FullReads

The natural facetiousness of his temper appears frequently in the good humour with which the little prince was accustomed to treat his domestics. He had two of opposite characters, who were frequently set by the ears for the sake of the sport; the one, Murray, nicknamed “the tailor,” loved his liquor; and the other was a stout “trencherman.” The king desired the prince to put an end to these broils, and to make the men agree, and that the agreement should be written and subscribed by both. “Then,” said the prince, “must the drunken tailor subscribe it with chalk, for he cannot write his name, and then I will make them agree upon this condition–that the trencherman shall go into the cellar, and drink with Will Murray, and Will Murray shall make a great wallet for the trencherman to carry his victuals in.”–One of his servants having cut the prince’s finger, and sucked out the blood with his mouth, that it might heal the more easily, the young prince, who expressed no displeasure at the accident, said to him pleasantly, “If, which God forbid! my father, myself, and the rest of his kindred should fail, you might claim the crown, for you have now in you the blood-royal.”–Our little prince once resolved on a hearty game of play, and for this purpose only admitted his young gentlemen, and excluded the men: it happened that an old servant, not aware of the injunction, entered the apartment, on which the prince told him he might play too; and when the prince was asked why he admitted this old man rather than the other men, he rejoined, “Because he had a right to be of their number, for Senex bis puer.”

Nor was Henry susceptible of gross flattery, for when once he wore white shoes, and one said that he longed to kiss his foot, the prince said to the fawning courtier, “Sir, I am not the pope;” the other replied that “he would not kiss the pope’s foot, except it were to bite off his great toe.” The prince gravely rejoined: “At Rome you would be glad to kiss his foot and forget the rest.”

It was then the mode, when the king or the prince travelled, to sleep with their suite at the houses of the nobility; and the loyalty and zeal of the host were usually displayed in the reception given to the royal guest. It happened that in one of these excursions the prince’s servants complained that they had been obliged to go to bed supperless, through the pinching parsimony of the house, which the little prince at the time of hearing seemed to take no great notice of. The next morning the lady of the house coming to pay her respects to him, she found him turning over a volume that had many pictures in it; one of which was a painting of a company sitting at a banquet: this he showed her. “I invite you, madam, to a feast.” “To what feast?” she asked. “To this feast,” said the boy. “What! would your highness give me but a painted feast?” Fixing his eye on her, he said, “No better, madam, is found in this house.” There was a delicacy and greatness of spirit in this ingenious reprimand far excelling the wit of a child.

According to this anecdote-writer, it appears that James the First probably did not delight in the martial dispositions of his son, whose habits and opinions were, in all respects, forming themselves opposite to his own tranquil and literary character. The writer says, that “his majesty, with the tokens of love to him, would sometimes interlace sharp speeches, and other demonstrations of fatherly severity.” Henry, who however lived, though he died early, to become a patron of ingenious men, and a lover of genius, was himself at least as much enamoured of the pike as of the pen. The king, to rouse him to study, told him, that if he did not apply more diligently to his book, his brother, duke Charles, who seemed already attached to study, would prove more able for government and for the cabinet, and that himself would be only fit for field exercises and military affairs. To his father, the little prince made no reply; but when his tutor one day reminded him of what his father had said, to stimulate our young prince to literary diligence, Henry asked, whether he thought his brother would prove so good a scholar. His tutor replied that he was likely to prove so. ‘Then,’ rejoined our little prince, ‘will I make Charles Archbishop of Canterbury.'”

Our Henry was devoutly pious, and rigid in never permitting before him any licentious language or manners. It is well known that James the First had a habit of swearing,–expletives in conversation, which, in truth, only expressed the warmth of his feelings; but in that age, when Puritanism had already possessed half the nation, an oath was considered as nothing short of blasphemy. Henry once made a keen allusion to this verbal frailty of his father’s; for when he was told that some hawks were to be sent to him, but it was thought that the king would intercept some of them, he replied, “He may do as he pleases, for he shall not be put to the oath for the matter.” The king once asking him what were the best verses he had learned in the first book of Virgil, Henry answered, “These:–

‘Rex erat AEneas nobis, quo justior alter
Nec pietate fuit, nec bello major et armis.'”

Such are a few of the puerile anecdotes of a prince who died in early youth, gleaned from a contemporary manuscript, by an eye and ear witness. They are trifles, but trifles consecrated by his name. They are genuine; and the philosopher knows how to value the indications of a great and heroic character. There are among them some which may occasion an inattentive reader to forget that they are all the speeches and the actions of a child!

[Footnote 1:
Dr. Birch’s Life of this Prince. ]

[Footnote 2:
Harleian MS., 6391. ]