As for Lancastrian bias, York is presented as unrighteous and hypocritical in "2 Henry VI", and while Part 2 ends with Yorkist victories and the capture of Henry, Henry still appears "the upholder of right in the play". In "Richard III" in the long exchange between Clarence and the assassins we learn that not only Clarence but also implicitly the murderers and Edward IV himself consider Henry VI to have been their lawful sovereign. The Duchess of York's lament that her family "make war upon themselves, brother to brother, blood to blood, self against self" derives from Vergil and Hall's judgment that the York brothers paid the penalty for murdering King Henry and Prince Edward. In the later tetralogy Shakespeare clearly inclines towards the Lancaster myth. He makes no mention of Edmund Mortimer, Richard's heir, in "Richard II", an omission which strengthens the Lancastrian claim. The plan in "Henry IV" to divide the kingdom in three undermines Mortimer's credibility. The omission of Mortimer from "Henry V" was again quite deliberate: Shakespeare's Henry V has no doubt about his own claim. Rebellion is presented as unlawful and wasteful in the second tetralogy: as Blunt says to Hotspur, "out of limit and true rule / You stand against anointed majesty".