Only daughter of Edmund Duke of York and his wife Isabel of Castilla;
most likely born at Langley, in or about 1374. On the 16th of April,
1378, the marriage of Edward, son and heir of Edward late Lord Le
Despenser, was granted to her father for her benefit. (_Rot. Pat_. 1
R. II, Part 5.) But the infant bridegroom was dead on the 30th of May
following, and his brother Thomas was evidently substituted in his
stead. (_Rot. Pat_. 1 R. II, Part 6.) Thomas and Constance were
married before the 7th of November, 1379, as on that day her uncle, John
of Gaunt, paid 22 pounds 0 shillings 4 pence for his wedding present to
the bride, a silver-gilt cup and ewer on a stand, and he speaks of the
marriage as then past (_Register of John Duke of Lancaster_, ii, folio
19, _b_.) Constance remained in England during the absence of her
parents in Portugal, 1381-2. Eighty marks per annum were granted to her
from the Despenser lands, January 14th, 1384. When she took up her
residence at Cardiff with her husband is uncertain; but there is every
probability that it was not till after the death of her mother, in
February, 1393, and very likely not till after her father's second
marriage, about the following October. The approximate date may be
given as 1394-5. Two pardons are recorded of persons accused of murder,
June 22nd, 1395, and April 27th, 1396, "at the request of our beloved
kinswoman the Countess of Gloucester." There was no Countess of
Gloucester at the time, for Constance had not yet attained that title.
The words _may_ be slips of the scribe's pen for the Duchess of
Gloucester. It was not until September 29th, 1397, that Thomas Le
Despenser was created Earl of Gloucester. There is no evidence to show
the presence of Constance in London during the stormy period of her
cousin Henry's usurpation; she seems to have remained at Cardiff. On
the 22nd of February, 1400, about six weeks after her husband's murder,
a grant of 60 pounds per annum was made to the King's son, John Duke of
Bedford, out of the issues of her lands (_Rot Pat._ 1 H. IV, Part 8);
but on the 3rd of March, the custody of her son Richard was granted to
her, and 30 pounds worth of gold and silver of her late husband's goods
in the hands of the Mayor of Bristol. (_Ibidem_, Part 6.) Moreover, on
the 19th of February, a concession was made to her of eleven manors, two
towns, two castles, two lordships, and other lands (_Ibidem_, Part 5);
followed by a grant of "the price of certain vessels of silver,
brooches, jewels, and other goods" which had belonged to her husband.
(_Rot. Ex, Pasc_, 1 H. IV.) In 1404 she was restored to her dower by
Act of Parliament. (_Inq. Post. Mortem_ 4 H. V 52.) When and where
she met with her second husband can only be guessed; for that Edmund
Earl of Kent was really her second husband I think there is the
strongest reason to believe. His sisters afterwards chose to deny the
marriage; it was their interest to do so, for had the legitimacy of his
child been established, they would have been obliged to resign to her
her father's estates, which, as his presumptive heirs, they had
inherited. Their excessive anxiety to prove her illegitimate, the
persecution which Constance subsequently underwent, the resolute
determination of Henry the Fourth that Kent should marry Lucia, and the
remarkable coincidence of time between Constance's imprisonment and
Lucia's marriage, go far to show that the marriage (though perhaps
clandestine) was genuine, as alleged by Alianora; and I cannot avoid a
strong conviction that a great deal of this hate and persecution were
due to the fact that Constance was actually or suspectedly a Lollard.
The denials of Kent's sisters may be attributed to their wish to retain
his estates; while as for his nephews and nieces, who nominally joined
in the petition, they could only know what they were told; for Joyce
Lady Tibetot, the eldest of the group, was only three years old at the
death of Kent. But to what cause can be attributed the violent
determination of Henry the Fourth? If it be supposed that he wished to
benefit and advance Kent, how did he do it by preventing his
acknowledged marriage with a well-dowered Princess of England?--or if to
lower him, how was this done by purchasing for him, at the cost of
70,000 florins, the hand of a foreign Princess? Beside this, Henry
showed throughout that while he had no mercy for Constance, he was on
the best possible terms with Kent. Modern writers are altogether at
fault on the subject, most of them alleging that Constance's daughter
Alianora was born before her marriage with Thomas Le Despenser; whereas
it is shown by the Register that when Le Despenser and Constance were
married, the latter was only four or five years old, while Kent was not
even born. The rescue of the Mortimers comes in to complicate matters;
but what shall be said, from the point of view of some writers, who
submit that the whole was a mere pretext to imprison Constance and her
brother, that the Mortimers were never stolen away at all, or that the
real agents remained undiscovered, and that Constance's alleged
confession is a pure fiction from beginning to end? One thing is plain:
there was evidently _some_ reason in the mind of the King why Kent must
not openly marry Constance: and knowing Henry's character, and Kent's
character as well, I can see none that suits all the facts of the case,
unless Constance were one of the hated and proscribed Lollards. The
marriage of Constance and Kent, if it really occurred, of which I cannot
feel the least doubt, must have taken place between 1401 and 1404
inclusive. It was about February, 1405, that (if this part of the story
be true) she broke into Windsor Castle and carried off the young
Mortimers, by means of false keys; and she and they had nearly reached
Wales when they were recaptured. She was tried before Parliament.
Henry the Fourth's records (but he was an atrocious falsifier of state
papers) tell us that she confessed that her brother Edward had been her
instigator; and that he had attempted, the Christmas before, to scale
the walls of Eltham Palace, and assassinate or at least imprison King
Henry. This may or may not be true. What is undoubtedly true is that
Edward and Constance were arrested and imprisoned; the latter in
Kenilworth Castle, whither she was taken at a cost of 10 pounds, in
charge of Elmingo Leget (_Rot. Ex, Michs_, 6 H. IV); and that all the
estates, goods, and chattels of both were seized by the Crown.
(_Ibidem_.) But Kent remained in favour. The length of time which must
necessarily have elapsed shows that no sooner was Constance safely shut
up than Henry began negotiating with his old friend, Galeazzo Visconti,
for the hand of his beautiful cousin Lucia as the bride of Kent. When
all was arranged, but not sooner, in November he presented himself at
Kenilworth. (_Rot. Pat_, 7 H. IV, Part i.) What means were taken to
torture his unhappy cousin into compliance with his iron will can only
be conjectured. She did at last consent to disown her marriage, unless
the facts alleged in the petition of Kent's sisters are fictions. On
January 19th, 1406, "all the goods that belonged to the said Constance,
in the custody of the Treasurer of our Household, and were lately seised
in our hands for certain causes," were munificently granted to her "of
our gift." (_Ibidem_.) On the 24th of the same month, Kent and Lucia
were married, and--if his sisters may be believed--Constance was
present. (_Rot. Pari_, iv. 375.) And on the 18th of June following,
all the lands and tenements of Thomas Le Despenser were restored to his
widow. (_Rot. Pat_, 7 H. IV, Part 2.) In May, 1412, she had again
offended; for her son was taken from her, and his custody and marriage
were granted to trustees, one of whom was his uncle, Edward Duke of
York. (_Ibidem_, 13 H. IV, Part 2.) No more is heard of her until the
accession of Henry the Fifth, when the immediate favour shown to her
confirms the suspicion that her offence was in some way connected with
political, if not religious, Lollardism. On the 18th of July, 1413, the
young King confirmed _all_ his father's grants to Constance (_Ibidem_, 1
H. V, Part 3), which concession restored her boy to her custody. But
when Henry the Fifth turned against Lollardism, he turned against his
cousin with it. All the Despenser lands were granted to her brother
Edward for life, April 16th, 1414, in compensation for the loss which he
had sustained by Richard Le Despenser's death (_Ibidem_, 2 H. V, Part
1); the truth being that the grant to him in 1412 had been cancelled by
the subsequent concession to his sister, so that he had sustained no
loss at all. Troubles came thickly upon Constance now. The sudden and
violent deaths of her brothers, within three months of each other, must
have been no slight shock to her; and shortly after that she was again
under royal displeasure. The nature of her offence is matter for
conjecture. We only know with certainty that she died on the 28th of
November, 1416, aged about 42 (_Inq. Post Mortem_, 4 H. V 52); and
that she died under a dark cloud of royal wrath, which was manifested by
the withholding of permission for honourable burial for four years.
Constance was interred in Reading Abbey, in 1420. No portrait of her is
known. Her character appears to have been as I have represented it--
warm-hearted, impulsive, and eager, but wayward and obstinate. Her
children were four in number; three by her first marriage, who were:--1.
Richard, born at Cardiff, November 30th, 1396. On the 23rd of May,
1412, he was removed from his mother's keeping, and his custody and
marriage were granted, "at the request of Edward Duke of York," to ten
trustees: Archbishop Arundel, Thomas Bishop of Durham, Edward Duke of
York, Sir John Pelham, Robert Tirwhit, Robert W yntryngham, clerk, John
Bokeland, clerk, Thomas Walwayn, Henry Bracy, and John Adam. They were
charged with the custody of "all lands whatsoever now inherited by the
said Richard, and in our hands, or any lands that may or can descend to
him; and all that since the death of Thomas his father, for whatsoever
cause or pretext, has been seized by us." More comprehensive terms
could scarcely be used. Richard's marriage took place immediately under
this grant. The bride chosen by the trustees was Alianora, second
daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by his second
wife Joan Beaufort, half-sister of King Henry. On the accession of
Henry the Fifth, March 20th, 1413, this grant was revoked, and Richard
restored to his mother. He survived his return home only six months,
dying at Merton Abbey, Surrey--to all appearance unexpectedly--October
6th, 1413, aged nearly 17. How he came to be at Merton is an unsolved
question; for it looks as if he were in Arundel's keeping still, and as
if the concession to Constance had remained ineffectual. His
child-widow re-married Henry Percy, second Earl of Northumberland, and
became the mother of a large family.--2. Elizabeth, born and died at
Cardiff, probably in 1398.--3. Isabel, born at Cardiff, "on the feast
of the Seven Holy Sleepers," July 10th, 1400; baptised in the Church of
Saint Mary in that town, the same day, by Thomas Bishop of Llandaff
(_Prob. at. dicta Isabella_, 2 H. V 23); married (1) July 10th, 1411,
Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Worcester (2) 1422--4, his cousin, Richard
Neville, Earl of Warwick; died December 26th, 1439, aged 39 (_Inq.
Post. Mortem_ 18 H. VI 3), leaving issue by both marriages; buried in
Tewkesbury Abbey. (_Harl. Ms_. 154, folio 31.);--The fourth and last
was the unfortunate, disinherited Alianora, born between 1402 and 1405,
both inclusive, and most likely, at Kenilworth, in 1405; married (date
unknown) James Touchet, Lord Audley of Heleigh; date of death, portrait,
and character unknown: left issue. In 1430 she claimed the coronet and
estates of her father, alleging herself to be the legitimate daughter of
Edmund Earl of Kent, and Constance his wife. A counter-petition was
presented by Joan Duchess of York, Constance's step-mother; Margaret
Duchess of Clarence, her sister (and contrary to all mediaeval usage,
the younger sister is named first); and five nephews and nieces, all of
whom were unborn or in the cradle when the events referred to took
place. The sisters of Kent pleaded that "never any espousals were had
ne solemnised in deed betwixt the said Edmund and Custance; but that the
said Edmund, _by the ordinance, will, and agreement of the full noble
Lord late King Henry the Fourth_, that God rest, after great, notable,
and _long_ ambassad' had and sent unto the Duke of Melane for marriage
to be had betwixt the said Edmund and Luce, sister to the said Duke of
Milan, took to wife and openly and solemnly wedded the said Luce at
London, living and then and there present the said Custance, not
claiming the said Edmund unto her husband, ne any dower of his lands
after his decease. The said espousals so had and solemnised betwixt the
said Edmund and Luce continued withouten any interruption of the said
Custance, or any oyer during the life of the said Edmund." These ladies
were very wrathful against the "subtlety, imagined process, privy labour
and coloured means" whereby certain persons had been so wicked as to
depose that the said Alianora was born "in espousals had and solemnised
between Edmund and Custance," particularly considering that "the said
suppliants" were "none of them warned" of her intention to appear and
make her claim. (_Rot. Pari_. IV. 375-6.) The passage in Italics,
when viewed with the surrounding circumstances, told as much, if not
more, in Alianora's favour, as against her. And it did not please the
Duchess Joan to mention a few other little circumstances, which it was
more convenient than just to leave out of the account. The fact that it
was not the first time that Henry had applied to Galeazzo for assistance
in what is expressively termed "dirty work" (Froissart, book iv chapter
94); that Constance, however willing to protest against the projected
marriage of Edmund and Lucia, had been physically unable, being a
prisoner in Kenilworth Castle; that she had been set free just in time
to appear at the wedding (if she did appear); and that the bundle of
grants to her, dated about the same time, suspiciously point to a
purchase of her consent:--such facts as these, it was more convenient to
leave in the background. The petitions were received by Humphrey Duke
of Gloucester, a Gallio who cared for none of these things, whose cruel
treatment of his own hapless wife shows that no chivalrous feeling could
actuate him, and no desire to right a wronged woman influence his acts;
but who probably was not desirous to blacken the memory of his father,
and had no wish to disturb his brother's wife in the enjoyment of Kent's
estates. So the answer returned to Joan's petition was--"_Soit fait
comme il est desire_"--an answer fatal to the hopes the claim, and the
birthright, of the unfortunate Alianora.