|
MARGARET, St. (d.
1093), queen of Scotland, was daughter of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund
Ironside [q- v.j, by Agatha, usually described as a kinswoman of Gisela, the
sister of Henry II the Emperor, and wife of St. Stephen of Hungary. Her
father and his brother Edmund, when yet infants, are said to have been sent
by Canute to Sweden or to Russia, and afterwards to have passed to Hungary
before 1038, when Stephen died. No trace of the exiles has, ho wever, been
found in the histories of Hungary examined by Mr. Freeman or by the present
writer, who made inquiries on the subject at Buda-Pesth. Still, the constant
tradition in England and Scotland is too strong to be set aside, and
possibly deserves confirmation from the Hungarian descent claimed by certain
Scottish families, as the Drummonds. The legend of Adrian, the missionary
monk, who is said to have come from Hungary to Scotland long before Hungary
was Christian, possibly may have been due to a desire to flatter the
mother-country of Margaret. The birth of Margaret must be assigned to a date
between 1038 and 1057, probably about 1045, but whether she accompanied her
father to England in 1057 we do not know, though Lappenberg assum it as
probable that she did. Her brothe Edgar Atheling ,[q. v.], was chosen king :
1066, after the death of Harold, and mat terms with William the Conqueror.
But i the summer of 1067, according to the ‘Angk Saxon Chronicle,’ 1 Edgar
child went out with his mother Agatha and his two sisters Margaret and
Christina and Merleswegen and many good men with them and came to Scotland
under the protection of King Malcolm HI [q. v.], and he received them all.
Then Malcolm began to yearn after Margaret to wife, but he and all his men
long refused, and she herself also declined,’ preferring, according to the
verses inserted in the ‘Chronicle,’ a virgin’s life. The king ‘ urged her
brother until he answered “ Yea,” and indeed he durst not otherwise because
they were come into his power,’ The contemporary biography of Margaret
supplies no dates. John of Fordun, on the alleged authority of Turgot, prior
of Durham and archbishop of St. Andrews, who is doubtfully credited with the
contemporary biography of Margaret, dates her marriage with Malcolm in 1070,
but adds, ‘Some, however, have written that it was in the year 1067.’ The
later date probably owes its existence to the interpolations in Simeon of
Durham, which Mr. Hinde rejects. The best manuscripts of the ‘Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle’ accept 1067. Most writers since Hailes, including Mr. Freeman,
have assumed 1070. Mr. Skene prefers the earlier date, which has the greater
probability in its favour. The marriage was celebrated at Dunfermline by
Fothad, Celtic bishop of St. Andrews, not in the abbey of which parts still
exist, for that was founded by Malcolm and Margaret in commemoration of it,
but in some smaller church attached to the tower, of whose foundations a few
traces may still be seen in the adjoining grounds of Pittencreiff.
According to a letter preserved in the ‘Scalacronica’ from Lanfranc,
archbishop of Canterbury, the archbishop, in reply to Margaret’s petition,
sent her Friar Goldwin and two monks to instruct her in the proper conduct
of the service of God. Probably soon after her marriage, at the instance of
these English friars, a council was held for the reform of the Scottish
church, in which Malcolm acted as interpreter between the English and Gaelic
clergy. It sat for three days, and regulated the period of the Lenten fast
according to the Roman use, by which it began four days before the first
Sunday in Lent; the reception of the sacrament at Easter, which had been
neglected; the ritual of the mass according to the Roman mode, the
observance of the Lord’s day by abstaining from work, the abolition of
marriage between a man and his stepmother or his brother’s widow, as well as
other abuses, among which may have been the neglect of giving thanks after
meals, from which the grace cup received in Scotland the name of St.
Margaret’s blessing.
According to a tradition
handed down by Goscelin,' a monk of Canterbury, she was less successful in
asserting the right of a woman to enter the church at Laurencekirk, which
was in this case forbidden by Celtic, as it was commonly by the custom of
the Eastern church. Her biographer dilates on her own practice of the piety
she inculcated : her prayers mingled with her tears, her abstinence to the
injury of health, her charity to the orphans, whom she fed with her own
spoon, to the poor, whose feet she washed, to the English captives she
ransomed, and to the hermits who then abounded in Scotland. For the pilgrims
to St. Andrews she built guest-houses on either side of the Firth of Forth
at Queensferry, and provided for their free passage. She fasted for forty
days before Christmas as well as during Lent, and exceeded in her devotions
the requirements of the church. Her gifts of holy vessels and of the
jewelled cross containing the black rood of ebony, supposed to be a fragment
from the cross on which Christ died, are specially commemorated by her
biographers, and her copy of the Gospels, adorned with gold and precious
stones, which fell into the water, was, we are told, miraculously recovered
without stain, save a few traces of damp. A book, supposed to be this very
volume, has been recently recovered, and is now in the Bodleian Library. To
Malcolm and Margaret the Culdees of Lochleven owed the donation of the town
of Bal-christie, and Margaret is said by Ordericus Vitalis to have rebuilt
the monastery of Iona. She did not confine her reforms to the church, but
introduced also more becoming manners into the court, and improved the
domestic arts, especially the feminine accomplishments of needlework and
embroidery. The conjecture of Lord Hailes that Scotland is indebted to her
for the invention of tartan may be doubted. The introduction of linen would
be more suitable to her character and the locality. The education of her
sons was her special care [see under Malcolm III], and was repaid by their
virtuous lives, especially that of David. ‘ No history has recorded,’ says
William of Malmesbury, ‘ three kings and brothers who were of equal sanctity
or savoured so much of their mother’s piety. . . . Edmund was the only
degenerate son of Margaret. . . . But being taken and doomed to perpetual
imprisonment, he sincerely repented.’ Her daughters were sent to their aunt
Christina, abbess of Ramsey, and afterwards of Wilton. Of Margaret’s own
death her biographer gives a pathetic narrative. She was not only prepared
for, but predicted it, and some months before summoned her confessor, Turgot
(so named in Capgrave’s ‘Abridgment,’ and in the original Life), and begged
him to take care of her sons and daughters, and to warn them against pride
and avarice, which he promised, and, bidding her farewell, returned to his
own home. Shortly after she fell ill. Her last days are described in the
words of a priest who attended her and more than once related the events to
the biographer. For half a year she had been unable to ride, and almost
confined to bed. On the fourth day before her death, when Malcolm was absent
on his last English raid, she said to this priest: ‘Perhaps on this very day
such a calamity may befall Scotland as has not been for many ages.’ Within a
few days the tidings of the slaughter of Malcolm and her eldest son reached
Scotland. On 16 Nov. 1093 Margaret had gone to her oratory in the castle of
Edinburgh to hear mass and partake of the holy viaticum. Returning to bed in
mortal weakness she sent for the black cross, received it reverently, and,
repeating the fiftieth psalm, held the cross with both hands before her
eyes. At this moment her son Edgar came into her room, whereupon she rallied
and inquired for her husband and eldest son. Edgar, unwilling to tell the
truth, replied that they were well, but, on her abjuring him by the cross
and the bond of blood, told her what had happened. She then praised God,
who, through affliction, had cleansed her from sin, and praying the prayer
of a priest before he receives the sacrament, she died while uttering the
last words. Her corpse was carried out of the castle, then besieged by
Donald Bane, under the cover of a mist, and taken to Dunfermline, where she
was buried opposite the high altar and the crucifix she had erected on it.
The vicissitudes of her life continued to attend her relics. In 1250, more
than a century and a half after her death, she was declared a saint
byInnocentIV,and on 19 June 1259 her body was translated from the original
stone coffin and placed in a shrine of pinewood set with gold and precious
stones, under or near the high altar. The limestone pediment still may be
seen outside the east end of the modern restored church. Bower, the
continuator of Fordun, adds the miracle, that as the bearers of her corpse
passed the tomb of Malcolm the burden became too heavy to carry, until a
voice of a bystander, inspired by heaven, exclaimed that it was against the
divine will to translate her bones without those of her husband, and they
consequently carried both to the appointed shrine. Before 1567, according to
Papebroch, her head was brought to Mary Stuart in Edinburgh, and on Mary’s
flight to England it was preserved by a Benedictine monk in the house of the
laird of Duty till 1597, when it was given to the missionary jesuits. By one
of these, John Robie, it was conveyed to Antwerp, where John Malder the
bishop, on 15 Sept. 1620, issued letters of authentication and license to
expose it for the veneration of the faithful. In 1627 it was removed to the
Scots College at Douay, where Herman, bishop of Arras, and Boudout, his
successor, again attested its authenticity. On 4 March 1615 Innocent X
granted a plenary indulgence to all who visited it on her festival. In 1785
the relic was still venerated at-Douay, but it is believed to have perished
during the French revolution. Her remains, according to George Conn, the
author of ‘ De Duplici Statu Religionis apud Scotos,’ Rome, 1628, were
acquired by Philip II, king of Spain, along with those of Malcolm, who
placed them in two urns in the chapel of St. Laurence in the Escurial. When
Bishop Gillies, the.Roman catholic bishop of Edinburgh, applied, through
Pius IX, for their restoration to Scotland, they could not be found.
Memorials, possibly more authentic than these relics, are still pointed out
in Scotland : the cave in the den of Dunfermline, where she went for secret
prayer; the stone on the road to North Queensferry, where she first met
Malcolm, or, according to another tradition, received the poor pilgrims; the
venerable chapel on the summit of the Castle Hill, whose architecture, the
oldest of which Edinburgh can boast, allow’s the supposition that it may
have been her oratory, or more probably that it was dedicated by one of her
sons to her memory; and the well at the foot of Arthur’s Seat, hallowed by
her name, probably after she had been declared a saint.
[The Life of Queen Margaret, published in the Acta Sanctorum, ii. 320, in
Capgrave’s Nora Legenda Anglia-, fol. 225, and in Vitae Antiquae SS. Seotise,
p. 303, printed by Pinkerton and translated by Father Forbes Leith,
certainly appears to be contemporary, though whether the author was Turgot,
her confessor, a monk of Durham, afterwards archbishop of St. Andrews, or
Theodoric, a less known monk, is not clear ; and the value attached to it
will vary with the religion or temperament of the critic, from what Mr.
Freeman calls the ‘mocking scepticism’ of Mr. Burton to the implicit belief
of Papebroch or Father Forbes "Leith. Fordun and "Wyntoun’s Chronicles,
Simeon of Durham (edition by Mr. Hinde), and William of Malmesbury's Gesta
Re-gum Anglorum are the older sources; Freeman’s Norman Conquest, Skene’s
Celtic Scotland, Grub, Cunningham, and Bellesheim’s Histories of the Church
of Scotland, and Robertson's Scotland under her Early Kings give modern
versions.] E. M.
MARGARET (1240-1275), queen of Scots, was the eldest daughter and
second child of Henry III of England and of his queen, Eleanor of Provence.
She was horn on 5 Oct. 1240 (Green, Princesses, ii. 171, from Liberate
Rolls; Flores Hist. ii. 239; cf. Matt. Paris, Hist.Major,'w.48, and
Tewkesbury Annals in Ann. Monastici, i. 116). The date of her birth is given
very variously by different chroniclers, while others get some years wrong
through confusing her with her younger sister, Beatrice, born in Aquitaine
in 1243 ( Winchester Annals in Ann. Mon. ii. 89 ; Osney Annals and AVykes in
ib. iv. 90). Sandford’s statement that she was born in 1241 is incorrect
(Genealogical History, p. 93). She was born at Windsor, where the early
years of her life were passed along with her brother Edward, who was a year
older, and the daughter of the Earl of Lincoln. She was named Margaret from
her aunt, Queen Margaret of France, and because her mother in the pangs of
child-birth had invoked the aid of St. Margaret (Matt. Paris, iv. 48). On 27
Nov. a royal writ ordered the payment of ten marks to her custodians,
Bartholomew Peche and Geoffrey de Caux (Cal. Hoc. Scotland, 1108-1272, No.
1507). Shewas not two years old when a marriage was suggested between her
and Alexander, the infant son of Alexander II, king of Scots, born in 1241
(Matt. Paris, Hist. Major, iv. 192). Two years later there was a fresh
outburst of hostilities between her father and the king of Scots ; but the
treaty of Newcastle, onl3 Aug. 1244, restored peace between England and
Scotland (Foedera, i. 257). As a result it was arranged that the marriage
already spoken of should take place when the children were old enough.
Margaret was meanwhile brought up carefully and piously and somewhat
frugally at home, with the result that she afterwards fully shared the
strong family affection that united all the members of Henry Ill’s family.
In 1249 the death of Alexander II made Margaret’s betrothed husband
Alexander III of Scotland. Political reasons urged upon both countries the
hurrying on of the marriage between the children, and on 26 Dec. 1251
Alexander and Margaret were married at York by Archbishop Walter Grey of
York. There had been elaborate preparations for the wedding, which was
attended by a thousand English and six hundred Scottish knights, and so vast
a throng of people that the ceremony was performed secretly and in the early
morning to avoid the crowd. Enormous sums were lavished on the
entertainments, and vast masses of food were consumed (Matt. Pasis, v.
266-270; cf. Cal. Doc. Scotland, 1108-1272, Nos. 1815-46). Next day Henry
bound himself to pay Alexander five thousand marks as the marriage portion
of his daughter.
The first years of Margaret’s residence in Scotland were solitary and
unhappy. She was put under the charge of Robert le Nor-rey and Stephen
Bausan, while the widowed Matilda de Cantelupe acted as her governess (Matt.
Paris, v. 272). The violent Geoffrey of Langley was for a time associated
with her guardianship (ib. v. 340). But in 1252 the Scots removed Langley
from his office and sent him back to England. The regents of Scotland,
conspicuous among whom were the guardians of the king and queen, Robert de
Ros and John Baliol, treated her unkindly, and she seems to have been looked
upon with suspicion as a representative of English influence. Rumours of her
misfortunes reached England, and an effort to induce the Scots to allow her
to visit England proving unsuccessful, Queen Eleanor sent in 1255 a famous
physician, Reginald of Bath, to inquire into her health and condition.
Reginald found the queen pale and agitated, and full of complaints against
her guardians. He indiscreetly expressed his indignation in public, and soon
afterwards died suddenly, apparently of poison (ib. v. 501). Henry, who was
very angry, now sent Richard, earl of Gloucester, and John Mansel to make
inquiries (ib. v. 504). Their vigorous action released Margaret from her
solitary confinement in Edinburgh Castle, provided her with a proper
household, and allowed her to enjoy the society of her husband. A political
revolution followed. Henry and Eleanor now met their son-in-law and daughter
at Wark, and visited them at Roxburgh (Burton Annals in Ann. Mon. i. 337;
Dunstaple Annals, p. 198). Margaret remained a short time with her mother at
Wark. English influence was restored, and Ros and Baliol were deprived of
their estates.
Early in 1256 Margaret received a visit from her brother Edward. In August
of the same year Margaret and Alexander at last ventured to revisit England,
to Margaret’s great joy. They were at Woodstock for the festivities of the
Feast of the Assumption on 15 Aug. (Matt. Pabis, v. 573), and, proceeding to
London, were sumptuously entertained by John Mansel. On their return the
Scottish magnates again put them under restraint, complaining of their
promotion of foreigners (ib. v. 656). They mostly lived now at Roxburgh.
About 1260 Alexander and Margaret first really obtained freedom of action.
In that year they again visited England, Margaret reaching London some time
after her husband, and escorted by Bishop Henry of Whithorn (Flores Hist.
ii. 459). She kept Christmas at Windsor, where on 28 Feb. 1261 she gave
birth to her eldest child and daughter Margaret (ib. ii. 463; Fobdun, i.
299). The Scots were angry that the child should be born out of the kingdom
and at the queen’s concealment from them of the prospect of her confinement.
Three years later her eldest son, Alexander, was born on 21 Dec. 1264 at
Jedburgh (Fobbun, i. 300 ; cf. Lanercost Chronicle, p. 81). A second son,
named David, was born in 1270.
In 1266, or more probably later, Margaret was visited at Haddington by her
brother Edward to bid farewell before his departure to the Holy Land (Lanercost
Chronicle, p. 81). In 1268 she and her husband again attended Henry’s court.
She was very anxious for the safety of her brother Edward during his absence
on crusade, and deeply lamented her father’s death in 1272 (ib. p. 95).
Edward had left with her a ‘ pompous squire,’ who boasted that he had slain
Simon de Montfort at Evesham. About 1273 Margaret, when walking on the banks
of the Tay, suggested to one of her ladies that she should push the squire
into the river as he was stooping down to wash his hands. It was apparently
meant as a practical joke, but the squire, sucked in by an eddy, was
drowned; and the narrator, who has no blame for the queen, saw in his death
God’s vengeance on the murderer of Montfort (ib. p. 95). On 19 Aug. 1274
Margaret with her husband attended Edward I’s coronation at Westminster. She
died soon after at Cupar Castle (Fobdun, i. 305) on 27 Feb. 1275, and was
buried at Dunfermline. The so-called chronicler of Lanercost (really a
Franciscan of Carlisle), who had his information from her confessor, speaks
of her in the warmest terms. ‘ She was a lady,’ he says, ‘ of great beauty,
chastity, and humility—three qualities which are rarely found together in
the same person.’ She was a good friend of the friars, and on her deathbed
received the last sacraments from her confessor, a Franciscan, while she
refused to admit into her chamber the great bishops and abbots (Lanercost
Chron. p. 97).
[Matthew Paris’s Historia Major, vols. iv. and v.; Flores Historiarum, vols.
ii. and iii.; Luard’s Annales Monastic! (all in Polls Series); Chronicle of
Lanercost (Bannatyne Club); Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland;
Rymer’s Foedera, vol. i.; Fordun’s Chronicle; Sandford’s Genealogical
History, p. 93 ; Robertson’s Scotland under her Early Kings, vol. ii. An
excellent biography of Margaret is in Mrs. Green’s Livesof the Princesses of
England, ii. 170-224.] T. F. T.
MARGARET of Scotland (1425-1445), wife of the dauphin Louis
(afterwards Louis XI, king of France), was the eldest child of James I of
Scotland and Joan Beaufort. Her age as given in the dispensation for her
marriage in 1436 would fix her birth to the end of 1424 or beginning of 1425
(Beaucoubt, Hist, de Charles VII, iii. 37). But according to the ‘ Liber
Pluscardensis ’ (vii. 375) she was only ten years old at her marriage.
Charles VII of France at the critical moment of his fortunes sent an
embassy, of whom Alain Chartier the poet was one, towards the close of April
1428, to request the hand of Margaret for the dauphin Louis (b. 3 July
1423), with renewed alliance and military aid (Bbaucourt, ii. 396). James
broke off his negotiations with England, renewed the Scoto-French alliance
(17 April), and undertook (19 April) to send Margaret to France within a
year of the following Candlemas, with six thousand men, if Charles would
send a French fleet and cede to him the county of Saintonge and the
seigniory of Rochefort (Acts of Pari, of Scotl. ii. 26-28 ; Beaucoubt, ii.
397). The French council disliked the conditions, but on 30 Oct. Charles
signed the marriage treaty at Chinon, with the provision that should the
dauphin die before the marriage was consummatec Margaret should marry
Charles’s next surviving son, if there should be one, while i: Margaret died
one of her sisters should b( substituted at the choice of James (ib. ii
398). In April 1429 the English were or the look-out for the fleet which was
to carrj Margaret and the troops to France (Proceedings of Privy Council,
iii. 324). But Charles was relieved by Joan of Arc from the necessity of
purchasing help so dearly. He nevei sent the fleet, and it was not until
1433 that in alarm at the renewed negotiations betweer England and Scotland,
which ended in the despatch of English ambassadors to negotiate a marriage
between Henry and a daughter oj the Scottish king, he wrote to James
intimating that though he was no longer in need of his help, he would like
the princess sent over. James in his reply (8 Jan. 1434) alluded dryly to
the long delay and rumours of another marriage for the dauphin, and
requested a definite understanding (Bbau-coubt, ii. 492-3). In November
Charles sent Regnault Girard, his maitre d’hotel, and two others, with
instructions to urge, in excuse of the long delay in sending an embassy to
make the final arrangements for Margaret’s coming,the king’s great charges
and poverty. James was to be asked to provide the dau-phine with an escort
of two thousand men. If the Scottish king alluded to the cession of
Saintonge, he was to be reminded that Charles had never claimed the
assistance for which it was promised. The ambassadors, after a voyage of 1
grande et merveilleuse tourmente,’ reached Edinburgh on 25 Jan. 1435
(Relation of the Embassy by Girard, ib. ii. 492-8). A month later James
agreed to send Margaret from Dumbarton before May, in a fleet provided by
Charles, and guarded by two thousand Scottish troops, who might, if
necessary, be retained in France. He asked that his daughter should have a
Scottish household until the consummation of the marriage, though provision
was to be made ‘ pour lui apprendre son estat et les manieres par la ’ (ib.
ii. 499). After some delay, letters arrived from Charles announcing the
intended despatch of a fleet on 15 July, declining the offer of the
permanent services of the Scottish escort, as he was entering on peace
negotiations at Arras, and declaring that it would not be necessary to
assign a residence to the princess, as he meant to proceed at once to the
celebration of the marriage (ib. ii. 500-1). The French fleet reached
Dumbarton on 12 Sept., but James delayed his daughter’s embarkation till 27
March 1436. She landed at La Palisse in the island of Re on 17 April, after
a pleasant voyage (ib. iii. 35, not ‘ half-dead ’ as Michel, Ecossais en
France, i. 183, and Vallet db Viriville, Hist, de Charles VII, ii. 372,
say). On the 19th she was received at La Rochelle by the chancellor,
Regnault do Chartres, and after some stay there proceeded to Tours, which
she reached on 24 June. She was welcomed by the queen and the dauphin. The
marriage was celebrated next day in the cathedral by the Archbishop of
Rheims, the Archbishop of Tours having (13 June) granted the dispensation
rendered necessary by the tender age of the parties. The dauphin and
dauphine were in royal costume, but Charles, who had just arrived, went
through the ceremony booted and spurred (Beaucoubt, iii. 37). A great feast
followed, and the city of Tours provided Moorish dances and chorus-singing
(?5.p.38).
It was not until July 1437, at the earliest, that the married life of the
young couple actually began at Gien on the Loire (ib. iii. 38, iv. 89). It
was fated to be most unhappy. While under the queen’s care Margaret had been
treated with every kindness, but Louis regarded her with positive aversion
(/Eneas Sylvius, Commentarii, p. 163; Comines, ii. 274). According to
Grafton (i. 612, ed. 1809) she was ‘ of such nasty complexion and evill
savored breath that he abhorred her company as a cleane creature doth a
caryon.’ But there is nothing of this in any contemporary chronicler, and
Mathieu d’Escouchy praises her beauty and noble qualities (Beaucoubt, iv.
89). Margaret sought consolation in poetry, surrounded herself with ladies
of similar tastes, and is said to have spent whole nights in composing
rondeaux. She regarded herself as the pupil of Alain Chartier, whom,
according to a well-known anecdote reported by Jacques Bouchet in his ‘
Annals of Aquitaine ’ (p. 252, ed. 1644), she once publicly kissed as he lay
asleep on a bench, and being taken to task for choosing so ugly a man,
retorted that it was not the man she had kissed, but the precious mouth from
which had proceeded so many witty and virtuous sayings (Michel, i. 187;
Beaucoubt, iv. 90). We catch glimpses of her sallying into the fields with
the court from Montils-les-Tours on 1 May 1444 to gather May, and joining in
the splendid festivities at Nancy and Chalons in 1444-5. At Chalons one
evening in June of the latter year she danced the ‘ basse danse de Bourgogne
’ with the queen of Sicily and two others. But the dauphin’s dislike and
neglect, for which he was warmly reproached by the Duchess of Burgundy, now
on a visit to the court, induced a melancholy, said to have been aggravated
by the reports spread by Jamet de Tillay, a councillor of the king, that she
was unfaithful to Louis. Her health declined, she took a chill after a
pilgrimage with the king to a neighbouring shrine on 7 Aug., and
inflammation of the lungs declared itself and made rapid progress. She
repeatedly asserted her innocence of the conduct imputed to her by Tillay,
whom, until almost the last moment, she refused to forgive, and was heard to
murmur, ‘ N’etoit ma foi, je me repentirois volontiers d’etre venue en
France.’ She died on 16 Aug. at ten in the evening; her last words were, ‘
Fi de la vie de ce monde! ne m’en parlez plus ’ (ib. iv. 105-10).
Her remains were provisionally buried in the cathedral of Chalons, until
they could be removed to St. Denis, but Louis next year interred them in St.
Laon at Thouars, where her tomb, adorned with monuments by Charles, survived
until the revolution (Michel, i. 191). If the heartless Louis did not feel
the loss of his childless wife, it was a heavy blow to his parents, with
whom Margaret had always been a favourite. The shock further impaired the
queen’s health, and Charles, hearing how much Margaret had taken to heart
the charges of Tillay, and dissatisfied with the attempt of the physicians
to trace her illness to her poetical vigils, ordered an inquiry to be held
into the circumstances of her death and the conduct of Tillay (ib. iv. 109,
111). The depositions of the queen, Tillay, Margaret’s gentlewomen, and the
physicians were taken partly in the autumn, partly in the next summer. The
commissioners sent in their report to the king in council, but we hear
nothing more of it. Tillay certainly kept his office and the favour of the
king (ib. iv. 181-2).
A song of some beauty on the death of the dauphine, in which she bewails her
lot, and makes her adieux, has been printed by M. Vallet de Viriville (Revue
des Sociites Savantes, 1857, iii. 713-15), who attributes it to her sister,
Isabel, duchess of Brittany, and also by Michel (i. 193). A Scottish
translation of another lament is printed by Stevenson (Life and Death of
King Janies I of Scotland, pp. 17-27, Maitland Club). The Colbert MS. of
Monstrelet contains an illumination, reproduced by Johnes, representing
Margaret’s entry into Tours in 1436.
[Du Fresne de Beaucourt, in his elaborate Histoire de Charles VII, has
collected almost all that is known about Margaret; Francisque Michel’s
Ecossais en France is useful but inaccurate; Liber Pluscardensis in the
Historians of Scotland; Mathieu d’Escouchy and Coniines, ed. for the Society
de 1’Histoire de France; Proceedings of the Privy Council, ed. Harris
Nicolas.]
See a
pdf file of this information and on other Margarets here |
