In the space of less than twenty years, Francis was granted two safe-conducts to Scotland, both curiously issued on 19th June, the first one in 1471, the second one in 1488.
The first one was organised by his father-in-law, Henry FitzHugh, during the Lancastrian re-adaption, for his family and wards, if strangely not for himself. Since Henry supported the Lancastrian side, it seems likely he hoped to allow his family to escape to Scotland should the then-exiled Yorkist king Edward IV return and be victorious against the Lancastrian Henry VI. Perhaps he feared that, having already been in rebellion against Edward in autumn 1470 and been forgiven, this would not happen a second time and both he and his family would be punished. Perhaps he definitely intended them to go to Scotland if it was possible in case Edward IV regained his throne, or he just wished that they would have the option to flee when it became clear that he might be punished. There is no certainty about it, as it never came to it.
We do not know when Henry applied for the safe conducts, but by the time they came, it may have already been too late for him to realise any of his plans, for by June 1471, Edward had already regained his throne and Henry VI was dead, probably killed on Edward`s orders. It is sometimes assumed that Henry FitzHugh did flee to Scotland alone, with a safe-conduct about which records have got lost, and died there in 1472, but there is no certainty about it. While his death in 1472 is a fact, where he was at the time of death can`t be said. If he did leave for Scotland, however, he took neither Francis nor any of the others he had applied for safe conducts for so they could join him, which also included his wife Alice, his oldest son Richard and their ward Richard, Lord Latimer, who was only three years old in 1471. Francis`s sisters, who at that time still lived in the FitzHugh household, are not mentioned, nor are any of the younger FitzHugh children, but this is most likely not because they were not meant to go along, but because they were not of enough importance to be mentioned, as they neither held any titles in their own name, nor were heirs/heiresses expected to hold titles in the future.
Naturally, we have no idea what Francis thought of going to Scotland, but by the time he could have, he was most likely no longer in the FitzHugh household. Though his wardship was only granted to Edward IV`s sister Elizabeth and her husband John, Duke of Suffolk, a month later, he was presumably already living with them at this time, and would do so for around a year, by which time Henry FitzHugh was dead and any and all plans to go to Scotland appear to have been unnecessary and forgot.
Francis`s second safe conduct to Scotland was presumably organised by Margaret of York, after the Battle of Stoke was won by Henry VII`s forces and Francis was once more a fugitive. It was, however, only granted almost exactly a year after the battle, and Francis may well have been dead by then.
His fellow rebel, Thomas Broughton, appears to have taken his own safe conduct, granted at the same time as Francis`s, and stayed in Scotland until 1492. There is, however, no solid evidence Francis accompanied him, only one instance of hearsay by a "poor and simple man of York", which was recanted later. While there is some evidence of Broughton`s life in Scotland, there is none for Francis.
While it seems likely that in this instance, Francis supported the idea of a safe conduct, it doesn`t seem as if he ever arrived there. He may have been dead by the time it arrived, or been too ill to travel. Whether he had wanted to go there or seen it as a necessary evil, we don`t know, but it never came to fruition. It seems that despite having had two safe- conducts in his name, Francis never went to Scotland.
Tuesday, 19 June 2018
Saturday, 16 June 2018
The Battle of Stoke
On 16th June 1487, the last battle of the series of conflicts now known as the Wars of the Roses was fought at East Stoke between the forces of the then-sitting king, Henry VII, and rebel Yorkist forces, led by John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln and Francis.
Little is known about the actual battle itself, not even who was present. Strangely, though information about their motivations and especially the identity of the boy they fought for is scarce and has been lost and/or deliberately destroyed, more is known about who fought for the Yorkist rebels than who fought for Henry VII.
Apart from Francis and John, the Yorkists were supported by the Irish Earl of Kildare`s brother, Thomas FitzGerald, and a number of his men, as well as a German mercenary called Martin Schwartz and a company of his men. They were also joined by some English rebels eager to support their cause, most notably Francis`s associate Thomas Broughton. Henry VII`s forces appear to have been led by the Earl of Oxford. It is usually assumed that Henry`s uncle Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, also took a leading part, but he is not mentioned in any contemporary source, though his absence would be hard to explain. It is equally unknown if William Beaumont, Viscount Beaumont, also an experienced fighter, was present, though in his case, an absence could easily be explained by the fact that at this point, his mental health was already failing.
If he was present, it would have meant he fought against his nephew Francis. Although it is hard to imagine either of them was much upset about this, as they can hardly have known each other, it is possible that William, already being somewhat unstable, was kept away from the battle so this situation would not worsen his state, and he would not be tempted to do something irrational. This is sheerest speculation, though.
What is known is that the battle between those forces which were there took longer than the Battle of Bosworth some two years previously had done. It has been estimated that it lasted around three hours, and hung in the balance for a while. Eventually, however, the Yorkists were defeated and Henry VII`s forces won the day.
There has been much speculation why this was so. Polydore Vergil, writing years later for Henry VII and his son, claimed that one factor was that Kildare`s Irish forces had only old-fashioned weapons, which meant they were quite easily defeated by the more modern weapons of the royal forces and that without their support, the rest of the rebel forces were outnumbered and eventually defeated. It has also been claimed that in fact the opposite was the case, that the German mercenaries` modern firearms backfired a lot and many were killed by their own weapons, fatally weakening the Yorkist army.
Whether or not either of those theories is the truth, most of the rebel leaders were killed during the battle. Vergil claimed that they died bravely standing their ground in the face of defeat, but once more, the truth of who died when cannot be ascertained. It is a fact though that Martin Schwartz, Thomas FitzGerald, and John de la Pole died during or just after the battle. There is a legend that John de la Pole was found fatally wounded but still breathing under an oak tree after the battle, was killed with a stake through the heart by the enemy fighter who found him, and later buried on the spot that he had died. There is, however, no evidence to support this story, and it is perhaps a touch too dramatic to be truthful.
It has also been claimed that Henry VII was angry that John de la Pole had not survived and been brought to him so he could question him about his knowledge and reasons for rebellion, but again, there is no supporting evidence for this.
Of the Yorkist leaders, only Francis survived the battle, though his fate afterwards is unknown. The York Civic Records state that he was "discomfited and fled", but there is no further information as to what happened to him afterwards. According to legend he was last seen swimming with his horse over the river Trent, but as with so many stories about the battle, it cannot be ascertained in any way.
Shortly after the Battle of Stoke, it became known that the pretender the Yorkist forces fought for had been caught by Henry VII`s forces, but since he was only a boy of ten years old, pardoned. However, the identity of the boy has been doubted, and there are many theories that the boy who subsequently worked in Henry VII`s household was not in fact identical with the boy the Yorkists fought for. It has been postulated that this boy was in fact Edward of Warwick, as Henry VII`s government gave out he claimed to be, or even Edward V, son of Edward IV, who died in the battle.
Though there have been claims that the very fact Francis fled from the battle field after the battle was lost shows he regarded the boy as insignificant, this argument can easily be debunked. Since, if all happened as is claimed in the traditional narrative, the boy was already captured in the last moments of the battle, there would have been nothing Francis could have done for him, and any attempt to do anything would have only led to his own capture and execution without helping the young pretender any. If, however, the boy was in fact Edward of Warwick or Edward V, who had died in battle, there would have been no reason for him to remain and no one to even attempt to help. The argument, therefore, does not hold water and unfairly makes Francis look like a coward, when there is absolutely no evidence to support such an interpretation of him.
There are some indications that Francis was injured during the battle, and it is even possible he did not leave the battle field on his own but was carried away as he was unable to leave himself. Once more, it is speculation. However, there are some indications he may have died fairly soon afterwards, perhaps of complications of his wounds.
Since he had already been attainted in November 1485, he was not among the number of rebels for whom an attainder was passed in Parliament in 1487. However, for some reason, when Parliament sat in 1495, it was decided to rectify this, and despite the fact the 1485 attainder had never been lifted, a second attainder was passed for him.
However, by this time, Francis was almost certainly dead already, and it had been eight years since his last confirmed sighting.
Little is known about the actual battle itself, not even who was present. Strangely, though information about their motivations and especially the identity of the boy they fought for is scarce and has been lost and/or deliberately destroyed, more is known about who fought for the Yorkist rebels than who fought for Henry VII.
Apart from Francis and John, the Yorkists were supported by the Irish Earl of Kildare`s brother, Thomas FitzGerald, and a number of his men, as well as a German mercenary called Martin Schwartz and a company of his men. They were also joined by some English rebels eager to support their cause, most notably Francis`s associate Thomas Broughton. Henry VII`s forces appear to have been led by the Earl of Oxford. It is usually assumed that Henry`s uncle Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, also took a leading part, but he is not mentioned in any contemporary source, though his absence would be hard to explain. It is equally unknown if William Beaumont, Viscount Beaumont, also an experienced fighter, was present, though in his case, an absence could easily be explained by the fact that at this point, his mental health was already failing.
If he was present, it would have meant he fought against his nephew Francis. Although it is hard to imagine either of them was much upset about this, as they can hardly have known each other, it is possible that William, already being somewhat unstable, was kept away from the battle so this situation would not worsen his state, and he would not be tempted to do something irrational. This is sheerest speculation, though.
What is known is that the battle between those forces which were there took longer than the Battle of Bosworth some two years previously had done. It has been estimated that it lasted around three hours, and hung in the balance for a while. Eventually, however, the Yorkists were defeated and Henry VII`s forces won the day.
There has been much speculation why this was so. Polydore Vergil, writing years later for Henry VII and his son, claimed that one factor was that Kildare`s Irish forces had only old-fashioned weapons, which meant they were quite easily defeated by the more modern weapons of the royal forces and that without their support, the rest of the rebel forces were outnumbered and eventually defeated. It has also been claimed that in fact the opposite was the case, that the German mercenaries` modern firearms backfired a lot and many were killed by their own weapons, fatally weakening the Yorkist army.
Whether or not either of those theories is the truth, most of the rebel leaders were killed during the battle. Vergil claimed that they died bravely standing their ground in the face of defeat, but once more, the truth of who died when cannot be ascertained. It is a fact though that Martin Schwartz, Thomas FitzGerald, and John de la Pole died during or just after the battle. There is a legend that John de la Pole was found fatally wounded but still breathing under an oak tree after the battle, was killed with a stake through the heart by the enemy fighter who found him, and later buried on the spot that he had died. There is, however, no evidence to support this story, and it is perhaps a touch too dramatic to be truthful.
It has also been claimed that Henry VII was angry that John de la Pole had not survived and been brought to him so he could question him about his knowledge and reasons for rebellion, but again, there is no supporting evidence for this.
Of the Yorkist leaders, only Francis survived the battle, though his fate afterwards is unknown. The York Civic Records state that he was "discomfited and fled", but there is no further information as to what happened to him afterwards. According to legend he was last seen swimming with his horse over the river Trent, but as with so many stories about the battle, it cannot be ascertained in any way.
Shortly after the Battle of Stoke, it became known that the pretender the Yorkist forces fought for had been caught by Henry VII`s forces, but since he was only a boy of ten years old, pardoned. However, the identity of the boy has been doubted, and there are many theories that the boy who subsequently worked in Henry VII`s household was not in fact identical with the boy the Yorkists fought for. It has been postulated that this boy was in fact Edward of Warwick, as Henry VII`s government gave out he claimed to be, or even Edward V, son of Edward IV, who died in the battle.
Though there have been claims that the very fact Francis fled from the battle field after the battle was lost shows he regarded the boy as insignificant, this argument can easily be debunked. Since, if all happened as is claimed in the traditional narrative, the boy was already captured in the last moments of the battle, there would have been nothing Francis could have done for him, and any attempt to do anything would have only led to his own capture and execution without helping the young pretender any. If, however, the boy was in fact Edward of Warwick or Edward V, who had died in battle, there would have been no reason for him to remain and no one to even attempt to help. The argument, therefore, does not hold water and unfairly makes Francis look like a coward, when there is absolutely no evidence to support such an interpretation of him.
There are some indications that Francis was injured during the battle, and it is even possible he did not leave the battle field on his own but was carried away as he was unable to leave himself. Once more, it is speculation. However, there are some indications he may have died fairly soon afterwards, perhaps of complications of his wounds.
Since he had already been attainted in November 1485, he was not among the number of rebels for whom an attainder was passed in Parliament in 1487. However, for some reason, when Parliament sat in 1495, it was decided to rectify this, and despite the fact the 1485 attainder had never been lifted, a second attainder was passed for him.
However, by this time, Francis was almost certainly dead already, and it had been eight years since his last confirmed sighting.
Friday, 1 June 2018
13th June 1473: Francis and Anne join the Corpus Christi Guild in York
On the feast day of Corpus Christi of the year 1473, which fell onto the 13th June, Francis, his wife Anne, her mother Alice and most of her siblings joined the Corpus Christi Guild in York. They were among several others of high standing who joined this guild, which had been founded in 1408. Other members included the king`s mother Cecily Neville, Lord Clifford (who has gained historical notority as the killer of Edmund of Rutland), Lord Scrope, as well as a number of bishops and archbishops during its not quite 150 years of existence. Richard III and his wife Anne equally became famous members, though they only joined it four years after Francis.
Membership cost 2 shillings a year, as Alexandra Johnson points out in her essay on the guild, and was open to anyone who could afford this. The ordinances of the guild stated that "all candidates for admission to the guild [are] to be received by the six masters or keepers. No oath [is] to be required by them, but they shall charge their conscience to contribute, according to their means, to the support of the guild."
One can imagine that this meant nobles were popular members, as they would have been able to give a lot if they so wished. Sadly, we do not know any longer how much Francis contributed, but since he was a pious man, it may have been a lot.
The guild was "dedicated to the praise and honour of the most sacred body of our Lord Jesus Christ" and aimed to see to the proper observation of the holiday of Corpus Christi. At least two of its six "keepers", clergymen in charge of the guild, would be leading the parade on the day after Corpus Christi every day. While on the actual day of Corpus Christi, the York Mystery Plays took place, the day afterwards there was a parade, still in the essentials the same as Corpus Christi parades today, to the honour of the body of Christ. Guild members joined it, together with officials of the city of York, followed the clergymen who led the parade.
Together with Francis, over 100 other people, men and women, joined the guild, among them his wife and most of her family. The register of the guild states that Francis "and his wife Anne" joined with "Lady Alice FitzHugh" and "Richard, Roger, Edward, Thomas and Elizabeth, children of the said Alice FitzHugh".
Curiously, this is the only reference to a FitzHugh child called Roger, and it`s likely that it was a scribe`s mistake, aciddentally writing Roger instead of George FitzHugh. George, then around eleven years old, was at that time still his brother`s heir, and would have most likely been mentioned between him and his younger brother Edward.
Notably missing is the FitzHugh`s oldest child Alice, who was by then married with children herself and lived in her own household, and their youngest child, a boy named John. Francis`s sisters, who had been brought up in the FitzHugh household after their mother`s death, were equally not present. In Joan`s case, this was probably because, like Alice, she was already married, if recently, and no longer lived in the FitzHugh household. It is less certain why Frideswide did not join the guild with the family, but given that she was only around eight to nine years of age, she may have been considered too young. The fact that John FitzHugh would have been around her age corroborates this theory.
Francis himself was still several months shy of his seventeenth birthday when he joined the guild, while his wife Anne was around thirteen. For both, it must have been an exciting event, but as is so often the case, about their feelings and attitude towards the Corpus Christi Guild, we have little indication and can only speculate.
Membership cost 2 shillings a year, as Alexandra Johnson points out in her essay on the guild, and was open to anyone who could afford this. The ordinances of the guild stated that "all candidates for admission to the guild [are] to be received by the six masters or keepers. No oath [is] to be required by them, but they shall charge their conscience to contribute, according to their means, to the support of the guild."
One can imagine that this meant nobles were popular members, as they would have been able to give a lot if they so wished. Sadly, we do not know any longer how much Francis contributed, but since he was a pious man, it may have been a lot.
The guild was "dedicated to the praise and honour of the most sacred body of our Lord Jesus Christ" and aimed to see to the proper observation of the holiday of Corpus Christi. At least two of its six "keepers", clergymen in charge of the guild, would be leading the parade on the day after Corpus Christi every day. While on the actual day of Corpus Christi, the York Mystery Plays took place, the day afterwards there was a parade, still in the essentials the same as Corpus Christi parades today, to the honour of the body of Christ. Guild members joined it, together with officials of the city of York, followed the clergymen who led the parade.
Together with Francis, over 100 other people, men and women, joined the guild, among them his wife and most of her family. The register of the guild states that Francis "and his wife Anne" joined with "Lady Alice FitzHugh" and "Richard, Roger, Edward, Thomas and Elizabeth, children of the said Alice FitzHugh".
Curiously, this is the only reference to a FitzHugh child called Roger, and it`s likely that it was a scribe`s mistake, aciddentally writing Roger instead of George FitzHugh. George, then around eleven years old, was at that time still his brother`s heir, and would have most likely been mentioned between him and his younger brother Edward.
Notably missing is the FitzHugh`s oldest child Alice, who was by then married with children herself and lived in her own household, and their youngest child, a boy named John. Francis`s sisters, who had been brought up in the FitzHugh household after their mother`s death, were equally not present. In Joan`s case, this was probably because, like Alice, she was already married, if recently, and no longer lived in the FitzHugh household. It is less certain why Frideswide did not join the guild with the family, but given that she was only around eight to nine years of age, she may have been considered too young. The fact that John FitzHugh would have been around her age corroborates this theory.
Francis himself was still several months shy of his seventeenth birthday when he joined the guild, while his wife Anne was around thirteen. For both, it must have been an exciting event, but as is so often the case, about their feelings and attitude towards the Corpus Christi Guild, we have little indication and can only speculate.
Sunday, 20 May 2018
Francis`s character
Not many of Francis`s own words still survive. We only have two letters written by him, plus one indenture which reflects his wishes but most likely was not written in his own words, but those of a lawyer. Still, little though it is, these documents give a rare insight into Francis`s state of mind, and as such are invaluable.
Both of Francis`s surviving letters were addressed to William Stonor, his Oxfordshire neighbour. The first one dates from 1482, the second one from 1483. By this time, the two men had known each other for at least six years, possibly a bit more. A letter from Elizabeth Stonor from 1477 references Francis and his wife and suggests the two couples were establishing a friendly relationship.
However, it appears that over the years, Francis and William remained a bit distant, if friendly. Their relationship seems to have been functional, but not much more than that. Both Francis`s letters are very polite, but do not give away much about him. In the first letter, in June 1482, Francis reports that he couldn`t go back south as he had intended to, and states that he will have to stay in the north of England to join a potential outbreak of war against the Scots, though he intends to come back south as soon as possible. He then asks Stonor to look after his game, a personal but still very innocuous request. The impression of him created by this letter is of a polite and dutiful but somewhat reserved and stiff man, not someone given to unnecessary flourishes. Nor does the letter suggest that he was given to sharing too much of his life, thoughts or motivations, as he does not tell Stonor why he could not come south before as planned, nor why he wishes to go there as soon as possible.
Of course, as this is a singular instance, it doesn`t have to be particularly telling, but the second letter supports this impression of Francis. It is a very different missive from the first one, more official as Francis asks Stonor (unsuccessfully, as would turn out) to come to the aid of the king during the Buckingham rebellion. However, the tone of it is slightly awkward, as if Francis wasn`t used to being either a supplicant or a commander, and it equally misses the flourishes other such letters had, the effusive declarations of gratitude in advance and affection. Again, it suggests Francis was a reserved man, who did not say more than was strictly necessary.
This would, naturally, square with what we know about him. His actions definitely also show a man who wasn`t hankering for the spotlight, who was reserved, calm and didn`t get involved in arguments a lot. While he did, as is to be expected for a man of his standing at the time, show some greediness for lands, even those arguments were usually solved in an unusually non-martial way. His letters, giving a rare glimpse at his own thoughts, thus confirm what his actions also indicate, that he was polite, reserved, calm, unwilling to draw a lot of attention to himself.
Despite this last trait, however, Francis also showed a tendency to be unconventional. Naturally, his decision not to accept Henry VII as king after Richard III`s friend, effectively giving up everything for his love and loyalty to his fallen friend showed this in a rather spectacular way, but for most of his life, it appears Francis was more quietly unconventional. One good example for this is found in the above-mentioned indenture, in which he made arrangements for his wife Anne for the event of his own death. Sealed on 10th June 1485, it was probably made with the upcoming battle in mind, but clearly intended not just for the eventuality of him dying in this conflict, but generally for the possibility of Anne surviving him.
Notably, his arrangement left Anne very wealthy, as they would have made her liege lady of three rich manors and outright owner of two others, a move which would have severely disadvantaged his cousin Henry Lovell, Lord Morley. While the usual arrangement for widows, especially childless widows not holding any possessions during their children`s minority, was to give them lifetime rights to some manors, Francis clearly went above and beyond that for Anne. This indicates some affection for her, as well as a rather unusual way of settling his affairs.
Even more notable is that the indenture obviously shows that Francis was not expecting to have any children, and in fact seemed quite certain of this, as his arrangement could have equally disadvantaged them. Even more strange is that, given that he gave Anne ownership of two manors and thus the possibility to pass them on to her own descendants, he seemed to think their childlessness was his fault and it was possible that after his death, she might remarry and have children.
While it is of course possible Francis plainly knew that it was his fault due to something obvious as him not being able to have sex due to an illness, this is sheerest speculation, and it was more than uncommon for a childless couple of which both partners had never been married before, to blame the man for the infertility, rather than the woman. In fact, given that neither Francis nor Anne were even 30 years of age, it was even quite uncommon for him to have already given up on children rather than having hoped that a miracle could happen.
Perhaps this resignation, and even his thinking their childlessness was his fault, is explained by another trait shown by this indenture, namely what appears to have been a low self-esteem. Rather than, as was completely normal, simply charging his wife with finding priests to read prayers for him after his death - as his grandfather William Lovell charged his heirs in his will - he instead asked her to do it in exchange for the generous arrangements he had made for her. As it was not only standard to request prayers, no matter what the relationship of a couple was, but Anne and Francis seemed to care for each other, it is rather strange Francis believed she would need such an incentive to make sure she fulfilled his wish for prayers. It most definitely suggests he was not certain of her feelings, or potentially of deserving it unless he gave her something in return. Again, this would - sadly, in this case - square well with his actions, and may explain why he prefered to stay out of the spotlight.
Finally, the indenture and his generous provisions for Anne also indicate that Francis was a man of high emotions. He showed his affection for his wife in an unusual and very generous way. Equally, he showed his love for Richard in the most spectacular way possible. On the other hand, he equally showed his hatred for his father in very obvious, unconventional ways.
All in all, what can be gleaned from the few of his own words which still survive, and which is supported by his actions, is that Francis was a polite, reserved and calm man, who didn`t like the spotlight, suffered from a low self-esteem at least in his private life, but at the same time was given to strong emotions and quietly unconventional behaviour to show them.
Both of Francis`s surviving letters were addressed to William Stonor, his Oxfordshire neighbour. The first one dates from 1482, the second one from 1483. By this time, the two men had known each other for at least six years, possibly a bit more. A letter from Elizabeth Stonor from 1477 references Francis and his wife and suggests the two couples were establishing a friendly relationship.
However, it appears that over the years, Francis and William remained a bit distant, if friendly. Their relationship seems to have been functional, but not much more than that. Both Francis`s letters are very polite, but do not give away much about him. In the first letter, in June 1482, Francis reports that he couldn`t go back south as he had intended to, and states that he will have to stay in the north of England to join a potential outbreak of war against the Scots, though he intends to come back south as soon as possible. He then asks Stonor to look after his game, a personal but still very innocuous request. The impression of him created by this letter is of a polite and dutiful but somewhat reserved and stiff man, not someone given to unnecessary flourishes. Nor does the letter suggest that he was given to sharing too much of his life, thoughts or motivations, as he does not tell Stonor why he could not come south before as planned, nor why he wishes to go there as soon as possible.
Of course, as this is a singular instance, it doesn`t have to be particularly telling, but the second letter supports this impression of Francis. It is a very different missive from the first one, more official as Francis asks Stonor (unsuccessfully, as would turn out) to come to the aid of the king during the Buckingham rebellion. However, the tone of it is slightly awkward, as if Francis wasn`t used to being either a supplicant or a commander, and it equally misses the flourishes other such letters had, the effusive declarations of gratitude in advance and affection. Again, it suggests Francis was a reserved man, who did not say more than was strictly necessary.
This would, naturally, square with what we know about him. His actions definitely also show a man who wasn`t hankering for the spotlight, who was reserved, calm and didn`t get involved in arguments a lot. While he did, as is to be expected for a man of his standing at the time, show some greediness for lands, even those arguments were usually solved in an unusually non-martial way. His letters, giving a rare glimpse at his own thoughts, thus confirm what his actions also indicate, that he was polite, reserved, calm, unwilling to draw a lot of attention to himself.
Despite this last trait, however, Francis also showed a tendency to be unconventional. Naturally, his decision not to accept Henry VII as king after Richard III`s friend, effectively giving up everything for his love and loyalty to his fallen friend showed this in a rather spectacular way, but for most of his life, it appears Francis was more quietly unconventional. One good example for this is found in the above-mentioned indenture, in which he made arrangements for his wife Anne for the event of his own death. Sealed on 10th June 1485, it was probably made with the upcoming battle in mind, but clearly intended not just for the eventuality of him dying in this conflict, but generally for the possibility of Anne surviving him.
Notably, his arrangement left Anne very wealthy, as they would have made her liege lady of three rich manors and outright owner of two others, a move which would have severely disadvantaged his cousin Henry Lovell, Lord Morley. While the usual arrangement for widows, especially childless widows not holding any possessions during their children`s minority, was to give them lifetime rights to some manors, Francis clearly went above and beyond that for Anne. This indicates some affection for her, as well as a rather unusual way of settling his affairs.
Even more notable is that the indenture obviously shows that Francis was not expecting to have any children, and in fact seemed quite certain of this, as his arrangement could have equally disadvantaged them. Even more strange is that, given that he gave Anne ownership of two manors and thus the possibility to pass them on to her own descendants, he seemed to think their childlessness was his fault and it was possible that after his death, she might remarry and have children.
While it is of course possible Francis plainly knew that it was his fault due to something obvious as him not being able to have sex due to an illness, this is sheerest speculation, and it was more than uncommon for a childless couple of which both partners had never been married before, to blame the man for the infertility, rather than the woman. In fact, given that neither Francis nor Anne were even 30 years of age, it was even quite uncommon for him to have already given up on children rather than having hoped that a miracle could happen.
Perhaps this resignation, and even his thinking their childlessness was his fault, is explained by another trait shown by this indenture, namely what appears to have been a low self-esteem. Rather than, as was completely normal, simply charging his wife with finding priests to read prayers for him after his death - as his grandfather William Lovell charged his heirs in his will - he instead asked her to do it in exchange for the generous arrangements he had made for her. As it was not only standard to request prayers, no matter what the relationship of a couple was, but Anne and Francis seemed to care for each other, it is rather strange Francis believed she would need such an incentive to make sure she fulfilled his wish for prayers. It most definitely suggests he was not certain of her feelings, or potentially of deserving it unless he gave her something in return. Again, this would - sadly, in this case - square well with his actions, and may explain why he prefered to stay out of the spotlight.
Finally, the indenture and his generous provisions for Anne also indicate that Francis was a man of high emotions. He showed his affection for his wife in an unusual and very generous way. Equally, he showed his love for Richard in the most spectacular way possible. On the other hand, he equally showed his hatred for his father in very obvious, unconventional ways.
All in all, what can be gleaned from the few of his own words which still survive, and which is supported by his actions, is that Francis was a polite, reserved and calm man, who didn`t like the spotlight, suffered from a low self-esteem at least in his private life, but at the same time was given to strong emotions and quietly unconventional behaviour to show them.
Tuesday, 24 April 2018
A letter from Alice FitzHugh to John Paston
After the Yorkist forces lost the Battle of Stoke on 16th June 1487, and many of them died, Francis`s whereabouts are unknown. Sources written some decades, and in one case even nearly a century, after the event sometimes claimed that he was last seen swimming on horseback over the river Trent, but even that cannot be ascertained. All that was said contemporarily is that he was "discomfited and fled". His fate afterwards is up for debate.
Even at the time, those closest to him did not know where he had gone, as can be seen from a letter his mother-in-law Alice FitzHugh wrote to John Paston some eight months after the battle, in which she mentions that her daughter Anne, Francis`s wife, has so far been unsuccessful in finding out her husband`s whereabouts. The full text of the letter is this:
"To my right trusty and welbeloved son, Sir John Paston, be this delyvered.
Jon Paston, I recommaunde me to you in my moste hertely maner. And wher I understande be my doghter Lovell, ye desyre to know whedir I woll have the bargane ye made for me in Norwich or nay, and if I wol, I moste content therefor now in merks. Son, in good faith it is so, I shal receyve no mony of the revenowse of my lyvelod before Mydsommer, and also I have payd accordyng to my promise to Sir William Cabell a great payment, the which ye knoww wel was due to be payde, so that I can not be of power to content therfore, for the which I am right sory, for I know well I shall never have such a bargane.
Also my doghtyr Lovell makith great sute and labour for my sone hir husband. Sie Edwarde Franke hath bene in the North to inquire for hym; he is comyn againe and cane nought understonde wher he is. Wherfore her benevolers willith her to continue his suit and labour, and so I can not departe nor leve hir as ye know well; and if I might be there, I wold be full glad, as knowith our Lorde God, Whoo have you in his blissid kepynge.
From London, the xxiiiith day of February.
Your loving moder, Alise, Lady FitzHugh."
This letter, though on the face of it fairly straightforward, has been interpreted variously over the years. Since the year it was written is not given, even that has been disputed. James Gairdner, notably, argued that the year had to be 1486, since there was no knowledge of Francis after 1487. However, this is almost definitely incorrect. For one, Alice addressed John Paston as Sir John, which given that he was only knighted after the Battle of Stoke, means it cannot have been written before 1487. Curiously, Gairdner mentions this but dismisses the address as a mistake, without explaining further why he thinks so.
It is not, however, just the address that shows the year it was written has to be 1488. In 1486, the year Gairdner dates the letter to, Francis`s whereabouts in sanctuary in Colchester were no secret. Moreover, Edward Franke was one of Francis`s co-conspirators in 1486, and would not have to have been sent by Anne Lovell to find him. It is quite clear, therefore, that the letter was written in 1488.
This is quite interesting in itself, as Edward Franke was himself a traitor at that point, and associating with him could have been dangerous to her. However, it seems that neither she nor her mother were afraid of any possible consequences of this.
It is also interesting to note that Anne Lovell apparently had several "benevolers" who supported her in this and were in fact urging her to further try and "continue her suit and labour", arguing she was a popular woman who even in less than good circumstances, as a vanished traitor`s wife, was not abandoned or even simply suffered by her social circle.
The exact nature of her "suit and labour" has equally been disputed over the years. The word "suit" and the fact that at the time of her mother writing this letter, she appears to have been in London, has led some people to argue that she was trying to secure a pardon for her husband. However, this seems a bit unlikely, as Francis had already rejected a pardon in 1485, and none of his actions since then give any indication he had changed his mind at some point. Given that Anne did not know where he was, he could also not have told her he had done so, so that it seems unlikely Anne was trying to secure him a pardon which would avail to nothing.
Moreover, given that Francis had at that point been responsible for two rebellions, one kidnap attempt and one assassination attempt on Henry VII, the likelihood of him being granted a pardon would have been negligible, even without him having already rejected one.
Moreover, her trying to have her husband pardoned does not make sense of Alice`s statements in the text, as she explicitly says because Edward Franke had not found Francis, Anne`s supporters were encouraging her to continue. If she had tried to get him pardoned, she would maybe have tried to continue doing so despite Francis not having been found, but not because of it. The only way this could make sense would be if she tried to get a pardon for herself and hoped to dissociate herself from Francis, but this directly contradicts both her actions and Alice`s words. If she had wanted to dissociate herself from him, Alice would never have said she was doing it for her husband, and Anne would not have associated with traitors, putting herself in some danger, to find him.
Instead, Anne`s suit and labour almost certainly seems to be refering to her trying to find Francis. Why and what she hoped would happen if she found out his whereabouts, there is no hint given in the letter. What is notable, however, is that Alice clearly supported her and does not display any grudges towards Francis and the fact his actions had put her daughter in a bad position. On the other hand, she explicitly refered to him as her son, even when "my daughter`s husband" would have sufficed. She also refered to Anne not as "my daughter Anne" but as the conventional "my daughter Lovell", suggesting neither of them wished to stop her being associated with him.
Finally, it is interesting to note that Alice and Anne clearly had a good relationship, in which Alice supported Anne and her choices and wished to be there for her.
If they ever found out what happened to Francis, we do not know. Anne took a religious vow sometime between the time the letter was written and December 1489, which could indicate she had found out he was dead, but could equally mean she had given up hope to ever find him again. It is, however, notable, that she was still only 29 in December 1489, yet had still chosen to take this vow, which would prevent her from ever marrying again and having children.
Sadly, there is no indication what Alice thought of it and if their relationship stayed as good as it appears to be in February 1488.
Even at the time, those closest to him did not know where he had gone, as can be seen from a letter his mother-in-law Alice FitzHugh wrote to John Paston some eight months after the battle, in which she mentions that her daughter Anne, Francis`s wife, has so far been unsuccessful in finding out her husband`s whereabouts. The full text of the letter is this:
"To my right trusty and welbeloved son, Sir John Paston, be this delyvered.
Jon Paston, I recommaunde me to you in my moste hertely maner. And wher I understande be my doghter Lovell, ye desyre to know whedir I woll have the bargane ye made for me in Norwich or nay, and if I wol, I moste content therefor now in merks. Son, in good faith it is so, I shal receyve no mony of the revenowse of my lyvelod before Mydsommer, and also I have payd accordyng to my promise to Sir William Cabell a great payment, the which ye knoww wel was due to be payde, so that I can not be of power to content therfore, for the which I am right sory, for I know well I shall never have such a bargane.
Also my doghtyr Lovell makith great sute and labour for my sone hir husband. Sie Edwarde Franke hath bene in the North to inquire for hym; he is comyn againe and cane nought understonde wher he is. Wherfore her benevolers willith her to continue his suit and labour, and so I can not departe nor leve hir as ye know well; and if I might be there, I wold be full glad, as knowith our Lorde God, Whoo have you in his blissid kepynge.
From London, the xxiiiith day of February.
Your loving moder, Alise, Lady FitzHugh."
This letter, though on the face of it fairly straightforward, has been interpreted variously over the years. Since the year it was written is not given, even that has been disputed. James Gairdner, notably, argued that the year had to be 1486, since there was no knowledge of Francis after 1487. However, this is almost definitely incorrect. For one, Alice addressed John Paston as Sir John, which given that he was only knighted after the Battle of Stoke, means it cannot have been written before 1487. Curiously, Gairdner mentions this but dismisses the address as a mistake, without explaining further why he thinks so.
It is not, however, just the address that shows the year it was written has to be 1488. In 1486, the year Gairdner dates the letter to, Francis`s whereabouts in sanctuary in Colchester were no secret. Moreover, Edward Franke was one of Francis`s co-conspirators in 1486, and would not have to have been sent by Anne Lovell to find him. It is quite clear, therefore, that the letter was written in 1488.
This is quite interesting in itself, as Edward Franke was himself a traitor at that point, and associating with him could have been dangerous to her. However, it seems that neither she nor her mother were afraid of any possible consequences of this.
It is also interesting to note that Anne Lovell apparently had several "benevolers" who supported her in this and were in fact urging her to further try and "continue her suit and labour", arguing she was a popular woman who even in less than good circumstances, as a vanished traitor`s wife, was not abandoned or even simply suffered by her social circle.
The exact nature of her "suit and labour" has equally been disputed over the years. The word "suit" and the fact that at the time of her mother writing this letter, she appears to have been in London, has led some people to argue that she was trying to secure a pardon for her husband. However, this seems a bit unlikely, as Francis had already rejected a pardon in 1485, and none of his actions since then give any indication he had changed his mind at some point. Given that Anne did not know where he was, he could also not have told her he had done so, so that it seems unlikely Anne was trying to secure him a pardon which would avail to nothing.
Moreover, given that Francis had at that point been responsible for two rebellions, one kidnap attempt and one assassination attempt on Henry VII, the likelihood of him being granted a pardon would have been negligible, even without him having already rejected one.
Moreover, her trying to have her husband pardoned does not make sense of Alice`s statements in the text, as she explicitly says because Edward Franke had not found Francis, Anne`s supporters were encouraging her to continue. If she had tried to get him pardoned, she would maybe have tried to continue doing so despite Francis not having been found, but not because of it. The only way this could make sense would be if she tried to get a pardon for herself and hoped to dissociate herself from Francis, but this directly contradicts both her actions and Alice`s words. If she had wanted to dissociate herself from him, Alice would never have said she was doing it for her husband, and Anne would not have associated with traitors, putting herself in some danger, to find him.
Instead, Anne`s suit and labour almost certainly seems to be refering to her trying to find Francis. Why and what she hoped would happen if she found out his whereabouts, there is no hint given in the letter. What is notable, however, is that Alice clearly supported her and does not display any grudges towards Francis and the fact his actions had put her daughter in a bad position. On the other hand, she explicitly refered to him as her son, even when "my daughter`s husband" would have sufficed. She also refered to Anne not as "my daughter Anne" but as the conventional "my daughter Lovell", suggesting neither of them wished to stop her being associated with him.
Finally, it is interesting to note that Alice and Anne clearly had a good relationship, in which Alice supported Anne and her choices and wished to be there for her.
If they ever found out what happened to Francis, we do not know. Anne took a religious vow sometime between the time the letter was written and December 1489, which could indicate she had found out he was dead, but could equally mean she had given up hope to ever find him again. It is, however, notable, that she was still only 29 in December 1489, yet had still chosen to take this vow, which would prevent her from ever marrying again and having children.
Sadly, there is no indication what Alice thought of it and if their relationship stayed as good as it appears to be in February 1488.
Monday, 2 April 2018
Grant to John Beaumont, concerning the lordship of Bardolph
Francis`s maternal grandmother, Elizabeth Beaumont, was the only child of William Phelip, Lord Bardolph, and his wife Joan, Lady Bardolph, and the sole heiress of the lordship of Bardolph. She married John Beaumont around 1428, and died shortly after her father `s death. Her exact date of death is not known, but it was between 6th June and 10th August 1441, and appears to have been sudden.
With William`s and Elizabeth`s death, Elizabeth`s oldest son Henry, then aged 7, became heir of the lordship of Bardolph. Since he was still a minor, Henry VI granted all the possessions and privileges that came with the title to his father, John Beaumont. The full text of the grant, put into English, reads like this:
****
For John Viscount Beaumont. The King, to whom all etc. [1]
Know that although our dear and faithful cousin John Viscount Beaumont was in no small way bereaved, and lost through death Elizabeth, lately his wife, daughter of William Phelip, lately Lord Bardolph deceased, he has come and been received. [2]
We did not fail to see the merits and the good and free service the same viscount spent, gave and dedicated to us. From our gratitude, special grants to the same viscount: custody of all castles, manors, lordships, towns, lands, tenements, rents and services, together with military fees and ecclesiastical advowson, abbeys, priories, hospitals, vicaries, chapels, at Canterbury and whichever other beneficiaries, as far as free and entitled by birth, [3] which Henry, son of the same viscount, as well as son and heir of the same Elizabeth, or another heir, of the same Henry`s body, or for lack of such, after Henry`s death, William, younger son of the same viscount and Elizabeth and brother of the same Henry, or another heir, of the same William`s body, or for lack of such, after Henry`s and William`s death, Joan, daughter of the same viscount [4] and Elizabeth and sister of the same Henry and William, sons, by and after the deaths of the aforesaid William Phelip and Elizabeth as well as Joan, lately wife of the same William Phelip still alive [5] or Anne, wife of Reginald Cobham, knight, similarly still alive, inherit.
Even some of them which [6] by and after the deaths of the others, in fee simple or fee howsoever in feetails it can descend, revert or remain, together with the wardships, marriages, reliefs [7], escheatures, fixtures and all other profits, comforts and remunerations which to some of the aforementioned premises [8] belong or are seen to [9] and that to us or our heirs by reason of the minority some of the aforementioned Henry, William, sons, and Joan, daughter, or other heirs, some of the same Henry, William, sons, and Joan, daughter [10], who can in any possible, always save for us and our heirs and all that concerns us, inherit the said Viscount Beaumont after the death of the said viscount during the minority of some of the aforementioned Henry, William, sons, and Joan, daughter, and other of their heirs [11].
Should we have and hold their custody and the aforementioned castles, manors, lordships etc. [12], or some of it, in our hands or in our heirs` hands for a time for some of the above-said reasons which may happen and occur [13] long before the heirs of the abovesaid Elizabeth have reached the full age [14] at which we or our heirs render it to them, and which explicitly mentions the said castles, manors, lordships, towns, lands, tenements, rents, services, military fees, advowsons and other premises as well as their true value. Nothingstanding other gifts and grants by us to the same viscount, which for the present facts [15] do not exist.
Testimony etc. According to the king at Westminster, 10th day of August [16]. By the king himself and on the aforesaid date, made by Parliament.
(Original text to be found here.)
****
[1] This is the exact form of the grant.
[2] Despite his wife`s recent death and his father-in-law`s death only shortly before that, John followed his summons to the king and was received by him personally.
[3] This affirms that this was Henry Beaumont`s birthright through his mother, which was not mentioned before in the grant.
[4] Joan Beaumont, Francis`s mother. She may have just been an infant at the time the grant was made.
[5] Literally, "still surviving". While her husband William had been Lord Bardolph, he had held that title and the corresponding possessions in her name. It was only with her death in 1447 that the title fell to her grandson William. The older grandson, Henry Beaumont, died only a little over a year after the grant was made.
[6] The phrasing here is unclear, but it seems to say that in case some lands or possessions fall back to Henry, William or Joan Beaumont during their minority, John is entitled to hold them for his children without them falling first to the king.
[7] Money owed after certain actions.
[8] Lands, manors, lordships, etc.
[9] Are considered to belong to the possessions.
[10] The descendants of Henry, William and Joan, in case they have children but predecease their father.
[11] As above.
[12] Again, this is the exact form of the grant.
[13] That is to say, the deaths of the above-named individuals.
[14] Their majority, which in the case of either Henry or William would have been 21, in the case of Joan, would have been 14 if married by that time and 15 if not.
[15] They are irrelevant for that grant and treated as non-existent.
[16] Though it is not explicitly said in the grant, it was made in the 19th year of Henry VI`s reign, that is to say 1441. The grant was made only 4 days before John Beaumont`s 32rd birthday.
With William`s and Elizabeth`s death, Elizabeth`s oldest son Henry, then aged 7, became heir of the lordship of Bardolph. Since he was still a minor, Henry VI granted all the possessions and privileges that came with the title to his father, John Beaumont. The full text of the grant, put into English, reads like this:
****
For John Viscount Beaumont. The King, to whom all etc. [1]
Know that although our dear and faithful cousin John Viscount Beaumont was in no small way bereaved, and lost through death Elizabeth, lately his wife, daughter of William Phelip, lately Lord Bardolph deceased, he has come and been received. [2]
We did not fail to see the merits and the good and free service the same viscount spent, gave and dedicated to us. From our gratitude, special grants to the same viscount: custody of all castles, manors, lordships, towns, lands, tenements, rents and services, together with military fees and ecclesiastical advowson, abbeys, priories, hospitals, vicaries, chapels, at Canterbury and whichever other beneficiaries, as far as free and entitled by birth, [3] which Henry, son of the same viscount, as well as son and heir of the same Elizabeth, or another heir, of the same Henry`s body, or for lack of such, after Henry`s death, William, younger son of the same viscount and Elizabeth and brother of the same Henry, or another heir, of the same William`s body, or for lack of such, after Henry`s and William`s death, Joan, daughter of the same viscount [4] and Elizabeth and sister of the same Henry and William, sons, by and after the deaths of the aforesaid William Phelip and Elizabeth as well as Joan, lately wife of the same William Phelip still alive [5] or Anne, wife of Reginald Cobham, knight, similarly still alive, inherit.
Even some of them which [6] by and after the deaths of the others, in fee simple or fee howsoever in feetails it can descend, revert or remain, together with the wardships, marriages, reliefs [7], escheatures, fixtures and all other profits, comforts and remunerations which to some of the aforementioned premises [8] belong or are seen to [9] and that to us or our heirs by reason of the minority some of the aforementioned Henry, William, sons, and Joan, daughter, or other heirs, some of the same Henry, William, sons, and Joan, daughter [10], who can in any possible, always save for us and our heirs and all that concerns us, inherit the said Viscount Beaumont after the death of the said viscount during the minority of some of the aforementioned Henry, William, sons, and Joan, daughter, and other of their heirs [11].
Should we have and hold their custody and the aforementioned castles, manors, lordships etc. [12], or some of it, in our hands or in our heirs` hands for a time for some of the above-said reasons which may happen and occur [13] long before the heirs of the abovesaid Elizabeth have reached the full age [14] at which we or our heirs render it to them, and which explicitly mentions the said castles, manors, lordships, towns, lands, tenements, rents, services, military fees, advowsons and other premises as well as their true value. Nothingstanding other gifts and grants by us to the same viscount, which for the present facts [15] do not exist.
Testimony etc. According to the king at Westminster, 10th day of August [16]. By the king himself and on the aforesaid date, made by Parliament.
(Original text to be found here.)
****
[1] This is the exact form of the grant.
[2] Despite his wife`s recent death and his father-in-law`s death only shortly before that, John followed his summons to the king and was received by him personally.
[3] This affirms that this was Henry Beaumont`s birthright through his mother, which was not mentioned before in the grant.
[4] Joan Beaumont, Francis`s mother. She may have just been an infant at the time the grant was made.
[5] Literally, "still surviving". While her husband William had been Lord Bardolph, he had held that title and the corresponding possessions in her name. It was only with her death in 1447 that the title fell to her grandson William. The older grandson, Henry Beaumont, died only a little over a year after the grant was made.
[6] The phrasing here is unclear, but it seems to say that in case some lands or possessions fall back to Henry, William or Joan Beaumont during their minority, John is entitled to hold them for his children without them falling first to the king.
[7] Money owed after certain actions.
[8] Lands, manors, lordships, etc.
[9] Are considered to belong to the possessions.
[10] The descendants of Henry, William and Joan, in case they have children but predecease their father.
[11] As above.
[12] Again, this is the exact form of the grant.
[13] That is to say, the deaths of the above-named individuals.
[14] Their majority, which in the case of either Henry or William would have been 21, in the case of Joan, would have been 14 if married by that time and 15 if not.
[15] They are irrelevant for that grant and treated as non-existent.
[16] Though it is not explicitly said in the grant, it was made in the 19th year of Henry VI`s reign, that is to say 1441. The grant was made only 4 days before John Beaumont`s 32rd birthday.
Sunday, 1 April 2018
William Beaumont`s Proof of Age
Shortly after his father`s death at the Battle of Northampton on 10th July 1460, his son William, Francis`s uncle, made a suit to King Henry VI to be allowed to enter his lands. To be allowed so, he arranged for a proof of age to show he had already attained his majority. This was done on 14th September 1460 and delivered to the king on 20th September 1460. Shortly afterwards, William was allowed to enter his inherited lands and possessions.
The full text of this proof of age, translated into English, reads like this:
****
Proof of age of William Beaumont, knight, Lord Bardolph, son of John, lately Viscount Beaumont and Elizabeth his wife, deceased, cousin and heir of Joan, Lady Bardolph, namely, son of Elizabeth, daughter of the aforementioned Joan, and cousin and heir of Anne, who was the wife of Reginald Cobham, knight, namely, son of Elizabeth, daughter of the said Joan, sister of the same Anne, in this inquiry, shortly put together [1], made and taken at Folkingham, 14th day of September, in the sixth regnal year of King Henry [2].
In the presence of Richard Fishburn, eschaetor [3] of the said Lord King in the county of Lincoln, by virtue of the aforementioned escaetor immediately, by oath twelve good and lawful men of the aforementioned county below. Namely:
Thomas Claymond, armed man, aged 46 years and more, sworn and examined on the majority [4] of the aforementioned William Beaumont, knight, he says that the aforementioned William Beaumont, knight, was born at Edenham in the earlier mentioned county and was baptised in the church of the same town, on the feast of St. George the Martyr, in the 15th regnal year of the current King, and whose godfathers were the abbot of Crowland [5], and Bartholomew Brokesby and godmother of William was Anne, wife of William Poter, knight. He was 22 years on the feast of St. George the Martyr last past, before the taking of evidence [6].
And asked how he knows, says on the same feast of St George the Martyr the aforementioned William was born, the same Thomas was sent by John, Lord Beaumont, for which the aforesaid Thomas was delayed, to see to preparations in the said church, and his lord afterwards attested that the second said lord [7] went to the said church and there discovered colourful silken and exquisit vestiments everywhere at the font of the said church, which was also adorned with some cloth of gold of red and pleasing colours, and Robert Wilbraham, armed man, John Trenthall, and a number of other servants of the said Lord Beaumont, father of the aforementioned William, discovered the same, which the aforesaid Robert Wilbraham and John Trenthall themselves said to be true; that the aforementioned William was born on the said feast of St George. Which also means they well remember that the same William was 22 years on the feast of St George last past.
Thomas Walcote of Pykworth, aged 60 years and more, sworn and examined on the majority of the aforementioned William Beaumont, [8] that he is over age, the day, year and location of the birth of the aforesaid William tally with the earlier mentioned Thomas Claymond. And asked how he knows, says he saw the abbot of Crowland, godfather of the aforesaid William, perform in his office [9] the baptism of the same William, at the time the same William was baptised, which also means he well remembers that the same William was 22 years on the feast of St George last past.
Thomas Bowett, aged 50 years and more, sworn etc. [10], says that he himself was present and saw Anne, godmother of the aforesaid William, lift the said William from the sacred font at the time. Which also means, etc. [11]
John Robinson of Kirkeby, aged 60 years and more, sworn etc., says that he himself saw Margaret, lately the wife of William Armine, carry the aforesaid William to the church at the aforementioned baptism, on the same feast of St George on which the said William was baptised. Which also means, etc.
Henry Everard of Lavington, aged 48 years and more, sworn etc.says that he himself carried a flaming torch [12] before the body of the aforesaid William from the aforementioned church of Edenham to the manor of Grimsthorpe, on the same feast of St George on which the said William was baptised. Which also means, etc.
Simon Messingham of Sandringham, aged 69 years and more, sworn etc. says that he himself carried one pair of gilded, covered, basins from the manor of Grimsthorpe to the aforementioned church of Edenham, for the washing of the hands of the godfather [13] and godmother of the aforesaid William after the baptism of the said William, on the same feast of St George on which the said William was baptised. Which also means, etc.
Walter Bassett, aged 46 years and more, sworn etc. says that Robert his firstborn son was born on the same feast of St George, which etc. [14]
John Trussel, aged 53 years and more, sworn etc. says that he himself on the feast of St George carried carried two robes, called Carpette [15], spread out before the font of the said church of Edenham on the feast the same William was baptised. Which also means, etc.
Henry Curwyn, aged 51 years and more, sworn etc. says that he himself sold John Lord Beaumont a palfrey of white colour for 10 pounds at Grimsthorpe on the same feast, which etc.
John Newyk, aged 68 and more, sworn etc. says that he himself bought from John Lord Beaumont, father of the aforesaid William, ten acres of wood for 10 pounds, 3 shillings, four pennies, on the same feast, which etc.
Thomas, body servant [16] of the abbot of Crowland, aged 48 years and more, sworn etc. says that at the time he was the abbot`s body servant and rode with the aforementioned abbot to Grimsthorpe on the same feast. which etc.
John Newton, aged 59 years and more, sworn etc. says that on the same feast of St George Simon Selle, father of the aforementioned John, was buried in the church of Edenham, which etc.
Dated at Folkingham, the aforesaid 14th day of September, the abovementioned year of the Lord King.
(One source for the text in the original Latin, but typed, to be found here.)
****
[1] This presumably means that it was put together at short notice, only two months after the death of William`s father, rather than the inquiry itself was short, as it has the normal form and length.
[2] 1460 was actually the 38th year of Henry VI`s reign, and calling it his sixth was probably a mistake that happened during a transcription.
[3] The Latin text says "Escaetore".
[4] Literally, "over age".
[5] When William was born, the abbot of Crowland was John Litlington.
[6] That is, 23rd April 1460.
[7] This second lord is not actually named.
[8] Strangely, a verb is missing here, but it should probably be "says", as in all other statements.
[9] His office of priest, not godfather.
[10] From that point on, the text no longer repeats all the formalities.
[11] As above.
[12] There is a spelling mistake in the original text, but it clearly means "torch".
[13] It says "godfather" in the singular, despite William having had two godfathers, as mentioned above. Presumably, it means there was one basin for his godmother and one for his godfathers.
[14] The formalities are shortened even more.
[15] The name for those cloths probably comes from the French "carpette".
[16] Literally, servant for his hands.
The full text of this proof of age, translated into English, reads like this:
****
Proof of age of William Beaumont, knight, Lord Bardolph, son of John, lately Viscount Beaumont and Elizabeth his wife, deceased, cousin and heir of Joan, Lady Bardolph, namely, son of Elizabeth, daughter of the aforementioned Joan, and cousin and heir of Anne, who was the wife of Reginald Cobham, knight, namely, son of Elizabeth, daughter of the said Joan, sister of the same Anne, in this inquiry, shortly put together [1], made and taken at Folkingham, 14th day of September, in the sixth regnal year of King Henry [2].
In the presence of Richard Fishburn, eschaetor [3] of the said Lord King in the county of Lincoln, by virtue of the aforementioned escaetor immediately, by oath twelve good and lawful men of the aforementioned county below. Namely:
Thomas Claymond, armed man, aged 46 years and more, sworn and examined on the majority [4] of the aforementioned William Beaumont, knight, he says that the aforementioned William Beaumont, knight, was born at Edenham in the earlier mentioned county and was baptised in the church of the same town, on the feast of St. George the Martyr, in the 15th regnal year of the current King, and whose godfathers were the abbot of Crowland [5], and Bartholomew Brokesby and godmother of William was Anne, wife of William Poter, knight. He was 22 years on the feast of St. George the Martyr last past, before the taking of evidence [6].
And asked how he knows, says on the same feast of St George the Martyr the aforementioned William was born, the same Thomas was sent by John, Lord Beaumont, for which the aforesaid Thomas was delayed, to see to preparations in the said church, and his lord afterwards attested that the second said lord [7] went to the said church and there discovered colourful silken and exquisit vestiments everywhere at the font of the said church, which was also adorned with some cloth of gold of red and pleasing colours, and Robert Wilbraham, armed man, John Trenthall, and a number of other servants of the said Lord Beaumont, father of the aforementioned William, discovered the same, which the aforesaid Robert Wilbraham and John Trenthall themselves said to be true; that the aforementioned William was born on the said feast of St George. Which also means they well remember that the same William was 22 years on the feast of St George last past.
Thomas Walcote of Pykworth, aged 60 years and more, sworn and examined on the majority of the aforementioned William Beaumont, [8] that he is over age, the day, year and location of the birth of the aforesaid William tally with the earlier mentioned Thomas Claymond. And asked how he knows, says he saw the abbot of Crowland, godfather of the aforesaid William, perform in his office [9] the baptism of the same William, at the time the same William was baptised, which also means he well remembers that the same William was 22 years on the feast of St George last past.
Thomas Bowett, aged 50 years and more, sworn etc. [10], says that he himself was present and saw Anne, godmother of the aforesaid William, lift the said William from the sacred font at the time. Which also means, etc. [11]
John Robinson of Kirkeby, aged 60 years and more, sworn etc., says that he himself saw Margaret, lately the wife of William Armine, carry the aforesaid William to the church at the aforementioned baptism, on the same feast of St George on which the said William was baptised. Which also means, etc.
Henry Everard of Lavington, aged 48 years and more, sworn etc.says that he himself carried a flaming torch [12] before the body of the aforesaid William from the aforementioned church of Edenham to the manor of Grimsthorpe, on the same feast of St George on which the said William was baptised. Which also means, etc.
Simon Messingham of Sandringham, aged 69 years and more, sworn etc. says that he himself carried one pair of gilded, covered, basins from the manor of Grimsthorpe to the aforementioned church of Edenham, for the washing of the hands of the godfather [13] and godmother of the aforesaid William after the baptism of the said William, on the same feast of St George on which the said William was baptised. Which also means, etc.
Walter Bassett, aged 46 years and more, sworn etc. says that Robert his firstborn son was born on the same feast of St George, which etc. [14]
John Trussel, aged 53 years and more, sworn etc. says that he himself on the feast of St George carried carried two robes, called Carpette [15], spread out before the font of the said church of Edenham on the feast the same William was baptised. Which also means, etc.
Henry Curwyn, aged 51 years and more, sworn etc. says that he himself sold John Lord Beaumont a palfrey of white colour for 10 pounds at Grimsthorpe on the same feast, which etc.
John Newyk, aged 68 and more, sworn etc. says that he himself bought from John Lord Beaumont, father of the aforesaid William, ten acres of wood for 10 pounds, 3 shillings, four pennies, on the same feast, which etc.
Thomas, body servant [16] of the abbot of Crowland, aged 48 years and more, sworn etc. says that at the time he was the abbot`s body servant and rode with the aforementioned abbot to Grimsthorpe on the same feast. which etc.
John Newton, aged 59 years and more, sworn etc. says that on the same feast of St George Simon Selle, father of the aforementioned John, was buried in the church of Edenham, which etc.
Dated at Folkingham, the aforesaid 14th day of September, the abovementioned year of the Lord King.
(One source for the text in the original Latin, but typed, to be found here.)
****
[1] This presumably means that it was put together at short notice, only two months after the death of William`s father, rather than the inquiry itself was short, as it has the normal form and length.
[2] 1460 was actually the 38th year of Henry VI`s reign, and calling it his sixth was probably a mistake that happened during a transcription.
[3] The Latin text says "Escaetore".
[4] Literally, "over age".
[5] When William was born, the abbot of Crowland was John Litlington.
[6] That is, 23rd April 1460.
[7] This second lord is not actually named.
[8] Strangely, a verb is missing here, but it should probably be "says", as in all other statements.
[9] His office of priest, not godfather.
[10] From that point on, the text no longer repeats all the formalities.
[11] As above.
[12] There is a spelling mistake in the original text, but it clearly means "torch".
[13] It says "godfather" in the singular, despite William having had two godfathers, as mentioned above. Presumably, it means there was one basin for his godmother and one for his godfathers.
[14] The formalities are shortened even more.
[15] The name for those cloths probably comes from the French "carpette".
[16] Literally, servant for his hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)