A MEDIEVAL POTPOURRI

Westminster Hall venue of the King Richard III and Queen Anne Neville’s Coronation Feast.

Queen Anne and King Richard from the Rous Roll.  Anne is wearing the Crown of Queen Edith and Richard wears the Crown of St Edward. 

And so dear reader, on the 6 July 1483 Richard and Anne were crowned in a double coronation in Westminster Abbey.  This was the first double coronation since that of Edward II and Isabella of France on the  25th February 1308.   We do not know for sure but let us hope the sun shone for them that day – it was July  after all.  Proceeding slowly back to the Great Hall of the Palace of Westminster from whence they had started out, the newly crowned couple  ‘toke their chambres‘ and at four o’clock after a short  rest Richard and Anne returned to the Great Hall and were seated, the Queen on the king’s left hand side,  at the marble table on the great dais at the southern end.

Westminster Hall looking towards the area where the dais and the kings table stood.

The massive hammer beam roof seen from the dais looking northwards towards the doors.

The north end of the hall and the entrance from a 19th century painting

In the interim while they were resting in their ‘chambres‘   John Howard,  newly created Duke of Norfolk to right a shabby act of Edward IV’s administration, had ridden his  horse, which was ‘traped in clothe of gold down to the grounde‘,  through the great doors and so he rode about ‘voiding the people saving only the kinges servants and the Duke of Buckingham‘  – as you do.  Following on from this all the guests sat down in their allotted  places at four long bordes (tables) stretching the length of the hall which must have been a bit of a nightmare for those whose job it was to guide everyone to their correct seats.    All had gone well and now was time for the feasting to begin interrupted only by the Kinges Champion, Sir Robert Dimmoke,  who wearing white harness,  came into the hall mounted on his horse which was ‘traped in white silke and redde downe to the grounde‘ declaring if there were any man in the hall ‘that will saye the contrary why that King Richarde shulde not pretend and have the crowne‘  he should say so now.  After drinking ‘a cope wythe wine coverid‘ Sir Robert left the hall the way he had arrived, on horseback and clutching the ‘cope‘ which was payment for his ‘labor‘(1).   Buckingham wisely kept his mouth shut that day and thus survived if only for a short while.

And thus the feasting continued, the king being served on gold plate, the queen on gilt.

The following dishes were served after a ‘harold of armes proclaymyng the feast

Potage: Frumentie with venison and bruett Tuskayne

Viand comford riall Mamory riall Bief and Moton Fesaunt in Trayn’ Cignett rost Crane rost Capons of Halte grece in lymony Heronshew rost Gret carpe of venyson rost Grett luce in eger doulce Leche solace Fretor Robert riall Gret Flampaye riall Custard Edward plante A solitie A Cours Gely partied with a divice Viand blanc in barre Pecokes in his hakell and trapper Roo reversed in purpill Runers rost Betorr rost Partriche rost Pomes birt Scotwhlpes rost Rollettes of venison farced Gret Carpe and breme in foile Leche frument riall planted Frettour rosette and jasmine Tart burbonet bake Venison bake A sotiltie A cours Blaundsorr Nosewis in compost Venyson rost Telle in barre Langettes de lyre Pety chek in bolyen Egrettes rost Rabettes souker rost Quailes rost Briddes brauncher rost Freshe sturgeon with fennell Creves de ew doulche Leche viole and canell Frittour crispe Rosettes florished Oranges bake Quynces bake A sotilty For the lords and the ladyes in thall the same day att dyner Vyand riall Bief and multon Grene ges rost Capon rost Lardes de veale Pike in erblad Leche siper Fretor covert Custard riall A sotiltie A cours Viande blanc in barre Crane and heronshew Kidd endorred and lambe Roo reversed Chek in bolien Rabettes rost Sturgeon and crevz du doulce Leche caniell Close tart indorred Crismatories and oranges bake A sotelty For the commons Frumenty with venyson Bief and multon Capon Rost Bief rost Leche canell Custard

And so, in the summer evening,  the banquet  broke up by torch light,  having  taken so long, apparently because Richard talked a lot,  the third course was never served.   It was  the end of an unforgettable day and as the guests departed ‘wher yt lyked them best‘   they would have noticed the conduit in Westminster Yard that had been filled with a tun of red wine.  Perfect!  I  do wonder though  if anyone spared a  thought for the poor souls left to do the washing up!

I am greatly indebted to Anne Sutton and  Peter Hammond for the above information  I have gleaned from their marvellous book: The Coronation of Richard III – the Extant Documents.  A shortened version of the details of the Coronation can also be found in Richard III  The Road to Bosworth by the same authors.  

1. Sir Richard Dymmok also received crimson damask and spurs.  He  served in his family’s hereditary role as the sovereigns champion at Richard III, Henry VII and Henry VIII coronations.  Anne Sutton and Peter Hammond The Coronation of Richard III – the extant documents p.337.

19th century painting of the Henry VII Chapel by an unknown artist.  The entrance to the area where the urn stands is to the left of the tomb of Henry VII

Some thoughts on the mysterious bones contained in the urn in the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey thought by some to be those of the ‘missing princes’ :

Helen Maurer, in her wonderful article, Whodunnit: The Suspects in the Case  mentioned in the notes :

‘As for why the bones should have been discovered more or less where More said they would be, might it be profitable, if only in the interest of leaving no stone unturned, to forget about Richard, Henry and the late 15th century for the moment and concentrate upon  Charles II and the political pressures and perceived necessities of the 1670s.  Any takers?’

Maurer then went on to discuss this theory more deeply in her articles Bones in the Tower – Part 2 (1).

CHARLES II ‘THE MERRY MONARCH’.  Artist John Michael Wright, c.1660-1665.  National Portrait Gallery.

On reading the article, which was printed in the ‘Ricardian’ in March 1991, pp 2-22, I was intrigued by this theory which seems plausible and makes much more sense than the  ludicrous story given out by More.     A brief summary is given of Charles‘ reign and the problems he encountered at the time including ‘an abiding public mistrust and rejection of  anything that smacked of absolutism’, religious intolerance, a Parliament who controlled Charles’ pursestrings and a general mistrust of each other….’

As Maurer further points out:

‘As adjunct to these general observations it must be remembered that Charles was the son of a despised and executed monarch.  Experience made him wary.  Unable to  foresee the future, he could only know that tenure of the throne came without guarantees.  It should surprise no one that Charles became a master of dissimulation….with an overriding concern to preserve what he could of royal power, while ensuring the succession'(2).

It would seem that perhaps the ‘Merry Monarch‘ was not so merry after all!

The infamous urn – Westminster Abbey.

Having found this theory plausible and taking a look into Samuel Pepys Diary  – who of course wrote in great detail about those times being in the thick of things  – imagine my delight, and surprise,  when I came across  the entry dated the 25 March  1663 describing how that day Pepys was present in the chapel of  Whitehall Palace  – when the King was also  present –   when he heard a sermon by Dr Critton (Creighton).  Dr Critton –

 ‘told the king and ladies, plainly speaking of death and of skulls, how there is no difference, that nobody could tell that of the great Marius or Alexander from a pyoneer, nor, for all the pain the ladies take with their faces, he that should look into a charnel house should not distinguish which was Cleopatra’s or fair Rosamund’s or  Jane Shores (3).

Was this when the idea was first planted in Charles’ head – as well as the heads of those who were present at the time?   And later in 1674 was the ‘idea’ remembered when building work was being undertaken at the Tower of London and a staircase was being demolished and when an opportunity arose to get some bones and plant them.   Bones would have been obtainable with ease considering the numerous  charnel houses and plague pits that abounded at that time.     Furthermore the ‘discovery‘ of the bones was reported to Charles by Sir Thomas Critcheley, Master of the Ordnance , someone he was on friendly terms with and with whom he played tennis.  Maurer goes on to say ‘No doubt Critcheley’s report was verified by Charles’ chief surgeon Knight’.   Well, well, well – the plot thickens as they say.  But this also leads to the question why? 

In summary Maurer wrote:

‘Assessments of Charles’ character and of the situation in 1674 makes it high probable that the decision to commemorate these bones did not stem entirely from Charles’ mercy, as eventually inscribed upon the urn.  The inurnment was a political act, fraught with a political message for Charles’ own time.  This view is strongly supported by the manner in which it was accomplished.  The carelessness with which the remains were interred along with the bones of other animals, including chicken and fish and 3 rusty nails is striking evidence that the chief concern at the time was not reverent burial but the political statement made by a display of the urn.  It did not matter whose bones were placed in it, or whether they were all the same bones found in 1674 or even human bones, so long as something was put in it to be visibly commemorated’.

Samuel Pepys.  Artist John Hayles.  Pepys was Secretary to the Admiralty under King Charles, MP, Diarist and a personal friend to James duke of York, later James II.

If this is indeed what happened and whether Pepys himself had a hand in it – he was indeed on very friendly terms with Charles’ brother James duke of York, visiting him at the duke’s home on numerous  occasions according to his diary – is a matter of speculation.  Did someone recall the old sermon preached on that day in 1663 suggestive, basically, that the bones of royal children would be non discernible from the bones of a beggars children?  And was it used to demonstrate to the people that this fate is one that can easily befall disposed monarchs – and was this something to be desired?  Frustratingly Pepys stopped writing his Diary in 1669 and the bones not being ‘discovered’ until 1674 he made no entry pertaining to it.  It also begs the further question, if this speculation was correct, would he have ever written about it anyway?   However Pepys wrote his diary in shorthand and possibly he never intended it to come into the public domain.  But it remains a tantalising thought that if only Pepys had continued with his diaries for just a while longer one of the most enduring mysteries of all time may never have arisen.

James II as painted by Lely.  James was a personal friend to Samuel Pepys.  His reign was also troubled resulting in him being replaced by his daughter Mary.  

1.Whodunit The Suspects in the Case Helen Maurer note 30.

2.  Bones in the Tower Part 2 Helen Maurer Ricardian p10

3.  Pepys Diary Chapter 4 March 25 1663

Reconstruction of a Medieval Painting from St Stephens Chapel. Possibly Queen Philippa with her daughter.  Ernest William Tristram c.1927.   Worked from original drawings made by the antiquarian Richard Smirke 1800-1811 before the fire of 1834. Society of Antiquities.   Parliamentary Art Collection

St Stephen’s was the medieval royal chapel of the Kings and Queens of England and part of the old Palace of Westminster.  What a jewel in England’s crown and what a loss.  Destroyed by a fire in 1834 that also destroyed what was left of the old palace, which had already lost its royal apartments in a fire in the 1530s.  King Stephen is said to have built the original chapel, first mentioned in the reign of King John 1199-1216, with Edward lst beginning a major refurbishment in 1292.  The architect was Michael of Canterbury who also designed the beautiful Eleanor Crosses.   On two levels the rebuild took over 70 years to complete which seems to have been because of the ebb and flow of the finances of the first three Edwards.     The top level was for the use of the Royal Family and a door south of the altar  lead to the royal apartments.  It must have been a sight to behold…with it ceiling painted in azure and  thousands of stars of gold.  The lower chapel,  darker because it was slightly below ground level,   was known as St Mary Undercroft,  and after being used for numerous purposes over the centuries , including some say Cromwell stabling his horses there,  has  managed to survive to this very day and  back to its original use, that of a chapel.

Kings and queens who happened to die while residing in Westminster Palace were taken to the chapel to lie in repose.  Among those to lie there before their burial, usually in the Abbey, was the ‘seemly, amiable and beauteous’ Queen Anne Neville, daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker and consort to King Richard III (1).  On a happier note St Stephen’s may also have been where their wedding took place.  Several royal weddings did take place there for certain including that of Richard II and Anne of Bohemia and also Edward IV’s youngest son Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbray.   Anne was only 4 years old at the time, the groom being even younger at 3, and Richard Duke of Gloucester led Anne by the hand into the chapel.

The chapel was dissolved at the Reformation in the time of Edward VI and thereafter it became the first permanent home of the House of Commons.  Certain abuses of the Chapel begun from then on including the removal of the beautiful soaring upper celestery by Wren.  The final fire took hold at around 6 pm. on the evening of 16th October 1834.  The final destruction by  fire  begun with  the burning of two cartloads of wooden tally ‘Exchequer’ sticks which caused  a furnace  to overheat.

Upon Westminster Hall.  George Scharf.   The intrepid Mr Scharf made this painting over four days after climbing on to Westminster Hall’s roof for a better view of the destruction of the chapel and palace.. 

Warnings of the danger of fire had been ignored by a ‘senile housekeeper and a careless Clerk to the Works’  leading to the Prime Minister to declare the disaster was one of the ‘greatest instances of stupidity on record’.  During the course of the conflagration medieval paintings and decorations that had been hidden over the centuries were once again revealed and gawping crowds flocked to see them.

Wooden tally or Exchequer sticks. The burning of two cartloads of these caused a chimney to overheat which led to the destruction of Westminster Palace including St Stephen’s hall.

We are very fortunate that 30 years prior to the disaster life sized copies were made of the most important medieval paintings,  which would have been to the east of the chapel where the alter was,   while the chapel was being renovated by an antiquarian Richard Smirke.  The art historian and conservator, Ernest William Tristram (1881-1952) meticulously reconstructed Smirke’s drawing in a collection of 20 paintings.  The British Museum now holds fragments from the paintings and decorations salvaged from the fire and from them can be gleaned an impression of the quality and beauty of the lost works.

The new building, now called St Stephen’s Hall, was rebuilt in Neo Gothic style on the footprint of the old Chapel carefully adhering to the same measurements, 95ft long and 30 ft wide.  Brass studs now mark where the Speaker’s Chair which in turn  would have marked the place where the high  alter once stood.

King Edward’s Sons.  Reconstruction of medieval wall painting St Stephen’s Chapel.  Ernest William Tristram.  Worked from the original drawings by Richard Smirke.  

King Edward and St George.  Ernest William Tristram.  Reproduction of medieval wall painting from St Stephen’s Chapel.  From the original drawing by Richard Smirke.  

Some of the 17 fragments of wall paintings salvaged from the fire and now in the British Museum.  All came from the east end of the north wall.

 

The smaller chapel on the lower level.  Known as St Mary Undercroft.  Survived the fire and is once again in use as a chapel. Watercolour by George Belton Moore.  

Another watercolour by George Belton Moore picturing a demolition of a doorway next to St Stephens.  Ive been unable to ascertain where this doorway was situated.    

The Ruined St Stephen’s from the East prior to demolition.   Parliamentary Art Collection.

I am indebted to Sir Roy Strong’s book Lost Treasures of Britain for some of the above information.

1. Rous Roll.  

COWGATE NORWICH, DAVID HODGSON c.1860.  WHITEFRIARS STOOD ON THE EASTERN SIDE BETWEEN THE CHURCH OF ST JAMES POCKTHORPE (SEEN ABOVE) AND THE RIVER A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY..NORWICH MUSEUM

On 30 June 1468, died Lady Eleanor Butler née Talbot.   Eleanor came from an illustrious family.  Her father was the great John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, her mother Margaret Beauchamp’s father was Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick.  Richard Neville Earl of Warwick, later known as ‘The Kingmaker’,  was her uncle by marriage.   Eleanor’s sister, Elizabeth, was to become the Duchess of Norfolk and the mother of Anne Mowbray, child bride to Richard of Shrewsbury, duke of York.  Eleanor was a childless widow, her husband, Sir Thomas Butler, heir to Ralph Butler, Lord Sudeley, having died around 1459 possibly of injuries sustained at the battle of Blore Heath (1)

It would seem that the young widow caught the eye of the even younger warrior king Edward IV, who fresh from leading the Yorkists to victory  at Towton and the overthrow of Henry VI,  found himself swiftly propelled onto the throne of England.  No doubt he was giddy with success because quite soon after having met Eleanor he married her in secret, an amazingly stupid action, and one which would come back to haunt him, as well as his bigamous wife Elizabeth Wydville, with all the subsequent and tragic  repercussions for his family.  See Titulus Regius for more information.  The relationship between Edward and Eleanor was doomed to be one of short duration,  the reasons for this being lost in time.  Much has been written on this subject and I would like to focus here on the Carmelite Friary known as Whitefriars, Norwich, where Eleanor was later to be buried.

Whitefriars had been founded in 1256 by Philip de Cowgate, son of Warin, a Norwich merchant who settled lands there upon William de Calthorpe ‘upon condition that the brethren of Mount Carmel should enter and dwell there without any molestation for ever and serve God therein‘.  Sadly much later Henry VIII was to have other ideas.  However returning to Philip de Cowgate.  Following the death of his wife,  the ageing Philip  ‘took upon him the Carmelite habit and entered the house of his own foundation‘ dying there in 1283.  The building of Whitefriars was completed about  1382 and so begun its long and interesting journey through history.  The notable persons being buried there are too numerous to mention as are the many benefactors but the various highs and lows make interesting reading.  Notable incidents include:

1272, 29 June:  ‘On the feast of St Peter and Paul in the early morning when the monks rise to say the first psalms, there was an earthquake.  The tower of Trinity church fell….’

Further problems for the friary occurred later on that year –

1272, 11 August   ‘….the citizens of the city attacked the monastery and burnt a large part of the building’

1450  John Kenninghale built a ‘spacious new library’

1452 A group of people begun to cause disturbances in the neighbourhood:

‘Item xl of the same felechep came rydyng to Norwich jakked and salettyd with bowys and arwys, byllys, gleves , un Maundy Thursday, and that day aftyr none when service was doo, they, in like wise arrayid, wold have brake up the Whyte Freris dores, where seying that they came to here evensong, howbeit, they made her avant in town they shuld have sum men owt of town’. However ’the Mayer and alderman with gret multitude of peple assembled and thereupon the seyd felischep departid’.  (Paston Letters, ii, 268)

1468, July – Lady Eleanor Butler, née Talbot,  daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury and sister to the Duchess of Norfolk, born c.1436 died 30 June 1468 was buried in the friary.

1479 – ‘The great pestelence in Norwich’

1480 – ‘The great earthquake upon St Thomas nyght in the moneth of July’  Calendar of Charters and Rolls preserved in the Bodleian Library, ed. William H. Turner, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1878)

1485 – King Richard III confirmed all the houses, lands and privileges of the Carmelites.  Could this be connected to the burial of Eleanor – his sister in law – in that place?

1488/9 – ‘In the langable rental of the fourth of Henry the seventh, these friars are charged two-pence half-penny for divers tenements which they had purchased’.

1538, 2I September – The duke of Norfolk wrote to Thomas Cromwell ‘intended yesterday to have ridden to Norwich to take surrender of the Grey Friars, but was ill and so sent his son of Surrey and others of his council who have taken the surrender and left the Dukes servants in charge.  Thinks the other two friars should be enjoined to make no more waste.  The Black Friars have sold their greatest bell’.

1538 September – ‘The house of friars (Whitefriars) have no substance of lead save only some of them have small gutters’

1538 7 October –  Letter from the Duke of Norfolk to Thomas Cromwell – ‘The White and Black Friars of Norwich presented a bill, enclosed, for Norfolk to take the surrender of their houses, saying the alms of the country was so little they could no longer live.   Promised ‘by this day sevennight’ to let them know the kings pleasure: begs to know what to do and what to give them.  They are very poor wretches and he gave the worst of the Grey Friars 20s for a raiment, it was a pity these should have less’(2)

The Friary was finally dissolved in 1542 and its lease granted to Richard Andrews and Leonard Chamberlain.  Shortly after which the land was then divided into many different ownerships.  The rest is history….

But back to the present – in 1904 foundations were discovered and in 1920 six pieces of window tracery were found and built into a wall at Factory Yard.  These unfortunately were  cleared away and lost  when Jarrolds, the printers,  extended their works.  Thanks to the intrepid George Plunkett who took photographs of old Norwich between 1930- 2006 we can see this tracery before it disappeared forever.Whitefriars Cowgate Factory Yard tracery.  Photographed in 1937 by George Plunkett.

Mr Plunkett also took photos of the now famous Gothic arch as it was in 1961 after it had recently been opened out.  Sadly he reported that ‘a dilapidated flint wall adjoining the bridge was taken down as not worth preserving – a modern tablet identified it as having once belonged to the anchorage attached to the friary’ (3).

The flint wall before demolition – photograph by George Plunkett c1939

Whitefriars Cowgate friary doorway west side uncovered in 1961.  Stood adjacent to the anchorage.  Photograph by George Plunkett

Whitefriars Cowgate friary doorway East side 1988.  Photograph by George Plunkett.

Up to date views of the friary doorway.  With many thanks to Dave Barlow for permission to use his beautiful photos….

All that remains above ground on the site of the the once magnificent Whitefriars – photos courtesy of Dave Barlow

However….

THE ARMINGHALL ARCH

An important Whitefriars relic, no longer in its original position, survived and went on to become known as the Arminghall Arch.  This 14th century arch has experienced a number of moves since it was taken down during the Dissolution.  It was first of all erected at Arminghall Old Hall. There it remained until the Hall was also demolished.  It was then acquired by Russell Colman who transferred it to his grounds at Crown Point.  From there it has now finally been installed at Norwich Magistrates Court, just across the bridge from its original position.  It was through this arch that the funeral cortege of Lady Eleanor would have passed in 1468.

‘ARMINGHALL OLD ARCH’ 14th century arch removed from Whitefriars at the time of the Dissolution. Now in Norwich Magistrates Court. 

Such is progress……

For those who wish to delver further into Lady Eleanor’s story the late John Ashdown-Hill’s Eleanor the Secret Queen – the Woman who put Richard III on the Throne is recommended.

l) The Secret Queen, Eleanor Talbot p74 John Ashdown Hill

2) The Medieval Carmelite Priory at Norwich, A Chronology Richard Copsey, O. Carm.

3) George Plunkett’s website, particularly this map.

King Richard III and Queen Anne Neville wearing the crowns of Edward the Confessor and Queen Edith.  The Rous Roll.

Edward IV and his consort Elizabeth Wydeville wearing the crowns of  Edward the Confessor and Queen Edith.  Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers.  Lambeth Palace.  

The first Coronation Crowns,  known as the crowns of  Edward the Confessor – one of the last Anglo Saxon kings –  and his wife Queen Edith were made sometime in the IIth century for the king’s coronation in his newly built Church of St Peter, now known as Westminster Abbey on what was then Thorney Island.    We know that Queen Edith’s crown was valued at £16 and was made of  ‘Siluer gilt Enriched with Garnetts foule pearle Saphires and some odd stones’.   Edward the Confessor’s crown was described as a ‘crowne of gould wyer worke sett with slight stones and two little bells’.   Henceforth they were worn by every following king and queen at their coronations, excluding Edward V and Jane Grey both of whom were of course never crowned,  until their destruction by the Parliamentarians after the execution of Charles Ist when a demand was sent to the Clerk of the Jewel House to surrender the state regalia.  This was pluckily ignored.  However eventually the Trustees of  Parliament took it upon themselves to break into the Jewel House upon which they took away three crowns, 2 sceptres, bracelets, a globe ‘and secured all other things’ .    An order was then given that this regalia was to be  ‘totallie broken and defaced’ and then used for coin.     It’s hard to find an absolutely accurate depiction of this lost regalia as various kings may have made alterations, repairs and added bits and pieces over the centuries.   Having said that we have a  very good idea from various depictions that have come down to us including the Rous roll,  the Beauchamp Pageant, the Royal Window at Canterbury Cathedral and a carving of Henry V being crowned in his chantry chapel at Westminster Abbey.

s 

King Richard wearing the Crown of St Edward the Confessor, Rous Roll.

Edward IV’S portrait in the Royal Window at Canterbury Cathedral wearing the Coronation Crown of St Edward.

Queen Anne Neville from the Rous Roll wearing Queen Edith’s crown..

Another depiction of Queen Anne Neville wearing Queen Edith’s crown from the Beauchamp Pageant..

King Richard III wearing the crown of Edward the Confessor.  The Beauchamp Pageant.

15th century carving of Henry V being crowned with Edward the Confessor’s crown.  Henry V Chantry Chapel, Westminster Abbey.

Artist’s impression of King Edward the Confessor’s crown drawn by Julian Rowe.  The Road to Bosworth Field.  P W Hammond and Anne E Sutton

Artist’s impression of Queen Edith’s crown.  Artist Julian Rowe

Queen Elizabeth Wydeville in her coronation robes wearing Queen Edith’s crown. the Worshipful Company of Skinners

Upon the restoration new crowns were made for Charles II’s coronation in 1661 by Robert Vyner including a new Coronation Crown.  This crown sometimes gets confused with the Imperial State Crown.  It should be remembered that the Coronation Crown is only used for coronations and thus does not get many outings.   The Imperial State crown is the one the present monarch wears for the State Opening of Parliament –  the one in use today was made  comparatively recently in 1937.   It has a most exquisite survivor from the Middle Ages – the Black Princes Ruby –  which is not actually a ruby but a large irregular cabochon red spinel.  This stone has an astonishing history which is hard to verify  and  I will go into here only briefly but suffice to say it did indeed belong to  Edward the Black Prince.  It then passed to Henry V who was said to have worn it on his helmet at Agincourt.  It has also been said  that it was worn by King Richard III in the crown that was lost at Bosworth and legend says was found under a hawthorn bush by William Stanley.

The red cabochon known as the Black Princes Ruby – a medieval survivor and now worn in the modern State Crown.

Besides the two royal crowns, much, much more was lost.  Described by Sir Roy Strong  as a ‘treasure trove of medieval goldsmith work‘ there were  ‘Several ancient sceptres and staffs, two with doves on top and one with a fleur-de-lis of silver gilt and an ampulla which contained the holy oil for anointing listed as ‘A doue (actually an eagle) of gould set with stones and pearle‘    There were also ancient medieval royal robes worn by the king before the crowning and an ‘old Combe of Horne‘ probably of Anglo Saxon origin and used to comb the kings hair after the anointing listed as ‘worth nothing‘ .  A total of nine items were sold to a Mr Humphrey for £5 in November 1649 (1).

I’ll leave the last word on this tragic part of  British history to Sir Edward Walker, Garter of Arms who wrote his report in 1660.

‘And because through the Rapine of the late vnhappy times, all the Royall Ornaments and Regalia heretofore preserved from age to age in the Treasury of the the Church of Westminster, were taken away, sold and destroyed,  the Committee mert divers times, not only to direct the remaking such Royal Ornaments and Regalia, but even to setle the form and fashion of each particular’ (2)

1) Lost Treasures of Britain Roy Strong p124

2) Ibid p125

If you have enjoyed this post you might also like:

MEDIEVAL POSY RINGS – GIVEN WITH LOVE…

THE MYSTERIOUS CHEAPSIDE HOARD, DISCOVERY AND FURTHER ADVENTURES….

ANOTHER PRECIOUS FIND TO ADD TO THE MIDDLEHAM JEWEL AND RING..

CROSSRAIL – A PORTAL INTO MEDIEVAL LONDON

JOHN HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK – HIS WEDDING GIFTS TO MARGARET CHEDWORTH

The effigies of Joan Neville and her husband William Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel. 

On a recent visit to the Fitzalan Chapel, Arundel, I stood transfixed at Joan Neville’s beautiful monument.  Carved from Caen stone.  Joan’s effigy lies next to that of her husband, William Fitzalan Earl of Arundel (1417-1489).  Her head turned toward him, she gazes serenely at him, but whether that is artistic licence by the artist who carved her monument, hennins and coronets such as Joan’s being difficult to represent in stone, or because it was requested by her husband we shall never know.

Joan’s headdress, Yorkist necklace and the cushion still retain much of the original colouring as well as embossed wax..

The fact that the effigies were out of sight of man for many years  – until 1981 when they were moved and restored  –  helped preserve them to a great  extent,  Joan’s still having retained traces of original colouring – red, gold gilding and embossed wax on her headdress, surcote and robes.  We can only guess that when they first made they must have ‘stunned viewers with their magnificence'(1)

Note the wonderful detail of Joan’s cuff, her girdle, necklace and surcoat.  

Joan and William’s effigies now  in their glass case….Joans feet resting on a griffin.

Joan Neville, future countess of Arundel,  born  before 2 November 1424  and dying about the 9th September 1462 was the eldest  of six sisters to  Richard Neville who became known as Warwick the Kingmaker and one of 12 siblings.   Her parents Richard Earl of  Salisbury and Alice Montacute,  as was the custom of the day arranged marriages for all of their daughters while they were still children and Joan was duly  married to William Fitzalan about 1438 when she was  14.  However her first son was not born until 1450 with a further 5 children to follow.    Their marriage was to endure 24 years and William  never remarried after her death.  Whether her death affected him or his own health was in decline  or perhaps for some other reason that eludes us,  Willam  certainly ceased to show any interest in anything political after her death.

The Fitzalan Chapel.  Joan and William’s tomb is to the right hand side.

The Chapel suffered greatly during the English Civil war and it is more than fortunate that the Fitzalan tombs and monuments have survived in such good condition.

Painting by Thomas Cane of the chapel  c1886. 

Of the aristocratic families  who lived during  those turbulent times few if any  escaped terrible and tragic  loss.   The Nevilles were no different and  although Joan did not live long enough  to see her brothers, Richard and John die at Barnet,  she had suffered the loss of  a brother, Thomas,  and her father, Salisbury,  during and after  the aftermath of Wakefield.   To find out more on Joan,  her five sisters and their husbands,   David Baldwin’s The Kingmaker’s Sisters can be recommended.

1. Sally Bedham Medieval Church and Churchyard Monuments p34.

If you enjoyed this you may also like:

The Six Sisters of Warwick The Kingmaker

William Stanley, Turncoat or Loyalist

William Lord Hastings

Elizabeth Wydeville, John Tiptoft and the Earl of Desmond

Interior view of the Henry VII Chapel by Giovanni Canaletto.  Henry’s tomb can be seen in the distance with the chapel housing the urn to the left.

Lawrence E Tanner Keeper of the Muniments (1926-66)  Librarian, Westminster Abbey

Who could blame anyone, after reading Tanner and Wright’s report of their investigation into the infamous bones in the even more infamous urn in the Henry VII Chapel in Westminster Abbey,  for concluding that both the gentleman may have concluded the bones in the urn were, indeed, those of Edward’s IV’s sons, Edward Prince of Wales, later Edward V for a short while, and Richard of Shrewsbury, duke of York.  Tanner was Keeper of the Muniments and Librarian of Westminster Abbey while Wright was a distinguished anatomist and president of the Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland.  Wright was assisted throughout the investigation by Dr George Northcroft, a dental surgeon of wide experience especially in the dentition of children.

Tanner explains in his book – Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary –  that in July, 1933,  in an attempt to solve the questions and allegations that the urn was either empty or contained animal bones and not human bones,  the then Dean of Westminster, Dr Foxley Norris, although not without ‘considerable hesitation’,  determined to have the urn opened.  This was done on the evening of 5 July by the Clerk of the Works and the urn then covered with a white tablecloth until the next day.  At 9 a.m. on July 6 1933 , with various dignitaries present,  the cloth was removed, and voila! the urn was to be seen full of bones.  On the examination commencing  ‘it soon became apparent that these bones were those of two children of about the right age for the Princes.    Parts of two skulls, two jawbones, two thigh bones were seen to be there and the thigh bones when placed side by side, demonstrated  that one was longer than the other‘(1).  It was then decided that the matter ought to be pursued further and the chapel was closed so that Prof Wright, aided by Dr Northcroft, could work there undisturbed.  Lawrence Tanner was entrusted with the ‘historical’ side of the investigation, that of determining the ages of the ‘princes’.  

The infamous Urn designed by Sir Christopher Wren to contain the bones of the two children

It would seem that Prof Wright was on something of a roll, as they say, concluding that from the evidence he saw,  the bones were those of children of the same age as the princes and, besides that, he had ‘no doubt’  that the red/brown stain on the face of elder child ‘was a blood stain such as would have been caused by suffocation,  which is well known to be associated with intense congestion of the face’ which of course corresponds to the traditional account of the murders (2).  Before long Prof Wright is addressing the bones as Edward and Richard!  He opined ‘As to what happened after their deaths no-one can say, but I imagine that when placed in the elm chest in which they were found, Edward lay at the bottom on his back with a slight tilt to the left, that Richard lay above him face to face, and that when the chest was discovered in the 17th century the workmen broke into it from above and near its middle.  I am led to these conclusions from the fact that there was far more of Edward’s skeleton present than that of Richard’s, since presumably lying deeper it was less disturbed…ribs..no less than six have been found, and that of these,  three were of the left side and belonged to Edward and three of the right side belonged to Richard…and that similarly only the left clavicle of Edward and the right clavicle of Richard were present, strongly suggesting that the left shoulder of Edward had been in close contact with the right shoulder of Richard…’  –  need I go on?

 Partial skulls of the two children in the Urn..

 Lower jaw of the younger child                          Lower jaw of the older child

Later in his book, Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary,  Tanner wrote:

“It will be noted that Prof Wright for convenience assumed that the bones were those of  ‘Edward’ and ‘Richard’.  This was perhaps unfortunate for it has led some people to suppose that we definitely identified the bone as those of the princes.  No such claim was made, and I was, in fact particularly careful in the paper which we read before the Society of Antiquaries to make no such indentification , and to adopt a cautious and ‘not proven’ attitude throughout’.

Furthermore Tanner, who lived to the ripe old age of 80, and whose ashes are buried in the  Islip chapel, Westminster Abbey,  lived long enough to be able to read Paul Murray Kendall’s biography of Richard and the conclusions drawn by that author,  that he had ascertained the opinions of various professionals and that  a) it was not possible to determine the sex of either child and b) that the stain on the skull was not a bloodstain.  Tanner, who was not without a sense of humour, seems to have kept an open mind on the whole,  although it does seem to have been mostly a toss up between Richard or Henry Tudor being the murderer – if there ever was one.   He quotes his friend,  Geoffrey H White,  who summed it  all up rather nicely when he remarked “that a strong case can be made out for either view if  the arguments on the other side are ignored”.

I would love to know  what Tanner would have thought if he  had survived long enough, he died in 1979,  to read Helen Maurer’s excellent article  “Whodunit: The Suspects in the Case” written in 1983,  in which she made the comment in her notes:

“As for why the bones should have been discovered more or less where More said they would be, it might be profitable, in the interests of leaving no stone unturned, to forget about Richard, Henry and the last 15th century for the time being and concentrate upon Charles II and the political pressure and perceived necessities of the 1670s.  Any takers?“.

Maurer also penned a follow up article Bones in the Tower – Part Two.   I’m sure this marvellous and remarkable gentleman would have been very, very intrigued in both these interesting articles.

(1) Lawrence Tanner Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary p153.

(2) Lawrence Tanner Recollections of a Westminster Antiquary p156

If you have enjoyed this article you might also like:

Cheyneygates, Westminster Abbey, Elizabeth Woodville’s Pied-à-terre

The Bones in the Urn again – A 17th Century Hoax?

DR JOHN ARGENTINE, PHYSICIAN TO THE PRINCES IN THE TOWER.

A Portrait of Edward V and Perhaps Even a Resting Place?- St Matthew’s Church Coldridge

EDWARD V – HIS LIFE PRIOR TO JUNE 1483

MARKENFIELD HALL – THE MARKENFIELD BROTHERS, THOMAS AND ROBERT

Austin Friars today.  This section of road covers part of  the perimeter of the Friary.    With thanks to Eric, Londonist. 

Austin Friars in London, was founded about 1260 by Humphrey de Bohun 2nd Earl of Hereford and Constable of England d.1275.   It was rebuilt in 1354 by Humphrey de Bohun d.1361, Humphrey’s great great grandson (keep up folks!)  6th Earl of Hereford, and Lord High Constable.   The friary covered a large area, about 5 acres and had a resident population at one time of about 60 friars.  It stood on the site of two earlier churches, St Olave Broad Street and St Peter le Poer, the latter was incorporated in the new church and formed the south aisle of the choir.  It must have been affluent being able to afford a new steeple in 1362 to replace the one badly damaged in a storm.

However it was not without its rather scary and unpleasant incidents.  In 1381 during the Peasants Revolt 13 Lombards were dragged from out of the church where they had been sheltering and lynched.  In 1386 a congregation of Lollards inflamed by a sermon,  given in the nearby church of St Christopher le Stocks, on the practices and privileges of Augustinian friars descended on Austin Friary.  The Friary was only saved in the nick of time by the intercession of the local sheriff from being totally destroyed by the mob.

The church stood in the centre of the friary precinct.  Adjoining the precinct was land that was used for rented ‘tenements’.  Some of these tenements must have been fairly grand as the tenants included notables such as Erasmus (who complained about the quality of the wine and left without paying his bill),  Eustace Chapuys and none other than Thomas Cromwell.  Oh the irony – Thomas living cheek by jowl with one of the religious orders  he so despised.  Anyway – as Cromwell rose to fame and fortune he acquired more land from the friary and built one of the largest private mansions in London.   Sometimes his methods to gain more land were not entirely ethical.  We know this because one of the people he rode roughshod over was none other than the father of John Stow who wrote ‘A Survey of London 1598′.  We can still feel the rising of Stow’s hackles over the centuries  as in writing his description of the Friary he added “on the south side and at the west end of this church many fair houses are built namely in  Throgmorton Street, one very large and spacious built,  in the place of old and small tenements by Thomas Cromwell.    This house being finished and having some  reasonable plot of ground left for a garden, he caused the pales of the gardens adjoining to the north part there off on a sudden to be taken down;  twenty-two feet to be measured fourth right into the north of every man’s ground,  a line there to be drawn, a trench to be cast,   a foundation laid and a high brick wall to be built. My father had a garden there and a house standing close to his south  pale; this house they loosed from the ground and bare upon rollers into my fathers garden twenty-two feet,  ere  my father herd thereof.  No warning was given him, nor other answer when he spake to the surveyors of that  work but that their master Sir Thomas commanded them to do so, no man durst go to argue the matter but each man lost his land and my father paid his whole rent which was  six shillings and sixpence for the year for that half which was left.   Thus much of my own knowledge have I thought good to note, that the sudden rising of some men causes them in some matters to forget themselves’.  Really Sir Thomas!   Stow born in 1525 and dying in 1605 at the grand age of 80 lived long enough to see the downfall of Cromwell.  He was described as ‘ a merry old man‘ and I wonder what his reaction was to the death of the man who had treated his dad so disgracefully

Austin Friars from the Copper Plate map c1550.  1.  The Church.  2.  Cloister.  3.  Cromwell’s Mansion.  4.  Gatehouse.  With thanks to online Wikipedia article

Stow made a list of the illustrious people buried in the church.  Among them were: 

Humphrey de Bohun, rebuilder of the church in 1354 and buried there in 1361 in the quire.

Edward son of Edward the Black Prince and his wife, Joan the Fair Maid of Kent.  Brother to Richard II.

Edward Stafford Duke of Buckingham executed 1521 – also in the quire

John de Vere 12 Earl of Oxford and thus son Aubrey; both executed in 1462 also in the quire

Sir William Tyrell, slain at Barnet 1471; in the nave.  Many of the notables slain at Barnet were buried here (1).

William Tyrell of Gipping executed 1462

Sir James Tyrell of Gipping, son of the above,  executed 1502

William Collingbourne  author of  the infamous doggerel ‘‘the catte, the ratte and Lovell our dogge rulyth all Englande under a hogge’   –  Executed, unsurprisingly,  in 1484; buried in the ‘west wing’?.

Sir Roger Clifford executed 1484

Sir Thomas Cook, he who was persecuted by the Woodvilles, in-laws to Edward IV.    Died 1478.

Disappointingly Stow did not mention Perkin Warbeck presumably because he did not have a monument.   It’s difficult to see who would have  come forward and paid for one to be made under the circumstances.   W E Hampton suggests the burial site may have been in what Stow calls the ‘West Wing’ which was probably a transept.  We can only speculate if after the many changes, upheaval, fires, bombs  and rebuilding the church has undergone,  that the remains of Warbeck and other burials have somehow survived and remain hidden in vaults, yet to be discovered at some distant future time.  Of course there always remains the miserable thought that he may have been buried outside the church in an unmarked grave.  An archaeological dig was made in 1910 in the area of the cemetery but the expected human remains were never found.  Had they been exhumed and disposed off long before?

Perkin Warbeck.  Pencil sketch c1560

John Stow author of A Survey of London Written in the year 1598.   His monument St Andrew Undershaft in the City of London.  A great debt is owed to Stow in his labours of making the Survey which tells us so much about a long lost London  

In 1540 the Bitch known as Karma finally caught up with Cromwell and he was executed, his great mansion seized by the crown – naturally – and sold off along with the friary precincts.  Most of the precincts was demolished but Cromwell’s  mansion became Drapers Hall.  Drapers Hall was destroyed in the destruction that was the Great Fire of London.  Rebuilt in 1667 it was once again badly damaged by fire in 1772.  It was  again rebuilt and later in the 19th century both the frontage and interior much altered twice.

Thomas Cromwell.  Getty Images

In 1550 the nave of the church was given by Edward VI to the local Dutch Protestant community to serve as their church,  the remaining part used for ‘stowage of corn, coal and other such things‘.  The Marquis of Winchester, who had inherited it from his father ‘sold the monumnets of noblemen there buried in great number, the paving stones and whatsoever, which cost many thousands, for one hundred pounds, and thereof made fair stabling for horses.  He caused the lead to be taken from the roofs and laid tile in place whereof, which exchange proved not so profitable as he looked for, but rather to his disadvantage’ ( 2)

A statue of St Augustine in Austin Friars.  A poignant reminder of the long gone Austin Friars.  T.Metcalfe 1989.  Photo thanks to Patrick Comerford.

View of Throgmorton Street today with Drapers Hall built on the site of Thomas Cromwell’s great London mansion.

The Dutch church survived the Great  Fire of London 1666 but was badly damaged by a fire in 1862 which seems to have destroyed the nave but left the exterior standing.  The church was then rebuilt, once again, in 1863 but totally destroyed in an air raid in 1940.  It was finally rebuilt yet again in 1950-56.

Undated photo of The Dutch Church Austin Friars – 14th century.  Taken from Broad Street.  British History online. 

The ruins of the Dutch Church Austin Friars after being bombed  1947.  A service is being held to mark the first anniversary to the German invasion of Holland.

The  Dutch Church newly built in the 1950s.

Plan of Austin Friars overlaid on modern street plan.

( 1) The Austin Friars article by W E Hampton, The Ricardian.

(2) A Survey of London Written in the year 1598 John Stow p163

If you have enjoyed this post you might also like

SIR JAMES TYRELL – CHILD KILLER OR PROVIDER OF A SAFE HOUSE ?

Lady Katherine Gordon – Wife to Perkin Warbeck

PERKIN WARBECK AND THE ASSAULTS ON THE GATES OF EXETER

JOHN HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK – HIS WEDDING GIFTS TO MARGARET CHEDWORTH

Katherine Plantagenet, her burial in St James Garlickhithe.

Richard Duke of Gloucester and Lady Anne, Edwin Austin Abbey, 1896.

It’s said a picture can paint a thousand words.  It certainly can but not always accurately.  It can distort the truth.  Art work based on the Ricardian period is certainly true of this.  Take for example the stunning painting, above,  by Edwin Austin Abbey, Richard Duke of Gloucester and the Lady Anne.

Here we have an angst ridden Anne, while a definitely humpbacked Gloucester offers her a ring.  It just makes you want to shout at the canvas ‘run, run Anne and don’t look back!’ although it should in fairness be remembered the painting is based on a scene from Shakespeare’s version of Richard III rather than the actual facts.

There have been numerous paintings of Richard of Shrewsbury being removed from his mother, a distressed looking Elizabeth Wydeville, and although for all I know Elizabeth may well have been distressed on that day,  it ain’t looking good for the ‘wicked uncle‘  with a small boy being wrestled away from a distraught mother is it?  Oh dearie me….

This painting is by Philip Calderon.  Young Richard of Shrewsbury gazes tenderly at his mother   while being yanked away by his arm by a portly gentleman in red – poor little blighter.

A couple of paintings of the ‘princes’ do stand out for me.  The beautiful one by Millais (he used his daughter as a model for one of the princes) where he has the boys, standing in a darkened stairway of the Tower (where,  to add poignancy to the scene, some believe their remains were found buried) clinging to each other while a dark shadow lurks ominously at the top of the stairs – Yikes!

The Princes in the Tower,  John Everett Millais 1878. The model for Richard  was Millais’ daughter…. 

Another one,  this time by Paul Delaroche –  King Edward V and the Duke of York in the Tower –  depicts the two young boys, gazing into the middle distance, unaware, hopefully,  of their impending doom, while their spaniel’s attention, tail between his legs, is drawn to the door.  These artists certainly knew how to twang on the old heart strings!  Great stuff but  maybe not very helpful to those trying to bring about positive perceptions of Richard’s character.

King Edward V and the Duke of York in the Tower, Paul Delaroche 1831. Wallace Collection.

Here below we have the brothers depicted much younger than they were to add to the pathos.  Richard  Duke of Gloucester gazes at them contemplating they are all that stand between him and the crown shown at the bottom right hand corner.  Hmmm…you can see his brain ticking over here..

The Meeting of Edward V and his Brother Richard Duke of York Contemplated by King Richard III.  Artist James Northcote @National Trust Images/Derrick E Witty

Here is another good one and has no doubt terrified many small children over the years as they  read their history books.  The two small cherubic princes sleep, cuddling each other, unaware of two ruddy great men, one clanking around in a suit of armour,  as you do when you want to creep up unaware to pounce on sleeping victims, just before the heinous act of smothering them to death – Yikes!

The Murder of the Princes.  Artist James Northcote @ National Trust images

The Arrest of Hastings 1871.  Sir John Gilbert.

I really do not like this painting at all.    A shortly to be executed Hastings, depicted rather younger than he actually was, looks aghast and shocked at an evil and hunchbacked Richard who is making his departure on the arm of a young and foppish man (Buckingham?).  As he sidles out of the door Richard glances back at the doomed Hastings,  his face a picture of malevolence and a  ‘take it outta that‘ look!   Truely a devil incarnate.  Did these painters ever stop to figure out how their version of Richard ever fitted into a suit of armour and fought unto death so bravely at Bosworth.  Still why let truth get in the way of great fiction.

But finally, one that is actually closer to the truth, from a mural in the Royal Exchange by the artist Sigismund Goetz, and one I can clearly remember, as a small child, from its inclusion in Cassell’s History of the English People.  I would gaze at it, not properly understanding what it actually represented, but nevertheless entranced.  It was not until years later that I could understand what was going on and who the people were in the painting.  A grave, noble,  and rather handsome humpless Duke of Gloucester being offered the Crown at Baynards Castle.  Beautiful ladies in butterfly headdresses look down at the scene from the top of the stairs….its Cicely and Anne!.  A rather frivolous looking young man, leaning nonchalantly against the stairs,  as an elderly man, almost hidden from sight, leans over and surreptitously whispers in his ear..ah!..tis Buckingham and Morton..meanwhile in the background Gloucester supporters , in harness, roar their approval.  Splendid stuff and about time too.

Mural in the Royal Exchange,  Offer of the Kingship to Richard Duke of Gloucester at Baynards Castle June 26 1483 , Sigismund Goetz

So at least one of these extremely gifted artists managed to get it right in terms of accuracy as to what actually happened.    What gifts for the art world but for the greater part, I do wonder if in the past,  these paintings have proved for some people  to be rather a hindrance for the rehabilitation of Richard’s character.

Illustration from Livre de chasse c.1387-1389.  Gaston Phébus,  Count de Foix 

It’s obvious from the amount of depictions of dogs from the medieval period they were highly prized by our ancestors, both for work and play. They are everywhere!  Their delightful little figures pop up on tombs, heraldry and manuscripts regularly.  When depicted on a tomb effigy of a lady especially, they are thought to represent fidelity.  Of course that seems plausible  but casting that aside,  I believe that often actual pets were being represented, and remembered,  unlike the lions, representing strength,  that were found at the feet of the effigies of males.  Indeed some of their names are on the tombs.  Lady Cassy’s little dog ‘Terri‘ was shown and named on her brass at Deerhurst, Gloucestershire and since the brass was commissioned by Lady Cassy after the death of her husband ‘it is likely that the name of the dog represents personal initiative on her part‘( 1 ).  Another dog named on an effigy at Ingham was “Jakke“.

Lady Cassy’s little dog, Terri, wearing a collar of bells.  Deerhurst, Gloucestershire.

Here is ‘Jakke’.  He lies at the foot of Sir Brian de Stapleton Holy Trinity Church Ingham Norfolk.  Rubbing of a stolen brass.   Photo jmc4 Church Explorer

Quite often the dogs on the monuments to their owners wore collars festooned with bells such as those on Bishop Langham’s tomb who opted for dogs instead of the usual lions found on a male’s tomb.  Richard Willoughly specifically requested that bells adorn the collar of the dog at the bottom of his wife’s gown on her effigy at Wollaton, Nottinghamshire.

Richard Willoughby specifically requested the dog at the bottom of his wife’s gown on her effigy to be adorned with bells.  Wollaton, Notts.

Blanche Mortimer’s effigy has a little dog, now sadly headless, peeping out from beneath  her spread gown on her tomb at Much Marcle, Herefordshire.

Blanche Mortimer’s s little dog, still with her on her monument.  Much Marcle, Herefordshire.  

And there they are, for all posterity at their mistresses and masters feet, looking for all the world as if they are about to roll over for a belly scratch at any moment.

Numerous dogs can be found on misericords  – this one on a leash from the Church of St Botolph, Boston, Lincolnshire, c.1390.  Photo @Spencer Means

January, from Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, 1413-16. Herman, Paul and Jean de Limbourg.  Note the white greyhound, wearing a wonderful collar, being hand fed and the two little white dogs allowed on the table to help themselves…

Lucky were the dogs that ended up living in a rich man’s household where they led the most pampered lives their diets better than the poor people.  John Bromyard, a 14th century preacher complained how the wealthy provided for their dogs ‘more readily than for the poor, more abundantly, and more delicately to, so that whereas the poor are so famished, they would greedily devour brown bread, dogs turned up their noses at the sight of wafer-bread, and spurn what is offered to them, trampling it under their feet. They must be offered the daintiest flesh, the first and choicest portion of every dish. If full, they refuse it then there is a wailing about them,  as though they were ill (2)’.  But hopefully even the poorest households valued their dogs or ‘mungrell curres‘  as a 13th century writer put it…  These loyal dogs, it was noted,  would rather die by the hand of a stranger in defending their master’s belongings that let them be stolen: ‘the mungrell curres, which serve to keep the bottles and bags, with vittell, of ditchers and hedgers will be sooner killed of a straunger than beaten off from their masters apparell and victuall’.

Detail from the Devonshire Hunting Tapestry showing a noble lady with her hunting dogs.

Hunting dogs were especially highly valued and it seems treated like pieces of Dresden china.   Their owners were given such advice as “alway bi nyght and bi day I wil þat some childe lye or be in þe kenel wiþ þe houndes for to kepe hem from fyghteng’ .  However if the worse come to worse there was also helpful advice on how to treat a wound that had been caused by a bite from another dog, to wit, an ointment made from leeks, garlick, chives and rue should be applied to the effected part (3).   Further advice, should you require more, was that the Kennelmen who looked after the dogs should be ‘gracious, very courteous, and gentle, loving dogs by nature… ‘ with helpful advice on how to build the correct type of kennel to ensure the dog’s well being and comfort:  ‘þe hidre door of þi kenel shuld alway be opyn by cause þat þe houndes may go withoute to play hem whan hem likeþ, for it is a grete likyng for þe houndes whan þei may goon in and out at here lust … And in þe kenel shuld be picched small stonys … in to þe nombre of vi stonys þat þe houndes myght pisse þeraȝenst; also a kenel shuld have a gootere or ii wherby al þe pisse of þe houndes and alle [oþer] waters may renne out þat noon abide in þe kenel … Also in þe kenel shuld be a chymene for to warme þe houndis, whan þei ben a cold or whan þei ben wete or for reyne or for passyng and swymmyng of reuers’ (4).

Hunting dogs and their various needs being tended to.  Gaston de Foix’s Book of the Hunt.  Gaston de Foix would later lose his life in a bear hunt.  

Guicennas, a German knight, explained how to raise a good ‘limer’ (tracking hound):  Be kind to him, and stroke his head gently, and then give him a piece of cheese – not over much, but a little at a time — and take care not to make him quest (after game) so as to tire him, but let him rest and show him that you are good and kind towards him … And whoever does as I have said will have a good limer.  Because of this medieval love of hunting hounds lists were drawn up of suitable names which have survived.   These names total to 1065 so you will excuse me if I just limit here to a few: Plumstede, Puffyne, Lufkyn, Mabbe, Nero, Perkyn, Alberte, Ector, Olyuere,  Offa, Persyvale, Pompeye, Rowlande, Romulus, Dygger, Merymowthe, Sable, Amyable, Cherefull, Plodder, Synfull, Lusty, Wrecche, Garlik, Juell, Nightingale, Merlyon, Florense, Tynker, Beste-of-all, Boy, Joliboye, Baby, Malaperte, Nedy, Pastey, Tullymully, Marmyn,  Mouse, Go-bifore and Go-hyhynde.

The full list of names can be found in David Scott-Macnabb’s excellent article The Names of All Manner of Hounds: A Unique Inventory in a Fifteenth Century Manuscript.  

Piero della Francesca – beautiful detail of dogs from St Sigismund and Sigismondo Pandolfo

Dogge eyeing up a cat from a 14th century manuscript..

Alaunt with a posh collar…

Perhaps we should leave the last word about medieval dogs and their modern counterparts to Gaston de Foix who lamented in his book that ‘the moost defaute of houndes is that thei lyven not longe inowe’?

The family pet was not left out in the wonderful The Arnolffini Portrait c.1434. Jan Van Eyck.  National Gallery London..

To read about Blanche Mortimer’s tomb click here.

1. English Church Monuments in the Middle Ages p307 Nigel Saul
2.  Dogs in Medieval Manuscripts p.39.  Kathleen Walker-Meikle.
3. The Master of Game. A translation by Edward Duke of York of Gaston Phoebus’ Livre de la chasse. 
4. Hunting Book of Gaston Phébus.  See The Names of all Manner of House: A Unique Investory in a Fifteenth Century Manuscript.  A paper by David Scott-Macnabb.

If you have enjoyed this post you might also like:

1. Ranulph Lord Dacre of Gilsland – The Lord who was buried with his horse.
2. A COLLECTION OF REVOLTING REMEDIES FROM THE MIDDLE AGES
3. THE RAVENS OF THE TOWER OF LONDON
4. THE MEDIEVAL BED – A PRIZED POSSESSION
5. RICHARD III, WHITE SURREY AND HIS OTHER HORSES