9}
Randolph 12, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (1 fragmentary text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #30}
BrownII 15, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (2 texts)
Davis-Ballads 13, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text plus 2 fragments; the only substantial text, "A," begins with two verses clearly imported from something else; 1 tune) {Bronson's #14}
Ritchie-Southern, pp. 36-37, "Carol of the Cherry Tree" (1 text, 1 tune)
Scarborough-NegroFS, p. 60, (no title) (1 single-stanza excerpt)
Creighton/Senior, pp. 34-35, "Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text plus 1 fragment, 2 tunes) {Bronson's #22, #11}
Thomas-Makin', pp. 222-231, "(The Cherry Tree Carol)" (2 texts plus a fragment, 1 tune)
Leach, pp. 175-177, "The Cherry-Tree Carol" (2 texts)
Friedman, p. 59, "The Cherry-Tree Carol" (1 text, 1 tune)
OBB 101, "The Cherry-Tree Carol" (1 text)
OBC 66, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text (separated into smaller parts, the last being "Mary With Her Young Son"), 4 tunes) {for the "First Tune" cf. Bronson's #1; the "Second Tune" is Bronson's #32}
Fowke/Johnston, pp. 128-129, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #22}
PBB 2, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: Ian Bradley, _The Penguin Book of Carols_ (1999), #42, "Joseph Was an Old Man" (1 text)
Niles 23, "The Cherry Tree" (1 text, 1 tune)
SharpAp 15 "The Cherry-Tree Carol" (5 texts plus a fragment, 6 tunes) {Bronson's #28, #17, #16, #19, #15, #21}
Sharp/Karpeles-80E 12, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text, 1 tune) {Bronson's #16; cf. #20}
Hodgart, p. 151, "The Cherry-Tree Carol" (1 text)
Botkin-SoFolklr, p. 758, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text, 1 tune)
LPound-ABS, 19, p. 47, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text)
Darling-NAS, pp. 40-42, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text)
Silber-FSWB, p. 380, "Cherry Tree Carol" (1 text)
DT 54, CHERTREE*
Roud #453
RECORDINGS:
Maud Long, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (AFS; on LC14)
Jean Ritchie, "Cherry Tree Carol" (on JRitchie02)
Mrs. Lee Skeens, "The Cherry Tree Carol" (AFS; on LC57)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Mary With Her Young Son"
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Cherry Tree
Joseph and Mary
The Sixth of January
NOTES: Widely considered to be based on the Infancy Gospel of the Pseudo-Matthew (Latin, ninth century). In that book, however, the miracle took place AFTER Jesus's birth. Joseph, Jesus, and Mary were fleeing from King Herod when Mary became faint. Joseph led her under a date palm to rest. Mary begged Joseph to get her some of the dates. Joseph was astonished; the tree was too tall to climb. But Jesus (who was no more than two years old) commanded the palm, "Bow down, tree, and refresh my mother with your fruit." And bow down it did, and remained so until Jesus ordered it to straighten up (and be carried into heaven)!
The only part of this with any basis in the canonical gospels is Joseph's jealousy (Matt. 1:18-20) and the angel's announcement that Joseph should care for the child (Matt. 1:20-25 -- where, however, the message comes in a dream).
The link to the pseudo-Matthew is not universally accepted; Baring-Gould linked the thing to a tale in the Kalevala (canto L -- the very last canto of the book). In the story of the virgin Marjatta, a berry cries out to the girl (line 81-94 on p. 634 of Kalevala-Kirby). Kalevala-Kirby calls the berry a cranberry, but Joseph-Larousse, p. 105, makes it a cherry. Marjatta -- whose very name means "berry" in Finnish, according to Kalevala-Kirby, p. 661 (although the resemblance to "Maria" is interesting) -- eats the berry, brings forth a boy, loses him, finds him, brings him to be baptized, and is condemned by Vanamoinen -- but the child defends himself and is baptized as a king. (Complications ensue, of course.)
The parallels are obviously interesting -- but it must be recalled that the Kalevala as assembled is more recent than the Cherry-Tree Carol; Elias Lonnrot published it in 1849 (Kalevala-Kirby, p. xi). Marjatta's tale may be older than the compiled Kalevala, but it is much more likely that both stories come from common roots.
An even more interesting parallel than either of those is in the Quran. In Surah 3:46 ("The Imrans"), Jesus "will preach to men in his cradle"; the statement is repeated in 5:110 ("The Table"). More amazing, though, is 19:22f. ("Mary" or, in more literal translations, "Mariam"): Mary, as she goes into labor, wishes she had died. The child speaks up and commands the date-palm to feed her. Later, as the unmarried Mary comes among her people, she is accused of whoredom. She points to the infant Jesus, who justifies her from the cradle.
It is perhaps interesting that, in the carol, it is the *cherry* tree that bows down. Various legends swirl about the cherry, including one from China that associates it with female sexuality (Pickering, p. 55; the English parallel is presumably obvious). There is also a Swiss legend that offers cherries to new mothers.
The legend that Joseph was old when he married Mary has no direct scriptural basis. The only early testimony seems to be from the Protevangelium Jacobi or Infancy Gospel of James. In what Hone calls chapter 8, verse 13, Joseph -- upon being told to wed Mary, who had been brought up as a virgin in the Temple but now was being put out because she had reached puberty -- declares, "I am an old man, and have children, but she is young, and I fear that I should appear ridiculous in Israel" (Hone, p. 29; there is a somewhat looser translation on p. 388 of Barnstone as well as p. 387 of CompleteGospels; in CompleteGospels, it is chapter 9, verse 8; in Cartlidge/Dungan, p. 15, it is chapter 9, verse 5). We also find Joseph's sons accompanying Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (CompleteGospels, 17:5, p. 392=Cartlidge/Dungan 17:4, p. 20=Hone, 12:5, p. 32, but Hone's translation is not parallel to the other two).
The Protevangelium also mentions the famous but un-scriptural detail of Mary and Joseph sheltering in a cave rather than a stable as in the Gospel of Luke (CompleteGospels, 18:1, p. 392=Cartlidge/Dungan 18:1, p. 21=Hone, 13:1, p. 33). It also claims that a midwife found Mary still a virgin after the birth -- miraculously, obviously.
After Mary and Joseph reach the cave, Joseph goes out and has a vision, as is found in some long versions of the Cherry-Tree Carol. The vision is found in CompleteGospels, 18:3-11, p. 392=Hone, 13:2-11, p. 32)-- but the two versions (based on different manuscripts) bears little resemblance to each other, and neither resembles the angel's conversation with Joseph in the Carol. The earliest witness to the Protevangelium, Papyrus Bodmer V, omits the passage entirely, causing Cartlidge/Dungan to include it on pp. 21-22 in double brackets, indicating a later insertion. Cartlidge/Dungan number it 18:2-7.
Hone, p. 24, suggests that the Protevangelium Jacobi was originally written in Hebrew, and claims there was a Latin translation. However, Barnstone, pp. 384-385, says that "No Latin manuscript survived the early condemnation of the book in the west."
Very little of what Hone says has held up any better. Although Jordan, p. 1, discusses the possibility that the book is by James the brother of Jesus, or James son of Zebedee, or the "other" James of Mark 15:40 (said to be the author in the Gelasian Decree of c. 495 C.E.), he goes on to note that the author did not know Palestinian geography, a strong argument against the possibility that it is by any of them. As for the language, Wake is the only scholar cited on p. 6 of Jordan to think a Hebrew original a possibility; almost everyone else argues for Greek. Barnstone also (p. 385) quotes Ron Cameron to the effect that it is full of allusions to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The weight of evidence for a Greek original frankly appears overwhelming.
Jordan on p. 2 cites three scholars who thought it might be from the first century -- but goes on to note nine scholars who date it to the late second century (which still makes it relatively early for an apocryphal gospel). To these nine I can add that CompleteGospels, p. 381, dates it to the middle of the second century. Barnstone, p. 384, says that the book can hardly have been written before 150 C.E., and said that Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, condemned it (pp. 383-384).
The latest date I have seen is Harnack's, who argued for the fourth century (Jordan, p. 6). This late date can now be set aside; the latest possible date is the end of the third century, since Papyrus Bodmer V, found in Egypt and forming the basis for the Cartlidge/Dungan translation, is dated paleographically to 300 C.E. or shortly earlier (which, incidentally, makes it older than our oldest complete copy of any of the canonical gospels, although two other Bodmer papyri, known as P66 and P75, contain large portions of John from the third century, and P75 also contains a big chunk of Luke; there are earlier fragments of all four canonical gospels). But there is very little other early evidence of its existence; the other manuscripts cited in Tischendorf's nineteenth century Greek edition are all tenth century or later (Jordan, p. 3).
Barnstone, p. 384, notes manuscripts in Greek, Syriac (Aramaic), Armenian, Ethiopic (proto-Amharic), Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic. Jordan, p. 6. also mentions a Sahidic Coptic text -- but says the majority of manuscripts are in Greek or Slavonic. In 1980, de Strycker counted 140 Greek manuscripts (Jordan, p. 6) -- an amazing number for a non-canonical work. Even more amazing, parts of it turn up in Greek lectionaries.
I can't help but note that some manuscripts of the Protevangelium Jacobi make Mary only twelve years old at the time of the conception, and none makes her more than seventeen (Barnstone, p. 392). Yes, folks, the author of this book thought God was a pedophile!
It is perhaps worth mentioning that large portions of the Protevangelium Jacobi were incorporated into the Pseudo-Matthew Gospel (Jordan, p. 5) so often cited as the source of this Carol.
Since the Protevangelium did not survive in Latin, it is probably not the direct source for the Carol's claim that Joseph was old. Pseudo-Matthew is a more likely source. But it is not absolutely necessary to assume either as the source. The story seems to have been widespread -- presumably because it fit the sort of thinking that early church fathers loved. The logic is indirect: Mary was still alive at the time of Jesus's ministry (Mark 3:31fff. and parallels), death (John 19:25fff.), and resurrection (Acts 1:14). Joseph, however, is not mentioned anywhere in the context of Jesus's ministry; the only mentions of him as a living man are in the infancy portions of Matthew and Luke. Thus the assumption was that he was dead at the time of Jesus's ministry, and hence implicitly that he was much older than Mary.
Assuming Joseph was dead allowed the Church to solve another problem: The mention of brothers of Jesus (James and others are mentioned in Mark 6:3 and parallels, and James alone in Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18, Gal. 1:19, etc.) when it was maintained (again on no scriptural basis) that Mary was a perpetual virgin: The argument (which obviously matches the argument of the Protevangelium Jacobi) was that Mary was Joseph's second wife, and Jesus's brothers were in fact half brothers: Joseph's children by the previous wife. (Making them, genetically if not legally, no brothers of Jesus at all.)
This cannot be disproved, of course. But two points need to be made. To begin with, we have only two canonical date pegs for the life of Jesus: First, he was born in the reign of Herod the Great (so both Matthew and Luke), and second, he was active in ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius the Caesar (Luke 3:1).
Herod the Great is known to have died in 4 B.C.E (Josephus/Marcus/Wikgren, p. 459; Antiquities XVII.191 in the Loeb numbering, or XVIII,viii.1 in the older editions)., meaning that Jesus must have been born by that year. There are inferential reasons to think he was born in 6 or 7 B.C.E. -- Herod, after all, ordered the killing of all children under two years old (Matthew 2:16).
Tiberius succeeded the emperor Augustus in 14 C.E. Thus his fifteenth year was probably 29 C.E. Jesus was very likely crucified in 30 C.E. This means that he was probably at least 36 years old at the time of the crucifixion.
So if Joseph had been a young man of 22 when he married Mary, he would have had to live to at least age 58 to be around when Jesus died. Lots of people in Roman Palestine died before age 58! The fact that Joseph was almost certainly dead in 30 C.E. is no evidence at all for the claim that he was old in 6 B.C.E. It's possible, but not all that likely.
The other evidence, about Jesus's brothers, is also weak. James is the one member of Jesus's family to be mentioned outside the Bible: Josephus/Feldman, pp. 107-109 (Josephus, Antiquities XX.200 in the Loeb edition, XX.ix.1 in older editions) say that James was stoned to death soon after the Judean procurator Festus died. Festus, we know from Josephus, died in 62 (Josephus/Feldman, pp. 106-107). James, under the "son of Joseph's first wife" theory, would have had to be at least seventy at this time, and probably -- since he is always the first-mentioned of Jesus's four brothers -- closer to eighty. Certainly possible, but it's a lot easier to assume James was born after Jesus, and hence only in his sixties or perhaps even younger. I stress that there is no proof, but the strong weight of evidence is that Joseph was *not* old when Jesus was born. - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 2.5
File: C054

Chesapeake and the Shannon (I), The [Laws J20]


DESCRIPTION: The U.S.S. Chesapeake sails out of Boston Harbor, confident of victory, to engage H.M.S. Shannon. The well-trained British crew of Captain Broke quickly defeats the American ship and takes it as a prize
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1928 (Mackenzie)
KEYWORDS: war navy ship political battle
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
June 1, 1813 - Battle between the Chesapeake and the Shannon
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar) Britain
REFERENCES (12 citations):
Laws J20, "The Chesapeake and the Shannon I"
Logan, pp. 69-72, "Chesapeake and Shannon" (1 text)
Friedman, p. 293, "The Chesapeake and the Shannon" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fowke/Johnston, pp. 24-25, "The Chesapeake and the Shannon" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fowke/Mills/Blume, pp. 68-70, "The 'Chesapeake' and the 'Shannon'" (1 text, 1 tune)
Mackenzie 79, "The Chesapeake and the Shannon" (1 text, 1 tune)
Harlow, pp. 187-188, "Shannon and Chesapeake" (1 text, 1 tune)
Shay-SeaSongs, p. 165-166, "The Shannon and the Chesapeake" (1 text, 1 tune)
Scott-BoA, pp. 111-112, "The Chesapeake and the Shannon" (1 text, 1 tune)
Darling-NAS, pp. 96-97, "The Chesapeake and the Shannon" (1 text)
DT 398, CHESSHAN*
ADDITIONAL: C. H. Firth, _Publications of the Navy Records Society_ , 1907 (available on Google Books), p. 311, "Shannon and Chesapeake" (1 text)
ST LJ20 (Full)
Roud #1583
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, 2806 c.17(383), "Shanon & Chesapeak" ("The Chesapeake, quite bold")[title not entirely legible], unknown, n.d.
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Constitution and the Guerriere" [Laws A6] (historical setting)
cf. "The Chesapeake and the Shannon (II) and (III)" (plot)
NOTES: The victory of the Constitution over the Guerriere (for background, see "The Constitution and the Guerriere," Laws A6) significantly improved the morale of the American navy. Other victories followed, giving the Americans still more confidence.
One of these confidence-builting victories was the fateful meeting between U.S.S. Hornet and H.M.S. Peacock, for which see "The Hornet and the Peacock." The Hornet was commanded by a bold up-and-comer by the name of James Lawrence. That earned Lawrence, who was still only 31 in 1813, command of the Chesapeake, one of only half a dozen frigates in hte U. S. Navy at the time (Borneman, p. 113).
Sadly, confidence, in Lawrence at least, quickly turned into overconfidence. In the late spring of 1813, a "single combat" was arranged between Lawrence's U.S.S. Chesapeake and Captain Philip-Bowes-Vere Broke's H.M.S. Shannon. (The challenge was supposedly written, though it's said that Lawrence did not receive the actual written challenge; Borneman, p. 115; Hickey, p. 154; Pratt, p. 83.)
The American decision was not wise. Chesapeake was already a hard-luck ship; in 1807, H. M. S. Leopard had demanded the right to search her for deserters (the right to reclaim deserters was one of the key issues of the War of 1812); being refused, Leopard fired into the American ship -- which was manned by an inexperienced and largely incompetent crew -- and had their way. (Borneman, pp. 22-24; Paine, pp. 108-109. Berton, pp. 35-36, describes the men's theft of property when they deserted and thinks that the whole thing started because the British ship commander, although he didn't want an incident, had said too much to back down. Hickey, p. 17, notes the irony that the British would disclaim the Leopard's action and returned three impressed sailors, though Berton, p. 37, adds that one was hanged at Halifax.) This led to increased tension between Britain and the U. S., but not open war -- yet.
By 1812, Chesapeake was of course seaworthy again, but her crew was hastily-assembled (many veteran sailors had refused to re-enlist due to arguments over prize money; Hickey, p. 155), and Lawrence didn't know them; only one officer had served aboard her for any length of time (Borneman, p. 115). Many of the crew weren't even English-speakers; Pratt, p. 88, reports that about three dozen were Portugese. It should have been obvious that Chesapeake's sailors were no match for an experienced British crew. The ship had had some success early in the war taking small British prizes, but that was with Samuel Evans in command.
Captain Broke, by contrast, had commanded the Shannon since 1806, and he had turned his ship and crew into one of the best in the British fleet -- and, unlike some officers, he insisted on target practice, so his gunners were unusually good shots (Pratt, p. 83). He in fact worked to improve fire control methods (inventing some sort of device to make this easier), and -- unlike most officers below the rank of admiral -- also devoted considerable attention to naval tactics (Rodger, p. 568).
The battle took place on June 1, 1813. Apparently the Chesapeake failed to clear for action properly (Rodger, p. 568), and Lawrence failed to take his one chance to cross the T on Shannon's stern, and that effectively ended the battle. Within minutes Lawrence had been mortally wounded (his last words were, "Don't give up the ship! Fight her till she sinks," but they did little good, the more so since the bugler refused to relay them; (Borneman, p. 117) and the British were boarding the Chesapeake.
The American ship's executive officer was also wounded, but survived, and he needed a scapegoat, so he filed charges blaming the defeat on the probationary officer William S. Cox, who had moved Lawrence out of the line of fire and then found himself commanding the ship after all the other officers were disabled -- though there really wasn't much Cox could have done by then. Cox was dishonorably discharged, dying 62 years later without his case being re-examined; he finally was exonerated by act of congress in 1953 (Mahon, pp. 124-125). As far as I know, no one has had the guts to formally blame Lawrence for his folly.
It was a truly brutal defeat for the Americans: Not only did they lose the ship and Captain Lawrence, but also the first lieutenant and fourth lieutenants mortally wounded, as was the marine commander, and the second and third lieutenants wounded. Total losses were 47 killed, 14 mortally wounded, and 85 with lesser wounds. The Shannon had 24 killed and 59 wounded, some mortally; Captain Broke, who had himself led the boarding parties, was too wounded to return to sea. The whole battle had taken 15 minutes. (Hickey, p. 155; Henderson, pp. 154-160, although this account is very pro-British and ignores the rather sorry state of the Chesapeake).
It is odd to note that neither Chesaapeake nor Shannon was badly damaged (they came together so quickly that both ships still had all their masts). The British had raked Chesapeake repeatedly (Rodger, p. 568), but while this caused many casualties, it did little structural damage. The British probably could have taken Chesapeake into the Royal Navy -- and, given the general quality of American ships, might have been well-advised to do so. But the Napoleonic Wars were winding down, so she was sent to England and broken up (Borneman, p. 118); according to Hickey, p. 155, her timber eventually was used to build a flour mill.
The victory meant that the British, who had been stung by the popular broadside "The Constitution and the Guerriere," finally had something to celebrate out of the naval war. The promptly produced this piece, reported by Logan to be sung to the tune of "Yankee Doodle" but usually printed with the tune "Landlady of France"or "Pretty Peggy of Derby, O."
To tell this song from the other "Chesapeake" ballads, consider this stanza:
The Chesapeake so bold out of Boston we've been told
Came to take the British frigate neat and handy, O.
All the people of the port they came out to see the sport,
And the bands were playing Yankee Doodle Dandy, O. - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 2.5
File: LJ20

Chesapeake and the Shannon (II), The [Laws J21]


DESCRIPTION: A sailor on H.M.S. Shannon narrates how, on the "fourth" (!) of June, his ship sailed out to meet the U.S.S. Chesapeake. After only ten minutes of fighting the British (who claim to have been outnumbered) board the American and strike her colours
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1950 (Creighton/Senior)
KEYWORDS: war sailor ship battle navy
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
June 1, 1813 - Battle between the Chesapeake and the Shannon
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Laws J21, "The Chesapeake and the Shannon II"
Creighton/Senior, pp. 266-267, "Chesapeake and Shannon" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT 748, CHESHAN2
Roud #1891
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Chesapeake and the Shannon (I) and (III)" (plot)
NOTES: For the background on the Chesapeake/Shannon fight, see the notes on "The Chesapeake and the Shannon (I)" [Laws J20]. - RBW
File: LJ21

Chesapeake and the Shannon (III), The [Laws J22]


DESCRIPTION: Captain Broke of H.M.S. Shannon challenges Captain Lawrence of U.S.S. Chesapeake to battle. The Chesapeake comes out to meet the enemy; within minutes the two ships are locked together (and the British are boarding the American vessel)
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1829 (broadside, Bodleian Harding B 25(144))
KEYWORDS: war ship battle
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
June 1,1 813 - Battle between the Chesapeake and the Shannon
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Laws J22, "The Chesapeake and the Shannon III"
Mackenzie 80, "The Chesapeake and the Shannon" (1 text)
DT 552, CHESSHA2
ADDITIONAL: C. H. Firth, _Publications of the Navy Records Society_ , 1907 (available on Google Books), p. 312, "Battle of the Shannon and Chesapeak" (1 text)
Roud #963
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 25(144), "Battle of the Shannon and Chesapeak" ("On board the Shannon frigate, in the fine month of May"), T. Batchelar (London), 1817-1828 ; also Harding B 11(3541), "X"; Harding B 25(1758), Harding B 11(3476), "The Shannon and Chesapeak"; Firth c.12(50), Firth c.12(51), Harding B 11(1046), "Battle of the Shannon and Chesapeake"; Harding B 11(190), Harding B 15(82b), Johnson Ballads 183, "Battle of the Shannon and Chesapeak"
NOTES: For the background on the Chesapeake/Shannon fight, see the notes on "The Chesapeake and the Shannon (I)" [Laws J20]. - RBW
File: LJ22

Chester


DESCRIPTION: "Let tyrants shake their iron rods... We fear them not, we trust in God, New England's God forever reigns." The generals who would conquer America are listed. The song glories in the victory of "beardless boys" over veterans. God is thanked
AUTHOR: William Billings
EARLIEST DATE: 1778 (Singing Master's Assistant)
KEYWORDS: patriotic religious rebellion freedom
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Botkin-NEFolklr, pp. 536-537, "Chester" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, CHSTER*
NOTES: The British officers listed in the second stanza are as follows:
Howe: Presumably William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe (1729-1814), who commanded the British forces at Bunker Hill and was the commander in chief of British forces in America (succeeding Gage) from 1776 to 1778 (he resigned after Saratoga, and properly, as his inaction led to Burgoyne's defeat). Might also refer to his older brother Richard (4th Viscount and Earl, 1726-1799), who served primarily in the navy.
Burgoyne: John "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne (1722-1792), commanded a British army sent down from Canada against the American revolutionaries. Burgoyne (re)captured Fort Ticonderoga in 1777, but in 1778 was defeated and his army taken at Saratoga. (The fault for this was largely Howe's, however, as the plan of campaign called for simultaneous advances against the rebels, and Howe quickly gave up his push, leaving the colonials free to deal with Burgoyne. For further background, see the notes to "The Fate of John Burgoyne.")
Clinton: Sir Henry Clinton (c. 1738-1795), became commander in chief in America in 1778. He served as commander in chief until 1781 (long after "Chester" was written). Despite losing the war, he was probably the best officer the British had in America, leading the outflanking force which pushed Washington from Long Island as well as one of the few raids Howe sent out to distract colonial attention from Burgoyne.
Prescott: The British forces did not have a senior officer named Prescott (!). I'm guessing the reference is to Richard Prescott 1725-1788), described by Stanley Weintraub, Iron Tears: America's Battle for Freedom, Britain's Quagmire: 1775-1783, Free Press, 2005, p. 341 thus: "Colonel, 7th Foot with rank in America of brigadier general from November 1775. Captured, exchanged, and recaptured again (sic.) in July 1777 to exchange for Charles Lee. His reputation for arrogancve was satirized in the British Press."
Cornwallis: Charles Cornwallis, 1738-1805. At the time this song was written, the senior officer after Clinton in America, and the most aggressive of Clinton's subordinates. He lost the climactic battle of the war at Yorktown (for which see, e.g., "Lord Cornwallis's Surrender"), but this of course was later. And he wasn't actually a bad officer, as his later service in India and Ireland would show (for the latter, see, e.g., "The Troubles." - RBW
File: BNEF536

Chevy Chase


See The Hunting of the Cheviot [Child 162] (File: C162)

Chewing Gum


See Fond of Chewing Gum (File: R368)

Cheyenne Boys


See Come All You Virginia Girls (Arkansas Boys; Texian Boys; Cousin Emmy's Blues; etc.) (File: R342)

Chichester Boys, The


DESCRIPTION: The story of the factory and town of Chichester. When founded by Eli Chichester, the workers were treated fairly and liked the conditions. Hard times forced the factory into bankruptcy and a takeover, and the singer left. Now he wishes he had stayed
AUTHOR: Bill Moon
EARLIEST DATE:
KEYWORDS: work factory hardtimes
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1893 - Bankruptcy of the Chichester factory. The workers tried but failed to rescue the company, which was taken over by W. O. von Schwarzwalder (called Swashwaller in the Catskills text)
FOUND IN: US(MA)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
FSCatskills 170, "The Chichester Boys" (1 text)
ST FSC170 (Partial)
File: FSC170

Chickamy chickamy crannie crow


See Chickee Chickee Ma Craney Crow (Hawks and Chickens) (File: R570)

Chickee Chickee Ma Craney Crow (Hawks and Chickens)


DESCRIPTION: "Chickee chickee ma craney crow, Went to the well to wash my big toe, When I got there one of my black-eyed chickens was gone, What time o' day is it, old witch?" The witch answers, and eventually is allowed to catch one of the chickens circling her
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1903 (Newell)
KEYWORDS: witch playparty chickens cumulative
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Randolph 570, "Chickee Chickee Ma Craney Crow" (3 texts)
MHenry-Appalachians, p. 244, (no title) (1 short text, beginning "Chickamy chickamy crannie crow" and in which the singer's "clillun," not her chickens, is missing; it is a cumulative version in which the witch counts through one o'clock, two o'clock, etc.)
Scarborough-NegroFS, p. 138, (no title) (1 fragment, with the first line "Chickamy, chickamy, crany crow")
Roud #7661
File: R570

Chicken


DESCRIPTION: "Chicken, oh, you chicken, went up in a balloon, Chicken, oh, you chicken, roost behind the moon.... Tell it all to the bad boy, chicken don't roost so high... When they see me coming All round this old plantation, There can't be a chicken seen."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1952 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: chickens bird technology
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
BrownIII 434, "Chicken" (1 short text)
Roud #11777
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Chicken Don't Roost Too High for Me" (subject)
File: Br434

Chicken and the Bone, The


See Captain Wedderburn's Courtship [Child 46] (File: C046)

Chicken Don't Roost Too High for Me


DESCRIPTION: Singer tells chicken not to roost too high, but to come down out of his tree. Sometimes there are other verses about chasing a chicken to kill and eat, but mostly this is a fiddle tune with incidental verses
AUTHOR: Fred Lyons
EARLIEST DATE: 1887 (sheet music published)
KEYWORDS: death farming food nonballad animal bird chickens
FOUND IN: US(SE)
RECORDINGS:
Uncle Tom Collins, "Chicken, You Can't Roost Too High for Me" (OKeh 45140, 1927)
Dixie String Band, "Chicken Don't Roost Too High for Me" (Puritan 9160, n.d. but prob. c. 1926)
Georgia Potlickers, "Chicken, Don't Roost Too High" (Brunswick 595, 1932; rec. 1930; on StuffDreams1)
Earl Johnson & his Clodhoppers, "They Don't Roost Too High for Me" (OKeh 45223, 1928; on Cornshuckers2)
Riley Puckett, "Chicken Don't Roost Too High for Me" (Columbia 150-D, 1924)
Uncle Tom Collins, "Chicken Can't Roost Too High for Me" (OKeh 45140, 1927)
Henry Whitter, "Chicken Don't Roost Too High for Me" (OKeh 40077, 1924)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "There's a Lock on the Chicken House Door" (subject)
cf. "Chicken" (subject)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Dem Chickens Roost Too High [original sheet music title]
NOTES: This barely makes it into the collection, but it's common enough to make it worth listing, if only to differentiate it from the other chicken and chicken-stealing songs. - PJS
File: RcCDRTHM

Chicken in the Bread Tray


See Granny Will Your Dog Bite? (File: Br3158)

Chicken Run Fast


DESCRIPTION: "Chicken run fast, chicken run slow, Chicken run past the Methodist preacher, Chicken never run no more." "Turkey run fast, turkey run slow, Turkey run past the Baptist preacher." "Water (?!) run fast... Water run past the Campbellite preacher."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1926 (Randolph)
KEYWORDS: animal clergy nonballad chickens
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Randolph 297, "Chicken Run Fast" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #7825
File: R297

Chickens They Are Crowing


DESCRIPTION: Playparty, apparently about a girl who has spent all night with her lover: "Chickens they are crowing, For it's almost daylight." "My father he will scold me...." "My mama will uphold me...." (Others may add other sentiments or warn about boys)
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1917 (Cecil Sharp collection); +1911 (JAFL28)
KEYWORDS: playparty courting family nightvisit chickens
FOUND IN: US(Ap,SE,So)
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Randolph 541, "My Pappy He Will Scold Me" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Sharp/Karpeles-80E 66, "The Chickens They Are Crowing" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lomax-FSNA 105, "Chickens They Are Crowing" (1 text, 1 tune)
SharpAp 269, "The Chickens they are Crowing" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Roud #3650
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "We Won't Go Home Until Morning" (floating lyrics in a few texts)
cf. "Crow, Black Chicken" (words)
File: R541

Chief Aderholt


DESCRIPTION: "Come all of you good people And listen while I tell The story of Chief Aderholt, The man you all know well." Aderholt is shot in Union Ground. The police imprison and prepare to try labor leaders; the singer calls on hearers to join the union
AUTHOR: Ella May Wiggins
EARLIEST DATE: 1953 (Greenway), but Wiggins was shot to death in 1929
KEYWORDS: murder police labor-movement
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Burt, pp. 186-187, (no title) (1 text, 1 tune)
Greenway-AFP, p. 248, "Chief Aderholt" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: For a biography of Ella May Wiggins, who was killed in 1929 at the age of 29 (very possibly at the instigation of Loray mine owner Manville Jenckes), see Greenway-AFP, pp. 244-247.
Doug deNatale and Glenn Hinson wrote an article, "The Southern Textile Song Tradition Reconsidered," published in Archie Green, editor, Songs about Work: Essays in Occupational Culture for Richard A. Reuss, Folklore Institute, Indiana University, 1993, p. 78, refer to Wiggins as "the tragic martyr and song maker of the 1929 Gastonia strike." On p. 79, they quote a verse of this song as an example of Wiggins' work.
It is a sad and astonishing commentary on the way American politics works that Wiggins's children wound up being vigorously anti-union, and on the fiftieth anniversary of her death engaged in anti-union activism (deNatale and Hinson, p. 80).
It's interesting to ask whether there has been any folk processing between the Burt and Greenway versions. The tunes differ by only a single note, and the lyrics by only a single word; either might have been a printing error. But they are ever so slightly different. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: Burt186

Chieftain's Daughter, The


DESCRIPTION: Lord Ronald's daughter asks the boatman to "row me over the flowing tide ... Thou shalt have gold when I'm a bride." At first he refuses because of the "angry water" but he agrees when told who she is. The boatman gets his gold.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1908 (GreigDuncan6)
KEYWORDS: escape river gold storm father money
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Greig #40, p. 2, "The Chieftain's Daughter" (1 text)
GreigDuncan6 1261, "The Chieftain's Daughter" (1 text)
Roud #6793
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Lord Ullin's Daughter" (theme)
NOTES: Greig: "Clearly this has some connection with Campbell's famous ballad of 'Lord Ullin's Daughter' [which opens 'A Chieftain, to the Highlands bound, Cries, 'Boatman, do not tarry! And I'll give thee a silver pound To row us o'er the ferry!', Charles W. Eliot, editor, English Poetry Vol II From Collins to Fitzgerald (New York, 1910), #455, pp. 773-775 (Thomas Campbell)]" In that poem Lord Ullin's daughter and her lover are fleeing from her father's men; the boatman takes them "not for your silver bright; But for your winsome lady."
The opening lines of GreigDuncan6 ("Boatman, boatman, row me over, Row me over the flowing tide") are obviously related to "Row Us Over the Tide" but there seems to be no other connection. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD61261

Chien, Le (Le Petit Chien, The Little Dog)


DESCRIPTION: Creole French: "Il y a un petit chien chez nous, Que remue les pattes (x2)... Que remue les pattes tout comme vous." "There is a little dog at our house... who shakes his feet just like you."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1925 (Scarborough)
KEYWORDS: animal dog foreignlanguage nonballad
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Scarborough-NegroFS, p. 123, "Le Chien" (1 short text with loose English translation)
File: ScNF123A

Child in the Budget, The


DESCRIPTION: Tinkers, out drinking, exhaust their funds. One puts his baby in his tool bag and pawns the bag. When the baby cries the pawnbroker laughs at being outwitted, finds the tinker, and gives him a pound to take back the toolbag and contents.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1886 (broadside, Bodleian Firth b.26(340))
KEYWORDS: trick drink humorous baby tinker money
FOUND IN: Ireland
Roud #2993
RECORDINGS:
Martin Long, "The Child in the Budget" (on IRClare01)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Firth b.26(340), "The Tinker and His Budget ("Come all you good people attend for awhile"), H. Such (London), 1863-1885; also Firth b.27(85), "The Tinkers Budget" or "Pawnbroker Outwitted"
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Basket of Eggs" (baby in the basket motif)
cf. "Quare Bungo Rye" (baby in the basket motif)
NOTES: Notes to IRClare01: "A budget is a bag or knapsack used for carrying tools." - BS
File: RcTCitB

Child is Born Among Men, A (Honnd by Honnd)


DESCRIPTION: "Honnd by honnd we schulle ous take, And joy and blisse schulle we make....." "A child is broen amoges man, And in that child was no wam [blemish], That child ys God, that child is man...." "Com to Crist, thy peys ys told."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: Not later than the fifteenth century (Bodleian MS. Bodley 26)
KEYWORDS: religious Jesus nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(England)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Stevick-100MEL 41, "(Hond by Hond we shullen us take)" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL:ADDITIONAL: Brown/Robbins, _Index of Middle English Verse_, #29
E. K. Chambers, _English Literature at the Close of the Middle Ages_, Oxford, 1945, 1947, pp. 80-81 (no title)
NOTES: This item has never been collected in oral tradition, and perhaps should not be included in the Index. But J. G. Davies, The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship (originally published in Britain as A New Dictionary of Liturgy & Worship), Westminster, 1986, p. 148, cites it as one of the earliest carols: "The openeing words of one of the earliest surviving burdes (c. 1350) describe the singers joining hands in a ring-dance, 'Honnd by honnd we schulle us take....'"
The only complete copy is that found in Bodley MS. 26, where it is found as part of a sermon. This is the version found on foloi 202v of Bodleian MS Bodley 26. The date is slightly uncertain. Chambers includes it in his chapter "Fifteenth-Century Lyric" but dates the poem itself c. 1350. This is also the date given by Stevick.
Digging around trying to find a facsimile of the text, to try to see the handwriting, I found several "Communitarian" web sites which cited it. Whatever that tells you. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: NNHonCB

Child Maurice [Child 83]


DESCRIPTION: Child Maurice sends his page with love-tokens to "the very first woman that ever loved me." Her husband hears the page, finds Child Maurice, kills him, and brings the head to his wife. She reveals this was her son; he repents his murder. (They also die.)
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1765 (Percy)
KEYWORDS: death family mother wife children murder revenge
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber)) Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (11 citations):
Child 83, "Child Maurice" (7 texts)
Bronson 83, "Child Maurice" (7 versions+1 in addenda)
Greig #115, p. 1, "Gill Morice" (1 text)
Greenleaf/Mansfield 11, "Gil Morissy" (1 text)
Percy/Wheatley III, pp. 91-103, "Gill Morrice" (2 texts, one from the folio manuscript and one being the modified version printed by Percy in the Reliques)
Flanders-Ancient2, pp. 238-245, "Child Maurice" (1 text, from "The Charms of Melody" rather than tradition)
Leach, pp. 273-277, "Child Maurice" (1 text)
OBB 47, "Childe Maurice" (1 text)
Friedman, p. 194, "Childe Maurice (Gill Morice)" (1 text)
Gummere, pp.190-194+,345 "Child Maurice" (1 text)
DT 83, GILMORIS
Roud #53
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Sir James the Rose" [Child 213] (tune)
File: C083

Child of Elle (I), The


See Earl Brand [Child 7] (File: C007)

Child of Elle (II), The


DESCRIPTION: Emmeline's father chooses a knight to be her husband. She and Elle elope. The knight follows and Elle kills him. Her father and his men arrive. Elle calls on his own men. Standoff. Father agrees to their marriage, ending an old feud.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1783 (Pinkerton's _Select Scottish Ballads_ , according to GreigDuncan5)
KEYWORDS: elopement marriage feud fight father
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan5 1026, "The Child of Elly" (1 text)
Roud #23
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Earl Brand" [Child 7] (some plot elements: elopement, chase by father)
NOTES: The GreigDuncan5 text is very close to the Percy's "Child of Elle" (see Thomas Percy, Reliques of Ancient English Poetry ... with [an anonymous] Supplement (Porter & Coates, Philadelphia, 1876), 11, pp. 87-89, "The Child of Elle") of which Child said one fifth was genuine as a text for Child 7. The shorter of Percy's texts, with the same name, was accepted by Child as 7F. The GreigDuncan collection includes its versions of Child 7 in volume 2. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD51026

Child of Elly, The


See The Child of Elle (II) (File: GrD1026)

Child of God


DESCRIPTION: "If anybody asks you who I am... Tell him I'm a child of God." "Peace on earth, Mary rocks the cradle... The Christ child born in glory." The singer reports on the coming of the Christ child, and reports being on the way to glory
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1973
KEYWORDS: religious Jesus nonballad Christmas
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Silber-FSWB, p. 377, "Child of God" (1 text)
NOTES: The Folksinger's Wordbook lists this as a Christmas song. It has Christmas verses, but I wonder; that is not its overall feeling. They look like they are grafted in. - RBW
File: FSWB377A

Child of the Railroad Engineer, The (The Two Lanterns)


DESCRIPTION: "A little child on a sick-bed lay, And to death seemed very near." The child's father is a railroad engineer, and must go to work. He bids the mother show a red light if the child dies and a green if the news was good. As he drives by, she shows the green
AUTHOR: Words: Harry V. Neal / Music: Gussie L. Davis
EARLIEST DATE: 1898 (sheet music)
KEYWORDS: family children disease railroading
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Cohen-LSRail, pp. , "The Red and Green Signal Light/The Engineer's Child" (2 texts plus a copy of the sheet music cover, 1 tune)
Randolph 685, "The Two Lanterns" (1 text)
Spaeth-WeepMore, pp. 140-141, "The Child of the Railroad Engineer" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, CHILDENG*
Roud #5066
RECORDINGS:
Chuck Wagon Gang, "The Engineer's Child" (Vocalion 04105, 1938)
[G. B.] Grayson & [Henry] Whitter, "The Red and Green Signal Lights" (Victor V-40063, 1929); "Red or Green" (Gennett 6418/Champion 15465/Challenge 397 [as by David Foley], 1928)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Just Set a Light
NOTES: It's hard to believe that every version I've seen of this song has a happy ending; it sounds like a nineteenth century tearjerker. But I can't find evidence to prove it.
I once heard Bob Bovee and Gail Heil joke that they had two versions of this, with happy and sad endings. But they sang the happy ending.
Norm Cohen raises an interesting possibility in this regard: When the song was written, in 1896, a red light meant danger -- but green meant caution. Not until 1898 was the green-for-good standard first adopted. So the song suddenly became more optimistic two years after its composition. Could this explain the complex endings?
The idea is of course much older, going back at least to versions of the story of Tristan. As he lay dying, he awaited the ship that was to fetch Isuelt to his side. If she was on the ship, it was to show white sails; if she had not come, it was to show black. In the Marie de France version, she comes, but Tristan is falsely told that the ship carries black sails, and dies. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: R685

Child Owlet [Child 291]


DESCRIPTION: Lady Erskine wants Child Owlet to sleep with her. Owlet will not; Lord Ronald (Erskine's husband) is Owlet's uncle. Erskine takes revenge by cutting herself and accusing Owlet of raping her. Owlet is torn to pieces between wild horses
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1828 (Buchan)
KEYWORDS: execution infidelity rejection lie
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Child 291, "Child Owlet" (1 text)
DT 291, CHDOWLET*
Roud #3883
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Sheffield Apprentice" [Laws O39]
NOTES: Compare this story to the biblical tale of Joseph and Potiphar's wife (Genesis 39:1-20) - RBW
File: C291

Child Waters [Child 63]


DESCRIPTION: Ellen tells Child Waters she bears his child. Offered two shires of land, she would prefer one kiss. He rides; she runs, swims; as his page, she brings a lady for his bed, gives birth in the stable. He hears her wish him well and herself dead; he relents
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1765 (Percy)
KEYWORDS: courting pregnancy love disguise childbirth
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber)) US(SE,So)
REFERENCES (15 citations):
Child 63, "Child Waters" (11 texts, 1 tune)
Bronson 63, "Child Waters" (3 versions)
Percy/Wheatley III, pp. 58-65, "Child Waters" (1 text)
GreigDuncan6 1229, "Fair Ellen" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Flanders-Ancient2, pp. 76-81, "Child Waters" (1 text, titled "Earl Walter," from the 1818 "Charms of Melody" rather than tradition)
Randolph 13, "The Little Page Boy" (1 fragmentary text, 1 tune, which Randolph places here though it also has lines from the "Cospatrick" version of "Gil Brenton" and which is so short it might go with something else) {Bronson's #3}
BrownII 17, "Child Waters" (1 text)
Leach, pp. 201-205, "Child Waters" (1 text)
OBB 46, "Childe Waters" (1 text)
Friedman, p. 122, "Child Waters" (1 text)
PBB 47, "Child Waters" (1 text)
Gummere, pp. 241-246+354-355, "Child Waters" (1 text)
DBuchan 10, "Child Waters" (1 text)
TBB 4, "Child Waters" (1 text)
DT 63, CHDWATER
Roud #43
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Fair Margaret
Lord William and Lady Margaret
Burd Ellen
File: C063

Child's Lullabye, A


See Oor Cat's Deid (File: HHH040b)

Child's Prayer, The


DESCRIPTION: "Way out in western Texas not so many years ago, Where the ranchers hated settlers worse than rattlesnakes, you know," a rancher determines to burn out a settler house. But he hears a child inside praying for her father and quickly calls off the attack
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1976 (collected by Logsdon from Riley Neal)
KEYWORDS: murder fire children violence father
FOUND IN: US(SW)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Logsdon 8, pp. 58-59, "The Child's Prayer" (1 text, 1 tune)
ST Logs008 (Partial)
Roud #10088
File: Logs008

Children Do Linger


DESCRIPTION: "O member, will you linger? See the children do linger here. I go to glory with you, Member, join." "O Jesus is our Captain... He lead us on to glory." "We'll meet at Zion gateway... We'll talk this story over." "He will bring you milk and honey"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1867 (Allen/Ware/Garrison)
KEYWORDS: religious nonballad
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Allen/Ware/Garrison, p. 51, "Children Do Linger" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #12010
File: AWG051

Children Go Where I Send Thee


DESCRIPTION: Cumulative song: "Children, go where I send thee. How shall I send thee? I'm gonna send thee one by one, One for the little bitty baby...." Add "Two by two, two for Paul and Silas" on up to "Twelve for the Twelve Apostles."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1936 (recording, Dennis Crampton & Robert Summers)
KEYWORDS: Bible religious Jesus cumulative nonballad
FOUND IN: US(Ap)
REFERENCES (6 citations):
Lomax-FSNA 254, "The Holy Babe" (1 text, 1 tune)
Ritchie-SingFam, pp. 163-164, 195, "[Children, Go Where I Send Thee]" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Ritchie-Southern, p. 54, "Little Bitty Baby (Children Go Where I Send Thee)" (1 text, 1 tune)
Botkin-SoFolklr, p. 754, "Holy Babe" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 383, "Children, Go Where I Send Thee" (1 text)
DT, GOSEND
Roud #133
RECORDINGS:
Alphabetical Four, "Go Where I Send Thee" (Decca 7704, 1940; on AlphabFour01)
Dennis Crampton & Robert Summers, "Go I'll Send Thee" (ARC 6-10-62, 1936)
Golden Gate Jubilee Quartet, "Go Where I Send Thee" (Bluebird B-7340, 1937; Victor 20-2134, 1947)
Kelley Pace, Aaron Brown, Joe Green, Matthew Johnson & Paul Hayes, "Holy Babe" (AFS 3803 A2+B, 1942; on LC10)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Green Grow the Rushes-O (The Twelve Apostles, Come and I Will Sing You)" (theme and structure)
cf. "Eleven to Heaven" (theme and structure)
NOTES: This could well be an American version of "Green Grow the Rushes-O" (Roud naturally lumps those two and several others). But it's easy to create songs such as this one; in the absence of certainty, I treat them as separate. See also the notes on that song. - RBW
File: LoF254

Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34] --- Part 01


DESCRIPTION: Two young orphaned children are left in the care of their uncle. He decides to murder them for their money. One of the hired killers has pity and spares them, but then abandons them. They die. The uncle meets countless disasters till his crime is revealed
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1595? (title of piece in Stationer's Register)
KEYWORDS: orphan money death abandonment family children
FOUND IN: US(Ap,MW,NE,Ro,SE,So) Britain Australia Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (23 citations):
Laws Q34, "The Children in the Wood (The Babes in the Woods)"
Percy/Wheatley III, pp. 169-176, "The Children in the Wood" (1 text -- the long form)
Belden, pp. 106-107, "The Babes in the Wood" (2 texts -- the short form)
BrownII 147, "The Babes in the Wood" (1 text)
Hudson 139, p. 285, "Babes in the Woods" (1 text -- the short form)
Scarborough-NegroFS, p. 57, (no title) (1 text, quite short, but it appears to be a fragment of the long form)
Brewster 71, "Babes in the Wood" (1 text -- the short form)
Gardner/Chickering 141, "The Babes in the Woods" (1 text -- the long form)
Randolph 92, "The Babes in the Woods" (5 texts, 2 tunes -- the short form)
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 113-115, "The Babes in the Woods" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 92A)
JHCoxIIA, #22, pp. 89-90, "Babes in the Wood" (1 text, 1 tune -- perhaps a fragment of the long form)
SharpAp 47, "The Babes in the Wood" (1 text, 1 tune)
Meredith/Covell/Brown, p. 210, "(The Babes in the Wood)" (1 fragmentary text); pp. 295-296, "Babes in the Wood" (1 text+tune of the short form, plus an excerpt from the long form)
Creighton-SNewBrunswick 87, "Babes in the Wood" (1 short text, 1 tune; although only a fragment, it is clearly derived from the long form)
OBB 174, "The Children in the Wood" (1 text -- the long form)
Abrahams/Foss, pp. 121-122, ""The Babes in the Woods (1 text, 1 tune -- the short form)
LPound-ABS, 115, pp. 233-234, "Babes in the Woods" (1 text -- the short form)
Pankake-PHCFSB, p. 285-286, "Babes in the Woods" (1 text, 1 tune -- the short form)
Baring-Gould-MotherGoose #226, pp. 148-149, "(My dear, do you know)" (the short form)
BBI, ZN1966, "Now ponder well you parents dear"
cf. Chappell/Wooldridge I, p. 92, "[The Two Children in the Wood]" (1 tune)
DT 542, BABWOOD2* PRETBABE*
ADDITIONAL: Iona & Peter Opie, The Oxford Book of Narrative Verse, pp. 42-46, "The Babes in the Wood" (1 text -- the long form)
Roud #288
RECORDINGS:
Dorothy Howard, "Babes in the Wood" (on USWarnerColl01 -- the short form)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 4(30), "The Children in the Wood" or "The Norfolk Gentleman's Last Will and Testament," W. and C. Dicey (London), 1736-1763; also Harding B 4(31), Harding B 4(34), Harding B 4(36), Johnson Ballads 2400, Harding B 30(2), Harding B 4(35), Harding B 4(37), Harding B 4(38), "The Children in the Wood" or "The Norfolk Gentleman's Last Will and Testament"
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Dunbar the Murderer" (plot)
cf. "Three Lost Babes of Americay" (plot)
cf. "The Lost Babes" (plot)
NOTES: Laws notes, "A three stanza lament on the fate of the children called 'The Babes in the Wood' is widely known in American tradition, but the long ballad is rarely met with." At first glance these two songs are hardly related (they don't even use the same metrical form), but Laws seems to want them lumped. Though we note that he lists only occurrences of the long form. But splitting seems inappropriate in the circumstances.
Hales believes this piece to be by the same author as "The Lady's Fall." - RBW
The Creighton-SNewBrunswick 87 is clearly a fragment of the Bodleian broadside version. - BS
The history and content of this song have inspired extensive discussion over the course of several centuries. It raises many difficult questions, both as to history and as to purpose. The result is a very long entry. I have therefore broken it up into the following sections, divided among four different entries in the Ballad Index. which you can search for if you don't want to read the whole thing. These aren't really chapters; the note is meant to be read continuously. But it may help you to find the part you most want. The larger part of this note is about the actions of Richard III and his usurpation of the English throne. You don't need to know all about that to be able to understand the part at the end about "The Legend of the Princes and the Content of the Song." You merely need to know that there is much debate about Richard III, and that Shakespeare's picture is impossibly one-sided. The great question is whether it is *completely* one-sided....
Contents:
*** Included in this entry:*
* Full References for the song
* Bibliography
*** Included in the Entry "Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34]" --- Part 02 (File Number Link LQ34A):*
* Speculations about the Origin of the Song
* The Historical Problem: The Black Legend of Richard III
* The Historical Sources
* The Background: The Wars of the Roses
* The Death of Edward IV and the Government of the Realm
*** Included in the Entry "Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34]" --- Part 03 (File Number Link LQ34B):*
* The Character of Richard III
* The Usurpation
*** Included in the Entry "Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34]" --- Part 04 (File Number Link LQ34C):*
* The Unknown Fate of the Princes
* Richard's Government and Tudor Government
* The Battle of Bosworth and the Death of Richard III
*** Included in the Entry "Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34]" --- Part 05 (File Number Link LQ34D):*
* The Legend of the Princes and the Content of the Song
---
Note on the Bibliography:
In my previous version of this article (the third), I gave a detailed annotated bibliography, trying to cite all the prejudices of each author. In an attempt to shorten things, I have now reduced this to two ratings: Pro-Richardness (on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being Shakespeare, who can see no good in Richard, and 10 being Markham, who made him a saint. I have not cited any "10" sources). I would consider sources in the 3 to 7 range to be rational, with the truth most likely at 6 and the next most likely position being 3. A book with a 1, 2, 8, or 9 shows research but much influence by emotion; a book which is a 0 or a 10 is pure emotion with little use for facts. The level of research I have rated Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Lousy (or variations upon that description). These ratings refer *only* to the material on Richard. I have omitted the ratings for books which are not directly concerned with Richard.
For what it's worth, the average Pro-Richardness of the 27 books rated is almost exactly 4; the quality of research just a hair below "fair." There is effectively no correlation between pro-Richardness and research quality -- the correlation coefficient between the two is only .23. What is noteworthy is that I rated 9 books good or excellent in research, and seven of them have pro-Richardnesses in the 3-6 range; the other two are Hicks (2) and Kendall (8). No one with an extreme pro- or anti-Richard value has better than "fair" research.
Of the early sources, More, Rous, Hall, and Shakespeare would rate a 0, Vergil a 1, Croyland and Mancini about a 3 in Pro-Richardness.
BibliographyLast updated in version 2.5
File: LQ34

Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34] --- Part 02


DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "The Children in the Wood (The Babes in the Woods)" [Laws Q34]. Entry continues in "The Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34]" --- Part 03 (File Number LQ34B)
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: SPECULATIONS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE SONG
This song is well enough known that it may have inspired various literary references. In Charles Kingsley's The Water Babies (1863), for instance, we read that young Tom would have been trapped in the rhododendrons "till the cock-robins covered him with leaves" (about two-thirds of the way through the first chapter; p. 22 in the Wordsworth Classics edition). The other possible explanation for this, however, is a legend of Jesus's flight into Egypt. Mary, in the legend, cut herself on thorns and was bleeding. The robin dragged leaves over the blood so as to hide the trail -- and thus became blessed (O hOgain, p. 36). If this legend underlies the song, it obviously emphasizes the innocence -- perhaps even the holiness -- of the murdered children.
Various sources for this legend have been mentioned. The Baring-Goulds cite an abandonment that took place at Wayland in Norfolk, but offer no names or dates. Based on the notes in the Opies, this is apparently based on an item licensed in 1595 entitled "The Norfolk gent his will and Testament and howe he Commytted the keepinge of his Children to his owne brother whoe delte most wickedly with them and howe God plagued him for it."
Percy, who contributed materially to the popularity of the piece, knew of no relevant legends, but mentioned a play of 1601 on the same theme.
Garnett and Gosse, volume I, p. 307, mentions that "The Babes in the Wood is conjectured, though doubtfully, to have been a veiled allegory of the murder of the young princes in the Tower." Percy/Wheatley, volume III, p. 170, says, "Sharon Turner and Miss Halsted favored the rather untenable opinion that the wicked uncle was intended to represent Richard III.... Turner writes in his History of England, 'I have sometimes fancied that the popular ballad may have been written at this time on Richard and his nephews before it was quite safe to stigmatize him more openly.'"
That is, it has been suggested that it is an account of King Edward V of England, his brother Richard Duke of York, and their uncle Richard III of Gloucester. Edward V was deprived of his crown, and then he and his brother vanished, never to be seen again, and Richard III took the throne. This seems to be the most popular link -- for example, Hicks, in his biography of Edward V, p. 13, seems to take the link between the song and the princes for granted (or at least thinks most people assume the link). Seward-Richard, p. 112, states unequivocally, "Richard would be commemorated as the Wicked Uncle in the ballad of the Babes in the Wood... it was undoubtedly inspired by the fate of the little King and his brother."
Contrary to Seward (a *lot* in this note is going to be contrary to Seward, because of his biased attitude) the other explanations for the song show that the link with Richard III is very doubtful. If the possibility is to be admitted at all, it must surely depend on the continuity from the 1595 Stationer's Register piece to the modern song (even in 1595, it's hard to believe that there would be need for a *concealed* song about the Princes in the Tower, since it was about events more than a century old, and it is absurd if the song is more recent than that). If that identity is accepted, though, and if the song is in fact a century older than that date, it makes some sense to assume that this is one of Henry VII Tudor's attempts to blacken the memory of Richard III, whose throne he had usurped in 1485.
Pollard, for instance, states on p. 17 that the popular account of Richard III, found e.g. in Shakespeare, is a graft onto actual history from folktale, citing "the story of the children in the wood" as another instance of the legend. Pollard observes that the theme of children being abducted is found even in Chaucer's Clerk's Tale (the tale of Griselda), although that has a happy ending of sorts. In other words, in Pollard's view, Richard did not inspire the Babes in the Woods; rather, it took on the existing theme which produced the song/tale.
Pollard, p. 19, does think that the Babes in the Woods took on some language from Shakespeare's "Richard III" -- but part of what he cites from the section on the trial of George of Clarence, not the Princes in the Tower! I think he exaggerates the similarities -- and, in any case, he's looking at the Percy version, which Percy almost certainly hacked at significantly, not anything actually traditional. On p. 20, Pollard quotes Seward's comment on "The Babes in the Woods" and replied, "This has it the wrong way round. The story of Richard III and his nephews, as it was repeated and elaborated after his death, fitted easily into the model of one of Europe's oldest folk tales concerning children who fall into the hands of an ogre.... Both were variants on the same archetypal story." He adds that there is "an inescapable literary dimension to the history of Richard III and the Princes in the Tower."
THE HISTORICAL PROBLEM: THE BLACK LEGEND OF RICHARD III
As Ross comments, on p. xi, the story of Richard and the Princes is a subject on which "William Shakespeare himself took a long look, and we have been living with the dramatic consequences ever since." Sadly, the Bard's was a thoroughly inaccurate look -- consider, e.g., the character of Margaret of Anjou in Shakespeare's "Richard III": She was *dead* by the time Richard III took the throne, having died in 1482 at the age of about 52 (Cunningham, p. 104). Oh, and there's that little detail in Shakespeare's "King Henry VI, Part II," in which Richard kills the Duke of Somerset at the first Battle of Saint Albans. Talk about growing up fast -- Richard was two years old at the time.
Perhaps the problem is that, because Richard III was genuinely ahead of his time in several noteworthy ways, the temptation is to see him as a modern man. He was not; he was a man from a brutal time who in some ways rose above it and in some ways, clearly, did not. As Ross comments on p. 228, "No one familiar with the career of King Louis XI of France, in Richard's own time, or Henry VIII of England, in Richard's own country, would wish to cast any special slur on Richard, still less select him as the exemplar of a tyrant."
Or perhaps the problem is lack of sources; Lander, p. 1, notes the case of an earlier historian who found it impossible "to form a regular History out of such a vast Heap of Rubbish and Confusion." Pollard, p. 182, observes, "[A]lmost all surviving contemporary or near-contemporary comment on his character was made retrospectively by people who were hostile. In this respect it is as difficult to see Richard the royal duke before 1483 as it is to see Richard the king. Contemporaries quickly applied hindsight to their interpretation of his character and motives before 1483, even those writing before 1485. Richard himself never put his personal thoughts on paper; or rather no personal letters, diaries or memoirs of his have come to light. No confessor in whom he confided, or companion-in-arms whome he inspired, subsequently extolled his virtues." It's all hostile witnesses.
Or maybe the problem is simply Shakespeare; as Ross declares on p. xi, since that time "considerations of the life and reign of Richard Plantagenet have been largely concerned to rebut [or to confirm!] the historical interpretation on which Shakespeare's great play rested." This has been an immense problem for me in writing what follows; I am sure that much of what follows will sound more pro-Richard than it should, simply because I react so strongly against Shakespeare and the Tudor propaganda.
We have two questions here: What actually happened in 1483, and whether the events of 1483-1485 are actually related to this song. Unfortunately, we don't really know what happened then -- and I have to give you a long preface to explain why we are so ignorant, and then a long explanation in which I will try to give you the best chance of making your own decision. It may not help. It is very hard to manage neutrality on the subject of Richard III.
It is the most obscure period in post-Conquest English history. The Wars of the Roses caused many chronicles to be destroyed or abandoned (Cheetham, p. 202). The historians who wrote after the death of Richard III, since they had to keep Henry Tudor on his throne, were forced to produce the caricature of Richard III which eventually gave rise to Shakespeare's impossible portrait -- as Fields observes, p. 7, "It was politically correct and sound policy for any historian writing during Henry's reign to blacken Richard's reputation in any way possible."
The difficulty is, though the Tudor historians clearly had reason to lie, they are also the only detailed sources for most events of the period; there is no way to separate fact from propaganda. For example, everyone follows Polydore Vergil's account of the Battle of Bosworth, at which Richard III died, because there is no other account extant (Ross, p. 216; Kendall, p. 570; Burne, p. 286, says that it is the least-documented major battle in English history. Griffiths/Thomas, p. 158, says that "Aside from Polydore Vergil, the Croyland Chronicle and the Stanley Balladeers, no one living within a generation of that day has left a record of its momentous events." This may even have been a deliberate Tudor attempt to suppress the record; Bennett, p. 163, notes that Bernard Andre, Henry Tudor's official panegyrist, had to leave a blank in his "Vita Henrici Septimi" for Bosworth -- there is an actual gap left in the Latin manuscript!)
Where the Tudor historians are silent, we are often at a loss. Ross, p. 29, gives two examples of this. We do not know the date of Richard III's marriage -- the best guess is some time in 1472 (so, e.g. Pollard, p. 65), but the first mention of Richard as being married is in 1474. We don't even know to the nearest year the date at which his only legitimate son was born; Kendall suggests 1473, Ross prefers 1476! (Cunningham, p. 106, tentatively accepts the latter date; Seward-Richard, p. 67, offers late 1473 or early 1474. Etc.)
The usual effect of this lack of data is to cause students either to accept the Tudor propaganda, and treat Richard as Satan's Spawn -- or to deny everything and end up trying to whitewash him. Instances of the latter are myriad. Horace Walpole, Richard's first great defender, actually tried to claim that Perkin Warbeck -- of whom more below -- was really one of the Princes in the Tower, still alive (Potter, p. 180). Amazingly, Fields, pp, 217-219, seriously discusses the possiblility as well, suggesting that perhaps the boys, or just Richard of York, had been smuggled out of England, probably with Richard's consent, by Sir James Tyrell; York then became "Perkin Warbeck."
If that weren't bad enough, each side has its partisans who, by selective presentation of the evidence, try to make it look as if everyone on the other side is engaged in a smear campaign (as, e.g., Ross does in a small way on p. 96, listing a series of wacko pro-Richard authors without mentioning more scholarly defenders. Potter is even more extreme in a pro-Richard way, reviling useful sources and blaming everything on the "Tudor Legend."). Or consider Seward's analysis of the death of the Princes in the Tower, whom he is sure Richard murdered. Seward-Richard, pp. 119-120, comments, "During the following reign HenryVII was to dispose of Warwick, the last surviving Plantagenet male... but would use legal murder (after trapping the youth into a technically treasonable plot). It is a measure of Richard's neurotic insecurity that he could not wait for the Princes to reach a more acceptable age and use the same method." Excuse me? Keeping someone in prison for six years, entrapping him, subjecting him to a kangaroo trial, and then killing him is better than just killing him? I'd rather have it over with, thank you very much.
As Kendall says in his preface (p. 11), "Richard the Third is perhaps the most polemical figure in the reaches of English history.... In the course of this long controversy, Richard's career has usually been approached as stuff from which to create a 'case,' and his character has been treated as a cardboard counter.... The heats of argunment are inimical to the art of biography. In this sense, it can be said that no life of Richard has ever been written." And it can be argued argued that this is still true, for Ross (the next major writer on Richard) disdains Kendall's pro-Richard approach, questions whether it is possible to write a biography of Richard, and as a result declares that what he has written is not a biography (p. xi).
The one thing that seems certain is that Richard was more complicated that Shakespeare's human cancer. On this point, observe that one of the men he executed, Earl Rivers, thought enough of Richard's honesty to name him one of the supervisors of his will, even though the will was written after Rivers was condemned! (Fields, pp. 102-103).
A specific example of how all this proceeds: Ross, pp. 96-97, mentions the common statement that Richard "could not have been convicted of murder in a modern court of law" (Fields, p. 301, is one who believes this: "Richard would be acquitted of the crime by virtually any jury that heard the case. The possibility that no murders were committed, or that if they were, Henry [Tudor] or Buckingham committed them, together with the paucity of admissible evidence against Richard, would almost surely raise a 'reasonable doubt' in the jury's mind; and that , of course, would call for acquittal.") Yet Ross then goes on to list several historians who do "convict" him. Similarly, Weir, p. 163, remarks, "It has been stated many times.... that there is no proof that Richard III murdered the Princes in the Tower, and very little likelihood that the full facts.... will ever be known." She goes on to state, correctly, that historians can only try to learn as much as possible from such facts as we have. Her response to this, however, is not to become more cautious about the difference between fact and speculation; it is to lower her standard of accuracy!
Both responses ignore the point: Richard very likely was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder -- but the charge in fact could not even be brought because it cannot be proved that the princes were murdered!
The Tudors still influence historians: The Tudor era is often held up as a great era -- e.g. WilliamsonJ, pp. 22-23, waxes enthusiastic about their trade policies. Yet Gillingham, p. 11, claims that national income declined steadily during the reigns of Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Henry VIII's children. Russell gives detailed information on this point. On p. 5, he notes the steady inflation "which began about 1510 and continued, at rapid but varying speeds, at least until 1620." Some of this was due to gold and silver from the new world -- in a gold-based market, an increase in gold without a corresponding increase in production would cause inflation (Willson, pp. 276-277). But most of that gold ended up in Spain, not England; the increase in prices exceeded the increase in specie (the overall inflation over this period, according to Russell, p. 7, was on the order of fivefold, and on p. 10 he gives strong reasons why the increase in precious metals cannot be the primary explanation for the inflation). Russell's conclusion, on p. 11, is that the price rise was caused by increasing population, which put pressure on food supplies.
The only cure for this was agricultural improvements. But improvements are only possible where there is available capital to generate it. (Look at what happened to poor Ireland in the early 1800s. Indeed, the situation in Tudor England which Russell describes on p. 13 sounds exactly like Ireland.) It was clearly Tudor economic policies (high taxes, restrictions on movement of information and, indirectly, products, and, later, a debased currency), not those of the Plantagenets (including Richard III) which brought a permanent recession. Even Henry's policy of free trade, usually praised by economists, brought little benefit to England, because it had nothing to export except wool and a little Cornish tin, and it was already shipping as much wool as it could (Russell, pp. 23-24), and Henry actually increased the export duties on tin (Russell, p. 36).
(Please note: It will probably be evident that I strongly dislike Henry Tudor. This is not to imply that he was incompetent. He was probably the best financial manager ever to hold the English throne -- it is genuinely unfortunate he could not have been placed in charge of the exchequer under other kings. What I object to are his despotism and his money-grubbing -- his tight-fistedness, for instance, kept England away from world exploration for many years. The Tudor monarchy did bring good things -- would England have turned Protestant without Henry VIII? And would there have been a counter-Reformation had he not turned Protestant? But the Tudors produced probably the worst reign of terror in England since Norman times. And I simply can't respect a monarch who insisted on the title "Your Majesty," rather than "Your Grace," the address used by his predecessors; Morris, p. 32.)
Mattingly, p. 25, sums up the Tudors, and their situation, about as well as can be said, I think: "Probably Henry admitted to himself that there was too much doubtful blood in his dynasty. The grandson of Owen Tudor, clerk of the Queen's wardrobe and heir to no more than a rocky mountainside and a few goats, could never have come to the English throne had not the Wars of the Roses almost extinguished the Plantagenet stock. Henry's own mother, Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond, gave the King his only drop of royal blood, and though she had descended from John of Gaunt... Margaret Beaufort's grandfather had the misfortune to be born on the wrong side of the blanket. Like so many of the Italian tyrants, whom they resembled in other ways, the Tudors sprang from bastard stock; and Henry VII knew that, though he had married the daughter of Edward IV to help set things right for his children, his own best claim to the throne was that he had won it by the sword and held it against all comers."
One thing I find fascinating is that the two worst Richard-haters of recent years, Seward and Weir, both base their opinions on the history of Richard III written by Thomas More. Yet this is a secondary source riddled with patent errors. To take it as a primary source, as Seward and Weir do, is to come at history having already decided what happened.
Cheetham, p. 202, makes the point that, to most historians, "the King's guilt or innocence in the murder of the Princes is an acceptable yardstick whereby we can judge everything else he did." This is fallacious. In a murderous age, the judgment on Richard III would be based on how well he reigned -- and that would govern how people saw his treatment of the princes, not vice versa. We must look at him by the standards of the situation, not by our own: Was he better than those around him, or worse?
Having said all that as prelude, let me confess to being pro-Richard -- but also pro-truth. I truly do not know whether Richard III was a conniving schemer such as Seward portrays, or a near-saint such as we find in Kendall, though my very strong suspicion is that the truth lies in between -- probably slightly closer to Kendall, since the anti-Richard historians seem unable to distinguish their own opinions from documented facts. Unlike most authors cited here, I think our goal must be to "speak the dead" (to steal an idea from Orson Scott Card): To try to look both at who Richard was and why he did what he did. This rarely presents a simple picture, and to try to make it simple is an absolute failure. Seward would call me a portrayer of the "grey legend" -- the only version of history which treats Richard as an actual human being. I freely plead guilty.
I have tried to take all this into account in my citation patterns (though I can do this only imperfectly,because of the order I consulted the sources). For points in Richard's favor, I have cited the virulently anti-Richard Seward or Weir on the rare occasions they actually say anything useful. Since that is truly rare, I will usually end up citing the anti-Richard but sane Ross and Hicks if possible, the more neutral Jenkins or Cheetham or Cunningham if not, the pro-Richard Fields and Kendall if I must, and the extremely pro-Richard Potter as a very last resort. For anti-Richard material, I have tried to take things in the reverse order: Kendall's admission that Richard probably killed the Princes in the Tower is more meaningful than Cheetham's and Jenkins's concurrence, which means more than Cunningham's opinion on this point, which in turn is more important than the fact that Ross thinks Richard was responsible, which is more meaningful than the fact that Hicks thinks so, which in turn has more value than the irrational opinions of Seward and Weir.
As for the approach I take in what follows -- give that we *know* the Tudor historians are biased, it seems to me that we have to start with the little that we know from earlier sources. To summarize in advance: We know, to his extreme discredit, that Richard III executed several men (Lord Hastings, Earl Rivers) very abruptly and probably without trial (though Fields, p. 101, thinks that Rivers at least *did* have a trial. Seward-Richard, pp. 108-109, claims there was a trial but it had no validity). We know that he disinherited his brother's son Edward V, though he claimed legal justification. On the other hand, we know that he passed good legislation, and that he was the chief prop of his brother's throne from the age of 18 until the year Edward IV died.
THE HISTORICAL SOURCES
To understand how difficult it is to get to the root of the problem, we must look at our primary sources. (As Ross says on p. xxi, "The sheer power and endurance of the Tudor tradition, especially when consecrated by Shakespeare, makes a sober assessment of its historical value an essential pre-requisite for any consideration of the 'true' Richard.") We have a number of chronicles, letters, government documents, and passing comments, but only a few substantial narratives of the period -- and, really, only two substantial sources who were in England and near the center of things at the time of the key events: Mancini and the Croyland Chronicler. The following list describes our most important sources:
* Dominic Mancini. Although contemporary, this document was unknown to early historians; it was not noticed until 1936, when it was found in France (Ross, p. xli). Mancini, an Italian in the employ of various French officials, went to England in 1482, and stayed there until July 1483; he wrote his account later in 1483 while the information was still very fresh in his mind. His document was actually prepared as a briefing for his superiors, so he was trying to give honest information and did not engage in rhetorical tricks to try to convey an impression.
There are nonetheless several problems with Mancini. The greatest one is that he apparently was not fluent in English (Ross, p. xlii). He had to rely on secondhand information, which could sometimes be distorted. Also, it seems to me he had a slightly anti-English attitude. He is often very critical of Richard III -- but some of this may be because Richard was the dominant player of the period he was covering. Still, he has proved crucial to our understanding of the period, because, as Ross notes, p. xliii, his narrative makes it clear that Richard had enemies from the start. St. Aubyn says, p. 65, "The defects of Mancini's History... are principally those of omission. His account seldom looks beyond London.... his knowledge of English geography was inclined to be hazy and his understanding of the British Constitution preserved its mysteries intact. Throughout the whole of his History he only supplies one date, and that he gets two days wrong." Still, given his lack of personal prejudice, he is a vital source for the period he covers.
* The Croyland Chronicler. In terms of inside information, clearly our best source -- we don't know who he was (many names have been mentioned, including most notably Bishop John Russell, Richard's Chancellor), but we can be certain he was a member of Edward IV's government.
In April 1486, this unknown man (he says very little about himself except that he was a doctor of canon law and a diplomat during the reign of Edward IV) went to Croyland monastery and, over the space of several days, dictated his view of events from 1459 to 1486 (Dockray, pp. xiv-xv). These were added to the earlier sections of the chronicle kept at Croyland, so the 1486 text is technically known as the "Second Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle." But it is a much more important document than the other sections in the Croyland Chronicle.
One mystery about his work, is that it is far less detailed about Richard III's reign than Edward IV's. This is the strongest single argument against Bishop Russell's authorship: Why would Russell know less about Richard's reign, in which he stood very high in the government, than about Edward's, where he stood lower? (Dockray, p. xv, also notes that Croyland's style differs markedly from Russell's own work elsewhere.) Kendall, p. 512, suggests that there are actually two authors involved, which would explain much: Russell dictated the first part, but halted or ran out of time before he had time to describe Richard's reign, and his amanuensis padded out the account based on brief comments by Russell or simply on the information he knew from outside the government. This hypothesis is possible but does not seem to have commended itself to historians.
Croyland is thus contemporary (though dictating from memory rather than documents) and very close to the center of things. Ross, p. xliii declares Croyland "the single most important source for the reign as a whole" (Ross, p. xliii). But he can be infuriatingly vague -- although anonymous, had a Tudor investigator at the time really wanted to know who he was, said investigator surely could have found out. So Croyland clearly covered his tracks on some points (Ross, p. xlv, says "he is a cautious and politic author who... unfortunately does not always choose to tell all he knows. His judgements were often elliptically phrased and sometimes appear intentionally inscrutable"). On certain points, such as the fate of the princes, he preferred to quote gossip or hearsay evidence rather than state something definitive. Despite his likely connection with the court, his chronicle is, as Ross says on p. xliv, "distinctly hostile" to Richard. Ross on p. xlvi lists several places where Croyland plays up evidence of "deceit and dissimulation which marked Gloucester's conduct." He also had a very strong dislike of Northerners -- Richard's strongest supporters (Fields, p. 14).
There may also be a few corruptions in the text. The original has been ruined by fire, and we must rely on transcripts (Fields, p. 11). In sum, there are reasons to question particular statements from Croyland, but in general it deserves much respect.
* John Rous (or Rows) was contemporary but far from reliable. As Ross says on p. xxi, "According to Rous, Richard was an Antichrist," a claim which Rous supported by saying Richard was born under Scorpio "and like a scorpion displayed a smooth front and a vicious swinging tail" -- but, even if you believe the astrological nonsense, Ross points out that Richard in fact was born under Libra! (See also Pollard, pp. 24-25, with supporting evidence).
Cheetham, p. 198, gives a brilliant example of Rous's Tudorization of history (cited also by Ross, pp. xxi-xxii): In the reign of Richard III, Rous penned a book which calls that king "an especial good lord... in his realm fully commendably punishing offenders of the laws, especially oppresors of the Commons, and cherishing those that were virtuous." (Note that Rous's patrons were not the Commons but the nobles -- his book was about the earls of Warwick -- so praising Richard for supporting the commons was not something to win him points. This is an argument, though rather a weak one, that Richard really *did* try to protect the Commons -- i.e. the vast majority of people.)
After Henry Tudor took over, Rous wrote an edition which he dedicated to Henry, and came forth with the statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb, born with teeth and hair to (or perhaps growing from) his shoulders. (Ross, p. 139, notes the interesting fact that not even Rous calls him a hunchback; there seems no contemporary evidence for this at all). Since Rous's claim is physically impossible, I submit, it tells us nothing about Richard; it tells us only that John Rous was a suck-up (Fields, p. 8, flatly calls him a hypocrite) -- but his statements have actually been repeated by historians who claim to have been serious.
Rous seems also to have been the earliest source for the claim that Richard poisoned his wife (Rubin, p. 315; Cunningham, p. 98).
St. Aubyn actually believes Rous's waste of good paper to have "some value," but admits (p. 68) that Rous's work "appears to be based on two assumptions: that Warwick is the centre of the universe, and that the principal purpose of writing history is to please patrons."Wolffe, p. 5, calls him a "syncophantic priest," and Bennett, p. 5, describes him as "scatter-brained and malicious."
* Philip(pe) de Commynes, or Commines. A Burgundian civil servant, diplomat, and historian. Starting around 1489, he compiled a memoir of his experiences. He knew most of the major figures of the period, including Edward IV and most major French lords (he worked for Louis X; Dockray, p.xix), giving his account significant value, but as Dockray says on p. xx, "He had no first-hand knowledge of events in England; often he acquired information from others and drew on rumours circulating at the French court; and, when he finally set pen to paper, he had to rely a great deal on his own (perhaps defective) memory."
Kendall, p. 498, suggests that he had most of his information from Henry Tudor's court in exile, and accuses him of contributing to the Tudor legend. The former is likely true, but the latter I think unfair. Commynes paints an unflattering picture of Richard, but, unlike (say) Rous, he wasn't trying to flatter any Englishman; he was trying to justify himself. What he says about Richard is often ill-informed, but we can assume that he is generally telling the truth as it was told to him. And, since his work was not published until 1524, it had no effect on More or Vergil, though it influenced Hall (and hence Shakespeare)
* A fifth near-contemporary source, dealing only with the final event of Richard III's reign, is "The Ballad of Bosworth Field," cited by Ross and found in the Percy manuscript, but rarely used by other authors. Child mentions it in his notes to "The Rose of England" [Child 166] but does not deign to print it. Its value is debated; see the notes to "The Ballad of Bosworth Field."
Somehow related to the "Ballad' is "Lady Bessy" or "The Song of the Lady Bessy," which Child mentions alongside "Bosworth Field" in his notes on "The Rose of England." Child correctly calls "Lady Bessy" a more interesting piece, telling of how Elizabeth of York, Henry Tudor's future wife, calls upon Lord Stanley to bring Henry Tudor to the throne and helps weave together a conspiracy. The earliest copy dates from the reign of Elizabeth, and there is another copy in the Percy manuscript.
Child thinks "Lady Bessy near-contemporary -- but there is the curiosity that it shares verses with "Bosworth Field." One, therefore, must predate the other, and "Bosworth Field" looks older to me. My personal guess is that "Lady Bessy" was written in the time of Elizabeth I to glorify her grandmother and namesake, Elizabeth of York. This would explain much -- e.g., why the ballad describes Elizabeth of York reaching out to Henry Tudor. Why, if she is so independent, would she allow herself to be effectively enslaved by such a man? It is easy to imagine Elizabeth working to overthrow Richard III -- but why not take charge in her own right, with a compliant husband and one who might also have a stronger claim to the throne? Weir seems to be the only author to take "Lady Bessy" at all seriously.
Girffiths/Thomas, p. 115, argue that "Lady Bessy" gives a much too active role to Elizabeth of York, and suggest that the role played by Lady Bessy in the ballad was actually the work of her mother Elizabeth Woodville. This is possible -- but if it changes the role of such a key player, how can we rely on any other part of it? And how was it affected by Elizabeth Woodville's disgrace at the hands of Henry Tudor? Or her death in 1492? These questions we simply cannot answer.
The fact that this list is so short is why so many scholars continue to trust in the Tudor historians:
* Polydore Vergil. Although he worked in the Tudor court, Vergil had no direct experience of what he was writing about. He was an Italian who came to England in 1502 (Ross, p. xxiii). Henry VII some years later asked him to write a sort of official history of England. Vergil's book went back to Roman times (Vergil apparently made himself unpopular by questioning the existence of King Arthur; St. Aubyn, p. 69), but it is most important for the Yorkist and Tudor periods, since that was the only era for which he could consult any significant sources we don't have now.
Vergil began writing probably in the period 1505-1507 (Fields, p. 14, supports the earlier date, Dockray, p. xx, says "not later than" the latter; either way, contrary to St. Aubyn, p. 68, Vergil could hardly have consulted Elizabeth of York, who was at least two years dead). The work was completed in 1517 (Fields, p. 14) but not published for another decade and a half.
Ross says of Vergil, rightly, that he "was no official hack. Equally, he could not afford to be wholly detached and impartial. He has been seen in the posture of 'a modern historian of repute who undertakes to write the history of a large business firm.'" He probably tried to get good information (Dockray, p. xx, says that his handling of sources was "remarkably scholarly and sophisticated by early sixteenth-century standards"), but he inevitably talked mostly to pro-Tudor people and was exposed to (and transmitted) pro-Tudor interpretations. Unlike More, he would not fabricate -- but because of his lack of sources, uncorroborated statements of his cannot be trusted absolutely. Ross, pp. xxiv-xxv, describes him as clearly attempting to make Richard look bad -- but subtly, with careful psychological digs. (Ironic that Ross has a tendency to do this himself.)
* Thomas More. More is probably the most controversial of all the sources for the reign of Richard III, because of course he came to be famous for his integrity in the reign of Henry VIII -- and because he was by far the best stylist of any of our sources. And yet, Ross says, "Despite its author's great reputation, and the justified celebrity and wide influence of the work itself, Sir Thomas More's History of King Richard III deserves less serious consideration as a source of information for Richard's life and reign than does Polydore's Historia.... [I]t has long and with some justice been questioned whether More was seriously writing history in the modern as opposed to the classical sense of the word (i.e. drama)."
Ross, p. xxvii and following, goes on to describe More's invented details and invented speeches. Even St. Aubyn, who does not seem to realize the degree to which he has followed More, admits on p. 69 that this "most influential of early histories of Richard was also the least reliable." St. Aubyn goes on to echo Ross: "More never intended his book as history in the modern sense of the term." Dockray, p. xxi, adds that he had no first-hand knowledge of the period (he was born in 1478, and so was only five years old when the Princes vanished, and seven with Richard III died).
It is true that More studied under John Morton, Bishop of Ely (Fields, p. 16), who knew Richard -- and who was a prime move of events in the 1480s. St. Aubyn, p. 71, also mentions that the Earl of Surrey, who fought for Richard at Bosworth, was More's patron. But few believe Surrey had any part in the writing, and Morton worked hard to overthrow Richard even before Richard's usurpation really took shape (WilliamsonA, p. 76, believes him the single most significant anti-RIchard conspirator); even such parts of More's history that came from Morton were probably wildly distorted, and the rest seems to be completely un-researched. A notable feature of More is the lack of accuracy even on matters of simple fact -- e.g. his book was off by a dozen years on Edward IV's age, and it didn't know the name of the woman with whom Edward IV precontracted for marriage. The list could be vastly multiplied.
There are many curiosities about the work, such as the fact that it simply halts around the time of Buckingham's rebellion (Ross, p. xxvii). In all likelihood More abandoned it half-finished; it was found among his papers after his execution (Fields, p. 15). It was not published until 1543, and that in corrupt form; the first proper edition was in 1557 (Kendall, p. 499). It appears More began his work (which exists in slightly different English and Latin versions) in some time in the period 1513-1516.
Some have speculated that More abandoned his history because he came to realize that it was largely false. This frankly strikes me as unlikely -- he would not have come so far in preparing editions in two different languages if that were the reason. Probably he realized that it would not suit his purpose. As St. Aubyn, p. 70, remarks, "His 'History' shares much in common with medieval morality plays, in which fidelity to fact is scarcely relevant." My guess (following this idea and a hint on p. 500 of Kendall) is that More was trying to construct a guideline for what kings *should not* do, and stopped when he realized that the history was so far-out that no one (except crackpots like Seward and Weir) could take such a thing seriously ("There is no surer way to misinterpret More than to overlook his ever present irony and to accept literally what he intended as a joke," St. Aubyn says on p. 70).
Pollard, p. 120, goes so far as to say, "The clear similarities even in More's tale to the story of the Babes in the Wood, especially in the manner in which one of themurderers subsequently confessed, powerfully suggests a literary rather than factual inspiration [for More's history]."
Despite his originality and his undeniable personal integrity, it should also be remembered that More was not particularly honest or fair in his scholarly writings; Scarisbrick, p. 111, refers to the "mere assertion and jeering that is to be found in so many anti-Protestant works by Catholics, especially those of More." It is hard to understand why More is considered a significant reference -- except that it is the most anti-Richard of all the early sources.
* Edward Hall. Weir seems to like Hall a lot. But Ross, p. xxii, calls him simply the "principal plagairizer" of Vergil and More. Ross, p. xxxi, observes that Hall, who wrote in 1548, was a late source *and* writing to flatter the Tudors. What little good material there is in Hall comes from Polydore Vergil; much of the rest comes out of his head and is clearly designed to make Richard look bad (Ross, pp. xxxii-xxxiii, gives examples, including once case where Hall produces a flat-out falsehood to make his case). Hall was a primary source for Holinshed, who in turn supplied much material to Shakespeare (Fields, p. 19) -- but that doesn't make him any more accurate.
For the most part, Hall's peculiar material (I use the term in the technical sense of "things not found elsewhere") must be considered highly suspect, though he does seem to have gathered a certain amount of folklore. He is, for instance, the earliest printed source of the warning to the Duke of Norfolk before the Battle of Bosworth, which he quotes as "Jack of Norfolk be not so bold, For Dickon thy master is bought and sold" (in a curious note, Shakespeare's version of this, which begins "Jockey of Norfolk" rather than "Jack of Norfolk," is written on what is apparently the only painting of Norfolk. Ross, p. 141, and Jenkins, in reproducing the photo in a plate facing p. 112, say that the painting is probably from the sixteenth century -- meaning that it is not contemporary with Norfolk but probably predates Shakespeare. Might it be taken from an earlier painting? There is much that is curious about this painting -- the title at the top refers to the "Duke of Norfolke," but the text of the "Jockey" rhyme spells it "norfolk" -- no "e" and no initial capital, though it uses capitals for "Jockey" and "Dickon." It is also spaced strangely. I suspect the text of the rhyme may be a later addition).
It will be oberved that these sources range from the not-really-biased-but-unfriendly-to-Richard (Mancini, Commynes) to the clearly hostile (Croyland, Vergil) to the outright propagandistic (More, Hall). We have nothing telling us Richard's side -- and, as Ross notes on p. xlviii, nothing from the north of England, where Richard was best known. All Richard's positions may have been as openly specious as the claim that Elizabeth Woodville used witchcraft to lure Edward IV into marriage. But we do not know his reasons for his actions, and so we must be very careful not to fall into the trap of listening to the extremist sources when we don't know the other side.
There is one other source we should perhaps mention, the historian George Buc(k), who wrote in Stuart times (his work was first compiled in 1619, according to Pollard, p. 214). Buck was the first to attempt a serious defence of Richard. He cites several manuscript sources which can no longer be found. His material is extremely problematic. He had what we might call a conflict of interest -- his family had been attainted and ruined after Bosworth (Pollard, p. 214). This obviously makes the value of his discoveries somewhat questionable. But Buck's defence of Richard is very piecemeal, with no overall theme -- if he were inventing sources, why not create more? All that can really be said of Buck is that he presents material we cannot discount but cannot fully trust, either.
Having said all that, let's get down to the actual issues.
THE BACKGROUND: THE WARS OF THE ROSES
For a more detailed sketch of the history I am outlining here, see the notes to "King Henry Fifth's Conquest of France" [Child 164]. The story really begins more than a century before the Princes in the Tower, with King Richard II (reigned 1377-1399). Richard II was the grandson of King Edward III, who had started the Hundred Years War with France and won the great battle of Crecy in 1346; Richard II's father was Edward "the Black Prince" who had beaten the French at Poitiers in 1355. But the Black Prince had picked up some sort of disease in his travels, and died in 1376, a year before his father (Seward-Hundred, pp. 112-113). Little Richard II came to the throne as a 10-year-old surrounded by unprincipled uncles (HarveyJ, p. 152). Culturally, it was a great era -- the period of Chaucer, Langland, and the Gawain-poet (HarveyJ, p. 146) -- but politically it was difficult; the war with France, begun by Edward III, was going badly due to lack of money, and the king's uncles and many of the nobles thought that they had a quick fix to turn the war around. (Highly unlikely, but that's the way nobles thought in those days.)
Richard II did not gain power until 1387 (Seward-Hundred, p. 137), and when he finally took charge, it produced a rebellion by the nobles he had displaced. Richard managed to survive that, but in 1397 he took steps to stamp out the last survivors of the rebellion. Having done so, he tried to rule as an absolute despot (HarveyJ, p. 149, says that he insisted "upon the sacred and indissoluble nature of the regality conferred on him by his consecration"). In 1399, one of the men he had exiled, Henry of Bolingbroke, the Duke of Lancaster (hence the name "Lancaster" for his house, even though Henry, like Richard, was of the Plantagenet family) returned to England, deposed Richard II, and had himself crowned as Henry IV (HarveyJ, p. 160; Seward-Hundred, p. 142). Richard died, probably murdered, the next year.
Henry IV was a member of the royal family, and Richard II's closest relative in the male line, but not the true heir of Edward III or of Richard II. That distinction went to certain young members of the Mortimer family, descendents of Edward III's second son Lionel of Clarence by a female line (for their complicated ancestry, see HarveyJ, p. 192). Richard II had been the only surviving child of the Black Prince, Edward III's oldest son; Henry IV was the son of Edward III's third son John of Gaunt, and thus behind the Mortimers in the line of succession.
Some sources, notably Gillingham, try to deny a fundamental fact of the Wars of the Roses: That the wars were the consequence of the deposition of Richard II. He states his case explicitly on pp. 2-3, pointing out that this Shakespeare-inspired view is dramatically wrong. Unfortunately, Gillingham throws out the baby with the bathwater: Shakespeare's view of divine kingship needs to go, but not the fact that Richard II's deposition led to the Wars of the Roses.
Prior to the deposition of Richard II, English kings had been set aside, the most important example being Edward II in 1327. But Edward II had been succeeded by his son Edward III. The deposition of Richard II was the first time since the reign of Stephen in 1135-1154 that a monarch had not been succeeded by the previously-accepted heir. What is more, it was brought about by a revolution by the high magnates. This showed something that hadn't really been considered before (to twist Tacitus's observation about Galba's election to the Principate; Histories I.4): "A secret of the monarchy had been revealed, that the Barons could make a king."
Gillingham is right in part: Had the Lancastrian dynasty been successful and prolific, its illegitimate origins would surely have been forgotten, just as it has been forgotten that the Tudors were even more illegitimate. But the Lancastrians were not prolific, and Henry VI was a disaster. It was clear that he had to go. And *someone* had to succeed him. The barons had by this time been drawn into various factions, and Edward III had left many, many descendents with at least some claim to the throne. Given the certainty that a new king would have to be chosen, naturally they all tried to improve their situation by supporting their candidates. It was partisanship with longbows. The actual monarchs involved were, in some ways, almost incidental. (There is actually a board game, called "Kingmaker," produced by Avalon Hill, which makes them *entirely* incidental. They are just markers on the board. All power belongs to the nobles. This exaggerates, but it reveals the situation clearly.)
The Mortimer claim generally sat quiet for half a century, though there was one attempt to assert it in 1403 and another in 1413. But Henry IV was able to survive the attempts to overthrow him, though only barely. And his son Henry V (who came to the throne in 1413) had conquered much of France and been declared the heir to the French throne; no one wanted to depose him! Then Henry V died in 1422, at the age of 35 (Seward-Hundred, p. 188), and his heir was his son Henry VI, not yet a year old.
Before Henry VI reached the age of thirty, the English had been thrown out of France, and England was in chaos. As for Henry VI himself, he was a weakling even after he attained his majority, and in 1453 he had a nervous breakdown (Gillingham, p. 75. HarveyJ, p. 188, notes that his body was found to have a "rather small skull," whatever that tells us.
Henry's government also ran the royal finances into the ground, making it impossible to conduct the war against France or do much of anything else (Ross-Wars, p. 26, says that the debt in 1450 was 372,000 pounds, up more than 200,000 pounds from 1733, and the annual revenue no more than 33,000 pounds. Seward-Roses, p. 5, gives even more dire numbers: Henry's government by the end had income of only 24,000 pounds per year, and debts of 400,000; the royal income barely covered household expenses, with nothing left over to service the debt or provide government. Jenkins, pp. 8-9, notes how various nobles had taken over most of the government's sources of revenue, leaving Henry VI with far less than his predecessors). The Duke of York -- who was also the inheritor of the Mortimer claim to the throne -- ended up having to self-finance the war in France and his government in Ireland, something no ordinary man could possibly afford to do.
England is sometimes described as being in chaos in this period. This is exaggerated. Fighting was rare, and armies small; Gillingham, pp. 22-24, notes that the nobles were making no real attempt to fortify their lands, and quotes Commynes to the effect that England was the best-governed of the many nations he had visited (pp. 15-16, 24).Lander, p. 10, notes that no city in England suffered a prolonged siege, and none were forced to burn their suburbs. Many major towns, including Oxford, were not even fortified.
But the monarchy was non-functional. There was no question but that the government had to change: Either Henry VI had to go, or someone competent had to take charge for him. But the feeble-minded Henry had no skill to choose a minister to do what he himself could not do, and his wife Margaret of Anjou was absolutely unwilling to listen to sense (Rubin, pp. 232-233, attempts to defend Margaret. But it's an impossible task. Yes, Margaret was a strong leader, but she was not emotionally fit -- she played favorites and gave no attention whatsoever to the needs of the country. She forced nobles to be part of the court faction or the anti-court faction -- and then forced the anti-court faction into revolt).
Nor were there any immediate relatives to help out; Henry VI had no brothers, and one of his three uncles had died before Henry V, and the other two were both dead by 1447, all without issue -- Henry IV, amazingly, had had four sons, but only one grandson, Henry VI (Perroy, p. 335). Henry IV had had some half-brothers, the Beauforts, and there were quite a few of them left (including the Earl of Somerset and his heirs), but though Margaret of Anjou liked them a lot, they were neither particularly competent nor particularly popular. Their main claim to fame was that Henry Tudor was descended from them, but the future Henry VII hadn't even been born when the Wars started.
I won't bore you with the details of the first round of the civil war which began in 1455 (there are plenty of books on the subject, plus some brief notes in the entry on "The Rose of England" [Child 166]), but the final outcome was this: In 1461, Edward Plantagenet, who had become Duke of York when his father was killed in 1460 and who was the Mortimer heir (and hence the rightful king of England) as well as a descendent of Edward III's fourth son Edmund of Langley, was able to crown himself King Edward IV. He then won the battle of Towton, by far the largest battle of the Wars of the Roses, making him the master of almost all of England (Seward-Roses, p. 6).
Edward had to deal with some conspiracies in his reign, and at one time was even deposed in favor of the restored Henry VI (Gillingham, pp. 179-188; HarveyJ, p. 206), but he managed to crush all the rebellions by 1471 -- greatly helped in the final battles by his youngest brother, Richard of Gloucester.
The key battle of the 1471 civil war was the Battle of Barnet. Here we come to another of our conflicts in interpreting the evidence. Kendall, pp. 108-114, makes Richard the hero of that battle, saving Edward IV's right wing. This draws extreme criticism from Ross (pp. 21-22), who essentially accuses Kendall of fabricating the story -- yet to substantiate his claim Ross compresses six pages of Kendall's book down to seven lines of type. It is undeniable that Kendall's account is overly dramatic and detailed. But in essence it is the same as Burne, p. 257fff. The only differences between Kendall and Burne concern commanders at different parts of the front, and in fact Kendall's reconstruction is more reasonable at this point than Burne (Burne has the Earl of Warwick commanding the Lancastrian army from the left flank, whereas Kendall has him command the reserve, in the center of the army, and send it to the left flank. Interestingly, Ross-Edward, p. 167 note 2, points out Burne's error and is far less critical of Kendall). And Burne, p. 277 calls Richard "[the] hero of Barnet."
Even more ironic, Ross-Wars, p. 123, prints a map of Barnet which is without question directly derived from Kendall's of twenty years earlier.
Cheetham does not have a map of the battle, but his description of Barnet (pp. 70-71) is closest to Kendall though it does not give quite as much credit to Richard. Seward-Roses, p. 180, also gives an account much like Kendall's though he downplays the role of Richard; Seward-Richard, p. 51, questions whether Richard had actual command of the right wing, but names no alternate commander and agrees with Kendall's description of the battle.
The second battle of the conflict of 1471 was the Battle of Tewkesbury; here again Richard had command of a third of the army, so clearly Edward IV liked his performance at Barnet. And, again, Richard seems to have performed well (Young/Adair, p. 91; on page 92, they describe his performance as giving Edward "invaluable support").
It seems likely that Kendall and the others are mostly right in his praise of Richard here. Even his worst detractors regarded Richard as a great soldier -- see Seward-Roses, p. 257, who gathers the evidence of the Tudor historians on this point. Keegan/Wheatcroft, p. 262-263, declare that "Whatever the black legend of the Tudors may say of the character of Richard III, it does nothing to conceal his skills as a soldier.... Had Richard had the chance to display his military talents on a wider, European field, his miltary reputation would stand much higher." The Italian Mancini says that he was the chief prop of Edward's throne in the 1480s: "such was his renown that any difficult or dangerous task necessary for the safety of the realm was entrusted to his direction and generalship" (Fields, p. 60).
To be sure, Ross-Wars, p. 128, thinks Richard's military reputation inflated. He points out, correctly enough, that Richard's record consists of command of a wing at Barnet and Tewkesbury, control of an invasion of Scotland, and the lost battle of Bosworth. But Ross's own account reveals the relative insignificance of strategic planning at this stage. What counted was speed, good logistics, and tactical control of one's forces. Richard consistently demonstrated the first, showed the second in the invasion of Scotland, and clearly displayed the third at Barnet. The single best argument for his ability is the fact that Edward IV -- the only undefeated general of the Wars -- consistently gave Richard extremely senior posts. And it is noteworthy that the war with Scotland, although expensive, went well under Richard; once he became King and others took charge, it collapsed (Pollard, p. 159).
In the aftermath of Tewkesbury, Seward-Richard, p. 54, says that Richard "first sent men to execution without mercy" and accuses him of "his first murder." The first claim is technically true but extremely misleading. Richard was constable of England, and conducted trials of the leading survivors of the battle -- very quick trials. And they did result in executions (Young/Adair, p. 92, who note that the result was"inevitable"; Pollard, p. 51, says that "His role as constable presiding over the courts of chivalry was not exceptional, nor was the summary justice exercised unusual"). However, the chief victim of the trials was the Duke of Somerset. Somerset was unquestionably guilty of treason; he had commanded at Tewkesbury and had been a senior officer at Barnet. The penalty for treason was of course death. It is true that the traitors were executed very hastily -- but they had been taken in battle, so they certainly should have arranged their affairs earlier!
Ross-Edward, who is generally anti-Richard, barely mentions Richard in this context, saying on p. 172 that about a dozen "die-hard Lancastrians were sentenced to death and summarily executed in Tewkesbury market-place, though they were spared any of the usual indignities and given honourable burial afterwards. Not too much should be made of this incident as a lapse from Edward's record of clemency to his opponent. The victims were all men who had shown themselve irreconcilable, and nearly all had been partoned by Edward in the past, only to abuse his generosity. Given their records, they could have expected little else."
There is an illustration of the execution of Somerset in an early French translation of the Arrival of Edward IV [a chronicle of Edward's return from exile]. Ross-Wars, p. 120, reproduces it. In the foreground, looking on carefully, is a man wearing a crown, whose shield bears the quartered arms of England and France -- the tokens of the English King. It is clearly supposed to be Edward IV. There can be little doubt that contemporaries thought Edward, not Richard, responsible for the execution.
Some have argued that the capture of Somerset and his men was a violation of the right of sanctuary; they were taken from a church in Tewkesbury. This has caused much debate over the years about whether that particular building had the right of sanctuary (Seward-Richard, p. 54; Kendall, p. 529). But even if it was a true violation, the decision was Edward IV's, not Richard's.
If this tells us anything at all about Richard, it is only that he learned about justice in a very hard school, and to punish swiftly and forcefully. Lord Hastings would suffer unfairly as a result, but Richard probably was not deliberately unjust.
If you accept Seward's definition of "murder" as meaning "enforcing the law," then Seward is actually wrong about Richard's first murder, because he had in 1469 helped judge a court case resulting in a jury convicting two peers of a capital crime (Ross-Edward, p. 123). This was in a civilian court, whereas the Tewkesbury executions followed what amounts to a court-martial -- but both were legal executions of men known to be guilty of treason.
Seward-Richard, p. 55, accuses Richard of murdering Edward, the Lancastrian Prince of Wales. Kendall, pp. 528-529, cites *seven* contemporary sources as saying Edward died on the field at Tewkesbury -- and quotes them to prove it. Seward brushes this off as "very few" sources and says that, since they aren't specific, we are still entitled to think Richard killed the prince. Dockray, p. 83, is wishy-washy but says "although there is considerable disagreement in the sources, the balance of likelihood is that Prince Edward of Lancaster was killed during the action." Pollard, p. 51, says flatly that "There is no contemporary evidence to support" the accusation against Richard. And Ross, p. 22, says unequivocally that "No shred of blame can fall on Richard for Prince Edward's fate." Burne, p. 283, agrees that Edward died in the battle. We can give Seward this much: Had Edward been captured, he would surely have been executed (indeed, this seems to be what the Arrival of Edward IV says happened: Edward "was taken, fleeing toward the town, and slain in the field"; Dockray, p. 92). But even that is not murder, given that Edward was old enough to fight.
Seward-Richard, pp. 56-57, and Weir, pp. 27-28, are on slightly firmer ground in accusing Richard of the murder of Henry VI. Thomas More said he did it, the equally unreliable Rous says Richard *might* have taken part, as does Commynes (WilliamsonA, p. 35), and a London chronicle reports Henry "was slain, as it was said, by the Duke of Gloucester" (Dockray, p. 91; note the slightly uncertain language). Warkworth makes the more ambiguous statement that Richard was in the Tower when Henry VI died (Dockray, p. 86; Pollard, p. 52). The argument loses some force, though, when one notes that Warkworth says "many others" were there also.
Adding to the confusion, Polydore Vergil says Richard killed Henry with a sword (Weir, p. 28), while Seward-Richard, p. 57, says that the dagger so used was venerated in Reading Abbey in 1534. Yet a 1910 medical examination of Henry's corpse found he had been beaten about the head. This is at best peculiar -- Henry VI was an imbecile, so why beat him before killing him? One has to suspect the blows to the head were the cause of death. (To be sure, WilliamsonA, p. 34, remarks that the skeleton, when examined in 1910, was too badly preserved to allow many clear conclusions about Henry's death -- or, presumably, life).
It is curious to note that, when Richard became king, he moved Henry VI's body to a better burial site (Pollard, p. 163), and perhaps tried to associate himself with the aura of sanctity starting to gather around Henry VI (Pollard, p. 164). This aura was undeserved -- Henry was a nitwit, not a saint -- but dead kings tend to grow on people, since by being dead they are incapable of doing anything else stupid or oppressive.
Ross, p. 22 concludes, "An element of suspicion regarding his involvement in the death of Henry VI perhaps remains.... At most, however, he may have been the agent, not the director of King Henry's murder, since, as Gairdner pointed out long ago, the decision to murder another king could only have been made by [Edward IV] personally." Ross-Edward, p. 175, says that Richard may have been in the Tower, but that the decision was Edward's. Similarly Pollard, p. 55, although he thinks Richard played a role, says that "It is highly unlikely that Henry would have been killed on any authority but the king's. At worst Richard, if involved, was but Edward's agent; there is no reason at all to suppose that he personally stabbed Henry to death with his own dagger...."
The Milanese ambassador, in fact, says explicitly that Edward IV decided to get rid of Henry (Dockray, p. 94), though the ambassador's statement is weakened by the fact that he though Margaret of Anjou had also been executed. Even Weir, p. 28, admits Edward's ultimate responsibility. Kendall, p. 121, seems to think Richard brought the order but took no part in the execution. HarveyJ, p. 188, claims that Richard was "away" at the time. Dockray, p. 82, tells us of the unlikely scene of a meeting between Edward IV and Henry VI before Barnet, which implies that Edward was trying to decide what to do. On p. 83, Dockray declares, "The official version of this even in the Arrival -- that [Henry] died 'of pure displeasure and melancholy' -- can surely be discounted, while any role... Richard of Gloucester may have had in the hapless Henry's demise is far from clear: Edward IV himself, in all probability, was responsible for ordering... the death of the last Lancastrian king."
But while he was likely innocent in fact, the various chronicles prove that at least some people *thought* Richard had killed Henry, which from a public relations standpoint was just as bad as having actually done it.
Seward-Richard, p. 58, also accuses Richard of murdering the Bastard of Fauconberg, though he admits no one knows how Fauconberg -- who led an army which attacked London around the time of Tewkesbury but then surrendered -- died. Not even Weir supports this allegation; Gillingham, who devotes pp. 208-213 to Fauconberg's fight, says on p. 13 that Edward IV had him beheaded and his head placed on London Bridge; he suspects that Fauconberg went back on his pardon. Kendall, p. 121, says much the same. Ross-Edward, p. 181, says that Fauconberg was executed "probably by Gloucester, for some new offence"; in his biography of Richard, Ross simply ignores the Bastard's execution, which implies that he does not think Richard acted wrongly. What is certain is that Fauconberg was a Neville (the illegitimate half-brother of the Earl of Warwick), and it is reasonable to assume he backed his family's cause even when it was lost. (Perhaps he went north to try to gather troops?)
After Barnet and Tewksbury, Edward IV's future seemed secure. In strict line of blood, the next heir of Henry VI if one reckons ancestry from John of Gaunt was King John II of Portugal, a descendent of King Henry IV by his second wife (Ross-Wars, p. 93), but he was foreign (which often debarred a succession), and his claim was in female line. The closest thing to a Lancastrian heir among men born in England was the young Henry Tudor, who sprang from the Beaufort family -- i.e. he was a descendent of John of Gaunt by his third wife (Henry IV had been the son of John's first wife) -- but the Beaufort children, as the children of the liason with Katherine Swynford came to be named, had been born before John of Gaunt had married their mother. Henry IV, although partially legitimizing them, had explicitly barred them from the succession (Kendall, p. 185).
This disbarment is another touchy point. Jenkins, p. 14, notes that the Beauforts had been explicitly legitimized by Richard II, with no stated restrictions on their rights to the succession, and that this was done by act of parliament. Henry IV had modified this by letters patent, which could not override an act of parliament (cf. WilliamsonJ, p. 15).
But there are three points here. First, people clearly did doubt the Beaufort claim (Ross-Wars, p. 93), which makes the actual law almost irrelevant.
Second,the King *could* regulate the succession -- as late as the reign of Anne, it was generally accepted that her heir would be whoever she said should take the throne. Even more to the point, Henry VIII had put Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I all in the line of succession, even though it is nearly impossible to find an argument which makes all of them legitimate. (this is the main argument of de Lisle, p. 23, who uses it to advance a claim that the Stuarts should never have succeeded Elizabeth I).. Of course this is far later -- but Henry VIII could only claim the right because it existed prior to him
The bottom line is, the succession law had been repeatedly fiddled with prior to the time of Richard III, notably in the reigns of Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, and Henry IV himself. So Henry did have the right to say that legitimized children could not succeed, and (it seems to me) only an express act of parliament could override this clarification. And it was a clarification Richard II had not had to worry about; he still hoped for an heir at the time of his death, and in any case he had at least eight heirs senior to the Beauforts even if they were fully legitimized. He surely had no thought that they might succeed him, so they were not something he had to think about. They *were* a concern to Henry IV and his heirs, since they were Henry's closest relatives except for his sons. Despite the claim by Jenkins that that Henry IV's alteration of the succession was of dubious legality, it appears to me that parliament implicitly went along with Henry IV's restriction.
A third point is made in RicardianXIII, pp. 27-38, which lies at the heart of the whole Lancastrian claim to the throne. Henry IV, the first Lancastrian king, had known when he took the throne in 1399 that he was not the heir of the deposed Richard II. Oh, he was Richard's heir in male line, and this is usually treated as the basis of the Lancastrian claim. But although England had never had a ruling queen in 1399, it was established that claims could be trasmitted through females -- Henry II, the very first Plantagenet, had claimed the throne because he was the son of Matilda/Maud, the only child of King Henry I. So Henry IV, in taking the throne, offered as one of his claims the fact that he was descended from Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, the brother of King Edward I.
The argument used by Henry IV was that Edmund Crouchback was actually older than his brother Edward, and should have been King, but was set aside due to his disabilities. This is quite certainly false -- Edward I was the older brother. But the interesting point is, if Henry IV claimed to be king by descent from Edmund Crouchback (which, apparently, he did), then the claim came from his mother Blanche of Lancaster, *not* his father John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward III.
But Henry Tudor, note, was descended not from John of Gaunt's first wife Blanche but from his third wife, who was not a descendent of Edmund Crouchback. Thus, even if you ignore his exclusion from the succession, he failed to have *either* of the characteristics of a Lancastrian claimant -- he was not descended from Edward III in male line (since his claim came only through his mother) and he was not descended from Edmund Crouchback at all.
As Ross-Wars, p. 93, puts it, "There was now no respectable Lancastrian claimant to the English throne left alive.' (In this sense, Ross points out, the original conflict of the Wars of the Roses -- the fight between Lancaster and York -- was over.)
Henry Tudor was so remote from the throne that he didn't even really have a hereditary title, and certainly not a royal title such as a dukedom. The only thing he could claim was the Earldom of Richmond, which had been given to his father by Henry VI, but which Edward IV took away from him (Jenkins, p. 22). In any case, Henry's claim to the throne passed through his mother, Margaret Beaufort -- who was still alive at the time Henry took the throne; if you allow Beaufort succession, she, not he, should have reigned. There is *no* line of argument which makes Henry Tudor the hereditary king of England in 1485.
While Edward was relaxing his vigilance, Richard was building a power base in northern England. Pollard, p. 73, accuses Richard of being "an unsettling force in the early 1470s," and says that Edward had to work hard to restrain him. But this was not all bad. Pollard describes on pp. 74-77 how Richard built a power in the north, saying that "Within an exceedingly brief period he had risen from the distrusted interloper to the acknowledged lord of the north." He adds that "The use to which Richard put his power was largely beneficial to the north. By healing the old wounds between Neville and Neville, and Neville and Percy he removed the principal cause of the civil strife and disorder which had plagued the region since 1453."
Pollard, p. 78, also notes that, in this period, "Gloucester went out of his way to uphold the law even against his own men." He notes a great concern for justice in Richard (though he somehow doesn't view this as a virtue), and notes on p. 79 that Richard was "a benevolent lord" to the city of York; he made serious efforts ti improve the northern economy.
THE DEATH OF EDWARD IV AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REALM
Edward IV, in the latter part of his reign, almost completely ignored Henry Tudor (Ross-Wars, p. 94). With his more serious opponents displaced, Edward had time to relax and carouse -- and burn himself out. (Lamb, p. 15, speculates that Richard and Edward may have drifted apart during this period; certainly Richard seems to have avoided Edward's frivolous court when he could. Pollard, p. 83, thinks that this is exaggerated, as is the story of Richard's conflict with the Woodvilles -- but admits that Mancini reported that Richard avoided Edward's court to "avoid the jealousy of the queen.")
Edward died in 1483, after a brief and unexpected illness (Kendall, pp. 181-182). He was only 40, and had made few preparations for the succession except to name his brother Richard Lord Protector. At least, that is the general belief; Edward's will does not survive (Hicks, p. 139, Jenkins, p. 143, Ross, p. 40. Kendall, p. 539, speculates that the Woodvilles destroyed it. Cunningham, p. 32, questions whether Edward even named Richard protector; he implies that the title was claimed by Richard after Edward's death. Pollard, p. 97, observes that Croyland referred to a codicil in Edward's will but offers no details; he speculates on p. 91 that there was debate in the Council whether Richard should be protector or merely a member of the Council, and suggests that the compromise was that Richard should be chief councilor. The problem with this is that the Council had no such power of decisions -- and the contemporary witnesses all seem to have thought Edward made the declaration). Richard, unfortunately, was not present in London; he was in the North, where he was in charge of the war with the Scots.
There was every reason to expect chaos. In an attempt to cement his power in a period when the civil wars had extinguished many noble families and left others untrustworthy, Edward IV had created a few very powerful blocks of nobles, such as the Woodvilles at the court and Richard in the north (Hicks, p. 136; Dockray, p. 17, points out the fact that this was almost inevitable, because at this time there were so few trustworthy nobles. Richard continued the system -- but did not know which nobles to trust). Since Edward IV's son Edward was only twelve years old, it was inevitable that these factions started to quarrel over who would take charge. Many historians, from Mancini until the present day, have placed a large part of the blame for Richard's usurpation on the unsettled political situation left by Edward IV (Dockray, pp. 143-144).
The problem was, the court faction, the Woodville clan, was neither trusted nor trustworthy. They had no historic standing; the patriarch of the clan, Richard Woodville, had been a mere knight of no great wealth during the Lancastrian era -- the whole clan was Lancastrian. But Richard's children were very beautiful, and one of the daughters, Elizabeth, had managed to marry Edward IV in 1464 (Dockray, pp. 40-41, etc.). The methods by which she convinced him to marry her would come to be a source of great controversy.
Almost every authority agrees that the Woodvilles had risen too high too quickly -- although Ross-Edward, p. 96, notes that few of the children were given offices; they weremerely granted rich marriages. RicardianXIII includes an article by Hicks noting the seven major power blocks built up by Edward IV in his second reign (pp. 263-264): Clarence's (based on Warwick lands), Gloucester's (also Warwick kands), the Prince of Wales's, the Duke of York's, Hastings's, Stanley's, and Dorset's. Clarence's was dissolved. Of the other six, three (the Prince of Wales's, the Duke of York's, and Dorset's) were given to sons of Elizabeth Woodville, and the first of those was run by her brother. Talk about a concentration of power in Woodville hands!
Only Dockray has the slightest sympathy for the Woodvilles -- and even he admits that "the queen's family was both large and predatory; in particular, Woodvilles virtually cornered the aristocratic marriage market for a time, completing no fewer than seven marriages (all with members of noble families) by the end of 1466" (Dockray, p. 41). In Edward IV's reign, they had been limited by the fact that they were merely allied to the crown. The obvious fear was that, with a King whose mother was a Woodville, they would dominate the crown -- and use it entirely for their own ends.
Ross makes the interesting observation, p. 36, that Edward IV had "made a frontal assault on the ark of the covenant of any landowning society -- the law of inheritance." And the Woodvilles were almost always the beneficiaries. Between 1464 and 1467, the father of the clan was made Earl Rivers and appointed Lord Treasurer. Six of the queen's sisters were married to peers -- one Duke, three earls, and two barons. Her brothers were given high posts (Seward-Richard, p. 39). Rivers even managed to grab the possessions of an arrested Lord Mayor of London, and apparently was never made to disgorge them (so Fabian's Chronicle; see Dockray, pp. 47-48). It was one of the most amazing power grabs in English history, and it set the stage for what they attempted in 1483. Ross-Edward, p. 337, quotes Pugh as saying that this gave much of the aristocracy "a vested interest in the downfall of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville."
(How unpopular did all this make them? The women mostly survived, but the mortality rate among Woodville males was extremely high. Richard Woodville, the first Earl Rivers, the patriarch, was executed in 1470 along with one of his younger sons; Dockray, pp. 69, 71, 72. The second Earl Rivers, Anthony Woodville, was executed in 1483. And, of course, Edward V and his brother, whose mother was a Woodville, did not survive. Neither did one of Elizabeth Woodville's two sons by her first marriage. The Earl of Warwick's rebellion of 1468-1471 was largely blamed on resentment of Woodville influence; Dockray, p. 71.)
Pollard, p. 103, claims that Richard rode a "Woodville scare" to the Kingship, and argues that the arguments about their power were false -- the Woodvilles never put up an effective resistance. This is another example of where our sources betray us. Certainly Pollard is right that the Woodvilles accomplished nothing in June 1483. Does this mean that they were powerless? Possibly, but it does not follow. Who would know of a Woodville plot except the Woodvilles, and we no more have a pro-Woodville source than we have a pro-Richard source. We don't even have a Croyland who was an insider. Richard succeeded because he acted quickly.
Richard, note, had the advantage of being just one man. The Woodvilles were a clan -- an unusually close-knit clan, but they had no head. The senior members of the family, Earl Rivers and the Queen, were at opposite ends of the country when Edward IV died; they could not really concert plans. Elizabeth Woodville was probably surprised by the doubts cast on her marriage; she would not have known of the precontract. By the time she knew of Richard's coup, her brother was in Richard's custody; so was one of her sons by her first marriage. Edward V himself was in Richard's hands. The Woodville conspiracy, if there was one, was foiled before it could start to act. We simply cannot tell if it existed.
Ideally, the government officials should have stepped up to prevent the faction fight after Edward's death. But Edward's uncle by marriage, Henry Bourchier Earl of Essex, who had been Lord Treasurer, had died only days before Edward, leaving the govenment almost bereft of qualified administrators (Hicks, p. 138). The most experienced men left were the Chamberlain, Lord Hastings, and the Steward, Lord Stanley. Neither of these was much help; Hastings, Chamberlain since 1461 (Dockray, p. 37), had commanded a wing of the the Yorkist army at the great battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, and was captain of Calais, home of England's one regular military force -- but in practice had been more Edward's companion in carousing than his colleague in government (Seward-Richard, p. 80 calls him "not very intelligent"). Stanley, though he held his post for more practical reasons, was not a policy-maker either, since he had no cause except his own advancement.
Nor were the nobles in parliament in position to calm things down. The Wars of the Roses had decimated the higher nobility (Ross-Wars, p. 119, notes that 12 peers died and six were executed in 1459-1461, and ten were killed and seven executed 1469-1471. Five more died 1483-1485. Some of these had successors or had new lords appointed in their places, but not all). The remaining lords often were not closely tied to their people; as Saul observes on p. 441, "As a result of the long blood-letting many of the old regional lineages had been removed -- the Nevilles from Yorkshire, the Mowbrays from Norfolk and the Hastingses from the midlands. The crown stood almost alone...." Perroy, p. 341, observes, "The lord temporal, less and less numerous -- barely thirty by 1485 -- remained without any constructive program." The lower nobility had suffered badly; Ross, p. 154, says that only 26 barons were summoned to Richard III's one parliament in 1484; there had been over forty in the period 1453-1461.
The situation was even more extreme in the higher nobility. With Essex dead and his heir a grandson of about 11, Ross calculates on p. 41 that there were only eleven adult dukes and earls left in the realm in 1483: Duke Richard of Gloucester; the Duke of Buckingham, who became Richard's closest ally; Earl Rivers, the titular head of the Woodville family; the Marquis of Dorset, the son of Elizabeth Woodville by her first husband; the Duke of Suffolk (married to a sister of Edward IV); the elderly earls of Westmorland, Arundel, and Kent; and three fairly vigorous earls, Huntingdon, Northumberland, and Lincoln -- the latter being the son of Suffolk and eventually Richard III's endorsed heir. (This of course excludes the shadow Lancastrian earls such as Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond; Jasper Tudor, earl of Pembroke; and the de Vere Earl of Oxford)
Of the three younger earls, Ross, p. 55, thinks that Richard had Northumberland on his side (though certainly not whole-heartedly, given that Northumberland sat inert when Richard was fighting at Bosworth; Burne, p. 294. Northumberland would be killed by his own people as a result -- though the immediate cause was the taxes Henry VII tried to raise for a war he almost certainly didn't intend to fight; WilliamsonJ, p. 35-36). Huntingdon seems to have been a cipher, though he eventually married Richard's illegitimate daughter (Ross, p. 158). Lincoln became a supporter of Richard, but may have been hesitant at first.
Henry Tudor, incidentally, inherited the same extreme situation -- and made it even more extreme. Richard, according to Ross, p. 154, granted only four titles of nobility, mostly to men who were already titled: William, Viscount Berkeley became Earl of Nottingham; John, Lord Howard, became Duke of Norfolk; his son Thomas Howard became Earl of Surrey; and Edward, Lord Lisle became a Viscount. Meanwhile, three dukes -- Buckingham, Gloucester, and Norfolk -- died between 1483 and 1485. Thus Suffolk was the only adult duke left when Henry succeeded -- and he was not a royal duke, and Ross, p. 158, calls him "aged and ineffectual." Aged he was not, since OxfordCompanion, p. 758, says he was born in 1442 -- but he certainly kept a low profile; the OxfordCompanion calls him a "political lightweight."
Henry of course reinstated his own earls, such as the de Vere earl of Oxford -- meaning that he instantly created a near-majority in the Lords. Still, there was only one active Duke when Henry died; Halliday, p. 82. Plus, if Edward IV had violated the "covenant" between the monarchy and the nobility with his treatment of the Woodvilles, Henry made his own violations -- as when, e.g., he appointed his uncle Jasper Tudor Duke of Bedford; WilliamsonJ, p. 23. (Even stranger, Henry married Jasper to a Woodville, the wife of the Duke of Buckingham executed by Richard; RicardianXIII, p. 269). Dukedoms were supposed to belong to members of the royal family -- which Jasper was not; Henry Tudor had Beaufort blood, but Jasper did not. Being part of Henry's family was not the same thing.)
In that sense, the Tudor pretender was very lucky. He took advantage of his parliamentary strength, too, getting parliament to annul almost every land grant made since 1455, thus chopping off the Yorkists almost completely and vastly increasing his revenue; WilliamsonJ, p. 20. WilliamsonJ, p. 19, says that there were few executions and attainders after Bosworth -- though thirty hardly qualifies as "few" in my book -- but the taking of those lands had the effect of attainder, and gradually Henry would pick off his enemies. It was a cute trick: Make an outward show of mercy but don't carry it out. (Interesting how much that sounds like what the Tudor historians charged against Richard. Could it be that their own king gave them the idea...?) Even WilliamsonJ, p. 23, admits that "[the Yorkists] were adjudged to give it all back, and their mood was pardonably combative. The surprising thing is that they did not make a greater fight of it...."
Referring to Richard's assumption of the throne, Ross says ( p. 147), "Never before had a king usurped the throne with so slender a base of committed support from the nobility and gentry as a whole.... Moreoever, earlier usurpations had found some justifications as protests against misgovernment."
Gillingham, p. 242, takes this to another level, claiming that apart from the reluctant Northumberland and the captive Lord Strange, only five peers -- Norfolk, Surrey, Viscount Lovell, Lord Ferrers (whose family had been ennobled and made rich by Edward IV in 1463; Dockray, pp. 31, 39), and Lord Zouche (who was the father-in-law of Richard's close friend William Catesby, according to Seward-Richard, p. 119, but who also was a ward of the Woodvilles in his youth, according to Dockray, p. 52) -- were present with Richard at the final battle at Bosworth. This, however, seems to be an argument from silence -- Gillingham lists only peers directly stated to have been present (Norfolk because he died, as did Lord Ferrers; Surrey because he was taken captive on the field; Lovell because he was stated to have escaped; I'm not sure about Zouche).
There is a big hole in this argument -- and that's the Earl of Lincoln. He was Richard's heir, and had borne the orb at Richard's coronation (Cheetham, p. 123); if Richard lost, he would certainly lose the chance to become King, and might well be executed -- yet he wouldn't take the field for Richard? It's ridiculous. Thus it is highly unlikely that the argument from silence can be accepted, and we have to say that we just don't know who fought with Richard.
And Ross, no friend of Richard, paints a very different picture of the behavior of the nobles than Gillingham. Ross, p. 159, counts eight active earldoms at the time of Bosworth. Ross says that three apart from Northumberland (Lincoln, Surrey, and Nottingham) were certainly present at Bosworth (note that Gillingham says that only Surrey was there). Ross thinks it likely that Westmoreland was. Arundel was not, but he was old; his heir probably was present. The Earl of Kent was too old (and the "Ballad of Bosworth Field" says he was there anyway). Huntington was not present but probably worked to keep south Wales from supporting Henry Tudor. Thus only Northumberland showed active hostility to Richard -- and even he mostly just sat still (and, to give him his due, he had sat still during the wars of 1470-1471 also -- Ross-Wars, p. 89 -- though in that case, he seems not to have made even a pretense of participating in the conflict).
The "Ballad" -- which is probably one of Ross's sources -- lists as being present with Richard the Duke of Norfolk, his son the Earl of Surrey, the Earl of Kent, the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Earl of Lincoln, the Earl of Northumberland, the Earl of Westmoreland, "young Arrundell" (i.e. presumably the heir of the Earl of Arundel), and Lords including Ferrers, Zouche, Maltravers, Scroop, Dacres, Greystoke, Wells, Audeley, and at least five others whose names appear to be corrupted (or else I can't figure out the spelling). Bennett, p. 11, tentatively reconstructs several other names.
Bennett's list of those present (p. 95) is the Duke of Norfolk, the earls of Northumberland, Surrey, Lincoln, and Shrewsbury (an earldom Ross doesnÕt even admit was active at thie time!); and Lord Ferrers and Zouche, plus probably Scrope of Bolton, Scrope of Masham, Fitzhugh, Olgle, and Greystoke.
Ross also believes that a majority of the barons supported Richard; he counts at least 16 out of 26 on the King's side in parliament (Ross, p. 161). Some of these had of course been given grants by Richard, but Ross admits that "not all [were his supporters] for materialistic reasons."
In any case, Gillingham, p. 7, claims that most peers were unwilling to fight for *anyone* in this period, not just Richard. Whether this was true in 1460, or even 1470, is debatable, but the Paston Letters certainly seem to support the supposition in 1485. The Paston Letters (a trove of letters from a contemporary family of gentry) contains an appeal from the Duke of Norfolk for the Pastons to come to Bosworth (Letter #138 in the brief Oxford Paperback edition selected, modernized, and edited by Norman Davis). The Pastons simply ignored it; they did not fight for Richard, but neither did they fight for Henry Tudor. They had fought at Barnet.
Pollard, p. 171, says that it is almost certain we will never know how many peers fought for Richard. He does say that at least four Lords could not make it to Bosworth in time, and suggests that others may have come as part of Northumberland's contingent -- and hence been willing to fight but not in position to do so.
Pollard, p. 147, cynically notes that it is hard to tell which side most of the nobility really wanted to succeed: "After 22 August 1485 a veil was discreetly drawn; it was in nobody's interest to challenge the myth that they had all to a man longed for the return of their old lords." This supports the interesting note by Bennett, p. 13, that few of the lords on Richard's side were attainted after the battle. (They ended up losing lands, but that was much later, when they could no longer continue the fight.)
RicardianXIII, pp. 268-269 (an article by Hicks) gives data which gives it a different twist: In essence, all attainted lords supported Henry Tudor. Only a relatively small fraction of the un-attainted lords served Richard -- but most of them sat neutral. Except for the Stanleys, very few indeed supported Tudor.
Hicks, p. 58, makes another interesting point: when young Edward (V) was declared heir to the throne in 1471, 46 nobles -- five dukes, five earls, 16 barons, nine bishops, and 11 knights -- signed the document. 32 were still alive in 1483 when Edward IV died. Hicks thinks only Richard, Buckingham, and maybe Bishop Stillington betrayed the oath. Yet very few of the other 29 fought on the Tudor side.
In a deeper sense, though, Gillingham is right about Richard's troubles with the nobility. Even Thomas More said it: "with large gifts he got him unsteadfast friendships" (Gillingham, p. 245). Ross, p. 163, argues that "in the final analysis... Richard's political future depended upon the attitudes and loyalties of the four great surviving magnate families. They were the more important simply because they were so few."
Ross lists four of these "great magnates": The Duke of Buckingham, Lord Howard (who was made Duke of Norfolk by Richard, succeeding the extinct line of the Mowbrays), the Percy Earl of Northumberland, and Lord Stanley (at this time only a baron, though he would eventually be made Earl of Derby under Henry VII). Howard of Norfolk, the dominant power in East Anglia, had gone with Edward IV into exile in 1470 (Dockray, p. 77), and was loyal to Richard to the death. Buckingham, given great power in Wales, betrayed Richard at first chance, seemingly out of pure lust for power. Northumberland, the leading figure in the northeast, stood neutral. And the Stanley family, with much power in the northwest, had a foot in both camps but finally went against Richard. Seward-Richard, p. 116, agrees (in a passage which appears inspired by Ross, though Seward does not acknowledge the dependence in any way): "Buckingham, Norfolk, Northumberland, and Stanley, these were the four props of the new regime. They formed an alarmingly narrow power base. All were 'over mighty', with large private armies. The desertion of anyone of them could place Richard in grave peril."
(As, indeed, it turned out; the elimination of Buckingham left Richard scrambling to goven Wales. He had not entirely solved the problem when Henry Tudor invaded via Wales; RicardianXIII, pp. 172-173. For that matter, Richard was himself an example of an overmighty subject taking advantage of his might; according to Ross-Edward, p. 203, he used his power in the north to take the throne. It's worth noting that those overmighty lords weren't necessarily the richest men in the realm; Bennett, p. 30, notes that most of the nation's military might was found along the marches with Wales and Scotland -- and Northumberland and Stanley were both Marcher lords, and Buckingham had also had substantial power on the Welsh border.)
Seward-Richard, p. 73, puts it this way. "His modern defenders have made much of [Richard's] popularity in York [and elsewhere in the North]. But... they were politically negligible even though they paid good taxes and supplied soldiers. It is a cliche among historians of the Wars of the Roses that the cities took little part in the struggle. The Duke should have concentrated his energies on winning more friends among the magnates." This is unquestionably true -- though I've never quite understood how making friends with ordinary people and refusing to buy off the wealthy and powerful is a sign of moral turpitude.
It is true that Edward IV had followed a similar course in the 1460s, building up his friends and forgiving his enemies (Ross-Edward, pp. 41-42). But Edward had had more nobles to choose from -- and he was facing the incompetent Henry VI, not the unpleasant but intelligent Henry Tudor.
Last updated in version 2.5
File: LQ34A

Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34] --- Part 03


DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "The Children in the Wood (The Babes in the Woods)" [Laws Q34] --- Part 02. Entry continues in "The Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34]" --- Part 04 (File Number LQ34C)
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: THE CHARACTER OF RICHARD III
This brings us to the heart of the issue: What was Richard like? This is where the Tudor smear campaign really makes things hard.
It is now all but universally agreed that Richard was not a hunchback; see e.g. AshleyM, p. 622, Seward-Roses, p. 272 -- though Seward-Richard, p. 37, says he had a "imperceptible crookback." (Another case where the comment tells us more about the person who wrote it than the person it is written about. If it's imperceptible, then it isn't a crookback!) HarveyJ, p. 207, notes that "from his portraits he was by no means ill-looking," though Seward-Roses speaks of his "normally somewhat acid expression." Based on his paintings, this description seems correct -- except that the evidence is not contemporary and has been tainted. For this, see especially Fields, pp. 281-283. There are three early portraits of Richard. One, dated by tree rings analysis of the frame to the year 1516-1522, shows a perfectly normal man with dark hair, reasonably handsome, though his lips are tightly clenched. A second portrait, dated 1518-1523, may well be based on the first, but in its current form it is said to have been retouched to raise Richard's right shoulder and narrow his eyes (perhaps to make him look more angry). It certainly shows an asymmetric man, and it is geometrically impossible as drawn.
And then there is the third painting, the so-called "broken sword" portrait, which looks rather unlike the other two. Tree ring examination makes it likely that it was painted in the period 1533-1543. X-ray evidence shows unquestionably that it was retouched. Weir, p. 145, says that "drastic alterations were made later on, when Richard's reputation was rehabilitated [um -- when was that?], to give the deformed-looking king a more normal appearance." Fields also thinks the current version shows a more natural-looking Richard than the painted-over version. Yet Ross, p. 139, says that the painting "in which, under recent X-ray examination, there was an original straight shoulder-line, [was] later painted over to give the impression of a raised right shoulder."
Cunningham, pp. 86, 97, shows both the painting and the X-ray, as does Fields; in both cases, the left shoulder appears higher than the other but it appears to me that in the final version of the painting, Richard's right shoulder has been raised and looks unnatural. So my (casual) examination seems to reveal that Ross is right and Weir wrong, but what does it tell you that moderns can't even agree on what still-extant evidence shows? (And why doesn't someone digitally superimpose the two images to make sure?)
It is possible that there is a fourth portrait of Richard, shown in in Cunningham, p. 10; Ross-Wars, p. 83; Pollard, p. 57. The painting is of an author (Waurin) presenting a book to Edward IV, and there is in the foreground a man wearing the emblem of the Order of the Garter. It is suggested that it is Richard. The man looks far less handsome than the other portraits, but he is wearing a short, tight coat and hose, there is no evidence of a crookback or a deformed shoulder. We also have some sketches, including one by Rous, which seem to show a normal man but which are generally too hasty to mean much and which are surely not taken from life.
Kendall, p. 52, concludes that Richard's only deformity was that one shoulder may have been somewhat larger than the other -- a common condition among those trained to arms in the Middle Ages. (Indeed, Richard's great-grandnephew Edward VI had mismatched shoulders; Morris, p. 98). Pollard, p. 29, allows this possibility but adds that "no one in [Richard's] lifetime thought [he had] a physical deformity... worth reporting." Pollard does speculate that Richard may have stooped.
Oddly, there is disagreement about which shoulder had the problem -- Thomas More says Richard's left shoulder was higher (Fields, p. 277), as seemingly does Polydore Vergil (Ross, p. xxv); John Rous (who was contemporary but not close to Richard or the court) said it was the right. Kendall concludes that Richard's right shoulder was larger, while Cheetham, p. 203, follows More. Kendall may have been going by the fact that it is usually the right shoulder that was larger (see, e.g. Prestwich, pp. 137-138, describing the case of a knight whose right arm was longer than his left, based on his skeleton). Ross, p. 139, mentions the possibility of something called "Sprengel's Deformity," which limits the use of the shoulder, but given Richard's generally-conceded martial prowess, this seems pretty unlikely to me. Keegan/Wheatcroft, p. 262, declare that "the 'deformed' shoulder was, in fact, the overdeveloped arm and shoulder of an expert swordsman."
The one voice arguing the other way is Seward-Richard, p. 22, who appears to accept that Richard had a withered arm,presumably based on the fact that Thomas More said it; he speculates that Richard may have been a breech birth. On this basis, he suggests (p. 37) that Richard developed mismatched shoulders because he over-exercised his intact arm. Possible, of course, except that there is no need for the major premise of a withered arm. (I suppose we should point out that, if he did have a withered arm, it must have been his left, because his handwriting was firm and attractive.)
Fields, pp. 278-279, notes that no contemporary other than Rous reports Richard to have had any deformity; the Croyland Chronicler, who certainly knew him, never mentions it, the Great Chronicle has nothing to say of it, Mancini never describes any such thing, and Commynes, who actually describes Richard's appearance and who was very critical of Richard's acts, portrays a whole man. On pp. 280-281, Fields lists other sources who briefly describe Richards -- including the Countess of Desmond, who said that Richard was the handsomest man at a ball she attended except his brother Edward IV. The contemporary sketches -- including even those by Rous! -- show no deformities, though they are probably not intended to be accurate portrayals.
Seward-Richard, p. 85, deduces much about his appearance and character based on little evidence, but it is not unlikely that Richard was indeed high-strung and excitable. Vergil said that he would bite his lip and toy with a dagger at his belt when thinking.
Our genuine indications about his character are few but mostly positive. Pollard, p. 84, devotes much space to claims that Richard tried to aggrandize himself in the north of England -- but has no choice but to conclude that "He served his brother well." Seward-Roses, p. 257, credits him with being "impeccably loyal to Edward IV" and having much charisma, but also accuses him of "a streak of vicious rapacity." Elsewhere, Seward modifies this view: he thinks Richard feared and resented Edward IV (Seward-Richard, p. 41, where he bases this opinion on an interview between the two brothers which he admits to having simply imagined); he concedes that Richard probably also felt "deep affection" for Edward. Nearly every other source calls Richard loyal to Edward without all the rigmarole of resentment.
Curiously, Seward-Richard, p. 90, calls Richard's coup against Edward V "brilliant," but clearly regards him as a poor planner overall. Seward's conclusion on p. 91 is that Richard's coup was pre-planned, but here again he is almost alone; given the number of things Richard could not foresee in advance, pre-planning seems extremely unlikely.
Seward-Richard, p. 19, tells us that Commynes calls Richard "more filled with pride" than any other recent monarch. Commynes also reported that Louis XI of France called him "extremely cruel and evil" -- but even if you don't consider such a comment from the Spider King a compliment, it should be remembered that Richard had opposed peace with Louis's France. Louis, who would say anything, probably did. Commynes also thought Richard killed Henry VI, which is usually regarded as highly unlikely.
Wilkinson, p. 286, makes the observation, "Had he lived, Richard might have gone down in history as the first modern ruler of England." (Make of that what you may. Wilkinson does not seem to think it a compliment.)
HarveyJ, p. 206, says that "Richard was innocent of nine-tenths of the abominable charges made against him," while admitting the likelihood that he killed his nephews. He adds, p. 208, that "in many directions [Richard] gave proof of a genuine desire for conciliation."
AshleyM, p. 624, writes, "When his brief reign is viewed in the round, Richard was undoubtedly a worthy king... History... has chosen to focus on the vicious and ruthless side of his character rather than a balanced view. Richard was certainly not someone to have as either your friend or your enemy, but he was a better king than many who had come before him and many who would come after."
Jenkins, p. 205, suggests, "He was anxious about everything to make a good impression. He used the [royal] power well when he had paid its terrible price."
Cheetham, p. 202, considers Richard an enigma, while noting on p. 204 that "His loyalty to Edward IV during his brother's lifetime is beyond dispute" -- but concludes that Edward's wife Elizabeth Woodville "had valid reasons to be afraid of him."
On p. 214, Cheetham describes Richard as follows: "'Old Dick', for all his solid virtues as an administrator and his undoubted courage on the battlefield, lacked Edward [IV]'s knack of making friends. More's observation that he had a 'close and secret' nature hits on an uncomfortable truth.... The extraordinary circumstances of Richard's upbringing cannot have failed to leave their mark on him, just as they did on his brother George. But whereas George's shallow nature gave way to a mixture of paranoia and bravado, Richard became wary, self-reliant and inaccessible.... While he was Duke of Gloucester this self-reliance was a source of strength. But the King was a public figure whose words and gestures would be carefully marked."
Cheetham, pp. 204-205, also notes that Richard had a strong streak of what we would now call puritanism (the more hostile Pollard on p. 203 calls him "either a prig or... a hypocrite) -- he did father two bastard children (Ross, p. 138), but compared to Edward IV, who typically had three or more mistresses at the same time, that's pretty tame. (For a song about one of Edward's mistresses, see "Jane Shore.") Even Seward-Richard, p. 86 grants that he "does not seem to have shared [Edward IV's] taste for whoring." (WilliamsonA, p. 73, suggests that he was not puritanical but rather undersexed. Given that he did have the two bastards, however, this strikes me as unlikely. Besides, who is more likely to be a puritan than someone who doesn't understand the temptation others feel? Pollard's explanation, on p. 165, is that Richard wanted to give the same impression as the saintly Henry VI -- who, however, probably wasn't so much saintly as genetically defective.)
Mancini reports that Richard "set out to acquire the loyalty of his people through favours and justice. The good reputation of his private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers" (Fields, p. 61).
Cunningham, p. 93, confesses, "Assessment of Richard's morality is extremely difficult. His use of character assassination and defamation makes it hard to separate Richard's public presentation of himself from the private feelings he must have held. The Tudor vilification of Richard III only compounds the problem."
Ross, p. 136, thinks Richard's concern with sexual morality was a sham -- something he used as a means to attack the Woodvilles. Certainly he was always slamming their behavior in his proclamations; Ross, p. 137, says he was "the first English king to use character-assassination as a deliberate instrument of policy." But Richard certainly wasn't the first King to engage in propaganda; Dockray, p. xvii, notes two publicity pamplets released by Edward IV's government after the 1470-1471 rebellion, and Ross-Wars, p. 43, mentions Yorkist propaganda prior to the invasion of 1460; on p. 45 he quotes a popular ballad they used to influence opinion, beginning, ÒRichard duke of York,Job thy servant insigne, Whom Satan not ceaseth to set at care and disdain, But by Thee preserved he may not be slain."
Henry VII has in his own propagands, at least as vile as Richard's (according to pp. 56-57 of Russell, during Lambert Simnel's rebellion, a man was said to have blasphemed, died, and turned black; Henry therefore claimed Lollard influence on the movement and campaigned as a champion of orthodoxy. Ironic indeed for the father of Henry VIII....) His propaganda was also utterly absurd, as when he petitioned three different Popes to make his half-uncle Henry VI a saint (Wolffe, p. 4); fortunately, the Popes were not bright enough to confuse idiocy with sanctity -- or to believe anything Henry Tudor said. And having affairs before getting married was pretty much standard procedure for royal dukes at the time.
Regarding Richard's bastard children and his later sexual strictness -- I strongly suspect Richard felt guilty in his later years about the raging hormones of his youth. Realize that the two children were probably conceived when he was between 16 and 20 years old. Hicks, p. 26, says that his older child, a daughter Katherine, was married in 1484 at the age of at least 14 (meaning that she was probably conceived when Richard, who was born in 1452, was 17), and estimates that Richard's son John of Pontrefract was born in 1471 -- Richard knighted the boy in 1483 (Ross, p. 138), so it is likely that he was indeed approaching his teens. Richard did not marry until at least 1472, and apparently had no side affairs after he married.
It is interesting to note that Katherine Plantagenet's husband, Richard Herbert, eventually seems to have been fairly friendly with Henry VII (RicardianXIII, pp. 170-171)
In connection with Richard's strait-laced behavior, we note that Sir William Stanley, who was a generation older than Richard and who would betray him, called him "Old Dick," as if the king were uninteresting in his lifestyle (Cheetham, p. 208). Ross, p. 19, mentions that, though Edward IV built up a significant library of romances, Richard's (rather smaller) library features no such light reading; the few books we know of seem to be mostly religious in nature (Ross, pp. 128-129, though Rubin, p. 316, says that he also had a copy of Geoffrey of Monmouth, which he annotated with his own hand. Geoffrey is almost pure fiction, but it seemed to describe ideal kings, and the annotations seem to imply that Richard wanted to be a good king of a peaceful land. Pollard, pp. 206-209, shows samples from several of Richard's books -- and notes that they were generally not heavily illuminated. Although this is heavily debated, this probably means that Richard actually read them, rather than showing them off; he was trying to learn, not make an impression).
Seward-Richard, p. 85, says that we know little of his personal tastes, though he argues that Richard was fond of fancy clothing and on p. 86 offers evidence that he was very fond of hawking.
Ross does give a list of rather sharp real estate dealings on Richard's part on p. 31. It is hard to deny that he used all the tricks available to him for his own advantage -- but this was standard operating procedure at the time (and Fields, p. 47, offers evidence that some were not necessarily unfair to the other parties). Ross, p. 29, observes that contemporaries thought the action in the case showed just how intelligent Richard and his brothers were. Even Ross, p. 128, says that "there is no good reason to doubt that Richard was a genuinely pious and religious man" though he is not convinced that Richard was very clever.
There would come a time when Edward IV would condemn his middle brother, George of Clarence, to death for treason. (And there isn't much doubt that the charge was valid -- George had been part of the Earl of Warwick's 1470 rebellion, and Edward had forgiven him for that, but George kept on conspiring.) Ross, pp. 32-33, declares that the contemporary sources all held Richard innocent in this, and that some say he was sorely grieved. Yet Ross on p. 33 concludes that Richard almost certainly had a hand in the overthrow of Clarence. His evidence for this is that Richard gained much in the apportionment of Clarence's lands which followed, plus a statement by More that Richard "secretly... lacked not in helping forth his brother Clarence to his death, which he resisted openly" (Dockray, p. 107). Dockray, p. 97, agrees with this and believes that Richard helped pack the parliament which condemned Clarence. Mancini, on the other hand, declares that Richard vowed revenge on the Woodvilles for bringing Clarence down (Lamb, p. 15).
Kendall, of course, makes Richard seem a near-saint. Weir makes him a pure demon intent on seizing the throne "as soon as possible." The only thing good to be said about Kendall's view is that it makes more sense than Weir's.
Richard seems to have had a genuine fondness for music, including secular music and dance; several bishops expressed disapproval of the sort of music he permitted at his court events (Ross, pp. 141-142; the clerics involved seem to have regarded it as licentious, but that probably just means it involved dancing and didn't have religious themes).
One point is rarely mentioned by the controversialists. They seem to think they know Richard III personally. But they did not. Neither did Thomas More. Edward IV did. And Edward IV entrusted Richard with his son. Mistakenly, to be sure, but could Richard really have fooled his older brother for more than thirty years?
Also, if it be charged that Richard III seems to have wanted power -- there isn't much doubt of that. (Most barons at this time did!) But consider this: In 1483, when Edward IV died, Richard was no worse than #9 in line for the throne, and probably higher. Henry Tudor stood at least three spots lower (behind Richard, Richard's son, and Henry's own mother), even if you discount the Beaufort illegitimacy. (It is interesting to note that, though Henry VII pretended to hereditary right, the act of parliament declaring him King asserts no such thing; WilliamsonJ, p. 19. It in effect says, Look, he's king now and we aren't going to fight it. Or, as Russell says on p. 69, Henry VII "had shown that the only indispensible condition for possession of the throne was power," and Henry, unlike Richard, would let no hint of mercy or justice interfere with his possession of that.)
WilliamsonJ, p. 18, allows that Henry's claim came through the Beauforts, and grants that "On the most favorable interpretation the Beaufort claim was not the best of the existing claims to the throne.... The Beaufort claim was therefore the Lancastrian claim, strong in history though weak in law." Yet Henry could not logically call himself the Lancastrian claimant, because Lancastrian rule was based on succession in the male line, and Henry Tudor's claim came through his mother. In male line, Edward IV was the heir of Henry VI and his son, and then Edward IV's sons, and then George of Clarence and his son (barred by attainder), and then Richard III. There were *no other descendents of Edward III in male line*. None.
And if you ignore all that -- well, Henry's mother was still alive, so she surely came before him in line. And Henry Tudor was actually of dubious legitimacy on both sides -- supposedly his paternal grandfather, Owen Tudor, had married Katherine of France, the widow of Henry V, but no proof was ever offered (Cheetham, pp. 132-233). The children of this match, including Edmund Tudor the father of Henry VII, were ennobled by Henry VI -- but not due to any hereditary claims to a place in the English peerage. (They might have had claims to *French* titles -- after all, they were the nephews of Charles VII -- but they certainly never attempted to gain any.) So which one was madly ambitious -- Richard of Gloucester, who had a good claim to the throne, or Henry Tudor?
This is not to deny Richard's ambition, which is undeniable, nor to justify it. It's just to show that the choice at the time was Richard, or a government led by Edward V and dominated by the wildly ambitious Woodvilles, or a goverment led by the wildly ambitious Henry Tudor. Of the three, only Richard had demonstrated any sort of competence, and also had the best record of "public service."
And ambition did not make a bad king. Quite a few English kings other than Richard openly conspired in one way or another to take the crown -- starting, of course, with William the Conqueror. Of those who followed him, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, Henry IV, Edward IV, Henry VII, and William III all took direct action to attain a crown that was not automatically theirs. Stephen and John are usually accounted bad kings, and Henry IV, Edward IV, and Henry VII are debated, but Henry I, Henry II, and William III are usually considered good kings by English historians.
Nor -- and this bears emphasizing -- was usurpation an uncommon thing. In the fifteenth century, as Pollard points out (p. 172) there were *four* usurpers -- presumably Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII. One could even argue for a fifth, the re-enthroned Henry VI. I've seen it argued that usurpation was only justified when the previous king had proved himself incompetent, and that Edward V never had the chance to prove himself one way or the other. But, by this token, then Henry VII must also be treated as unjustified; what little evidence Richard gave in his two years on the throne indicates that he would have been a good king.
Pollard concludes, p. 203, that ther were "profound contradictions in Richard's behavior, and perhaps, therefore, in his personality."
If you want my guess, it appears to me that Richard had a soldier's sort of impatience. (If the Yorkists collectively had a fault, it was an inability to control their lusts: Edward IV never controlled his desire for women and pleasure, George of Clarence never controlled his lust for the throne, and Richard seemed never to curb his lust for some sort of action.) He didn't like hanging around court, and he didn't like waiting for the slow wheels of justice (even though justice at that time was swift compared to today). This matches Croyland's assessment that he "never acted sleepily, but incisively and with the utmost vigilance" (Pollard, p. 190). Pollard agrees (p. 191) that Richard's "[i]ntelligence, alertness and decisiveness are not much in doubt." Whatever the problem, he leapt in and solved it (just witness the way he died! -- the one and only thing Shakespeare seems to have gotten right in "Richard III." WilliamsonA, p. 151, suggests that in his decision to charge Henry Tudor we sense "a crisis of temperament, the rage of a man who had shown rage before"). So he executed men like Lord Hastings and Earl Rivers without trial rather than wait for a court decision (Seward-Roses, pp. 258, 265-266).
I find myself wondering if some of Richard's tendency to rush to judgment might not be the psychological trauma of his childhood; he was born around the beginning of the Wars of the Roses, and by the time he was ten, he lost his father, an older brother, and an uncle, and had been repeatedly forced to flee home (cf. Cunningham, pp. 3-4). Ross, p. 23, adds that, by the time he was 18, he had seen brutal executions carried out on many occasions, either *of* people he loved or *by* people he loved: Margaret of Anjou had executed his father and brother in 1460; Edward IV had executed many in 1461; the Earl of Warwick, who had had charge of Richard's education in the 1460s and whose daughter Richard would later marry, had engaged in mass executions in his 1469-1471 power grabs; and Edward IV had ordered more executions in the aftermath of Warwick's rebellions -- including, eventually, George of Clarence, who was Edward and Richard's own brother.
Even Seward-Richard, p. 60, admits that Richard "never had time to be young" -- though few people at this time did have a childhood as we would now recognize the term. Still, most children merely found themselves farming in the fields or learning weapons by the age of eight or so; they were not subjected to the sorts of wrenching changes of fortune Richard faced.
Richard's brutality was hardly exceptional; Seward-Roses, p. 7, notes that in 1460-1461 alone eighteen peers died in battle or were executed; in the course of the Wars of the Roses, no fewer than twelve senior members of the Royal Family died. There is a report that, after Towton, 42 Lancastrian knights were beheaded. Seward claims that some 60 were attainted.
Richard's overall record was one of surprising mercy. Consider the first serious rebellion faced by Richard, that of the Duke of Buckingham,. Buckingham's rebellion was widespread and featured a man who had every reason to grateful to Richard -- Ross, p. 114, observes that no one at the time could figure out why Buckingham rebelled, since Richard had made him the most important man in the kingdom (he had been the richest noble in England even *before* that, and his lands would be used to endow many nobles after his death, according to Cheetham, p. 160).
Pollard, p. 91, notes that Buckingham was kept out of the government during Edward IV's reign, and conjectures that it was because Edward sensed that he was very ambitious. Similarly Ross-Edward, p. 335, who notes that Buckingham was not even allowed to participate in Edward's invasion of France. But, even if true, we don't know what Buckingham was ambitious *for*. Moderns have no more idea of what Buckingham was thinking than did his contemporaries. Cunningham, p. 52, speculates that the wily John Morton, Bishop of Ely, talked him into it, but while Morton had a mind more twisty than a snake with a broken back, that can't really explain what Morton offered him. Buckingham was descended from Edward III in two lines, but no matter how you look at it, he was pretty far down -- in the Beaufort line, he trailed Henry Tudor, and in the true Plantagenet line, he trailed not only Richard III but also all of Edward IV's surviving sisters and their children. Nonetheless, Cunningham, p. 104, concludes that he must have been trying for the throne, since there was nothing else he could aspire to.
More, who on this topic might have inside information from Morton, seems to imply that Morton worked to convince Buckingham to rebel, possibly tempting him to take the throne himself. But More's account breaks off just as things might have gotten really interesting (WilliamsonA, p. 100).
WilliamsonA, p. 84, does note that Buckingham's wife was the sister of Queen Elizabeth Woodville. Most historians think the marriage -- which was forced upon Buckingham -- was unhappy, but Williamson thinks Catherine Woodville might have brought him back to the family alliance. But why, then the alliance to Henry Tudor? Why not back the princes? Even this explanation is hard to fathom.
Bennett's suggestion (pp. 47-48) was that Buckingham thought the rebellion would succeed, and wanted to be among the winners. The problem with this is, Buckingham himself was by far the strongest supporter of the rebellion. Yes, the plotting probably preceded him -- but had he been devoted to suppressing it, it would surely have failed. He must have wanted it to succeed.
Though I have never seen this stated, it's possible that Buckingham's ambitions explain one of the contraditions of Richard III's usurpation: Was the official party line that Edward IV was illegitimate, or that Edward IV's children were illegitimate? For Richard, it was easier to argue that the children were illegitimate -- but, for Buckingham, it was better that Edward IV and all his siblings were bastards.
If you set aside all of Edward IV's siblings, and considered the Beaufort/Tudor connection to be barred by illegitimacy, then there was hardly anyone left senior to Buckingham in the line of succession. There were a few foreign descendents of John of Gaunt in the female line (doubly suspect because they were foreign and female), including the heiress of Burgundy, the King of Portugal, and the famous Queen Isabella of Castile (Fields, p. 153; cf. Mattingly, p. 25, who speculates that the wedding of Henry VIII with Catherine of Aragon was arranged partly to bring in her Lancastrian blood),but among residents of England, I see only Henry Bourchier, the grandson of the Earl of Essex and Richard III's first cousin once removed, who was only about 11 years old. Buckingham could surely have had him set aside, too.
So Buckingham could, perhaps, have been involved in a truly grand conspiracy: Use Richard III to eliminate all the Yorkists except Richard himself; used Henry Tudor to eliminate Richard III, and then let Henry Tudor's illegitimacy eliminate the Tudor (compare Cheetham, p. 136). Or maybe Buckingham planned to knock off Henry and argue that he was the next heir of the Beaufort line; Seward-Richard, pp. 90-91, seems to think this was Buckingham's primary idea. Most of this scheme worked, except that, ironically, Buckingham showed his hand too soon and wasn't around to pick up the pieces.
Had this been true, Richard could really have gone on a witch hunt. Many of the rebellion's leaders were in Richard's hands. Richard considered Buckingham ungrateful, and he was executed (Ross, p. 117). But few others suffered so; the rebellion resulted in "less than a dozen executions" (Cheetham, p. 211). WilliamsonA, p. 108, says that Henry Tudor, the Marquess of Dorset (Elizabeth Woodville's son by her first marriage), two Woodvilles, and Bishop Morton of Ely and the Bishop of Exeter were attainted, plus a few knights -- but many of them lived.
Even Ross, p. 117, admits that "few paid for their treason with their lives," though he adds (p. 119) that "none of the men pardoned in 1484 and 1485 was ever restored to the commissions of peace in his native county." (This is at least partly false, given that Lord Stanley retained his power, but it may have been generally true. Still, that's only two years!) Ross does add (pp. 119-120) that several of these men lost estates, which Richard arbitrarily re-granted to his supporters. Ross is probably right in thinking that this cost Richard some support -- but it happened in every regime of this period. Richard did not take any real action against Buckingham's young son -- he was executed by (ahem) Henry VIII, seemingly just because he was the leading descendent of Edward III who wasn't directly linked to the Tudors (WilliamsonJ, pp. 98-99).
We might note also that, when Richard had invaded Scotland in 1482 at Edward's orders, he had Edinburgh at his mercy -- but he did not burn it, as other English invaders had done (Ross, p. 47). The Croyland Chronicler was rather sarcastic about this act of humanity (Dockray, p. 114), though Edward IV officially told the Pope that Richard had "spared the supplicant and prostrate citizens" (Dockray, p. 118). This at a time when captured cities could expect to be sacked. Richard, in fact, must have had very good control of his men to have been able to keep them from wrecking the place. (Of course, that control could come from respect or from fear.)
Even at the end, at the Battle of Bosworth, Richard shows signs leniency. Lord Stanley, at that battle, refused a peremptory order to join his forces with Richard's. Lord Strange, Stanley's son, was in Richard's camp, and tried to escape. He was caught. Richard sent Stanley another order, on threat of Strange's head, and Stanley declared he had other sons.
Despite this, Strange was not executed. (It's not quite certain what Richard actually did. Jenkins, p. 213, says Richard did not order the execution. though Wilkinson, p. 304, thinks Richard did order him executed, and his subordinates refused to carry it out. Cheetham, p. 191, splits the difference: "Either because Richard retreated when his bluff was called, or because his orders were disobeyed, Lord Strange survived his ordeal." Potter cites "the legend" as saying Strange's execution was ordered but postponed; the "legend" seems to be the "Ballad of Bosworth Field," which implies that Richard was willing to let Strange's fate be decided by the battle). Strange in fact, died in 1503 of what was said to be poison (AshleyM, p. 584). But note that it doesn't matter what Richard did; what matters is that, clearly *Stanley did not expect Richard to execute Strange*, or he would not have said what he said.
Quite frankly, Richard's clemency would in the end would cost him. (Fields, p. 92, mentions his "surprising leniency, a characteristic of Richard that was sometimes foolish and even reckless. Pollard, p. 148, has a more cynical explanation: Richard thought it safer to have Stanley in the government than out of it. But why, then, turn him loose when Henry Tudor invaded?) Seward-Richard, p. 75, makes the grim jest that Stanley was an "outstanding security risk," who would go on to help kill Richard. Stanley would not have been around to betray him had Richard not forgiven him earlier. Richard's soft treatment of Stanley is particularly surprising given that they may have had disputes over property as early as c. 1470 (Pollard, p. 47). Bennett, p. 76, thinks Richard had spared Stanley in 1483 because he "feared him more than anyone." But surely it would have been safer to eliminate Stanley in, say, 1484, than to not know what he would do at Bosworth!
Of course, what people really condemn Richard for was killing Edward V and Richard of York. Not that it was unusual to get rid of deposed kings. Edward II was murdered. So, in all likelihood, was Richard II. Henry VI was eventually disposed of. All of them, it is true, were adults -- yet the saintly but half-witted Henry VI was no more responsible for his actions than was the underage but intelligent Edward V. And don't forget that Henry VII would trick the Earl of Warwick -- another mentally fragile Plantagenet -- to justify executing him, and eventually Henry VIII would execute the Countess of Salisbury (Warwick's sister) on even feebler grounds. Don't forget, too, that Henry VII was trying for the throne even before Edward IV died, so he would also unquestionably have killed the princes.
Ross, p. 127, concludes, "Past discussions of Richard's character and ability as king of England have always been bedevilled by the problem of his motivation. Confronted by the paradox between a man apparently capable of ruthless political violence, indeed infanticide, [sic. -- Richard of York, his youngest possible victim, was about nine] on the one hand, and a seemingly beneficent, concerned, and well-intentioned monarch on the other, Richard's critics and detractors have had no hesitation in seeking a cynical explanation."
The real problem was that the situation in 1483 put Richard, and many others, in an impossible position. Ross-Wars, p. 94, admits "Probably it was fear for his own safety and future which inspired his action, rather than any deep-laid plan or the determination 'to prove a villain' which Shakespears and the Tudor tradition attributed to him." The problem arose when Edward IV died young in April of that year.
THE USURPATION
When Edward IV died, his son Edward V was only twelve years old. So how was England to be governed until Edward V came of age? This was the question which destroyed both Edward V and Richard III
Even Edward V's youth might not have mattered had he not been in the hands of his mother's family, the Woodvilles, who had already shown that they placed their own interests ahead of England's; if they were allowed to dominate Edward V, even pro-Tudor scholars generally agree it would have been disastrous. And even anti-Richard historians agree that they had been given far too much power -- they dominated Wales as part of the entourage of Edward V, who was of course Prince of Wales. The younger of Edward's sons, Richard Duke of York, had also been given the Dukedom of Norfolk when he had been married to the young Anne Mowbray. Anne had since died, so Richard should have lost the title, but Edward IV had never rescinded it, giving the Woodvilles power in East Anglia.
As Ross-Edward says on p. 103, "Edward had created a real risk to the future political peace of his realm in allowing his heir to be surrounded by Woodvilles from infancy, educated under their guidance, and necessarily under their influence. When Edward died prematurely in April 1483, the likelihood of a regency dominated by the queen's unpopular family was a prospect which recommended itself to no one." Nor had he built a useful circle of internal or external allies, because of the way he handled his own childrens' marriages; as Ross-Edward observes on pp. 246-248, Edward seemed to be letting monetary considerations determine all his alliances. Had Edward lived longer, it might not have mattered, but his early death meant that his daughters, who had been expected to marry kings, "had to be content with an earl, a viscount and a gentleman, a kinght and a nunnery" (Ross-Edward, p. 249).
Give the chance to overcome their reputation the Woodvilles blew it after Edward's death, Instead of addressing the real problems, simply moved quickly to gain control of the prince and set Richard of Gloucester aside -- they didn't even send messages to tell Richard that Edward IV was dead! (Jenkins, p. 143; Kendall, p. 193. Seward-Richard, p. 88, conceals this by saying that a messenger from Lord Hastings brought the message), and scheduled a very premature coronation for May 4 (Kendall, p. 196; Jenkins, p. 180, notes the irony that, when the time came, Richard himself would rush his own coronation to prevent any sort of rebellion or demonstration). They also seized the royal treasure and put a fleet to sea under their command (Ross, p. 65). The only thing that made it appear anything less than a coup d'etat was the fact that they were of course loyal to the new King.
The Woodville-dominated council decided immediately after Edward IV's death not to give Duke Richard broad powers as protector (Hicks, p. 139; Ross, p. 65). One council member, the Marquis of Dorset -- one of Queen Elizabeth Woodville's sons by her first marriage -- went so far as to declare "We are so important that even without the King's uncle we can make and enforce our decisions" (Ross, p. 68; Lamb, p. 18). This even though, with Edward IV dead, they had no official role. Yet the Council sent out messages in the name of the Queen, without mention of Richard -- as if Elizabeth Woodville were regent, even though Parliament had not met (Lamb, p. 18).
The non-Woodville members of the council reportedly acted as it did out of fear that Richard of Gloucester would usurp power -- and so they responded by helping the Woodvilles grab it instead (Cheetham, p. 102, based on Mancini). It was a truly stupid move. It was also, in effect, a declaration of war on Richard. The Woodville plan seems to have been to crown Edward V, have him open a hastily-summoned parliament, and put themselves in complete control (Hicks, p. 147). They wanted Edward V to reach London no later than May 1.
Despite the panic in London, no one away from the capitol seems to have worried too much about the aftermath of the king's death. Things might have been different had the royal party set out for London at once. But Earl Rivers did not leave home with his nephew until probably April 24 (Kendall, pp. 195-196; on p. 540 he says the exact date is uncertain but most authorities seem to agree with his chronology). True, he had been requested to bring 2000 soldiers with him. But he could probably have set out quickly, gathering soldiers as he went; instead, he sat.
Once he heard of his brother's death, Richard gave overwhelming evidence of grief, according to Jenkins, p. 146, and Seward-Richard, p. 93.
The chronology here is murky. Edward IV died on April 9, 1483 at the age of 40 (Dockray, pp. 143-145, citing Croyland; it appears no other source gives the exact date). Seward-Richard, p. 88, says that the message from Lord Hastings reached Richard two days later. Kendall, p. 183, says it was "mid-April." Neither one documents their date. Some time not long after, word reached Richard from Hastings that the Woodvilles were taking charge. Seward-Richard, p. 92, seems to imply it happened almost at once; Kendall, p. 194, seems to imply a longer time. Seward-Richard, p. 93, has Richard at York on April 20, grieving for his brother.
Some time soon after that, a message from the Duke of Buckingham reached Richard, offering to bring a large force (Seward-Richard, p. 93). Richard told him to bring only 300 men, and to meet him at Northampton, where they would meet the King and Rivers.
Rivers had, by that date, made it to Stony Stratford, somewhat beyond Northampton. But Rivers himself returned to the town to meet Richard on April 29. There the Duke of Buckingham joined Richard -- and Richard, for reasons we can only guess, went from grief-stricken brother to man of action.
Had there been a battle, Rivers would surely have won; Rivers was supposed to have gathered 2000 men, whereas each duke, according to Kendall, p. 195, had only 300 retainers, while Ross, p. 74, credits them with only 500 combined. But there was no battle over the prince (Ross, p. 94, says there was "violence," but what he means is "swift action"). Richard managed to get Edward V out of the Woodville clan's hands (Seward-Richard, pp. 94-95, says he surrounded Rivers's hotel with his men), and to put Rivers and others of his party in custody (though, ironically, he sent Rivers a dish from his own table at the time).
It tells you something about the internal conflicts of this period that, the moment she heard Edward V was in Richard's hands, Queen Elizabeth Woodville took her other children and fled into sanctuary (Jenkins, p. 151; Seward-Richard, p. 95; Hicks, p. 145 notes that the Woodville faction made no attempt to negotiate. They just checked local opinion, found it was against them, and ran).
Jenkins, p. 147, thinks the maneuvering by Richard shows how hard the Woodvilles were fighting him, but I'm not sure this follows. Although the other three Woodville brothers "were hated by everybody" (Seward-Richard, p. 79). Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers, who had custody of Edward V, was a bit different. Seward-Richard, p. 79, calls him "chivalrous, cultivated and travelled, a patron of letters, something of a mystic, and even a poet." Jenkins, pp. 168-169, notes the graciousness of his last will, which left large bequests to charity and did nothing which would have supported the Woodville cause, though Hicks, p. 126, accuses him of what we would now call real estate fraud and Ross-Edward, p. 98, reports that he made strong use of his rights as governor of the household of the Prince of Wales.
Ross, p. 69, Cheetham, p. 123, and Kendall, p. 204, all report that Rivers wore a hair shirt under his robes. He seems to have been driven by a strong and rather mystical piety (ironically, much like what we see in Richard III's surviving library and writings). I would add that Woodville's Sayings of the Philosophers was probably the first book from an English author printed in England; Caxton published it in 1477. Most English nobles at this time were literate -- Richard III wrote a beautiful secretary hand, though Edward IV had a pretty sloppy signature and Edward V's writing was rather stiff -- but few were scholars enough to compile a book like Woodville's.
Percy's Reliques, in fact, prints a poem by Rivers (as preserved by Rous, and supposedly written shortly before his execution); it is given under the title "A Balet by the Earl Rivers," and begins
Sumwhat musyng, And more mornying,
In remembring The [=Thy?] unstydfasness;
This world being Of such whelyng,
Me contrarieng, What may I gesse?
(Reprinted on pp. 48-49 of volume II of Percy/Wheatley.)
Cheetham, p. 123, speculates that this is precisely why Richard killed Rivers: he was "the one member of the [Woodville] family whose talents and popularity might have redeemed the greed and cruelty of his kin and threatened the ascendancy of his executioner."
Opinion in London at the time was apparently mixed, with the citizens fearing the coming of the Dukes. Richard managed to calm almost everyone (Seward-Richard, p. 96) -- except, of course, the Woodville faction.
Keep in mind that if the Woodvilles had reason to fear Richard, Richard had reason to fear them as well (even Seward-Richard, p. 81, admits this point). *Someone* had instigated the treason trial of George of Clarence, and it probably wasn't Edward IV (since he had hesitated long to sign the actual death warrant; Fields, p. 57, though Dockray notes on p. 97 that most sources say Edward was responsible for the whole thing). Almost everyone thinks the Woodvilles had pushed Edward into it (so Mancini; see Dockray, pp. 97, 102 -- though Thomas More, as Dockray puts it, accuses Richard of "conniving at" the execution). If the Woodvilles were willing to kill one of Edward IV's brothers, why not two? And there was the disturbing precendent of Humphrey of Gloucester, who had been Protector during Henry VI's minority: It was widely believed that his death in 1447 had been the result of murder (Fields, p. 73, and see below).
As Ross says on pp. 72-73, "The volte-face at Northampton and Stony Stratford is a key event in the history of Richard's usurpation, since for the first time the Woodville group was now deprived of the initiative. But it was very far from solving Richard's problems. When the news reached London on the night of 30 April-May 1, it produced consternation. The queen, taking her younger son, Richard of York, and her daughters with her, at once withdrew to sanctuary in Westminster Abbey, a clear indication of how little confidence she had in Richard's good faith. The Woodville group contemplated raising an army to recover the king by force, only to find it did not command enough support."
Elizabeth probably expected to stay in sanctuary a while; the history of Thomas More reports that she took so much stuff that they had to do some sort of reconstruction on the building to get it all in (Jenkins, p. 151; Poole, p. 6). Everything in More must be taken with a grain of salt, of course, but there is sense to this; she had fled to sanctuary once before (during the 1469-1471 rebellion against Edward IV -- Edward V in fact had been born there) and had found it an uncomfortable experience. This time, she would be ready. It's barely possible that she saved her life by fleeing, but what is certain is that by this act she "declared war" on Richard and his allies (Jenkins, p. 156). She had, in effect, said, "Either you or I rule the King" -- and Richard was "in possession." And he didn't look threatening; he had always been loyal to Edward IV (Bennett, p. 54, declares that "even in retrospect it is impossible to find evidence of any higher ambition" during Edward's reign), and he arrived in London with only a small escort (Hicks, p. 146).
The dowager Queen's behavior clearly put Richard in a bind (though neither he nor she may have realized it at the time). As Pollard says on p. 98, "Whatever their relationship before April 30, there can be no doubting the animosity between Richard and the Woodvilles thereafter." If the young King were allowed to rule with his mother's family at his side, their administration would very likely prove incompetent (since the only actual skill the Woodvilles had demonstrated was a keen ability to be social climbers) -- and Richard would be in grave personal danger, since they clearly distrusted him (Mancini in fact said that she and her family had driven him from the court, though Dockray, p. 98, questions this). For his own and the nation's survival, Richard probably needed to cement his power. (Indeed, Hicks, p. 148, thinks he executed Earl Rivers, Lord Grey, and Sir Thomas Vaughan -- associates of Edward V -- so hastily because, if Edward were crowned, Richard would no longer be Lord Protector and they could safely move against him.) As Ross says on p. 80, "No one familiar with the Woodvilles could have looked forward to gentle forgiveness."
It would be hard even for him to retreat to his lands. Although he had significant holdings as Duke of Gloucester, a very large portion of his wealth came through his wife, the younger daughter of the Earl of Warwick -- and some of that was in a strange legal position; he could only hold it as long as his wife's cousin was alive (Cunningham, p. 20; apparently this had to do with the fact that the boy George Neville, the son of Warwick's brother the Marquis of Montagu, was the heir of Warwick in male line. Pollard, p. 68, says that the arrangement was to protect more distantly related Nevilles: Richard could only keep the inheritance as long as the actual line of Neville traitors was alive). And George Neville in fact died soon after Edward IV (Cunningham, p. 36).
Cunningham therefore thinks that Richard may have been worried about his own and his son's position -- he would still hold the Gloucester dukedom, but Edward V, once he came of age, could take all his authority in the north away. This would effectively leave Richard without a power base. Similarly, if his wife died, many of his lands in the north would be lost. And Pollard, p. 85, speculates (while admitting that he had no "direct and irrefutable" evidence) thinks that Richard may have been financially overextended.
And Edward had handed Richard an office that had a history of being a very hot potato. In living memory, there had been two Protectors, both for Henry VI. Humphrey of Gloucester, the king' uncle, had held the post when Henry VI was a boy. Later, when Henry went insane, Richard of York (the father of Richard III) had held the post. Neither had survived. Humphrey had not been a great protector, but he hardly deserved his arrest in 1447 which led to his death (Rubin, pp. 231-232, though she gives the date of his death as 1448; Seward-Hundred, p. 246). Richard of York had governed reasonably well while in power (Gillingham, p. 82), but had all his acts reversed once out of power and was eventually hounded to death by Margaret of Anjou. (As Gillingham quotes on p. 84, "If Henry's insanity had been a tragedy, his recovery was a national disaster." It left Margaret in power, with no agenda but to pursue her feuds.)
To top it all off, England was in a foreign policy mess. Edward had invaded France in 1475, in association with the Burgundians. but had then let himself be bought off when the Duke of Burgundy went off on a wild goose chase (Kendall, p. 134). Richard opposed the peace (Kendall, p. 136), but Edward accepted a pension from Louis XI and made a deal to marry his daughter Elizabeth to the Dauphin.
Louis XI was playing for time. Burgundy had been the key to English foreign policy since the reign of Henry V. England plus Burgundy could defeat France. England without Burgundy could do nothing. When Charles the Rash of Burgundy died, his heir was a daughter. She married Maximilian of Austria -- and Louis XI, shortly before Edward died, put together a deal which obtained the reversion of a big chunk of Burgundy.
The result was that all of Edward's international policies came crashing down. France no longer needed to fear an alliance between England and Burgundy, which meant the French subsidy that had propped up Edward IV was halted (Fields, p. 61), leaving the English government broke. The French were raiding English property, and might threaten Calais. Louis broke the engagement between the Dauphin and the princess Elizabeth (engaging the Dauphin to the Burgundian heiress instead). Edward had let Burgundy be destroyed because he wanted Louis's money. Now he had neither. Mancini, the Croyland Chronicler, and even Polydore Vergil note that Edward IV himself realized that he was in a real mess (Dockray, p. 122; Commynes would actually suggest that despair over this hastened Edward IV's death; Dockray, p. 143). Croyland says explicitly that Edward "had been tricked by King Louis" (Dockray, p. 124). Plus the Flemish, who had been keeping France busy, agreed to peace terms in 1482 (Dockray, p. 130). And Edward was no longer around to pick up the pieces. Someone else -- someone forceful -- was clearly needed.
The first step once Richard reached London was to postpone Edward's coronation from May 4 to around June 23 (Ross, p. 74) -- a fairly obvious need, since the coronation would presumably eliminate the Lord Protector's role and leave England without a government apart from the Woodville faction. A good regency law would really have helped, but England didn't have such a thing (Hicks, p. 139). Jenkins, p. 145, says that no one even really knew what the Lord Protector was supposed to do, and Ross, p. 75, notes the contradictory precedents of previous minority reigns (e.g. Richard II had been treated as an adult monarch when he cameto the throne at age ten because there was no acceptable regent; Saul, p. 28). There was no custom of queen mothers taking charge -- fortunately, in this case -- but neither was there a clear alternative. The best thing would surely have been to have the Lord Protector be in control until the King came of age -- it appears that some people were preparing for this, according to Ross, p. 75 -- but it never happened.
For, of course, the postponement of the coronation was also a first step toward displacing Edward V. Poole, p. 7, says, "So far all had gone well for Richard and so far he had behaved quite correctly. There was nothing as yet... to suggest that he was the monster that Shakespeare and the Tudor apologists made him out to be.... But perhaps the ease with which the Protector had got his own way with the Council and overcome the Woodvilles now awakened his dormant ambition to be King."
St. Aubyn, pp. 104-107, strongly implies that postponing the coronation was Richard's first move toward the throne, but still admits, "Because Richard finally seized the Crown, it is tempting to see his entire career as directed toward that end. Nevertheless, in April 1483 he had done nothing more than seek his own safety in a swift pre-emptive bid." Hicks, p. 142, says, "United by their hostility to the [Woodvilles], Buckingham and Hastings thought Richard was serving their purpose. What Richard himself intended, apparently a temporary protectorate and management of the new regime, may really have been much more ominous. It appears most likely [read, of course, 'I think but I can't prove it'] that he was already planning to usurp the throne when the time was right."
Wilkinson, p. 298, confesses that "The exact time when [Richard] first directed his ambition towards the throne will probably never be known," and on the same page points out, "If Richard allowed his dignity of Protector to be taken from him, or if what powers he had were diminished rather than increased, it was probable that his complete destruction [presumably at the hands of the Woodvilles] would be only a matter of time." "Thus it can be said in his defence that his enemies did not leave him the luxury of loyalty and moderation. They drove him to usurpation as a measure of self-defence." Yet Wilkinson also adds, on p. 299, that it does not appear that Richard did not "drift" into usurpation and murder; "All his actions seem to fall into a consistent pattern of a cold and deeply calculated design upon the throne."
Cunningham, p. 31, says that at the time of Edward IV's death, "There can be no suggestion at this stage of a conspiracy against Edward V. Rather, the confederation of these nobles [Richard, Buckingham, and Hastings] was probably a move to delay Edward's coronation, since such a ceremony in April 1483 may (sic.) have left the three lords isolated, making it difficult to gain footholds in the Woodville-dominated household and council that would surely have followed."
Seward-Richard, pp. 99-100, will not even admit the possibility that Richard had not already made up his mind; his only question is the point at which Richard *revealed* those ambitions to allies such as Buckingham and Howard; he is sure it was before Richard Duke of York was taken from sanctuary. The one relevant piece of data that Seward-Richard offers (p. 104) is that the Princes in the Tower seem to have been more closely confined after the death of Hastings -- which would seem to imply that Richard by then planned to set Edward V aside.
Yet Cheetham, p. 124, contents that Richard was not planning usurpation at this stage: "The portrait makes better sense if Richard is seen as a man whose eyes were only by degrees opened to the logical consequences of his own actions. His reaction to each succeeding crisis bears the mark of an impulsive man of action taking the short cut to his immediate objective without pausing to work out the long term effects. If Richard is to be judged, then he must be accused of not too much guile but too little." I must say, this fits what appears to be his impetuous personality.
Jenkins, p. 171, remarks that Richard had perhaps set his foot on a slippery slope (a phrasing perhaps inspired by Thomas More, who accuses Richard of building "upon how slippery a ground"; Seward-Richard, p. 111). He had defeated the Woodvilles -- but he had also probably made an enemy of the boy king.
Bennett, p. 40, observes that the last known grant issued in the name of Edward V was made on June 8, and thinks it likely that that was when Richard made his decision.
Even Pollard, no fan of Richard, says on p. 96, "The earliest story, followed by Shakespeare, was that Richard had long intended to take the throne for himself and had only been awaiting the opportunity. This can be safely discounted. There is no evidence to suggest that Richard entertained such ambitions before Edward IV died; on the contrary the whole purpose and direction of his career until 9 April was to establish himself as a great northern magnate." But by taking action at Stony Stratford, he had left himself with no good options.
Ross, pp. 64-65, sums up this way: "The extraordinary problems of the evidence are highlighted by the difficulty which historians have always found in providing a convincing answer to one vital question: when, and why, did Richard decide to seek the throne for himself. We need not take seriously the Tudor back-projection, that he was planning to make himself king before the death of Edward IV, for he could not have anticipated that his vigorous, if debauched, brother would die at the age of forty. Was the violent seizure of Edward V at Stony Stratford a planned step on the way to the throne? Few historians would dare claim this with any certainty....
"Most scholars now tend to connect his final decision with the execution of Hastings on 13 June.... But even this is not without its difficulties. Was the violent action against Hastings an essential move in a pre-conceived plan, or did he decide only later, in the realization that his action was irreversible, and that having gone so far, he could only go further.... It has recently been argued that only as late as 20 June, two days before he claimed the throne, did he finally admit to himself that 'the spectre of continuing crises and conflicts' could only be dispelled by eliminating 'the one common bond among his enemies, loyalty to Edward V.'"
Ross seems to think this position extreme, and I agree. It is more likely, as Pollard suggests on p. 99, that Richard eliminated Hastings because he thought Hastings would interfere with his campaign for the throne. But Pollard's further conjecture -- that Richard invented a conspiracy by Hastings to justify his usurpation -- makes less sense; why, then, the execution without trial? The problem shows how little we know of Richard's plans. Ross, p. 78, notes that the two most important contemporary observers (Mancini and Croyland) thought that Richard had decided to take the throne by the end of May. But both wrote this after his usurpation. Ross eventually (page 83) comes down firmly for dating Richard's decision to the time of the execution of Hastings. (This also strikes me as the most likely time, though this does not make the matter certain. As Ross says, every possibility raises difficulties; this one merely raises the fewest.)
On the other hand, St. Aubyn, p. 107, declares that "the majority of his early historians believed that he plotted to seize the Throne the moment his brother died." (To be sure, the early historians were all living under the Tudors, and didn't dare say anything else -- and not even St. Aubyn accuses Richard of plotting *before* Edward IV died.)
WilliamsonA, p. 64, suggests that Hastings had wanted to replace Richard as protector, but I know of no evidence for this.
If the execution of Lord Hastings is the key moment, it is an event we know little about. There are even those who argue that it did not take place on June 13 but on June 20 (WilliamsonA, p. 69), and it has been questioned whether Hastings was really executed without trial. Thomas More gave us a detailed version of the council meeting at which Hastings was arrested -- but he claims that Richard at this time declared his arm suddenly withered (Seward-Richard, p. 102, which actually repeats the whole scene as fantasized by More).
Since the arm was *never* withered, let alone suddenly by witchcraft, it's clear that the account is unreliable (Fields, p. 91). Recall that More was not a witness, and even if he had this from Morton, Morton by his own account was not present for much of the conversation! WilliamsonA, pp. 70-71, notes the oddity that we have no record but that of Morton/More of this meeting, and suggests the official account was destroyed, perhaps by Morton's nephew, who was Keeper of the Rolls under Henry VII.
Jenkins, pp. 170-171, thinks that it was the execution of Hastings, which took place right after the meeting and arrest, which started people questioning Richard's motives. Certainly it is one of the biggest blots on his record. It was Hastings -- the former bosom friend of Edward IV -- who had first warned Richard about the Woodville conspiracy. Yet Hastings, according to Richard's charges, was soon sending messages to Elizabeth Woodville (using, of all people, Edward's old mistress Jane Shore as intermediary; Jenkins, pp. 162; Seward-Richard, p. 100, notes that even the anti-Richard historian Gairdner accepted this peculiar messenger), and that caused Richard to turn against his former ally. Jenkins, p. 163, seems to feel that it was at this time that Richard started thinking about the throne, because he could not trust a parliament to confirm his powers.
Richard's charges against Hastings may well have been unfair -- Ross, p. 81, calls the evidence "slight indeed,." But it was a strange turnabout, since Hastings and the Woodvilles had been trading accusations and spying on each other shortly before (Ross, p. 39). Richard, having disposed of Hastings, started calling his supporters to London (Jenkins, pp. 164-165).
It seems unlikely that many people held up Hastings as a paragon of virtue before his death, given the nature of his friendship with Edward IV. But, afterward, all that was forgotten. People started to wonder about what Richard was doing (Ross, p. 85). Ross calls the killing of Hastings an "irreversible" step toward taking the throne. It also removed the strongest member of the already-too-small moderate faction (that hostile to the Woodvilles, loyal to Edward V, and not inherently hostile to Richard).
Edward V's younger brother Richard Duke of York was at this time with his mother in sanctuary, but Richard of Gloucester eventually managed to lure him from there. It's not clear how. More claimed that Richard in effect told his mother to give him up voluntarily or he'd be taken by force; Jenkins, pp. 166-167. But that section of More seems very artificial. Hicks, p. 160, says that the Duke of York was simply "removed" from sanctuary, but does not footnote his basis for the statement. Ross, pp. 86-87, says that the Archbishop of Canterbury was somehow involved but admits that the sources are not clear on whether the boy was given up voluntarily or by force. Cunningham, p. 40, also says that the Archbishop was involved but can add little else. Fields, p. 94, offers the suggestion that Elizabeth may have been feeling resignation by then, while admitting the possibility of arm-twisting.
Poole, p. 16, makes the interesting observation that Elizabeth's relations with Richard III were cordial toward the end of the latter's reign -- very strange if she believed he had killed her sons! However, Ross, p. 100, and Cunningham, p. 45, manage to regard her exit from sanctuary as evidence against Richard: They argue that Elizabeth would never have accepted his olive branch if she thought there were any chance her sons could still succeed Richard, and that this was therefore proof that Richard had killed the princes. This makes no sense to me, but I suppose we'd better note this opinion.
There are plenty of other suggested explanations for why she left sanctuary, to be sure. Girffiths/Thomas, p. 115, suggest that the "Song of the Lady Bessie" refers to actions of Elizabeth Woodville, who returned to public life to open the door for Henry Tudor. And then there is the notion, mentioned by Magnusson, p. 271 although there is no hint of it in English records, that James III might marry Elizabeth Woodville and his son marry one of her daughters to cement Anglo-Scottish relations. One can imagine Elizabeth Woodville being interested in being the wife of two different kings and coming out to try to arrange it. But James III was born in 1452, making him at least a dozen years younger than his potential wife. Again, I don't see it happening.
It is noteworthy that, as soon as he had Richard of York in his possession, Richard of Gloucester issued writs cancelling what was to have been Edward V's first parliament -- the one to establish the new administration (Ross, p. 87).
Suspicious as that seems in hindsight, it may have seemed justified at the time, because of the Woodville crisis. Maybe. If so, tt was the last thing Richard did which was defensible if you assume the princes were the proper heirs to the throne. The events of the next two months form the basis of the great controversy over Richard III.
As Seward-Richard says on page 19,"The whole controversy about Richard III hinges on the interpretation of a very brief part of his life.... The usurpation of April to July 1483 is the one time when we are reasonably well informed about him" (which statement, however, is false -- Seward claims to have four sources, Croyland, Mancini, More, and Vergil. But, of course, the latter two are secondary. There is no denying that this period is the crux -- but in fact our information is utterly inadequate). When the period began, Richard was Lord Protector and Edward V was expected to be crowned in the near future. When it ended, Richard was on the throne and Edward V was one of the "Princes in the Tower," the subject of the greatest mystery in English history.
Richard now started taking steps that would certainly Edward V to hate him if by any chance he didn't hate him already. He executed Edward V's tutor Thomas Vaughan, who seems by all accounts to have been completely harmless, and a friend of the boy's. Plus he executed Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers, who also had been captured at Stony Stratford (Ross, pp. 87-88). It is hard to imagine Richard doing this if he ever expected Edward V to take the throne. Richard would probably have six years of power as Lord Protector -- but what could he expect when Edward V came of age? Of all the things Richard did, this is, to my mind, the most inexcusable.
Soon after, people began to hear whispers about the legitimacy of Edward V and his family. St. Aubyn, pp. 142-143, thinks Richard arranged for a cleric by the name of Ralph Shaa (sometimes spelled "Shaw"; so Poole, p. 8, and Bennett, p. 42; or Sha, in Seward-Richard, p. 84), the brother of the Lord Mayor of London, to preach a sermon on the subject on June 23. Thomas More, a source for this tale, thought Richard was supposed to arrive in the middle of the sermon (Seward-Richard, p. 105), and blew it -- but, of course, this is yet another thing More simply cannot have known (and Seward should have known he could not have known). Seward-Richard, p. 106, claims that "other preachers delivered similar sermons." As usual, he cites no source for this statement.
Whether Richard was behind it or not, the underlying text of Shaa's sermon is agreed by all authorities to be "Bastard slips shall not take root" (St. Aubyn, p. 146; Kendall, p. 263; Jenkins, p. 172; Seward-Roses, p. 271)..
This is an interesting quotation in several senses. For starters, the source is Wisdom of Solomon 4:3. Wisdom of Solomon was at this time of uncertain canonical status; it is not part of the Hebrew Bible. Protestants have by and large rejected it. The Catholic church would eventually affirm its canonicity, but not until the Council of Trent more than half a century after Richard's time. Since England was Catholic, it used the Vulgate Latin version, but this was one of the books Jerome never translated from Greek into Latin, so the Vulgate used a very poor text.
The English translation is somewhat dubious, too. The highly scholarly A New English Translation of the Septuagint renders the Greek "But the prolific brood of the impious will be of no use, and illegitimate seedlings from them will not strke deep root or take firm hold." The New Revised Standard Version, which is less literal, reads "The prolific brood of the ungodly will be of no use, and none of their illegitimate seedlings will strike a deep root."
The Latin reads "spuria vitulamina non dabunt radices altas nec stabile firmamentum conlacabunt." Remember that, at this time, there was no English translation of the Bible accepted by Catholics (Wycliffe's translation, the only one available and the one Richard owned, was officially banned by the Catholic church, partly because it was heretical but mostly because it was something lay people could understand. It in any case has a rather different rendering: "plauntyngis of auoutrie schulen not yyue deepe rootis" -- "plantings of adultery shall not have deep roots"). Preachers had to make up their own translation, and Shaa's version, while technically sort of correct, ignores context: The verse is really about the progeny of the unrighteous, and is not a condemnation of bastardy but a warning to those who stray from righteousness. So Shaa was preaching from a dubious rendering of a dubious book!
Although we know his text, there are conflicting accounts of what conclusion Shaa preached (Kendall, p. 318). Among moderns, Hicks, p. 160, says that Shaa argued that Edward V was illegitimate (followed, e.g., by Bennett, p. 42). Ross, p. xxxix, thinks Shaa was arguing that *Edward IV* was illegitimate and that Richard III was the proper heir to the throne.
Fields, pp. 96-98, gives a list of what the early sources said about the sermon: Fabyan (near-contemporary) says that Shaa declared only the princes illegitimate. Croyland (contemprary) seems to say the same, but does not mention Shaa directly. Mancini (contemporary) reports that "corrupted preachers" called Edward IV illegitimate. More (not contemporary) has Shaa declare the princes illegitimate and hint at illegitimacy for Edward and George of Clarence. Vergil (not contemporary) says that Shaa declared Edward IV a bastard -- and caused Edward's mother to become very upset (Hall amplifies this to say that Richard too was upset, according to WilliamsonA, p. 78, but Hall is too unreliable for this to mean anything); Vergil also mentions the claim that the princes were illegitimate, but does not mention the precontract that would have rendered them so and does not link the claim of their bastardy with Shaa.
The claim that Edward IV was illegitimate is not as crazy as it sounds; the family claim to the throne came through their father Richard Duke of York, and Richard of York was short and dark. Edward IV was very tall, and he was fair-haired, as were most of Richard of York's other children. Only Richard III, who was dark-haired and not especially tall (Ross, p. 139) really resembled his father (Seward-Richard, p. 84, says he bore a "striking" resemblance to Richard of York. Seward also calls Richard III "very short," which seems not to have been true except by comparison to his very tall brother; the authorities Seward cites are not Croyland or Commynes, who knew him, but Vergil, who did not, and Rous, who would say anything. Unfortunately, Richard's body has vanished, so we cannot measure his height).
Jenkins, p. 110, says that George of Clarence had spread rumors that Edward was illegitimate, and Hicks, p. 52, and WilliamsonA, p. 60, agree that such rumors were in circulation in 1469, spread because of Warwick's rebellion that year, and encouraged by the fact that Edward was born at Rouen (apparently Louis XI "the spider king," who loved to mess with other people's minds, at one time claimed that Edward was the son of Cecily Neville and a French archer!). Ross-Edward, p. 240, says that the spreading of such rumours waas one of the charges Edward used to execute George. Ross-Edward, p. 133, observes that they were strong enough to be reported by the Milanese ambassador. Seward-Richard, p. 39, even says that Duchess Cicely had threatened to call Edward IV illegitimate when he married Elizabeth Woodville (though, as usual when a point is important, he doesn't offer a source). He also suggests that this gave Richard an idea for future use. More likely, if it happened at all, the Duchess's statement gave George ideas.
The problem with the 1469 rumors, which made George, not Edward, the heir was that George looked a lot like Edward; if Edward was a bastard, then George probably was too.
Dockray, p. 2, tells us that an examination of Edward IV's skeleton in 1789 revealed that he was six foot three. Fields, p. 101, observes that his brother George of Clarence was five foot five -- probably no bigger than Richard. (Strangely, everyone seems to have regarded Clarence as tall -- Seward-Richard, p. 41. He wasn't short for the time, but he was far smaller than Edward.) But George was blonde, like Edward and unlike Richard. It's quite a difference in height -- but it's also worth remembering that Edward was already in his teens when the Wars of the Roses got serious. George was still quite young. It is just my speculation -- but some of his shortness may have been the inadequate diet he perhaps suffered while fleeing all over England when he was supposed to be having growth spurts.
Hicks, p. 26, does cite a modern authority who thinks, based on what is known about the locations of Richard Duke of York and Cicely Neville at the time of Edward IV's conception, that Edward actually was not the son of the Duke of York, but this is very thin evidence. Hicks, p. 165, mentions the possibility of DNA testing -- but, to this date, it has not been done. And, given that Elizabeth II has denied permission to test the bodies claimed to be those of the Princes in the Tower, I doubt she would allow a test of Edward IV's DNA either. And it's worth remembering that while Edward IV didn't look like his father, he *did* a lot like the earlier Plantagenets, who were mostly tall, blond, and handsome.
Jenkins, p. 173, quotes More to the effect that Shaa's sermon was greeted with such disdain that he went into hiding, and Ross, p. 92, cites the Great Chronicle to the effect that Shaa lost his popularity and died not long after. But eventually a tale emerged in which Edward IV was rightful king but Richard was his heir. It became the Official Party Line, because there was a bishop behind it: According to Commynes, Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, came forward to say that Edward IV, before he married his official wife Elizabeth Woodville, had been engaged to one Eleanor Butler (St. Aubyn, pp. 156-157; Kendall; pp. 257-258; Fields, p. 111). And if he promised to marry her, but didn't, who can doubt that he was deceiving her to get into her bed? No other explanation makes sense, knowing Edward IV. Additional evidence that Stillington was the one who announced the "precontract" comes from the fact that Henry VII later had him imprisoned without charge (Fields, p. 116).
Since engagement was considered equivalent to marriage, and Butler was still alive when Edward married Elizabeth Woodville, the promise, or "precontract," would have made Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth bigamous and his children illegitimate and unable to inherit (WilliamsonA, p. 55). To be sure, WilliamsonA, pp. 55-56, notes that in cases where one member of the marriage deceived the other, as was allegedly the case here, the children of the union were considered legitimate heirs at least of the innocent parent -- but only if the marriage had been open (presumably so people could object), and Edward's marriage to Elizabeth has been secret. This, however, is irrelevant to the case; the innocent parent here was Elizabeth Woodville, and she could not transmit the succession).
Richard's later document affirming his right to the throne also claimed that the Woodvilles had seduced Edward IV by magic (Hicks, p. 163; Seward-Richard, p. 108) which to our modern ears makes the rest of his claim less plausible, but this too is not really relevant. The marriage also was done without consent of Parliament; how much of a legal barrier this was is harder to state, but probably not much of one; past princes -- including Richard III himself -- had married without parliamentary consent. All that really matters is the precontract: Did Edward IV promise marriage to Eleanor Butler, or did he not?)
We should confess that our sources for this, apart from Richard's official explanation for taking the throne, are thin. Commynes said that Stillington "revealed to the Duke of Gloucester that King Edward, being very enamored of a certain English lady, promised to marry her, provided that he could sleep with her first, and she consented. The bishop said that he had merried them when only he and they were present" (Dockray, pp. 45-46).
Curiously, Sir Thomas More knew the story of the precontract, but seemingly did not know the name of the woman involved, and so inserted the name of Elizabeth Lucy. At least, this is what most authorities think is the reason for the change, since he could not look her name up in the suppressed parliamentary records. WilliamsonA, p. 54, suggests that the change was based on the fact that Elizabeth Lucy was known to have born Edward a child. so the alteration was possibly deliberate (cf. RicardianXIII, p. 230, who lists her son as Arthur Plantagenet, later Viscount Lisle; although we do not know his date of birth except that it was before 1470 -- meaning that, if bastards were eligible for the throne, he, not Edward V, was the proper king!).
Fields, p. 286, suggests even more strongly that More's change was deliberate -- Elizabeth Lucy was a nobody, but Eleanor Butler was a daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury and not likely to be forgotten or ignored, so More had to suppress mention of her. Rubin, p. 312, makes another interesting point: That this sort of suit for annulment on the grounds of precontract was common at this time; what made it unusual was simply the fact that it was a third party, not one of the participants, who wanted the marriage declared invalid.
Although the claim of Edward IV's own bastardy is implausible (and his mother apparently raised a stink about it), there is nothing inherently implausible about the claim of the precontract. Hicks, pp. 37-48, observes that the marriage between Edward and Elizabeth Woodville had also been secret; Dockray, p. 41, cites six early sources to this effect; the citations on pp. 46-47 show that few members even of their families knew about it -- e.g. Fabyan's Chronicle reports that "almost none but [Elizabeth Woodville's] mother was of council." The marriage was not revealed until Edward was forced to admit it to stop foreign negotiations for another marriage -- and it was greeted with incredulity among the nobles (Dockray, p. 41, has 11 sources for this. One of them, Gregory's Chronicle, notes that it was half a year before Edward revealed his marriage, and another half year before Elizabeth was crowned queen; Dockray, p. 44).
HarveyN, p. 6, says that Edward IV's own mother, Cicely Neville, had invented the precontract to try to scuttle Edward's marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. This is, however, on the basis of Holinshed, who of course has no value (and apparently came up with yet another name for the Other Woman: Elizabeth Boulton).
Hicks speculates that Edward had tried to trick Elizabeth into his bed, and she counter-trapped him somehow (perhaps by having witnesses to overhear?). But if Edward *did* try some sort of false promise of marriage with Elizabeth, it of course makes it more likely that he might have done so with other women before he met her. Fields, p. 83, mentions that, soon after Clarence was executed, Stillington was also imprisoned. We don't know what he was accused of; it sounds as if the record was suppressed (Fields, p. 84; WilliamsonA, p. 59). This hints that perhaps Stillington blabbed the story to Clarence (cf. Cheetham, p. 118) -- a strange thing to do if the story wasn't true, since clearly Edward would be very unhappy if word leaked.
Unlike Hicks, Dockray, p. 4, argues that Edward IV genuinely fell on love (as opposed to lust) with Elizabeth Woodville -- but lists on p. 5 the sources that tell the story of her refusing to sleep with him unless he married her. On p. 45, he quotes Mancini's version, in which Edward supposedly held a knife to her throat and was once again refused. The story that she refused him unless he married her, which is the indirect justification for the attack on Edward's marriage, was very widespread.
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the easiest explanation for the Shaa sermon is as follows: By the time Shaa preached, Richard of Gloucester was at least contemplating a bid for the throne, but had little claim. He had Shaa preach of Edward's bastardy, perhaps as a first step in Richard seizing the throne, perhaps to test the reaction. Obviously it went over like a lead balloon -- but Bishop Stillington, seeing which way the wind was blowing, came forward with the story of the precontract. Whether true or false, this was direct evidence of the princes' bastardy, and so was adopted as a reason to set them aside.
This raises a sore point among historians: Was Richard entitled to declare the children a bastard? In terms of legal inheritance of property, the answer at that time is certainly "no." Hicks, p. 165; Pollard, p. 100, and Seward-Richard, p. 120, all say that the matter should properly have been investigated in church courts. But this ignores the real-world problem: Under what circumstances is it practical for the church to declare the son of a king illegitimate? The answer is -- none. Edward IV would never have permitted it, since it would leave him without an heir. If the claim were asserted after the coronation of Edward V, then that king would have even more reason to suppress it. The only way to properly investigate was to bring in impartial experts at a time when there was no king. But there had to be a king! Thus, though Hicks et al would be correct for any other position in the land, I must respectfully disagree with their conclusions as regards the kingship. In that case, judgment *had to* rest with Parliament.
But it is a black mark against Richard that he never ordered an investigation into the point. He just took Stillington's story and ran with it; he quickly had Edward V declared a bastard. That should have given the throne to the children of Edward's next brother George of Clarence -- but Edward IV himself had had George executed on a well-deserved charge of treason, and George's attainder was generally held to disbar his children (Hicks, p. 163; Ross, pp. 91-92. Both note that being attainted did not automatically mean that a man could not become king. This is true, but the general sense at the time was that an act of attainder, *if not repealed*, would bar one's offspring from the succession;Lander, p. 67n. And the act of attainder, according to Fields, p. 59, had specifically disbarred Clarence's children from the succession. This decision, we note, was enacted by Edward IV; one suspects the Woodvilles had wanted to be sure there were no more pro-Clarence conspiracies. But, with their usual tendency to ignore long-term problems in the quest for short-term advantage, they had made Richard III the heir should Edward IV's children be unable to succeed.)
With the candidates senior to him disbarred, Richard could, at least theoretically, take the crown himself as the letitimate heir of Edward IV. The parliament scheduled for 1483 did not officially meet; Richard's only parliament was summoned for 1484, and made the transfer of power official with the passage of Titulus Regius (Seward-Roses, p. 272, and Cunningham, p. 60, give portions of the text) -- though Hicks, p. 162, says that it is effectively identical to the document of 1483 giving Richard the crown. That document was accepted by a sort of quasi-parliamentary meeting (Ross, p. 93).
On a side note, some have questioned whether illegitimacy should have disbarred Edward V. Hicks, p. 164, argues that William the Conqueror had been illegitimate. However, that was the *Norman* succession, and irrelevant. Hicks also notes the succession of Henry IV -- but that too is irrelevant since Henry IV's descendents had been deprived of the throne. In any case, Henry IV was entirely legitimate; he just wasn't the legal heir. Finally, Hicks mentions the succession of Henry VII -- as if that illegal succession had anything to say about the *earlier* succession of Richard III! And Henry VII, unlike his ancestors in both the Beaufort and Tudor lines, was a legitimate child; it's just that, like Henry IV, he wasn't legal heir.
History is clear: In England, legitimacy was an absolute requirement for a monarch -- something which had been established as early as the grandson of William the Conqueror. The Conqueror's son Henry I, when he died, left behind several dozen bastards, one of whom -- Robert of Gloucester -- was clearly extremely competent and would surely have commanded universal support had he been legitimate. But he wasn't, and so the crown went to the disastrous King Stephen. (Warren-Henry, p. 17: "Fate was unkind to Robert of Gloucester. If he had not had the wrong mother he would have been the unquestioned king of England on his father's death, and the claims of Matilda and the pretensions of Stephen would have been unknown to history. [Thus saving England a civil war.] By all the evidence he was well fitted to rule.")
In any case, think of the chaos if all illegitimate children could succeed -- Edward IV is known to have had three illegitimate sons (Hicks, p. 25), and RicardianXIII, pp. 229-233, finds evidence of five illegitimate children, and in all likelihood (given his habits) there were actually at least a dozen others -- and you could easily have children claiming to be his bastards even if they weren't, should the succession be open to them. In the absence of DNA testing, it made *sense* that only legitimate children could succeed.
Fields devotes four pages (pp. 118-121) to the issue of Edward's succession; as a lawyer, his summary is "Assuming that there was, in fact, a precontract, Richard's assertion that the princes were disqualified as rulers and that he was the rightful king was not only a colorable claim but a strong one." Even Pollard, p. 99, admits that "The case finally put together concerning the bastardy of the princes... is theologically sound" (which does not make it factually accurate).
What's more, as WilliamsonA notes on p. 57, parliament did have the final word (if it didn't, then the whole argument over whether Henry IV could de-legitimize the Beauforts would never have come up). Parliament declared Richard III king -- and did so entirely properly, which is why Henry Tudor had to try to destroy Titulus Regius. WilliamsA argues that this means Richard didn't even usurp the throne -- which may even be legally true, although it strikes me as more wordplay than reality.
Pollard, p. 101, makes the more subtle argument that parliament could have declared Edward V the heir, and the ceremony of the coronation and anointing would have removed the problem of illegitimacy. But "could" is not "must" or "should." Why should Richard have set himself aside to set up the Princes as heirs? No sane person will deny that Richard was ambitious; neither will any sane person deny that Richard had a record as a good leader, whereas Edward V had none. If Richard considered himself the proper heir, there was no reason for him to set aside his claim to raise a younger prince to an office for which he might not be competent, particularly as that prince might then turn against Richard.
To sum up: Richard's taking the throne was actually proper and legal -- *if* (and only if) Stillington's story was true. And Jenkins, p. 174, notes that, while the people hadn't seemed enthusiastic about Richard displacing Edward V, parliament gave less trouble. Some doubtless remembered Henry VI and were afraid of another royal minority. Jenkins recalls also the precedent of the Witan, which before the Norman Conquest had selected the King (though of course the Witan was defunct in 1483). And, as she notes, "no one was in doubt" of Richard of Gloucester's ability to rule. (Well, other than Seward and Weir, anyway, and they don't count.)
It is easy to see why the precontract generated controversy. According to Bishop Stillington's own account, there were only three witnesses, Stillington, Edward IV, and Eleanor Butler, and the latter two were dead. So it all depended on Stillington's word.
For doubters not convinced by this, Richard could also point to the undeniable fact that child-kings had been disastrous for England -- Edward the Martyr was murdered. Ethelred II "the Unready" was unable to face the Danish invasions. Henry III was nearly overthrown for incompetence. Richard II had turned despot. And Henry VI had been perhaps the worst King in English history. (The counter-argument being that Edward V was older than any of those child kings -- only a couple of years younger than the brilliant Edward III when that king succeeded, though Edward III had not taken power into his own hands until three years later.) Still, if I'd been living then, and known what could be known in 1483, I would rather have had Richard III than Edward V as king. Would I have wanted it enough to overthrow Edward V? I don't know. Would I have wanted Richard III to be king so badly that I would countenance the murder of Edward V? To that, I am forced to say "No."
Hicks, pp. 32-33, is not clear on what to believe; he thinks it odd that Butler did not make more noise about the marriage if she had been tricked, but observes that Edward IV could have used a promise of marriage to get into her bed, then told her that he simply would not go through with it -- and, without witnesses, she could prove nothing.
Fields, pp. 58-59, thinks there is some secondary evidence. Butler, who died in 1468, was said to have ended her life in a convent, never having married after the alleged precontract (Fields, p. 111). There is a story that she had an illegitimate child. For a woman of high birth, this is astounding (though poorly attested; if Eleanor was truly contracted to Edward, their child would have been rightful monarch of England, but there seems to have been no hint of this).
Edward's appetite for women was almost proverbial. Mancini reported, "He was licentious in the extreme; moreover, it was said that he had been most insolent to numerous women after he had seduced them, for, as soon as he grew weary of dalliance, he gave up the ladies much against their will to other courtiers. He pursued with no discrimination the married and unmarried, the noble and the lowly; however, he took none by force. He overcame all by money and promises and, having conquered them, dismissed them" (Dockray, p. 13). Thomas More declared, "[N]o woman was there anywhere, young or old, rich or poor, whom he set his eye upon... but without fear of God or respect of his honour, murmur or grudge of the world, he would importunately pursue his appetite and have her, to the great destruction of man a good woman" (Dockray, p. 14).
Edward IV was perhaps England's lustiest liege since Henry I three and a half centuries earlier. His gluttony eventually killed him. If he really wanted a woman who spurned him, might he not offer marriage? He did with Elizabeth Woodville....
Remember, in this context, that Edward married Elizabeth Woodville secretly. Had the marriage been public, perhaps Eleanor could have objected. But how could she object to a marriage she didn't know was happening?
The flip side is, Stillington wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue -- according to Weir, p. 202, he had an illegitimate son. To give him his due, he founded a school in his home village, and set it up to teach useful rather than highly abstract subjects (Bennett, p. 32). And he had little reason to lie in 1483 -- he was by this time an old man (he had been doing diplomatic work for Edward IV since at least 1466, and had already gained his bishopric by then; Ross-Edward, p. 108; he had been Chancellor in 1468; Ross-Edward, p. 112), and he gained no rewards from Richard III, according to Fields, p. 110.
It's all very thin evidence; we simply cannot be sure, at this late date, whether the precontract was real. We can only confess that it was possible.
As for whether the precontract was real -- the question simply cannot be answered today. Historians have argued both ways: Ross, p. 89, considers Richard's claims against his brother's marriage "each inherently weak and implausible," and on p. 91, seems sure Stillington's tale is a fabrication. Poole, p. 8, argues that it must have been false because Butler was a Lancastrian, and married the Lancastrian Earl of Shrewsbury, and so wouldn't have gone near a Yorkist. This strikes me as weak -- after all, Elizabeth Woodville came from a Lancastrian family (Dockray, p. 41) and went on to marry Edward IV!
On the other hand, WilliamsonA, p. 58, notes that the three contemporary observers, Commynes, Croyland, and Mancini, "all show clear knowledge of the prior contract.... None attempts to claim it was a fabricated story." Improbably enough. Seward-Richard, p. 105, admits that "there may [have been] some truth in Sha[a]'s story," though he obviously denies its significance. HarveyJ, p. 195, thinks it likely on the grounds that so many -- including parliament -- accepted it at the time, but this too seems weak; parliament would doubtless have done the most expedient thing, not the "right" thing. Cheetham, p. 119, observes that 'There is in fact no reason to suppose that the story was not true; Edward could never resist a pretty face and troth plight was a common device for coaxing reluctant virgins to bed."
Personally, I think it not unlikely that the precontract was real. And, if real, it would have barred the succession of Edward V. That is all we can say now.
According to Mancini, after Stillington's story came out, Richard took off the black of mourning and started dressing in purple (Jenkins, p. 173; Cheetham, p. 120). Clearly he was now looking toward the throne -- though he reportedly feigned surprise when it was offered to him (Cheetham, pp. 121-123). He scheduled his coronation for July 6, 1483 (Ross, p. 93; Pollard, p. 99, considers him to have assumed the throne on June 26 -- just 13 days after the execution of Hastings) and set about the business of kingship --including a series of reforms which we shall cover below.
Cheetham, p. 129, says, "But first the three men who had made his usurpation possible received their rewards. Buckingham had the lion's share: he was appointed Constable and Great Chamberlain of England. In addition Richard recognized his long-standing claim to a huge part of the de Bohun unheritance.... To the Earl of Northumberland went the wardenship of the West March [with Scotland; he was already in charge of the East March] and Richard's palatinate in Cumberland. John Howard, the newly-created Duke of Norfolk, received crown lands... in Suffolk, Essex, Kent, and Cambridgeshire. The princely extent of these grants, which virtually created three principalities in Wales and the West Country, in the North, and in East Anglia, showed how desperately narrow had become the clique on which Richard's power rested."
Richard seems to have realized this eventually; as Cheetham goes on to observe on pp. 161-162, the king later gave much of Buckingham's wealth to lesser men, trying to build up a new faction: "The harsh lessons of the careers of Warwick and Montagu, Clarence and Buckingham had taught Richard not to build his fortunes solely on the shifting sands of baronial loyalty." Unfortunately, he had to rely mostly on northern men whom he knew, and they were too few and too weak -- and too resented by Southerners -- to become a force during Richard's brief reign. And Time would prove that his other choices were not always good....
Last updated in version 2.5
File: LQ34B

Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34] --- Part 04


DESCRIPTION: Continuation of the notes to "The Children in the Wood (The Babes in the Woods)" [Laws Q34] --- Part 03. Entry concludes in "The Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34]" --- Part 05 (File Number LQ34D)
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: THE UNKNOWN FATE OF THE PRINCES
Richard III's coronation left the problem of what to do with Edward (V) and Richard of York, the two brothers held in the Tower of London -- soon to be known as "The Princes in the Tower." It is important to note that, though the boys were lodged in the Tower, putting them there was not a sinister behavior; it was the Tudors who created its dreadful reputation. The Tower was primarily a fortress, where the boys could be kept safe,but it was also still a palace; the boys's sister Elizabeth would die there -- as Queen of England! (Poole, p. 7).
The Tower was probably the best place for the boys -- although there were a half dozen royal residences around London, Westminster (the primary one) was too close to where Elizabeth Woodville had taken sanctuary (Seward-Richard, p. 98). And the other palaces were too far from the government center. It had to be the Tower, which was the #2 or #3 royal residence anyway (Hicks, p. 151). Plus, coronation processions started at the Tower (WilliamsonA, p. 51), so they would have to eventually spend some time there anyway.
In a time of relative stability, the two boys probably would not have been a threat to Richard. But whom one bishop or parliament could declare a bastard, another could re-legitimize (cf. AshleyM, p. 623). The princes were a pawn any power-seeker could seize on. And England had been through thirty years of civil war; there were many barons out to feather their own nests.
The boys did not immediately disappear, but Edward had of course lost his titles, and Richard III soon moved to take away Richard of York's titles as well. Richard of York's title Duke of Norfolk was given to Lord John Howard (Jenkins, p. 175).
This is frankly a very strange situation. York had been given the title because he was married as an infant to Anne Mowbray, the Ducal heir. But she had died in 1481, with the marriage obviously not only childless but unconsummated. The key to marriage was consummation -- that's why Edward's promise to Eleanor Butler could be regarded as binding! True, the title was supposed to remain York's even if Anne Mowbray died childless; Fields, p. 54. Edward IV had later given the Norfolk title to York unconditionally and for life; Seward-Richard, p. 97.
This made the transfer to Howard illegal, according to Jenkins -- but Bennett, p. 43, calls Edward's grant to his son the illegal part, and on its face this is clearly so. John Howard was clearly the heir if Anne Mowbray had been unmarried, so he had a strong claim to the Dukedom. And, unlike a pre-pubescent boy, he could actually use it -- important in those troubled times. And the Howard family certainly used it well; descendents of John Howard would win the Battle of Flodden and defeat the Spanish Armada. The Howard family still has the Norfolk Dukedom, making their house the senior Ducal family in England.
Over the summer, the boys were seen less and less often, though Jenkins, in talking of the withdrawal of their privileges, constantly uses words such as "it is said," rather than citing an actual source. Seward-Richard, p. 113, says that they were moved to more guarded quarters the day Richard executed Hastings. But, contrary to what Shakespeare would have us believe, the princes' fates are completely unknown. Seward, pp. 120-125, tries to catalog the evidence. Had he looked at the evidence without prejudice, he would have seen how thin it is -- effectively non-existent. Let us summarize:
Almost the only non-Tudor testimony we have is that of Mancini, who wrote in late 1483 that the boys had been seen "more rarely" toward the end of his visit to England (which ended in the summer of 1483), but that no one knew their fate (Kendall, p. 466; Jenkins, p. 176; Seward-Richard, pp. 120-121). Mancini did suspect that Richard would soon dispose of the boys if he hadn't already (Cheetham, p. 141).
Commynes gives conflicting testimony (three different versions, according to Pollard, p. 123), at one point blaming Buckingham for disposing of the princes, elsewhere blaming Richard. The obvious conclusion is that he didn't know what happened. He thought the princes were dead before France's Louis XI died in late August 1483 (Seward-Richard, p. 121).
WilliamsonA, p. 94, observes that the evidence of the Great Chronicle of London claims that there was "whispering" after Easter [1483] that the boys were dead. However, Easter 1483 was before Richard usurped the throne, meaning that the date should probably be transferred to 1484. In any case, all this actually attests is the known fact that the boys vanished.
Bennett, p. 58, points out the peculiar fact that, while Richard would later loudly denounce the idea that he had considered marrying his niece, he never said anything about the fate of the Princes. This, to Bennett, implies guilt (and I have to agree that it is an indication, although by no means proof. It may well mean that Richard at least held himself somewhat responsible.)
The first definite mention of them being dead comes from a French reference in January 1484 (Seward-Richard, p. 121). Given the nature of the situation, this is clear evidence that people thought the princes had been killed, but it is not in fact evidence that they were dead. Kendall, p. 468, and Cheetham, p. 141, doubt the value of this mention by the French Chancellor Rochefort; they believe it came from Mancini, who was merely hypothesizing, and think Rochefort, in typical political fashion, turned a possibility into a fact.
The last time they were seen by the public seems to have been July 1483, though Croyland says they were still around as late as September (Weir, p. 149). Weir seems to think this conclusive evidence that they were still alive, since Croyland was in the government, but by that argument he should also have known something about their death, and he didn't. I think we can only say that they died no earlier than July, with the latest possible date being early in the reign of Henry Tudor but an extremely high likelihood that they were dead before Buckingham's rebellion. Croyland does say that people *suspected* they had been killed by late 1483 (Kendall, p. 469), but never actually says that they were -- indeed, Cheetham, p. 141 says "the wording [of Croyland's account] here implies that the rumour may well have been spread by [Buckingham's] rebels with malice aforethought."
Pollard's summary, on p. 123, is "there is an impressive arrat of evidence dating from before 1500... which points to the boys meeting their deaths at Richard's hands in 1483. The reports are, however, muddled, contradictory, and inconclusive."
WilliamsonA, p. 121, mentions a wardrobe entry from March 1485 of clothes for the "Lord Bastard," a title sometimes used of Edward V -- but too vague to mean much.
Henry VII's 1486 act claiming the throne accuses Richard of "shedding of infants' blood" (Seward-Richard, p. 121). This appears to be the first open mention of the crime in England. Even if you ignore the fact that it offers no details at all, it will be clear that it has no evidentiary value -- Henry VII *had* to blame Richard (as WilliamsonA says on p. 61, the princes, if alive, "were in fact more dangerous [to Henry] than to Richard"), but apparently did not know what actually happened.
WilliamsonA, p. 94, observes that the parliamentary act "Titulus Regius," which formally gave Richard the throne, was passed in the parliament of 1484, yet refers to the boys in the present tense. The text cited by Cunningham, p. 60, however refers primarily to their bastardy in the present tense, and they would be bastards even if dead. In any case, "Titulus Regius" was probably drafted in 1483; it is quite likely that no one thought to amend the language. I doubt it is significant.
The main evidence appealed to by Seward and Weir is, of course, the account of Thomas More (quoted in detail, e.g. by Cheetham, pp. 142-146). It is extremely circumstantial, naming names all over the place -- some of them familiar to history as servants of Richard, such as Sir Richard Ratcliffe, Sir William Catesby, and Sir James Tyrell, some unknown such as the conveniently-named "'Black' William Slaughter." In this account, Richard gives (far too public) orders for the murder of the princes, which Tyrell proceeds to carry out by the hand of accomplices. The bodies are secretly buried near the Tower -- and then secretly exhumed and moved by an unnamed priest.
As Cheetham comments on page 146, "More's account, written in 1513, carries a certain glib conviction, because he claims as his source the confession of the alleged assassin, Sir James Tyrell, who was executed for treason in 1502. But to accept it at face value rasies a number of unanswerable questions: why would Sir James make such a damaging confession? Why did Henry VII never have it taken down in writing anc circulated? Why does his official historian, Polydore Vergil, omit all mention of the confession?" And why is it that no copy of the confession has survived (Pollard, p. 120)?
It is extremely curious that More, who has had a lot of trouble with dates and facts until this point, is so circumstantial. Was he working from a copy of Tyrell's confession? There is every reason to think Henry faked this account. There were no bodies and no living witnesses; Tyrell, the alleged murderer, was executed without making a public statement (Fields, p. 231; he notes on p. 232 that the public record of Tyrell's execution refers only to treason in aiding the Earl of Suffolk, the brother of Richard's heir the Earl of Lincoln). Weir, pp. 243-248, devotes a chapter to More's account of Tyrell's alleged confession, then on p. 249, says that Tyrell's confession was "suppressed." This, of course, makes no sense -- Henry VII needed it to be public.
WilliamsonA, p. 174, does offer a sort of an explanation: The alleged confession had to be kept hidden until the deaths of three women who could have demonstrated its falsehood if false or been offended by it if true: The grandmother of the princes, Cecily Duchess of York (died 1495), their mother Elizabeth Woodville (died 1492), and their sister, Queen Elizabeth of York (died 1503).
But why should Tyrell confess anyway? It has been argued that he wanted absolution -- but that's a matter for the confessional, not a public declaration. Confessing merely gave a weapon to the man who was about to execute him!
Plus, would Tyrell have been willing to turn against Edward IV's children? Yes, he worked for Richard -- but it was Edward IV who had knighted him in 1471, after the Battle of Tewkesbury, and given him enough offices and properties to make him one of the richest men in England (WilliamsonA, p. 91).
Finally, and even more conclusively, if More knew where the bodies were buried, why didn't someone tell Henry Tudor? As Jenkins, p. 195, observes, Henry cannot have known where they were, or he would have exhumed them in 1485 or 1486 to stop the pretenders. It is curious to note that, when Henry VII came to London, he seems to have made no attempt at all to find out what had happened to Edward V and Richard of York (Fields, p. 189); this is one of the reasons why the most extreme defenders of Richard accuse Henry Tudor of killing the boys (I remember Thomas B. Costain making a big argument about this in The Last Plantagenets, though it was more wishful thinking than actual reasoning).
Of course, the possibility exists that someone invented More's unnamed priest who moved the bodies to justify why Henry VII couldn't find them. But if we don't know who the priest was, how do we know he did anything? More's excessive details, far from bolstering his case as Seward and Weir claim, makes it weaker -- take out Slaughter and the claim of Tyrell's confession and the unnamed priest, and *then* you have an account which works. But there is no basis for this shortened version of More's tale.
Note, too, that the bodies which are claimed to be those of the princes were found where More said they were *before* the unnamed priest came along! This says that either the bodies are not those of the princes or that More's tale is inaccurate in its conclusion. Either way, More is at least half wrong. As Poole says on p. 10, "No credit can be placed on the Tyrell story as reported by Sir Thomas More.")
Hicks allows a sort of pseudo-justification for murder of the princes -- that deposed kings had to die (Hicks, pp. 168-170). He notes the cases of Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI. We might also mention that King John likely murdered his rival Arthur of Brittany. Certainly being an ex-king was a very dangerous career choice. On the other hand. William the Conqueror had spared Edgar the Atheling, the heir of the Saxon dynasty, and (admittedly this was later) Lady Jane Grey would be spared after the first attempt to place her on the throne; they didn't kill her until after the second try. And, contrary to what Hicks asserts, Edward V was *not* ever the actual king, since he was never crowned.
So it does not *automatically* follow that Richard would have killed his nephews. It was not the Yorkists who slaughtered their rivals (the Beauforts mostly were allowed to live, except when actually found on the battlefield, though not trusted too much); it was the Tudors who elevated murder-for-being-alive to an art form,, as Henry VII executed Clarence's son the Earl of Warwick and Henry VIII killed the Earl of Suffolk (Richard's nephew), the Duke of Buckingham (the son of Richard's Duke), the Marquess of Exeter, the Countess of Salisbury (Clarence's daughter), and even Lord Montagu, who had almost no Plantagenet blood at all.
In passing judgment on all these men, we must remember that it was a cruel age. Henry V, the allegedly great king, had ordered a friend of his burned at the stake, and had watched as another "heretic" was burned. John Tiptoft, responsible for "justice" under Edward IV, was so cruel that he executed children too young even to understand that they were being killed (Dockray, p. 32). Margaret of Anjou had murdered Edward IV's younger brother Edmund of Rutland -- one version of the story has it that this was after he had been made to watch his father being killed, and while this is an after-the-fact legend, it shows how Margaret treated other enemies. Traitors at this time were half-hung then drawn and quartered -- eviscerated while alive. (This would be the fate of Perkin Warbeck, for instance.) It was Henry VIII, not Richard III, who executed those who denied transubstantiation -- even after the Anglican revolution! (Halliday, p. 89). *Everyone* was bloody-handed by our standards; the question is not whether they were cruel but whether they were more or less cruel than others of the period. And Richard, based on all things other than the fate of the princes, seems to have been less cruel than most.
Several stories circulated about the Princes' fate. The Burgundian chronicler Molinet thought they were walled up in a room and left to die (Poole, p. 9). And Ross, p. 97, has a tale of skeletons being found in a walled-up room that were said to be theirs. This was published in 1647, though Fields, p. 247, says that the actual discovery came earlier. But all evidence of this has vanished, and Ross dismisses it. And such stories were common at the time -- e.g. Richard III's friend Viscount Lovell disappeared after the Battle of Stoke, and there was a story that he too was walled up, and the skeleton later found in his home at Minster Lovell. Or, who knows, maybe that was the body of the princes.... This cannot possibly be checked; Minster Lovell was allowed to fall to ruin, and little but the foundation remains (Kerr, pp. 116-117).
Potter, p. 230, points out a story that the bodies were thrown in the Thames, but there is even less evidence for this.
Much more significant was the discovery, in 1674, of a coffin found under a stairway outside the Tower of London (Weir, p. 252). Details about the original find are unfortunately murky; it appears the cottin and the bones it contained were actually tossed on a rubbish heap for a time (Potter, p. 229; Fields, p. 240). We do know that , when recovered and opened, the coffin contained the bodies of two young children. (When it was reopened later, it was also found to contain oddities such as pig bones; Weir assumes that some of the children's bones had been stolen and replaced by animal bones, probably after the exhumation).
This is fascinating because at first glance it seems to match the circumstantial description found in Thomas More's history of Richard III. Except that it *doesn't,* because More says the bodies were moved after their initial burial, yet they were found right where we would expect them to have been had they not been reburied. As Pollard points out on p. 124, "In other words, if one chooses to believe More's hightly improbable story, the skeletons cannot have been those of the princes; for according to him their final resting place was elsewhere."
Fields, p. 239, observes that though we do not really have precise details about where the coffin was located, we can offer a general idea, then goes on to demonstrate, pp. 240-246 that, contrary to Weir, the discovery does *not* match Thomas More's account of the burial and of Sir James Tyrell's confession (though of course More had the whole thing at about fourth hand and much could have been distorted). Nor is this the only problem with More's account. Jenkins, p. 197, observes that the initial report says they were buried ten feet deep. This report may, of course, simply be inaccurate -- but if accurate, could a hole large enough to contain a chest with two bodies in it truly be dug, and filled in, in a single night by a party small enough to keep a secret?
The bodies were claimed to be those of the princes, and eventually they were treated as such. Nonetheless, there was no evidence for this supposition except for the fact that no one knew of any other bodies likely to be there -- and while More's account could not explain where the princes' bodies were actually buried, it did offer an explanation for why there were children buried near the Tower. Ross, p. 97, makes the interesting point that the king at the time of the discovery, Charles II, had "a certain interest in this matter of deposition" -- as in, his father had been deposed and executed. Thus he would naturally be interested in tales of other deposed kings. Fraser, p. 329, notes that Charles was convinced that the bodies were those of the Princes, and ordered then to receive great care as a result.
In 1933, the bodies were re-examinedby two experts (but not subjected to laboratory examination; Lamb, p. 77, and by experts who were convinced from the start that they were the princes; Pollard, p. 126) . They concluded that their ages -- twelve or thirteen for the elder, probably nine or ten for the younger though with a larger margin of error -- were consistent with the ages of the princes in 1483 or 1484 (Weir, p. 257, based on both the 1933 examination and more recent discussions of the photographs taken in 1933). Although the bodies are widely claimed to have been male, both children were pre-pubescent, meaning their sexes could not be determined (Weir, p. 255; Jenkins, p. 200; Poole, p. 9; Pollard, p. 126).
No cause of death could be determined; indeed, the 1933 examiners couldn't even determine the approximate date of burial of the bodies. (Weir claims that we can date them based on a casual reference to "velvet" being found in the coffin when they were excavated. It is true that velvet was invented in the middle ages, so the bones had to be relatively recent if they indeed were wrapped in velvet. However, the quote is that there were "pieces of rag and velvet about them"; WilliamsonA, p. 183. The reference is clearly too vague to allow certainty as to whether it was really velvet.) The 1933 examiners did make some guesses about what had killed the children, but scholars since then have almost universally declared these guesses untrustworthy.
So we are again stymied. Ross asks who the bodies belong to, if not the princes, but that is obvious special pleading. Hicks, p. 191, declares the matter "conclusively answered" but nowhere that I can see gives any reason to think that the bones were those of the princes, except that they were in the right place to fit More's account -- if you ignore the story that the bones were reburied and the fact that we don't actually know where they were found! Fields, p. 252, observes that several other bodies have been found on the Tower grounds, so what makes the bones of 1674 more likely to be the Princes?
Certainly, if the boys were Edward V and Richard of York, then they must have died during the reign of Richard III -- but it could not be established in 1674 or in 1933 that the skeletons were those of Edward and Richard (Kendall, p. 481). All we can say is that the skeletons fit such minimal details we have. The fact that they might be the right age to be the princes in 1483 does not prove that they are the princes, nor does it prove that the princes died in 1483. We must *either* know that the boys died in 1483 to prove that they are the princes, or know that they are the princes to know that the boys died in 1483.
Today, using genetic testing, we *could* determine if the bodies are Plantagenets, and a more accurate age at the time of their deaths, and a more accurate time of death (to within a century, anyway, as opposed to the only current objective dating, which is "we dunno"), and maybe even the cause of death -- but I read in an issue of Renaissance magazine that Elizabeth II has forbidden the re-exhumation of the bodies; this is confimed by Fields, p. 257. The staff of Wesminster Abbey, which holds the bones, is also opposed (Weir, p. 256). Those who most doubt Richard's guilt wonder if it isn't possible that Elizabeth II knows that her ancestor Henry VII, rather than Richard III, killed the two boys, who were an even greater threat to him than to Richard. This strikes me as highly unlikely -- if Richard had had the boys, he would have exhibited them in 1485, when the invasion by Henry Tudor was threatening. So it seems nearly certain that they were dead by then.
Kendall, p. 482, concedes, "As the matter stands, it can be asserted that, (a), if these are the skeletons of the Princes, then the boys were killed in the summer of 1483; and (b) it is very probable that these are the skeletons of the Princes." This, contrary to Lamb, WilliamsonA, and Fields, is still the best summary of the case. But it is also so vague a statement that it cannot be used to start a chain of inference.
To add to the uncertainty. the years since the 1933 examination have led to many attempts to extract more information from the minimum made available at that time -- and the result has been much questioning of the 1933 results; Fields, pp. 251-255, lists a number of studies on the subject, which have given age estimates for the older boy ranging from perhaps as young as eight or nine to as old as fifteen or sixteen!
Even if the bodies are those of the princes, and they were murdered, Kendall, p. 482, observes that this does not prove that Richard was the one who ordered their deaths -- though an honest person must admit that the probability of Richard ordering it is extremely high.
Pollard, p. 127, declares "Essentially the bones are a red herring. They cannot settle the question of whether Richard III murdered the princes." I would disagree in part. They cannot prove that Richard killed the boys. But modern methods *can* determine whether the two skeletons are those of the princes, and if they are, we can at least *prove* that the boys did not survive.
Although Richard III is obviously the leading candidate to have ordered the death of the princes, several other candidates have been mentioned. Two of them are genuine possibilities (Ross, pp. 102-104; Kendall devotes 31 pages -- pp. 465-495 -- to the issue): They had motive, and at some time or another also means and opportunity.
One is Henry Tudor. The case against him, in a way, is even stronger than against Richard III: Had the boys been alive, he would have *had* to murder them to take the throne. (Supposedly Henry Tudor, after Bosworth, said that if anyone of the line of Edward IV had a right to the throne, Henry himself would yield the throne to him; Arthurson, p. 2. As a way to suppress pretenders, it failed miserably.) And, being the man he was, Henry surely would not have hesitated. But, of course, he could only kill them if they were still alive. Which is nearly impossible if the 1674 bones are those of the princes, and unlikely even if the bones were someone else's.
(To be sure, WilliamsonA, p. 87, offers the suggestion that Henry managed to have someone kill the princes in 1483 while they were still in Richard's custody, the idea being that he had to get them out of the way so that he could marry Elizabeth of York. Henry is certainly sneaky enough to try such a thing, but it's hard to believe he could have pulled it off or that it could have gone unreported.)
The second possibility is the Duke of Buckingham, Richard's right-hand man in usurping the throne. Even Ross admits the possibility that he might have been the one to talk Richard into the murders. And Buckingham's influence in Richard's early reign was such that he might have been able to order their death on his own authority. But this does not answer *why* he might have done it. Some have argued that it was to make Richard look bad. Possible, since he went into rebellion soon afterward, but pretty convoluted. And, as Cheetham, p. 148, points out, Richard never once accused Buckingham of killing the boys. This does not entirely clear Buckingham, but it is a very strong argument in his favor. Pollard, p. 124, concludes that "the evidence is hardly enough to support the hypothesis... that [Buckingham] murded the princes without the King's authority." However, even the anti-Richard Bennett notes that there is some circumstantial evidence for the hypothesis that Buckingham arranged for the deaths at the end of July -- and that Richard blew up when he learned (Bennett, pp. 45-46).
Occasionally others are mentioned -- e.g. John Howard, since he got the Dukedom of Norfolk out of it. I really doubt this, since Howard had little access to the Princes and probably would have been promoted anyway. WilliamsonA, p. 106, mentions that Lord Stanley was Constable after Buckingham's rebellion, and could have killed the Princes on his stepson's behalf. But this assumes, first, that Stanley would do something that blatant (which he never did at any other time), and second, that Richard failed to catch him at it. This us extremely unlikely. We truly have only three candidates.
In this context, genetic testing on the 1674 skeletons would really help. As Cheetham says on p. 147, "if the skeletons are those of the princes, and their ages have been accurately assessed... Henry VII is exonerated from any part in their deaths.... [I]f the prices died in the autumn of 1483, there are only two men who could conceivably have been responsible -- Richard and Buckingham."
There is another possibility, rarely brought out in the studies of the matter (as best I can tell, only Fields, p. 218, considers it, and primarily in the context of the extremely unlikely notion that Perkin Warbeck was Prince Richard). The 1933 examination of the bones did seem to reveal advanced dental problems in the older skeleton (Kendall, p. 472; Weir, p. 255; Jenkins, p. 176, notes that the report says the older boys "suffered from extensive disease, affecting almost equally both sides of the lower jaw; The disease was of a chronic nature and could not fail to have affected his general health. The gums in the lowar molar region would have been inflamed, swollen, septic and no doubt associated with discomfort and irritability").
Thus there is a real possibility that Edward (V) died of this, or of blood poisoning consequent to this, forcing whoever was in charge at the time -- probably Richard -- to cover it up. Modern examinations would doubtless make this clearer, too, but, again, no such examination has been permitted.
In connection with this, I note a report that Prince Richard was reported to have been ill in the period before he was taken into custody (WilliamsonA, p. 85). Is it possible that *he* was the older skeleton, the one with the infected jaw, and the younger some unknown playmate? Could he have lived that long, or could our birth date for him be that far off? If so, what happened to Edward V? The answer once again is surely, "We will never know."
WilliamsonA, p. 117, notes the curious fact that the feigned boys who arose in Henry VII's reign pretended to be Prince Richard, not Edward V. She speculates that this was because people knew Edward V was dead (implying that he died of natural causes). But there is absolutely no historical hint of this. Far more likely that the pretenders claimed to be Richard because he was less-known than his brother, and so easier to "fake." Plus a boy who was nine at the time of the key incidents would not be as likely to remember details as a boy of twelve. By pretending to be Richard, the claimants made it harder to disprove their claims.
It's also possible that one of Richard's followers killed the boys, not realizing the problems it would cause. It's also possible that someone -- likely Buckingham -- killed them in full knowledge that it *would* cause problems. Some of of Richard III's extreme partisans have argued, e.g., that Henry Tudor might have tried to kill them at this stage, to clear the way for his marriage to Elizabeth of York. And if he had a means to do so, he might have tried. But Henry never took useless risks. If he had sent an assassin, and the assasin had been caught, he would be completely discredited. Unless the assassin was almost certain to succeed, he wouldn't have tried. Which means that Henry would have had to have the cooperation of either Richard or Buckingham.
Cheetham, p. 148, summarizes the case against Buckingham while concluding it unlikely; Kendall, pp. 487-495, offers a much more detailed case, including the statement on p. 494 that "empirically, Buckingham appears more likely than Richard to have been the murderer of the princes." Hicks, while dismissing the possibility, notes on p. 182 that several contemporary or near-contemporary sources suspected Buckingham, and that he was the only possibility mentioned at the time other than Richard.
In practical terms, this makes no difference -- if either boy had died against Richard's will, either naturally or by murder without his knowledge, Richard would still have been blamed for the deaths; he might well have felt that a coverup was the best he could do. (It probably was, too, though I'd say he should have come out and told the truth anyway.)
As Kendall, p. 495, notes, "This famous enigma eludes us, like Hamlet: we cannot pluck out the heart of its mystery. But at least we can do better than Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who thought there was no mystery at all."
Richard's attackers frequently claim that his murder of children was exceptional -- this is the point at which they go into histrionics (about a third of Hick's book is devoted to this point; so is Pollard, pp. 135-139). This is bunk. Tales of children being exposed because they were threats to the throne go back to tales of Oedipus and Cyrus. Cnut had devastated the Saxon royal family when he took the throne, and when William the Bastard became William the Conqueror, Edgar the Atheling, the Saxon heir who was about the age of Edward V, had to flee to Scotland. Henry Tudor killed the Earl of Warwick. Jane Grey was killed as a teenager. The correct statement is not that it was *unusual* to try to kill children, but that it was *more widely reviled*.
The flip side (rarely mentioned by Richard's defenders) is that, *even if he didn't kill them*, he still bears a significant portion of the blame for their deaths. By imprisoning them, he made them a fixed target. If Buckingham decided to kill them, he knew right where they were -- no risk of them being moved and word of the plot leaking out. If by some wild chance they were around for Henry Tudor to kill, *he* knew where they were. And even if they, or at least Edward V, died naturally, Richard prevented doctors from seeing them (admittedly any doctor of the time would have been completely useless, but the doctor could have made the situation known).
As Pollard says on p. 132, "At bottom, the difficulty facing all arguments to the effect that someone other than Richard III [or Buckingham] was resopnsible for the death of the princes, is the assumption that they were still alive on the morning of 22 August 1485. As an assumption this is less tenable than the assumption that they were dead by then."
Cheetham, p. 151, gives what seems to me the best summary: "We have thus come in a full circle back to Richard as the prime suspect [in the murder] and the early autumn of 1483 as the most likely date. The evidence is not conclusive in a legal sense, and never will be. Richard stands convicted not so much by the evidence against him as by the lack of evidence against anybody else.
"The murders leave an ineradicable stain on Richard's character.... But that does not prove that his nature was warped by a vein of deliberate cruelty. His treatment of the vanquished Nevilles and his defence of Clarence show Richard in a kinder light....
"More important than the moral issue were the political consequences. The murder of the Princes has often been described as a Renaissance solution in the manner later prescribed by Macchiavelli. In fact it was a colossal blunder. Nothing else could have prompted the deflated Woodvilles to hitch themselve to Henry Tudor's bandwagon...." (This point of view in fact goes back to contemporaries of Richard's; Ross, pp. xxxix-xl, quotes the Great Chronicle of London to this effect.)
Incidentally, this is not the only unsolved death of the period. Richard's friend Viscount Lovell seems to have vanished after his part in the Lambert Simnel rebellion of 1487. Ross, p. 50, says that "the circumstances of his death are even more mysterious than those of the princes in the Tower" -- and obviously this conundrum took place in the reign of Henry VII, not Richard III. One story had it that Lovell was left in a walled-up room in his own house -- note the similarity to that 1647 story about the princes!
All that seems really certain is that Richard no longer had the boys in his possession by September 1483, when Buckingham rebelled; under the circumstances, had Richard been able to bring them forth, the rebellion against him would have been weakened (Jenkins, p. 201) -- although it would have raised the hopes of those who wanted to restore the dynasty of Edward IV (Ross-Wars, p. 97). The odds are high that the boys were dead (though it occurs to me that it's just possible Buckingham had stolen them away as part of his scheme. But this is fairly unlikely, since Richard would presumably have proclaimed it, and he didn't.)
Nonetheless, Jenkins, p. 204, argues that at late as January 23, 1484, many thought the boys were still alive (this based on the fact that the Continuator of the Croyland Chronicle is widely thought to be Bishop John Russell of Lincoln -- so, e.g., Ross, p. xliv -- whose speech before parliament in 1484 showed no knowledge of their fate. Ross, however, thinks that the Croyland Chronicle did blame Richard for the deaths).
Interestingly, Richard, once Buckingham's rebellion was crushed, "treated the rebels with a magnanimity worthy of kingship. There were less than a dozen executions; no punitive measures were taken against Bishop Woodville, Sir Richard Woodville or the Marquess Dorset. Bishop Morton himself [probably the chief planner] was offered a pardon, but he did not come home to claim it. The widowed Duchess of Buckingham [another Woodville] was given an annuity; even that discreet but active conspirator the Lady Margaret Beaufort was not attainted..." (Jenkins, p. 203). Richard had also allows the widows of Earl Rivers and Lord Hastings to enjoy significant portions of their former revenues (WilliamsonA, p. 75). As Ross-Wars, p. 157, observes, "Henry VII was much tougher [in punishing rebellious nobles] than the Yorkists had been."
Cheetham, p. 158, gives a mixed verdict: "Ninety-five men has been singled out as leaders of the rebellion and had their lands confiscated.... These measures were not unduly harsh: at least a third of the attainders were subsequently revoked and many of those named had already found refuge at Henry [Tudor]'s court in exile." Richard probably felt that his kingdom was secure, so he didn't need to destroy the rebels -- but if he had been a more vengeful man, he probably could have killed them; they certainly weren't of any use to him!
That very magananimity demonstrates the convenience of the claims that Richard III was responsible for the deaths of the Princes in the Tower: Henry Tudor's justification for his ascension was that, first, Richard had killed the legitimate heir, meaning that Henry had at least some claim to the throne (though very dubious), and second, that Richard's crimes were so black that he needed to be overthrown.
It must be stressed: The Princes almost certainly died during Richard's reign, probably very early on, and very likely at his order. But the evidence, while strong, is not proof; we cannot draw absolute conclusions. Though, of course, this would not stop a good balladeer; it's a matter of legal proof.
The one person who truly benefitted from Buckingham's rebellion was probably Henry Tudor; it went far toward establishing him as the accepted alternative to Richard (Ross-Wars, p. 98).
RICHARD'S GOVERNMENT AND TUDOR GOVERNMENT
The claim that Richard did nothing but evil is patently false. He promoted learning and tried very much to establish justice; in better times, he very likely would have been a good king. Wilkinson, p. 300, says that "Richard took his business of ruling very seriously," adding that he brought able men into his council, encouraged trade, and established an admiralty as well as trying to clean up the national finances. Wilkinson concludes that he was "an able and effective king."
The laws passed in Richard's sole parliament were very positive. Cheetham, p. 158, lists as the major accomplishments laws regulating the granting of bail, assuring that juries were selected honestly and kept free from pressure, and governing the sale of property so that rich landowners couldn't cheat buyers. Jenkins, pp. 204-205, adds that he implemented laws to protect the property of those who were charged with crimes (WilliamsonA, p. 111, notes that the Woodvilles had been notorious for this). He set up a postal service. And he made revisions to the customs laws, most notably abolishing all duties on printed books and allowing foreign booksellers to sell their wares. (Garnett and Gosse, p. 273. Think about *that*, Shakespeare fans! -- and note that Henry VIII repealed this and banned foreign booksellers; Steinberg/Trevitt, p. 49. Tudor renaissance? Hah.) One of Caxton's books was dedicated to Richard (Cunningham, p. 88).
He also banned the royal use of "benevolences" -- that is, forced loans (Russell, p. 38). These amounted to direct extortion from the nobles, especially as there was no real guarantee that they would be paid back. WilliamsonA, p. 109, notes that this was remembered -- apparently the citizens of London tried to use the precedents set by Richard to argue against Tudor tax policy. (It shouldn't take much knowledge of history to know how well *that* went over. The fact that anyone even tried the argument shows how strong was the contrast between Plantagenet and Tudor monarchy.)
The acts of Richard's parliament were published in English, according to Fields, p. 162 -- the first time the laws were published in the vernacular instead of in Latin. This was another help to the common people, since for the first time they could understand the law without having to rely on a cleric or lawyer.
Ross sourly comments (p. 189) that most of Richard's reforms were badly needed, and hence obvious -- but they had been obvious for decades and no one else made them; Ross-Edward, p. 347, documents how little constructive legislation had passed in the reign of Edward IV. He observes that the 1484 parliament seems to have been full of Richard's supporters (it elected Richard's friend William Catesby as speaker even though Catesby had never served in parliament before; Ross, p. 185); Ross may be right in thinking that this indicates an unusual degree of parliament-packing, but I'm not sure why he thinks that so significant, since the results were still positive.
Pollard, p. 156, questions how much of the legislation was actually proposed by Richard, who allegedly had no "personal interest" in the acts involving commercial law (which he admits are good). But Pollard, like Ross, believes (although he admits that we have no data) that that parliament of 1484 was packed (Pollard, p. 151). If the parliament was under Richard's thumb, then Richard can be credited with the legislation. And even Pollard, p. 177, says that many of the changes which made Henry Tudor so strong a king (and he certainly was a strong king, if not a pleasant one) were in fact Richard's work. He goes on to compare Richard to Henry V -- a comparison which, I suspect, neither king's partisans would like.
Learning was clearly important to Richard. He gave major endowments to two colleges at Cambridge (Cheetham, p. 163; Ross, p. 135). Ross also says, on p. 130, that Richard endowed many foundations -- and that most of his activities of this sort came before he was king, when they became (in effect) part of his job. Among his foundations while still duke was Middleham College. He also started a college at York Minster as king, though he didn't have time to properly endow it. Pollard, too, notes his charities (p. 193), even while condemning his techniques of land aquisition. (Given the behavior of every other noble of the time, this strikes me as imposing modern morals on a medieval man.) Cunningham, p. 87, credits him with a grand total of ten major endowments. This is by contrast to his brother Edward IV, who (according to Dockray, p. 5) was neither especially religious nor especially devoted to learning.
Richard may also have enjoyed scholarly discussion himself; Ross, p. 149, notes an occasion when he spent two days listening to scholarly debate at Oxford (but can't resist adding a dig, "how much he understood of them is an open question.")
Nor was this the only time Richard listened to scholars debate. According to www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/grocyn.htm, Richard while Duke of Goucester heard a debate between William Grocyn and John Taylor. Richard gave Grocyn five marks and a buck -- a significant gift at the time. And Grocyn, according to Rylands, p. 18, became the first-ever teacher of Greek at Oxford. Although little is left from his pen, this makes him one of the most important classical scholars in English history -- but he seems to have gotten no support from the Tudors; only Richard heard and supported him. Like his support for books, Richard's support for Greek scholars gives strong evidence of his belief in the value of learning.
Protestants might be interested to note that, at a time when the Catholic Church refused to sanction vernacular translations and generally restricted ownership of the Bible (the Lancastrian dynasty had officially tried to suppress the Lollard translation of Wycliffe, along with a number of other books they or the Church did not like; Rubin, pp. 194-195), Richard had his own copy of the Wycliffe English Bible (Kendall, p. 386; Ross, p. 128, claims it was a "non-Lollard" version of Wycliffe's translation, but there is no such thing. Ross may be referring to an attempt by Cardinal F. A. Gasquet to prove that the translation known as Wycliffe's was orthodox and that the actual translation by Wycliffe has not survived. But we actually have copies of the Wycliffe translations in the autographs of translators Nicolas of Hereford and John Purvey; Kenyon/Adams, pp. 278-281, completely demolishes Gasquet's hypothesis. What Richard had was a Wycliffite Bible based on Wycliffe's and Hereford's first draft, without Purvey's heretical prologue to the revised translation).
I'm not saying Richard was a proto-Protestant; it appears he was always at peace with the official church. But he does seem to have been someone who believed in the substance rather than the form of piety.
Seward-Richard, p. 87, mentions Richard's Wycliffite Bible and other religious activities -- and concludes that Richard was a hypocrite who failed to acknowledge his actions. But this is precisely backward -- Richard's spiritual life was largely secret. If there is a key to Richard, I think it lies here: His definition of morality was not ours. We may not agree with Richard's (I certainly don't!), but in trying to assess what kind of man he was, we must ask if he was true to his morals, not ours. (Ross, in his final chapter, addresses this. Seward and Weir never do. Ironically, Kendall never really does, either.)
Richard was able to appoint only two bishops, but both were exceptional men (Ross, p. 133): Thomas Langton was first made Bishop of St. David's, then of Salisbury (and, under Henry VII, Bishop of Winchester and was nominated Archbishop of Canterbury but did not live to assume the post), and John Sherwood became Bishop of Durham (one of the most important of all English sees). Langton was a canon lawyer and a humanist; Shirwood, even more unusually, knew Greek as well as Latin and studied the actual Bible, not the badly-corrupted Latin Vulgate texts of the period that were the official Catholic texts. Richard even recommended that Shirwood be made Cardinal. For his own chaplain, he chose another Greek scholar, who had actually written a commentary on Plato (Ross, p. 134). Henry Tudor, by contrast, held bishoprics vacant in order to increase his own revenues (Russell, p. 57).
Richard established the Council of the North in 1484 (Cheetham, pp. 167-168, 209, Dockray, p. 111), which was maintained even by the Tudors; it lasted until the Union of the Crowns largely eliminated the Scottish border problem. Pollard, p. 176, observes that this solved a long-term problem: The crown had little control of the north, and many rebellions had come from there. Even Seward-Richard, p. 71, admits that "Beyond question the Duke's overall administration [of his territory in the North] was brilliantly successful.... [H]is firm hand and employment of Northern officials won him golden opinions and devoted servants among the townsmen and among some of the gentry." Dockray, p. 111, declares that Richard "brought a degree of stability to the region not seen for years." The problem was that it made him seem like the leader of a section of the country rather than the nation as a whole. The Tudors, in fact, adopted the idea and created a similar Council for Wales (Russell, p. 47). But Pollard, p. 150, suggests that the Earl of Northumberland may have resented the Council, since it reduced his power somewhat.
Richard also founded the ancestor of the modern Court of Requests, which gave ordinary people a chance to try to gain justice from their superiors (Cheetham, pp. 207-208; Jenkins, p. 205; Cunningham, p. 58, says that "Richard did have a genuine motivation to maintain impartial justice"; Ross, p. 175 notes the founding of the Court of Requests but sneers that Richard was prepared to ignore justice when it got in his way; Russell, p. 51, tries to deny the link to Richard by saying its "origins are obscure.").
Ross, p. 151, quotes Bishop Langton as saying, "He contents the people wherever he goes best that ever did prince; for many a poor man that hath suffered wrong many days have been relieved by him and helped by him and his commands in his progress. And in many great cities and towns were great sums of money given him which he hath refused." Langton was allied with Richard, but this was in a private letter, so the sentiments are probably genuine. And Ross, p. 152, goes on to note that even hostile witnesses testify to his attempts to his attempts to supply tax relief and bring justice to the commons.
That respect for the common people reminds us of one of his other innovations -- one which may have been fatal. Richard tried to build his faction of relatively low-born men -- knights and esquires, rather than the high nobility (Cheetham, pp. 161-162; Seward-Richard, p. 117, calls them a "mafia"!). For example, when it came time to appoint a Lord Treasurer in succession to the deceased Essex, he did not choose a baron or a bishop, but gave the post to John Wood, the under-treasurer, a competent man but a commoner. He seems to have chosen men of high ability -- but, of course, the barons would have resented it, and in the period of the Wars of the Roses, they were in the habit of helping to decide who was king. As we have seen, several authors make exaggerated claims about how few of the high nobles fought at Bosworth. They usually blame it on repugnance for Richard. I suspect that the repugnance was more of a petty hissy fit, "How can he employ people like that? Just because their intelligence and education is greater than mine...."
It is often urged that the reign of Richard produced nothing in the way of literature and art, whereas Henry VII started the Tudor renaissance. It is true that there are no significant works from the period, and we have no record of Richard supporting the arts (Ross-Wars, p. 85). But we must note that the whole era was lacking; Amderson, p. 255, declares "No century in the history of English literature since the Norman Conquest has been more .often reproached for its barrenness than the fifteenth; and certainly its accomplishment is by any standard comparatively insignificant." Chaucer and Langland and the Gawain-poet and Gower were dead by about 1400 -- and no one succeeded them (barring the faint possibility that a great poet's work was lost. It could have happened; Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, after all, survived in only one manuscript). There were "Chaucerians," to be sure, but the only tolerable writers among them, ironically, were Scottish! (Anderson, pp. 263-265).
The simple truth is, the Lancastrian era gave us no great writer except Thomas Malory (several authors speculate that the religious bigotry of the Lancastrians was a major factor in this), and the (much shorter) Yorkist era gave us none at all. Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur, written by a man who was in constant trouble with the law, was in fact published by Caxton in 1485, just days before Henry Tudor's invasion, meaning that Richard's reign was responsible for making available the only significant literary work of the era. (It is curious to observe that, of Caxton's early publications, Malory's is among the least preserved -- only one complete copy plus a second with quite a few leaves missing. It can't be that it was unpopular -- it was reprinted as early as 1498.)
But Henry VII's reign -- which lasted exactly as long as the combined reigns of the Yorkist kings -- also produced nothing. I checked four major poetry anthologies; between them they quoted only three poets born between 1420 and the death of Henry VII, and only two of them were mentioned in all the anthologies: John Skelton was in his twenties (probably 25) at the time of Bosworth, so he was formed by Yorkist tastes, not Tudor; Thomas Wyatt was only six when Henry VII died, so Henry can hardly claim credit for him!
The third poet of the period, Stephen Hawes appears in only one anthology, seemingly to bring in one early Tudor writer other than Skelton. (Hawes was one of Henry VII's grooms and a Chaucerian hack, according to Anderson, pp. 261-262. Kunitz/Haycraft, pp. 254-255, say that his writing was "essentially medieval," and marked by "sameness of... style" and "careless construction, confused meter, and bizarre and artificial wording." There is a work of his in Percy, but again, it seems intended to fill a chronological gap.) In any case, he seems to have worked primarily in the reign of Henry VIII, not Henry VII.
The next major poet after Wyatt was Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey -- and he came from the family to which Richard III had given the Norfolk earldom, and Henry VIII executed him as a result. Great way to start a renaissance.
Morris, p. 18, makes the startling observation that, in literature, "Tudor men and women talked and wrote as if they had virtually no 'inner life.'" Their art was little better. Morris, p. 21, declares, "Tudor taste was still very gothic; it was a taste for the excrescent, the florid, the flamboyant. It ran to profusion. It could not resist filling all available space with arabesque and ornament; it had to be lavish and garish in display."
The Royal Library, which formed the basis of what is now the British Library, was founded by Edward IV. Henry Tudor seemingly took no interest in it (so BarkerEtAl, p. 26). Considering that the printing press was active in the early Tudor period, as it had not been in the Yorkist, the lack of great works stemming from Henry's reign is noteworthy. Culturally, far from starting the Tudor renaissance, Henry VII continued the great cultural vacuum. It has been said that Henry VII paved the way for Elizabeth I (and there is no denying that hers was a great era culturally). But in truth Henry left little behind but a strong centralized government and a large war-chest -- and Henry VIII spend the latter and the reign of Mary (and indeed of Henry VIII and Edward VI) showed how dangerous the former could be. Even Elizabeth's regime censored publications.
The Vatican imposed censorship starting in 1487, and Tudor censorship was even more extreme -- Henry VIII had an index of prohibited books, just like theVatican (Gillingham, pp. 9-10). Ashley-GB, p. 223, notes that one reason the Reformation succeeded was that Henry VIII was able to publish books supporting his side, but suppressed Catholic books. We have actual physical evidence that Tudor officialdom hacked at at least one play which Shakespeare worked on. (Who knows what he might have done had he had a free hand? It has been observed that, of the English kings from Richard II to Henry VIII, Shakespeare wrote plays about all but Edward V, who hardly had a reign, and Henry VII...). Richard III appears never to have instituted prior restraint.
And Tudor England was not an economic success -- Henry Tudor faced a peasant revolt in 1497 which made it all the way to London (Morris, p. 26), and Henry VIII faced an even worse revolt in the 1520s (Russell, p. 79). The Tudor regime pushed taxes very high (Ashley-GB, p. 229, notes about an eight-fold increase from Henry VII's average to the average in the final years of Henry VIII; even allowing for inflation, that implies a threefold increase in effective tax rates), with bad results for the economy. It was in Tudor times that inflation first began to affect England seriously (Morris, p. 30; Ahsley-GB, p. 230, estimates that prices tripled from the beginning of Henry VIII's reign to the beginning of Elizabeth I's. That's not an extreme rate of inflation -- a little less than 2.5% per year -- but it was a dramatic change for a society used to almost no price fluctuation at all).
Henry VIII would debase the coinage (Morris, p. 31; Halliday, p. 92), something the Plantagenets had largely avoided and which made the inflation far worse. According to Gillingham, p. 11, real wages fell throughout the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth, hitting their nadir in 1597. Enclosure drove many off their lands, and the number of poor increased dramatically in Tudor times (Mattingly, p. 177). It seems clear that this was the result of the exceptional taxes levied by Henry VII and his heirs, and the currency manipulation of Henry VIII. Halliday points (p. 96) that when Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, England was a poor nation -- yet it had been one of the richest in Europe even during the nadir of the Lancastrian era!
The very pro-Tudor WilliamsonJ says, on pp. 16-17, that while Henry Tudor at the time of Bosworth was "cool, humorous... diplomatic... capable of instant decision... and... a man of his word" (a description which, even then, I find far too flattering), he concedes that this was not "an altogether just picture of the Henry VII of twenty years later" (in other words, Henry VII showed his real side when he was secure on the throne -- and it wasn't a very pretty picture).
Let us not forget who pushed through the legislation which empowered the Star Chamber (WilliamsonJ, pp. 27-28, though he tries valiantly to claim both that the Star Chamber was actually a positive step and that Henry didn't really create it. Russell, however, notes on pp. 49-50 that being summoned before the Council or the Star Chamber was "one of the most alarming experiences which might befall a Tudor gentleman." WilliamsonJ's rather delicate way, on p. 38, of describing Henry's regard for law is to say that "Henry's upbringing in foreign countries had not imbued him with the instinctive respect for the constitution which he might have had if he had been educated near the throne." In other words, he was a despot. It is rarely stated this way, but the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was largely an attempt to limit the powers the Tudor monarchs had taken to themselves).
The Tudors also added many more government officials -- some, like those who ran the Navy, useful, but many just to watch over people. Henry Tudor, for instance, created the county officials known as feodaries, responsible for collecting rents and fees for the king, plus the receiver, surveyor, and woodward (Russell, p. 49). Some of there tasks were important, but mostly they added to the burden of government. And, since government posts paid very little, most survived by squeezing people; at this time, big government was generally bad government (Russell, p. 45).
Henry Tudor's Engliand was, flatly, a police state for the noble families. According to Ross-Wars, p. 152, "Of the twenty families which made up the higher nobility... in 1485, only half still held their titles in 1509" -- and many of those under suspended attainder, meaning that Henry could pick them off at any time if they misbehaved. Ross-Edward, p. 339, quotes Lander's statement that it was a "terrifying system" and refers to one of the crown officers as the "chief agent of extortion." Hicks, on p. 269 of RicardianXIII, notes that Henry almost never fully reversed an attainder. The treason laws were also toughened; in the past, treason had required an actual act of rebellion, but under Henry VIII, just speaking seditiously was considered sufficient reason to die a traitor's death (Russell, p. 90). Had the nobles known in 1485 what they were getting themselves in for, I doubt Henry Tudor would have lasted a week on the throne.
It seems that more people trained in the law under the Tudors than under the Yorkist regimes (Russell, p. 54). And, since there still were no officers of justice other than the sheriffs, now badly underpaid and with little use for their task, there was a vast upsurge in informers (Russell, p. 45). Many of these were merely witnesses bringing stories about property crimes and the like -- but far too many were governmentinformants, or people who used the Tudors' security mania to get back at personal enemies.
Or consider this: Columbus, for his explorations of America, was granted great titles and revenue by the Catholic Monarchs of Spain. But when John Cabot tried to explore the New World for the English, Henry Tudor gave him -- ten pounds (Mirsky, p. 24). Little wonder he eventually went into Spanish service (WilliamsonJ, p. 93). England eventually acquired overseas colonies, but would surely have done so sooner (and at less cost!) had Henry not been so unwilling to make investments in the future.
Or this: Erasmus of Rotterdam, arguably the greatest scholar of his age, came to England about the time Henry VII died. He left five years later -- because no one paid him enough to support him (WilliamsonJ, p. 92).
Or this: Henry VII's council was so unpopular that his son Henry VIII, on taking the throne, had not only to expel two of them but to execute them (WilliamsonJ, p. 76). This even though Henry VIII otherwise kept the rest of the council intact; he was not trying for a completely new policy.
Henry VII didn't even show much gratitude to the men who put him on the throne. Sir William Stanley, who saved his life, would be executed in 1495 (Kendall, p. 457). Rhys ap Thomas, who had brought in most of the Welsh troops that fought at Bosworth, was never promoted above the status of knight (Mattingly, p. 45).
Turning back to Richard, the one thing he clearly was not was a peaceful man -- at least before he became King. When Edward IV invaded France, the French quickly tried to buy off the English, and Richard opposed the deal. He commanded an invasion of Scotland, and probably wanted to lead more (Dockray, pp. 111-112, who clearly thinks the border war unwise; in this, he follows the Croyland Chronicler, who thought it an expensive boondoggle). But, in 1484, he agreed to a three-year truce and a marriage alliance with the Scots, agreeing to marry his niece (the daughter of the Duke of Suffolk and the sister of Richard's later heir the earl of Lincoln) to the future James IV (Ross, p. 193, though Ross interprets these attempts at peace as evidence that Richard wanted more war with the Scots).
The Scots were not a real threat to Richard's throne. The French were. Ross, pp. 195-196, notes that Richard's enemy Henry Tudor had long been sheltered in Brittany (which was, in practical terms, independent from France but very afraid of the French. Bennett, p. 85, thinks the time in Brittany was a help to Henry, since it exposed him to the Breton culture -- relatively close to Welsh culture, and Henry, who was a quarter Welsh, would desperately need Welsh support). Richard responded with a campaign of naval pressure on the Bretons (Ross, p. 197), even though they would have been logical allies against the French had he managed the relationship right. Later, after Richard convinced the Bretons to yield the Tudor, Henry escaped to the French (Ross, p. 199, who thinks that Henry's mother Margaret Beaufort may have warned him; she might well have learned of it from her husband Lord Stanley). And, because the French considered Richard their enemy, they let Henry loose and even gave him some French soldiers (Ross, p. 194).
Despite his George W. Bush approach to diplomacy, Richard was ahead of his time in many ways -- e.g. in his support of printing, which of course would make learning available to far more than ever before; in his personal version of spirituality, as shown by his English Bible and other books; in his tendency to appoint learned men rather than timeservers to high office (Ross, p. 76; Ross, p. 132, adds that he preferred Cambridge to Oxford men, but given that his Chancellor, Bishop John Russell, whom Thomas More called "one of the best learned men undoubtedly that England had in his time," was an Oxford man, I think this is exaggerated); and in his respect for the commons.
One of Shakespeare's incidents may have had a vague kernel of truth. Sadly, according to Jenkins, p. 208, Richard's wife Anne Neville was consumptive (probably; Weir, p. 206, says "tuberculosis or cancer"), and toward the end of her life doctors declared her illness contagious. So Richard, whose only legitimate son Edward had died in early 1484, was unable to share his wife's bed in the final months before she too died in early 1485 (HarveyJ, p. 208; Jenkins, p. 210; Seward-Richard, p. 168, in his desire to finish off Richard, apparently wanted him to sleep with her so he too could have gotten sick). While hardly the marriage of enemies Shakespeare portrayed, at the end it was perhaps chaste.
Weir, p. 210, is sure that Richard tried to hasten Anne's end, and cites on p. 211 Rous's statement that Richard poisoned Anne. This apparently was a genuine rumor, known also to Commynes. Seward-Richard, p. 169, says that the rumor came from "no less a witness than Richard himself" -- but he cites no statement of Richard's, instead mentioning Commynes.
Evidence and logic argue against it. Poison was becoming a political tool on the continent, but the English were very slow to adopt it (Lofts, pp. 88-89). In any case, the poisons of the period weren't reliable enough to make someone die of what seemed to be tuberculosis! Plus the Croyland Chronicler reports that, when their son Edward died, both Richard III and his wife were "almost bordering on madness" because of their grief (Ross, p. 145; Pollard, p. 159). Richard, given his illegitimate children, would surely have been of the opinion that he could have more offspring if he married someone else -- and, since he and Anne Neville were cousins, he could almost certainly have obtained an annulment of his marriage. Why poison her and risk discovery?
More to the point, Richard's marriage to Anne Neville helped maintain his alliances in the north, since she was the heir of one of the greatest northern families. Getting rid of her was not good politics (Bennett, p. 68). Even if he wanted her dead, he could surely have waited until Henry Tudor was dealt with. Seward-Richard, p. 168, claims that Richard used "psychological methods" to poison her, and claims support from Croyland -- but in his endnote cites only Polydore Vergil.
Weir admits (pp. 210-211) that Croyland tells us Richard wept openly by Anne's grave, and that his face was always drawn after this. Naturally Weir considers this another act on his part.
There is disagreement about whether the marriage between Richard and Anne Neville was a love match -- Kendall thinks it was; Ross, p. 28, vigorously denies it, and Ross-Edward, p. 188, suggests Anne married Richard because he was the only man strong enough to prevent Anne from being despoiled by Anne's sister Isabel and her husband George. Seward-Richard, p. 62, in a rare moment of balance, confesses, "There is no evidence how he regarded her, nor even if their marriage was happy or unhappy."
The strangest account is that of Harvey, who largely follows the Hall/Holinshed/Shakespeare version of history to the exclusion of primary sources, but for some reason thinks that Richard loved Anne passionately: After Warwick's death, "Clarence, her brother-in-law... tried to whisk her into obscurity. Disinherited, branded as a traitor, nameless and unknown, dressed in rages, forced to work the kitchens and empty the slops in mighty houses, he had survived for five years. She did not know that Gloucester had loved her, had sought for years to find her, to marry her...." Unfortunately for romantics, her father died in 1471, and Anne's son was born by 1474, so she wasn't hidden for five years.
Pollard, p. 65, declares, "Although the young couple had known each other in childhood, there is no evidence that theirs was a love-match. One might be drawn by the romantic notion that is was, particularly since Richard does indeed seem to have rescued the unfortunate girl from virtual arrest in Charence's household. Sadly there were mundane and material reasons for the match on both sides." On this basis Pollard seems certain that Gloucester married her for her lands (although, it should be noted, there was no guarantee that she would have any lands when he rescued her, since the threat of attainder still fell upon her father, and her mother was still alive).
The biggest obstacle to the idea of a love match is the four year gap in their ages (Ross-Edward, p. 94n., says Anne was born in June 1456. Richard was born in 1452). If a 19-year-old boy fell in love with a 15-year-old girl, it would be no great surprise. But how about an 11-year-old boy and a 7-year-old girl? If Richard had any feelings about Anne when he met her, he probably thought she was a young pest.
In fact there is some evidence regarding their mutual feelings, but of questionable value. According to Potter, p. 170, Buck cited a manuscript claiming that Richard refused to take part in the killing of Edward of Lancaster because Richard loved Anne Neville, then married to Edward (WilliamsonA, p. 32). This manuscript, however, was presumably lost in the Cotton Fire if it existed at all, and in any case was probably written after the fact.
Seward-Richard, p. 41, suggests that her father the Earl of Warwick offered to have Anne marry Richard (Ross-Edward, in fact, suggests on p. 94 that, after Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville, marriages to the Plantagenet princes were the only prospects left for his daughters, since the Woodville sisters had used up all the other eligible nobility); this is a possible but unsupported speculation and does not explain why the two went through with it after Warwick was killed. We can only try to infer. What is interesting to note is that Richard was one of few English Kings to have an English wife (since the Norman Conquest, there were only three others: John had married then divorced Isabel of Gloucester, Henry IV had married Mary de Bohun before he was in line for the throne, and Edward IV had married Elizabeth Woodville).
Of these four instances, only Richard would have known his bride for any length of time before they were married, since Richard lived in the Neville household in his early years. So Richard and Anne -- contrary to Shakespeare -- *could* have fallen in love. The Croyland Chronicler told a confusing story of George of Clarence hiding his sister-in-law and Richard rescuing her (Dockray, p. 100), but as several historians have pointed out, this makes little sense as told -- Anne Neville could have rescued *herself* had she wanted to.
Which leads to another point: Consider when Richard's two illegitimate children were conceived: Seemingly in 1469-1471. This was the period when Warwick was fighting Edward. Richard probably could have sired children before that, and *certainly* could have had illegitimate children after that -- but it appears he didn't. Lamb, p. 14, declares that "no gossip exists about his family life." The only time he sowed his wild oats was when Anne Neville appeared to be unavailable, since she was betrothed to Edward the Lancastrian Prince of Wales. It's an argument from silence, but it really does seem to imply that he cared for Anne Neville. Whether she returned the emotion is another question.
(In the Department of Odd Asides, Richard's marriage to Anne may have added to his tragedy. Charles of Burgundy was killed in 1477, his only heir being a daughter -- the most eligible heiress in Europe. Everyone in Burgundy wanted her to marry an Englishman, to form a marriage alliance. Edward IV couldn't manage it; his only available husband was Gorge of Clarance, whom he simply could not trust; Ross-Edward, pp. 249-251. Richard would have done admirably, but he was married to Anne Neville. They perhaps could have gotten a divorce on grounds of consanguinity, but Richard seemingly did not want it. Whether this was for love, or because he did not wish to disinherit his son, or for some other reason, we cannot tell.)
Cheetham, p. 163, makes the interesting observation that the death of Richard's son may have changed the political equation, since Richard no longer had a dynasty to assure the future fortunes of his supporters. It's hard to know how important this would be to the nobles of the time -- it would doubtless disturb them that Richard had no heir, but Richard was only 32; he had plenty of time to sire another son. Except that, if Richard died young, as his brother had, then England would again have the problem of a boy king....
There was apparently another rumor, after Anne's death, that Richard wanted to take his niece, Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth, as his second wife. Weir, p. 203, claims that "it was only days [after Christmas 1484] before a passionate attraction was kindled between them." She also suggests that Elizabeth Woodville may have pushed her daughter in that direction. She bases this "passion" on a comment by Croyland (which she quotes on p. 204) about Richard wanting to marry Elizabeth to "put an end" to the hopes of a rival. Seward-Richard, p. 171, says there is "no question" that Richard intended to do so.
Harvey, p. 99, also mentions a rumor that Elizabeth had a child by Richard -- but cites no source for this information, and elsewhere states as if they were fact things which are rather her own imagination.
Apart from Croyland's comment, which we note is about politics, not passion, there seem to be only three pieces of actual evidence for the idea, all weak. One is that, at a Christmas ball in 1484, Anne Neville and Elizabeth of York wore similar dresses (Seward-Richard, p. 168). This led to a great deal of speculation about Elizabeth replacing Anne -- but raises the problem of why Anne would go along. Despite the gossip, Pollard's explanation (pp. 162-163) is that Richard was taking Edward's children back into favor, and the Woodvilles were now supporting Richard.
The second bit of evidence is the testimony of Edward Hall, which Weir quotes with great approval. But we know Hall's testimony to be a mixture of (mostly) plagairism with a little hostile gossip. It has almost no real value.
The third item, and perhaps the most significant, is that Buck claimed to have seen a letter in which Elizabeth declared love for her uncle rather than the reverse! If real, this would explain much -- but the letter has not survived, and Buck is the only witness to it. And Buck also alluded to a lost letter claiming that Cardinal Morton and an unnamed countess (Margaret Beaufoft?) arranged to having the princes killed (Lamb, p. 89). All these lost letters make him seem a dubious witness.
WilliamsonA, p. 142, suggests that Elizabeth's love letter was real because Buck was trying to defend Richard, and the mere thought of incest would cause his readers to disapprove of Richard. Similarly, Potter, p. 171, argues that the letter could be authentic, and says it is evidence that Richard III did not kill the princes. (I doubt the former and deny the logic of the latter; we can say, empirically, female primates other than humans often mate with males who killed their relatives, and in any case Elizabeth and Edward V were rarely together, so they would have no real basis for affection). Oddly enough, Weir, p. 208, also thinks it is real, but instead of being a statement about Richard's innocence of the death of the princes, she regards it as proof that he actually was sexually involved with his niece! (Weir, pp. 209-210).
We should note that uncle/niece marriages were not unknown in Europe in this period. The younger brother of France's king CharlesV, John Duke of Berry, would marry Charles V's daughter Katherine; Earle, pp. 82-83. But the patent defect with Weir's hypothesis is -- Richard had not had any illegitimate children for more than a dozen years. It should be remembered that, after 1471, he was the third man of the kingdom, and after 1478, he was the second; in the North,he was little short of a king. If he had been the sort to indulge his lust with any pretty girl who caught his eye, he'd have had bastards in half the parishes of Yorkshire. He didn't. He may possibly have lusted after his niece. It seems extremely unlikely he acted upon that lust.
And Elizabeth of York was used to being a pawn. She had already been betrothed twice -- once to George Neville when Edward IV was still allied with Warwick (HarveyN, p. 9), then to the Dauphin of France (HarveyN, p. 29).
Potter, p. 173, does raise one important point: One of the big reasons for Richard to marry Elizabeth, as Croyland said, would have been to assure that Henry Tudor could not marry her. Richard could have taken care of that by simply marrying her to someone else -- after all, she was 18 or 19, and (by the standards of the time) approaching spinster-hood. And, as the daughter of Edward IV -- said by some to be the handsomest man in England -- and Elizabeth Woodville, she was probably very pretty (though her only known portrait is not flattering. Her effigy, on p. 99 of Ross-Wars, is more attractive, but of course was made after her death). So why didn't Richard marry her off and drive Henry Tudor crazy? We can't say. Potter thinks he was honoring a promise to her mother to find her a good husband. But, of course, it's at least possible that he wanted her himself (hence the rumors), and was having to bide his time until he could get a dispensation.
Richard, whatever his actual plans, publicly denied planning to marry Elizabeth (Potter, p. 171). Obviously Richard didn't have any modern handlers writing his speeches and telling him not to admit to anything; one suspects the denial made people take the rumor more seriously than they otherwise would have.
Richard, from what we can tell, had strong but localized popularity: The North of England revered him -- and Ross, p. 47-48, notes that the northerners' loyalty was not easily earned. But Ross, p. xlvii, offers strong evidence that he was disliked in the south. (He confesses to little data about the midlands, but Bennett has a fascinating map on p. 52 showing where Richard's known allies and enemies were based. Richard conplately dominated north of a line from Gloucester to the Wash. South of a line from Bristol to London, he had almost no supporters. In East Anglia, it was about an event split. Geographically, Richard dominated more than half of England. In terms of wealth and manpower, he was outnumbered.) And Richard really does seem to have an "if-you-aren't-with-us-you're-a-fiend" attitude reminiscent of some modern extreme conservatives; he labelled his enemies who were with Henry Tudor murderers, adulterers, and extortionists (Ross, p. 208). Ross is surely correct in thinking that these over-the-top statements hurt rather than helped Richard's cause.
Horace Walpole, whose Historic Doubts was one of the first great defences of Richard, claims (according to Potter, p. 179) that Richard's enemies accused him of ten significant murders: Henry VI, Henry's son Edward Prince of Wales, Richard's wife Anne Neville, his brother George of Clarence, Edward V, Edward's brother Richard, Lord Hastings, Earl Rivers, Elizabeth Woodville's son Richard Grey, and of Edward V's tutor Thomas Vaughan. An honest assessment gives a much more interesting scorecard:
Richard was certainly responsible for the deaths of Hastings, Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan. (And some, such as Lamb, p. 88, considers only the execution of Hastings to be unfair, although an honest judgment would surely find Rivers and Vaughan innocent as well.)
Richard was certainly innocent of the death of Edward Prince of Wales (as shown above). It is unlikely that he had a part in Anne Neville's death
If Richard had any part in the death of Henry VI, it must have been at the instructions of Edward IV. George of Clarence, according to the Croyland Chronicler, was prosecuted solely by Edward IV, with no other speakers for the prosecution and Clarence himself being the only man speaking in his defence (Dockray, p. 102; WilliamsonA, p. 37; it is interesting to note that the sentence of death on Clarence was pronounced by the Duke of Buckingham, Richard's future ally and enemy, who played his first major public role at this time). Mancini says Richard was very grieved by George's death. Even Thomas More says Richard publicly showed grief (Seward-Richard, p. 69), though naturally doesn't believe it to have been genuine (and Seward of course thinks More's mind-reading more accurate than actual data). The Princes in the Tower are the only remaining question.
Potter, p. 183, has an ironic note about Walpole's work. It was eventually translated into French -- by Louis XVI as he awaited execution. France's maligned king apparently sympathized with England's most maligned king.
I can't help but note the comparisons with another much-maligned English king, John. John, like Richard, killed a nephew (Arthur of Brittany) with a senior claim to the throne (HarveyJ, p. 82). As with Richard III, there have been attempts to defend John -- even claims that John was a proto-Protestant (which he was not; he was simply a skeptic, unacceptable to Catholic and Protestant alike). Certainly John was not as bad as the Robin Hood legends make him. But even Warren-John, which seems to be a deliberate attempt to defend the third Plantagenet king, is forced to conclude with words of faint praise: "He could be mean and nasty, and there was an ignoble small-mindedness aout his suspicion, but he was not a devil incarnate" (pp. 257-258); "He had the mental abilities of a great king, but the inclinations of a petty tyrant" (p. 259).
No one, it seems to me, has made a convincing defence of John, despite several attempts. Richard, by contrast, has had many. The defence has hardly been a great success -- but the mere fact that it has been so regularly made implies that there is more to work with in the case of Richard than John. Let's face it: It would be a lot of fun for historians to have a Shakesperean King of England -- Seward in fact says as much. (It's too bad Shakespeare didn't try to work on Charles the Bad of Navarre....) But in fact there was no English king as vile as Shakespeare's monstrosity.
THE BATTLE OF BOSWORTH AND THE DEATH OF RICHARD III
Whether he deserved it or not, Richard's position in 1485 was precarious, due primarily to the decimation of the nobility. Edward IV had ruled prior to 1470 by giving much power to the Earl of Warwick. After Warwick's rebellion failed. Edward depended largely on Richard of Gloucester and the Woodvilles. (Dockray, p. xxxiv calls them "regional troubleshooters" and notes that it was a very dangerous precedent, since it created "overmighty subject[s]." According to Bennett, it was actually a justice in the reign of Henry VI who coined the phrase, which shows how obvious the problem was).
Richard III had followed his brother's precedent and turned to the Duke of Buckingham. With Buckingham dead, it was almost impossible to build a noble faction. (As Henry VII himself would discover.) Richard advanced the Howard Duke of Norfolk as far as he could (Bennett, p. 71), but only so much could be done for a man who, two years earlier, had not even been an earl, and had only been made a baron in 1470 (Cunningham, p. 107). Richard tried to bind Northumberland and Huntington to him, but this failed in the former case at least. It left him largely dependent on lesser men -- and caused him to bring a relatively small army to the greatest battle of his life; estimates run from about 3,000 to 10,000 men, the majority of them Norfolk's if you exclude the "neutrals."
Meanwhile, Henry Tudor had been very, very lucky in his friends. The Bretons had planned to turn him over to Richard (in which case this discussion probably wouldn't be necessary), but he was warned just in time, and escaped to France. The French were temporarily in a very anti-English phase. And, just at the time when Richard was most distracted, they gave Henry Tudor a fleet and let him invade (Pollard, pp. 160-162).
The Wars of the Roses witnessed, in all, six changes of King, but only once, at Bosworth, did the two rival claimants face each other in battle (Bennett, p. 99). And Bosworth proved decisive mostly because Richard III died at that 1485. Henry Tudor, the closest thing the Lancastrian faction had to a claimant, finally invaded. (I can't help but note the irony that he set out from Harfleur, the place where Henry V had invaded France seventy years earlier; Ross, p. 202). Henry's invasion force was sponsored by the French (Arthurson, p. 5) and initially consisted mostly of mercenaries from countries hostile to Richard (Ross, pp. 202-203), though of course he picked up some supporters in Wales.
For the actual Battle of Bosworth, see the notes to "The Battle of Bosworth Field." Here we will summarize by saying that four armies met at Bosworth, one led by Richard, one by Henry, and one each by Lord Stanley and Sir William Stanley. In the battle, Richard saw an opportunity to attack Henry directly. He attempted it -- and his company was attacked in the rear by the forces of William Stanley. Richard was killed, and Henry VII became King.
Perhaps we should give the last word to Ross-Wars, p. 100, who writes, "Richard was by no means the personification of evil which he was to become in the hands of hostile Tudor propagandists. He had charm, energy, and ability, and he worked hard to win popularity. But it took time to live down the legacy of suspicion and mistrust generated by the violence of his usurpation. Even in that ruthless age, many men were appalled by what they clearly believed to have been his crime against the princes.... Had Henry Tudor's invasion been long delayed, its outcome might have been very different, but in 1485, Richard was still far from having won the confidence of his people in general."
Even with Richard III dead without an immediate heir, Henry Tudor had his problems. He wasn't Richard's heir by any line of thinking -- but there were three Yorkist possibilities:
1. Elizabeth, the oldest daughter of Edward IV,whose claim was blocked by the precontract that had blocked her younger brother Edward V;
2. The Earl of Warwick, son of Richard III's older brother George of Clarence, blocked by the fact that Clarence had been attainted (plus Warwick may have been mentally deficient; Potter, p. 168, mentions a contemporary report that he could not "tell a goose from a capon"); and
3. John, Earl of Lincoln, the son of Richard III's oldest sister, who was rather far back in the line of succession if you ignore the precontract and such but who was Richard's official heir (at least, most sources say so, though Ross, p. 158, says that there is "no direct evidence" for this. Even Ross, though, admits on p. 159 that Lincoln was made Lieutenant of Ireland which was the standard post given the Yorkist heir; cf. Cheetham, p. 166; also, Ross notes on p. 182 that Lincoln was president of the Council of the North -- meaning that, in effect, he had been given Richard's own former bailiwick. If we don't have a direct statement that Lincoln was Richard's heir, the indirect evidence is overwhelming).
The Yorkist confusion made it difficult for them to oppose Henry -- and Henry, though his only Plantagenet blood was in a bastard line from John of Gaunt, had all the Lancastrians behind him simply because English politics was so divided that it was better to support a pretender than a legitimate member of the enemy party. Even so, he had to marry Elizabeth of York to strengthen his claim. (Meaning that, even though Henry VII didn't really deserve to be on the throne, all his heirs did. At least genetically.)
Lincoln did raise a revolt in 1387, supposedly on behalf of the pretender Lambert Simnel, but it was crushed at the Battle of Stoke, the last real battle of the Wars of the Roses (Burne, p. 305; Cunningham, p. 79.)
In an interesting twist, Henry set about to destroy all copies of the law which had declared Edward V and his siblings illegitimate. Only one survived, and that seemingly by accident (Jenkins, p. 204). This had an interesting effect: In the absence of that parliamentary declaration, it would seem that Elizabeth of York was rightful queen (and should have been Queen regnant, except that few were ready for that at the time) -- but if somehow either of the princes were still alive, they would be senior to Elizabeth and the rightful rulers. In other words, Henry needed the princes to be legitimate but dead.
This furnishes the strongest evidence that (barring the extremely faint chance that Henry himself killed the princes) he did not know -- and never found out -- where the bodies were buried. If he had had them, he would have displayed them. It would have stopped the Pretenders.
The many, many Pretenders. As early as 1487, a youth named Lambert Simnel was declared to be the nephew of Edward IV and tried to claim the crown. (There was a real problem with this theory, in that Simnel was claiming to be the Earl of Warwick, son of Edward IV's brother George of Clarence, and Warwick was still alive in Tudor custody!) Henry VII let Simnel live (while executing the Earl of Lincoln, who had been deep in the conspiracy); the boy seemed harmless enough. (For more on Lambert, see the notes to "The Mayor of Waterford's Letter.")
Fields, pp. 203-205, reports on a speculation that Lambert was a scapegoat or stalking-horse for one of the real Princes, who had somehow survived and was now in a position to lead a rebellion against Henry. Lamb, pp. 90-93, is also sure that Richard did not kill them, and believes they survived. I just don't buy it; if the myriad conspirators had had a real Yorkist prince, they wouldn't have bothered with Lambert. (Fields, p. 225, even reports on modern attempts to prove that various sixteenth century people were the princes in hiding. One of these unlikely claims is made on behalf of Thomas More's son-in-law by adoption. Believe *that* if you can....)
In 1491, an even more serious impersonator showed up in Perkin Warbeck, who eventually claimed to be Richard of York, the younger prince in the tower. Warbeck -- who, unlike Simnel, was an adult directly involved in the plotting -- was executed in 1497, but he had gained a strong following before then. (For more on Perkin, see "The Praise of Waterford.") Arthurson, p. 3, thinks that it was Warbeck's rebellion which turned Henry into such a tyrant in his later years -- he wanted to stop any such outbreaks in future. (Even Thomas More called it a decade of "perpetual winter.") Henry's firmness didn't help. More rebellions would follow -- e.g. the Earl of Suffolk, the younger brother of the Earl of Lincoln was on the run from 1499 until Henry caught himin 1506 (Cunningham, p. 85). Supposedly there was even an attempt to prevent the succession of Henry VIII. But none of these plots was as dangerous as Warbeck.
Even Henry's own garrison of Calais struggled with the matter. In 1503, when Elizabeth of York died, the garrison debated the claims of Edward de la Pole (the brother of the Earl of Lincoln) and the Duke of Buckingham (the son of Richard's duke). Supposedly Henry VIII was not even discussed as a potential heir to Henry Tudor (Russell, p. 69).
Henry's response to the "feigned boys" should dispose largely of More's story of where the princes were buried, and entirely wash out Tyrell's confession. If either of these stories were true, then Henry VII would have known where the princes' bodies were, and would have exhumed them. Simple as that. It is Henry Tudor's behavior, not Richard's, that created the mystery of the Princes in the Tower. Had Henry sought to find out the truth, he might have found the bodies and he almost certainly would have found out the truth -- and the truth almost certainly would have pointed at Richard in some way. He *didn't* try, and so created a great mystery. (Not that that relieves Richard's guilt, of course -- it just means that the mystery remains.)
Last updated in version 2.5
File: LQ34C

Children in the Wood, The (The Babes in the Woods) [Laws Q34] --- Part 05


DESCRIPTION: Conclusion of the notes to "The Children in the Wood (The Babes in the Woods)" [Laws Q34].
Last updated in version 2.5
NOTES: THE LEGEND OF THE PRINCES AND THE CONTENT OF THE SONG
Of course, the truth doesn't really matter here. The princes could have been taken up into heaven by chariots of fire for all the difference it made. What counts is that most people thought Richard had killed his nephews, and that Henry Tudor assuredly wanted them to believe it. And Henry Tudor was definitely capable of propaganda -- just consider the history he commissioned from Vergil. Of course, histories weren't (and aren't) much good at persuading the common people. Popular songs would be a more likely method.
We also know that there were propaganda songs composed in this period; the aforementioned "Ballad of Bosworth Field" is clearly Stanley propaganda, and "The Song of the Lady Bessie" also appears to be intended to make Elizabeth of York look good. Bennett, p. 10, also lists "The Rose of England" [Child 166] as a contemporary ballad, although our only real copy is from the Percy folio from centuries later. (By contrast, we have both the Percy version of "Bosworth Field" and a prose summary of the piece.) It does seem likely that "The Rose of England" is Tudor propaganda, since only an extreme Tudor partisan could possibly come up with the ridiculous praise for the Tudors it contains. But I could also imagine it being written in the reign of Elizabeth I to flatter her dynasty.
On the other hand, the fact that so few people associated the "Babes" with Richard III argues that, if it *was* propaganda, it was a little too subtle. But then, Henry VII was one of the sneakiest creatures ever spawned. Being direct and open probably never even occurred to him.
The various versions of the song (the oldest broadside, Bodleian Harding B 4(30), Percy) match the legend on these points:
* There were two children, taken away by their uncle, and the bodies were never found.
"They were taken away on a warm summer's day." EdwardV was originally to have been crowned in June. Richard III was crowned in July, by which time the Princes were almost gone from sight. So the disappeared in summer, though there is no specific day on which they vanished. And they may not have died until fall.
* The uncle faces disasters until brought to justice. Richard of course faced many blows -- Buckingham's rebellion, the death of his son, the death of his wife -- though they don't match those in the song.
On the other hand, the song differs from the situation of the Princes in the Tower in several important regards:
1. In the broadside and Percy's version, the children are a boy and a girl, not two boys (Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville had sundry daughters, but all the daughters lived -- indeed, the oldest became the wife of Henry VII).
2. In the broadside and Percy's version, the wife dies before the children -- but Elizabeth Woodville lived until 1492, dying nine years after Edward IV and at least six years after her sons died. It is true that Henry VII pushed Elizabeth Woodville out of public life in 1487 (Poole, p. 16) -- but that is still after the princes were dead.
3. In the Stationer's Register record (which has to be this song if the link to Richard III is to be maintained), the tale is of a "Norfolk Gentleman." Edward IV had very little to do with Norfolk -- prior to becoming King, he was Earl of March, a holding centered on the Welsh border. His father was Duke of York, based in the north; York also had extensive holdings in Ireland. If you had to pick one place where Edward IV had the least influence, it was surely East Anglia. Nor did Richard III have any significant holdings in Norfolk -- he was based mostly in the north, especially the northwest, and also had power along the Welsh border.
(This does raise one interesting possibility. The younger of the two Princes in the Tower, Richard, was theoretically Duke of Norfolk -- but he was *actually* Duke of York, and known by that title. Anywhere that "Norfolk" would fit, "Yorkshire" would fit -- and a reference to Yorkshire would be much clearer. Note that John Howard became Duke of Norfolk in Richard's reign, in the place of prince Richard. Norfolk was not prince Richard's uncle, but he *was* the heir of Anne Mowbray, prince Richard's wife in that unconsummated marriage. Although almost no one takes it seriously, there have been a few accusations that John Howard murdered the boys -- mostly to gain the Norfolk earldom. He was not the uncle of the princes, even by marriage; he was a cousin. But, given the age differences, might not a propagandist trying to blame things on Norfolk have called him the princes' uncle?)
4. The older child in the broadside is only five, whereas Edward V was twelve when his father died. In Percy's version, this is even more extreme, the boy was "not passing three years old," and the girl even younger. Of course this might have been suggested by Henry Tudor's claim that Richard III shed "infants' blood." But if the song had been written after Henry VII took power, why not use the actual ages of the children?
5. In Percy's text, the children are kept in Richard's house "a twelvemonth and a daye." But the Princes were never in Richard's house, and were (probably) eliminated within months.
6. In the ballad, one of the murderers confesses early on. In actual history, the only evidence for a confession is More's account of Tyrrell's confession, and even if More's account is true, that confession came more than a decade after the boys died.
7. This is a point of logic, not a matter of the content of the song, but recall that Henry VII for the most part tried to ignore the Princes, never searching for their bodies (Fields, p. 189) and waiting for years before releasing an unsubstantiated and absurd statement about their death. Would he have wanted the matter brought up again in a song?
It should also be noted that the case of Richard and the Princes is hardly the only case of the Wicked Uncle! There was a case that would have been well known in Richard's own time which is in many ways more like the ballad. The tale is told in RicardianXIII, pp. 12-19. Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, died during the siege of Harfleur in 1415. He left at least two sons. The older boy, Michael, of course became Earl in his turn -- but died a few weeks later at Agincourt. He left three (possibly four) young daughters but no son.
The girls' uncle William (1396-1450), who had gained some of the Suffolk lands because they passed in tail male rather than tail general, seems to have coveted what he did not inherit. And two of the daughters soon vanish from the records and the third was pushed toward a nunnery; the fourth is so shadowy that we are not even sure she existed (this is the point of the RicardianXIII article). We have no evidence of foul play, but neither do we have information on how the girls died, nor even their dates of death.
Eventually William gained the earldom, which later became a Dukedom -- in fact, his only son John would marry Edward IV's sister, and John's son was the Earl of Lincoln who was Richard's heir. William himself had dominated the English government in the 1440s and was eventually lynched as a result. And, in an interesting twist, while the de la Poles were Earls of Suffolk, they had intermarried with the Mowbray Dukes of Norfolk (RicardianXIII, p. 21), and John son of William made "high-handed efforts to dominate East Anglia" (OxfordCompanion, p. 758). Thus it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the "Norfolk Gentleman's" story in the Stationer's Register, if true, refers to the de la Poles, not the Plantagenet princes.
Am I seriously advancing this hypothesis? No. I am merely pointing out that, on historical grounds, it is as good a fit for "The Babes in the Woods" as is the Richard III story. The historical similarity asserted between the song and the account of Richard III is, in fact, not a significant similarity.
To sum up: this song could easily have originated as a piece of propaganda. But, of course, that requires that it be much, much older than even the Stationer's Register date, and we can't prove that even that is this song. And if the extant versions, including the Bodleian broadside, represents the original form (not a safe bet, to be sure), the allegory theory is much weakened.
At this point I'll offer a wild speculation, which I don't really believe: Could the short three-verse version be the original which some Tudor boot-licker proceeded to convert into a propaganda piece? (The problem with this theory, of course, is that there is absolutely no early evidence that anything like this happened.)
Or another speculation:The story of the bodies of the princes being walled up was found in a note in the margin of Thomas More's history, said note being written in 1647. Based on the circumstances described, this discovery must have been made by 1614 (though apparently after 1603; Fields, p. 247). This may also be the source of a stray reference in Buck's history (WilliamsonA, p. 191). The two bodies discovered at the time were thought to be six to eight years old. Obviously the bodies were of children too young to be the princes -- but they *could* be the children in the song!
For more details on the background to this final phase of the Wars of the Roses, see the notes to "The Rose of England [Child 166]"; also some tangential references in "Jane Shore" and (especially) "The Vicar of Bray."
One incidental note for the Science Fiction fans out there (I know a lot of SF fans like traditional music): Randall Garrett's much-loved "Lord Darcy" stories refer to a "Richard the Great" who revived the Angevin empire. According to "A Matter of Gravity," Richard the Great lived in the late fifteenth century. In other words, Richard the Great was Richard III. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: LQ34D

Children's Song


See The Wife of Usher's Well [Child 79] (File: C079)

Chilly Winds


DESCRIPTION: Characteristic line: "I'm going where the chilly winds don't blow." The others may complain about life, weather, or women: "I'm leaving in the spring, ain't coming back till fall." "Who'll be your daddy while I'm gone"
AUTHOR: unknown (credited on Paramount recording to Paul Carter)
EARLIEST DATE: 1925 (recording, Charlie Jackson)
KEYWORDS: nonballad clothes home separation floatingverses
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (3 citations):
MWheeler, p. 29, "I'm Goin' Down the River Befo' Long" (1 text, 1 tune, a combination of this with "I'm Going Down the River")
DT, CHILWIND*
ADDITIONAL: Zora Neale Hurston, _Mules and Men_ (New York,1990 (paperback edition of 1935 original)), pp. 255-256, "East Coast Blues" (with tune)
Roud #3419
RECORDINGS:
Charlie Jackson, "I'm Going Where Chilly Winds Don't Blow" (Paramount 12335, 1926; rec. 1925)
Riley Puckett, "I'm Going Where The Chilly Winds Don't Blow" (Columbia 15392-D, 1929; rec. 1927)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Going Across the Sea" (floating lyrics)
cf. "Make Me a Pallet on Your Floor" (floating lyrics)
NOTES: For those of us who first met this song in its touched-up Kingston Trio form, it may seem surprising to note that it's almost incoherent. But the truly traditional versions seem to be characterized largely by floating verses, with a plot frequently obscured under the weight of this material. - RBW
File: MWhee029

Chimbley Sweeper


See I'm a Poor Old Chimney Sweeper (File: Wa189)

Chimney Swallow, The


See I'm a Poor Old Chimney Sweeper (File: Wa189)

China Doll


See Milking Pails (China Doll) (File: R356)

China Merchant, The


DESCRIPTION: A chinaware merchant lodges with a baker's wife. She plots with her husband and servant to rob the merchant: the servant won't kiss the merchant until he shaves. They plan to pick his pocket while he is being shaved. The barber warns him. He escapes.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1909 (GreigDuncan2)
KEYWORDS: seduction warning escape husband wife servant thief hair trick
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan2 311, "The China Merchant" (1 text)
Roud #5865
NOTES: The GreigDuncan2 text omits the narrative that completes the story. The description follows the GreigDuncan2 notes that fill in those gaps. - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD2311

Chinaman, The


DESCRIPTION: Dennis Clancy grew rich among the Chinese Tea growers. He died and left all to his nephew who takes the name Ling Chung Chang Awong, wears his hair "in one long plait" and plans to "found an Irish colony." He leaves Ireland for Hong Kong.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1965 (OLochlainn-More)
KEYWORDS: emigration China Ireland humorous
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
OLochlainn-More 46, "The Chinaman" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #9762
File: OLcM046

Chinee Bumboatman, The


DESCRIPTION: Forebitter with a pidgin-English chorus. Story involves a sailor (Wing Chang Loo) of the Yangtze who falls in love with a girl who is herself in love with a pirate. Loo declares war on the pirate, a battle ensues that ends up blowing up both their ships.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1961 (Hugill)
LONG DESCRIPTION: Forebitter with a pidgin-English chorus. Story involves a sailor (Wing Chang Loo) of the Yangtze who falls in love with a girl who is herself in love with a pirate. Loo declares war on the pirate, a battle ensues that ends up blowing up both their ships. Chorus: "Hitchee-kum, kitchee-kum, ya ya ya! Sailorman no likee me, No savvy the story of Wing Chang Loo, Too much of the bober-eye-ee, Kye-eye!"
KEYWORDS: shanty foc's'le sailor battle China pirate foreigner
FOUND IN: Britain
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Hugill, pp. 455-456, "The Chinee Bumboatman" (1 text, 1 tune) [AbEd, pp. 340-341]
Roud #10465
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Little Ah Sid" (style)
cf. "Das Sampanmadchen (The Sampan Maiden)" (some similar verses)
File: Hugi455

Chiney Doll


See Milking Pails (China Doll) (File: R356)

Chipeta's Ride


DESCRIPTION: "From mountains covered deep with snow... Where once dwelt Ouray, the king of the land, With Chipeta his queen...." The Utes battle the whites, and disaster threatens. Ouray, striken with Bright's Disease, cannot lead; Chipeta bears his orders for peace
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1951 (Poems of the Old West)
KEYWORDS: Indians(Am.) battle disease husband wife
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Burt, pp. 147-149, "(Chipeta's Ride)" (1 excerpted text, which is unlikely to have had music since it is highly irregular; also a single stanza of another song perhaps about this event)
NOTES: This is one of those places where, for the most part, the folklore is the story. According to Burt, in 1878, one N. C. Meeker decided to forcibly convert the Utes of northern Colorado from hunter-gatherers into a "civilized" people.
What followed was ugly on all sides. Meeker plowed up a Ute racetrack, then called in the Army to defend himself. The troops were warned off by the Utes, but came on anyway, and a battle followed. Chief Ouray (c. 1833-1880) was far away and reportedly not part of the planning. When he heard of the battle, he ordered it stopped, and his wife Chipeta carried the order.
Ouray of course was real, and did indeed work to control Ute uprisings -- and to protect his people's interests. And Nathan Cook Meeker (1817-1879), Indian Agent to the Utes from 1878, did try to impose his ideas on them, and eventually was killed as a result. But history, as Burt admits, doesn't document Chipeta's Ride.
In the Really Strange Speculations department, reading Josephy Wheelan's Invading Mexico: America's Continental Dream and the Mexican War 1846-1848 (Carroll & Graf, 2007), pp. 91-92, I observe that major hostilities began when a Mexican force crossed the Rio Grande to try to interfere with American communications. An American scouting force, insufficiently cautious, was chopped to bits, the survivors captured. Their guide, who had refused to ride into the ambush, carried word of the disaster to the American general Zachary Taylor. This guide was named Chipita. I would assume this is coincidence, except that maybe it inspired the name of the heroine in this song. - RBW
File: Burt147

Chippewa Girl, The [Laws H10]


DESCRIPTION: The singer sees a pretty Chippewa girl and proposes marriage. She refuses him, saying she is too young and her parents would not approve. The two part amicably, with the singer making a few general remarks about marriage
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1928 (Mackenzie)
KEYWORDS: Indians(Am.) courting family marriage
FOUND IN: US(MW) Canada(Mar,Newf)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Laws H10, "The Chippewa Girl"
Beck 45, "The Chippewa Girl" (1 text)
Leach-Labrador 94, "Chippawa Girl" (1 text, 1 tune)
Mackenzie 54, "The Chippewa Stream" (1 text, 1 tune)
DY 705, CHIPGIRL
Roud #1938
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Braes of Strathblane" (words, theme and references there)
NOTES: The Leach-Labrador version is "The Braes of Strathblane" relocated to "the Chippewa stream." The difference between Laws H10 and Braes of Strablane is that Laws [does not in his description include the ending -- found] in Leach-Labrador and Mackenzie -- in which the girl is finally rejected.
Mackenzie -- with its change of mind by both parties -- strengthens the argument that this is just "Braes of Strathblane" relocated. My earlier thought that Laws had not seen such a version is demonstrated to be false; Mackenzie is one of his two sources for H10.
See D.K. Wilgus, "A Type-Index of Anglo-American Traditional Narrative Songs," Folklore Institue Journal, v. 7:2/3 (1970:Aug./Dec.), [Copyright (c) 2006 ProQuest Information and Learning Company, Copyright (c) Indiana University Press], p. 168 which considers "The Braes of Strathblane" to be the parent of "The Chippewa Girl." - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: LH10

Chirping of the Lark, the


See Bronson's comments under Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne [Child 118] (File: C118)

Chisholm Trail (I), The


DESCRIPTION: Stories of the troubles of a cowboy watching the herds. Characterized by the chorus, "Come-a ti yi yippy, yippy yea, yippy yea, Come-a ti yi yippy, yippy yea, yippy yea." Dozens of verses, printable and unprintable, cover all parts of the cowboy life
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1910 (Lomax, Cowboy Songs)
KEYWORDS: cowboy work
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (15 citations):
Randolph 179, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (1 text, 1 tune)
BrownIII 217, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (1 text, though one suspects it's composite since it's 29 stanzas long!)
Sandburg, pp. 266-267, "The Lone Star Trail" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fowke/Mills/Blume, pp. 136-138, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fife-Cowboy/West 78, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (2 texts, 1 tune, the "B" text being "Eleven Slash Slash Eleven")
Larkin, pp. 19-25, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Lomax-FSUSA 57, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Lomax-ABFS pp. 376-379, "The Old Chizzum Trail" (1 long text (compiled from many sources), 1 tune)
Lomax-FSNA 188, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (1 text, 1 tune)
Botkin-AmFolklr, pp. 851-852, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (1 text, 1 tune)
LPound-ABS, 76, pp. 167-170, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (1 text)
Arnett, p. 125, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 108, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (1 long text, probably composite)
Saffel-CowboyP, p. 184-186, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (1 text)
DT, CHISHLM*
Roud #3438
RECORDINGS:
Jules Allen, "Chisolm Trail" (Victor V-40167, 1929; Montgomery Ward M-4463, 1933)
The Cartwright Brothers, "On The Old Chisolm Trail" (Columbia 15346-D, 1929)
Edward L. Crain, "The Old Chisolm Trail" (Crown 3275, 1932)
Girls of the Golden West, "Old Chisolm Trail" (Bluebird B-5718, 1934)
Tex Hardin, "The Old Chisolm Trail" (Champion 16552, 1933; Montgomery Ward M-4954, 1936)
Harry Jackson, "The Dally Roper's Song" (on HJackson1)
Harry "Haywire Mac" McClintock "The Old Chisholm Trail" (Victor 21421, 1928; on AuthCowboys, BackSaddle)
Patt Patterson & his Champion Rep Riders, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (Perfect 164/Banner 32091 [as Patt Patterson & Lois Dexter], 1931)
Sain Family, "The Texas Trail" (Montgomery Ward M-7187, 1937)
Jack Weston, "The Texas Trail" (Van Dyke 84292, n.d.; on MakeMe)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Chisholm Trail (II)" (tune & meter)
cf. "Eleven Slash Slash Eleven" (tune & meter)
NOTES: It should be noted that there is no clear distinction between the "clean" and "dirty" versions of this song (the latter being "Chisholm Trail (II)"); a particular singer could make it as raunchy as desired. We split them not because they are distinct songs but because the song is so frequently bowdlerized. It would be slightly false to say the versions listed here are rewritten versions of the song and "Chisholm Trail (II)" are unedited versions -- but only slightly false.
E. A. Brininstool wrote a poem, "The Chisholm Trail." It is unrelated -- a reminiscence of cowboy days.
The Chisholm Trail inspired at least one recent book: Don Worcester, The Chisholm Trail: High Road of the Cattle Kingdom, 1980 (I Use the 1994 Indian Head/Barnes & Noble edition). In his preface on p. xi, he declares:
"Although the Chisholm Trail was open for less than two decades, millions of cattle traveled north over it. More than any of the other trails from Texas, it was the major route of cattle and horses, cowboys and cowmen, to Kansas railheads as well as the new ranches springing up all over the former ranges of the buffalo andthe Plains Indians between 1867 and the Big Die-Up of 1886-1887. In fact, the name Chisholm Trail came to be applied indiscriminately to all the cattle trails north out of Texas."
The trail, according to Worcester, p. xviii, is named for Jesse Chisholm, descended from Scots and Cherokee, who was a trader, not an explorer. He hauled cargo over a trail in Kansas starting in 1865, and his name came to be associated with the entire trail.
In the period after the Civil War, there was much demand for beef in the eastern U. S., and many cattle in Texas, and the trick was to get it from one place to the other. According to Worcester, p. 11, it was one Joseph G. McCoy who set up the system of herding the cattle to railheads and then shipping them by train. The trick was to move the cattle around various points where they had been quarantined due to disease outbreaks. Kansas, which was at the limits of the rail network, was free of such regulations (Worcester, p. 12).
There were, according to Worcester, four basic cattle trails coming out of Texas (see the map on p. xix): The Goodnight-Loving Trail, running from near Fort Worth to the west, and then north through Las Vegas and Pueblo to Denver; the Western Trail, starting in San Antonio and running through Fort Griffin and then (with some changes over time) to Fort Laramie, Wyoming and then into Montana and Dakota Territories; the Shawnee Trail, from San Antonio to Waco to Dallas through Indian Territory and into Missouri; and the Chisholm Trail, from San Antonio to Waco to Forth Worth and then almost due north to Red River Stateion, across Indian Territory, to Caldwell, Kansas, and then with branches to railheads in Ellsworth and Abilene, Kansas.
The Chisholm Trail ran where it did because McCoy took a survey along the rail lines in Kansas. In Abilene, Kansas, he found a lot of land for sail at low prices -- something he needed to build cattle pens and such (Worcester, pp. 12-13).
A Colonel A. A. Wheeler and his partners are credited with being the first to bring their herds from Texas to Abilene. They started by following the existing Shawnee Trail, but split from it at a point south of Dallas and instead headed toward Fort Worth. Part of their route wan along Jesse Chisholm's wagon route through Indian Territory. But the cattle drive was not a financial success. (Worcester, pp. 13-14). McCoy therefore had the cattle trail surveyed and improved in 1867 (Worcester, p. 14), and also worked on his marketing (Worcester, p. 15). In 1870, some 300,000 cattle were sent from Texas to Kansas, and in 1871, the number was well in excess of half a million (Worcester, pp. 15-16). And cattlemen were learning to control the herds with fewer workers, so expenses went down (although the large number of cattle being driven made it harder to keep them healthy and well-fed).
Worcester, p. xviii, says that the name "Chisholm Trail" is first recorded in Kansas in 1870, and in Texas in 1874. This was fairly early in the history of the cattle drives. Worcester, p. 9, says that Oliver Goodnight and Charles Loving first used the trail named for them in 1866, and other herds went over the more eastern trails. In all, some 200,000 cattle were driven in that year.
The great cattle drives continued for fifteen years. But as this was going on, Europeans were gradually moving into Montana and Wyoming and the Dakota -- and discovering, apparently to their surprise, that cattle could live happily on the land from which the bison had been extirpated (Worcester, pp. 153-157). And, with the bison gone, the Indians could no longer live there to drive off settlers. Texas cowboys found jobs all over the west; the ranch owners in the northern states offered similar work and pay to those in the south but promised better conditions (Worcester, p. 164).
The locals in these areas did not like cattle passing through their territory, and were increasingly worried about the diseases carried by Texas cattle (Worcester, p, 167). WIth so many alternative sources now available, demand for Texas cattle fell and the prices made the cattle drives uneconomic. By the 1880s, most of the trails were closed, and in 1885, Kansas barred Texas cattle from crossing the state. The Chisholm Trail no longer had a terminus. Adding to the economic problems, there were several years of abominable weather in the 1880s, severely harming most herds (Worcester, pp. 168-171). This was known as the "Big Die-Up" (Worcester, p. 172).
In the aftermath of the "Die-Up," the cattle kingdom (perhaps better called the cattle bubble) collapsed. Of course, the demand for beef in the east continued, but the model changed. Barbed wire fences sprang up, the operators were fewer, and drives up the cattle trails ended; instead, cattle cars went to railheads all over the west (Worcester, pp. 174-175). - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: R179

Chisholm Trail (II), The


DESCRIPTION: This is a virtually endless sexual adventure of a cowboy punching the "goddam" herd. Versions of this ballad vary greatly, including laments for having contracted venereal disease from either the minister's or the Old Man's daughter.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1910 (Lomax, Cowboy Songs)
KEYWORDS: bawdy cowboy humorous sex disease
FOUND IN: Australia US(Ro,So,SW)
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Cray, pp. 186-192, "The Chisholm Trail" (3 texts, 1 tune)
Randolph-Legman I, pp. 199-205, "The Old Chisholm Trail" (5 texts, 2 tunes)
Logsdon 9, pp. 60-69, "Jimmie Tucker" (2 texts, 1 tune, plus many excerpts from mostly-bawdy texts, including some from "Gonna Tie My Pecker to My Leg")
DT, (CHISHLM -- a combination of clean and dirty versions)
Roud #3438
RECORDINGS:
Cowboy Rodgers, "Old Chisholm Trail" (Varsity 5044, c. 1940)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Gonna Tie My Pecker to My Leg"
cf. "The Chisholm Trail (I)" (tune & meter)
NOTES: Annotator G. Legman in Randolph-Legman I lumps "Chisholm Trail" with "Gonna Tie My Pecker to My Leg" versions. - EC
It should be noted that there is no clear distinction between the "clean" and "dirty" versions of this song; a particular singer could make it as raunchy as desired. The split here is a false split, mostly to emphasize that the song has been frequently bowdlerized. - RBW
File: EM186

Chivalrous Shark, The


DESCRIPTION: "The most chivalrous fish of the ocean, To ladies forbearing and mild, Though his record be dark Is the man-eating shark Who will eat neither woman nor child." The song details instances of the shark eating men but rescuing women and the young
AUTHOR: Wallace Irwin ?
EARLIEST DATE: 1973
KEYWORDS: talltale humorous monster animal
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Silber-FSWB, pp. 400-401, "The Chivalrous Shark" (1 text)
DT, CHIVSHAR*
NOTES: The Digital Tradition lists this as having been copyrighted in 1904 by Wallace Irwin, and certainly it looks like a composed piece. - RBW
File: FSWB400

Choice of a Wife, The


DESCRIPTION: "I will tell you the way I have heard some say To choose you a lovely young creature, To choose you a wife you would love as your life...." The singer says her heart should "be her best part" -- but demands blue eyes, brown hair, slender waist and ankles
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1939 (Gardner/Chickering)
KEYWORDS: courting beauty nonballad
FOUND IN: US(MW)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Gardner/Chickering 78, "The Choice of a Wife" (1 text, 1 tune)
ST GC078 (Partial)
Roud #3695
NOTES: For the record, the Gardner/Chickering text devotes one stanza to the girl's personality ("not given to flattery and cunning... with a nimble wit... tongue... not always running") but three stanzas to her need for good looks. There is no evidence that the boy brings anything good enough to let him be so picky. - RBW
File: GC078

Cholly Blues, The


DESCRIPTION: "Broke an' hungry, ragged an' dirty too (x2), Jes' want to know, baby, kin I go home wid you?" The singer describes how a hard life made him turn rambler, and promises her subtle rewards. He hopes to find a woman "an' roam no' mo.'"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1934
KEYWORDS: rambling hardtimes floatingverses home
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Lomax-ABFS, pp. 201-203, "The 'Cholly' Blues" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #15554
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Stormalong" (floating verses)
cf. "Deep Blue Sea (II)" (floating verses)
File: LxA201

Chopo


DESCRIPTION: "Through rocky arroyas so dark and so deep, Down the sides of the mountains so slippery and steep... You're a safety conveyance my little Chopo." The singer praises his horse Chopo and describes the excellent service the animal has done
AUTHOR: N. Howard Thorp
EARLIEST DATE: 1908
KEYWORDS: horse cowboy nonballad
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Thorp/Fife XIV, pp. 191-194 (30-31), "Chopo" (3 texts, 1 tune)
Fife-Cowboy/West 69, "Chopo" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #8049
NOTES: "Chopo" was the name of "Jack" Thorp's favorite horse, which he credits with saving his life during a stampede, and for whom he wrote this song. There is no evidence that it ever entered oral tradition. - RBW
File: TF014

Choppin' Charlie


DESCRIPTION: "Choppin' Charlie, Great Godamighty, Oh Choppin' Charlie, Oh My Lord." "Well he chopped all day." "He don't a-eat no dinner." "He chopped through his supper." "Well he chopped with a hatchet." "Well he choppin' for the sergeant"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1965 (recorded from Johnny Jackson and Frank Young by Bruce Jackson)
KEYWORDS: work prison
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Jackson-DeadMan, pp. 259-260, "Choppin' Charlie" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Great God A'mighty" (lyrics)
NOTES: This shares many of its verses, and its setting, with "Great God A'mighty." But "Choppin' Charlie" has a plot of sorts, and "Great God A'mighty" is just a chopping song, so I very tentatively split them. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: JDM259

Choring Song, The


DESCRIPTION: Travellers' cant. Singer (Drummond) lay last night in a granary; now he's in prison, with "mort" (woman) and "kinshins" (children) scattered. If he gets back to stealing, he'll "moolie the gahnies [kill the hens] in dozens" to leave none to tell
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1956 (recorded from Travellers in Perthshire)
LONG DESCRIPTION: Travellers' cant. Singer (Big Jimmie Drummond, lay last night in a cold granary; tonight he's in a cold prison, with his "mort" (woman) and "kinshins" (children) scattered. He) swears that if he ever gets back to stealing, he'll "moolie the gahnies [kill the hens] in dozens" and there'll be no one left to tell on him (He says that if he ever goes to prison, he'll see all his friends, then go back to his wife and family)
KEYWORDS: separation prison theft foreignlanguage chickens children family wife prisoner thief Gypsy
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Kennedy 342, "The Choring Song" (1 text, 1 tune)
MacSeegTrav 97, "Big Jimmie Drummond" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #2157 and 2506
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Cobbler (I)" (structure)
cf. "Charles Guiteau" (lyrics)
NOTES: "Choring" = stealing. This shares verse structure with "Dick Darby," and the "Drummond" version has the classic opening line "My name is Big Jimmie Drummond/My name I'll never deny" from Charles Guiteau and, presumably, its predecessor "The Lamentation of James Rodgers." But the plot, albeit minimal, is different, so it gets its own entry. The song is macaronic, mixing cant with English. - PJS
File: McCST097

Chowan River


DESCRIPTION: The singer overhears a young woman lamenting her lover "gone over Chowan River." Her father had hired a captain to take her love away. The captain murdered her lover. Her father told her to take comfort and wait, but she drowns herself
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1952 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: love separation betrayal murder father money children suicide ship drowning
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
BrownII 74, "Chowan River" (1 text)
Roud #6570
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Nancy of Yarmouth (Jemmy and Nancy; The Barbadoes Lady)" [Laws M38] (plot)
cf. "I Never Will Marry" [Laws K17] (theme)
NOTES: The editors of Brown compare this to "Nancy of Yarmouth," but note that it is not the same song. In many ways it is better; it doesn't twist and turn as much.
The Chowan River has its headwaters in southern Virginia and flows into the North Carolina, meeting the sea in Albemarle Sound. But there is no localization beyond the mention of the river; one suspects British origin for the song (since it sounds like it involves a press gang). - RBW
File: BrII074

Chrissey's Dick


DESCRIPTION: Mary Ann sends Chrissey to borrow Aunt Margaret's dick [rooster] and set among the hens. In the morning the dick is gone. Chrissey goes out and finds it. Mary Ann will raise some chicks so "we won't have to bother Aunt Margaret for her dick"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1976 (Lehr/Best)
KEYWORDS: sex bawdy humorous wordplay chickens
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Lehr/Best 21, "Chrissey's Dick" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: In commenting on "Bill Wiseman," Peacock wrote "To an outsider unfamiliar with local sexual symbols it appears obscure, though perhaps mildly suggestive. Similar songs occur in our own popular music too.... Millions know the words but only a few know what's going on. In Newfoundland, everyone knows what's going on." - BS
File: LeBe021

Christ in the Garden


DESCRIPTION: The singer, wandering in a garden, meets a sorely troubled man. It proves to be Jesus. The singer kneels and begs forgiveness; Jesus grants it, and the singer goes out to spread the word
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1931 (Flanders/Brown)
KEYWORDS: Jesus religious
FOUND IN: US(NE)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Flanders/Olney, pp. 210-211, "Christ in the Garden" (1 text, 1 tune)
Flanders/Brown, pp. 79-80, "Christ in the Garden" (1 short text)
ST FO210 (Partial)
Roud #4682
NOTES: This is rather a complicated mix of Biblical themes. Jesus's prayer before his arrest is said to have taken place in a garden in John 18:1, but Gethsemane is not called a garden in the other three gospels.
The mention of "blood, sweat, and tears" is unquestionably a reminiscence of Luke 22:43-44 -- verses which, however, are likely not part of Luke's original Greek; of the earliest seven Greek witnesses, six -- those known as P75 Aleph(1) A B T W -- omit, as do some later witnesses of great weight. The verses are found in the King James Bible, though, so English hymn-writers would certainly know them.
There is no known mention of visitors to Jesus in Gethsemane -- but, of course, the witnesses (Peter, James, John) were dozing off. - RBW
File: FO210

Christ Made a Trance (God Made a Trance)


DESCRIPTION: "Christ made a trance one Sunday at noon, He made it with his hand." The power of Christ, and the dangers of hell, are told; listeners are warned to keep the sabbath and to teach their children well
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 19908 (Leather)
KEYWORDS: religious nonballad Jesus carol
FOUND IN: Britain(England(West)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Leather, p. 192, "Christ Made a Trance" (1 text, 2 tunes)
ST Leath192 (Partial)
Roud #2112
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Moon Shines Bright" (The Bellman's Song)" (lyrics)
NOTES: Nearly every word of this is paralleled in "The Moon Shines Bright" and its relatives -- except the first verse. Songs beginning "God/Christ made a trance" go here; those which open with "The Moon Shines Bright" file there. Now if only we could figure out the actual relationship.... - RBW
File: Leath192

Christ Was a Weary Traveler


DESCRIPTION: "Christ was a weary trav'ler, He went from door to door, His occupation in life Was a-minist'ring to the poor." Jesus warns the disciples that his work is almost done, tells them what to do after his resurrection, and thanks God
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1952 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: religious Jesus work
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
BrownIII 559, "Christ Was a Weary Traveler" (1 text)
Roud #11882
NOTES: Although most of this is quite closely parallel to Biblical accounts, very little is actual allusion. The song, for instance, states that "I thank God for none but the pure in heart Before his face shall stand." The closest parallel to this is probably Matthew 11:25 (parallel to Luke 10:21), "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and have shown them to the infants."
The name "Jekkel" for "Jericho" (cf. Joshua 6) is also new to me -- but we find "Shorty" Love, the informant in this case, using the same pronunciation in "Jekkel Walls." - RBW
File: Br3559

Christ Was Born in Bethlea


See Christ Was Born in Bethlehem (File: MA189)

Christ Was Born in Bethlehem


DESCRIPTION: "Christ was born in Bethlehem (x3) and in a manger lay." In stanzas of eight lines (but only two distinct), the song lights on Jesus' birth, his ministry, his betrayal, death, the empty tomb, and Jesus's resurrection
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1918 (Cecil Sharp collection)
KEYWORDS: Jesus Bible Christmas
FOUND IN: Australia US(Ap,SE)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
BrownIII 537, "Jesus Born in Bethlehem" (1 text)
SharpAp 210, "Christ was Born in Bethlehem" (1 text, 1 tune)
Ritchie-Southern, p. 33, "Down Came an Angel" (1 text, 1 tune)
Meredith/Anderson, pp. 189-190, "Christ Was Born in Bethlehem" (1 text, 1 tune)
Chase, pp. 166-168, "Jesus Walked in Galilee" (1 text plus a fragment, 2 tunes)
Roud #1122
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "We Won't Go Home Until Morning" (tune) and references there
cf. "Can't Cross Jordan" (floating lyrics)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Christ Was Born in Bethlea
Jesus Borned in Bethlea
Jesus Born in Galilee
File: MA189

Christ-Child's Lullaby, The


DESCRIPTION: Gaelic. A lullaby for the baby Jesus. The singer (presumably Mary) describes the child's beauty, admits her role in great events, and praises the "white sun of hope"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1909 (Kennedy-Fraser)
KEYWORDS: lullaby Jesus religious nonballad foreignlanguage
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Hebr))
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Kennedy-Fraser I, pp. 28-30, "The Christ-Child's Lullaby (Taladh Chriosta)" (1 text+2 slightly different translations, 1 tune)
DT, CHRISTLU
NOTES: It is not clear whether this is Scots or Irish Gaelic in origin. Kennedy-Fraser's version, from Eriskay with words from Allan Macdonald, is obviously Scots. The Digital Tradition version is said to be a translation by Seamus Ennis from Irish Gaelic.
The various translations have achieved some popularity in English based on the beautiful tune. - RBW
File: DTChrilu

Christina


See Cairistiona (File: K005)

Christine Leroy [Laws H31]


DESCRIPTION: The dying singer tells how happy her marriage was -- until beautiful Christine Leroy showed up and stole her husband. Now "you can tell then they murdered me, brother; God forgive him [her husband] and Christine Leroy"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1939
KEYWORDS: death infidelity husband wife
FOUND IN: US(So,MW)
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Laws H31, "Christine Leroy"
Randolph 797, "Christine Leroy" (1 text plus an excerpt, 1 tune)
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 509-511, "Christine Leroy" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 797A)
DT 654, CRSLEROY*
Roud #2193
File: LH31

Christmas Is Coming, the Goose Is Getting Fat


DESCRIPTION: "Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat, Please put a penny in the old man's hat. If you haven't got a penny, a ha'penny will do. If you haven't got a ha'penny, then God bless you."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1947 (Baring-Gould)
KEYWORDS: money bird food Christmas
FOUND IN: Britain(England) US
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Baring-Gould-MotherGoose #419, p. 195, "(Christmas is coming, the geese are getting fat)"
DT, XMASCOME*
ADDITIONAL: Peter and Iona Opie, _I Saw Esau: Traditional Rhymes of Youth_, #153, "(Christmas Is Coming)" (1 text)
NOTES: This seems to be rare in tradition, and yet *I* learned it that way, in a version still close to the British, since it mentions ha'pennies (which I first heard as "hay-pennies," which made no sense at all). So I'm filing it on the assumption it's going to be collected in tradition in the future, at least. - RBW
File: BGMG419

Christmas Letter, The


DESCRIPTION: Singer weeps and asks daughter Kate to reread letters from grandchildren in America. "One by one the lot of them Sailed out across the great big sea." The grandchildren are named and recalled. "Somehow it makes me better Ah, each time I hear the news"
AUTHOR: Michael Scanlon? (source: Munnelly/Deasy-Lenihan)
EARLIEST DATE: 1974 (Munnelly/Deasy-Lenihan)
KEYWORDS: emigration separation America Ireland moniker family
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Munnelly/Deasy-Lenihan 28, "The Christmas Letter" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Roud #5220
RECORDINGS:
Tom Lenihan, "The Christmas Letter" (on IRTLenihan01)
BROADSIDES:
This Blessed Christmas Day
NOTES: Munnelly/Deasy-Lenihan: A text from another singer, Martin Crehan, adds a verse that explains "... in the pleasant County Clare, Where there lived a widow lonely with her one daughter only Who stayed at home to care [for] her while the rest were gone away.... 'twas the eve of Christmas Day. They got letters, they got money, they felt lonely, somehow funny" - BS
For another song by Michael Scanlon, see "The Bold Fenian Men (I)." Zimmerman reports that that song was first printed in Chicago in 1864, so it is perhaps reasonable to see Scanlon writing about emigration. - RBW
File: RcChrLet

Christmas Rum


DESCRIPTION: Two underage boys are sentenced to fourteen days in jail for drinking Christmas rum. In jail they "worked from daylight until dark." Soon they'll be twenty-one and will be able to have "Christmas rum"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1960 (Peacock)
KEYWORDS: drink youth prisoner punishment
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Peacock, pp. 869-870, "Christmas Rum" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #9804
File: Pea869

Christofo Columbo


See Christopher Columbo (File: EM308)

Christopher Columbo


DESCRIPTION: Columbo, that navigating, masturbating son-of-a-bitch, sails the world round-o, master and crew engaging in a variety of sexual practices on land and sea.
AUTHOR: A (clean) version was copyrighted by Francis J. Bryant
EARLIEST DATE: 1893 and the Columbian Exposition in Chicago
KEYWORDS: bawdy sex humorous whore exploration
FOUND IN: Australia Canada US(MW,Ro,So,SW)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Harlow, pp. 55-58, "Christopher Columbus" (1 text, 1 tune)
Cray, pp. 308-315, "Christopher Columbo" (3 texts, 1 tune)
Randolph-Legman I, pp. 502-505, "Christopher Columbo" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Shay-SeaSongs, pp. 207-212, "Christofo Columbo" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, COLOMBO COLUMB2*
Roud #4843
RECORDINGS:
Anonymous singer, "Christopho Columbo" (on Unexp1)
Arkansas Charlie [pseud. for Charlie Craver], "Oh Christofo Columbo" (Brunswick 410, 1930)
Billy Jones, "Christofo Columbo" (CYL: Edison [BA] 5008, prob. 1925)
Billy Jones & Ernest Hare, "Christofo Columbo" (OKeh 40397, 1925)
Andy Kirk & his Mighty Clouds of Joy, "Christopher Columbus" (Decca 729, 1936)
Old Ced Odom & Lil "Diamonds" Hardaway, "Fourteen Hundred and Ninety-Two (Christopho Columbo)" (Decca, uniss.; rec. 1936)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Good Ship Venus" (lyrics)
NOTES: This song frequently borrows verses -- identifiable by their internal rhyme in the third line or "limerick form" -- from "The Good Ship Venus."
This would not pass muster as a history of Christopher Columbus' voyage of 1492. - EC
A distinct understatement.
Incidentally, it is not clear whether this was originally clean or dirty. The 1893 date cited above is for a clean version, of which John Garst writes, "We all know 'Christofo Columbo' as a bawdy ballad, but in the Robert W. Gordon papers at the University of Oregon there is a 'clean' version, 'Written and Composed by Francis J. Bryant,' 'Copyright, 1893, by M. Witmark and Sons. Entered at Stationers' Hall, London.... If you wonder how the chorus could be 'clean,' here it is:
He knew the earth was round, ho! that land it could be found, ho!
The geographic, hard and hoary navigator, gyratory Christofo Columbo."
Shay's clean version has the chorus
Oh, Christofo Columbo,
He thought the world was round-o;
That pioneering, buccaneering,
Son-of-a-gun, Columbo! - RBW
File: EM308

Christopher White [Child 108]


DESCRIPTION: A lady, mourning Christopher White's banishment, is wooed by the singer. She warns "If I prove false to Christopher White, Merchant, I cannot be true to thee," -- but marries him. While he is away she sends for Christopher; they go off, taking much wealth
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1750 (Percy manuscript)
KEYWORDS: love separation theft escape money
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Child 108, "Christopher White" (1 text)
BBI, ZN2, "Abroad as I was walking, all by the Park-side"
Roud #3974
File: C108

Chuck Wagon's Stuck, The


See Trouble for the Range Cook (The Chuck Wagon's Stuck) (File: Ohr098)

Chuck-Wagon Races


DESCRIPTION: "Come gather round the wagon, we'll sing a little song Of the wagon racing, it will not take us long, There's thrills and spills and doctor bills...." A description of the life of a wagon racer, and of many of the people in the wagon camp
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1973
KEYWORDS: travel cowboy recitation
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ohrlin-HBT 90, "Chuck-Wagon Races" (1 text)
File: Ohr090

Church Across the Way, The


DESCRIPTION: "On Easter Sunday morning when the sun was shinging clear," the congregation was having an intense service while the preacher's brother Ned lay dying across the way. The dying man wishes he had never gone astray
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1927 (Randolph)
KEYWORDS: death crime clergy Easter
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Randolph 825, "The Church Across the Way" (1 text)
Roud #7438
NOTES: This piece can't seem to decide if it's a moralizing ballad or a tearjerker. I'd say it fails at both. - RBW
File: R825

Church in the Wildwood, The


See The Little Brown Church in the Vale (The Church in the Wildwood) (File: BdLBCitV)

Church's One Foundation, The


DESCRIPTION: "The Church's one foundation Is Jesus Christ her Lord, She is his new creation." The church draws people from everywhere. Jesus died for it. The singers hope to be taken to heaven
AUTHOR: Words: Samuel John Stone (1839-1900) / Music: Samuel Sebastian Wesley (1810-1876)
EARLIEST DATE: 1982 (Johnson)
KEYWORDS: religious nonballad
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
ADDITIONAL: Charles Johnson, One Hundred and One Famous Hymns (Hallberg, 1982), pp, 58-59, "The Church's One Foundation" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #5433
NOTES: According to Johnson, this hymn was one of a series written by Stone based (very loosely) on the Apostles' Creed.
It should be noted that the Apostles' Creed is not apostolic; Boer, p. 73, declares "it is called the Apostles' Creed because it faithfully set s forth the central teachings of the Apostles" -- but he admits that it took at least three centuries to assemble. Most scholars would say it took even longer. Bettenson, p. 24, says that the oldest text of the final Latin form of the Apostle's Creed exists in a document from c. 750. The earliest ancestor known to Bettenson is the creed of Marcellus of Ancyra, known as an Arian heretic; this version dates from c. 340.
Johnson also reports that Stone did his writing in response to the works of John William Colenso (1814-1883), the Anglican Bishop of Natal from 1853 (at least, that's the date on p. 329 of LarousseDict and p. 98 of Douglas/Elwell/Toon; .Carroll/Gardner, p. [47], says 1846).
If the name "Colenso" is vaguely familiar today, it is probably from Lewis Carroll. Before becoming a bishop, Colenso had written a popular set of books on mathematics. If you look at Holiday's original illustration to "The Beaver's Lesson," chapter five of The Hunting of the Snark (p. [49] in Carroll/Gardner), you will observe that one of the books shown there is Colenso's Arithmetic.
Once he became a Bishop, Colenso turned the analytical skills which he had previously used for mathematics to examining the Bible. One of his missions was to the Zulus, whose language he learned (a very unusual act for an Englishman of the time); he published a grammar and dictionary of the language, and began to translate the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer into Zulu.
This proved rather embarassing, because the Zulus had a lot of tricky questions about his teaching (Carroll/Gardner, p. [47]). He began to analyze the Old Testament in mathematical and scientific terms. His results were published in The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined (completed 1879, according to LarousseDict, p. 329). Carroll/Gardner, p. [47], says that Colenso "reduced to absurdity the literal interpretation of the Bible." He also championed the rights of the Blacks of South Africa (supposedly to the point of defending polygamy).
For the great sin of being 100% right, Colenso was found guilty of heresy in 1864, although he was reinstated by the Privy Council in 1865 (Douglas/Elwell/Toon, p. 98). Excommunicated by the Archbishop of Capetown in 1866, he was deposed from his bishopric in 1869 -- although Douglas/Elwell/Toon say that he managed to keep the income of the diocese until his death..
Colenso is now largely forgotten (not even my several dictionaries of heresy mention him). The song he inspired managed to make it into many hymnals, though it is not one of the more popular ones in tradition. To be sure, I can't see anything in the song that in any way relates to Colenso and his doctrines (and very little that really derives specifically from the Apostle's Creed). - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 2.5
File: Rd005433

Churn, Churn, Make Some Butter


DESCRIPTION: "Churn, churn, make some butter For my little girlie's supper." Lyrics, some borrowed, about making butter, cleaning house, courting, a lizard stealing a snake's hoecake....
AUTHOR: unknown (Ritchie family)
EARLIEST DATE: 1955 (Ritchie)
KEYWORDS: food work children animal nonballad nonsense
FOUND IN: US(Ap)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ritchie-SingFam, pp. 23-24, "Churn, Churn, Make Some Butter" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Come, Butter, Come" (theme)
File: JRSF023

Cielito Lindo


DESCRIPTION: Spanish: "Ese lunar que tienes, cielito lindo." Chorus: "Ay ay ay ay, canta y no llores, Porque cantando se allegran, cielito lindo, los corazones." The singer tells the girl of his love and how Cupid's arrow struck his heart
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1919
KEYWORDS: love courting Mexico foreignlanguage
FOUND IN: Mexico
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Sandburg, pp. 298-299, "Cielito Lindo" (1 text, 1 tune)
PSeeger-AFB, p. 23, "Cielito Lindo" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 327, "Cielito Lindo" (1 text)
Fuld-WFM, p. 172, "Cielito Lindo"
DT, CIELITOL
RECORDINGS:
Pete Seeger, "Cielito Lindo" (on PeteSeeger17)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf "I-Yi-Yi-Yi (Limericks)" (tune)
cf. "The Gay Caballero" (tune)
cf. "Sweet Violets" (tune)
NOTES: Fuld reports that Otto Mayer-Serro believes Quiruno Mendoza y Cortez wrote this song; Mendoza was granted copyright in Mexico in 1929. However, the earliest known printing (from 1919) lists no author, and Grove's Dictionary says the song was popular in Mexico before 1840. - RBW
File: San298

Cigarettes Will Spoil Yer Life


DESCRIPTION: "Cigarettes will spoil yer life, Ruin yer and kill yer baby, Poor little innocent child."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1927 (Sandburg)
KEYWORDS: injury disease nonballad
FOUND IN: US(NE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Sandburg, p. 335, "Cigarettes Will Spoil Yer Life" (1 short text, 1 tune)
File: San335

Cindy


DESCRIPTION: "You ought to see my Cindy, She lives 'way down south, She's so sweet the honeybees Swarm around her mouth. Get along, Cindy, Cindy...." Describes attempts to court Cindy, as well as her occasional extravagances. Many floating verses
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1915
KEYWORDS: love courting playparty religious floatingverses
FOUND IN: US(SE,So)
REFERENCES (9 citations):
Randolph 564, "Get Along Home, Cindy" (2 texts, 1 tune)
BrownIII 404, "Cindy" (6 texts, mostly short, with the usual load of floating verses; some may be other songs with this chorus tacked on); also 163, "The Raccoon Has a Bushy Tail" (1 text plus 2 fragments; the "C" text has the chorus of "Cindy")
Fuson, p. 172, "Liza Jane" (1 text, probably a version of "Po' Liza Jane" but with a "Cindy...Cindy Jane" chorus)
Lomax-FSUSA 28, "Cindy" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lomax- FSNA 119, "Cindy" (1 text, 1 tune)
Botkin-AmFolklr, pp. 899-900, "Cindy" (1 text, 1 tune)
PSeeger-AFB, p. 61, "Cindy" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 35, "Cindy" (1 text)
DT, CIND
Roud #836
RECORDINGS:
Gene Austin, "Cindy" (c. 1927; on CrowTold01) (Victor 20873 [as by Bill Collins], 1927; this may be the same recording as the preceding)
Milton Brown & his Musical Brownies, "Get Along, Cindy" (Bluebird B-5654, 1934)
Samantha Bumgarner & Eva Davis, "Cindy in the Meadows" (Columbia 167-D, 1924)
W. E. Claunch, "Cindy" (AFS, 1939; on LC02)
Vernon Dalhart, "Cindy" (Challenge 405, c. 1928)
Lawrence & Vaughan Eller, "Cindy in the Summertime" (on FolkVisions1)
Ford & Grace, "Kiss Me Cindy" (OKeh 45157, 1927; on CrowTold02)
Ernest Hare & Al Bernard, "Cindy" (OKeh 40011, 1924; rec. 1923)
Hill Billies, "Old Time Cinda" (OKeh 40294, 1925); "Cinda" (Vocalion 5025/Brunswick 105 [as Al Hopkins & his Buckle Busters], 1927)
Bradley Kincaid, "Cindy" (Champion 15851 [as Dan Hughey]/Supertone 9568, 1929) (Brunswick 464, 1930)
Lulu Belle & Scotty "Get Along Home Cindy" (Conqueror 8594, 1935; Melotone 6-03-59, 1936; Vocalion 05487, 1940)
Bascom Lamar Lunsford, "Get Along Home, Cindy" (Brunswick 228, 1928)
J. E. Mainer's Mountaineers "Kiss Me Cindy" (Bluebird B-7289, 1937)
Shorty McCoy "Cindy" (Bluebird 33-0511, 1944)
New Lost City Ramblers, "Cindy" (on NLCR04)
Pickard Family, "Cindy" (Coast 253, n.d.)
Pope's Arkansas Mountaineers, "Get Along Home, Miss Cindy" (Victor 21577, 1928)
Poplin Family, "Cindy Gal" (on Poplin01)
Frank Proffitt, "Cindy" (on Proffitt03)
Riley Puckett (w. Clayton McMichen), "Cindy" (Columbia 15232-D, 1928; rec. 1927)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Jinny Go Round and Around" (floating lyrics)
cf. "Whoop 'Em Up, Cindy"
cf. "Liza Jane" (floating lyrics)
cf. "Get On Board, Little Children" (tune)
cf. "I Met a Handsome Lady" (lyrics)
cf. "Turn, Julie-Ann, Turn" (floating lyrics)
cf. "Early Monday Morning" (floating lyrics)
File: LxU028

Cinnamon, Ginger, Nutmegs, and Cloves


See Of All the Birds (File: ChWI141)

Circle Four in London


DESCRIPTION: "Circle four in London, And so I've heard then say, Right and left in London, And so I've heard them say." "Round the lady in London, And so..., Round the gent in London...." "Cut a figure eight in London...." "Twenty-five miles to sundown...."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1928 (Randolph)
KEYWORDS: playparty nonballad
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Randolph 558, "Circle Four in London" (2 fragments, 1 tune)
Roud #7658
File: R558

Circuit Rider's Home


DESCRIPTION: "Well, you know I have no permanent address, This rodeo cowboy's on the roam... The highway is a circuit rider's home." The rider mentions towns he has visited and horses he has ridden, and admits to whispering to the ladies before heading down the road
AUTHOR: Johnny Baker
EARLIEST DATE: 1973
KEYWORDS: cowboy rambling
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ohrlin-HBT 93, "Circuit Rider's Home" (1 text, 1 tune)
File: Ohr093

Citadel Hill


See Back Bay Hill (File: FJ165)

Citi Na gCumann (Kitty of Loves)


DESCRIPTION: Irish Gaelic: Singer comes to bargain with his love's parents over her dowry. They cannot agree; they've heard he's married. He denies it; he only trifles with young women. He asks her to elope with him, or to marry in secret, or to emigrate with him
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1951 (recording, Maire O'Sullivan)
KEYWORDS: foreignlanguage courting dowry elopement love bargaining emigration father lover
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
DT, CITI/NA
RECORDINGS:
Maire O'Sullivan, "Citi Na gCumann" [incomplete] (on Lomax42, LomaxCD1742)
File: DTcitina

City of Baltimore, The


See Bold McCarthy (The City of Baltimore) [Laws K26] (File: LK26)

City of Refuge


DESCRIPTION: "There is coming a time and it won't be long, You will attend to your business and let mine alone." "You better run." ("Run to the city of refuge.") "Paul and Silas bound in jail."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1925 (Scarborough)
KEYWORDS: religious Bible
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
BrownIII 560, "City of Refuge" (1 fragment)
Scarborough-NegroFS, pp. 208-209, "City of Refuge" (1 fragment of the chorus, 1 tune (which includes the verse even though the informant did not remember the words))
Roud #11828
RECORDINGS:
Blind Willie Johnson, "I'm Gonna Run to the City of Refuge" (Columbia 14391-D, 1929; on BWJ01)
NOTES: Brown's version is not at all clear why this should be considered a "City of Refuge" text; it never mentions those words, and is a fragment. But there isn't much else to go on.
The mention in song of "cities of refuge" is strange in any case: The cities of refuge were for "the manslayer who kills any person without intent" (Numbers 35:11).
Nor is there any mention of the cities of refuge ever actually being used; they are not mentioned outside Exodus-Deuteronomy, and the few Biblical instances of people wanting sanctuary involve the criminal fleeing into the temple and seizing the horns of the altar (e.g. Joab in 1 Kings 2:28) - RBW
File: Br3560

Civil War Song


DESCRIPTION: "You good folks don't scarcely know What we poor soldiers undergo... To defend our country from all harms." The singer described early drill, "lean and tough" beef, etc. The singer gives his name as A. T. Hyte, who wrote the song while on picket in winter
AUTHOR: Credited in the lyrics to A. T. Hyte (Hiatt?)
EARLIEST DATE: 1936 (Hudson)
KEYWORDS: hardtimes soldier food Civilwar
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Hudson 115, p. 257, "Civil War Song" (1 text)
Roud #4499
File: Hud115

Clady River Water Bailiffs, The


DESCRIPTION: The singer tells listeners where to go hunt salmon(-poachers). He praises the bailiffs who protect the streams, and describes how they watch the poachers. The bailiffs (?) will provide "dark and stormy weather" to any poachers on the water
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1938 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: fishing police
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H764, p. 32, "The Clady River Water Bailiffs" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #13352
NOTES: Said by Sam Henry to have been written by a policeman, and while it's hard to tell because the song is so vague, this seems likely enough; the piece appears to praise the police who catch illegal salmon-fishers. - RBW
File: HHH764

Clairons Sonnaient la Charge, Les (The Bugler Sounded the Charge)


DESCRIPTION: French. The bugler, an old warrior, sounds the charge. The zouaves go to face the enemy. The bugler leads the charge on the bayonets, always sounding, sounding.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1959 (Peacock)
KEYWORDS: foreignlanguage army battle war death
FOUND IN: Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Peacock, pp. 992-993, "Les Clairons Sonnaient la Charge" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: The zouaves were, originally, French infantry composed of Algerians. They became famous, and the model for the British West India Regiment and US Civil War regiments [though the many "zouave" units in the Civil War were so-called simply because of their ornate uniforms -- which they generally abandoned in short order - RBW], fighting on the heights of Alma during the Crimean War. Source: The site for Coppen's (1st Battalion Louisiana) Zouaves - BS
File: Pea992

Clanconnell War Song, The


See O'Donnell Aboo (File: PGa012)

Clancy's Prayer


DESCRIPTION: The speaker overhears Clancy praying, "May bad luck fall on one and all Who try to cut our wages." Clancy describes their misdeeds, accuses them of ruining New South Wales, and calls the devil down upon them.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1968
KEYWORDS: Devil labor-movement curse
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Meredith/Anderson, pp. 254-255, "Clancy's Prayer" (1 text, 1 tune)
File: MA254

Clap Hands, Clap Hands


DESCRIPTION: "Clap hands, clap hands, Till father/mammie comes home; For father's got money/Mammie will bring something But mother's got none/Daddy will bring none"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1905 (Maclagan)
KEYWORDS: game baby father mother money
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber,High)), Canada(Ont)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
GreigDuncan8 1564, "Clap Your Handies" (1 text, 1 tune)
Opie-Oxford2 200, "Clap hands, clap hands" (2 texts)
Baring-Gould-MotherGoose #602, p. 240, "(Clap hands, clap hands)"
ADDITIONAL: R.C. Maclagan, "Additions to _The Games of Argyleshire_" in Folk-Lore, (London, 1905 ("Digitized by Google")), Vol. XVI, p. 453, ("Clap hands, clap hands till Mammie comes hame")
W.J. and Katherine H. Wintemberg, "Folk-Lore from Grey County, Ontario" in The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. XXXI, No. 119 (Jan 1918 (available online by JSTOR)), #356, p. 112 "Clap Hands"
Roud #12963
File: GrD81564

Clare de Kitchen (II)


See Old Virginny Never Tire (File: ScaNF109)

Clare's Dragoons


DESCRIPTION: "When, on Ramillies' bloody field, The baffled French were forced to yield, The victor Saxon backward reeled Before the charge of Clare's dragoons." The Irish soldiers proclaim their prowess and wish they were fighting for Ireland
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1843 (a fragment quoted by Zimmermann, p. 85, from Thomas Davis _The Spirit of the Nation_, p. 292; the 1843 date for _The Spirit of the Nation_ is from "Thomas Davis" on "Mallow 'The Crossroads of Munster'" site.)
KEYWORDS: war battle bragging Ireland
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1706 - Battle of Ramillies. Forces of the Grand Alliance under Marlborough heavily defeat the French
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (4 citations):
PGalvin, pp. 19-20, "Clare's Dragoons" (1 text, 1 tune)
Zimmermann, p. 85, "Clare's Dragoons" (1 fragment)
DT, CLAREDRG*
ADDITIONAL: Kathleen Hoagland, editor, One Thousand Years of Irish Poetry (New York, 1947), pp. 479-481, "Clare's Dragoons" (1 text)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 18(86), "Clare's Dragoons", H. De Marsan (New York), 1861-1864; also 2806 c.8(203), "Lord Clare's Dragoon"
NOTES: Thousands of Irishmen left home after the disasters of the Boyne and Aughrim. These "Wild Geese" often found employment as mercenaries. One such troop was "Clare's Dragoons," which fought for France during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). It doubtless gave the exiles some pleasure to fight with France against the Grand Alliance (Britain, Austria, and assorted lesser states).
Despite the boasting found in this song, the Irish did not significantly influence the outcome of Ramillies, which was an overwhelming Alliance victory.
Hoagland lists the song as by Thomas Davis, but all we can prove is that he published it. - RBW
Broadside Bodleian Harding B 18(86): H. De Marsan dating per Studying Nineteenth-Century Popular Song by Paul Charosh in American Music, Winter 1997, Vol 15.4, Table 1, available at FindArticles site. - BS
File: PGa019

Clarence McFaden


See Clarence McFadden (Teaching McFadden to Waltz) (File: GC170)

Clarence McFaden (Teaching McFadden to Waltz)


DESCRIPTION: "Clarence McFaden he wanted to waltz, But his feet was not gaited that way." His teacher charges high because "your right foot is lazy, your left foot is crazy." He puts a girl on crutches, and kicks the floorboards from his bed
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1931 (Gardner/Chickering)
KEYWORDS: dancing humorous
FOUND IN: US(MW,SE) Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Gardner/Chickering 170, "Clarence McFaden" (1 text)
ST GC170 (Partial)
Roud #3707
RECORDINGS:
Roy Harvey, "Learning McFadden to Waltz" (Columbia, unissued, 1927)
Roy Harvey &Leonard Copeland, "Learning McFayden to Dance" (Columbia, unissued, 1930)
NOTES: I'm almost tempted to give this the keyword "disaster." - RBW
File: GC170

Clark Sanders


See Clerk Saunders [Child 69] (File: C069)

Claude Allen [Laws E6]


DESCRIPTION: Claude Allen is placed on trial and, due to the Governor's indifference, is handed over for execution, leaving his mother and sweetheart to mourn
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1917 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: trial execution family mourning
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1912 - Trial of the Allen family. While in court, Sidney Allen shot the judge, and the rest of the family was soon shooting too. Sidney was sentenced to prison, but Claud and Floyd Allen were sentenced to death
FOUND IN: US(Ro,SE)
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Laws E6, "Claude Allen"
BrownII 246, "Claud Allen" (2 texts plus mention of 2 more)
Burt, pp. 253-254, "(Claud Allen)" (1 text)
DT 771, CLAUDALN
Roud #2245
RECORDINGS:
Clarence Ashley & Doc Watson, "Claude Allen" (on Ashley02)
Hobart Smith, "Claude Allen" (on FOTM) (on LomaxCD1705)
Ernest V. Stoneman and His Blue Ridge Cornshuckers, "Claude Allen" (Victor, unissued, 1928)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Sidney Allen" [Laws E5] (characters)
cf. "The Triplett Tragedy" (tune)
NOTES: For a bit of background to this song, see the notes to "Sidney Allen." Although the whole tragedy occurred in the twentieth century, it appears very little is known of this family.
Clarence Ashley said that he taught the ballad to Hobart Smith c. 1918, but that's a bit tenuous to assign an earliest date. - PJS
Even more curious are Burt's notes. Her source was one Dragline Miller of Ely, Nevada, who from her description sounds to have been born in 1875 or earlier. He said he learned this *before* his prospecting days. Given that the shooting occurred in 1912, when Miller was at least 37, something odd is going on. Though the strongest likelihood is simply that Miller's memory was bad. - RBW
File: LE06

Claudy Green


DESCRIPTION: The singer walks out to hear the birds sing and see the fish swim when he is distracted by a girl. He asks her if she is Diana or Venus, and says he will serve for fourteen years, as Jacob did, to win her. She rejects him and leaves
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1926 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: love courting rejection beauty
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H115b, pp. 241-242, "Claudy Green" (1 text, 1 tune); H115a, p. 355, "Claudy Green" (1 text, 1 tune -- the same as the preceding)
Roud #9479
NOTES: Finally a girl with the sense to turn down one of these brainless suitors! One wonders what the singer would have done if the girl *had* been Diana (mentioned in the a text though not the b), the eternally virgin huntress?
The story of Jacob serving for fourteen years to win the hands of Rachel and Leah is told in Genesis 29:15-30. - RBW
File: HHH115a

Clay Morgan


See Duncan Campbell (Erin-Go-Bragh) [Laws Q20] (File: LQ20)

Clayton Boone


See The Gypsy Laddie [Child 200] (File: C200)

Clean Fireside, The


DESCRIPTION: "He's a bonnie, bonnie lad But he's owre far fae me"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (GreigDuncan8)
KEYWORDS: separation
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan8 1797, "The Clean Fireside" (1 fragment)
Roud #12997
NOTES: The current description is all of the GreigDuncan8 fragment.
The notes for the GreigDuncan8 entry give no explanation for "A Clean Fireside" as the title. [Perhaps the girl is keeping a clean spot by the fireside where he can sit on his return? - RBW] There is a poem by Robert Tennant with that title that is a cheery poem having nothing to do with separation. W.J. Mickle has a widely anthologized poem, "The Sailor's Wife," which includes the lines "Rise, lass, and mak a clean fireside" and "wha can tell how Colin fared When he was far awa'?," but that is too much of a stretch even for me to connect with the GreigDuncan8 fragment. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD81797

Clean Pea Strae


See When John and I Were Married (File: GrD71278)

Clear Away the Morning Dew


See The Baffled Knight [Child 112] (File: C112)

Clear Cauld Water, The


DESCRIPTION: "Farewell to whisky ... Now I wad leave ye a' for the clear cauld water." The singer bids farewell to ginshops, "a' drunken body," alewives, wine, porter, brandy, ruin, "filthy stews" and intemperance.
AUTHOR: Robert Gray Mason (source: GreigDuncan3, correcting Greig's entry)
EARLIEST DATE: 1905 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: drink nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Greig #175, p. 1, "The Clear Cauld Water" (1 text)
GreigDuncan3 604, GreigDuncan8 Addenda, "The Clear Cauld Water" (4 texts, 4 tunes)
Roud #6052
NOTES: GreigDuncan3: "George F Duncan states that the song was sung by Robert Mackie's grandfather, who died at great age, and must have sung it about the beginning of the nineteenth century." - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD3604

Clear the Track (I)


DESCRIPTION: "Ho, the car Emancipation Rides majestic through the nation, Bearing on its train the story, Liberty! a nation's glory." Those who oppose freedom for the slaves are warned that the train is coming and will accomplish its end
AUTHOR: Words: Jesse Hutchinson / Music: Dan Emmett
EARLIEST DATE: 1844 (sheet music)
KEYWORDS: freedom political slavery train
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Silber-CivWar, pp. 48-49, "Clear the Track" (1 text, 1 tune)
Greenway-AFP, p. 87, "Get Off the Track" (1 text)
Cohen-LSRail, pp. 46, 48, "(Get Off the Track)" (1 excerpt plus a photo of part of the sheet music)
RECORDINGS:
Pete Seeger, "Clear the Track" (on PeteSeeger28)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Old Dan Tucker" (tune)
SAME TUNE:
The Workingman's Train (Greenway-AFP, pp. 87-88)
NOTES: The sheet music dedicates this to Nathaniel P. Rogers "as a mark of esteem for his intrepidity in the cause of Human Rights." Intrepid he may have been; famous he was not. - RBW
File: SCW48

Clear the Track and Let the Bullgine Run


See Margot Evans (Let the Bullgine Run) (File: LoF029)

Clear the Track, Let the Bullgine Run


See Margot Evans (Let the Bullgine Run) (File: LoF029)

Clear, Winding Ayr, The


See Burns and His Highland Mary [Laws O34] (File: LO34)

Cleaverie, cleaverie, sit i' the sun


See Sinne, Sinne, Set Ye (File: GrD1636)

Cleedie's House


DESCRIPTION: Cleedie's house stands like a mountain. The crows stop there as they go down to Mormond.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (GreigDuncan8)
KEYWORDS: nonballad bird
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan8 1647, "Cleedie's House" (1 text)
Roud #13051
File: GrD81647

Clem Murphy's Door


See On the Steps of the Dole Office Door (File: MA225)

Clementine


DESCRIPTION: The singer reports on the death of his beloved Clementine, the daughter of a (Forty-Niner). One day, leading her ducklings to water, she trips and falls in. The singer, "no swimmer," helplessly watches her drown
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1863
KEYWORDS: death drowning love
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (9 citations):
RJackson-19CPop, pp. 148-151, "Oh My Darling Clementine" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fife-Cowboy/West 34, "Clementine" (1 text, 1 tune)
Meredith/Covell/Brown, p. 68, "Mazurka: Clementine" (1 tune)
Spaeth-ReadWeep, p. 85, "Clementine" (1 text, 1 tune)
PSeeger-AFB, p. 27, "Clementine" (1 text, 1 tune)
Pankake-PHCFSB, p. 272, "Clementine" (1 text)
Silber-FSWB, p. 241, "Clementine" (1 text)
Fuld-WFM, pp. 174-175, "Clementine"
DT, CLEMENTI* (CLEMENT3*) (CLEMENT4)
ST RJ19148 (Full)
Roud #9611
RECORDINGS:
Logan English, "Clementine" (on LEnglish02)
Bradley Kincaid, "Darlin' Clementine" (Decca W4271, 1934)
Pete Seeger, "Clementine" (on PeteSeeger24)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Silver Jack" [Laws C24] (tune)
SAME TUNE:
Found a Peanut (Pankake-PHCFSB, pp. 28-29)
Oh My Monster, Frankenstein (Pankake-PHCFSB, p. 219)
The Atoms In Their Glory ("There the atoms in their glory, Ionize and recombine. Oh my darlings, oh my darlings, Oh my darlings, Ions mine"; said to have been sung by Ernest Rutherford himself; see Edward O. Wilson, _The Diversity of Life_, p. 46)
NOTES: In some of the modern versions, the song ends when the singer kisses Clementine's younger sister and forgets Clementine. - (PJS)
The words to this piece were first published in 1863 under the title "Down by the River Lived a Maiden," credited to H. S. Thompson. This printing had a melody, but it was not the "standard" melody. The text was also rather different (in minstrel dialect); Norm Cohen gives the first verse as
Down by the river there lived a maiden
In a cottage built just 7 x 9;
And all around this lubly bower
The beauteous sunflower blossoms twine.
Chorus: Oh my Clema, oh my Clema, Oh my darling Clementine,
Now you are gone and lost forever,
I'm dreadful sorry Clementine.
In 1864 a text appeared in "Billy Morris' Songs" in which Clementine appears as little short of a legendary monster; she is even reported to have grown wool.
In 1884 the piece reappeared, with the famous tune, this time credited to "Percy Montrose," under the title "Oh My Darling Clementine."
Since neither Thompson nor Montrose is known, the authorship of the song probably cannot be settled.
It is reported by reliable sources that this song was originally intended to be serious. No doubt a few thousand enterprising parodists would be amazed. - RBW
File: RJ19148

Clerk Colvill [Child 42]


DESCRIPTION: (Clerk Colvill) is warned (by his mother/lover) not to be too free with women. He refuses the advice; "Did I neer see a fair woman, But I wad sin with her body?" A woman gives him a fatal headache and turns into a mermaid to avoid being killed by him
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1769 (Herd)
KEYWORDS: sex sin courting infidelity magic death
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (8 citations):
Child 42, "Clerk Colvill" (3 texts, 2 tunes)
Bronson 42, "Clerk Colvill" (1 version)
Leach, pp. 149-150, "Clerk Colville" (1 text)
OBB 29, "Clerk Colven" (1 text)
Friedman, p. 30, "Clerk Colvill" (1 text, which includes textual interpolations heretofore unpublished)
Gummere, pp. 197-199+347-348, "Clerk Colven" (1 text)
Hodgart, p. 39, "Clerk Colvill" (1 text)
DT 42, CLRKCLVL
Roud #147
NOTES: A number of scholars (Coffin, Lloyd, Bronson) have speculated that "Clerk Colvill" is actually a fragment of a longer ballad, "George Collins," with "Lady Alice" [Child 85] forming the rest. See the discussion in the notes to "Lady Alice." - RBW
File: C042

Clerk in ta Offish, Ta


DESCRIPTION: "Noo Rosie se'll be prood, and Rosie she'll be praw.. For ta praw, praw lad's come an' tookit her awa'; She's a praw lad, a clerk in an offish." The clerk's education, mathematical ability, and lack of ancestry are emphasized
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1901 (Ford)
KEYWORDS: worker humorous nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ford-Vagabond, pp. 283-284, "Ta Clerk in ta Offish" (1 text)
Roud #13099
NOTES: Obviously a composed song, and a strange one at that -- the dialect appears to be Scots done with a "Dutch" (stage German) accent. - RBW
File: FVS283

Clerk Saunders [Child 69]


DESCRIPTION: (Clerk Sanders) and his lady are determined to be wed despite the opposition of her seven brothers. Despite great pains to conceal their acts, they are found abed together. The brothers stab him to death and leave him in bed for his lady to find
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1802 (Scott)
KEYWORDS: courting death murder family
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (8 citations):
Child 69, "Clerk Saunders" (7 texts)
Bronson 69, "Clerk Saunders" (3 versions)
Leach, pp. 234-236, "Clerk Saunders" (1 text)
OBB 27, "Clerk Saunders" (1 text)
Friedman, p. 94, "Clerk Saunders" (1 text)
PBB 30, "Clark Sanders" (1 text)
Hodgart, p. 56, "Clerk Saunders" (1 text)
DT 69, CLERKSAN
Roud #3855
File: C069

Clerk's Twa Sons o Owsenford, The [Child 72]


DESCRIPTION: The clerk's two sons go to (Paris/Blomsbury/Billsbury/Berwick) to study. They lay with the mayor's two daughters. The mayor condemns them to hang. The clerk comes to buy their freedom but the mayor refuses. He tells his wife they're at a higher school.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1829
KEYWORDS: adultery trial punishment execution lie family children
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber,Bord))
REFERENCES (6 citations):
Child 72, "The Clerk's Twa Sons o Owsenford" (4 texts)
Bronson 72, "The Clerk's Twa Sons o Owsenford" (2 versions)
Leach, pp. 237-238, "The Clerk's Twa Sons o Owsenford" (1 text)
GreigDuncan8 1931, "Do Weel My Sons" (1 fragment)
PBB 53, "The Clerk's Twa Sons o Owsenford" (1 text)
DBuchan 31, "The Clerk's Twa Sons o Owsenford" (1 text)
Roud #3902
NOTES: Bronson notes that both his tunes have texts mixed with "The Wife of Usher's Well." Since, however, both appear to be composite, there is no proof that the two are related except that both involve sending children away for education (standard practice among the English nobility in the Middle Ages, even if "education" at the time meant training in weapons). - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: C072

Clever Skipper, The


See The Boatsman and the Chest [Laws Q8] (File: LQ08)

Click Go the Shears


DESCRIPTION: A description of shearing life: The race to shear the most sheep, the boss complaining of the quality, the constant clicking of the shears. The rules for shearing are briefly mentioned. Chorus: "Click, click, click, that's how the shears go...."
AUTHOR: unknown (music by Henry Clay Work: "Ring the Bell, Watchman")
EARLIEST DATE: 1953 (collected by John Meredith)
KEYWORDS: sheep work contest
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Meredith/Anderson, p. 24, "Click, Click, That's How the Shears Go"; pp. 193-194, "Click Go the Shears" (2 texts, 2 tunes)
Fahey-Eureka, pp. 152-153, "Click Go the Shears" (1 text, 1 tune)
Paterson/Fahey/Seal, pp. 180-183, "Click Go the Shears" (1 text)
DT, CLKSHEAR*
Roud #8398
RECORDINGS:
John Greenway, "Click Go the Shears" (on JGreenway01)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Ring the Bell, Watchman" (tune)
File: MA024

Click, Click, That's How the Shears Go


See Click Go the Shears (File: MA024)

Clifton Tragedy, The


DESCRIPTION: "A gray-haried mother knelt in prayer Before the holy light And the image of Christ was there...." She prays to "He, who... changed a raging tempest To a calm...." But the storm raged on, and the Clifton sank. The crew begged for mercy on their souls
AUTHOR: probably Peter Gallagher
EARLIEST DATE: before 1952 (Helan Collar collection, included in the Walton collection)
KEYWORDS: ship sailor wreck death religious
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Sep 21/22, 1924 - Loss of the _Clifton_
FOUND IN: US(MW)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Walton/Grimm/Murdock, pp. 179-180, "The Clifton Tragedy" (1 text)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Seaman's Lament" (subject: The Clifton Wreck)
cf. "The Clifton's Crew" (subject: The Clifton Wreck)
cf. "The Clifton" (subject: The Clifton Wreck)
NOTES: Bruce D. Berman's Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks (Mariner's Press, 1972) says that the Clifton, built 1892, foundered on the night of September 21, 1924; Walton says September 22. I would assume this is the same night. Walton says she went down with all hands; Berman that there were 27 men lost.
David Ritchie, Shipwrecks: An Encyclopedia of the World's Worst Disasters at Sea, 1996 (I use the 1999 Checkmark paperback edition), pp. 46-47, has extensive notes on the Clifton mystery. It was a "pig boat" or "whaleback," a craft designed with a very rounded bow, stern, and sides. These were designed to roll through Great Lakes storms -- and in fact most of them had admirable safety records. But they were not especially easy to maneuver.
The Clifton was worse than usual in this regard, because it had special loading equipment which made it very top-heavy.
The Clifton took on a load of crushed rock on September 20, 1924 at Sturgeon Bay, Wisconson, and headed for Detroit. A storm blew up during the voyage, but the boats which saw it on its journey reported no signs of trouble. Clifton was last seen by the tug Favorite off Forty Mile Point.
When the boat failed to reach its destination, a search was started, by air and water. Although wreckage was found almost at once, it took some time before the Glencairn found debris which could definitely be associated with the Clifton. One of the things recovered was the ship's clock, which had stopped at about four o'clock; presumably that was when the boat went down.
It is unlikely that there was anything mechanically wrong with the Clifton, which had sound engines and had been recently inspected. The cause of her loss is unknown. The suspicion, though, is that it had something to do with the way her deck equipment or hatches were designed.
This may be the most explicitly Catholic song I have ever seen among sailors; the sailors pray less to God or Jesus than to Mary. Presumably Captain Emmett Gallagher and his family were Catholic. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: QGM179

Clifton, The


DESCRIPTION: "Steaming out of the Straits of Mackinac, She blew her last salute, Five whistles told her company's name...." The Clifton sails for Detroit with a cargo of stone. A storm blows up without warning. The ships sinks with all hands
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1952 (Walton collection)
KEYWORDS: ship disaster death
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Sep 21/22, 1924 - Loss of the _Clifton_
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Walton/Grimm/Murdock, pp. 184-185, "The Clifton" (1 defective text, source unknown)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Clifton Tragedy" (subject: The Clifton Wreck) and references and notes there
File: WGM184

Clifton's Crew, The


DESCRIPTION: "We have heard of many happenings since last year first began, With crimes and troubles caused by war and earthquakes in Japan," but the wreck of the Clifton brought sorrow hom. The singer lists some of the dead, and hopes for their salvation
AUTHOR: probably Pat Bonner
EARLIEST DATE: 2002 (Walton/Grimm/Murdock, which does not list an informant)
KEYWORDS: ship wreck religious family
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
Sep 21/22, 1924 - Loss of the _Clifton_
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Walton/Grimm/Murdock, pp. 181-184, "The Clifton's Crew" (1 text, 1 tune)
RECORDINGS:
Patrick Bonner, "The Clifton's Crew" (1938; on WaltonSailors -- curiously, although recorded from the supposed author, the recording begins with the ninth verse of the printed text)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Clifton Tragedy" (subject: The Clifton Wreck) and references and notes there
NOTES: The notes in Walton/Grimm/Murdock note acidly that author Pat Bonner was by all accounts "a better fiddler than he was a poet." Certainly this song is much longer than it should be. It is also unusually explicit in its Catholic imagery -- a trait it shares with "The Clifton Tragedy." It would appear that the Clifton's crew was heavily Catholic. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: WGM181

Climbing Up My Old Apple Tree


DESCRIPTION: Singer explains to Bridget why he is climbing the tree. "I'm not stealing apples, so I can explain. The wind blowed high and knocked 'em down. We're picking them up again!"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1974 (recording, Jasper Smith)
KEYWORDS: theft food humorous nonballad talltale
FOUND IN: Britain(England(Lond))
RECORDINGS:
Jasper Smith, "Climbing Up My Old Apple Tree" (on Voice14)
File: RcCUMOAT

Climbing Up the Golden Stairs


DESCRIPTION: Advice for getting into heaven. The listener is warned against bribing Peter, and is told of the sights on the Golden Stairs. Chorus: "Then hear them bells a-ringing, 'Tis sweet I do declare, To hear the darkies singing, Climbing up the golden stairs."
AUTHOR: unknown (credited on Kanawha Singers recording to "Heiser")
EARLIEST DATE: 1928 (recordings, Vernon Dalhart et al, Kanawha Singers)
KEYWORDS: religious music Bible clergy
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Randolph 301, "Climbin' Up the Golden Stairs" (1 text)
Roud #7779
RECORDINGS:
Vernon Dalhart & Carson J. Robison w. Adelyne Hood, "Climbing up de Golden Stairs" (Conqueror 7176, 1928)
Frank Welling & John McGhee, "Climbing Up the Golden Stairs" (Champion 15567, 1928)
Kanawha Singers, "Climbing Up de Golden Stairs" (Brunswick 205, 1928)
[John Wallace "Babe"] Spangler & [Dave] Pearson, "Climbing Up the Golden Stairs" (OKeh, unissued, 1929)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Ridin' on de Cable Car" (tune)
File: R301

Clinch Mountain


See Rye Whiskey AND The Wagoner's Lad (File: R405)

Clipper Ship Dreadnaught, The


See The Dreadnought [Laws D13] (File: LD13)

Clock, The


DESCRIPTION: At nine the clock said "quick, quick to bed" because "you'll never hae wealth, Gin ye dinna rise in the mornin'"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1908 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: warning work nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan3 658, "The Clock" (1 fragment, 1 tune)
Roud #6085
NOTES: GreigDuncan3 notes that there is at least a second verse but only two lines are remembered. - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD3658

Clones Murder, The


DESCRIPTION: John Flanagan was murdered after cashing a cheque for fifty pounds. His body was discovered in Clones town eight months later. The suspect is in Armagh gaol. "He who killed John Flanagan With revengence must repay." "God comfort his poor parents"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1980 (IRHardySons)
KEYWORDS: murder prison money
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
December 22, 1904 - Joseph Fee is executed for the April 16, 1903 murder of John Flanigan (source: Morton-Maguire).
FOUND IN: Ireland
Roud #2919
RECORDINGS:
Tom Tinneny, "The Clones Murder" (on IRHardySons)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Fee and Flannigan" (subject)
File: RcCloMur

Clonmel Flood, The


DESCRIPTION: Sprong, loaded with Indian ale, is caught in a heavy storm in the river Suir, grounds in Duckett Street, and floats in Church Lane. They dump ballast, including Kitty Conroy's pig. They anchor at Hearn's Hotel. The lifeboat crew bring whiskey and stout
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1965 (OLochlainn-More)
KEYWORDS: river commerce ship storm humorous talltale sailor animal
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
OLochlainn-More 17B, "The Clonmel Flood" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #9776
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The E-ri-e" (theme) and references there
NOTES: Clonmel, South Tipperary, is on the river Suir. - BS
File: OLcM017B

Closet Key, The


DESCRIPTION: "I done lost de closet key, In dem ladies' garden, I done lost de closet key In dem ladies' garden." "Help me find de closet key...." "I done found de closet key...."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1925 (Scarborough)
KEYWORDS: playparty nonballad
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Scarborough-NegroFS, p. 139, "The Closet Key" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #11593
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Do, Do, Pity My Case" (lyrics) and references there
File: ScaNF139

Clothier, The


See Kate and Her Horns [Laws N22] (File: LN22)

Cloudburst, The


DESCRIPTION: "...The worst tropical storm that ever was seen... struck with force on the mountainside." A little boy begs his parents to flee, but the house comes down around them. When neighbors seek the family, they learn that three of five children have died
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1935
KEYWORDS: death storm children family disaster
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
McNeil-SFB2, pp. 92-93, "The Cloudburst" (1 text, 1 tune)
ST MN2092 (Partial)
Roud #4776
File: MN2092

Clouds they Look Black Love, The


DESCRIPTION: "The clouds they look black love I'm afraid it will rain"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (GreigDuncan8)
KEYWORDS:
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan8 1921, "The Clouds they Look Black Love" (1 fragment)
Roud #15119
NOTES: The current description is all of the GreigDuncan8 fragment. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD81921

Cloughmills Fair


DESCRIPTION: The singer is wandering toward Ballylig when he meets a "charming fair one." He asks leave to court her; she tells him she is not interested. He asks if he may walk along with her. She consents; the road is free. Now they are meeting regularly
AUTHOR: Hugh McWilliams (source: Moulden-McWilliams)
EARLIEST DATE: 1831 (according to Moulden-McWilliams)
KEYWORDS: love courting beauty
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
SHenry H121, pp. 270-271, "Cloughmills Fair" (1 text, 1 tune)
ADDITIONAL: John Moulden, Songs of Hugh McWilliams, Schoolmaster, 1831 (Portrush,1993), p. 12, "I'll See You in the Fair"
Roud #6921
File: HHH121

Cloughwater/The Shamrock Shore


DESCRIPTION: The singer recalls coming to Philadelphia in May (18)56. He was received by friends, and is "happy and contented," but thinks often of Ireland. He remembers home, friends, family. He hopes to earn enough money to return to Erin
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1935 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: emigration homesickness
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H610, p. 208-209, "Cloughwater/The Shamrock Shore" (1 text, 1 tune)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Scarborough Settler's Lament" (theme) and references there
File: HHH610

Cluck Old Hen


DESCRIPTION: "Cluck old hen, cluck and squall, you ain't laid an egg since way last fall." The exploits (?) of the hen are listed: "She laid eggs for the railroadmen." "The old hen cackled, cackled in the lot. Next time she cackled, she cackled in the pot"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1923 (recording, Fiddlin' John Carson)
KEYWORDS: bird humorous nonballad chickens
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Warner 120, "Cluck Old Hen" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, CLUCKHEN*
ST Wa120 (Full)
Roud #4235
RECORDINGS:
Clarence Ashley & Tex Isley, "Cluck Old Hen" (on Ashley01)
Clarence Ashley, Clint Howard & Doc Watson, "Cluck Old Hen" [instrumental version] (WatsonAshley01)
Banjo Bill Cornett, "Cluck Old Hen" (on MMOK, MMOKCD)
[G. B.] Grayson & [Henry] Whitter, "Cluck Old Hen" (Gennett 6656/Champion 15629, 1928)
Al Hopkins & his Buckle Busters, "Cluck Old Hen" ((Brunswick 175, 1927; on CrowTold02; Vocalion 5179 [as the Hill Billies], 1927; on LostProv)
Vester Jones, "Cluck Old Hen" (on GraysonCarroll1)
Fiddlin' Powers & Family, "Cluck Old Hen" (Edison 52083, 1927; rec. 1925) (CYL: Edison [BA] 5246 [as, "Cluck, Old Hen"], c. 1926)
Wade Ward, "Cluck Old Hen" [instrumental] (on LomaxCD1702)
Wade Ward & Bogtrotters, "Cluck Old Hen" (on Holcomb-Ward1) (AFS, 1937; on WWard1)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Hen Cackle" (lyrics)
cf. "Henhouse Door (Who Broke the Lock?)" (floating verses)
cf. "Higgledy Piggledy, My Black Hen" (floating verses)
File: Wa120

Cluster of Nits, The


See The Cluster of Nuts (File: GrD71431)

Cluster of Nuts, The


DESCRIPTION: Jack and his mistress bet ten guineas on the number of nuts in a cluster. He says twelve; she says eleven. One nut has no kernel; who wins? They leave it to his master to decide; he decides in Jack's favor. She pays the ten guineas.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1907 (GreigDuncan7)
KEYWORDS: adultery sex gambling husband wife servant trick
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan7 1431, "The Cluster of Nits" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #1261
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 16(50c), "Cluster of Nuts" ("As me and my mistress were riding down by the greenwood side"), unknown, no date; also Harding B 11(582), "Cluster of Nuts"
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Proud Pedlar" (theme: cuckolded husband settles dispute/bet between his wife and her lover)
cf. "The Farm Servant (Rap-Tap-Tap)" (theme: servant describes sex with the master's wife in hidden terms)
NOTES: GreigDuncan7 quoting Mrs Gillespie's explanation to Duncan decodes the story as that the master leaves home with Jack in charge. The bet between Jack and the mistress of the house is how many times Jack will succeed having sex with her. In the morning they disagree on how the count should be made. That explains her answer to Jack's "I'll leave it to my master, when he comes home at night": "Why, you fool," says she, "would you let your master know?" Jack's description of the bet seems not to raise the master's suspicion. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD71431

Clyde's Water


See The Mother's Malison, or, Clyde's Water [Child 216] (File: C216)

Clyde's Waters


See The Mother's Malison, or, Clyde's Water [Child 216] (File: C216)

Co Sheinneas an Fhideag Airgid?


See The Silver Whistle (File: K009)

Coachman's Whip


DESCRIPTION: Singer takes a job with young lady who needs a coachman to "drive her in style." He drives her "ten times round the room"; she asks for a look at his whip. He takes her riding, but on the first turn breaks a spring; her maid takes the next ride
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1957 (Pinto & Rodway, from a Nottingham broadside)
LONG DESCRIPTION: Singer takes a job as coachman; his employer is a young lady who informs him that she needs a coachman to "drive her in style." He drives her "ten times round the room"; she takes him to the cellar and feeds him whisky, then asks for a look at his whip. After holding it, she says, smiling, that by the look and length of it they could go ten miles. He takes her riding, but on the first turn breaks a spring; she calls for her serving maid, saying that while her spring is being repaired "I'll let him drive you for a while"
KEYWORDS: sex work drink bawdy humorous servant
FOUND IN: Britain(England(South,West))
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Kennedy 172, "The Coachman's Whip" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, COACHMN*
Roud #862
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Chandler's Wife" (plot)
cf. "The Farm Servant (Rap-Tap-Tap)" (plot)
cf. "The Jolly Barber Lad" (plot)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Coachman
The Jolly Driver
File: K172

Coal Black Rose


DESCRIPTION: Halyard shanty, Negro origin. "Oh, me Rosie, Coal Black Rose, Don't ye hear the banjo ping-a-pong-a-pong? Oh, me Rosie, Coal Black Rose." Verses mostly nonsense, with a fair amount of onomatopoeia, i.e. "ping-a-pong-a-pong," "dinging an' a dang," etc.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (Bullen, _Songs of Sea Labor_)
KEYWORDS: shanty worksong
FOUND IN: West Indies
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Hugill, p. 364, "Coal Black Rose" (1 text, 1 tune) [AbEd, p. 274]
Roud #9128
File: Hugi364

Coal Creek Troubles


DESCRIPTION: "My song is founded on the truth, In poverty we stand. How hard the millionaire will crush Upon the laboring man." The governor of Tennessee sends convicts to work the mines of Coal Creek. The miners oppose, but the legislature will not help
AUTHOR: James W. Day ("Jilson Setters")?
EARLIEST DATE: 1937 (recording, Jilson Setters)
KEYWORDS: mining hardtimes strike political work chaingang
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1891-1892 -- Coal Creek War.
FOUND IN: US(Ap)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Thomas-Makin', pp. 192-194, (no title) (1 text)
Green-Miner, p. 155-157, "Coal Creek Troubles" (4 texts, 1 tune)
DT, COALCRK*
RECORDINGS:
Old Charlie,' "Coal Creek Rebellion" (AFS 12012, 1940)
Jilson Setters, [pseud. for James W. Day] "Coal Creek Troubles" (AFS 1017, 1937) [Note: This was Thomas's source. - PJS]
G. D. Vowell, "Coal Creek War" (AFS 1381, 1937)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Pay Day at Coal Creek" (subject)
cf. "Buddy Won't You Roll Down the Line" (subject)
NOTES: The Coal Creek War had a long and disturbing history. Conditions at Coal Creek were terrible, as the deaths in 1902 and 1911 disasters show. Beginning in 1877, the state of Tennessee chose to relieve its shortage of prisons by putting miners to work in the Coal Creek mines. Many died, but the owners didn't care; convicts were cheap. At the time, there were enough jobs at other mines, so the miners didn't care much either.
In 1891, things turned ugly as the owners tried to deny the miners the right to choose their own check-weighmen. The miners struck; they were evicted from their homes and more convicts brought in. The miners peacefully freed the convicts and tried to convince governor "Buck" Buchanan to negotiate.
Buchanan made the worst possible choice: Force, but not sufficient force. He gathered a small escort of militia, came to Coal Creek, tried to argue with the miners, was refuted, then departed. He left the militia -- but they were only three companies, not enough to do any good. The miners forced them to surrender.
Buchanan sent more and more troops until the miners finally surrendered in October 1892. Buchanan failed of re-election, and eventually the convict labor system was abolished. - RBW
File: ThBa192

Coal Miner's Child, The


See The Orphan Girl (The Orphan Child) (File: R725)

Coal Miner's Song, The


DESCRIPTION: "Working in the mines, boys, Mighty hard to stand; Lordy, lordy, these old mines Has killed many a man." The singer described the hard work, the bad food, the poverty, the waiting for the whistle, the "Mine boss at the office, Cutting down our pay."
AUTHOR: "Aunt Pricey Preston's Mose"?
EARLIEST DATE: 1939 (Thomas)
KEYWORDS: mining hardtimes money nonballad
FOUND IN: US(Ap)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Thomas-Makin', p. 247, "The Coal Miner's Song" (1 text)
NOTES: Though Thomas does not list a tune, and does list an author (sort of), this looks to me more traditional than many of the pieces in her book. At the very least, I am sure the tune is traditional.
It appears from her account that the author managed to bring his guitar to work with him in the mines, allowing him to sing it while there. Right. - RBW
File: ThBa247

Coal Owner and the Pitman's Wife, The


DESCRIPTION: "A dialog I'll tell you as true as my life, Between a coal owner and a poor pitman's wife." The woman tells the owner she has come from Hell. They are turning out the poor to make room for "the rich wicked race." She tells him to treat his workers well
AUTHOR: William Hornsby?
EARLIEST DATE: 1952 (Lloyd, "Come All Ye Bold Miners")
KEYWORDS: dialog worker warning Hell
FOUND IN: Britain(England)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
MacColl-Shuttle, pp. 16-17, "The coal owner & the pitman's wife" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, COALOWNR*
NOTES: The notes in the Digital Tradition say this came from an 1844 strike. It is sung to the Derry Down tune, though the version in MacColl-Shuttle isn't quite the Derry Down tune I know. - RBW
File: MacCS16

Coal Quay Market, The


DESCRIPTION: Singer buys an old flea-ridden chemise at Coal Quay. His wife won't have it. The lady that sold it to him won't take it back and beats him. "Pretty females": don't let a man interfere with your business; if you buy a chemise, buy a new one.
AUTHOR: Jimmy Crowley (source: OCanainn)
EARLIEST DATE: 1978 (OCanainn)
KEYWORDS: clothes humorous wife abuse
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
OCanainn, pp. 98-99, "The Coal Quay Market" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: OCanainn: "This is one of Jimmy Crowley's best known songs and is very popular with Cork audiences, as it deals with the goings-on at one of the city's best known landmarks - the Coal Quay, between Castle Street and the river. It was traditionally a second-hand market, though you can now get both new and second-hand goods there." - BS
File: OCan098

Coalmine, The


DESCRIPTION: Some men go a Mallore hill to find coal. "In a month's time we'll all be millionaires." They spend a hot day digging but the only thing black they find is a dead crow. They test burn some lumps but it's not coal. "Let the coal and the mine go to hell"
AUTHOR: Tom Molloy (source: McBride)
EARLIEST DATE: 1988 (McBride)
KEYWORDS: mining humorous moniker
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
McBride 17, "The Coalmine" (1 text, 1 tune)
File: McB1017

Coast of Barbary, The


See High Barbaree [Child 285; Laws K33] (File: C285)

Coast of Peru, The [Laws D26]


DESCRIPTION: (The captain promises the sailors that they will spot many whales off Peru.) A whaler spots a whale off the coast of Peru. The crew harpoons the whale and renders it. They look forward to seeing the girls at home
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1832 (Journal of William Silver of the Bengal)
KEYWORDS: sea whale whaler return
FOUND IN: US(MA)
REFERENCES (8 citations):
Laws D26, "The Coast of Peru"
Doerflinger, pp. 151-152, "The Coast of Peru" (1 text)
Huntington-Whalemen, pp. 2-4, "The Coast of Peru" (1 text, 1 tune)
Colcord, pp. 194-195, "Coast of Peru" (1 text, 1 tune)
Harlow, pp. 222-223, "Coast of Peru" (1 text, 1 tune)
Darling-NAS, pp. 185-186, "The Coast of Peru" (1 text)
Silber-FSWB, p. 91, "Coast of Peru" (1 text)
DT 617, CSTPERU*
Roud #1997
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Blow Ye Winds in the Morning" (floating versesO
NOTES: A.L. Lloyd notes that "Mention of the mate 'in the main chains' dates the song from before the 1840s." -PJS
File: LD26

Coasts of High Barbary, The


See High Barbaree [Child 285; Laws K33] (File: C285)

Coatman's Saloon


DESCRIPTION: The singer meets a young lady. He invites her to Coatman's for ice cream. She orders a steak. She says "her husband had gone to war" but at the ferry her "husband" threatens to shoot him. "The story will be continued in the 'Guardian' next week"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1973 (Dibblee/Dibblee)
KEYWORDS: lie food humorous husband
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Dibblee/Dibblee, pp. 98-99, "Coatman's Saloon" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #12450
File: Dib098

Cobalt Song, The


DESCRIPTION: "For we'll sing a little song of Cobalt, If you don't live there it's your fault, Oh you Cobalt where the wintry breezes blow...." The singer describes various bad mining towns, concluding "It's hob-nail boots and a flannel shirt in Cobalt town for mine."
AUTHOR: L. F. Steenman
EARLIEST DATE: 1910
KEYWORDS: mining home nonballad
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1903 - Discovery of silver in Cobalt, Ontario
FOUND IN: Canada
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Fowke/Mills/Blume, pp. 195-197, "The Cobalt Song" (1 text, 1 tune)
File: FMB195

Cobbler (I), The


DESCRIPTION: The singer, cobbler (Dick Hobson), comes from a questionable family and leads a questionable life. The song may end with an account of how he became free of his "lumpy" wife: I dipped her three times in the river / and carelessly bade her goodnight"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1731 (ballad opera, "The Jovial Crew")
KEYWORDS: abandonment rambling bawdy
FOUND IN: US(MA,MW,NE,So,SW) Britain(England,Scotland(Aber)) Ireland
REFERENCES (12 citations):
Randolph 102, "Dick German the Cobbler" (1 text plus a fragment, 1 tune)
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 133-135, "Dick German the Cobbler" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 102A)
Randolph-Legman I, ppp. 516-517, "Dick Darlin' the Cobbler" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Flanders/Olney, pp. 176-177, "Hobson, the Cobbler" (1 text, 1 tune)
Gardner/Chickering 180, "Rusty Old Rover" (1 fragment, probably this piece); also 181, "Me Father Is a Lawyer in England" (2 short texts, 2 tunes, both very mixed; "A" has the first verse of "Me Father Is a Lawyer in England,"; the second is "Me father is a hedger and ditcher, and the third and the chorus are from "The Cobbler"; the "B" text is also clearly mixed though the elements are less clear)
GreigDuncan3 483, "Dick Dorbin the Cobbler" (3 texts, 2 tunes)
Kennedy 222, "Fagan the Cobbler" (1 text, 1 tune)
Cray, pp. 111-113, "(My Name Is) Dick Darby, the Cobbler" (1 partial text, 1 tune)
MacSeegTrav 42, "My Faither Was Hung for Sheep-Stealing" (1 text, 1 tune)
Gilbert, pp. 78-79, "Dick Darlin'" (1 text)
Chappell/Wooldridge II, pp. 163-164, "Old Hewson the Cobbler" (1 tune with no text, but presumably a version of this)
DT, DICKDARB* DICKDAR2
Roud #872
RECORDINGS:
Lawrence Older, "Jed Hobson" (on LOlder01)
Wickets Richardson & chorus, "Fagan the Cobbler" (on FSB3)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, 2806 b.10(81), "Dick Darling the Cobbler" ("My name is Dick Darling the cobbler"), H. Such (London) , 1849-1862; also Harding B 11(891), Harding B 20(38), "Dick Darling the Cobbler"
LOCSinging, sb10093b, "Dick Darlin' the Cobbler" ("Och! my name is Dick Darlin' the cobbler"), H. De Marsan (New York), 1864-1878
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "My God, How the Money Rolls In"
cf. "Haben Aboo an' a Banner" (theme) and references there
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Dick Darby, the Cobbler
The Souter
NOTES: Chappell/Wooldridge report "The words of this song have not been recovered; but there can be little doubt that they were a political satire upon Colonel Hewson, who was one of Charles I's judges, and of those who signed his death-warrant.
"John Hewson was originally a cobbler, and had but one eye. He took up arms on the side of the parliament.... He was knighted by Cromwell, and afterwards made one of his Lords. He quitted England immediately before the Restoration, and died at Amsterdam in 1662."
The above may be taken with as many grains of salt as you desire.
This clearly circulated in both clean and dirty versions, and all shades in between (e.g. in the Flanders/Olney version, the third line reads, "They call me an old fornicator," but the rest is clean).
For one of the more extreme versions, see "Haben a Boo and a Banner" (DT DICKDAR3) - RBW
See Tim Coughlan, Now Shoon the Romano Gillie, (Cardiff,2001), #162, pp. 413-416, "My Manishi's Rumpy and Tumpy" [Scotto-Romani/Tinklers' Cant fragment from M'Cormick, The Tinkler-Gypsies (1906)]. - BS
The Bodleian and LOCSinging broadsides mix a story in with the verses. This might reflect the way broadside songs were frequently delivered in the streets and at fairs. Elbourne (Roger Elbourne, Music and Tradition in Early Industrial Lancashire 1780-1840 (Totowa, 1980), p. 73) notes: "In cities or towns the broadside was sold at stalls or fair booths, and by countless small shopkeepers. They were also hawked by street singers. The 'chaunter' sang and sold his songs through the streets of city, town and village, on street corners, at country fairgrounds, wakes or executions. A 'patterer' might provide a running commentary as each ballad unfolded. The 'pinner-up' festooned an expanse of wall or railings with ballads for public perusal."
The end of the last verse in the Bodleian and LOCSinging broadsides is about the singer's wife: "The old woman fell into the river, So politely I bid her good night."
Broadside LOCSinging sb10093b: H. De Marsan dating per Studying Nineteenth-Century Popular Song by Paul Charosh in American Music, Winter 1997, Vol 15.4, Table 1, available at FindArticles site. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: R102

Cobbler (II), The


See The Shoemaker (File: R566)

Cobbler (III), The


DESCRIPTION: "Walking up and down one day, I peeped in a window over the way. Pushing his needle through and through, There sat a cobbler making a shoe. Rap-a-tap-tap-tap, ticky-tacky-too, This is the way to make a shoe."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1923 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: work nonballad
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
BrownIII 149, "The Cobbler" (1 text)
Roud #15884
NOTES: I have the funny feeling that this is a scrap of a bawdy song, along the lines of "The Shoemaker's Kiss," but the fragment in Brown is clean -- and entirely pointless. - RBW
File: Br3149

Cobbler (IV), The


DESCRIPTION: The singer is a poor uneducated shoemaker "mong the lowly ... scarcely owner of a groat." "Contented if I'm healthy ... If I keep the ravening wolf from my door". Don't long for what you don't have. Be satisfied while "around us be the everlasting arms"
AUTHOR: William Reid (d. c. 1903) (source: GreigDuncan3)
EARLIEST DATE: 1908 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: poverty nonballad religious
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan3 482, "The Cobbler" (1 text)
Roud #5975
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Cruiskeen Lawn" (tune, per GreigDuncan3)
File: GrD3482

Cobbler, Cobbler, Mend My Shoe


See Cobbler, Cobbler, Where's My Shoe (File: BGMG585)

Cobbler, Cobbler, Where's My Shoe


DESCRIPTION: "Cobbler, cobbler, mend my shoe, Yes, good master, that I'll do; Here's my awl and wax and thread, And now your shoe is quite mended."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1807 (Original Ditties for the Nursery, according to Opie-Oxford2)
KEYWORDS: clothes playparty
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Opie-Oxford2 103, "Cobbler, cobbler, mend my shoe" (1 text)
Baring-Gould-MotherGoose #585, p. 235, "(Cobbler, cobbler, mend my shoe)"
Roud #12749
NOTES: It appears, from Halliwell, that this was a song used to induce children to put on their shoes. The Opies suggest a connection with the "Hunt the Slipper" game. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: BGMG585

Cobbler's Boy, The


See The Shoemaker (File: R566)

Coble o Cargill, The [Child 242]


DESCRIPTION: Davie Drummond o Cargill has a bed waiting for him in Balathy, another in Kercock. But one of the women "bored the coble (boat) in seven pairts," and it sinks as he tries to cross the Tay. He regrets his death; the song ends with repetitions of same
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1875
KEYWORDS: jealousy death drowning infidelity murder
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Child 242, "The Coble o Cargill" (1 text)
Roud #4021
NOTES: Child reports a legend that Drummond was killed because one of his lovers suspected infidelity when he failed to visit her when he had opportunity. But he points out that such legends often grew up about ballads.
The song has very little plot, and that rather smothered in the repetitions at the end (of what sort of man Drummond was, and of how he drowned). It is not surprising that it did not flourish in tradition. - RBW
File: C242

Cocaine (The Furniture Man)


DESCRIPTION: "I've got a gal in the white folks' yard...she brings me meal, she brings me lard." Refrain: "Here comes Sal with her nose all sore/Doctor said she can't smell no more...." The furniture man looks for the singer's wife, repossesses all of his belongings
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1927 (recording, Luke Jordan)
LONG DESCRIPTION: Confused, floating verses; "I've got a gal in the white folks' yard...she brings me meal, she brings me lard." Occasional refrain: "Here comes Sal with her nose all sore/Doctor said she couldn't smell no more...I'm simply wild about my good cocaine." The furniture man comes to singer's house looking for his wife, repossesses all of his belongings
KEYWORDS: drugs hardtimes floatingverses
FOUND IN: US(Ap, SE)
RECORDINGS:
Luke Jordan, "Cocaine Blues" (Victor 21076, 1927)
Dick Justice, "Cocaine" (Brunswick 395, 1929; on RoughWays2)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Cocaine Blues (I)" (subject) and references there
cf. "Ain't No Use Workin' So Hard" (lyrics)
NOTES: This song clearly exists in both Anglo- and African-American traditions; just as clearly, Justice's performance was derived from Jordan's. The narrative is extremely confused, but (barely) sufficient to class it as a ballad. - PJS
File: RcCo

Cocaine Bill and Morphine Sue


DESCRIPTION: "Cocaine Bill and Morphine Sue, Strolling down the avenue two by two," decide that a shot will do them no harm. They try to find cocaine, though it is no longer sold in the stores. Now they are dead and buried; no one knows where they went
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1959 (recording, anonymous singers)
KEYWORDS: drugs death
FOUND IN: Britain(England)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Silber-FSWB, p. 75, "Cocaine Bill and Morphine Sue" (1 text)
Roud #4790
RECORDINGS:
Anonymous singers, "Cocaine Bill and Morphine Sue" (on Unexp1)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Cocaine Blues (I)" (subject) and references there
NOTES: Cocaine was outlawed in the early part of this [the twentieth] century, which is probably why Bill and Sue couldn't get it at the drugstore.
This is clearly related to the cross-referenced pieces, but it includes more narrative than "Cocaine Blues", and lacks the "drug-afflicted possessions" so characteristic of "Cocaine Lil". I call it a separate song. - PJS
This is clearly so; even if it arose from one of the other cocaine songs (all of which have a certain sameness), it has gone its own way. - RBW
File: FSWB075A

Cocaine Blues (I)


DESCRIPTION: "Yonder comes my baby all dressed in blue, Hey, baby, what you gonna do? Cocaine all around my brain." "Hey, baby, won't you come here quick, This old cocaine is makin' me sick." "Yonder comes my baby all dressed in white, Hey... gonna stay all night?"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: c. 1961 (recording, Dave Van Ronk)
KEYWORDS: drugs sex
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Silber-FSWB, p. 76, "Cocaine Blues" (1 text)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Cocaine Lil" (theme, lyrics)
cf. "Take a Whiff on Me" (lyrics, chorus)
cf. "Cocaine (The Furniture Man)" (subject)
cf. "Cocaine Bill and Morphine Sue" (subject)
File: FSWB076B

Cocaine Lil


DESCRIPTION: Cocaine Lil "lived in Cocaine town on Cocaine Hill, She had a cocaine dog and a cocaine cat..." and other equally drug-afflicted possessions. One night, after a party, she "took another sniff and it knocked her dead"; her tombstone testifies to her habit
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1927 (Sandburg)
KEYWORDS: drugs death party burial
FOUND IN: US
REFERENCES (3 citations):
PBB 114, "Cocaine Lil and Morphine Sue" (1 text)
Sandburg, p. 206, "Cocaine Lil" (1 text, tune referenced)
DT, COKELIL
Roud #9543
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Willy the Weeper" (tune)
cf. "Cocaine Blues (I)" (subject) and references there
File: PBB114

Cock Robin


See Who Killed Cock Robin? (File: SKE74)

Cock Your Beaver


DESCRIPTION: "When first my Jamie he came to the town, He had a blue bonnet, a hole in the crown, But now he has gotten a hat and a feather: Hey, Jamie lad, cock your beaver." Jamie now has"gold behind" and "gold afore," and is urged to show it proudly
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1821 (Hogg2); probably before 1776 (Herd)
KEYWORDS: clothes money
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Hogg2 64, "Cock Up Your Beaver" (1 text, 1 tune)
Montgomerie-ScottishNR 112, "(When first my Jamie he came to the town)" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: Robert Chambers, The Popular Rhymes of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1870 ("Digitized by Google")), pp. 32-33, "Cock Your Beaver"
Roud #8257
NOTES: A description for the Hogg2 text is: The singer says her brave Johnnie has traded his blue bonnet for a hat with a feather and a white rose on the band. He's gone south with Andrew Ferrara and "Donald the drover, and Duncan the caird, And Sawney the shaver, and Logie the laird." Hogg2 has no explanation except that it "is a clever old song" and "There are various sets of it sung in the country. Johnson, in his Museum, has made sure of leaving out all that may be misconstrued, by publishing only one verse to suit the air." - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: MSNR112

Cock-Fight, The


DESCRIPTION: Description of a cock-fight, wherein the grey defeats the charcoal-black, to the delight of the singer.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1905
KEYWORDS: fight bird gambling sports chickens
FOUND IN: Britain(England(North))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Vaughan Williams/Lloyd, p. 27, "The Cock-Fight (The Bonny Grey)" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #211
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Firth c.19(37) view 1, "The Bonnie Gray," unknown, n.d.
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Wednesbury Cocking" (theme)
cf. "The Follom Brown-Red" (theme)
cf. "The Kildallan Brown Red" (theme)
NOTES: Accrding to Roy Palmer, The Folklore of Warwickshire, Rowman and Littlefield, 1976, p. 117, cock-fighting became illegal in Britain in 1849, so there is a presumption (although obviously not a certainty) that this song is older than that. - RBW
Last updated in version 2.5
File: VWL027

Cock, The


See Night Visiting Song (File: DTnitevi)

Cockabendy


DESCRIPTION: "Cockabendy's lyin' sick Guess ye what'll mend him?" Twenty kisses. "Dinna gi'e the lasses drink, Dinna gi'e them brandy": give them cinammon sticks and lumps of sugar. Cockabendy had a wife who did strange things.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1850 (Bulloch 1907)
KEYWORDS: courting sex bawdy humorous nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (3 citations):
GreigDuncan8 1721, "Cockabendy" (3 texts, 2 tunes)
ADDITIONAL: John Bulloch, editor,Scottish Notes and Queries (Aberdeen, 1905 ("Digitized by Google")), Vol. VI, 2nd Series, No. 8, February 1905, p. 125, "[Query ]538. The Words of 'Cockabendy'"
John Bulloch, editor,Scottish Notes and Queries_ (Aberdeen, 1907 ("Digitized by Google")), Vol. VIII, 2nd Series, No. 11, May 1907, pp. 173-174, "[Query ]538. The Words of 'Cockabendy'"
Roud #13080
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Cawdor Fair [Four and Twenty Blackbirds]" (tune, per GreigDuncan8)
cf. "Uncle John Is Sick Abed" (lyrics)
NOTES: Bulloch 1905 has the "Cockabendy's lying sick" verse with a request for more words. Bulloch 1907 has the "Dinna gi'e the lasses drink" verse and a cleaned up chorus (specifically, "He cock, hi cock, Hi cockabendy, Crack . . . . . . For a gill o' brandy"; GreigDuncan8 has, for the omitted words, "a loose on Jeannie's wame").
The ("Cockabendy's lying sick") verse is very close to the first verse of the game song "Uncle John Is Sick Abed." There are no other shared lines. (See Opie-Game 30, "Uncle John" (I)).
"When Richard Townshend died, 1783, his son succeeded to a troubled inheritance. He had already entered public life, and sat as a member for the family borough of Dingle from 1781 to 1795. The first event in 1783 was the visit of a body of cavalry to Castle Townshend 'in quest of some insurgents, said to be meditating mischief against the inhabitants of that neighborhood. After scouring the country they apprehended Denis Conel, alias Cockabendy, who was charged with sounding a horn to assemble a mob.'[Tuckey's Cork Remembrancer]" (source: Richard and Dorothea Townshend, An Officer of the Long Parliament and his Descendants (London, 1892 ("Digitized by Google")), pp. 161-162.) - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD81721

Cockies of Bungaree, The


DESCRIPTION: The unemployed worker takes a job clearing for a cocky at Bungaree. He finds that the working conditions are miserable, and the cocky expects him to be at work before dawn. (Within days the singer concludes that anything is better than this, and quits)
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1957
KEYWORDS: unemployment work farming Australia
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Fahey-Eureka, pp. 128-129, "The Cockies of Bungaree" (1 text, 1 tune)
Manifold-PASB, pp. 104-105, "The Cockies of Bungaree" (1 text, 1 tune)
Paterson/Fahey/Seal, pp. 264-266, "Cockies of Bungaree" (1 text)
DT, COCKBUNG* COCKBUN2*
RECORDINGS:
John Greenway, "The Cockies of Bungaree" (on JGreenway01)
A. L. Lloyd, "The Cockies of Bungaree" (on Lloyd3, Lloyd8) (Lloyd4, Lloyd8)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Stringybark Cockatoo" (plot, lyrics)
cf. "Rhynie" (theme)
NOTES: A "cocky" is a farmer who owns land so poor that it can't raise anything but cockatoos. Bungaree, a short way north of Melbourne, lies within a large area of such poor land. (Even in the settled parts of Australia, the majority of the land is very bad.) - RBW
File: FaE128

Cockledemoy (The French Invasion)


DESCRIPTION: A cock on a dung hill sees a bull he wants to kill. He raises a navy and impresses ducks for a crew. He would lead the attack but his hen fears he'd be killed. His courage fails and he stays home but sends the ducks to fight John Bull.
AUTHOR: William Ball (source: Moylan)
EARLIEST DATE: "shortly after 1798" (according to Moylan)
KEYWORDS: war chickens animal humorous
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Moylan 31, "Cockledemoy" or "The French Invasion" (1 text, 1 tune)
NOTES: Moylan: "The Cock is France, or perhaps Napoleon, and the Bull is England." - BS
The meaning depends much on the exact dating of the song, I think. After General Hoche's invasion of Ireland failed (for which see, e.g., "The Shan Van Vogt"), Napoleon twice contemplated amphibious action against Britain. In 1798, he considered invading Ireland -- but instead went to Egypt, leaving only a few ships and soldiers to sail for Ireland; they arrived after the 1798 rebellion had failed and accomplished very little.
In 1804-1805, Napoleon went for bigger things: He was going to invade England itself, and built up his forces dramatically. But then he headed east to fight the Third Coalition, leaving his fleet to be beaten at Trafalgar.
Either dating fits the events in the song, obviously, but all those impresseed ducks sound more like the inexperienced French navy of Trafalgar. The navy of 1798 wasn't any better, but it didn't send so many involuntary sailors to Ireland.
William Ball was a writer of humorous verse about Irish history; in this index, see "Cockledemoy (The French Invasion)," "Do as They Do in France," "The Dying Rebel," and "Faithless Boney (The Croppies' Complaint)" -- though he doesn't seem to have made much impression on the wider world of literature; I have been unable to find any of his writings in any of my literary references. - RBW
File: Moyl031

Cockles and Mussels


See Molly Malone (File: FSWB124B)

Cocky Robin


See Who Killed Cock Robin? (File: SKE74)

Cod Banging


DESCRIPTION: A fisherman remembers encountering a big barque and surviving the fight. Now the crowd meets them at Harwich pier to crack cod fish skulls. He concedes he may not have "got it complete 'Cause I've only been in the trade about a week"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1972 (recording, Bob Hart)
KEYWORDS: battle fishing sea ship humorous talltale
FOUND IN: Britain(England(Lond))
Roud #1747
RECORDINGS:
Bob Hart, "Cod Banging" (on Voice02)
NOTES: Harwich is an East Anglia port about 65 miles from London. - BS
File: RcCodBan

Cod Fish Song


DESCRIPTION: A man brings home a "cod fish," and places it in the chamberpot for safekeeping. When his wife goes to relieve herself, the codfish jumps up her "you-know-what." Husband and wife chase the fish around the room, and kill it with a broom.
AUTHOR: Oscar Brand has claimed a copyright on this version of "The Sea Crab."
EARLIEST DATE: c. 1955
KEYWORDS: animal bawdy humorous husband wife
FOUND IN: US(Ap) Britain(England(South)) Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Cray, pp. 5-6, "Cod Fish Song" (1 text)
Copper-SoBreeze, pp. 288-289, "Little Fisherman" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #149
RECORDINGS:
Nora Cleary, "The Codfish" (on Voice07)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Sea Crab"
File: EM005

Cod Liver Oil


DESCRIPTION: Singer complains of having married a sickly wife. After he introduces her to cod liver oil, she goes wild for it, demanding it all the time. He warns young men to avoid sickly women, or they'll "end up a-swimmin' in cod liver oil!"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1929 (Greenleaf/Mansfield)
KEYWORDS: disease marriage medicine humorous doctor
FOUND IN: US Ireland Canada(Newf)
REFERENCES (6 citations):
Greenleaf/Mansfield 155, "Cod Liver Oil Song" (1 text)
Peacock, pp. 48-49, "Cod-Liver Oil" (1 text, 1 tune)
Blondahl, p. 28, "Cod-Liver Oil" (1 text, 1 tune)
OLochlainn-More 30, "The Cod Liver Oil" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 169 "Cod Liver Oil" (1 text)
DT, CODLIVR*
Roud #4221
RECORDINGS:
Omar Blondahl, "Cod Liver Oil Song" (on NFOBlondahl02); "Cod Liver Oil" (on NFOBlondahl03)
Flanagan Brothers, "Cod Liver Oil" (Vocalion 84010, n.d.)
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Firth b.34(89), "Dr. de Jongh's Cod Liver Oil ," unknown, n.d.
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Fair Do" (tune)
cf. "The Quilty Burning" (tune)
cf. "The Half Crown" (tune)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Cod Liver Ile
NOTES: Cod liver oil, which contains Vitamin D in quantity, was touted as a cure-all in the 19th and early 20th centuries -- indeed, it was still being given to gagging children when I was growing up in the 1950s. - PJS
The theme is not very different from that of "The Dumb Wife" [Laws Q5], in which a man, to his eventual sorrow, goes to a doctor -- sometimes named John -- to cure his otherwise perfect wife of her inability to speak.
Newfoundland authorship attribution is not always to be treated as gospel. Blondahl notes "there are several popular versions of Cod-Liver Oil, the original to be credited to John Burke." Burke (1851-1930) is a very well known author of songs in Newfoundland. In Blondahl's version the potion comes from "dear Doctor John" and not Doctor de [or D.E.] Jongh. If Burke is indeed the author his work made its way to Ireland. - BS
File: FSWB169A

Cod Liver Oil Song


See Cod Liver Oil (File: FSWB169A)

Cod-Liver Oil


See Cod Liver Oil (File: FSWB169A)

Codfish Shanty, The


See Cape Cod Girls (File: LoF023)

Coffee Grows (Four in the Middle)


DESCRIPTION: Playparty in two or three parts: "Coffee grows on white oak tree, The river flows with brandy o'er, Go choose someone to roam with you...." "Four in the middle, you can't get around..." (may have more verses) "Railroad, steamboat, river, and canal..."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1914 (JAFL 27)
KEYWORDS: playparty courting nonballad love train drink
FOUND IN: US(MW,SE,So)
REFERENCES (6 citations):
Randolph 524, "Four in the Middle" (1 text plus 8 excerpts and/or fragments, 1 tune)
BrownIII 78, "Coffee Grows on White Oak Trees" (7 texts plus 1 excerpt and mention of 1 more, but almost all mixed -- all except "H" have the "Coffee grows" stanza, but "A" also has verses from "Fly Around, My Pretty Little Miss"; "and "C" through "H" are mostly "Little Pink"; "B" is mixed with "Raccoon" or some such)
Hudson 154, p. 301, "Coffee Grows on White-Oak Trees" (1 short text); also 85, p. 212, "Going to the Mexican War" (1 fragment, with the "Knapsack on my Shoulder" text and also the "Coffee Grows" stanza)
Scarborough-NegroFS, pp. 105-106, "Hold My Mule" (1 text, 1 tune, which Scarborough implies is a "Jim Along, Josie" by-blow but which appears to be built on the "Four in the Middle" segment of this song)
Lomax-FSUSA 31, "Coffee Grows on White Oak Trees" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, RAGECANL*
Roud #735
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Bheir Me O" (melody has same first lines as "Coffee Grows")
cf. "Fly Around, My Pretty Little Miss" (floating lyrics)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Raging Canal
File: R524

Coffee Grows on White Oak Trees


See Coffee Grows (Four in the Middle) (File: R524)

Cogie o' Yill, A


DESCRIPTION: "A cogie o' yill (ale), and a pickle ait meal, And a daintie wee drappie o' whiskey Was our forefathers' dose...." The singer praises the martial exploits of the Scots, and their diet, concluding, "Then hey for the whisky, and hey for the meal...."
AUTHOR: Andrew Sherriffs ?
EARLIEST DATE: 1904 (Ford)
KEYWORDS: drink food patriotic Scotland nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Ford-Vagabond, pp. 329-330, "A Cogie o' Yill" (1 text)
Roud #6316
File: FBS329

Cogie, The


See Cauld Kale in Aberdeen (I) (File: GrD81872)

Cold and Raw


See Mowing the Barley (Cold and Raw) (File: ShH60)

Cold Black River Stream, The


DESCRIPTION: A young man (Corkery) goes to work on McCormick's drive on the Black River even though his family begs him to stay at home. In the course of his work, he jumps from a log into the stream and, because he cannot swim, drowns
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1957 (Fowke)
KEYWORDS: logger death drowning
FOUND IN: Canada(Ont)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Fowke-Lumbering #41, "The Cold Black River Stream" (2 texts, 1 tune)
Roud #3679
File: FowL41

Cold Blow and a Rainy Night


See Let Me In This Ae Nicht (File: DTaenich)

Cold Blows the Wind


See The Unquiet Grave [Child 78] (File: C078)

Cold Frosty Morning


See On a Cold Frosty Morning (File: R283)

Cold Haily Windy Night


See Let Me In This Ae Nicht (File: DTaenich)

Cold Mountains


DESCRIPTION: "Cold mountains here are all around me, Cold waters gliding down the stream; Oft in my sleep I think I find her But when I wake it's all a dream." The singer seeks his love, who is gone or has rejected him or is left behind at home; he bids her farewell
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1952 (Brown)
KEYWORDS: love separation farewell
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
BrownIII 277, "Cold Mountains" (1 text)
Roud #16858
File: Br3277

Cold Water Song


DESCRIPTION: "I asked a sweet robin one evening in May" what he sang about. "I am only a-singing the cold water song. Teetotal's the very first word of my lay ... All the birds to the cold water army belong"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1960 (Creighton-SNewBrunswick)
KEYWORDS: drink lullaby bird
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Creighton-SNewBrunswick 82, "Cold Water Song" (1 text, 1 tune)
ST CrSNB082 (Partial)
Roud #2767
NOTES: Creighton-SNewBrunswick states that this song has been collected twice in the Maritimes as a lullaby, which is an interesting end for an anti-alcohol song. Creighton thinks it comes from Britain. - BS
File: CrSNB082

Cold Winter is Coming


See Remember the Poor (File: Wa161)

Cold Winter Night


See Fare You Well, My Own True Love (The Storms Are on the Ocean, The False True Lover, The True Lover's Farewell, Red Rosy Bush, Turtle Dove) (File: Wa097)

Cole Younger [Laws E3]


DESCRIPTION: Cole Younger tells of his career as a robber, first with his brother Bob and then as part of the James Gang. His career ends when the gang tries to rob the bank in Northfield, MN. Though the Jameses escape, the robbery fails and Cole is captured
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1910 (Lomax, Cowboy Songs)
KEYWORDS: outlaw robbery prison punishment
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1876 - The raid by the James Gang and the Younger Brothers on the Northfield Bank
1903 - Cole Younger released from prison (despite being sentenced to life for murder)
1916 - Death of Cole Younger
FOUND IN: US(MA,MW,So,SW)
REFERENCES (13 citations):
Laws E3, "Cole Younger"
Cohen-LSRail, pp. 117-121, "Cole Younger" (1 text plus an excerpt, 1 tune)
Randolph 131, "Cole Younger" (3 texts plus an excerpt, 3 tunes)
Randolph/Cohen, pp. 143-146, "Cole Younger" (1 text, 1 tune -- Randolph's 131A)
Warner 38, "Cole Younger" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lomax-FSNA 182, "Cole Younger" (1 text, 1 tune)
Asch/Dunson/Raim, p. 46 "Bandit Cole Younger" (1 text, 1 tune)
Fife-Cowboy/West 94, "Cole Younger" (1 text, 1 tune)
Ohrlin-HBT 59, "Cole Younger" (1 text, 1 tune)
Darling-NAS, pp. 188-190, "Cole Younger" (1 text)
Silber-FSWB, p. 204, "Cole Younger" (1 text)
DT 356, COLEYNGR
ADDITIONAL: _Sing Out_ magazine, Volume 20, #5 (1971), p, 9, "Cole Younger" (1 text, 1 tune, the Dock Boggs version)
Roud #2243
RECORDINGS:
Dock Boggs, "Cole Younger" (on Boggs2, BoggsCD1)
Edward L. Crain, "Bandit Cole Younger" ((Columbia 15710-D, 1932; rec. 1931; on AAFM1, WhenIWas1) (Conqueror 8010 [as Cowboy Ed Crane], 1932; rec. 1931)
Warde Ford, "Cole Younger" (AFS 4197 B2, 1938; tr.; in AMMEM/Cowell)
Oscar Gilbert, "Cole Younger" (on LomaxCD1705)
Glenn Ohrlin, "Cole Younger" (on Ohrlin01)
Marc Williams, "Cole Younger" (Brunswick 544, c. 1930)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Jesse James (I)" (characters)
cf. "Jesse James (III)" (characters and historical background)
NOTES: Henry Washington Younger was the father of quite a brood: Fourteen children in all (O'Neal, p. 346, etc.). Four of these children would eventually become outlaws: Thomas Coleman ("Cole"), the seventh child, 1844-1916; James ("Jim"), 1848-1902; John, 1851-1874; and Robert ("Bob"), 1853-1889.
Born in Cass County, Missouri; the Youngers came of a good family; both their father and their grandfather were referred to as judges (Yeatman, p. 115) -- though Croy, p. 4, notes that "judge" in this context does not mean what we think it does; it was more nearly equivalent to the modern term "Commisioner." Wellman, p. 56, says that people also called Henry Washington Younger "Colonel," but admits that the title was probably honorary. Despite being a slaveholder, he was a Unionist during the Civil War (Croy, p. 6), but even so, he was killed and his property heavily damaged by Union forces (Croy, p. 17; Wellman, pp. 56-58).
According to Yeatman, "If anyone ever had even a remote excuse for outlawry, or any claim to anything close to a Robin Hood title, [the Younger brothers] did." Croy, pp. 16-17, tells how the patriarch, Judge H. W. Younger, was robbed and killed during the war. (Hence, perhaps, the stanza in some versions, "And then we started for Texas, where brother Bob did say, That on fast horses we must ride in revenge of our father's day... And we'll fight them anti-guerillas until our dying day.")
Cole had seemingly been a good student in his early years, and not given to trouble (Croy, p. 5). But the conflict on the Kansas-Missouri border apparently changed him, and the Civil War in Missourie made it worse. He was the first of the family to join the Confederate forces; Croy, pp. 11-12, says he joined Sterling Price's militia on July 5, 1861 (for Price, see "Sterling Price"). He joined the Quantrill raiders (for whom see "Charlie Quantrell," etc.) somewhat later, perhaps October 1861 (Croy, p. 12) or early 1862 (Settle, p. 23); he presumably first met Frank James in that company.
Accordingto Croy, p. 12, he killed his first man on November 10, 1861.
Eventually a large part of the Quantrill force broke up to follow other leaders, of whom "Bloody Bill" Anderson was the most important. Finally, in August 1862, Cole joined the regular Confederate forces (Croy, p. 17), and was part of the rather silly Confederate probe into New Mexico; Cole ended the war in California (Settle, p. 26). By that time brother Jim had also become a guerrilla (Settle, p. 23).
It was some time in the mid-1860s that Cole Younger had whatever relationship he had with "Belle Starr" (Mira Belle Shirley). O'Neal and others say that they met in 1863, but Wellman, p. 75, dates their serious relationship to 1866. Croy, pp. 58-60, even describes some of their conversations of this period. What is certain is that the teenage Belle had a daughter, whom she called Pearl Younger. But what really happened is almost impossible to know -- the only real witnesses were Belle and Cole, and neither one had much reputation for truth-telling, and neither had much reason to be truthful in this case, either. All Settle will admit, e.g. (p. 212) is that Cole admitted to knowing Belle. Fortunately, the issue need not detain us.
After the war, Cole was the first of the brothers to be regarded as an outlaw, though there seems to be no absolute proof of his criminal behavior at the time. (Wellman, p. 65, says that the Youngers and the Jameses turned to robbery within seven months of the end of the war. But he offers no evidence of this. It sounds as if he has it from newspapers of 1874, which were blaming all available unsolved robberies on the James/Younger gang. Wellman on the same page says that the Jameses and Youngers were first cousins, which none of the more serious biographies support.) John Younger was the first to be directly involved with the law; he killed a Texas sheriff in 1871, and was killed in a shootout with the Pinkertons on March 17, 1874; two Pinkertons died in the process (Yeatman, p. 116). From then on, there is no question but that the surviving Youngers were bandits during their brief careers before the Northfield robbery -- though Wellmann, p. 99, describes them as acting like model citizens and singing in a Dallas church choir.
Although I know of no Minnesota version of this song, the Northfield Bank incident is one of the most celebrated events in Minnesota folklore, and is still commemorated today. Northfield, about forty miles south of the Twin Cities, was and remains a quiet college town; this is the Big Event in town history.
Although a few people claim there were nine outlaws (Huntington, p. 1), the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that eight men involved in the September 7, 1876 robbery: Charlie Pitts (the name he was using at this time; his birth name was apparently Samuel Wells; O'Neil, pp. 336-337), Bill Stiles, Clell Miller, the three surviving Youngers (Cole, Bob, and Jim), and Frank and Jesse James (Yeatman, pp. 172-175; the description of the robbery below is also mostly from his pages except as noted. It should be mentioned that details are somewhat incomplete; Huntington, p. 11, observes that eyewitnesses did not tell a completely onsistent tale).
Many of the details of the song are accurate; others are wrong. Some texts refer to the "God-forsaken country" of Minnesota. Some of us like it -- but this may be a reference to conditions in 1877. According to Yeatman, p. 170, much of western Minnesota was plagued by locusts in that year, causing severe distress. The James/Younger gang may even have decided against robbing the bank in Mankato (a larger, and presumably richer, town) due to the harsh conditions --though Huntington, pp. 6-7, claims that they were actually about to start the robbery when a large crowd showed up and made then decide not to continue.
They definitely did not understand local conditions, though -- before the robbery, they apparently tried to bet the restaurant owner that Minnesota would vote Democratic in 1876 (Wellman, p. 101). In fact, Minnesota *never* voted Democratic until it voted for Franklin Roosevelt in 1932! (After which it flipped completely; from 1932 to 2004, it voted Democratic in every election except 1952, 1956, and 1972.) Somewhere in there, the bandits may have picked up a heavy load of booze as well (see Settle, p. 95, where Cole Younger describes how they got drunk). The robbers in the bank apparently smelled of alcohol, and they certainly were incompetent in their behavior -- it makes you wonder how they had managed to get away with so much in Missouri.
"We stationed out our pickets" and "We are the noted Younger boys": of the eight robbers, only three -- Yeatman thinks it was Charlie Pitts, Bob Younger, and one of the James Boys, and Huntington, p. 13, gives the same list -- went inside. (Brant, p. 178, lists the men inside as Bob Younger and Frank and Jesse James; this apparently came from an 1897 report by Cole Younger, but Brant does not give enough information to trace his source. Wellman suggest it was Pitts, Bob Younger, and Jesse James. Whoever it was that entered the bank, they certainly did not proclaim their identities; for years the Youngers and the Jameses had been vary careful not to admit who they were.) Two robbers -- Cole Younger and Clell Miller -- stayed outside the door to stop anyone who might try to get in. Three more were posted at a greater distance.
Huntington, p. 17, reports that the bank was being reconstructed, so the employees were in "temporary quarters," more vulnerable than they would ordinarily have been. It did not prevent them from resistance.
The first trouble came when one J. S. Allen tried to enter the bank. Miller stopped him from getting in -- but Allen managed to escape around the corner of the building and raised an alarm. Huntington, p. 25, notes that it was prairie chicken season, and many of the town's best hunters were out in the field, but within minutes, the townfolk were arming themselves and fighting back; the whole robbery and gunfight, according to Huntington, p. 38, lasted but seven minutes.
"The cashier being brave and bold denied our noted band; Jesse James fired the shot that killed that noble man" and "in vain we sought the money drawer while the battle raged outside": There were three employees in the bank when the robbers entered: Teller Alonzo Bunker, acting cashier Joseph Lee Heywood, and assistant bookkeeper Frank J. Wilcox. They seem mostly to have played dumb -- e.g. claiming they couldn't unlock the safe (which apparently was literally true, since it was already unlocked). Cashier Heywood apparently smashed Frank James's arm in the safe (Brant, p. 179, but this from a source that, by its publication date alone, *cannot* have had reliable information).
The robbers proceeded to fumble around, missing not only the safe but the money drawer; their final take was reported to be $26.70. Bunker tried to flee and was shot in the shoulder.
Meanwhile, the townsfolk, having been warned, were starting to fight back. Few were armed, but enough managed to scrape up weapons that it was clear the robbers had to flee. As the inside crew left the bank, one of the robbers shot Heywood in the head after slashing his throat (Settle, p. 92; Huntington, p.41, etc. does not mention the throat-slashing). It seems to have been generally assumed that Jesse was the guilty party; he was pretty definitely the most violent of the gang. There was no reliable eyewitness testimony; Huntington, p. 24, merely said it was one of the robbers, unidentified. On the other hand, Cole Younger -- the last survivor of the Northfield raid -- would report, two days before his death on March 21, 1916, that it was Frank James who fired the fatal shot. To be sure, this was forty years later and Cole was dying -- and he wasn't inside.
A Swedish immigrant, Nicolas Gustavson, was killed outside the bank when he failed to understand (English-language) orders to clear the street (Settle, p. 92; Huntington, p. 16), with O'Neal blaming his death specifically on Cole (p. 348); several other Northfield residents were wounded.
By the time the gang fled town, two of them (Clell Miller and Bill Stiles, their primary guide) were dead, and Cole Younger had a hip wound plus some minor injuries from buckshot, while Bob Younger had been hit in the arm, nearly disabling him. They had also lost some horses, which handicapped them significantly; they ended up stealing various animals, but at least one was a plow horse and not much help (Yeatman, p. 177; Huntington, pp. 48-49 describes two unusable horses they requisitioned). In addition, Bob Younger had lost so much blood that he fainted in Shieldsville; they had to stop to have him attended to (p. 178), costing them more time. They finally decided to proceed on foot.
On September 13, near Mankato, the gang split up -- O'Neal, p. 348, says that Jesse wanted to abandon or kill Bob Younger, who could not move quickly (cf. Settle, p. 95). The other Youngers, who had wounds of their own, refused, so instead of abandoning Bob, they split into two groups. Charlie Pitts and the three Youngers formed one party; Frank and Jesse proceeded on their own. (The hope may have been that the fast-moving Jameses would lead the authorities away from the slower Younger party. It worked for a time -- Huntington, pp. 60-61, says that everyone went off after the Jameses, and thought the whole gang had escaped when they vanished into South Dakota -- but only for a time.) A romantic youngster near Madelia, Minnesota encountered them, was sure he had seen the robbers, and hurried off to tell the authorities (Huntington, pp. 64-65)
On September 21, a posse caught up with the Younger party at Hanska Slough near Madelia (the fact that they had gotten only that far -- Madelia is only 25 miles from Mankato -- shows how lost and hungry and hurt they were). In the shootout, three members of the posse were very lightly injured (Huntington, pp. 70-71). But the robbers were hit hard. Pitts was killed; Jim Younger lost several teeth to a bullet (Croy, p. 129, say that a doctor, working on his facial wound, extracted a section of his jaw with two teeth attached; Settle, p. 163, notes that he would live mostly on liquids for the rest of his life), and Cole Younger added more buckshot wounds to his collection (according to O'Neal, p. 348, he had eleven wounds, Jim five, and Bob four). According to Yeatman, p. 182, Cole wanted to fight on, but Bob talked him out of it; in Huntington's account (p. 71), only Bob was even able to stand up to surrender.
They apparently became celebrity prisoners (Trenerry, p. 95), but that didn't keep them from being charged. According to Huntington, p. 77, all three were charged as accessories in the murder of Heywood, with attacking Bunker with intent to do great bodily harm, and with robbery of the Northfield Bank. Cole Younger was charged with the murder of Gustavson, and the others as accessories. I'm not sure that any of these could have been proved, but they obviously were guilty of shooting it out with the police, which was problem enough.
Minnesota, as of this writing, has managed to resist the urge to reinstate the death penalty for those too poor or too non-white to have fancy lawyers. In 1876, it *did* have the death penalty -- but under a law of 1868 it required that a jury apply the penalty, not a judge. This law had never been fully tested in the courts, but it was widely interpreted to mean that a defendant who pled guilty to murder could not be hanged (Trenerry, p. 100). So the Youngers, rather than risk the gallows, formally pled guilty to sundry charges on December 11 (Settle, p. 94; Yeatman, p. 191), and were sentenced to life imprisonment (Huntington, p. 78).
Cole and Bob Younger became model prisoners. Jim Younger, always moody and now suffering from a speeh impediment and an inability to eat solid foods due to his wounds, was perhaps not quite such a good inmate. But many thought they had earned release, including two of Minnesota's most important political figures, Alexander Ramsey and Henry Sibley (Huntington, pp. xx-xi). Then Bob Younger died in prison of tuberculosis in 1889. That made the pressure even greater; a law known formally as the "Deming Bill" and informally as the "Younger Act" was passed allowing parole for those who were serving life sentences (Huntington, p. xxiii). Jim and Cole were given parole and set free in 1901, a quarter century after their sentencing.
Upon his release, Jim fell in love with a girl half his age, but his parole did not permit him to marry (Settle, pp. 162-163). Nor could he work most jobs, because his signature, as a convicted felon, did not carry legal weight (Huntington, p. xxv). The girl involved petitioned the governor that he be pardoned (Trenerry, pp. 104-105), but this was denied. Jim shot himself on October 19, 1902, declaring himself in his suicide note a Socialist and supporter of women's rights (Huntington, p. xxv)
In reaction to Jim's death, Cole -- who up to that point had been working as a tombstone salesman -- was given a conditional pardon on the condition that he never return to Minnesota (Trenerry, p. 105); he went on to open a Wild West Show with Frank James. That was rather a disaster (see the notes to "Jesse James (III)" for a general history of the James family, including that show), and brought him some condemnation for taking such a large part (Huntington, p. xxvi), but Cole from 1905 to 1908 ran Cole Younger's Coliseum, which was a more sedate exhibition of guns, saddles, and other gear. He also wrote an autobiography (though this is widely regarded as being not very accurate). He finally died in 1916, the last survivor of the Northfield robbers.
A recent find of a prison journal from the period around 1880 (soon to be displayed by the Minnesota Historical Society) lists the brothers as frequently sick in prison, but Cole Younger did found a prison newsletter. The Stillwater area is still the home of one of Minnesota's leading prisons, too; I guess things don't change much in Minnesota. Though the town of Stillwater is now more noteworthy for its site on the St. Croix river, and the actual site of the old Stillwater prison was burned in 2002 in an act of vandalism).
It took the town of Northfield many years to decide that Jesse James and Cole Younger were part of its heritage. For many years it resisted attempts to put up a monument to the Great Robbery, preferring to point out its rich contribution to education (it is home to Carleton and St. Olaf Colleges, the former in particular noted for its extremely strict standards). Not until 1947 did the town start celebrating the anniversary of the robbery (Huntington, p. xxx) -- though now, sixty years later, it has become the biggest day in the town calendar. - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 2.5
File: LE03

Coleen Bawn (I)


See William Riley's Courtship [Laws M9] (File: LM09)

Coleen Bawn (II)


See Limerick is Beautiful (Colleen Bawn) (File: OCon012)

Coleraine Girl, The


DESCRIPTION: The singer recalls the beauty of Coleraine and the girl who lives there and sings in its valleys. He regrets leaving them behind; he would live there if he could. But he has found work with the fishing fleet (?), and must stay where he is to live
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1936 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: work homesickness separation
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H646, p. 209, "The Coleraine Girl" (1 text, 1 tune)
File: HHH646

Coleraine Regatta


DESCRIPTION: The singer, and many others, set out for the races at Coleraine. The train ride witnesseswild partying. Before it's over, many are separated from those they traveled with. At the course, many things are for sale. The singer gets drunk and falls asleep
AUTHOR: James McCurry ?
EARLIEST DATE: 1924 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: racing train party drink
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
SHenry H36, pp. 74-75, "Coleraine Regatta" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #2968
File: HHH036

Colin and Lucy


DESCRIPTION: "Of Leinster, fam'd for maidens fair, Bright Lucy was the grace.... Till luckless love, and pining care, Impair'd her rosy hue." A bell rings, a raven crows in the night; it tells of Colin's marriage to another. She dies; he dies when he learns
AUTHOR: Thomas Tickell
EARLIEST DATE: 1716 (Rimbault)
KEYWORDS: love courting betrayal death marriage
FOUND IN:
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Percy/Wheatley III, pp. 312-315, "Lucy and Colin" (1 text)
cf. Gardner/Chickering, p. 478, "Colin and Lucy" (source notes only)
Roud #13919
NOTES: This, from all I can see, is just a cheap rewrite of the "Lady Margaret" theme. But Gardner and Chickering claim to have two copies from manuscript. So it's indexed, though I am far from confident of its traditional status. - RBW
File: GC478b

Colin and Phoebe


See Corydon and Phoebe (File: K125)

Collard Greens


See Greens (File: San347)

Colleen from Coolbaun, The


DESCRIPTION: Singer meets Mary Ann O'Donovan, "the colleen from Coolbaun." He proposes marriage to her father, listing his possessions. Her father rejects him as "a rover and a rake" but Mary Ann speaks in his behalf. Her father agrees but with a meager dowry.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1965 (Voice01)
KEYWORDS: courting dowry marriage wedding drink father
FOUND IN: Ireland
Roud #9233
RECORDINGS:
Tommy McGrath, "The Colleen from Coolbaun" (on Voice01)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Star of County Down" (tune, on Voice01) and references there
NOTES: Coolbaun is in County Cork. At the end of Tommy McGrath's version on Voice01 we are invited to the wedding where "we'll drink long life to my charming wife She's the colleen from the Mullanbaun." Is that a surname? - BS
File: RcTCofCo

Colleen Oge Astore


See Callino Casturame (Colleen Og a Store; Cailin O Chois tSiure; Happy 'Tis, Thou Blind, for Thee) (File: HHH491)

Colleen Rue, The


DESCRIPTION: Singer meets and praises Colleen Rue. She rejects his "dissimulation and invocation." He says if he were Hector, Paris, or Orpheus he'd "range through Asia, likewise Arabia, Pennsylvania" to see her face.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1979 (Tunney-StoneFiddle)
KEYWORDS: courting rejection beauty
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Tunney-StoneFiddle, p. 118, "The Colleen Rue" (1 text, 1 tune)
ADDITIONAL: Kathleen Hoagland, editor, One Thousand Years of Irish Poetry (New York, 1947), pp. 258-259, "Colleen Rue"
Roud #2365
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Colleen Ruadh
NOTES: As in "Lough Erne Shore" and "Sheila Nee Iyer," there is no resolution for the Tunney-StoneFiddle version. - BS
A curious set of literary references, this. Orpheus of course went to Hell to bring back Euridice (and then lost her at the end); this very loosely inspired the ballad/romance "King Orfeo" [Child 19]. Paris (Alexander) was the Trojan prince who abandoned his first wife Oenone to hook up with Helen of Sparta (married name: Helen of Troy; for this see especially Ovid's Letter from "Oenone to Paris" in the Heroides). And Hector, while faithful to his wife as far as we can tell from the legends, was not a significant traveler. - RBW
File: TSF118

Colley's Run


See Canaday-I-O/Michigan-I-O/Colley's Run I-O [Laws C17] (File: LC17)

Collier Lad (II), The


See In Camden Town (File: CrSNB053)

Collier Lad, A


See The Collier Lad (Lament for John Sneddon/Siddon) (File: HHH110)

Collier Lad, The (Lament for John Sneddon/Siddon)


DESCRIPTION: The singer tells her tale of grief: Her love, John (Sneddon), is a collier. She dreams a dream of his death. In the morning, she learns that he has died in a cave-in. They were soon to be married and to travel to America. But he will return no more
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1925 (Sam Henry collection)
KEYWORDS: mining death love separation marriage emigration dream mourning
FOUND IN: Ireland Britain
REFERENCES (2 citations):
SHenry H110, p. 144, "A Collier Lad" (1 text, 1 tune)
Morton-Maguire 25, pp. 64-65,114,166-167, "The Handsome Collier Lad" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #921
RECORDINGS:
John Maguire, "The Handsome Collier Lad" (on IRJMaguire01)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The High Blantyre Explosion" [Laws Q35] (theme, characters?)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Lament for John Sneddon
Johnny Siddon
File: HHH110

Collier Laddie, The


DESCRIPTION: The singer (or someone) sees a bonnie lass, and steps up to court her. She rejects him; she loves a collier laddie. He goes to her father, offering land and wealth. She still says no. Years later, he turns up poor and begs at the door of girl and collier
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1907 (GreigDuncan5); some of the verses were known to Burns, but it is possible they float
KEYWORDS: love courting beauty rejection marriage begging
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (4 citations):
Greig #65, p. 1, "The Ploughman Laddie" (2 texts)
GreigDuncan5 991, "The Collier Laddie" (7 texts plus two fragments on pp. 607-608, 3 tunes)
Ord, pp. 40-42, "The Collier Laddie" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, COLLAD COLLAD2*
Roud #3787
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Laird o' Drum" (tune, per GreigDuncan5)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
Bonnie Jeannie Gordon
The Ploughman's Lass
File: Ord040A

Collier's Bonnie Lassie, The


DESCRIPTION: "The collier has a daughter" of great beauty. "A laird he was that sought her, Rich baith in lands and money." (She declares that she is too young and black to love a laird, and that she will have a man "the colour o' my daddie")
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1803 (Scots Musical Museum, #47)
KEYWORDS: mining love rejection nobility
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
MacColl-Shuttle, p. 24, "The collier's bonnie lassie" (1 short text, 1 tune)
Roud #8410
NOTES: There are several early printed texts of this (reportedly Herd, Thomson, Johnson, etc.). Comparing the Scots Musical Museum version with MacColl's version, I have to think they are recensionally different -- the Museum version is a very flowery description of how the laird courts the girl, with no real ending; the MacColl text has her reject him.
I suspect the Museum text is one of its rewrites (not by Burns), and a weak one. But it's possible that the folk process improved a weak song.
The tunes, apart from one measure in the middle, are note-for-note identical. - RBW
File: MacCS24

Collier's Rant, The


DESCRIPTION: As the singer and his marra/marrer (workmate) go to work, they meet the devil; the singer knocks off his horns and feet. The lights go out, the workmate goes the wrong way, and "Old Nick got me marra and I got the tram." He regrets the loss of his friend.
AUTHOR: Tommy Armstrong ?
EARLIEST DATE: 1812 (Bell)
LONG DESCRIPTION: As the singer and his marra/marrer/marrow (workmate) are going to work, they meet the devil; the singer knocks the devil's horns and feet off with his pick. He breaks his bottle and spills the drink; the lights go out, the workmate goes the wrong way, and "Old Nick got me marra and I got the tram." He regrets the loss of his friend. Cho: "Follow the horses, Johnnie me laddie...Hey, lad, lie away, me canny lad-o"
KEYWORDS: fight death mining work friend worker Devil
FOUND IN: Britain(England(North))
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Stokoe/Reay, pp. 74-75, "The Collier's Rant" (1 text, 1 tune)
MacColl-Shuttle, p. 15, "The Collier's Rant" (1 text, 1 tune)
DT, COLRRANT
Roud #1366
RECORDINGS:
Bob Davenport, "The Collier's Rant" (on IronMuse1)
Pete Elliott, "The Collier's Rant" (on Elliotts01)
File: RcTColRa

Colonel Hay


DESCRIPTION: "He's a brave commander, Colonel Hay, An' I think it's him that we'll a' gang wi', He's enlistin' a body of fine young men, To fight the French." A good escape "if ye get a girl wi' child." He's a gentleman and has "plenty of everything you want"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1903 (GreigDuncan1)
KEYWORDS: recruiting war Scotland France humorous nonballad soldier
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan1 75, "Colonel Hay" (3 texts, 3 tunes)
Roud #5796
NOTES: GreigDuncan1: "In 1794 Colonel Alexander Leith-Hay, who was also known simply as Colonel Hay, raised the 109th Regiment of Foot (The Aberdeenshire Regiment), and in 1798 Colonel Andrew Hay raised the Banffshire Fencibles which saw service in Gibraltar before being reduced in 1802. The song could refer to either of these men but perhaps the use of a tune with Banff connections may point to the second as the more likely. Of course, if the song had been composed in 1794 it might have been applied to the other colonel Hay in 1798." - BS
Last updated in version 2.4
File: GrD1075

Colonel Sharp


DESCRIPTION: A girl tells her lover that she was seduced by Colonel Sharp. Both are humiliated; they agree Sharp must die. They pursue the colonel; the man kills Sharp. He is taken and condemned to die. The two kill themselves
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1915 (JAFL 28)
KEYWORDS: murder seduction suicide punishment
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
1824 - Murder of Colonel Sharp
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Leach, pp. 790-792, "Colonel Sharp" (1 text)
ADDITIONAL: _Sing Out_ magazine, Volume 38, #2 (1993), p, 33, "The Murder of Colonel Sharp" (1 text, 1 tune, the Douglas Wallin version)
Roud #4110
NOTES: This song is item dF38 in Laws's Appendix II.
Leach reports that this ballad is factually accurate except that the two lovers attempted suicide by poison rather than with a knife, and that the young man lived to be hung.
The Sing Out! article adds information from the 1915 JAFL account, It says that the girl was Ann Cook and her fiancee was Jeroboam Beauchamp. Cook agreed to marry Beauchamp on the condition that he kill Sharp. They were married, and then Beauchamp set out to eliminate Sharp. According to that acount, "He and his wife both tried to commit suicide by drinking poison and the wife died an hour after her husband had been executed." - RBW
Last updated in version 2.4
File: L790

Colonel Shelby


DESCRIPTION: "Colonel Shelby, Colonel Shelby, I do not think it right For you to charge on Dardanelle At such a time of night. This old coat, I don't want it, I guess I'll have to run, I've not got sword or pistol Nor even a shotgun"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1942 (Randolph)
KEYWORDS: Civilwar soldier desertion
FOUND IN: US(So)
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Randolph 247, "Colonel Shelby" (1 text)
Roud #7713
NOTES: Colonel (later Brigadier General) Joseph O. "Jo" Shelby (1830-1897) was one of those romantic figures so common in the Confederate cavalry. Born in Kentucky (CivilWarAlmanac, p. 375), he cut his teeth in the Kansas conflict (Foote, p. 784). He first commanded cavalry under Sterling Price in Missouri, and served most of the war in the Trans-Mississippi.
His unit proved exceptional enough that it came to be called "Shelby's Iron Brigade" (see the entry on "Shelby's Iron Brigade" in HTIECivilWar).
When the war ended, Shelby fled to Mexico rather than surrender. According to CivilWarAlmanac, he took about 600 troopers with him, and tried to prop up the French-backed government of the Emperor Maximilian. When Maximilian fell, Shelby returned to Missouri (1867).
Like so many cavalry officers, he deliberately cut a dashing figure. This may have led to the disillusionment shown by his subordinate here.
Shelby seems to have inspired at least one other fragment of a song. Fred W. Allsopp's Folklore of Romantic Arkansas, Volume II (1931), p. 222, has a stanza "Jo Shelby's at your stable door, Hide your mule, hide your mule... There's something up and hell's to pay, When Shelby's on a raid...." This is said to be an addition to the Union song "Hide Your Mule," which does not seem to have entered tradition.
Dardanelle is near Russellville, Arkansas, a little north of the halfway point of a line between Fort Smith and Little Rock. It probably goes without saying that there was no major battle there. Phisterer reports two skirmishes there (p. 174: May 10, 1864, involving the 6th Kansas Cavalry ; Jan. 14, 1865, involving the 2 Kansas Cavalry and some Iowa horsemen).
It's barely possible that one of these events is the fight mentioned, but they're both very minor and unlikely to inspire a song -- plus Shelby had been promoted by then. My guess is that this refers to some event in the summer or fall of 1862. In June of that year, Shelby was a colonel organizing a cavalry brigade in northwestern Arkansas to take part in an invasion of Missouri. He fought at the battle of Prairie Grove, still in northwestern Arkansas, in late 1862 (for background on that battle, see the notes to "Prairie Grove"). By the middle of 1863, he was wounded in fighting in Helena, Arkansas, far east of Dardanelle, and he was promoted Brigadier General that fall.
The picture of unarmed Confederates is all too accurate. Price's Missouri militia was initially armed mostly with fowling pieces brought by the soldiers themselves, and the Confederates never did manage to build much of a munitions industry. To a great extent they had to depend on captured Federal weapons. And the earlier in the war, the poorer their equipment. This adds to the impression that Randolph's fragment describes something that happened in 1862. - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 2.5
File: R247

Colonial Experience


DESCRIPTION: The singer, newly arrived in Sydney, sees sights unlike any he's seen before. He also experiences firsthand the heat and drought, and has to work very hard. The mosquitoes and ants are always pestering him. It's an uncomfortable, laborious life
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1905 (Paterson, _Old Bush Songs_)
KEYWORDS: work Australia
FOUND IN: Australia
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Fahey-Eureka, pp. 60-61, "Colonial Experience" (1 text, 1 tune -- a reworked version)
Paterson/Fahey/Seal, pp. 111-113, "Colonial Experience" (1 text)
Roud #9110
File: FaE060

Colorado Trail, The


DESCRIPTION: "Eyes like the morning star, Cheeks like a rose, Laura was a pretty girl, God almighty knows. Weep, all ye little rains, Wail, winds, wail, All along, along, along The Colorado trail."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1927 (Sandburg)
KEYWORDS: love beauty nonballad
FOUND IN: US(MW)
REFERENCES (5 citations):
Sandburg, p. 462, "The Colorado Trail" (1 text, 1 tune)
Scott-BoA, p. 262, "The Colorado Trail" (1 text, 1 tune)
Lomax-FSNA 211, "Colorado Trail" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 45, "The Colorado Trail" (1 text)
DT, COLORADT*
Roud #6695
RECORDINGS:
Poplin Family, "Eyes Like Cherries" (on Poplin01, mixing verses of "The Colorado Trail," "Liza Up in a Simmon Tree," and others)
Pete Seeger, "Colorado Trail" (on PeteSeeger30)
NOTES: Lee Hays added several verses to this beautiful little tune, and many singers have recorded them, or added others of their own. The only traditional lyrics, however, are those given above, taken from a horse wrangler who was hospitalized in Duluth, Minnesota and printed by Sandburg. And even those were slightly dubious until confirmed by the Poplin recording. - RBW
The Poplin recording has a chorus which is almost identical to the verse of "Colorado Trail," and to a verse from Bradley Kincaid's recording of "Liza Up in a Simmon Tree." The rest of the song, however, is completely different; I put it here because I couldn't find a better place. - PJS
File: San462

Colored School Song


See Walkin' in the Parlor (File: Wa177)

Colour of Amber, The


DESCRIPTION: "The colour of amber was my true love's hair." "Many a time [his lips] they've been pressed to mine. I'd fish and catch him "with a line and hook" and never part. It's in vain. I'll never be a maid again.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1974 (recording, Mary Ann Haynes)
KEYWORDS: courting love betrayal hair floatingverses nonballad fishing lyric
FOUND IN: Britain(England(Lond))
Roud #1716
RECORDINGS:
Mary Ann Haynes, "The Colour of Amber" (on Voice11)
NOTES: "The Colour of Amber" is the reverse of "Black Is the Color" with the usual floating verse from the woman's point of view. It is tempting to lump this with, say, "Fair and Tender Ladies," but the amber and fishing verses make it stand aside for me. Yates, Musical Traditions site Voice of the People suite "Notes - Volume 11" - 11.9.02, refers to John Ashton's Real Sailor Songs "The Sailor Boy" [Ashton/Sailor *63] as another version; that does have the amber verse but is a version of "The Sailor Boy"(I) [Laws K12]. "Fair and Tender Ladies" would be a closer match than that. - BS
File: RcColAmb

Colter's Candy


See Coulter's Candy (File: MSNR154)

Columbia on Our Lee


See Britannia on Our Lee (File: SWMS049)

Columbia the Free


DESCRIPTION: The singer was born in America. His "pack is all over American earth. My blood is as Irish as Irish can be." He is ashamed that the "tyrants" control "our poor plundered Ireland." He waits for the summons to return to Ireland with his rifle.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1973 (Morton-Maguire)
KEYWORDS: emigration America Ireland nonballad patriotic
FOUND IN: Ireland
REFERENCES (1 citation):
Morton-Maguire 2, pp. 2-3,99,155, "Columbia the Free" (1 text, 1 tune)
Roud #2926
NOTES: It is a curiosity that, in the late nineteenth century, the Irish in America were often more militant in favor of liberty than the Irish still at home. (Look at how many of the Fenian exploits were organized in America.) One can only speculate at the reasons: The Irish in America were not experiencing the slow liberalization that occurred in Ireland, they had more money and didn't have to scrabble as hard for a living -- and, of course, their ancestors included most of the worst troublemakers who simply could not stomach British rule.
For an example of such, see the notes to "Erin's Lovely Lee."
The Fenians would eventually plan an invasion of Ireland; as usual, nothing much came of it. - RBW
File: MoMa002

Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean (Britannia, the Pride of the Ocean)


DESCRIPTION: "Oh, (Columbia/Britania) the (gem/pride) of the ocean... Thy banners make tyranny tremble When borne by the red, white, and blue." The singer boasts of his nation's success in war and its liberty
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1843 (sheet music)
KEYWORDS: patriotic nonballad
FOUND IN: US Britain
REFERENCES (2 citations):
Silber-FSWB, p. 44, "Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean" (1 text)
Fuld-WFM, pp. 176-177+, "Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean"
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Harding B 26(565), "Red, White and Blue", J. Moore ["Poet's Box"] (Belfast), 1846-1852 ; also Firth b.25(217) View 2 of 2 [difficult to read], Harding B 15(255b)[some lines illegible], Harding B 11(3246), Harding B 11(3401), "[The] Red, White, and Blue"; Firth b.26(377), "Britannia! the Pride of the Ocean"; Harding B 11(396), "Nelsons Last Sigh" or "The Red White & Blue"
LOCSheet, sm1844 410890, "Columbia the Gem of the Ocean", Osbourn's Music Saloon (Philadelphia), 1844; also sm1846 411040, "Columbia the Land of the Brave" (tune)
LOCSinging, cw104810, "Red, White & Blue" ("Oh, Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean"), J. Andrews (New York), 1853-1859; also sb40454a, "Red, White & Blue"; cw10102a, cw101030, cw101040, "Columbia the Gem of the Ocean"
NLScotland, L.C.Fol.178.A.2(015), "Red, White, and Blue", 1849, Mclntosh (Calton[Glasgow?]); also L.C.1269(175a), "Britannia, the Pride of the Ocean"
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Dixie, the Land of King Cotton" (tune)
ALTERNATE TITLES:
The Red, White and Blue
NOTES: Fuld reports considerable controversy about the origin of this song: It is probably not possible, at this time, to tell with certainty whether the original is the American "Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean" or the British "Britannia, the Pride of the Ocean."
The earliest printed version, called "Columbia the Land of the Brave," was printed in 1843 and credited to George Willig. In 1852, a copy of "Brittania the Gem of the Ocean" was filed at the British Museum; it credits the song to D[avid]. T. Shaw (who sang the American version). This version, however, was not filed in the stationer's register.
The song has also been credited to Stephen Joseph Meany (words) and Thomas E. Williams (music; died 1854) (cf. Spaeth, A History of Popular Music in America, p. 98, who dates their "Britannia" version to 1854), and to the performer Thomas A. Beckett, but substantiating evidence is lacking in both cases. If you want the full details, you'd best see both Spaeth and Fuld. - RBW
The 1844 sheet music, LOCSheet sm1844 410890 notes "A Popular Song as sung by Mr Blankman & Mr Shaw." The 1846 sheet music LOCSheet sm1846 411040, and broadside LOCSinging cw101030 make David T. Shaw the writer.
The 1849 broadside NLScotland L.C.Fol.178.A.2(015) third verse refers to "the memory of Nelson" (1758-1805). The 1856 broadside NLScotland L.C.1269(175a) third verse refers to "the mem'ry of Napier": "This could be either Naval Commander Charles Napier (1786-1860) or more likely, as the tribute appears to be posthumous, General sir Charles Napier (1782-1853), who achieved significant military victories in the Indian sub-continent." Broadside Bodleian Harding B 26(565) refers to "the memory of heroes." Broadside Bodleian Firth b.25(217) View 2 of 2 appears to refer to Charlie Napier. The remaining Bodleian broadsides -- Harding B 15(255b), Harding B 11(3246), Harding B 11(3401), Firth b.26(377) and Harding B 11(396) -- refer to Nelson. The "Columbia" versions refer to "they."
Broadside LOCSinging cw104810: J. Andrews dating per Studying Nineteenth-Century Popular Song by Paul Charosh in American Music, Winter 1997, Vol 15.4, Table 1, available at FindArticles site. - BS
File: FSWB044

Columbus Stockade Blues


DESCRIPTION: "Way down in Columbus, Georgia, I want to go back to Tennessee. Way down in Columbus stockade, my friends all turned their backs on me. So you can go and leave me if you want to...." The singer laments his imprisonment and the loss of his love
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1927 (recording, Tom Darby & Jimmie Tarlton)
KEYWORDS: prison separation chaingang
FOUND IN: US(SE)
REFERENCES (3 citations):
Warner 137, "'Way Down in Columbus, Georgia" (1 text, 1 tune)
Silber-FSWB, p. 65, "Columbus Stockade Blues" (1 text)
DT, COLSTKD
Roud #7480
RECORDINGS:
Bud & Joe Billings [pseud. for Frank Luther & Carson Robison], "Columbus Stockade Blues" (Victor V40031, 1929)
Cliff Carlisle, "Columbus Stockade Blues" (Champion 45186, c. 1935)
Tom Darby & Jimmie Tarlton, "Columbus Stockade Blues" (Columbia 15212-D, 1927)
Flannery Sisters, "Columbus Stockade" (Decca 5256, 1936)
J. E. Mainer Band, "Columbus Stockade" (on LomaxCD1705)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Dear Companion (The Broken Heart; Go and Leave Me If You Wish To, Fond Affection)" (tune)
NOTES: Apparently a rework of an English lost love song, "Go and Leave Me" [which we have indexed as "Dear Companion" - PJS]. Frank Proffitt heard it sung by Blacks on a chain gang, and it has become a staple of the bluegrass repertoire. Its English origin has been completely forgotten in these traditions, even though the original lost love song is said to be widely known in the British Isles.
Silber credits this to Woody Guthrie; while Guthrie may have played with it a bit, clearly he was not the sole author. - RBW
Given the various 78 recordings, Silber's clearly wrong.... I'd guess Carlisle's recording was the source of the song's popularity in bluegrass. - PJS
File: Wa137

Comber Ballad, The


See The Next Market Day (File: FSWB158B)

Come a Rittum


DESCRIPTION: "Come, a rittam, chittum, chairum, Come, a ray, roe, raddy, O."
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1917 (GreigDuncan8)
KEYWORDS:
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan8 1786, "Come a Rittum" (1 fragment)
Roud #13528
NOTES: The current description is all of the GreigDuncan8 fragment. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: GrD81786

Come A' Ye Buchan Laddies


DESCRIPTION: "... the news That's come frae Aberdeen. Hoo Tully's men ha'e gained the day, And Tully's lost it clean; Hoo stinkin' sowens [oatmeal husks] and buttermilk Ha'e forced his men awa"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1906 (GreigDuncan3)
KEYWORDS: farming work food
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan3 393, "Come A' Ye Buchan Laddies" (1 text)
Roud #5826
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "There's Nae Luck at Tullo's Toon" (some lines)
File: GrD3393

Come A' Ye Jolly Ploo'men Lads


DESCRIPTION: "O come a' ye jolly ploomen lads That works amang the grun'." The singer tells of his happy life and work. He attends a hiring fair, works six months in a bothy, and shocks the minister by singing out when he weds Mary-Anne
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1985 (recording, the Stewarts of Blair)
KEYWORDS: work food humorous marriage
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
Roud #6855
RECORDINGS:
Belle, Sheila, and Cathie Stewart, "Come A' Ye Jolly Ploo'men Lads" (on SCStewartsBlair01)
File: RcCAYJPL

Come Aff an' Ye'll Win On Again


DESCRIPTION: "Come aff an' ye'll win on again Come aff an' ye'll win on again, An' I'll gie you a pint o' wine"
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: before 1761 (according to GreigDuncan8)
KEYWORDS: drink nonballad
FOUND IN: Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (1 citation):
GreigDuncan8 1729, "Come Aff an' Ye'll Win On Again" (1 fragment)
Roud #13143
NOTES: GreigDuncan8: "[This is] from two manuscripts 1730-1760."
The current description is all of the GreigDuncan8 fragment. - BS
Last updated in version 2.5
File: Gr81729
GSPLITRBalladIndex.HTMLGSplit Archive&{FCCE7D5C-7BB5-4EC3-B04B-4F0350F5B7B7}‡ê £[-dŽÛ