Part 10 (1/2)
Probably the most important event, however, that happened to him during his stay at the Indian settlement occurred when he was supposed to be about fourteen. Up to that period he had been not far removed from an idiot, when having been accidentally struck on the head by a stone, his intelligence and memory were suddenly restored. Eleazar now recalled to mind visions of the past, especially recollecting a beautiful lady, attired in a splendid dress with train, and who had been accustomed to take him on her knees and play with him. Other reminiscences of a less pleasing nature were called to mind, including the figure of a threatening, ign.o.ble, and terrible man, undoubtedly that of Simon; for when a portrait of the infamous cobbler was shown to Eleazar, he recognised it with horror.
One night Eleazar overheard a conversation between his reputed parents which revealed to him the fact that he was not their own, but only their adopted, child; but the circ.u.mstances did not, apparently, make any strong impression upon his mind, as he soon forgot it until after events recalled it. Eventually, he was sent to school at a village in Ma.s.sachusetts, in the company of John, one of his reputed brothers.
John could not be done much with, and returned to his Indian life, but Eleazar made good progress in his studies, became very devout, and acquired the cognomen of ”the plausible boy.”
Years pa.s.sed by, and ”the plausible boy” became a plausible man, in his time playing many parts, some of which were scarcely worthy of the descendant of a hundred kings, or even of a Christian missionary, which was the _role_ he now chiefly a.s.sumed. Sometimes he was an Indian chieftain, sometimes a military spy; at one time one thing, at another time another; but through all, as he firmly believed, and as his countenance betrayed, and as the marks on his body testified, he was ”the Lost Prince,” the dauphin who was supposed to have perished in the Temple. If he had had any doubts left on this matter, they were all removed, according to his own account (and numbers of his faithful adherents believed in him implicitly), in October 1841, in an interview he had with the Prince de Joinville, who chanced to be travelling in the United States that year. According to the account furnished by the Rev. Eleazar Williams, who by this time appears to have taken to the missionary avocation permanently, he happened to be on board the same steamer as the French prince, who after having made inquiries about him of the captain, requested the honour of an interview. This Eleazar affably granted, and De Joinville was brought to him. ”I was sitting at the time on a barrel,” says plausible Eleazar; ”the prince not only started with evident and involuntary surprise when he saw me, but there was great agitation in his face and manner--a slight paleness and a quivering of the lips--which I could not help remarking at the time, but which struck me more forcibly afterwards ... by contrast with his usual self-possessed manner.” After paying Eleazar an amount of respect that quite surprised that plausible priest, and astonished everybody about them, the prince, upon landing at Green Bay, desired the honour of a private conversation with him at the hotel. To this request Eleazar consented, and according to his account, the interview, which was carried on in English, the prince speaking that language fluently, but a little broken, indeed, as did Eleazar himself, yet quite intelligibly, resulted in De Joinville acknowledging that the missionary was indeed the veritable dauphin, the Duke of Normandy, the legitimate heir to the crown of France and Navarre; but requesting him to solemnly resign all his rights and t.i.tles in favour of Louis Philippe, upon condition that a princely establishment should be secured to him either in America or France, at his option, and ”that Louis Philippe would pledge himself on his part to secure the restoration, or an equivalent for it, of all the private property of the royal family rightfully belonging to me” [_i.e._ Eleazar Williams], ”which had been confiscated in France during the revolution, or in any way got into other hands.” But Eleazar's ancestral pride was aroused, and after informing De Joinville that he would not be the instrument of bartering away with his own hand the rights pertaining to him by birth, and sacrificing the interests of his family, he concluded by remarking that he could only give the prince the answer which De Provence gave Napoleon's envoy at Warsaw:--”Though I am in poverty and exile, I will not sacrifice my honour!”
Upon receiving this reply the prince loudly accused his guest of ingrat.i.tude for thus rejecting the overtures of the king, his father, who, he declared, was only actuated by kindness and pity, as his claim to the French throne rested on an entirely different basis to Eleazar's; that is to say, not that of hereditary descent, but of popular election. ”When he spoke in this strain,” avers Eleazar, ”I spoke loud also, and said that as he, by his disclosure, had put me in the position of a superior, I must a.s.sume that position, and frankly say that my indignation was stirred by the memory that one of the family of Orleans had imbued his hands in my father's blood, and that another now wished to obtain from me an abdication of the throne.”
”When I spoke of superiority,” says Eleazar, ”the prince immediately a.s.sumed a respectful att.i.tude, and remained silent for several minutes.” On the following day, says ”the plausible,” he saw the prince again, who, finding his renewed efforts to shake the determination of the dauphin not to resign his hereditary t.i.tles were vain, bade him good-bye with the words, ”Though we part, I hope we part friends.”
Probably the strangest, if not the most ludicrous portion of this story is, that Prince de Joinville deemed it requisite to publicly deny ”plausible” Eleazar's little romance, and to declare it to be a tissue of lies, from beginning to end, and nothing but ”a speculation upon the public credulity.”
THE PRETENDED PRINCESS OE c.u.mBERLAND, ENGLAND.
1866.
Of all the wild stories which have been concocted by pretenders to regal lineage, none that has obtained any public notice has been so utterly absurd in its developments as that told by Lavinia Janneta Horton Ryves. In 1866 this individual, the daughter of Mr. Serres, an artist, and the wife of a Mr. Ryves, actually brought her claim to be recognized as Princess of c.u.mberland into a court of law. According to the statement which Mrs. Ryves made through her counsel, and which, indeed, was only a recapitulation of what had already appeared in various periodicals, her grandmother Olive had been married to the Duke of c.u.mberland, brother of George the Third, and had had the marriage acknowledged by that monarch. This statement was supported by several doc.u.ments purporting to be signed by King George, and several other persons of exalted position, but which were characterized by the prosecution as impudent forgeries, the production, apparently, of Mrs.
Serres, and the jury would seem to have taken the same view of their nature.
The story _in extenso_ was this: the Rev. Dr. James Wilmot, of Barton-on-the-Heath, Warwicks.h.i.+re, met and became enamoured of the sister of Count Poniatowski, subsequently King of Poland. Dr. Wilmot married this Polish lady, but, in order to retain his Fellows.h.i.+p, kept the marriage a profound secret. One child, Olive, a very beautiful girl, was the sole issue of this love match. When this lovely daughter was seventeen years of age, she was seen at a n.o.bleman's house by the Duke of c.u.mberland, fallen in love with, and after a very brief courts.h.i.+p married by the prince. This marriage, which was alleged to have been celebrated by the bride's father, Dr. Wilmot, on March 4th, 1767, was also a secret one. On the 3rd of April, 1772, a daughter, christened after her mother, Olive, was born of this clandestine union; but, previous to the interesting event, the Duke of c.u.mberland, availing himself of the secrecy of his first marriage, actually committed bigamy by taking unto himself a second wife, in the person of Lady Anne Horton, sister of the infamous Colonel Luttrel. The second Olive, according to the testimony of the claimant, was first baptized as daughter of the Duke of c.u.mberland, and then, by command of George the Third, in order to preserve her royal father from the penalty of bigamy, was again baptized at another church as the daughter of Robert Wilmot (Dr. Wilmot's brother), and Anna Maria his wife. A certificate to this effect was produced, purporting to be signed by the two Wilmot brothers and the Earl of Warwick, and as means of the child Olive's future identification it was certified that she had ”a large mole on the right side, and another crimson mark upon the back near the neck.”
The so-called ”Princess of c.u.mberland” died in France, on the 5th of December, 1774, and, according to Dr. Wilmot's supposed certificate, ”in the prime of life of a broken heart,” evidently caused by her royal husband's desertion of her. George the Third was perfectly cognizant of his brother c.u.mberland's union with Olive Wilmot, and was therefore deeply indignant at his heartless behaviour; but as, according to another portion of the claimant's story, he had contracted a similar bigamous union himself, he was necessarily compelled to keep quiet about the occurrence. However, in order to compensate his little niece in some way for her loss of birthright, he not only allowed her putative parents five hundred pounds per annum for her support, but placed in their hands the following acknowledgment of her claims to royalty.
”George R.--We hereby are pleased to create Olive of c.u.mberland d.u.c.h.ess of Lancaster, and to grant our royal authority for Olive, our said niece, to bear and use the t.i.tle and arms of Lancaster, should she be in existence at the period of our royal demise.
”Given at our Palace of St. James's, May 17th, 1773.
”CHATHAM, ”J. DUNNING.”
When about seventeen this ”d.u.c.h.ess of Lancaster” _in petto_ came to London, and made the acquaintance of John Thomas Serres, proprietor of the Coburg Theatre, and son of a royal academician. Upon the 1st of September, 1792, this descendant of the sovereigns of England and Poland was married to Mr. Serres, but, as might be antic.i.p.ated, the union was not a very happy one, and in 1803 a separation took place.
Of the four children who were issue of this marriage, two daughters grew up, one of whom, Lavinia, born in 1797, remained with her mother, whilst the other went with her father. Mrs. Serres, who became an author and artist, and published a book to prove that the _Letters of Junius_ were written by Dr. James Wilmot, would appear to have been somewhat crazed, at least towards the latter part of her life. She a.s.sumed the t.i.tle of Princess of c.u.mberland, and brought up her daughter Lavinia in the belief that she was of royal lineage. Dr.
Wilmot, who died in 1807, at the advanced age of eighty-five, was supposed to have left his daughter the following remarkable doc.u.ment:--
”MY DEAR OLIVE,--As the undoubted heir of Augustus, King of Poland, your rights will find aid of the sovereigns that you are allied to by blood, should the family of your father act unjustly; but may the great Disposer of all things direct otherwise. The Princess of Poland, your grandmother, I made my lawful wife, and I do solemnly attest that you are the last of that ill.u.s.trious blood. May the Almighty guide you to all your distinctions of birth! Mine has been a life of trial, but not of crime!”
J. WILMOT.
”_January_ 1791.”
It was not until 1815, according to the evidence given by Mrs. Ryves at the trial, that her mother knew anything of her royal parentage, she having been brought up in the belief that she was the daughter of Robert Wilmot, Dr. Wilmot's brother. When the wonderful information was conveyed to her, through the instrumentality of the Earl of Warwick, she took the t.i.tle of Princess, and, so said the witness, was even acknowledged by the Duke of Kent and other members of the royal family as a relative. The Duke of Kent, so it was alleged, even granted to the _soi disant_ princess one-third of his Canadian estates, binding himself, his heirs, and executors to a solemn observance of the covenant, and promised to see her reinstated in her royal rights. In 1818 he further bound himself, his heirs, executors, and a.s.signs (according to the claimant's story), to pay the Princess Olive an annuity of four hundred pounds; and this annuity, so it was averred, was duly paid until the Duke's demise, after which event it was not continued. Indeed, such trust did the Duke of Kent repose in the ”Princess Olive,” if the doc.u.ments produced might be relied on, that he const.i.tuted her guardian of his daughter Alexandrina (our present Majesty), and directress of her education, on account of her relations.h.i.+p, and because the d.u.c.h.ess of Kent was not familiar with English modes of education. Out of respect for a mother's feelings, the ”Princess Olive,” as her daughter explained, did not attempt to execute this desire of her deceased cousin of Kent.
So thoroughly were the ”Princess Olive's” royal claims ventilated that, it is averred, she was entertained at the civic banquet at the Guildhall, on the 9th of November, 1820, and permitted, or invited, by the Lord Mayor (Alderman Thorpe), to occupy one of the seats usually a.s.signed to members of the royal family. In 1834 the putative princess, otherwise Mrs. Serres, died, leaving her claims as an inheritance to her daughter Lavinia Jannetta Horton, then the wife of Mr. Anthony Thomas Ryves, and the mother of several children. The personal appearance of Mrs. Ryves, so believers in her claims a.s.serted, was greatly in favour of her alleged descent from the royal family; but, unfortunately for her pretensions, neither judge nor jury would admit such supposed resemblance as evidence.