Pretender Perkin Warbeck

‘…It was probably by an appeal to this romantic cast in James's disposition that the Scottish king was prevailed on to take up the cause of Perkin Warbeck, the pretended duke of York. He received this adventurer at the court of Scotland; he permitted him to wed a near relation to the crown, the daughter of the earl of Huntley; acknowledged Perkin's claim to the kingdom of England as authentic; and supported him with an army, at the head of which he himself marched into Northumberland, expecting a general insurrection in favour of his ally. The expectations of James were entirely disappointed: no one joined with Perkin. The Scottish king gave a loose to his disappointment, and laid waste the country. Perkin affected compassion for the subjects whose allegiance he claimed, and interceded in their behalf. "You are too merciful," answered James with a sneer, " to interest yourself for a people who are tardy in acknowledging you for their sovereign." These words intimated that James felt himself engaged in a losing adventure, which he soon afterwards terminated by a truce with England.

In the previous negotiation, James firmly refused to deliver up Perkin Warbeck to Henry; but he dismissed him from his kingdom, to pursue elsewhere that series of adventures which ended with his life on the gallows at Tyburn. His unfortunate widow was honourably supported by Henry VII., and long distinguished at the English court by the title of the White Rose, from her husband's claim to be the representative of the house of York…’

England’s own Pretender, Perkin Warbeck, claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury, a son of King Edward IV.  The supposed Richard was officially recognized by Margaret of York, Edward’s sister.  It wasn’t enough to convince a Tudor king.  Warbeck enticed James IV of Scotland to rise against England’s Henry VII, as Sir Walter Scott discusses in “The History of Scotland” (text above).  After James backed off, Warbeck incited Cornish forces to invade England on his behalf.  Henry handled the challenge with little effort, and Warbeck was captured.  Warbeck, under duress, confessed to being a fraud, and was ultimately executed; November 23^rd, 1499.

Mary Shelley

The author of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley, was born on August 30, 1797.  In addition to this Gothic novel, Shelley took a stab at the historical romance that Sir Walter Scott had developed, authoring “The Fortunes of Perkin Warbeck” in 1830.  According to Mary Shelley’s preface:

‘The story of Perkin Warbeck was first suggested to me as a subject for historical detail. On studying it, I became aware of the romance which his story contains, while, at the same time, I felt that it would be impossible for any narration, that should be confined to the incorporation of facts related by our old Chronicle to do it justice.

It is not singular that I should entertain a belief that Perkin was, in reality, the lost Duke of York. For, in spite of Hume, and the later historians who have followed in his path, no person who has at all studied the subject but arrives at the same conclusion. Records exist in the Tower, some well known, others with which those who have access to those interesting papers are alone acquainted, which put the question almost beyond a doubt…’

Ms. Shelley could not have escaped the influence of Walter Scott in her foray into the historical novel.  Deidre Lynch, who has contributed “The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley” writes:

‘Early in 1820 the Shelleys, then living in Italy, received a crate packed with various household articles and a selection of the new novels that had become the talk of the nation. In one, Ivanhoe, the “Dedicatory Epistle” - a letter purportedly sent by one Laurence Templeton to his antiquarian colleague, the Reverend Dr. Dryasdust - mentions a “Scottish magician, [who], you say, was . . . at liberty to walk over the recent field of battle, and to select for the subject of resuscitation by his sorceries a body whose limbs had recently quivered with existence, and whose throat had but just uttered the last note of agony.”  Templeton's necromancer, who must have reminded Mary Shelley of the “unhallowed arts” of her own Victor Frankenstein, was none other than Templeton's own creator, Sir Walter Scott. In the opinion of numerous reviewers, such necromancy, resuscitating bygone figures from historical fields as varied as Norman England and eighteenth-century Scotland, had endowed the novel form itself with a new dignity. Typical is one review, which advises that Scott's Waverley should not be “consider[ed] . . . in the light of a common novel, whose fate it is to be devoured with rapidity for the day, and to be afterwards forgotten for ever”; it should rather be, this critic wrote, lauded as a “vehicle of curious accurate information upon a subject which must at all times demand our attention - the history and manners of . . . the inhabitants of these islands.”   ‘