A MEDIEVAL POTPOURRI

Wythin thys Chappell lyethe beryed Anne Duchess of Exetur suster unto the noble kyng Edward the forte. And also the body of syr Thomas Sellynger knyght her husband which hathe funde within thys College a Chauntre with too prestys sy’gyng for eu’more. On whose soule god haue mercy. The wych Anne duchess dyed in the yere of oure lorde M Thowsande CCCCl xxv. 

Anne Duchess of Exeter and Sir Thomas St Ledger.  Etching of the memorial brass in the Rutland Chapel, St George’s Chapel.  Wenceslaus Holler 1667. National Portrait Gallery.

Anne of York (1439-1476) was born at Fotheringhay Castle on the 10 August 1439, the first born child of her parents,  Richard Duke of York and Cicely Neville after what one chronicler described as a ‘tyme of longe bareyness’. (1).  However from then on the York family nursery  would go on to burgeon and she would eventually have eleven siblings, six of which, plus  herself,  would make it to adulthood.  These siblings would eventually go on to become two kings, one earl, one duke and various duchesses.  The various histories of these siblings have been described elsewhere and I won’t go into them here except a mention of Anne’s pivotal role, with other female members of her family,  to bring George Duke of Clarence back into the fold after he had rebelled against his brother Edward IV in 1471. 

‘By right covert wayes and meanes were goode mediators, and mediatricis, the highe and myghty princis my Lady, theyr mothar; my lady of Exceter, my lady of Southfolke, theyre systars; my Lord Cardinall of Cantorbery; my Lord of Bathe; my Lord of Essex; and moste specially, my Lady of Bourgoigne…’ (2).  

The ties that bind were clearly at play here.

But we have come too far here and must backtrack to the 30 January 1446 when Anne then aged six would marry the fifteen year old Henry Holland (1430 -1475) in the Bishop of Ely’s Chapel in Hertfordshire (3).   Henry was born in the Tower of London on the 27th June 1430… ah the irony.  As was customary the small bride then moved into the household of the groom’s parents.  Thus John Holland,  Duke of Exeter (1395-1447) became Anne’s guardian.  It was probably an indication of the esteem that John Holland was held in that persuaded Richard Duke of York to pay 4500 marks for the marriage although of course Henry’s close connections to the House of Lancaster – a very close relative to Henry VI who was later to dangerously wander in and out of severe mental illness –  would also have been another strong motive.    Whatever the reasoning Richard coughed up 1500 marks on the wedding day followed by 1000 marks annually thereafter.  Henry’s wedding clothes were financed by his father but the rest of the costs of the wedding were covered by the bride’s father.  However John Holland was to maintain the couple until Henry’s 20th birthday.  These plans went awry upon Exeter’s death the following year whereupon the king granted York  ‘the keeping of Henry, son and heir of John, duke of Exeter, from the said John’s death’ (4).   It’s therefore fairly safe to assume that both Henry and Anne – now Duke and Duchess of Exeter –  from then on lived with her parents or in one of their households until they were both deemed old enough to have their own.  This should not lead us to conclude that Henry and his father-in-law would go on to enjoy a warm and convivial relationship.  Indeed it is difficult to see how Richard of York could warm to a son-in-law whose own father found untrustworthy.   Not only did John Holland have concerns regarding his son’s uncertain temper and conduct but there was also the fear that he might attempt to contravene his will (5).  It’s likely that Anne found herself between a rock and a hard place as no doubt she tried, with little success,  to play the part of peacemaker between her husband and her father. 

Anne’s father Richard Duke of York. Contemporary image from stained glass window at Trinity College, Cambridge.

Anne’s mother – Cicely Neville from the Luton Guild Book.

They would have one daughter, Anne Holland (c.1455-1474) who would be contracted to marry George Neville, infant son of John Neville, Earl of Northumberland, and who was male hair to Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick later known as the Kingmaker.  However the Duchess was persuaded by Queen Elizabeth Wydeville to renege on that agreement and instead consent to her young daughter marrying Thomas Grey later Marquis of Dorset,  the Queen’s son by her first marriage.  This marriage ,which would be childless,  took place in October 1466 but sadly Anne Holland was dead by February 1474.

Long before the death of their daughter Anne and Henry –  their marriage broken down –   had been living separately although the date of separation is unknown.  Indeed after the Lancastrian defeat at Towton on the 29 March 1461 Henry had exited England and joined Margaret of Anjou first in Scotland and later in France.  He was, of course,  attainted and Anne, by 1462,  was granted her husband’s goods and his ‘whole Exeter inheritance for life, Rochford and lands in Exeter, Hadleigh and Essex with a regrant of August 1467 giving the remainder to their daughter Anne Holland’ (here becomes clear Elizabeth Wydeville’s eagerness to gain the young Anne Holland for her son).   Anne initiated divorce proceedings on the 18 January 1471  when her husband was exiled and out of the country.  In his thesis on the Holland family Dr Michael Stansfield writes   ‘she may well have been fearful of her husband’s imminent return and his repossession of his estates; divorced, he would have no automatic hold over them. She was reafferming her Yorkist loyalties and her abhorrence of the Lancastrian cause her husband so fervently represented. A personal reversion to such an unamiable character as Henry must however also have been a major factor in Anne’s attempts to avoid being reunited with her husband (6). 

THE ‘DIVORCE’

As a result of the Canon Laws of the times Medieval divorce was only allowed in very rare circumstances and even then not as we know it today.   For example getting a divorce  did not allow the divorced couple to make second marriages.  So how did Anne manage to divorce her husband – no mean feat in those times? She went down the road of consanguinity which meant the marriage was annulled rather than a divorce taking place.  In other words the marriage had never existed.    As historian J L Laynesmith explains Anne’s ‘divorce’ from Essex ‘hinged on the absence of adequate papal dispensation as was usually the case in noble divorce suits.  Unsurprisingly it was eventually accepted that the dispensation provided at the time only covered her kinship to Henry Holland through her father. The couple were, of course, even more closely related through Cecily, since both were descended from John of Gaunt, and on these grounds Anne’s marriage was deemed never to have been valid (7). 

Dr Stansfield describes the process of this annulment in great detail: ‘After the initial appointment of proctors in the duke of Clarence’s London house, little progress was made in the divorce whilst Edward IV regained his kingdom. June 1471 saw the case begin in earnest, with Henry Holland now a prisoner in the Tower. Despite the impotence of his position, the case was to be no formality. Henry was summoned to appear at Lambeth on 19 June, where he found his old associate Hugn Payn amongst those present. The grounds for divorce were consanguinity in the fourth and fifth degrees, which required positive confirmation by several witnesses. Nine,eight men and one woman, were examined on behalf of Anne.  Each witness was asked the same set of questions to find out how long they had known the two parties, The examination of Anne’s witnesses had begun in July, with a break for August and September, and was completed in October.

Perhaps the crux of the matter was that she was basically Yorkist and he Lancastrian which were quite large hurdles to circumnavigate.  Casting that aside it must have been extremely difficult to feel warm and fuzzy towards the man who had played a role in the death of your father and younger brother which is indeed what took place at the battle of Wakefield on the 30 December 1460 where Anne’s father Richard of York and brother Edmund, Earl of Rutland,  were both slain.  Henry has beed described as ‘among those who had most vigorously resisted her rebel family’.  He appears to have been a disagreeable character prone to acting with  ‘unreasoning impetuosity’,  untrusted by his peers and  ‘even in such a violent age, his violence was ill-timed and excessive’ and whose actions ‘have left historians barely able to consider him as a serious political figure’.  I could go on but you get my drift?….

The reverse can be said of Anne who has been described ‘as having a careful apolitical approach like her mothers which similarly allowed her to weather the immediate storms’   Thus In June 1460 when a group of Lancastrians,  including Thomas Lord Scales,  took refuge in the Tower of London, where her husband was Constable,  she was able to provide a refuge for them from her brother, Edward without any consequences (9). 

After the shenanigans of the divorce had died down Henry still remained in the Tower until c. May 1475 when somehow or other we find him serving on Edward IV’s 1475 expedition to France.  It has been suggested that he had ‘volunteered’.   Unfortunately for him – still considered a major Lancastrian threat – this involved a journey by sea.  When you read this you immediately know ’tis not going to end well.  It was on the return journey that Henry ‘fell’ overboard and drowned.  Perhaps accidentally on purpose as they say.  The chronicler Fabyan opined superfluously  ‘but how he drowned, the certainty is not known‘ (10).  His body was discovered on a beach near Dover or in the sea between Dover and Calais depending on what version of events you are reading.   Rumour on the Continent had it that the sailors on board his ship had been given express orders by the king to chuck him into the briny.  Well it made a change from the barrel of Malmsey I suppose.  The Duchess of Exeter sadly only survived her ex-husband by a year.

Here we again need to backtrack here a little….   Not surprisingly,  due to the length of the separation between the warring couple,  Anne may have found love and support elsewhere – drumroll  –  step up Sir Thomas Leger!   Possibly the relationship between Anne and Thomas  (c.1444-1483) had begun prior to the annulment of her marriage.   Thomas seems to have been of a rumbustious nature – or perhaps he was just having a bad day – getting himself into hot water when in 1465  he had a punch-up within the precincts of Westminster Palace.  Punching someone’s lights out in the vicinity of the monarch was, obviously,  a grave breach of etiquette and seriously frowned upon.   John Tiptoft, Constable of England, not a man whose wrong side you wanted to get on having the patience of a bull elephant,  sentenced him to having a hand struck off – Yikes! Fortunately  the king pardoned his future brother in law.  And so, Dear Reader,  they were indeed married, at a date unknown to us, but sadly any happiness would be short lived when Anne died on 12 January 1476 at Ulcombe, Kent, a St Leger property, through complications in giving birth to their daughter, Anne St Leger  –  no doubt named after her mother –  who then became the Exeter heir.   Thomas never married again and after his wife’s death he would found a beautiful chantry chapel for her then known as the St Leger Chapel but now the Rutland Chapel in St George’s Chapel, Windsor.

The end for Thomas would follow shortly after the death of Edward IV in April 1483.  Besides becoming entrenched in Wydville plots – always a bad idea – he planned to marry his daughter, Anne St Leger,  to the son of Richard Grey, Elizabeth Wydevilles younger son by Sir John Grey (11).   He was captured at Exeter and although ransoms were offered,  Richard III was not in a benevolent frame of mind that day,  and perhaps particularly miffed by the disloyalty of a troublesome brother in law,  saw no reason to issue a pardon on his behalf.  Thomas was well and truly hoisted by his own petard and beheaded on or about the 8th November, another victim of the madness of the times later known as the Wars of the Roses. Following on from his execution and attainment and in one of the reversals which so often occurred with the swings and roundabouts of those tumultuous times,  his marriage to Anne was denounced in Parliament in 1484.    It was said to  have been ‘made by sedicious means’ her husband then beyng on lyve’. (12).   However both Thomas and Anne were beyond hurt by then and I think it is fitting they should be remembered by their marriage, which although short lived, was probably the happiest of times for both of them.  Certainly Thomas did not marry again and in founding a most beautiful Chantry Chapel dedicated to his late wife with  ‘too prestys sy’gyng for eu’more ‘ he ensured that she would long remain in peoples remembrance. 

THE EXETER INHERITANCE

If you have managed to stay with me up until this point you may be wondering what happened to the Exeter inheritance.  Following the deaths of both Anne and her Holland daughter as well as her husband the inheritance was eventually left for Edward IV to dispose off.  Of course there was a Wydeville at the receiving end – this goes without saying.  Acting in his usual arbitrarily fashion where inheritances were concerned – remember the Mowbray inheritance – Henry Holland’s nearest living relative, Ralph Neville,  nephew and heir to the second earl of Westmorland, and Henry’s nephew – was ‘blatantly ignored’.    The inheritance was handed to Edward’s younger stepson, Richard Grey and the heir of his elder stepson Thomas Grey.  However this injustice was put right when the Greys lost all after their reckless attempt to overthrow Richard III failed miserably and a chunk of the inheritance was given as reward to the Stanleys.  After the death of Richard in 1485, Henry VII would give the most of what was left of it to his mother, Margaret Beaufort.   And thus ended the once powerful Holland family and inheritance.  

Anne and Thomas’ daughter,  Anne St Leger would eventually  marry George Manners, Lord de Ros of Helmsley.  Together they would have a large brood of children…. but that is another story….

St George’s Chapel,  Windsor. Burial place of Edward IV, his sister Anne of York, Duchess of Essex and her husband Sir Thomas St Leger.

 1. The Dialogue at the Grave of Dame, Joan of Acre:  A poem written by one of the Austin Friars at Clare in Suffolk.  With thanks to the late John Ashdown-Hill for this information. 

2. The Historie of the Arrival of King Edward IV A.D 1471 p.10.  Editor John Bruce. 8 May 1838. 3. Cecily Duchess of York p.49. J L Laynesmith.

4. The Hollands, Dukes of Exeter, Earls of Kent and Huntingdon, 1352-1475  Dr Michael M.N. Stansfield. Corpus Christi College Oxford. Hilary 1987

4.  ibid.

5.  ibid.

6. ibid.

7. Cecily Duchess of York p.143. J L Laynesmith.

8. The Hollands, Dukes of Exeter, Earls of Kent and Huntingdon, 1352-1475  Dr Michael M.N. Stansfield. Corpus Christi College Oxford. Hilary 1987

9.  Cecily Duchess of York p.143. J L Laynesmith

10. Robert Fabyan. The new chronicles of England and France, in two parts, p. 66 

11. Richard III p.280. Paul Murray Kendall

13. Memorials of the Wars of the Roses p.18. W E Hampton.

If you enjoyed this post you might also like:

Marriage in Medieval London And Extricating Oneself Only You Couldnt;

The Sisters Neville & Isobel, Duchess of Clarence and Queen Anne Neville, Daughters to the Kingmaker.

THE SIX SISTERS OF WARWICK THE KINGMAKER

ANNE MOWBRAY DUCHESS OF NORFOLK. CHILD BRIDE OF RICHARD OF SHREWSBURY; ONE OF THE PRINCES IN THE TOWER & HER REBURIAL IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.

CECILIA BONVILLE, MARCHIONESS OF DORSET c.1460-1529; AN INTERESTING LIFE

CICELY PLANTAGENET; NOT SO FORTUNATE AS FAIR.

Could these images in Coldridge Church be of the same man? A young Edward V, an adult man whose face appears to show injury/disfigurement around the mouth/chin area and the face of the John Evans effigy which also seems to have a scarred chin? Photo thanks to John Dike, leader of the Missing Princes Project, Devon.

It was way back in 2020 that I was first alerted to what I now call the Coldridge Theory  by an article on the lovely Devon Churchland website.  Following on from that I researched further and wrote my first post on the theory which has now been viewed over three thousand times,  so I know that many of you reading this may already be familiar with the story.  Rather than scrolling away I would ask you to please bear with me.  In the course of my research I came across other links that strengthened the theory particularly the pivotal role of Sir Henry Bodrugan  to which I will return to later.  Now and again I come across people dismissing  the theory out of hand because, they insist, the princes disappeared on Richard’s watch ergo he must have murdered them despite there being not the slightest scintilla of evidence that such a crime was ever carried out.   Thus I find Coldridge in itself being dismissed without any further thought given, unfortunately,  to the other equally important links and participants that strengthen the theory – which although still unprovable – becomes at the least very plausible.    And here’s a thing – ironically when all the leads are considered the theory has more going for it than the tired old chestnuts still being trotted out that Richard was guilty of this atrocious crime or  if not murdered by him then they were done in by either Henry Tudor, who was not in the country at the time, or his mother, Margaret Beaufort,  which is equally absurd and unsupported but there you go.   Some people simply refuse to remove their head from the sand which is a great shame as just a small amount of research can uncover intriguing possibilities that the princes were murdered by no one but sent to places of safety.  An example of these blinkered and dated views is when you ask these naysayers what they think about the crucial role Sir Henry Bodrugan played in the story – no answer comes the stern reply.   It is for this reason that I’m now going to approach the theory from a different angle – this time in the date sequence that notable incidents  occurred – a reappraisal and fresh collation aimed at those who may know some but not all the story if you like.  I hope you will stick with me. So back we go to the beginning:

Dramatis Personae:

Sir Henry Bodrugan/Bodryngham  One of the most powerful men in Cornwall.  Popular with both Edward IV and Richard III.  Crucially one time owner of Coldridge Manor and Park –  granted to him by Richard in April 1484.

Thomas Grey,  Marquess of Dorset: Elizabeth Wydeville/Woodville’s eldest son by her first husband, Sir John Grey.  Thus half brother to Edward V.  Owner of both Coldridge and Gleaston Castle via his marriage to wealthy heiress Cecilia Bonville  Coldridge was confiscated from him in 1483 but returned in 1485 by Henry VII after Bosworth.

Edward V: Became king aged 12 on the death of his father Edward IV in April 1483.

Sir Robert Markenfield/Markynfeld: Loyal follower to King Richard III.  Sent to Coldridge on the 3 March  1484 two days after Richard swore an oath on the Ist March that neither Elizabeth Wydeville nor her daughters would be harmed if they came out of sanctuary and  thus the likely date she did indeed depart from the sanctuary with her daughters.   Sir Robert’s brother, Thomas, was also a loyal follower as well as personal friend to Richard III, and rewarded generously by the king for his services.

Cecilia Bonville: The wife of Thomas Grey.   A wealthy heiress and courtesy of his marriage to her,  Thomas became owner of both Coldridge and Gleaston Castle,  as well as numerous other properties.  Cecilia had wall to wall familial Yorkist links.

Elizabeth Wydeville/Woodville.  Edward IV’s queen.  Mother to two sons by her first marriage to Sir John Grey, Thomas and Richard,  two sons by Edward, Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury and several daughters including Elizabeth of York who went on to become Henry VII’ s queen.  After a royal council meeting in early February 1487 to discuss the rebellion led by the Yorkist leaders she was sent to live out the rest of her days in Bermondsey Abbey.

Elizabeth Wydeville’s portrait from the Royal Window, Canterbury Cathedral.

EVENTS

Atmospheric old photo of the archway leading out of Abbot’s court, where Cheyneygates stood, to the cloisters and outside world.  Elizabeth Wydville and her family would have walked through this arch during their stay at Cheyneygates. 

APRIL 1483 Edward IV died unexpectedly at his palace of Westminster.  His Queen, Elizabeth Wydeville, and her Wydeville family were immediately galvanised into action, attempting and failing to both gain control of the young Edward V,  who was at Ludlow at the time,  and to outmanoeuvre his uncle,  Richard of Gloucester before he could arrive in London to take control of the situation in his legal role as Lord Protector.  Upon their enterprise failing,  Elizabeth, her youngest son, ten year old Richard and his sisters,  along with her son by her first marriage, Thomas Grey,  beat a hasty retreat into the sanctuary of Cheyneygates, the Abbot’s luxurious house within the precincts of Westminster Abbey.  However it was not long before Thomas made his escape and joined Henry Tudor in Brittany.  It was at this point Coldridge was removed from the ownership of Thomas and granted to Sir Henry Bodrugan.   I will return to this later.   Elizabeth was later persuaded to allow Richard to join his brother Edward V,  who was by then staying in the royal apartments at the Tower of London.  Richard was later reported by Simon Stallworth, the Mayor, in a letter dated 21 June to William Stonor,  to be ‘blessid be Jhesus, mery‘  while it was also mentioned in the Great Chronicle of London the young brothers were both seen practicing their archery at the butts and ‘playing in the garden of the tower at sundry times‘ (1).  

However before the young Edward V could be crowned a ‘precontract’ was revealed – possibly by Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells.  This precontract was basically an earlier marriage that Edward IV had made with Lady Eleanor Butler, nee Talbot daughter of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, which, obviously,  left him unfree to marry anyone else.  The simple crux of the matter was the almost casual ease with which medieval marriages could be made with no need for priest or witnesses to be present.  All that it needed was for A to say to B  ‘I take thee B to be my wife’  and B to say to A ‘I take thee A to be my husband’ – consummate it and bingo! – you were wed.  Of course it was a good idea – especially if you were a king or marrying one, particularly Edward IV – to make sure you did  ensure you had witnesses and a priest present in case of later problems occurring.   Which they certainly did in this case.   The cat was out of the bag and basically Elizabeth was up the Swanee without a paddle –  the  children she had with Edward were, under the medieval Canon Law of the time, declared bastards and thus ineligible to succeed to the throne.    The Three Estates of the Realm having  ‘accepted the legality of Edward IV’s first marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler, and consequently, the bigamous nature of Edward’s subequent union with Elizabeth Wydeville’  petitioned Richard Duke of Gloucester, who was next in line, to take up the throne.  Richard accepted and was duly crowned King Richard III on 6 July 1483 (2)  For those who would like to delve further in this matter you will find it all in  TITULUS REGIUS. 

A wonderful artist’s impression of the offer of the Kingship to Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Baynards Castle by the Three Estates of the Realm.  Mural in the Royal Exchange.  Artist Sigismund Goetz. 

Soon after his coronation, perhaps too soon and before he had fully consolidated his position, the King with Queen Anne, left London, turning Northwards to go on a progress.  It was shortly after this an abortive attempt was made to ‘rescue’ the boys from the Tower.  This resulted in them, understandably, becoming more withdrawn from view until further sightings of them dried up altogether.   They simply disappeared.  This, perhaps not surprisingly,  led to rumours arising of their deaths,  although no bodies or graves were ever found, and no requiem masses performed for them either. We can safely dismiss the ludicrous and lurid story later penned by Sir Thomas More – who grew up in the household of Cardinal John Morton, Richard III’s nemesis,  which frankly,  only need be read if you are in need of a laugh.

Ist MARCH 1484.   Close to this date Richard and Elizabeth reached an agreement and on the Ist March Richard publicly swore an oath promising that if Elizabeth and her daughters were to leave sanctuary and her older daughters be placed in his care, he would ensure no harm would befall them and suitable marriages  be made for them.   This is therefore the most likely date for Elizabeth’s departure from the tedious confines of sanctuary at Cheyneygates.    She also wrote to Thomas Grey, at that time in France,  to return home:

‘By secret messengers she advised the marquise her soon,  who was at Parys, to forsake erle Henry and with all speede convenyent to returne into Enland, wher he showld be sure to be caulyd of the king unto highe promotion…’ (3). 

Are we really to believe that she left the safety of sanctuary and handed her daughters over to the very man who had murdered their young brothers as well as advise her eldest son to leave the safety of France to return to England ?  Really? Still onwards…

3 MARCH 1484.  Here enters the story Robert Markenfield.  Based in Yorkshire and from a family of high status who first begun their rise under Edward II,  Robert was a loyal and trusted follower of Richard III.   He was sent by the king southwards to Coldridge in Devon, the confiscated property of Thomas Grey,  now in royal hands but on the cusp of being granted to Sir Henry Bodrugan.   Coldridge has been variously described as a backwater, difficult to reach and  ‘a gritty little village in the boondocks of Devon’ (4).  Robert was made keeper of the deer park there. This is fact.  The question is why? 

‘Robert Markyngfeld/the keping of the park of Holrig in Devonshire during the kinges pleasure…’   Harleian Manuscript 433. 

During his time at Coldridge Robert became a friend to Sir John Speke who lived nearby and who would later get himself into trouble for supporting Perkin Warbeck.  Incidentally Speke was linked via marriage to Sir James Tyrell,  later executed for treason by Henry VII. Tyrell’s wife,  Anne Arundel had a  niece Alice,  who was Speke’s wife.   There is a family tradition that Tyrell provided a safe house where Elizabeth Wydeville stayed with some of her children after leaving sanctuary (5).  So that is yet another link for you Dear Reader…..   Following the Battle of Bosworth in August 1485, Coldridge was returned to Thomas Grey and far as I have been able to ascertain Robert moved to nearby Wembworthy where he lived out the remainder of his life.

We’ve now galloped a little forward in time here and need to  backtrack a little:

 4 APRIL 1484 but a few weeks after Robert Markingfield’s appointment as Parker at Coldridge,  Richard III granted Coldridge as well as a further slew of properties to Sir Henry Bodrugan (6).  He was clearly being handsomely awarded by the king as well as having his income increased.  Why?  A little of Sir Henry’s story should be told at this point.   Described as being a ‘lawless and rumbustious individual who was pardoned on at least four occasions between 1467 and 1480.  He and his associates seem to have terrorised Cornwall, breaking and entering, engaging in piracy, extracting and misappropriating money under cover of the King’s commission and corrupting wills.  His victims complained they could obtain no common law remedy against him ‘for if any person would sue the law against the said Henry  … or against any of his servants, anon they would should be murdered, slain and utterly robbed and despoiled of all their goods…’ (7).    Nevertheless on a more encouraging note he managed to leave behind him ‘a positive memory in Cornish tradition’ (8).  He was clearly one of those larger than life figures prone to often finding himself in hot water  – think a medieval Errol Flynn.  What’s not to like?  With ‘a propensity towards violence‘  – not considered a handicap in those turbulent times  – he was inclined to now and again go full tonto (9).  He was, nevertheless,  popular with both Edward IV and Richard III,  being knighted by the former on 18th April 1475 at Westminster on the occasion of his son, the then Prince Edward, being created Prince of Wales, and helping the latter in the Buckingham uprising.   It was during the uprising he had tried unsuccessfully  to hunt down and capture Sir Richard Edgecombe who managed to escape by the skin of teeth before joining Henry Tudor in Brittany (10). However, for us the most crucial part of Bodrugan’s story is the granting to him by Richard III of none other than Coldridge Manor and Park.  Well, well, well.  So to summarise at this point,  we have Coldridge formerly owned by Thomas Grey, Edward V’s half brother, now owned by one of Richard III’s loyal supporters, Sir Henry Bodrugan, with another of Richard’s supporters. Robert Markenfield, also there in the position of Parker.   For some reason the backwater that was Coldridge had become a hotbed of activity.

1485

We now move on to the aftermath of the Battle of Bosworth August 1485.  Richard III was dead,  Henry Tudor now king and Coldridge Manor and Park back again in the possession of Thomas Grey and his wife Cecilia Bonville. The next question is when Thomas Grey returned from France did he discover his half brother Edward, king for such a short while, ensconced at Coldridge incognito as John Evans?   If so it could hardly have come as a surprise as his mother would surely  have been informed by Richard III where he was sending Edward or perhaps even the decision had been reached by joint agreement.  It was certainly an ideal place with family connections and hidden away.  It’s about this time that John Evans first appears out of nowhere as resident at Coldridge where he would in the fullness of time hold the lucrative post of Parker of the deer park.  Despite the best efforts of the Missing Princes Project no trace of a John Evans who could be this John Evans has ever been found.

I486

Moving on, Henry,  having married Elizabeth of York on 18 January 1486,  now had a male heir, Arthur,  born in September 1486.  Elizabeth Wydeville, now mother of the Queen,  had some of her former glory and privileges returned to her.    She had also taken out a forty year lease on Cheyneygates, the sumptuous Abbot’s House at Westminster where she had lived with her family during the period of sanctuary.  She clearly liked it there – all is rosy!   However in February 1487 trouble looms and looms large.  Henry had got wind of rebellion…

PRINCE ARTHUR, b 1486. d. 1502.  HENRY VII’S HEIR.  WAS IT POSSIBLE ELIZABETH WYDEVILLE SOUGHT TO DISINHERIT HER GRANDSON IN ORDER TO REPLACE HIM WITH HER OWN SON, EDWARD V?

1487.  

In early February a royal council meeting was held at Sheen – a short time after ‘candell masse‘ –  where the rebellion that later became known,  quite erroneously,  as the Lambert Simnel Rebellion,  was discussed.  The meeting triggered an immediate tsunami of events beginning with the prompt exit of one of the participants,  John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, from England to join Francis Viscount Lovell in Flanders.  Lincoln’s departure coincided with a slew of arrests, attempted arrests and banishments –  

A.  Elizabeth Wydeville,  Henry’s mother-in-law was sent to live at Bermondsey Abbey.  She lost everything she had so recently regained and was never to leave, except for being wheeled out for one or two very rare outings,  dying there on the 8th June 1492 and according to her will quite, quite destitute.   We can discount her entry into Bermondsey of her own free will as she had recently – on the 10 July 1486  – taken out a 40 year lease on the sumptuous Cheyneygates, the Abbots House at Westminster (11).

B.  Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset, quelle surprise, was also caught up in the suspicions that were swirling around,  and was promptly despatched to the Tower of London, despite his loud protestations of innocence, for the duration of the rebellion.   After his release he clearly was never entirely trusted by the wily Henry VII ever again.  

C.  Bishop Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, the man who it is believed had informed Richard III about Edward IV’s first and legal marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler, was also arrested and imprisoned,  never to be released,  dying in 1491. 

D. Sir Henry Bodrugan and his son John Beaumont became fugitives after Henry VII sent Sir Richard Edgecombe to Bodrugan Barton, their home in Cornwall to arrest them. Both managed to escape by the skin of their teeth. I will return to this matter below.

This chain of events all begs the question why?  Why would Elizabeth Wydeville and Thomas risk absolutely everything for the sake of a fake child king or as was rumoured, Edward  of Warwick,  the young son of George Duke of Clarence,  who had been Elizabeth’s enemy? Surely if her sons by Edward IV were indeed dead it would have been more advantageous for Elizabeth to have at least a grandson, Arthur,  who would one day sit on the throne rather than rock the boat and have the son of Clarence take the throne? Why on earth would they throw it all away?  It makes no sense at all and frankly is the strongest indication that both she and Thomas knew at least one of her young princelings had survived.  Could it be they were both fully aware that the young John Evans living at Coldridge was in actual fact Edward V incognito who had been sent there as part of a deal struck between Elizabeth Wydeville and Richard III when she had agreed to leave sanctuary in March 1484? How could they not know seeing that Coldridge had been returned to Thomas?  

These links of the story now start to join up –

1. The royal council meeting at Sheen where the rebellion was discussed.  A French ambassador was also present – probably to wind everyone up……
2. The ‘retirement’ of Elizabeth Wydeville to Bermondsey Abbey.
3. Thomas Grey, then owner of Coldridge, sent to the Tower of London.
4. The arrest of Bishop Robert Stillington.
5. Sir Richard Edgecombe being sent to Cornwall to hunt down and arrest Sir Henry Bodrugan, who had only recently been the owner of Coldridge, and his son John Beaumont.

Bodrugan’s Leap.  It was from here that Sir Henry Bodrugan made his leap into the sea and into a waiting boat that carried him to safety from Sir Richard’s Edgecombe’s men.  He is said to have cursed them as he looked back – all very Errol Flynnish if you ask me…

Now we have reached what is the zenith of the story.  Backtracking to February 1487 and following on from the chain of events already mentioned above.    Bodrugan and his son Sir John Beaumont were accused of having ‘withdrawn themselves into private places in the counties of Devon and Cornwall and stir up sedition’ (12).  What shape could this ‘sedition’ have taken? Bodrugan’s bête noire, Sir Richard Edgecome, who had returned to England with Henry Tudor, was sent to Cornwall to arrest Bodrugan and Beaumont. With his own personal axe to grind how Edgecome must have relished that order! However Bodrugan managed to escape from the back entrance of his house at Bodrugan Barton making his way to nearby cliffs where beneath him a boat awaited.   He made one massive leap in the sea and clambered aboard the boat which then carried him to a waiting ship.   The place from where he took this leap is known today as Bodrugan’s Leap.  Where did he go? What did he do next?  This evades us until the next thing we know is that he rocks up in Dublin along with his son John Beaumont and a young lad named Edward.  Also arriving soon after are other high status Yorkist rebels including John de la Pole,  Earl of Lincoln, Richard III’s nephew,  and Francis Viscount Lovell,  Richard’s loyal friend from childhood.  Margaret the Duchess of Burgundy, sister to Edward IV and Richard III and a thorn in Henry VII’s side,  financed the whole enterprise as well as sending Martin Schwartz –  a renowned German mercenary and ‘manly manne of warre’ – who brought along 2000 German veterans (13)

The indomitable Margaret Plantagenet, Duchess of Burgundy 1446-1503. Sister to Yorkist kings, Margaret was an persistent and annoying thorn in Henry Tudor’s side and financed the 1487 rebellion. Artist unknown.

The young lad was crowned King Edward in a coronation in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin on the 24 May 1487.  This leads to the question – was this lad actually Edward V who had been living at Bodrugan’s property – Coldridge – incognito as John Evans?  Had Bodrugan somehow managed, since evading arrest by Edgecome,  to retrieve him from Coldridge and was it he who escorted him  to Ireland?  Coldridge was now back in the ownership of Thomas Grey and his wife Cecilia Bonville.  Did they all – Yorkists diehards –  collude together in a joint effort to get a Yorkist king returned to the throne?  To clarify it should also be noted that up until this point there is no mention of an even younger boy aged about 10, who went by the name of Lambert Simnel (13).  Why? Because Lambert Simnel was a made up name, a Tudor invention – and was never mentioned until later in Lincoln’s Act of Attainder in November 1487 after the Tudor regime had enough time to dream it up.  Despite the historian A F Pollard making it perfectly clear that ‘no serious historian has doubted that Lambert Simnel was an imposter ‘  this innocent young ten year old  boy is still regularly, up until today,  said to have been the lad that was crowned in Dublin.  Give Me Strength…

The glorious nave of Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin – scene of the Coronation of the young lad the rebels crowned King Edward  –   the ‘Dublin King’ .

And so the young Edward had been crowned in a coronation in Christ Church, Dublin.  Undeterred by the lack of a crown one was purloined from a nearby statue of the Virgin Mary.    Shortly after that the rebels, accompanied by the young newly crowned king, embarked on a journey back to England.  There is no indication that Bodrugan was with them.  Now aged 61 was he deemed too old or perhaps even too ill to join them.  But I wonder did he wave them off as they left on their do or die venture? His son John Beaumont was with them and it must have been a worrying time for him.  Finally the terrible news about the outcome of the  Battle of Stoke would have reached him.   It is not known exactly where or when he died only that it was somewhere in Ireland.  Why return to England? His second wife – Margaret, Viscountess Lisle, daughter of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke who had been executed in 1469 –  had predeceased him and now John, his son was also dead.

The Last Stand of Martin Schwartz and his German Mercenaires at the Battle of Stoke Field 16th June 1487.  Unknown artist Cassell’s Century Edition of the History of England c.1901. 

The rebels, led by Lincoln and Lovell arrived somewhere on the Furness Peninsular around the 5 June.  Now here is yet another link.  Although the exact landing place is debated where ever it was would have been close to Gleaston Castle (15) Yes! another property owned by Thomas Grey – again having come into his ownership through his marriage and thus via Bonville/Harrington holdings.   Could Gleaston, with the kind permission of Thomas obviously,  have been a rendezvous point for the rebels who were soon joined by other disgruntled Yorkists wanting to turf Henry VII off his throne and return Edward V to it?   In the years following the rebellion Gleaston was abandoned.  An in-depth conservation report commissioned by Historic England, and funded by the Castles Studies Trust,  suggests that the abandonment may have been down to the civil unrest in the ‘early part of the reign of Henry VII’ as well as the ‘Bonville’s family’s political affiliation with the Yorkist faction during the reign of Edward IV’  which would be a clear indication that Thomas Grey was involved up to his neck in the rebellion.  But to return to the rebels.  Finally they arrived at Stoke Field where as we know, they were totally defeated – their leaders lost including the brave Martin Schwartz.  Among the fallen was John Beaumont, Bodrugan’s son.  After the battle the young man who had been crowned King Edward was discovered.  We know this because the Heralds reported it:

THE HERALDS REPORT

‘And there was taken the lade that his rebelles called King Edwarde whoos name was in dede John – by a vaylent and a gentil esquire of the kings howse called Robert Bellingham’ 

Puzzlingly – the Heralds being noted for their precision in identifying folks, and their main raison d’être – omitted to record the surname of ‘John’ or  was it later scored out?  Why? Well I’ll leave that to you Dear Reader to make your own mind up.    Astonishingly this has never been picked up by historians and linked to the Coldridge John Evans although even the strongest doubters must concur it is the most astonishing coincidence.    He was taken to Newark, where Henry Tudor, now Henry VII went immediately after the battle, and from that point on he simply disappeared from the annals of history.  The Tudors, thinking they were smart, which indeed they were going by the number of folk taken in by it,  replaced him with a younger boy, said to be aged about 10, who they named Lambert Simnel – possibly after a cake.  I jest of course.  And so the biggest question of all –  what became of young Edward lately crowned king in Dublin?   Is it possible – and I believe it’s highly likely –  that Edward was returned to Coldridge to live out his days as John Evans and presumably with the blessing of Henry VII?   But why would Henry take the risk of letting Edward live with the danger of further revolts?   Of course we can only speculate.  In one version of events the French chronicler, Adrien de But, who was not in England at the time,  wrote that the young lad – who he called ‘Warwick’ was taken to safety to Guines once the ‘heavy odds again the rebels became known’ .   This seems impossible seeing that the Herald noted that the young man was taken after the battle and I only repeat it here in the interest of clarity.    Perhaps he was badly injured, maybe even disfigured facially – see point made about this below.  Did he himself, after witnessing the deadful carnage at Stoke declare he wanted nothing else other than to just to live peacefully in obscurity?  We should also remember that Henry was married to Edward’s sister, Elizabeth of York.  Did that also sway him? Did he spare the young lad, his brother-in-law,  out of consideration for the feelings of his wife, Elizabeth of York,  who Henry is said to have loved.   We are after all talking about human beings here not wooden cutouts lacking the most basic of human feelings.

COLDRIDGE

Finally we can now at last focus upon Coldridge and the clues there that have led to the theory that John Evans was Edward V and where he lived out his days as Parker of the deer park.   John Evans, after appearing in Coldridge out of nowhere,  would marry into the ‘neighbouring local gentry‘ and the Evans family would ‘retain its status throughout the greater part of the sixteenth century’ (16).  Today there is no trace of the Evans family in the village.  The tradition that John Evans was Edward V incognito (note the clue in the first two letters of the name –  Ev = Edward V – plus a Welsh name, Edward being the former Princes of Wales)  evolves from various clues in the church which, when tied up to the other links mentioned above,  becomes very credible indeed.  All this has been covered in my previous posts with their links above.  But in a brief resume – we have in the church the wonderful window depicting a young crowned King Edward V.   Perhaps that ever loyal Yorkist Cecilia Bonville, who had been widowed in 1501,  funded this window which would have been expensive? Above the image of Edward is a large closed crown, which has came from another window, now destroyed, which  is very similar to the crowns that can be found over Royal Standards and it’s highly likely that this was its original purpose.  In the middle of this crown is a Falcon and Fetterlock, personal badge to Edward IV which is  ‘always shown locked in recognition of the line of succession‘ (17)   Why all this splendorousness in an inconsequential,  hard to reach Devonshire village?

The large closed crown above the image of Edward V and taken from another window.  Note the Falcon in Fetterlock Yorkist badge in the middle of the crown and the ermine with 41 deer…

However it was certainly John Evans who founded his chapel there as well as some of the church furniture such as his prie-dieux, now combined into one,  as he left us his messages:

‘Pray for John Evans, Parker of Coldridge, maker of this work in the third year of the reign of King Henry VIII’ and ‘Pray for the good estate of John Evans, who caused this to be made at his own expense the second day of August in the year of the Lord 1511’.

Inside his chapel is his monument,  topped with his effigy,  his name carved on a shield supported by a roly-poly cherub.   The name is spelt as  John Eva`s – the letter ‘N’ being missed out although there was more than enough room for it.  Was this an intentional message to us: EV  = Edward V and Evas which is latin for ‘escape’ and from which the modern word ‘evades’ has evolved from?

There are numerous surviving Yorkist Sunne in Splendour badges dotted about both in glass in the windows and the carved wooden bosses.  His effigy lies there looking up at the image of Edward V.  Also the face of the adult man, which seems to have been an attempt at a human likeness –  all that has survived from another large image in a different window.   His face looks uncannily similar to the young face of Edward V.  He wears an ermine collar and clutches a crown to his chest.  His top lip and chin appears to be disfigured.  See my comments above.

The face of the adult man.  His top lip and perhaps chin appears to be disfigured.  He also wear ermine and part of a crown can be seen.  He has chin length hair as does both the image of Edward IV  and the face on the effigy.

There are several carvings of ladies in Tudor headdresses vomiting hidden away.  But of course the pièce de résistance is the window with the full length image of the young Edward V.  Funds are at this very moment being raised to have this extremely rare early 16th century window saved for future generations to enjoy. An informative article on the church  written by John Dike leader of the Devon Missing Princes Project can be found here.

The unique and wonderful image of Edward V, St Matthews Church, Coldridge

One of several Sunne in Splendour badges to be found in the church…

FINALE..

It appears to me that perhaps everything that can be discovered/uncovered about John Evans and Coldridge may have now been achieved.   Are we now sadly at a dead end?  His actual grave and remains are undiscovered and it seems to me that the only way to prove this theory would be their discovery and dna tests.   But who knows?  I am not an expert on these sort of things – but still – perhaps one day.

Church of St Matthew’s Coldridge under a glowering Devon sky. Possible resting place of Edward V,  one of the Missing Princes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to the following, some of whom are sadly no longer with us.  The information they supplied in their books and articles has helped me immeasurably:

Devon Churchland website;  Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke Michael Bennett;  The Battle of Stoke;  Lambert Simnel Tudor Imposter – Randolph Scott;   Lambert Simnel and the King from Dublin, Gordon Smith;   Rosemary Horrox and Peter Hammond for their editorship of the priceless Harleian Manuscript;   John Ashdown-Hill who delved so deeply into the story of Eleanor Talbot, the Forgotten Queen;    South Cumbria Richard III Society group who made me aware of the existence of Gleaston Castle;   The Castle Studies Trust  who made an in-depth study of Gleaston and linked it to the rebellion of 1487;  John Dike, leader and other members of Philippa Langley’s Missing Princes Project in Devon;  The Herald who informed us that the young lad that had been crowned King Edward captured after Stoke also had the name of ‘John – ‘;   Historian A L Rouse who wrote the excellent article The Turbulent Career of Sir Henry de Bodrugan;  Dr James Whetter, author of the History of the Bodrugan family;   Chris Brooks and Martin Cherry authors of an in depth article in the Journal of Stained Glass Vol. XXVI which does away with any doubts that it was indeed intended to represent Edward V; and last but not least my good friend Sandra Heath Wilson who has given me unstinting support when I have, at times been about to lose the will to live.  If I have left out anybody I do apologise….thank you.

1.  Kingsford’s Stonor Letters and Papers 1290-1483 p.416.  Editor  Christine Carpenter.
   
2. revealingrichardiii.com 
3. Virgil. Quoted in Elizabeth Widville Lady Grey p. 165 John Ashdown-Hill.
4. Devon Churchlands website.
5. Sir James Tyrell: did some notes on the Austin Friars, London, and those buried there. W. E Hampton
6. Harleian Manscript 433 p.124.  edited by Rosemary Horrox and P W Hammond.
7. Stoke Field, The Last Battle of the Wars of the Roses p.p.25.26 David Baldwin. 
8. The Turbulent Career of Sir Henry Bodrugan.  1944. A L  Rouse
9. The Bodrugans – A Study of a Medieval Knightly Family p.141. Dr James Whetter.
10. The Turbulent Career of Sir Henry Bodrugan.  1944. A L  Rouse
11. The Abbot’s House at Westminster. 1911. J Armitage Robinson. 
12. Cal.Pat.Rolls 1485-94. 
13. The Heralds Memoir 1486-1490. p.117. Ed.Emma Cavell.
14. Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke. Michael Bennett
15. Gleaston Castle, Cumbria. Results of aerial survey and conservation statement 2016. Helen Evans and Daniel Ellsworth. Castle Studies Trust.
16. Journal of Stained Glass Vol. XXVI. p.28.  Chris Brooks and Martin Cherry
17. royalmint.com

.

The ruins of Astley Castle, Warwickshire. Think fortified manor house more than rugged castle.  One of the homes of Cecilia Bonville and her husband Thomas Grey.   The house came to the Grey family via marriage to a member of the Astley family c.1415. They both lie buried in the nearby church of St Mary the Virgin, Astley.  The church was built in 1343 by by Sir Thomas Astley. photo William Small RIBA 

Cecilia/Cecilie/Cicely Bonville, suo jure Baroness Bonville and Harrington (b.c.1460/61- d.12 May 1529) – an interesting lady who lived in the  maelstrom of many  significant events in the turbulent period that later became known as the Wars of the Roses   A great shame she did not leave a diary!  Researching Cecilia has reminded me of the quote by Historian Linda Pidgeon in her Ricardian article Ties That Bind : ‘Trying to uncover the the lives of medieval women, be they queens or members of the nobility can be difficult; they are usually hidden behind the activities of the men who dominated their lives…’  How true!  I have however given it my best shot and, here, I have tried to tell as much as I can of the story of Cecilia but have of necessity had to stray much into the lives of her contempories that figured so highly in her life.   She was descended from a high status family – her great grandfather,  William Bonville,  Lord Bonville, c.1393-1461,  was executed after the 2nd battle of St Albans on the 19th February  146I after what has been described as ‘mock trial‘ witnessed by Edward, the young Prince of Wales, son of Margaret of Anjou and her rather inadequate husband, the saintly Henry VI.  A short time earlier her father, William, Lord Harington b. c.1442 – d.31 December 1460  had fallen alongside his father, yet another William,  Lord Harington jure uxoris – b.1420 d.31 December 1460 –  at the Battle of Wakefield, fought on the 31 December 1460 for Richard Duke of York (1). These deaths would result in a still infant Cecilia – indeed she may have been born posthumously according to historian David Baldwin –  becoming one of the richest heiresses in England (2).   Her maternal lineage was equally impressive, her mother being Katherine Neville,  whose father was Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and therefore a sister to the Richard Neville who would later become known as the Kingmaker.  Katherine was to suffer grievous loss in the tumult of the madness that would later become known as the  Wars of the Roses losing both her father and brother as well as her husband and father-in-law at the Battle of Wakefield.  With both her young husband and father-in-law dead Katherine would have found herself and her baby daughter in a vunerable position.  However a solution was at hand no doubt engineered by her brother Richard.   In his book on the sisters of the Kingmaker David Baldwin explains the tricky and precarious position Katherine found herself in describing how  ‘Cecilia was heiress to both baronies by the time Edward IV became king and many years of defending the child’s rights against predators stretched before her (Katherine) but few would have dared threaten her after she wed the King’s friend, William, Lord Hastings, only months later. There can be little doubt that Warwick arranged this marriage for his sister, a marriage that provided her with wealth and security for most of the reign’.  

Richard Neville aka ‘The Kingmaker’.  Cecilia’s powerful uncle who would have arranged the marriage between her widowed mother, Katherine Neville and Lord Hastings. Artist Gilbert Bayes.

Lord Hastings story has been told extensively elsewhere – his rise, rise and rise and sudden fall as well as his close friendship with Edward IV who was the font of all of Hastings vast powers.  A member of the Paston household recorded ‘what my seyd lord Chamberleyn may do wyth the Kyng and wyth all the lordys of Inglond I trowe it be not unknowyn to yow, most of eny on man alyve‘(3).    It’s therefore not surprising that in 1474 the king and queen, Elizabeth Wydville/Woodville,  who had known Hastings prior to her ‘marriage’ to the King, would push for a marriage between the queen’s son by her first marriage, the already widowed nineteen year old Thomas Grey –  b. 1455 d. 1501- to Hasting’s immensely rich step-daughter Cecilia Bonville then aged 13.  The marriage was negotiated between the queen and Hastings.  If in the event that Thomas should expire before consummating the marriage, then all would not be lost for Cecilia would then marry his younger brother Richard Grey.   In the event that neither Grey brother lived long enough to consummate the marriage then the queen would be able to choose a husband for Cecilia at her will.  Elizabeth would procure the marriage between her son and Cecilia by undertaking to pay 2500 marks –  which was never actually handed over because the king cancelled the debt which Hastings owed to him which amounted to the  equivalent amount (4).  Bearing in mind the young age of the bride,  according to the usual custom of the times,  the marriage would not have been immediately consummated until Cecilia was older.  It was not until June 1477 Sir John Paston wrote to his brother John ‘‘yisterdaye my lady Marques off Dorset, whych is my lady Hastyngs dowtre, had chylde a son’.   

As mentioned above Thomas was already a widower, his first wife,  Anne Holland – b.c 1461- d. c. 1474 – was another well bred bride.   Her father was Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, d.1475 and her mother was Anne Plantagenet, d.1476, sister to Edward IV and Richard III.  The historian T B Hugh noted:  Queen Elizabeth contracted to pay 4000 marks to buy this advantageous match for Thomas Grey, and so incurred the enmity of the king’s most powerful supporter, Richard Neville,  earl of Warwick (d. 1471) who had intended the infant Holland heir to become the bride of his nephew, George Neville (afterwards duke of Bedford). Thomas Grey’s first marriage took place at Greenwich in October 1466, but his expectations of acquiring the duchess of Exeter’s estates were defeated when Anne Holland died childless, probably early in 1474 (5).  

Even David MacGibbon the author of a hagiography on Elizabeth Wydeville  – and who seemed a little in love with her – admitted that it was ‘difficult not to sympathise with Warwick who would have found it a ‘bitter blow…’  and who realised that any marriages that had been arranged for his family could in future be ‘broken by a word from Elizabeth‘.

However to return to the marriage of Cecilia and Thomas….  What Katherine’s thought were regarding the marriage of Thomas Grey to her very  wealthy daughter,  are unknown.  Her husband, Hastings would have had the last word on the matter and ‘given the relationship between her husband and the king she was unlikely to have argued‘ (6). Still – he was the king’s stepson after all –  although not yet at the time the Marquess of Dorset – so perhaps she was eventually mollified.  

And so dear reader they were married.   I always find their marriage somewhat puzzling.  It appears it must have been successful in some respects, having produced a large brood, seven sons and at least seven perhaps eight daughters (7).  However both Cecilia and her mother appear to have drawn short straws with their husbands in terms of faithfulness,  both of whom earned reputations of licentiousness and womanising even falling out over the same woman, Elizabeth/Jane Shore/Lambert.  To add to the general sordidness of this story More claimed that Elizabeth had, prior to this,  been the mistress of Edward IV.  Mancini described how Edward  ‘In carnal lust, he indulged to an extreme, while his behaviour was also said to have been most insulting to many women after he had possessed them  for as soon as his lust was sated, he passed them on much against their will to other members of his court‘ although according to historian John Ashdown Hill there is no contemporary source for this assertion (8).   There is however evidence for Elizabeth being the mistress of both Hastings and his step son-in-law.   After Edward’s unexpected death in April 1483 things all of a sudden went pear shaped for the rather novel ménage à trois with Hastings being topped on the 13th June.   Simon Stallworth wrote to Sir William Stonor on the 21 June 1483 ‘Mastres Chore is in prison; what schall happyn hyr I knowe nott’.   Following this the Great Chronicle of London recorded that ‘Shortly afftyr (Richard’s coronation) was a woman namyd Shoore that before days, after common fame, the Lord Chambyrlayn (Hastings) held, contrary to his honour, called to a reconnyng ffor part of his goodys & othyr thyngys…and she lastly as a common harlot put to opyn penaunce’.  Thanks to Sir George Buck, who recorded the exact words,  we know that on the 23 October 1483,  in a public proclamation issued by Richard III,  the Marquis of Dorset was denounced in the following words:  ‘Thomas Grey, late Marquess of Dorset, not fearing God, nor regarding the peril of his soul, hath devoured, and deflowered many maidens, widows and wives, and holding the  unshameful and mischievous woman Shore’s wife in adultery ‘(9).  

However Jane  may not have been the only woman they quarrelled about.  According to Mancini both stepfather-in-law and son-in-law were enemies having fallen out on account of the mistresses they had abducted or attempted to entice from each other…   It has also been suggested by the historian W E Hampton that Thomas – motto à ma puissance  – how apt! – may have fathered a child with one of the daughters of  John Neville, marquess of Montague,  Elizabeth, Lady Scrope of Masham.   Elizabeth did indeed mention in her will  ‘Mary, daughter in base unto Thomas Grey Marquess of Dorset to whom she bequeathed ‘my bed that my Lord Marquess was wont to lie in….’  Hmmm make that of what you will dear reader…(10).  Elizabeth was of course Cecilia’s cousin.  Thomas did seem to have a thing for John Neville’s daughters for there is also the curious story of how Montague’s eldest daughter, Anne, joined Dorset at Taunton castle immediately after her marriage to Sir William Stoner, which took place towards the  end of 1481, where she remained for an extended stay.  A letter she wrote to her husband from Taunton is dated 27 February 1482 mentioning how long it had been since she last saw him, as well as requesting certain gowns to be sent to her for Easter.  Anne signed herself off as ‘Your new wyf Anne Stonor’.  In August of that year Anne duly presented William with a son.  This letter mentioning her unexpected long absence from him is still extant in the Stoner papers.    ‘Syr, I recomaund me unto you in my most hertly wise, right joyfull to here of yowre helthe: liketh you to knowe, at the writyng of this bill I was in good helthe, thynkyng long sith I saw you, and if I had knowen that I shold hav ben this long tyme from you I wold have be moche lother then I was to have comyn in this ferre Countrey (10).  To add to the mystery Anne, despite her words of regret regarding the long absence between herself and her husband,  still did not leave Taunton until around the 15th May according to another Stonor letter of that date.  To be fair it should be noted that she had mentioned Cecilia had treated her kindly so there may have been a good explanation why she would leave her brand new husband behind to tarry so long at the home of Thomas for what appears to have been a very extended stay.  It is now impossible to get to the bottom of  this rather strange story but it begs the question did Thomas cruelly conduct an affair under Cecilia’s very nose? Did Thomas’ other known philandering distress her in anyway or was she pragmatic?  Who can say –  was perhaps Thomas  – her husband since she had been fourteen –   her lodestar and she willingly forgave him his peccadillos? Did she have no choice? 

It has been suggested that Richard III laid much of the blame on Edward IV’s downward spiral and perhaps even early death on the shoulders of Hastings, Cecilia’s stepfather as well as her husband.   However that is another story and back to Cecilia and Thomas Grey.  It was through his marriage to Cecilia that Thomas gained his vast lands and properties – originally Bonville and Harington holdings.  They often appear to have been together so despite her husband’s description by the historian T B Pugh as both ‘slippery‘  and ‘a man of mediocre abilities’ plus his unsavoury reputation for womanising they must have at the very least rubbed along nicely together. 

However trouble loomed in April 1483 when the sudden and unexpected death of Edward IV brought about a surge in Wydville activities, when they feverishly sought to gain control of the young King Edward V,  circumnavigating Richard, Duke of Gloucester who was by then, according to tradition and because the late king ‘in his will had so directed’ Lord Protector.  Thomas, who seemed to lack the ability to read a room boasted at a council meeting that ‘we are so important that even without the king’s uncle, we can make and force these decisions..’ oh dear! (12).  We can safely assume from the way things panned out that Hastings had both bridled at the audacity of his despised step son-in-law and grown increasingly alarmed at the way things were going.   ‘According to common report‘  he sent messages to Gloucester informing him of the Wydeville shenanagans and the result is history.   It may also be assumed that Hastings had no qualms about dropping Thomas into the proverbial and was described by Mancini as having loathed the entire family of the queen on account of  the marquess (13 ).   Cecilia’s whereabouts, as per usual,  are unknown at this time but Thomas being in London, skuttled off into sanctuary at Cheyneygates – the luxurious house of the Dean of Westminster Abbey which stood in the Abbey precincts – with his mother, his small half brother Richard and half sisters in tow including Elizabeth of York.   Although the Abbey and the precincts were surrounded and heavily guarded he niftily managed to escape to join Henry Tudor in Brittany where he remained for the next two years, part of them against his will.

It was through this passageway that Thomas, his mother and half siblings would have approached Cheyneygates, the Deans House at Westminster Abbey where they sought sanctuary in April 1483.

No doubt, now stripped of much of the property that had come to him via his marriage,  he and Cecilia managed to maintain some sort of contact but it must have been a worrying time for her – well presumably.  However after Bosworth Thomas and Cecilia would be reunited – as well as regaining most of the confiscated properties.   Nonetheless,  this was not the end of the trauma and worry for Cecilia.  In February 1487 her husband would be sent to the Tower of London and Elizabeth Wydville her mother-in-law,  to Bermondsey Abbey.  What had occurred?   Well the ever suspicious Henry Tudor, now king after the death of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, had got wind of rebellion – erroneously known as the Lambert Simnel  Rebellion – and strongly suspected that Thomas was involved up to his neck.

 Henry VII.  Henry may have been many things but being stupid was not one of them…. 

 Cecilia’s whereabouts, as well as her thoughts, are again unknown.  But there is now a strong and credible theory that at least one of Thomas’ half brothers, Edward V,  who had been king for such a  brief time,  was actually still alive, and moreover had been living incognito at one of Thomas’ properties and had now been crowned in a coronation in Dublin by the rebels.  This property was Coldridge in Devon, one of the slew of properties that had come to Thomas via his marriage to Cecilia,  who may also at that time been living in Devon at one of the other properties she inherited from her Bonville/Harington family.  How much Cecilia knew about this plot can only be guessed at but with her wall to wall strong Yorkists familial links it may be she was deeply involved.  If so it appears that Cecilia, whose family had suffered so much for the Yorkist cause, somehow escaped punishment, or even suspicion.  Perhaps Henry Tudor consider being married to Thomas Grey was punishment enough?  It may be more than a coincidence that one of Thomas’ properties, also acquired from the Bonville inheritance,  Gleaston Castle, stood conveniently very close to where the Yorkist rebels landed on the Furness Peninsula in 1487 and highly probable the castle was offered to them as a meeting place to reconnoiter.  Henry, despite Thomas’ many protestations of innocence  ‘suggested’ he should remain out of harm’s way in the Tower until the rebellion was put down.  Which was what happened.  Eventually Thomas and Cecilia were once again reunited.   Cecilia’s mother-in-law, Elizabeth Wydeville was not so lucky remaining in Bermondsey Abbey for the rest of her life.  I often wonder if Cecilia was as heavily involved in the rebellion as her husband and whether her close Yorkist links caused her to throw caution to the wind.  How much more advantageous for them both to have a Plantagenet posterior on the throne rather than a Tudor one.   It is now further surmised that after the failure of the rebellion the young Edward V, who had been captured after the Battle of Stoke was returned to live out his days at Coldridge under the name of John Evans.  If this was the case certainly Cecilia would have known and maybe she felt quiet satisfaction that at least one of the sons of the late Yorkist king, Edward IV,  survived and with her support was living in safety in what had once been a  Bonville family property?

After the excitement of the rebellion, and having survived it, both she and her husband appear to have lived quietly with no further dramas.  Thomas, although never entirely trusted by Henry VII,  once again appeared at court and for the Feast of St George in 1489 he received a robe of sanguine cloth furred with pure miniver and gross miniver and a silk garter as a gift from the King (14).  

Cecilia was widowed in August 1501 when Thomas died at their London home.    She married for a second time, aged about 44, probably in late 1504, to the twenty-five year old Henry Stafford – b.1479 d.1523-  who was created Earl of Wiltshire in 1510.   Henry was the son of Henry 2nd Duke of Buckingham  – who had been executed for treason by Richard III in September 1483 –  and Katherine Wydeville sister to Queen Elizabeth Wydeville. Nineteen years her junior he seemed of a feckless bent having died in 1523 in heavy debt.  Not much is known about this marriage  – although it was possibly disappointing depending upon what she was expecting from it – and it proved to be a catalyst for a serious quarrel between Cecilia and her oldest son, and heir, Thomas,  who,  naturally,  became concerned about his inheritance.   This argument became so acrimonious the king and his councillors became involved with the aim of resolving it – which they did ensuring that Thomas would receive his fair due.   We should maybe therefore not be too surprised she failed to mention Henry in her prayers in her long will dated 6 March 1527,   requesting to be buried at Astley next to her first husband: ‘My body to be buried in the chapel within the church of the College of Astley in Warwickshire,  in the tomb where the body of the said Lord Marquess, my husband is buried.  I will that, soon after my decease, a thousand masses be said for my soul in as convenient haste as maybe.  I will that a goodly tomb to be made in the Chapel of Astley, over the said Lord Marquis, my husband, and another over me.   I will that my executors provide two  priests daily to sing in the said Chapel of Astley,  by the space of eighty years, to pray for the soul of the said Lord Marquess, and for my soul , and that each of them have  viii 𝒍 yearly stipend for their pains…(15). 

Today the monument and effigy of Cecilia survives  having been removed from its original site and placed with the effigies of Edward Grey, Lord Ferrers of Groby d.1457 and Elizabeth Talbot, Viscountess Lisle d.1487.  The monument of Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset has been destroyed.

The effigy of Cecilia, seen to the left here,  has at some stage been moved from its original site and now lies next to those of Edward Grey, Lord Ferrers of Groby (d.1457) and his daughter-in-law,  Elizabeth Talbot, Viscountess Lisle.  This Edward Grey was Thomas Grey’s grandfather and not to be confused with his uncle, Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle.  St Mary’s Church Astley, Warwickshire. Unknown photographer….

The ruins of Astley Castle, Warwickshire.   Astley had been home to Thomas’ parents, John Grey and Elizabeth Grey nee Wydeville and was probably where Thomas Grey spent the early part of his childhood.  Photo thanks to Astley Parish Council

View through a ruined window Astley Castle once the home of Cecilia Bonville and Thomas Grey.  Photo Brian Sibley.  Windows of Astley Castle blog.

St Mary the Virgin, Astley.  Mausoleum of the Grey family. Photo thanks to astleychurch.org

The Crystal Sceptre.  Given by a grateful King Henry V to the City of London in recognition of the financial aid given towards the Battle of Agincourt. Photo The Lord Mayor of London @Twitter.

Some of the eagle eyed amongst you who recently watched the coronation of Charles III may have spotted a very special piece of regalia that was being carried not by the king but by the Lord Mayor of London.   This extraordinary and exquisite artefact is known as the Crystal Sceptre and was given to the City of London by a grateful Henry V (b.16 September 1386 – d.31 August 1422) as thanks for the generous financial aid the City gave towards the funding of the Battle of Agincourt fought on the 25 October 1415.  It had dawned on Henry in November 1414 – after announcing his plans for a French campaign in Parliament  – that the resultant grant, which was to be collected via taxes in two instalments in February 1415 and February 1416, was not going to supply him with the ready cash he desperately needed up front to pay for the army he would be taking to France.

This was obviously a huge stumbling block and problem.  What to do?  The City of London was known to be a provider of loans in certain circumstances if they could be convinced to do so.    Historians Sinclair Rogers and Anne Curry describe in their interesting article how Henry ‘to that end, and following customary practice,  sought loans on the security of the tax grants’.  However Henry stlll had to somehow  persuade the City it was a good idea to agree to the funding.  And so on the 10 March 1415 he duly  ‘summoned the mayor and aldermen, and some of the more substantial citizens of London to the Tower of London to tell them that he intended to reconquer the possessions of the crown in France and that he needed money: 

‘Well-beloved. We do desire that it shall not be concealed from the knowledge of your faithfulness, how that, God our rewarder, we do intend with no small army to visit the parts beyond sea, that so we may duly re-conquer the lands pertaining to the heirship and crown of our realm, and which have been for long, in the times of our predecessors, by enormous wrong withheld. But, seeing that we cannot speedily attain to everything that is necessary in this behalf for the perfecting of our wishes, in order that we may make provision for borrowing a competent sum of money of all the prelates, nobles, lords, cities, boroughs, and substantial men, of our realm, we, knowing that you will be the more ready to incline to our wishes, the more immediately that the purpose of our intention, as aforesaid, redounds to the manifest advantage of the whole realm, have therefore not long since come to the determination to send certain Lords of our Council unto the City aforesaid, to treat with you as to promoting the business before mentioned’ (1).

This astute little speech did the trick and the City offered the king a loan of 10,000 marks  which equated to ‘£6,666 13s 4d which is worth almost £2,760,000 today.  For security the Bishop of Norwich, Richard Courtney, treasurer of the royal chamber and keeper of the king’s jewels handed over : one great collar of gold, made of workmanship in crowns and beasts called antelopes, enamelled with white esses (i.e. in the style of the Lancastrian SS collar), and the beasts surcharged with green garnets; the charge being of two pearls, and each beast having one pearl about the neck. And each of the crowns is set with one large balass and nine large pearls; and in the principal crown, which is in front, there are set, in addition to the balass and the pearls, two large diamandes in the summit; and besides the crowns, there are other balasses therein, eight in all, the collar weighing 56 ounces in the whole…’ (2). 

And so the financial bits taken care of Henry and his army sailed for France on the 12 August 1415.  What happened after that is well documented elsewhere and I won’t touch upon it here but return to the crystal sceptre given in gratitude by Henry. Despite its great historical value it has remained rather a mysterious object that is sadly seldom seen by the general public being only brought out on rare occasions such as coronations –  which as we know are very few and far between –  and for the ceremonial swearing in of each new Lord Mayor.   On a very rare occasion to mark the 600th anniversary of the St Crispin’s Day that fell on the 25 October 1415 it was put on public display in 2015 at the Guildhall Art Gallery  for six weeks.  St Crispin’s Day 1415 was of course the day  when it is said 9,000 English and Welsh soldiers engaged as many as 36,000 of their French counterparts at Agincourt (3),  I have to say I’m not so sure on the accuracy of these figures but it’s clear to see that the English and Welsh were vastly outnumbered and without this massive loan which paid for men, equipment and particularly the longbow archers who played such a pivotal role in the battle the day may have ended very differently possibly changing the history of England rather drastically.    To mark his relief and delight at winning the battle a grateful Henry commissioned the sceptre which was presented to the City of London some time between 1415 and 1421 as a tangible sign of his thanks.   .

The Battle of Agincourt.  From the painting by Graham Turner.

Described as ‘17 inches long and made out of two spiral stems of rock crystal – which is thought to have been made in Paris – ironically perhaps, given the reason behind its creation – and was inlaid with gold. The jewels which decorate the crown at the top of the stem were sourced from the far corners of the known world; its red spinels from what is now Afghanistan, blue sapphires from Ceylon and dozens of pearls plucked from the seas of the Arabian gulf and traded in Cairo’ (4). 

Photo Medieval Histories.  

Photos with thanks to Paul D Jagger.

As Art Historian Dr Michael Hall points out:

“The most remarkable aspect of the story surrounding the Crystal Sceptre is that it is still safely in the hands of those for whom it was made 600 years ago – the City of London.  As well as being a rare and surviving English royal treasury object, the precious materials – rock crystal, gems and gold – make it an object of great beauty which has been carefully hiding in plain sight for six centuries……” (5).

Henry V, as Prince of Wales.  Artist Homas Hoccleve c.1411-1413

The gold crown at the top of the sceptre displays Henry’s coat of arms on parchment.  Photo Paul D Jagger.

How has this precious treasure survived?  During the republican protectorate of Oliver Cromwell when royal regalia and jewels were sold, reused or simply melted down the City authorities were worried that the precious Crystal Sceptre could go the same way and had it surreptitiously hidden away.  A few years later in 1666 another great danger reared its head in the form of the Great Fire of London.  This time it was the then incumbent Lord Mayor of London, Sir Thomas Bloodworth/Bludworth  who saved the day ensuring that the sceptre was evacuated from the burning city.  However the sceptre did not escape entirely unscathed in its long history for in the 1830s the stem’s central cut-glass boss was damaged so badly that it had to be replaced by the royal jewellers, Rundell, Bridge & Rundell.   Casting this aside we should give thanks that this fabulous object has indeed came through the centuries in one piece and would to this day be recognised by Henry V, the grateful king,  who gifted it in thanks for the financial aid given that no doubt contributed towards his victory at the Battle of Agincourt.

1. How did the City of London fund Henry V’s expedition of 1415? Sinclair Rogers and Anne Curry.
2. Ibid.
3. 11 Oct 2015 Patrick Sawyer. Daily Telegraph.
4. Ibid.
5. Medieval Histories.  Nature History Heritage

If you have enjoyed this post you might also like:

MEDIEVAL POSY RINGS – GIVEN WITH LOVE…

THE MYSTERIOUS CHEAPSIDE HOARD, DISCOVERY AND FURTHER ADVENTURES

RICHARD WHITTINGTON c.1350-1423. MERCER, MAYOR AND A MOST

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

OLD LONDON BRIDGE – A MEDIEVAL WONDER!

Artist’s impression of a medieval wedding being solemnised. ‘Frieze of a Medieval Wedding’.  Artist Thomas Stothard (1755-1835) Yale Centre for British Art.

I have,  in my most recent meanderings,  meandered quite a bit.  Of late I’ve meandered from the Plague Pits of London 1665 to  Gleaston Castle, rendezvous point for the 1487 Yorkist Rebels,  to Medieval Doggies and from there to Love and Marriage in Late Medieval London (1).  I came across this interesting little book while in  a meandering search looking for another entirely different book and very pleased I am – I have learnt much from it.   The subject of medieval marriages has been covered very well elsewhere but why I found this book a delight was because it details cases that were taken to the 15th century London Church  Courts (2).This was usually  in an attempt to have a marriage validated rather then dissolved – and in doing so opening up a window into the everyday lives of people of lower social levels and enabling their voices to be heard centuries later.  The need for these cases was triggered by the ease in which a marriage could be made but sometimes the difficulty in getting them later legally recognised (should someone try to opt out for example) as well as, should the worse come to the worst,  unmade.  There was no obligation to have  a witness present, leading to some cases where one of the spouses changed their minds at a latter date –  perhaps in the heat of the moment one of the parties had got confused as to what was actually going on – as you do – or had even suffered a convenient bout of amnesia.  The examples given in the book are interesting and in great detail and it’s a great shame that the outcomes, because they were noted elsewhere,  are unknown.

So how did one get hitched in those times.  All it took was for A to say to B ‘I take you B to be my wedded wife ‘and B to say to A ‘I take you A to be my wedded husband’ – known as present consent –  and bingo!   There was also  future consent i.e. ‘I will take you…. ‘ which was immediately validated once consummation had taken place.   In the case of the future consent marriage remaining unconsummated it could it be ended by mutual consent or if one of the partners made a present consent with someone else.   This exchange of consent was known as a ‘contract’  and it was not required to have a priest in attendance although from the Church’s perception it was preferable there was.

I do not know the origin of this illustration but it seems to me to scream a ‘future’ consent thing could be going on here..?

Neither were witnesses obligatory although of course, that too was desirable.   Of course all this only applied to marriages where both parties were willing and not being coerced.  I’ll return to this later.   The next step was to make it generally known to family, friends, employers and neighbours etc.,  with perhaps a wedding feast to celebrate.

A 13th century wedding party celebration?  13th/14th century manuscript.

Finally, although not in all cases, after the banns were announced the wedding would be solemnised by an official church ceremony which could be performed either at the church door or in the nave of the church.   The Church would take a dim view if this final step was not undertaken and it was considered sinful not to go through this procedure even though the couple would remain married.   That was it basically.

Folk that were slow to solemnise the marriage in a church ceremony would be subtly persuaded by the local clergy…

Despite the almost casual ease of two people being able to enter into marriage by performing the ‘ceremony’ themselves in a domestic setting without the presence of a priest – and assuming there were no impediments –  marriage was nevertheless viewed as one of the sacraments of the Catholic church thus in the event a dispute arising it would come under the jurisdiction of church law which was  known as canon law.   Divorce being rare these disputes were usually about validating the marriage rather than dissolving it.  And this is where the ease of making a marriage and where it was not a necessary requirement to have witnesses could prove to be problematical in the event of one of the spouses later wanting out for whatever reason.  It would then fall to the injured/deserted party  to prove that the marriage had taken place.   The book states  ‘the issue at stake was almost always, whether or not consent had been properly exchanged, and a contract made. In other words, the party bring in the suit, usually wanted the court to validate the marriage, not to dissolve it’.  

DIVORCE.

Marriage was then considered more or less indissoluble and divorce was practically unknown although it could be sought in extreme cases on the grounds of adultery ,heresy, coersion or cruelty.   It should also be remembered that a medieval divorce was nothing like a modern divorce.  The divorce that was known as a mensa et thoro (from table and bed) was more a legal separation which freed the spouses from their obligation to live and sleep together otherwise known as  their conjugal debt.  However the couple still remained married and thus unable to marry anyone else.  Divorce a vincula (from the bond) was more of an annulment where the marriage had been invalid from the very beginning an example being:   ‘The most common basis for a divorce a vincula was a prior contract or bigamy.   X was already married to Y when he made a contract with Z,  and thus X’s marriage to Z never existed as X could not be married to two women at the same time’. 

Then as now marriages failed and extricating oneself could  prove to be a bit of a nightmare if not impossible.  This led to some couples simply self-divorcing i.e. one deserting the other with or without their agreement and blessing.   This may have solved some immediate difficulties but was nonetheless illegal and would have prevented the ex-spouses from making a second marriage unless of course one or both of them upped sticks and moved to a part of the country where they, and their marital history,  were unknown.

NOT BOTHERING TO GET HITCHED?  (Do not even think about it….! )

What about not bothering at all with the shenanigans ?  Well it appears to me only the boldest couples would indulge in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.  The opprobrium of an outraged neighbourhood would have been enough to shrivel the stoutest  hearts.  For example you might find a delegation of elderly,  disapproving, neighbours bearing down the path to your door….Yikes!’

‘Marriage … as the foundation of the social system,  it was considered to be of community concern as well. The wider community had both informal and formal means by which it encouraged or pressured men and women to conform to accepted norms and standards. If a couple were engaged in a sexual relationship without any moves towards marriage, those around them might bring informal pressure to bear. For instance, a deputation of the senior men of the neighbourhood might question a man about the nature of his relationship with a certain woman.  If such encounters were unsuccessful in persuading, a man or a woman,  to do the right thing, then more formal means existed. The leaders of the neighbourhood community might bring a case of fornication, adultery, or bigamy to the attention of the church courts. The local secular courts of the city also called fornicators and adulterers before them, and coerced them to marry or desist, such moral issues were of common concern (4).

COERCION

As mention above as long both parties were willing and neither of them were under duress then all was well.  However if this was not the case then there might be some wriggle room to seek a divorce a vincula.  As mentioned above this was basically an annulment allowed because the marriage had never actually existed.  This type of divorce/annulment was sought by a William Rote on the 10 March 1475.   William declared that the contract/marriage between him and Agnes Wellys was invalid as it had been brought about under duress.  William declared that when he visited the house of John Wellys one afternoon, taking with him a jug of ale to drink with John, the welcome was not as warm as he had expected.  Instead a clearly incensed John raged ‘You have violated Agnes, my daughter and have known her carnally. You will contract marriage with her if I have to force you and you will be sorry’.  William agreed he had known Agnes carnally, but even so, he had no wish to marry her thank you very much.  Things rapidly went downhill after that :   ‘Then John Wellys in the presence of Agnes Wellys and Thomas Barber and his wife took out a dagger as if he meant to stab William.   John appeared to be very angry, and he was lifting his arm to stab this William when Thomas Barber stepped between them and Wellys pulled back. William took the opportunity to flee and run out of the house on to the public street.  Agnes and her mother ran after him shouting ‘holde the thef’.   They caught him and brought him back to the house where John Wellys was waiting.  Still very angry Wellys said that unless William would contract marriage with his daughter, Agnes, he or someone else in his name, would give him a sign that he would take with him to his grave.  Wellys said that he would bring William before the mayor and aldermen where he would be confounded by such embarrassment that the shame would compel him to contract marriage with Agnes, so as much from fear of his body, and from shame at appearing before the mayor and alderman, William contracted marriage there with Agnes(5)’ Afterwards William had summoned enough courage to take the case to court.    Frustratingly we do not know the result of this case but it’s difficult to see how anyone emerged from it undamaged with possibly the reputations of both William and Agnes damaged beyond repair.    

MULTI CONTRACTS

Despite the clear rules on the making of marriage contracts some people still pushed the boundaries and made more than one.  This invariably led to problems further down the line when one of the parties kicked up a fuss and then it would be down to the court to decide which contract had taken place first and was thus the binding one.

In the case of Maude Knyff –  who appears to have been a wealthy widow who had two gentlemen desiring to make her their wife –  a witness,  Arnold Snarynge,  came forward who swore that on the afternoon of  Wednesday 4 July 1470 he had been approached by Robert Grene who told him he had contracted a marriage with Maude.  He asked Arnold to come, that afternoon,  to Maud’s house to witness what would be said. This Arnold did and peering through the window he witnessed Robert, who he noted wore a gown of murrey, and Maud, wearing a black kirtle,  standing in the parlour embracing.  Robert, with his left hand, took from Maud’s left hand a gold ring. When that was done, Maud asked Robert to guard that ring well, out of love for her, because she would not want that ring to be lost, out of love for her deceased husband.  She said to Robert, their hands still joined together,  ‘Robert I shall never have husband but you and thereto I  plyght  thee  my trouth a fore god’.   Then Robert said,  their hands still joined,  ‘Gra mercy, maistress Mawlt,  I shall never have other wyf but you and thereto I plyght you my trouth a fore God’.   They then kissed one another.  This Arnold testified that he would swear before the ‘Highest Judge in the day of Judgement’. This seems pretty clear.  However, Maud would deny all.  According to her, fifteen days or more ago, she and Robert Green were sitting together in the shop at her house in the road known as Snowhill in the parish of St Sepulchre without Newgate. They were talking together about certain matters but what they talked about she could not remember.  While they were talking,  Robert took her by the left hand and took a gold ring with a blue coloured stone from one of fingers against her will.

At this point a lady by the name of Joan Bristall enters the story  testifying that a week earlier her husband had  instructed her to go to Maud’s house that afternoon to witness Maud being affianced to a man by the name of Thomas Torbold.  She found Thomas and Maud sitting together in the parlour.  Maud then announced to her ‘Behold here is my husband’.  Thomas then announced that Maud was his wife informing Joan ‘For the greater and more evident notice of this matter know that this Maud is my wife‘.  He took her by the hand and said to her ‘I Thomas take you Maud as my wife as long as we shall live and thereto  I give you my faith.’ Then Maud took him by the hand and said to him, ‘So am I, as longe as my lyf lastyth and the thereto I plgyht you my trough…’ . Thomas then declared ‘Behold Maude  is my wife,’  and she said, ‘And you are my husband’  holding up the gold ring on the index finger of her right hand.

When questioned by the court Joan would give her opinion of Robert Grene.  ‘He is a boy and a knave.  I truste to god he shall have a fall in his matier and he shall be hanged.  Fye on him, fals theff’.  

Clearly someone was telling porkies but whom?  Again, the outcome is unknown to this story.   Did Thomas and Maud live happily together or was the marriage between her and Robert found to be the legal and binding one?

Entwined in a letter ‘S’ for ‘sponsus’ – latin for groom or husband –  a man places a ring on a woman’s index finger. 14th century. British Library Royal MS 6 E VI, fol. 104

There are other numerous examples given in this interesting book covering some of the  pitfalls of medieval marriages.  Of course the majority would prove to be long lasting, loving and a great comfort in times that could sometimes be harsh and difficult.

Roman de la Rose.  Oxford, Bodleian Library.

1. Love and Marriage in Late Medieval London.  Editor Shannon McSheffrey.  The Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages.
2. The  Consistory Court of London between 1467 and 1476 and the Commissary Court of London between 1489 and 1497
3. Love and Marriage in Late Medieval London  p.6.  Editor Shannon McSheffrey.  The Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages.
4. Ibid., p.19
5. Ibid., p.81.

If you have enjoyed this post you might also like:

MEDIEVAL POSY RINGS – GIVEN WITH LOVE…

A COLLECTION OF REVOLTING REMEDIES FROM THE MIDDLE AGES

Old London Bridge and Its Houses by Dorian Gerhold – a review.

CLATTERN BRIDGE -A MEDIEVAL BRIDGE – KINGSTON UPON THAMES

Murder and mayhem in medieval London

Gleaston Castle today.  Entrance to south west tower.  Photo Chloe Grainger @castlestudiestrust.org

Some of you reading this may be familiar with other posts I have written concerning what I call the Coldridge theory.   For those of you who are not familiar with the theory here is a brief résumé.  A number of clues in Coldridge church, Devon have led to a theory that Edward V was sent to Coldridge by Richard III to live incognito as John Evans where he was in time given the position of Parker.   An important  point here is that Coldridge was owned by Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset – Edward’s half brother. Another lead is that Richard sent one of his loyal followers, Robert Markynfield  from Yorkshire to Coldridge on 3rd March  1484  which was two days after Edward’s mother, Elizabeth Woodville/Wydeville,  left sanctuary at Westminster after making her peace with Richard III:  Robert Markyngfeld/the keping of the park of Holrig in Devonshire during the kinges pleasure…(1).   It was at this point that Elizabeth wrote to Thomas, who was then in France with Henry Tudor, telling him to return home …. all was well and that King Richard would treat him well.  It was around this time Coldridge, which had been at that time removed from Thomas but would be returned to him when Henry Tudor took the throne,  was granted by Richard to one of the most powerful men in Cornwall Sir Henry Bodrugan (2).  Following Richard’s death at Bosworth 1485 and around the time news of the so called Simnel Rebellion (early 1487) was breaking, Henry Tudor would send one of his loyal followers,  Sir Richard Edgecombe,  to Cornwall to arrest Bodrugan and his son Sir John Beaumont,  after accusations were made that they had  ‘withdrawn themselves into private places in the counties of Devon and Cornwall and stir up sedition’ (3).  Bodrugan made his escape and then rocked up in Dublin where he was a participant in the coronation of the youth who was crowned as King Edward (14th May 1487).   Only later in Lincoln’s Attainder, November 1487,  would the Tudor regime produce a younger boy of about 10 years old who they named –  possibly after a cake? –   Lambert Simnel – who was clearly a fake.  However some historians even today seem unable to grasp this despite historian A F Pollard clearly stating that ‘No serious historian has doubted that Lambert Simnel was an imposter’.   Bodrugan had been  joined in Dublin by the Yorkist leaders Lovell and Lincoln and following the coronation the latter two left Ireland and arrived – with an army obvs –  in Lancashire accompanied by the newly crowned King Edward.  Their journey took them to East Stoke, Nottinghamshire, where the matter was concluded at the battle known as Stoke Field fought on the 16th June 1487.

The choir Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin.  Here the Yorkist rebels including  Sir Henry Bodrugan and his son John Beaumont attended the coronation of the ‘Dublin King’.  Photo with thanks to Diliff @ Flikr.

 Following the rebels defeat at Stoke and the deaths of the leaders, the young king Edward, so recently crowned in Dublin, was discovered:    ‘And there was taken the lade that his rebelles called King Edwarde, whoos name was in dede *John*, by a vaylent and a gentil esquire of the kings howse called Robert Bellingham’ (4).   Well I never!  Jean Molinet further reported that King Edward was taken and made prisoner in the town of Newark but after that what become of King Edward/John (Evans) has been carefully blotted out from history (5).   However If the Coldridge theory is correct Edward/John Evans, possibly wounded or even disfigured,  was returned there to live out the remainder of his life incognito.  This Coldridge theory is littered with links and numerous coincidences similar to  a jigsaw puzzle with new pieces being discovered and slotted into place regularly and I have now come across yet another possible link which could add weight to the theory that Thomas Grey Marquess of Dorset, half brother to the young Edward V/John Evans, was an important and vital cog in the wheel of this mystery allowing his properties to be utilised in firstly providing a sanctuary, Coldridge,  for his young half brother and then a rendezvous point, Gleaston Castle,  for the rebels in 1487.   It’s thanks to an article in a Richardian Bulletin of June 2022 written by members of the South Cumbria Richard III Society group entitled Simnel’s real march to battle? that made me aware of the ownership of Gleaston Castle and its handy proximity to the feverish activity that took place in that area in June 1487.  On reading the article I had a weird sense of déjà vu when I read ‘the army’s most likely route would have to been to follow the coastline past Gleason Castle’.  For Gleaston Castle was owned, as noted above,  by none other than Thomas Grey Marquess of Dorset.   Thomas had come into ownership of Gleaston castle the same way as he had come into ownership of Coldridge – that is via his lucrative marriage to wealthy heiress Cecilia/Cecill/Cecily Bonville (c.1461-1529).  It may be that more importance should be placed on Cecilia’s role in this story than has been done so far.  She came from a family of staunch Yorkists – her father William Bonville (b.1442) and grandfather, another William had both died at Wakefield on the 30 December 1460 where they fought for Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York.  Her great grandfather, yet another William,  had been ‘treacherously’ executed after fighting for York at the second battle of St Albans February 1461 (6).  Her mother, Katherine Neville,  was the sister of Richard Neville,  later known as the Kingmaker,  who took as her second husband that fiercely loyal Yorkist, Sir William Hastings, bosom buddy to Edward IV.   Look no further for why the couple should be involved in what was such a highly dangerous enterprise.    Besides a sense of familial loyalty to the young Edward V  how much more advantageous for them both to have a Yorkist king – with links to both of them –  once again sat upon England’s throne rather than the new Tudor one?  This is the crux of the matter and it’s highly likely that the youth crowned in Dublin was the same lad that had been living incognito at Coldridge and also highly likely that he had been escorted to Dublin by Sir Henry Bodrugan, who was but a short time ago the owner of Coldridge but now rebel and fugitive.  

GLEASTON CASTLE

Leaving the rebels for a while and turning to Gleaston Castle which stands on the Furness Peninsular in a part of Cumbria that was formerly known as Lancashire North of the Sands. The castle, also known as Glaiston or even Gleanson –  was built for John Harrington, Ist Baron Harrington (b. 1281–d. 1347) in the 14th century.  Sir John was knighted in 1306 and fought in the Scottish border wars.   The castle then descended through several generations of the Harrington family until 1457 when it ceased to be a ‘manorial residence’  and passed through marriage to the Bonvilles (7).  When both Cecilia’s father and grandfather fell at the battle of Wakefield on the 30 December 1460 fighting for Richard Duke of York, the castle would pass to her while she was still an infant.   Following her marriage the castle, and Coldridge,  then became the property of her husband, Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset.  Although the reasons for Gleaston being abandoned as a manorial residence are unknown today, Dr Helen Evans and Daniel Elsworth the authors of an in-depth conservation report commissioned by Historic England, and  funded by the Castles Studies Trust,  have suggested that the abandonment may have been down to the civil unrest in the ‘early part of the reign of Henry VII’ as well as the ‘Bonville’s family’s political affiliation with the Yorkist faction during the reign of Edward IV’ . This civil unrest was of course was  the Yorkist rebellion led by Lovell and Lincoln later named erroneously as the Lambert Simnel rebellion.  The authors of the report suggest that this pertinent question – which was out of their remit at the time of making the report in 2017 – should be the focus of any future research into Gleaston.   Bring it on I say.  For if it indeed transpired that Thomas Grey, the owner of the castle, which stood so conveniently close to the landing point of the rebels,  was so heavily embroiled in the rebellion to the point that he offered up Gleaston as a convening point then that would strengthen the theory that the young Edward V had been sequestered away at Coldridge – another Grey property.   Henry Tudor, who may have been many things, but being a fool was not amongst them,  had been informed at a council meeting at Sheen in February 1487 that Thomas Grey was up to his neck in rebellion  –  which Thomas,  acting all offended like,  strenuously denied – as you do.   Perhaps, unable to get to the bottom of Thomas’ involvement in the plot, Henry prudently had him – now his brother-in-law – placed in the Tower for the duration of the rebellion.   Meanwhile Thomas’ mother, Henry Tudor’s mother-in-law, Elizabeth Wydeville/Woodville,  mother to the young Edward V,  also up to her neck in the plot  – quelle surprise – was without any further ado sent to Bermondsey Abbey for the duration of her life.  And here may be the real reason why Gleaston was finally abandoned.  Strangely the castle was never mentioned in neither Grey’s or Cecilia’s wills.  Which is hardly surprising considering the castle’s role in the rebellion.

The castle then passed down through the Grey family until Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk  was executed for treason in 1554. As a result, Gleaston Castle became royal property before it was bought by the Preston family in the 17th century, and then passed to the Cavendish family.

Interior of south eastern tower.  Photo Chloe Grainger @ castlestudies.org 

Now in a ruinous state and with a 19th century farm incorporated into parts of it,  in its heyday it was  a substantial building with walls 9 foot thick in some parts,  consisting of a large hall and three stone towers joined by a curtain wall.  Built at a time when that part of Cumbria – or Lancashire North of the Sands as it was then known – was subjected to regular Scottish border raids although it was probably also built as much to reflect wealth, status and comfort as defence with what archaeologists believe,  a ‘pleasure garden’ in a landscaped area to the north.   Think more fortified manor house than rugged castle.   One hundred years after its abandonment it was reported to have become ruinous by the antiquarian John Leland who wrote ‘there is a ruine and waulles of a castell in Lancastershire cawlyd Gleston Castell sometyme longinge to Lord Harrington now to the Marquis of Dorset’.    Evans and Elsworth also go on to say that while it is assumed that Gleaston Castle was dismantled after its use as a manorial residence ceased ‘17th and 18th century leases suggest parts of it were still habitable in those periods’.    Although the location on the Furness Peninsula today appears to be remote, this is misleading,  as historically access  was easy either by boat or by crossing the sands of the Morecambe Bay estuary at low tide  – a mere short walk (8)

A three D model of the castle can be found here.

REBELLION 1487

To return to the rebellion.  There is some debate as to where the rebels actually landed.  Some believe it was Piel Island, or as historian David Baldwin prefers,  somewhere else in the Furness Peninsula although this is not of overly importance to us because wherever it was would have been in close proximity to the castle.  Baldwin also repeats the local tradition that the rebels spent their first night camped on Swarthmoor near Ulverston.   Their route thereafter would have taken them via Newby Bridge, Kendal, Sedbergh and through Wensleydale (9).   However Michael Bennett states the landing place was Foulney Island, ‘a safe natural haven which even at low tide was six fathoms deep’ and mentions  ‘allies in the neighbourhood‘ (10).  These allies would have included Sir Thomas Broughton who had fought for Richard III at Bosworth in 1485 and since making his escape from that place had been holding out in Furness Fells. Thomas’ brother John and the Huddlestons of Millom would also have been counted in the welcoming party.    A further suggestion that  Furness Harbour was the landing place was made by both Molinet who told of the rebels disembarking at a  ‘harbour known as Furness’  and in Lincoln’s Act of Attainder which mentioned a ‘great navy in Furness in Lancashire’.  Bennett mentions that the Abbot and convent of Furness, owners of the harbour as well as Furness castle,  were slightly less than welcoming and at the most may have provided the rebels with food and supplies alone (11).   The fact that the father of one of  Henry VII’s most trusted agents, Christopher Urswick,  was a lay-brother at Furness may have had some input in their reluctance to aid the rebels more than absolutely necessary. However, as mentioned above,  wherever their landing place was  should not bother us too unduly – wherever it was would have placed them but a short distance away from Gleaston Castle and a sheltered spot for meeting, greeting and getting their acts together. Bennett goes on to repeat the Swarthmore tradition, which lay less than 10 miles away from his choice of landing place,  and agrees with Baldwin that their most direct route would have been via Newby Bridge, Kendal, and Sedburgh.

However, Gleaston Castle, if Gleaston Castle was indeed the rendezvous point for the rebels, was left behind by the rebels who continued onwards with their journey which reached its bloody and tragic climax at Stoke Field.  The story of the Battle of Stoke is readily available elsewhere.  I would recommend Michael Bennett’s Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke and  Stoke Field  David Baldwin.

‘May 29th 1666.  Spent on the City Marshall at ye shutting up of a visited house . . Is.0d.’

Plague had always stalked England throughout the centuries with regular outbreaks such as the one known as the Black Death in the 14th century which brought death on such a scale that whole villages were so absolutely decimated hundreds of them were abandoned –  the few survivors, if any,  moving away perhaps reduced to beggarhood.    But probably the outbreak that springs to mind for most of us is that of 1665 which became known as The Great Plague.  The plague had been hovering about for the previous 30 years with some serious outbreaks such as the one in 1647 when 3,597 souls succumbed to it.  Prior to that in 1603 there had been 33,347 deaths which led to the weekly publication of the  Bills of Mortality.  It probably never entirely left –  trapped in the rancid, fetid alleys formed by the overhanging roofs of the timber framed houses that seem so picturesque to us nowadays.  The light and fresh air could not permeate those dark, dank  places that were often ankle deep in mud – and a lot worse besides –  nothing more than open sewers dotted here and there with equally malodorous laystalls where dung, rotting animal carcasses and general refuse were deposited.   Lord Macauley noted ‘The drainage was so bad that in rainy weather the gutters soon became torrents. Several facetious poets have commemorated the fury with which these black rivulets roared down Snow Hill and Ludgate Hill, bearing to Fleet Ditch a vast tribute of animal and vegetable filth from the stalls of butchers and greengrocers. This flood was profusely thrown to right and left by coaches and carts. To keep as far from the carriage road as possible was therefore the wish of every pedestrian. The mild and timid gave the wall. The bold and athletic took it.  If two roisterers met, they cocked their hats in each other’s faces, and pushed each other about till the weaker was shoved towards the kennel. If he was a mere bully he sneaked off, muttering that he should find a time,  If he was pugnacious the encounter probably ended in a duel behind Montague House'(1). 

However the heavy frosts of the unusually severe winter of 1664 and the beginning of 1665 perhaps held the pestilence at bay for a while until the frost finally broke in March when the first deaths appeared in St-Giles-in-the-Fields which lay just outside the city wall as well as Westminster where several members from the same family are recorded as all dying suddenly from it.   Plague had arrived (2).

People had already been nervous – a great comet had been seen in the sky in late 1664 and in a superstitious time this did not bode well as many thought.  Soon the rich and whoever could manage it begun to exodus London –  first in a trickle and then in a deluge.  It should be noted however not all those that could leave did.  An example is William,  Earl of Craven (1608-1697).  He was a member of the commission appointed to consider the best means of preventing the spread of the epidemic.  He recommended the use of pest houses where the sick could be taken as opposed to cruely shutting up both the sick and well together in their homes until they all succumbed and died or in some cases went insane.    William stayed put throughout the duration of the epidemic to perform his duties and was still present in London in 1666 when the Great Fire struck.  A delightful little anecdote described how his horse become so accustomed to his master attending fires that he would automatically head towards where the fire bell sounded without any bidding.  There was also some courageous doctors and apothecaries who stayed behind to perform their duties and who paid heavily for their bravery.  Included amongst these brave medical practitioners was Samuel Pepys doctor.   Pepys made the most of the opportunity and together with a friend ‘drank a cup of good drink’.   He would go on to explain  “I am fain to allow myself alcohol during this plague time… my physician being dead ….’  However broadly speaking it was London’s poor who would suffer the brunt of the horror.   Walter George Bell – author of possibly the most knowledgable book ever written about the contagion – The Great Plague of London  –  noted for example that not one single magistrate would succumb to it.

A contemporary drawing of the time depicting people attempting to flee London.   Unknown artist.

The deaths begun to increase rapidly and it’s highly likely many cases were disguised as death by other causes in the Mortality Bills – people,  naturally –  didn’t want to be boarded up in their houses with a red cross painted on the door and left until they and all their family finally and inevitably perished.  A contemporary writer of the time described how those poor souls  ‘were compelled,  though well,   to watch upon the death-bed of their dear relation, to see the corpse dragged away before their eyes.  Affrighted children stand howling by their side. Thus they are fitted by fainting affliction to receive the impressions of a thousand fearful thoughts in that long night they have to reckon with before release,  as the family so dismally  exposed,  sink one after another in the den of this dismal likeness of Hell’ (3). 

‘An Incident in the Great Plague’.  Artists impression of a street scene somewhere in London 1665.  The man has returned home to find the door with a red cross and boarded up.  He is unable to gain entry to help his family.  Tragic scenes like this must have played out on a regular basis.  Painted c.1840.  Artist Alexander Christie. 

It is estimated 100,000 were to lose their lives that horrendous year to the pestilence creating a terrible and hideous problem.   And it is here the infamous plague pit came into play.  It’s now known that not all plague victims were deposited unceremoniously into the pits with many remains of victims being found buried, although uncoffined,  in what was an orderly although probably hurried burial.  The Crossrail excavations have come across several of these mass burials such as the one on the Liverpool Street site where the remains of 45 people were found that appear to have been buried at the same time.  A stone was also found with 1665 carved upon it.  I’ll return to the plague pits later.  

The grave of the 45 victims of the Plague found at Liverpool Street Station. Photo Crossrail Project MOLA.

DESPERATE MEASURES

The dogs and cats of London, those great foes and exterminators of the Black Rat –  host to the true culprit of the catastrophe – the flea that carried the Yersinia pestis bacteria and main carrier of the plague –  were themselves exterminated before they could perform their duties.  Thousands of them were unnecessarily  slaughtered, powder and shot being supplied for the job,  their bodies being carried away in wheelbarrows by the ‘rakers’.  One killer of some of the hapless animals was paid 4s for burying 353 dogs alone.  The black rat, Rattus rattus,  was not for nothing known as the House Rat, preferring to make their homes as close to humans as possible and to live off their food rather than go to the trouble of having to forage outside.  Not only that –  the medieval timber framed houses of the time, with lathe and plaster walls,  made perfect rat runs and the  boarded floors with cellars with earthen floors beneath,  all proved perfect living conditions for the little blighters.   Smaller than the larger brown rat we have today –  known as Rattus Norvegicus –  Rattus Rattus’ dark shiny coat could take on an almost bluish hue, his  large hairless ears giving the impression he was always on alert for the slightest sound.   It transpired, tragically,  that the very fleas that the rat was playing host to,  were the undetected source of horrendous and fatal disease and when it had succeeded in killing the host rat it would leap off onto its next victim –  which if there were no available rats in the vicinity would be the nearest man, woman or child.  Dr Anne Roberts in an excellent History Today article tells us that   ‘Like most fleas, the rat flea prefers to feed off a single species of animal, and will only bite humans when an outbreak of rat plague has left insufficient rats to feed off‘.  For all you ever want to know about the rats and their fleas click here (4).   Sometimes the fleas would linger  – until a suitable host happened along – in cracks and crevices or even clothes and blankets something which led to the tragic outbreak in the village of Eyam in Derbyshire.  This undetected and horrendous danger led to the seemingly never ending outbreaks of pestilence which caused literally millions of deaths until the 17th century when the Brown Rat, Rattus Norvegicus, larger and more powerful,  finally arrived in England when in the fullness of  time it would overrun its smaller cousin.  It’s possibly the arrival of the Brown Rat or the sewer rat as it is also known, was the main reason for the elimination of the plagues which had troubled England so greatly over the centuries rather than, as is sometimes assumed, the Great Fire of London which destroyed the major part of  old London with its closely packed timber framed houses.  It should be remembered that the plague also disappeared from the unburnt parts of London including Stepney which had suffered some of the highest death rates than any other parish.    St Giles-in-the Fields,  St Margaret’s Westminster,  St Martin’s and Cripplegate as well as the rest of England were never again to suffer from the catastrophic consequences of a major outbreak of plague – another pointer in the favour of the demise of Rattus Rattus being a major reason for the disappearance of the pestilence.   Finally in 1894  thanks to the Indian Plague Research Commission the source of plague was discovered:   ‘The communicating agents are the fleas of infected rats – the germ B.pestis – the cause of all the trouble –  being conveyed by the infected flea direct from rat to man by innoculation by flea bites through the skin’.    It was not until later in the early 20th century that the bacillus of Plague was discovered during an epidemic in Hong Kong by a Japanese Doctor Kitasato (5)  How tragic that this was never picked up upon meaningfully enough to bring about a major cull of Rattus Rattus and his fleas earlier and thus save millions of lives over the centuries.  

An image of a street scene… From a facimile of a broadsheet.  The Great Plague of London by Walter George Bell.

The above scene has a lot going on  – a dead dog lies in the road with another dog about to get clubbed to death.   Other dead animals appear to be being taken away in a wheelbarrow.  Note the two ‘searchers of the dead‘ – women, often elderly,  carrying white staves as a warning to the public to  keep a distance from them.   Here also is shown one of the many fires  – one before every sixth house –  which were lit from the night of 5th September and kept burning for three days and three nights in the belief it would decontaminate ‘the infected air‘ (6).  It was certainly not a new idea – in the plague of 1563 every household was ordered to lay out wood three days a week to enable the fires to continue to burn.  This proved about as much use as the tying of a dried toad to your chest and probably made matters worse. However I suppose anything was worth a try when you have nothing to lose.   

THE BILLS OF MORTALITY

When someone died in a London Parish a ‘Searcher of the Dead‘ would be sent to ascertain the cause of death.  These Searchers were inevitably elderly, poverty stricken women, often in the most horrible dire straights themselves, forced to carry out this awful duty as a last resort to keeping alive themselves.  During times of plague these Searchers had to live as outcasts from the rest of society.  Walter Bell describes how they were required to lodge at a place appointed, not going abroad more than was necessary and then only in execution of their duty. They were to absent themselves from their families and to avoid mixing with other people.   They should keep as far distant from others as might be, carrying in their hand a white wand by which pedestrians should know and avoid them.  All this they were caused to swear upon an oath to do.   Worryingly the task of ascertaining the cause of death would also fall on these ‘ancient matrons‘.   They then reported to the Clerk of the Parish, who each week returned a list of deaths to the Company  of Parish Clerks at their hall in Brode Lane, Vintry.  The company in turn gave the information to the Lord Mayor who in times of Plague would  pass it on to the Minister of State.    The Bill of Mortality containing all this information was then made up and printed.  Occasionally the Searchers would be advised of a doctors opinion as to the cause of death if a doctor had actually attended but usually they were either given the cause of death by relatives, or despite their lack of any medical training made a diagnosis themselves based their own observations of the corpse which led to a plethora of weird and wonderful causes of death.    Clearly they were never at a loss in making a diognosis and anything they did not know they made up as they went along.  This led to an abuse of a totally inadequate system.   To paraphrase a contemporary writer ‘The old women Searchers after the mist of a cup of ale and the bribe of a two groat fee instead of one given to them cannot discern a bonce from a bottom’ (7).  This makes Bills very interesting reading and it’s not difficult to cotton on to the fact that some plague deaths were described as deaths by other causes to avoid the house being shut up with the resultant deaths of the whole family.  The examples below are from the Bill dated 15th to the 22nd August 1665

Chrisomes 9,   Frighted 2,   Gowt 1,   Head-mould-shoot 1,   Jaundies 7,   Imposthume 8, Kingsevil 4,    Lethargy 1,   Meagrome 1,   Purples 2,   Rising of the Lights 18,   Stopping of the stomach 17,   Strangury 3,   Suddenly 2,   Tiffick 9,   Winde 4,   Wormes 10 and  Gripping-in-the-Guts (sounds like a small town in Gloucestershire!)  Total deaths from Plague were 4237.

This Bill covers the 12th to the 19th September…

THE PLAGUE PITS

It is said in times of human troubles ‘this too will pass’.  And indeed towards the end of 1665 the number of plague victims begun to subside – perhaps as a result of the fleas either dying themselves for lack of new hosts or going into hibernation.   Slowly Londoners returned to their homes.  We can only imagine the shudder of  horror of that must surely have run through them when they viewed the churchyards with their now much higher raised levels evidencing multi burials.   Pepys has left us with his vivid memory of this particular harrowing sight:  ‘It frighted me more than I thought it could have done, to see so many graves lie so high upon the churchyards where people have been buried of the Plague  (8).  Even more horrifying were the sights of the many newly dug pits.  Some of the whereabouts of the pits are known, but the greater majority are lost to us as in time they were built over and forgotten.   Sometimes in recent times when a building project is going,  on a pit will be uncovered,  which is what happened during  the excavations of the Crossrail Link.  Daniel Defoe, born in 1660,  when writing his fictional work Journal of the Plague Year would have been able to talk to survivors of the Plague who were able to inform him of the whereabout of some of  the pits especially the larger ones the awful remembrance of which would have been left ingrained upon their memory.  The known ones include:

Shoreditch, Holywell Mount.  In the main now built over but a small open area still survives  between Holywell Lane,  Scrutton Street and Curtain Road. 

*******

Mount Mill near Goswell Street,  north of Seward Street, Finsbury.  Mentioned by Defoe who described this pit being mostly for victims who had lived in Aldersgate and Clerkenwell.  Later made into a Physick (Herb) Garden but now covered by a car park.  Some of the pit may also lay beneath an open area to the south now a playground in Seward Street.

*******

Bishopsgate Street. Upper end of Hand Alley – now known as New Street.  Defoe wrote ‘The upper end of Hand Alley in Bishopsgate Street was then a green field, and was taken in particulary for Bishopgate parish, though many of the carts out of the City also brought their dead thither also…’   When an attempt was made to build upon the pit quite soon after it is said some of  the bodies were found to be still well preserved enough to be able to distinguish the women by their long hair.   This caused a bit of a problem with concern that this disturbance of the remains would cause the pestilence to rear its head once again.    What to do?   Consequently 2000 bodies were buried nearby in a new pit which was cordoned off with strict instructions it was not to be built upon.  This area would eventually evolve over  time into Rose Alley.   

Hand Alley, now New Street.  The original pit was in a field which lay at the end of the lane to the east and the new pit was built in Rose Alley both of which are encircled – Rose Alley being marked by the green dot.  Ogilvy and Morgan map 1676-79.

New Street and Rose Alley today.  The layouts of  London streets and lanes seldom change over the centuries. 

********

Stepney Fields – south west of St Dunstan’s and All Saints Church.  Large.  Burial pit for 2,978 victims of the Plague of 1625 as well as  6,583 in 1665 (9). Stepney then was semi rural.  Plague arrived here towards the end of July when 33 died but by September the figures had leaped to 716.   The parish which included areas which backed onto the Thames had a number of ship owners resident there.  They pertinently ‘shut themselves up in their berthed ships, all sails furled under the relentless sun, to see the disaster out’ (10).

St Paul’s Shadwell.  One of five large pits in Stepney.

Moorfields:  Discovered during the building of the Elizabeth Line.  Defoe described plague burials in a ‘piece of ground at Moorfields, by the going into the street which is now called Old Bethlem‘. Gillian Tindell in her book The Tunnel Through Time says this would be the garden of Bethelem Hospital –  which covered over an acre.

Gower’s Walk Whitechapel – excavated in 1893.   Now rebuilt over.

Marylebone – churchyard of St John the Evangelist.

Oxford Street.  During the rebuilding of a bookshop in the 1920 vast numbers of bones were found all heaped together indiscriminately which would suggest this was a plague pit burial (11).

Southwark.  Southwark’s many victims of the plague were buried in fields along Deadman’s Place now known as Park Street –  a name chosen because it run across what had once been the Bishop of Winchester’s Park who had a palace in the area.    The area covering the pit  would later be  absorbed into Messrs. Barclay and Perkins’  Brewery.  Now  redeveloped but the area of the pit can still be seen today.

Deadman’s Place burial ground/plague pit circled in red.  From Horwood’s Plan 1792-99.  Map now held in The British Library.  

The site of Deadman’s Place today.  Now surrounded by houses but still recognisable.   

                                                               *******

Fulham, Lille Road.  Large numbers of human remains are said to have been uncovered here in the area of an orchard belonging to Normand House.  Later covered by Lintaine Grove (12).

Rear of 41 Beak Street and Golden Square, Soho. When the houses in Beak Street – of which 41 and 43 are  still standing today – were erected in the late 18th century, cartloads of bones were discovered, which makes it highly likely a plague pit had been uncovered.  This may have been a secondary plague pit or even part of the main one which lay beneath a nearby field that later became known as Golden Square.    Lord Macaulay writing in 1685 tells us  ‘On the east was a field not to be passed without a shudder by any Londoner of that age.There, as in a place far from the haunts of men, had been dug, twenty years before, when the great plague was raging, a pit into which the dead carts had nightly shot corpses by scores. It was popularly believed that the earth was deeply tainted with infection, and could not be disturbed without imminent risk to human life. No foundations were laid there till two generations had passed without any return of the pestilence, and till the ghastly spot had long been surrounded by buildings (13).  

Kensington, Tattersall’s Gate.

Tothill Fields, Westminster.   Part of the pit now lies beneath the  playing fields at Vincent Square (which is owned by Westminster School) and some beneath Government buildings.   Piles of bones were uncovered during excavations as well as broken clay pipes which were smoked by the men who collected and threw the bodies into the pits in the hope that the smoke would ward of the disease.

Green Park.  Discovered in the 1960 during construction of the Victoria Line.

St Giles-in-the-Fields. It is said over 1000 people were buried in pits in the churchyard.

Bakerloo Line, London Depot.  At the south end of the depot lie two tunnels; one leads to Elephant and Castle whilst the other is a dead end and acts as a runaway lane for trains that are unable to stop. Behind the walls of  this tunnel lies a plague pit.

Crossbones Graveyard. Leased to the churchwardens of St Saviour’s parish in 1665 during the height of the Great Plague.  Used later as a burial place for prostitutes.

Upper Street, Angel.  A small triangular piece of land now known as Islington Green covers the area of the plague pit.

St John’s church, Scrandrett Street, Wapping.

Hoxton, Pitfield Street, Hackney.  Now covered by a council estate.  A sign has been erected by Hackney Council  asking residents to ‘Please Keep off the Grass. This is one of many burial grounds pertaining to the Black Plague 1665-1666′.

Whitechapel.  Now covered by Sainsbury’s Supermarket.

Aldgate Station.   This pit was the overspill from the large pit in the nearby churchyard of St Botolph without Aldgate.  This pit about 40 foot long, 15 or 16 foot broad, and 20 foot deep, and between the 6th and the 20th of September, 1,114 bodies were thrown into it (14).  Discovered in the 1860s when the station was being constructed.    Daniel Defoe who must have heard it described by survivors of the plague wrote  ‘A terrible pit it was, and I could not resist my curiosity to go and see it.  As near as I may judge, it was about forty feet in length, and about fifteen or sixteen feet broad, and at the time I first looked at it, about nine feet deep; but it was said they dug it near twenty feet deep afterwards in one part of it, till they could go no deeper for the water; for they had, it seems, dug several large pits before this. For though the plague was long a-coming to our parish, yet, when it did come, there was no parish in or about London where it raged with such violence as in the two parishes of Aldgate and Whitechappel.’

LIVERPOOL STREET STATION.  Stands on the site of the burial ground of old Bethlem/Bedlam hospital.   Mentioned by Defoe.  The skeletons of 45 Plague victims were discovered in one grave during the building of the Elizabeth line.  Archaeologist believe there were originally more than 100 victims buried in layers one on top of the other.  This pit lay not far from the Hand Alley pit mentioned above.

WALTHAMSTOW, VINEGAR ALLEY.  According to local tradition there was a plague pit north of the ancient St Mary’s Church.  The lane running alongside was named after the vinegar that it was believed might ward of the pestilence. 

For more sites of plague pits visit The Reputed Plague Pits of London which has an interactive map.

1. History of England.  London in 1685.  Lord Macaulay.
2. The Great Plague of London p.p 13.14. 1924. Walter Bell George Bell.
3. The Great Plague of London.p.107.  Quoting from A Looking Glass for London 1665.
4. The Plague in England.  History Today  Vol 30. Issue 4. April 1980. Anne Roberts.
5. The Great Plague of London p.247. Walter George Bell.
6. Certain Necessary Directions 1665
7.  Observations p.46.  John Graunt
8. Diary, January 30 1666.
9. Tower Hamlets Independent and East London Advertiser on the 19th October 1901 cited by alondoninheritance.com
10. The Tunnel Through Time p. 133.  Gillian Tindell. 
11. The Great Plague of London p.282. Walter Bell
12. London’s Burial Grounds. Mrs Basil Humes.
13. History of England.  London in 1685.  Lord Macaulay
14. The London Burial Grounds, Notes on Their History from the Earliest Times to the Present Day.   Isabella M. Holmes.

If you have liked this post you might also enjoy :

WHARRAM PERCY – A DESERTED MEDIEVAL VILLAGE – VICTIM OF THE ‘ENCLOSURES

A COLLECTION OF REVOLTING REMEDIES FROM THE MIDDLE AGES

RICHARD WHITTINGTON c.1350-1423. MERCER, MAYOR AND A MOST BENEVOLENT CITIZEN OF LONDON

SIR PAUL PINDAR c.1565-1650. AND HIS HOUSE IN BISHOPSGATE

CROSSBONES – BURIAL PLACE OF WINCHESTER GEESE AND ‘THE OUTCAST DEAD’ – SOUTHWARK, LONDON

CROSSRAIL – A PORTAL INTO MEDIEVAL LONDON

14th century monument to Sir Thomas de Berkeley of Coberley (1289-d.1365) and his wife Joan Lady de Berkeley nee Archer d. 1369.  The small monument besides the Berkeley monument is that commemorating a heart burial belonging to an unknown female.   St Giles’ Church, Coberley, Gloucestershire.  Photo C B Newham Church  Monuments Society

The large monument in Coberley Church shown above commemorates Sir Thomas de Berkeley (1289-d.1365) and his wife Joan Lady de Berkeley (d.1369).  Joan remarried after Thomas’ death and would therefore have died elsewhere, possibly at Pauntley, the family home of her second husband  William Whittington,  so possibly the tomb and effigies may have been commissioned  prior to Sir Thomas’ death.  Alternatively it’s also possible Joan may have requested burial next to her first husband and the monument was then commissioned by their son, another Thomas (1351-1405).  However moving on –  Sir Thomas  – depicted in armour and who fought at the Battle of Crecy on the 26 August 1346 –  was the son of Sir Giles de Berkeley (1240-1294) who fought in the Crusades.   Joan was the daughter and heir of Geoffrey Archer of Stoke Orchard also known as Stoke Archer.   You could be forgiven for thinking that the photo shows the monuments to a family – the parents on a joint tomb and a separate monument commemorating their small, unnamed daughter and indeed you would not be alone as its erroneously stated in numerous accounts that this is the case.  This would be understandable bearing in mind that there are examples of childrens effigies from that period showing them wearing adult dress as is the figure in the effigy.   See for example the children of  Edward III and his queen Philippa of Hainault who were interred in the Chapel of Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey.  Their effigies display them in the adult fashions of the time despite the fact that William of Windsor who was born in 1348 did not make it to his first birthday and his  sister Blanche of the Tower, born in 1342 also lived for only a short while.

William of Windsor and Blanche of the Tower.  Children of Edward III and Philippa of Hainalt.  St Edward the Confessor’s chapel, Westminster Abbey. Photo Westminster Abbey.org.

However the small effigy in St Giles’ Church is that of an adult female commemorating the burial of her heart.  The clue, as well as the size of the effigy,  is that her right hand is pulling aside her bodice and pointing to her heart while the left holds what appears to be  a glove, rather than the usual hands clasped together in prayer.

The effigy of the unknown lady.  14th century heart burial.   Could this heart have once belonged to the wife of Sir Giles de Berkeley whose heart was interred in St Giles church, Coberley. Photo C B Newham Church  Monuments Society

Unknown as she is – although the Church Monuments society have suggested she was a member of the Berkeley family –  we will never know why this lady had requested that her heart be buried in a separate place to her body. However – having had a lightbulb moment –  I do wonder if the heart buried was that of Sir Giles’ wife who perhaps had opted for her heart to be interred in the same place as that of her husband’s while both their bodies would be interred at St Giles Priory,  Little Malvern? I will return to Sir Gile’s heart burial later.   Certainly her costume is that of an earlier era to the period of the costumes of Sir Thomas and Joan which again is another reason for debunking the chances that this was their daughter.  Still as per usual let not facts get in the way of a heart rendering story that brings tears to the eyes of the unwary onlooker.

As mentioned above after Thomas’ death in 1365 Joan would marry William Whittington of Pauntley  the elder brother of  the famous Richard Whittington who went on to be Lord Mayor of London (be careful not to get our Joan muddled up with her mother-in-law, Joan Maunsel, something I have seen repeatedly while researching this post OR even our Joan being the mother of her brothers-in-law – sigh).   This second marriage was of short duration though with Joan dying in 1369 (1)

Stone effigy of Joan Lady Berkeley. After Thomas’ death in 1365 Joan would marry William Whittington of Pauntley  the elder brother of  the famous Richard Whittington who went on to become Lord Mayor of London as well as a fabulously rich man and a great benefactor to Londoners.   

In an aside to this story in 2012 an attempt was made to steal the small female effigy.   I will let Sally Strachey of  Historic Conservation take up the story : ‘Thieves had quite boldly wandered into the open church with tools for the job and attempted to lift the monument. In doing so, the effigy had been uprooted and the stone edges have been damaged where a crowbar had been used on it. Luckily, I think they probably gave up when they attempted to handle the deceptively heavy girl and looked back down the hundred meter walk back to the car park!’ (2).  The monument has since been made, hopefully,  thief/idiot proof.

The small effigy is not the only monument commemorating a heart burial in St Giles’ church.  A second one in the form of a wall memorial, commemorating Sir Thomas’ father, Sir Giles de Berkeley (1240-1294) can be found opposite the monument to his son.  Sir Giles is portrayed holding a large heart over his shield.  He fought in the Crusades and while he  was buried in St Giles Priory,  Little Malvern  his heart was returned to the family home at Coberley in Gloucestershire.  His favourite charger, Lombard, is said to be buried in the churchyard , a story which is confirmed on a  plaque beneath the wall monument (3).     Another known horse burial in a churchyard occurred over a century later – this time the owner of the horse, Ranulph Lord Dacre, was buried with his horse and not in the church after the Battle of Towton on the 29th March 1461  This might imply that the owners of horses that perhaps had accompanied them into battle and were well loved had their steeds buried in churchyards more than we think.   

13th century wall monument commemorating Sir Giles de Berkeley.  Photos RexHarris @ Flikr.

Plaque below Sir Giles de Berkeley’s monument noting the burial in the churchyard of Lombard – his favourite charger.   Unknown photographer.

Sometimes hearts were buried separately due to the owner dying very far from home.  However in the case of Robert the Bruce it would be the reverse with Robert being buried in Dunfermline Abbey but requesting  that his heart be buried in the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.  This did not go according to plan.   It’s a great story and has been told elsewhere but as this post is about heart burials it’s too good not to give it a mention here.  Briefly the faithful James Douglas set out for the Holy Land in fulfilment of his oath to the dying King, taking the Bruce’s heart with him in a silver casket. However during a ferocious  battle that was going badly for him Douglas threw the heart of the Bruce deep into the melee, biding it “Go first as thou hast always done.”  Douglas himself was killed in the ensuing fighting.  The casket containing the heart of the Bruce and Douglas’ body were both retrieved and  carried back to Scotland by Sir William Keith of Galston and  the heart finally interred at the Abbey of Melrose.

Another famous heart burial was that of Eleanor of Castile (1241-1290) wife to Edward lst. Her body was interred in a fabulous tomb in Edward the Confessor’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, her heart was buried at the Dominican priory at Blackfriars next to her son Alphonso who had died at II years old and her viscera interred at Lincoln Cathedral.

While researching this post I have discovered that heart burials were not as rare as I first thought.  I’ve found several others besides the more famous ones of Eleanor and the Bruce in Frederick Crossley’s wonderful book English Church Monuments.  Printed in 1921 this book is an absolute wealth of information on church monuments.

Monument commemorating the heart burial of Bishop Aymer de Valence c.1261. Winchester Cathedral.  Shown in Crossley’s English Church Memorials p.48.  Photo with thanks to 1066.co.nz. 

Monument to a heart burial said to be dedicated to either Robert de Roos, 1st Baron de Ros, 1285  or according, to the Crossley book – English Church Monuments p.179 –   to William de Albini/d’Aubigné c.1280.  St Mary’s Bottesford, Leicestershire.  Photo with thanks to jmc4 Church Explorer.

Originally this small monument – only 16′ tall-  was at Croxton Abbey – where King John’s heart was buried –  from whence it was brought to St Mary’s at the Dissolution.  The figure clad in chainmail appears to be holding a heart.  The plaque below, which is thought to have once lain over Robert’s heart, was also brought back with the monument but it’s impossible to say if the heart accompanied them.    Hopefully it did.   Robert was married to William de Albini’s daughter and heir Isabella which is where the confusion may have arisen. 

“Here lies the heart of Lord Robert de Roos
Whose body is buried at Kirkham
Who died the 13th of the Kalends of June AD 1285
Isabella Lady de Roos Wife of the said
Robert de Roos lies at a new place near Stamford who died AD 1301“

(Photo with thanks to J.Hannan-Briggs)

So keep that in mind dear reader in your wanderings… it may well be that you come across a small effigy in a church somewhere and your eyes moisten at the thought of a dear lost child.  It may not be what it appears to be…

1. BERKELEY, Thomas (1351-1405) of Coberley and Stoke Orchard, Glos., Chilcote, Derbys and Elsersfield, Worcs. The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993. Author L S Woodger.
2. The attempted theft of the unknown girl St Giles Church, Coberley.
3. Church leaflet John Williams also The King’s England – Gloucestershire Arthur Mee.

If you have enjoyed this post you might also like

Ranulph Lord Dacre of Gilsland – The Lord who was buried with his horse

RICHARD WHITTINGTON c.1350-1423. MERCER, MAYOR AND A MOST BENEVOLENT CITIZEN OF LONDON

STAINDROP CHURCH – A NEVILLE MAUSOLEUM

THE MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN : CHARLES A STOTHARD

AVELINE de FORZ – AN EARLY PLANTAGENET BRIDE & HER TOMB IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY

Bodiam Castle, Sussex. Built by Sir Edward Dalyngrigge between 1385-1388.  Photo History of Bodiam Castle. 

Bodiam Castle.  What a beauty and is it possible to find an even finer epitome of a medieval English Castle?  The builder was Sir Edward  Dalyngrigge –  also spelt Dallingridge  –  (c.1346-1393),  the son and heir  of Roger Dallingridge (c.1311-1380) of Dallingridge and Alice Radingden, daughter and heiress of  Sir John Radingden of Radynden, Sussex.  In the early 14th century the Dallingridge family had originally been minor gentry who rose through the ranks after making several lucrative marriages.  Edward’s grandfather John (d.1335) through his marriage to Joan, daughter of Sir Walter de la Lynde, a wealthy Lincolnshire man,  acquired the manor of Bolebrook in Sussex as well as a moiety of that of Laceby in Lincolnshire.  Roger, Edward’s father,  would continue the trend when he married Alice Radingden.  When Sir John Radingden died in 1359, Alice’s inheritance included five manors including  Sheffield (the one in Sussex and not the one up north!) and Fletching, 25 miles east of Bodiam.  Fletching being the principal seat of his parents was probably  where Sir Edward spent his childhood.  In Fletching church there is a fine brass to a knight and lady from the Dalyngrigge family and although its been identified as Walter, Sir Edward’s younger brother, it is more than likely their parents, Roger and Alice.  Note the lady’s headdress fashionable c.1375-1380 and that Roger’s death occurred in 1380.

Dalyngrigge brass in Fletching Church.  Possibly that of Roger and Alice, Sir Edward parents.

On Roger’s death all these inherited lands would pass to Edward, who had already made his fortune from his  time spent in France.  His wealth had already been further bolstered  when he too adhered to family tradition and made an ‘opportune marriage’  – arranged by his father –  when in about November 1364 he married Elizabeth Wardieu/Wardedieu (b.c.1347-d.1383) daughter of John Wardieu of Sywell, Northants and importantly Bodiam.   When Elizabeth’s father died in 1377 she  inherited the manors at Bodiam and Hollington as well as 750 acres of land elsewhere in Sussex, a number of properties in Kent, and the manors of Sywell, Hannington and Arthingworth in Northamptonshire although her entitlement to certain estates in Leicestershire and Rutland was disputed.  However, quelle surprise,  the  Dalyngrigges triumphed.  Added to this Sir Edward, now one of the wealthiest landowners of his county would add to his ever growing lands and properties by  further purchases such as the manor of Iden.  However he would make Bodiam his principal residence. (1).

There is a beautiful  but damaged brass in Bodiam church of a man in 14th armour identifiable by its heraldry as being  that of a member of the Wardieu family.  It has been suggested it is Sir John Wardieu, Elizabeth’s father,  but it appears to be of an earlier date and possibly of her grandfather. 

Effigy of a member of the Wardieu family in 14th century armour in Bodiam church – possibly Elizabeth’s father or grandfather. 

SIR EDWARD  DALYNGRIGGE’S CAREER

Sir Edward has been described as a ‘successful career soldier, politician and courtier’.  He seems to have been successful at every stage of his career although of course in those frequent tricky times things did not always go according to plan and one could easily find oneself getting into scrapes.  And indeed our Sir Edward, who had close links to the Earl of Arundel,  finding himself on the wrong side of John of Gaunt ended up in prison not once but twice when in June 1384 in a culmination of the long running feud between him and Gaunt,  he was summoned to appear in court during a special commission of oyer and terminer at the suit of Gaunt. (2).  The tribunal was ‘strongly biased in Gaunt’s favour’ and Sir Edward ‘treating the case as a matter of honour’ appears to have gone full tonto, throwing his gauntlet down according to some accounts, and answering the charges ‘with a wager of battle ‘ as you do.  Obviously this did not pan out well for him and he was committed to custody for contempt of court (3). His patron the earl of  Arundel managed to sweet talk the king, Richard II,  into releasing him on the 26 July  while the king was a guest at Arundel castle and Gaunt otherwise preoccupied – well he was abroad at the time basically.  On Gaunt’s return in October he rectified the matter,  well to his liking,  and had Sir Edward rearrested and this time he stayed that way until the following January when he was released, his skills being urgently required to supervise the fortification of Rye and Winchelsea in the face of threats of a French invasion.  I do wonder if this stuck in Gaunt’s craw? (4). 

This was not Sir Edward’s first experience at finding himself on the wrong side of the law for in the autumn of 1370 he had been ‘ …arrested and brought before Edward III’s council for having failed to embark for France in the major expeditionary army commanded by Sir Robert Knolles after receiving an advance payment of his wages’ (5). However as far as I can tell he appears to have emerged from that unscathed and on the best of terms with Sir Robert – indeed Sir Robert’s arms were carved above one of Bodiam’s gates.  

Here is just a very brief curriculum vitae of some of the posts Sir Edward held:

Steward to the widowed Countess Warenne in the 1350s.  After her death in 1361  transferred his services to her heir Richard, Earl of Arundel.

Over a 30 year period covering 1359-89 he served in many of the major expeditions against France.

Master forester at Ashdown Chase 13 Aug. 1381-6 Sept. 1383.

Represented Sussex in Parliament on 4 occasions between 1360-1377 (6).

Served in the retinue of the Earl of Arundel during Gaunt’s expedition to France 1369

Served in the retinue of Edward, Lord Despenser 1373 and 1375

Served as a commissioner of array in 1377, 1385, 1386 and 1392

Member of Richard II’s council 4 May 1389

Ambassador to France 12 Apr – 15 July 1390

Keeper and escheator of the City of London 25 June-22 July 1392

For those who would like to delve further into Sir Edward’s career the best and fullest account I have come across is that to be found on the online The History of Parliament.  I found another useful account in Dan Spencer’s  Edward Dallingridge: Builder of Bodiam Castle.

BODIAM CASTLE

We have seen from above how Bodiam came into the possession of Sir Edward who abandoned the Wardieus’ original manor house – which stood at the northern end of the village –  to build his new castle lower down by the River Rother.   He was granted a licence to crenellate on the 20 October 1385:

 ‘The King to all men to whom etc greeting.  Know that of our special grace we have granted and given licence on behalf of ourselves and our heirs, in so far as in us lies, to our beloved and faithful Edward Dallingridge Knight, that he may strengthen with a wall of stone and lime, and crenellate and may construct and make into a castle his manor house of Bodyham,  near  the sea,  for the defence of the adjacent country and resistance to our enemies, and may hold his aforesaid house so strengthened and crenellated and made into a castle for himself and his heirs for ever,  without let or hindrance of ourselves or our heirs, or any of our agents whatsoever.  In witness of which etc.  The King at Westminster 20 October’ (7). 

Nevertheless since the 19th century it has been hotly debated by both architectural and military historians whether Bodiam was ‘essentially a fortress with residential provision built to defend the country from French attack or whether it was primarily a residence built in a fortified style’ (8). Architectural historian Anthony Emery has suggested that the castle was Sir Edward’s ‘belligerent response to his wounded ego’ having been ‘bested in his quarrel with John of Gaunt’s agents in Sussex during the early 1380s’ (9).    So a kind of defiant ‘up yours’ maybe?  And we do know how very fragile the egos of these members of the medieval aristocracy could be.    Bodiam has also been described as having ‘serious military vunerability’ such as an easy to drain moat and badly situated gun ports.  Its also been suggested it may have been ‘an old soldier’s dream house‘ –  although I would argue with that comparison – Sir Edward was neither old and although dying at home in his own bed, this veteran of the Hundred Years War was surely the absolute epitome of a medieval warrior as far as I’m concerned and remained so until the day he drew his last breath (10).   Anthony Emery has also opined that Bodiam was ‘a house of swagger with the architectural trappings of defence set in a deliberately conceived landscape, yet it is also markedly impressive irrespective of its owners intent for mindset’ (11).  But therein lays the exquisite, unique beauty of Bodiam Castle which lacks the foreboding appearance of many castles such as Conwy, Caernarfon or Goodrich for example although to be fair they were earlier.  Bodiam looks sublime, almost welcoming,  in a glorious setting and on a misty day or in a certain light has the appearance of floating above the water of the moat, a romantic and atmospheric ruin.  

Evocative image of Bodiam Castle at dusk.  Photo thanks to Peter Blake at flikr.

Sir Edward was dead by August 1393, a comparatively short life, but he had been able to enjoy the newly built Bodiam castle for a time albeit short.  He would be buried next to Elizabeth in the Cistercian abbey at nearby Robertsbridge.  He would be succeeded by his son Sir John who would also go on to be a politician, courtier and royal ambassador.  Sir John would marry Alice Boteler/Butler in 1406 dying two years later childless.

FOOTNOTE.  

As we see above Sir John married Alice Boteler/Butler nee Beauchamp, widow of Thomas Boteler/Butler of Sudeley who had died in 1398.  Going off on a total tangent here – but much too interesting to leave out –  is that Alice and Thomas were the parents of Ralph Boteler/Butler, Lord Sudeley, whose son, another Thomas,  was the first husband of Eleanor Talbot (c. 1436 – June 1468) daughter of the famous John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury.   The widowed Eleanor would later marry Edward IV in a secret ceremony.   It was this secret marriage, known as a ‘precontract’, that made his later second – yet another secret  ‘marriage’  – to Elizabeth Woodville/Wydville bigamous.  Thus the children of this second clandestine ‘marriage’ were declared illegitimate in 1483 when Edward IV suddenly and unexpectedly died and the secret got out after Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells,  let the cat out of the bag.  This would, with all its tragic repercussions,  prove to be the catalyst for the destruction of the royal House of York culminating in the death of Richard III at Bosworth in 1485.  The two sons from this Woodville marriage were of course Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury – the missing princes.   But that, of course dear reader, is another story….

1. The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe 1993.

2. Edward Dallingridge: Builder of Bodiam Castle.   Dan Spencer.University of Southampton

3. Ibid.
4. DALLINGRIDGE Sir Edward (c.1346-1393) of Bodiam Castle, Sussex.  ed J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993.
5. Lyte, Morris, Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1367-1370, p. 475.  See also DALLINGRIDGE, Sir Edward (c.1346-1393), of Bodiam castle, Suss History of Parliament online.
6. The House of Commons 1386-1421 Vol 2. p.739.  Roskell.
7. Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office: Richard II. A.D. 1385- 1389.
8. Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales Vol.3 p.p 317-318.  Anthony Emery. 
9. Lancaster – v – Dallingridge: a franchisal dispute in fourteenth century Sussex.  Sussex Archive Collection 121 (1983) p.p.87-94. S. Walker    
10. D. J. Turner, ‘Bodiam Sussex: True Castle or Old Soldier’s Dream House? England in the Fourteenth Century: Proceedings of the 1985 Harlaxtion Symposium, ed. by W. M. Ormrod (Woodbridge: The Boydell, 1986), pp. 267-277.
11. Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales Vol.3 p.p 317-318.  Anthony Emery.

If you have enjoyed this post you might also like:

SIR THOMAS BURGH c.1430-1496 AND GAINSBOROUGH OLD HALL

RICHARD WHITTINGTON c.1350-1423. MERCER, MAYOR AND A MOST BENEVOLENT CITIZEN OF LONDON

THE MONUMENTAL EFFIGIES OF GREAT BRITAIN : CHARLES A STOTHARD

ELIZABETH TALBOT, VISCOUNTESS LISLE, LADY ELEANOR BUTLER’S NIECE

Ralph Boteler, Lord Sudeley, father-in-law to Lady Eleanor Talbot.

THE TOMB OF BLANCHE MORTIMER, LADY GRANDISON

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

John Rous ‘drawne by himselfe’.   From the Latin ‘Lancastrian’ version of the rolls.  College of Arms.

John Rous or Rows as he called himself (b.c1420 d. 14 January 1492) was the son of  Geoffrey Rous of Warwick, who was a younger son of Thomas Rous of Brinklow, and Margaret, the daughter of Richard Fyncham.  An interesting man, although not without flaws,  and who left us a wealth of information regarding the Earls of Warwick and their families as well as his version of events regarding the reign and fall  of Richard III.  He was chaplain of the Chantry Chapel at Guy’s Cliff and resided there for the most part of his adult life in the house that was provided nearby for the priests of that chapel.  The chapel was dedicated to St Mary Magdalene and had been founded in 1423 by Richard Beauchamp earl of Warwick (b.1382 d.1439). 

Chantry Chapel at Guy’s Cliff.  Early 19th century engraving.  Artist unknown.

 He was  the creator of the Rous Roll, an illustrated chronicle on rolls of vellum detailing the history of the Earls of Warwick of which he made two versions – one in English known as the Yorkist Roll,  the other in Latin known as the Lancastrian Roll both of which were accompanied by beautiful line drawings in pen and wash.   This work was produced between 1477 and 1485 and thus ended with the death of Richard III at Bosworth in August 1485 and Henry Tudor taking the throne.  This would prove to be a bit tricky for Rous who had written in positive and gushing manner about the dead Richard.  What to do?  Doubtlessly after causing him a few sleepless nights he managed to doctor the Latin roll but was unable to get hold of the English version. Yikes!

Richard as portrayed in the English version of Rous Roll.  The king holds a sword in one hand and Warwick Castle in the other.  This version of the roll is now held in the British Library.

‘Rex Richardus tercius – born in the Castel of Foderiyngay a myghti prince in his dayes special gode lord to the town & lordship of Warrewyk wher yn the castel he did gret cost off byldyng In the which his most noble lady & wyf was born and at gret instance of her he of his bounteous grace with owt fee or fyn graunt to the seyd borowh frely by charter as kyng William Conquerour his noble progenitor a fore tym gret previlagis’. 

Second depiction of Richard III in the English version.  Crowned, holding a sword in his right  hand and an orb in his left hand.  His cognizance, the white boar at his feet.  English version of the Rous Roll. British Library.

The moost mighty prynce Rychard by the grace of god kynge of ynglond and of fraunce and lord of Irelond by verrey matrimony with owt dyscontynewans or any defylynge yn the lawe by eyre male lineally dyscendyng from kynge harre the second all avarice set a syde Rewled hys subjettys In hys Realme ful commendabylly poneschynge offenders of hys laws specyally Extorcioners and oppressors of hys comyns and chereschynge tho that were vertues by the whyche dyscrete guydynfe he gat gret thank of god and love of all hys subjettys Ryche and pore and gret lavd of the people of all othyr landys a bowt hym

However he seemed to have got away with it and with his head still intact was able to dedicate his other famous work, Historia regum Anglie/ Joannis Rossi Antiquarii Warwicensis Historia Regum Angliae, which he completed in 1487,  to the new king Henry VII, who according to Rous had ‘been sent by God’ (1).  Moreover  Historia would go on to savagely blacken Richard III’s name.   It is this quite extraordinary, and to be honest,  rather craven,  volte-face on his original rapturous descriptions of Richard contained in the rolls, which have led to some, well many actually,  viewing him as nothing more than a dastardly turncoat.    Other than to blatantly curry favour with the new king is there anything that could perhaps excuse this strange and discombobulated turnaround?  It has been suggested by some historians, including Dr Alison Hanham,  that he may have actually believed the scurrilous and damaging rumours that Richard had poisoned his Queen, Anne Neville, daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, known as the Kingmaker, and Anne Beauchamp who was herself a daughter to the earlier Earl of Warwick, Richard Beauchamp who had founded the chapel at Guy’s Cliff and this could explain the viciousness of his attack on the late king (2).

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick.  Founder of the chapel at Guy’s Cliff which may be the smaller building depicted.   Carries the infant Henry VI – who is shown crowned and sceptered –  upon his left arm and a mace for that monarch’s defence.  At his feet a muzzled bear. English version of Rous Roll.  British Library.

According to our Rous, Richard,  prior to murdering his wife,  had also kept her mother,  the widowed countess, a prisoner after ‘she had fled to him as her chief refuge and he locked her up for the duration of his life’.  What his wife had to say about the cruel incarceration of her mother is lost to us in the mist of time – quelle surprise.   The accusations fall fast and furious including the horrid murder of his nephews, Edward V  and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury,  although he doesn’t know the manner of their deaths – no-one does – only that they have been heinously ‘slaughtered’ and Richard has taken the young murdered king’s throne.   Rous’ Richard clearly took regicide in his stride because when he was the 17 year old Duke of Gloucester he had also ‘caused others‘  to  murder another king –  the ‘holy man‘ King Henry VI – and furthermore it was ‘thought by many’  that he had done this with his very own hand  – obvs.  With Richard in full tonto mode its almost a relief when Rous reaches the part where Richard is entering ‘the evening of his life’.   But it’s not quite over yet  –  Richard, who was ‘excessively cruel in his days‘  –  is compared to the Antichrist and ‘like Antichrist to come, he was confounded at his moment of greatest pride‘,  as you are, following which he was ‘unexpectedly destroyed in the midst of his army by an invading army small by comparison but furious in impetus, like a wretched creature‘. Blimey!  And it’s here at this very point, having made verbal mincemeat of the now dead king,  that bizarrely Rous does yet another quite bewildering about-face :  ‘For all that, let me say the truth to his credit’.. !  We will return to this important point below where it is discussed in the excerpt from David Johnson’s article John Rous: The man who said too much.*  

 If Rous had heard, and swallowed,  the rather unsavoury propaganda regarding the murder of Richard’s wife and imprisonment of his mother-in-law,  it may well have led to him, an avid admirer of both Anne and her mother,  being a very angry and bitter man.  However if we accept that he – being ensconced mostly at Guy’s Cliff and Warwick – he did of course  sometimes travel further afield including London, later recalling  ‘In the days of this king (Edward IV) an elephant was brought to England, which I saw at London, but it soon declined’ – and being rather out of the loop,  swallowed this nonsense it’s rather pushing the bounds of belief that he had also heard and also believed an even further nonsensical rumour that Richard had been ‘retained within his mother’s womb for two years and emerging with teeth and hair to his shoulders. … At his nativity Scorpio was in the ascendant, which is the sign of the house of Mars. And like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a stinging tail’.   However Rous had got the date of Richard’s birthday muddled – rather than being born on the 21 October and under Scorpio he had in actual fact been born on the 2 October thus under Libra.  Nevertheless Rous apparently was not one to let fact stand in the way of a good and rather lurid story.  No! I fear our Rous was the instigator of at least some of this nonsense and he may have been merely nothing more than a basic out and out turncoat intent on worming his way into the good books of the new Tudor king. Oh dear..I am actually trying hard to find some redeemable qualities here…

Pressing on – Dr Hanham in her excellent book Richard III and his early historians 1483-1535 has helpfully added a modern translation of Joannis Rossi Antiquarii Warwicensis Historia Regum Angliae which has been most helpful to me in writing this post.   Unfortunately there is little in Dr Hanham’s comments about Rous to redeem his rather moth-eaten reputation: 

‘His tales of Richards monstrous birth and deformity deter a later time from taking him seriously and his extremely jumbled account of events makes it seem more likely that he concocted  his history from other sources than that it is in any sense an eyewitnesses‘ testimony’.  He is described as an ‘old-fashioned antiquarian rather than a historian and busy minded man who loved gossip’ and his narrative of Richard’s reign ‘is a rag bag of gleanings’.   However to be fair, as Dr Hanham also points out,  Rous was not the instigator of the odious and ‘unprovable’ rumour that Richard had his Queen poisoned and ‘His animus against Richard may therefore derive in part from the belief that Richard had murdered his wife..’ which is something to give thanks for… I suppose. 

But is it all as it seems?  And has history’s judgement of Rous been too harsh?  He himself would say, rather mysteriously, that he had been ‘unjustly vexed with many tribulations’  (3).  An article in the Richard III Society Bulletin John Rous – The man who said too much  by David Johnson has taken a somewhat softer stance and does indeed make some interesting points.  For example after Henry taking the throne he took the astonishingly draconian step of predating his reign to the day before the battle of Bosworth which had taken place on the 22 August 1485 (4).This was such an unfair, atrocious, act that even the Croyland Chronicler, who was not a fan of Richard III, denounced it and recorded that because of it, Henry’s parliament was on the receiving end of  ‘much argument, or to be, more truthful, rebuke’ (5).  The despicable act would leave those men who had fought for their rightful king in the unenviable position of being traitors with all the calamities this could bring upon both them and their families.  This combined with the belief that it was dangerous to be in possession of the repealed Titulus Regius as well as a new ruling after the rebellion of 1486 that would deny sanctuary to anyone deemed guilty of treason  – ‘Henceforth sanctuary was not pleadable in treason‘  – may have made even the stoutest of hearts quake a little (6). .

Henry VII.  Oil on panel 1505.  Unknown Netherlandish artist.  NPG.  

Clearly it was not prudent to be identified as an admirer of the late king.  In his thought provoking article David Johnson suggests that ‘anyone like Rous who had enthusiastically supported Richard III would have felt threatened by such repressive measures’.   However ‘.. it also seems that the ferocity of Rous’ volte-face may have pricked his conscience. If we examine the Historia carefully we can see him wrestling rather uncomfortably with his drastically revised opinion of Richard. Following the tirade of abuse outlined at the beginning of this paper, the Historia revealingly changed tack and introduced a description of Richard’s bravery at Bosworth with the plea: ‘For all that, let me say the truth to his credit.’  This is a remarkable statement to make in the circumstances, seeming to imply that what Rous had written in proceeding passages of the Historia was not altogether correct, and that he was now begging permission to tell the truth. Here we see the inner turmoil of a man driven to falsehood by fear and apprehension. Rous, it appears, acted to save himself in the frighteningly unpredictable world of the first Tudor king. He seems to have been convinced that his previously expressed admiration for Richard placed him in peril, and he did all in his power to replace it with the ‘ardour of love’ for Henry and as much revulsion for Richard as he could bear…’ (7). 

Is this, sadly,  how it went….?

Anne  Beauchamp and her husband, Richard Neville, ‘The Kingmaker,’ Earl of Warwick.  From the Latin version of the Rous Roll.  Donated to the College of Arms by Melvyn Jeremiah.

So having said all the above how should we view the bulk of his history of the Earls of Warwick as well as his others writings?  With caution definitely.   Charles Ross opines that Rous sufferered from ‘a narrowness of view.  Rous saw the mediaeval earls of Warwick through blinkers. The left eye was that of the local historian,  for whom events concerning  Warwick were the centre of attention,  the right eye was anxious to please the lords of Warwick of his own day’.  Clearly for Rous ‘there was was no such thing as a bad Earl of Warwick’ (8). 

However all is not lost and historian Nicholas Orme opines although he was often inaccurate about details and dates, mingling history with myth, nevertheless  ‘he used a wide range of writers, often referred to his sources and compared  the population figures given in the hundred rolls of 1279 with those of places in his own day… He recognised the historical value of paintings and monuments, and though he did not altogether master the history of costume, he had an understanding of the evolution of body armour. His lists of university halls and deserted villages show an eye for institutions disregarded in his own day. With his contemporary and fellow Oxonian, William Worcester, he is deservedly recognised as one of the earliest major English antiquaries’ (9).  

Personally I like him best for his outspoken views on the  Enclosure Movement which saw thousands of hapless people turfed out of their villages and homes,  their livelihoods lost to them, by the unabated greed of their landlords.  He felt ‘stirred to rise against the devastation and destruction of villages by mouth and pen following the clamor and murmurings of the populace’.

The cruel injustice of the Enclosures was something that Rous felt deeply and passionately about  and he devoted three passages to it in Historia as well as  ‘listing the  seventy-eight (deserted villages) that were all within his home county of Warwickshire’ castigating the enclosing landlords as “murderers of the impoverished,” “destroyers of humanity,” and “venomous snakes.” They had shown no mercy to “the children, tenants, and others whom they have forced from their homes by theft,” and so could expect “judgment without mercy” in the afterlife; certainly he would not be singing any masses for the souls of these “destroyers of towns’ (10).    And I hope heartily  that if any of these landlords chanced upon Rous’ opinions of them they had the grace to blush.  

So have we and history judged Rous too harshly?  Charles Ross has likened him to the character of the Vicar of Bray whose career may be niftily summed up in the chorus of a recently written folk song about him:

‘And this be law, that I’ll maintain until my dying day, sir
That whatsoever king may reign,  still I’ll be the Vicar of Bray, sir’.

However Ross slightly softens his stance when he recalls the beautiful tributes made by Rous to both Queen Anne Neville and her mother, Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick. Of  Queen Anne Neville he wrote  ‘In person she was seemly, amiable and beauteous and according to the interpretation of her name Anne full gracious’.

Queen Anne Neville.  English version of the Rous Roll.  The queen, in royal robes, holding the sceptre and orb.  Hands appearing from clouds  on either side of her offer her the crowns of Lancaster and York alluding to her two marriages.  At her feet the muzzled bear of Warwick. 

And for Anne Beauchamp, whom he would have known personally, he wrote ‘Dam Anne Beauchamp a noble lady of the blode royal dowhter to Eorl Rychard and hole sustre and eyr to fir herre Beauchamp duke of Warrwik and aftre the deffese of his only begoten dowhtre Lady An.  by trew enheritans countas of Warrewick which goode lady had in her dayes grete tribulacon for her lordis fake Syre Rychard Neeuel fon and Eyre to fir Rychard Eorl of Salifbury and by her tityll Eorl of Warrwik a famus knyghe and excellent gretly fpoke of thorow thr mofte part of all chrifendam.  This gode lady was born in the manor of Cawerfham by redyng in the counte of oxenforde and was euer a full deuout lady in Goddis feruys fre of her fpeche to euery perfon familier accordyng to her and thore degre. Glad to be at and with women that traueld of chyld.  full comfortable and plenteus then of all thyng that shuld be helpyng to hem. and in hyr tribulacons fhe was euer to the gret pleafure of God full pacient. to the grete meryte of her own fowl and enfample of all odre that were vexid with eny aduerfyte.  Sho was alfo gladly euer companable and liberal and in her own perfone femly and bewteus and to all that drew to her ladifhup as the dede fhewid ful gode and gracious. her refon was and euer fhall. 

Charles Ross’ closing comment in his Historical Introduction to The Rous Roll reads  ‘For this generous tribute to an eclipsed Countess perhaps Rous should be forgiven a great deal’…. (11). 

So, sticking my head above the parapet here,  was Rous just a frightened elderly man,  nervous about his future as one of those who had once waxed lyrical about the defeated  King Richard III?   It’s said that history will judge men and so it does but has it got it wrong  in its appraisal of Rous?  I’ll leave you dear reader to make your own mind up about that one…

John Rous died on the 14th of January 1492 and was buried in the nave of the Collegiate Church of Saint Mary,  Warwick.  Leyland who saw the tomb 50 years later recorded what seems to have been its Latin inscription commemorating ‘John Rous chaplain of the Chantry of Gibclif who constructed the library above the south porch of this church and equipped it with books’.  However both his library and tomb were destroyed in the great fire that devastated Warwick and parts of the church on the 5 September 1694.

 1. Richard III and his earlier historians 1483-1535. Excursis. John Rous’ account of the reign of Richard III. p.p.118.124.  Alison Hanham.

2. Ibid.p.124

3. Historia regum Anglie/ Joannis Rossi Antiquarii Warwicensis Historia Regum Angliae  

4. Chrimes, Henry VII, pp 50. 63.

5. N Pronay & J Cox The Crowland Chronicle Continuations 1459-1486, London 1986, p 195

6. Chrimes, Henry VII, p 71 7 n 4.

7. JOHN ROUS THE MAN WHO SAID TOO MUCH. David Johnson.  Ricardian Bulletin article December 2013. 

8. The Rous Roll p.xii.  Introduction. Charles Ross. 1980.

9.  Rous, John (c.1420-1492). Oxford Dictionary of National  Biography. September 2004.  Nicholas Orme.

10.  These Destroyers of Towns. Matthew Green.  Online article https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/these-destroyers-towns.

11. The Rous Roll p.xviii Introduction. Charles Ross. 1980.

 If you enjoyed this post your might also like:

WHARRAM PERCY – A DESERTED MEDIEVAL VILLAGE – VICTIM OF THE ‘ENCLOSURES’

The Sisters Neville – Isobel, Duchess of Clarence and Queen Anne Neville, Daughters to the Kingmaker.

Coldharbour – An Important Medieval London House

L’Erber – London Home to Warwick the Kingmaker and George Duke of Clarence

Anne Beauchamp Countess of Warwick – Wife to the Kingmaker

EDWARD, EARL OF WARWICK – HIS LIFE AND DEATH. 

THE SIX SISTERS OF WARWICK THE KINGMAKER

DID RICHARD III LOVE ANNE NEVILLE ‘MOST DEARLY BELOVED CONSORT’?

QUEEN ANNE NEVILL – HER BURIAL IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY