[Footnote 270-1: No. 863. Some months before the time when he himself expressed that hope of being delivered from his engagement, I meet with a passage of rather doubtful meaning in a letter to Sir John Paston from his brother. There is a lady in the case, but the lady is not named. John Paston has delivered to her a ring which he had much difficulty in inducing her to take. But he promises that Sir John shall be her true knight, and she in return promises to be more at his commandment than at any knight's in England, 'my lord' excepted. 'And that ye shall well understand' (so John Paston reports the message) 'if ye have aught to do wherein she may be an helper; for there was never knight did so much cost on her as ye have done.' (No. 817.) Is this anonymous lady Anne Haulte once more? Was the ring an engagement ring returned? And did they thus break off relations with each other, retaining mutual esteem? Let us hope this is the explanation, which indeed I should even think probable, but that the lady must have been at this time residing in the county of Norfolk, and I have no notice of Anne Haulte having been there at any time.]
[Sidenote: John Paston's love affairs.] John Paston, too, had his love affairs as well as his brother, but was more fortunate in not being bound helplessly to one lady for a long series of years. In the summer of 1471, he seems to have been endeavouring to win the hand of a certain Lady Elizabeth Bourchier; but here he did not prosper, for she was married a few months later to Lord Thomas Howard--the nobleman who more than forty years after was created Duke of Norfolk by King Henry VIII. for his victory over the Scots at Flodden.[270-5] As to his further proceedings in search of a wife, we shall have occasion to speak of them hereafter.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1472.] Property was at all times a matter of more importance than love to that selfish generation; it was plainly, avowedly regarded by every one as the principal point in marrying. [Sidenote: The Dukes of Clarence and Gloucester.] In the royal family at this very time, the design of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to marry the widow of Edward, Prince of Wales, awoke the jealousy of his brother Clarence. For the lady was a younger sister of Clarence's own wife, and co-heir to her father, Warwick the Kingmaker; and since the death of that great earl at Barnet, Clarence seems to have pounced on the whole of his immense domains without the slightest regard even to the rights of his widow, who, indeed, was now in disgrace, and was living in sanctuary at Beaulieu. The idea of being compelled to share the property with his brother was a thing that had never occurred to him, and he could not endure the thought. He endeavoured to prevent the proposed marriage by concealing the lady in London.[271-1] Disputes arose between the two brothers in consequence, and though they went to Sheen together to pardon, it was truly suspected to be 'not all in charity.' The king endeavoured to act as mediator, and entreated Clarence to show a fair amount of consideration to his brother; but his efforts met with very little success. 'As it is said,' writes Sir John Paston, 'he answereth that he may well have my lady his sister-in-law, but they shall part no livelode,'--the elder sister was to have all the inheritance, and the younger sister nothing! No wonder the writer adds, 'So what will fall can I not say.'[271-2] What did fall, however, we know partly from the Paston Letters and partly from other sources. The Duke of Gloucester married the lady in spite of his brother's threats. The dispute about the property raged violently more than two years, and almost defied the king's efforts to keep his two brothers in subjection. In November 1473 we find it 'said for certain that the Duke of Clarence maketh him big in that he can, showing as he would but deal with the Duke of Gloucester; but the king intendeth, in eschewing all inconvenients, to be as big as they both, and to be a styffeler atween them. And some men think that under this there should be some other thing intended, and some treason conspired.' Sir John Paston again did not know what to make of it, and was driven to reiterate his former remark, 'So what shall fall can I not say.'[272-1] He only hoped the two brothers would yet be brought into agreement by the king's award.[272-2]