William Catesby

From my webmaster's mailbag.
>
> I write to you as an active member of the "Wars Of The Roses " playing
>a prominent Yorkest noble ,I was interested by your article on William
>Catsby and more importantly to the suggestion of him being a knight!!.
>We have yet to find any evidence of his knighthood. Bearing in mind his
>standing in the political world and English political law that states that
>no one of noble status can address the house of parliament( still in force
>today) Could you please furnish me with your evidence of his knighthood or
>the location of the documents so I can find out for my self Waiting in
>hope To the glory of our king D Blackman ( Sir R Ratcliff)

I know Catesby was knighted in 1483 by Edward IV, but I don't know what
primary source he could go to. I suggested that he read this forum because
someone (that would be you, Lorraine!) could point him in the right direction.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Peggy Allen of the American Branch pointed this out on our listserv and
suggested, tongue in cheek, that Ricardians wear black and go about with a
sad face.

That's no fun at all, so I suggest an alternate activity. Go to the Richard
III Society, American Branch homepage -- http://www.r3.org/ -- scroll down
to the bottom, and rearrange Henry Tudor's face. If you get something that
you really like, follow the instructions for saving to another document
(Microsoft Word is okay), and e-mail it to me offlist. I'll assemble a
rogue's gallery and put it up as a Ricardian Birthday Present to the poor
fatherless waif.




--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Ho ho, Laura! I'm away from my stuff at present,
skiving on this here list instead of doing some prep
with Flash and Director multimedia software, but I'm
pretty sure a note of it'll be in the Calendar Patent
Rolls, or Fine Rolls or Close Rolls, summat like that
anyway <g>. I'll check in my copies when I get home
and get back ASAP!

Lorraine

--- Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
> From my webmaster's mailbag.
> >
> > I write to you as an active member of the "Wars
> Of The Roses " playing
> >a prominent Yorkest noble ,I was interested by your
> article on William
> >Catsby and more importantly to the suggestion of
> him being a knight!!.
> >We have yet to find any evidence of his
> knighthood. Bearing in mind his
> >standing in the political world and English
> political law that states that
> >no one of noble status can address the house of
> parliament( still in force
> >today) Could you please furnish me with your
> evidence of his knighthood or
> >the location of the documents so I can find out
> for my self Waiting in
> >hope To the glory of our king D Blackman ( Sir R
> Ratcliff)
>
> I know Catesby was knighted in 1483 by Edward IV,
> but I don't know what
> primary source he could go to. I suggested that he
> read this forum because
> someone (that would be you, Lorraine!) could point
> him in the right direction.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area
> Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Well, I said I'd get back on this Laura, and I'm afraid I have
nothing concrete to offer the poor chap!

I searched through my copies of the relevant Calendar Patent Rolls,
plus the Close Rolls and Fine Rolls, and got wonderfully sidetracked
throughout <g>, but came across nothing about 'our' Wm. Catesby being
knighted by E4 in 1483, or at any other time. (It occurred to me that
E4 didn't have long to knight men either in 1483, given he was dead
by mid-April 83, so any such undertaking may even have been ratified
later, in his son's short reign, but I even checked through right
until R3's last entries, and still found no confirmation of a
knighthood).

So, The Complete Peerage might be the place to look now, and I've
also seen a book listing all the Knights Batchelor
and Banneret (in Durham Univ. Library, which might throw
up more clues.

However, I ended up wondering if we were confusing him with his
father, who was apparently 'Sir Wm. Catesby of Ashby St Leger'?

I see one of my early notetaking episodes specifically points out
that 'our' William Catesby wasn't knighted by Richard, but
was 'just made an Esquire of the Body', which implies I thought
it was strange that he wasn't, (though I may not have realised
at the time that the reason why was because he'd been knighted
already, and by E4, much earlier...!).

There's a memorial brass at the church in Ashby St Leger,
that's repro'd in various books on R3 - wonder if that says
anything that might shed some light?

Regards - Lorraine

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> From my webmaster's mailbag.
> >
> > I write to you as an active member of the "Wars Of The Roses "
playing
> >a prominent Yorkest noble ,I was interested by your article on
William
> >Catsby and more importantly to the suggestion of him being a
knight!!.
> >We have yet to find any evidence of his knighthood. Bearing in
mind his
> >standing in the political world and English political law that
states that
> >no one of noble status can address the house of parliament( still
in force
> >today) Could you please furnish me with your evidence of his
knighthood or
> >the location of the documents so I can find out for my self
Waiting in
> >hope To the glory of our king D Blackman ( Sir R Ratcliff)
>
> I know Catesby was knighted in 1483 by Edward IV, but I don't know
what
> primary source he could go to. I suggested that he read this forum
because
> someone (that would be you, Lorraine!) could point him in the right
direction.

Hi Laura

More on Catesby: this time from Sutton/Visser-Fuchs book on R3's
Coronation (the Bios in the back):

Sir JOHN Catesby, uncle to 'our' Wm. Catesby, was knighted by E4 in
1483. He was a Justice of Common Pleas and Keeper of Westminster by
1484.

Wm Catesby, esquire. Son of Sir Wm of Ashby St Leger...Many favours
and KNIGHTHOOD from R3 to whom is was an inner councillor. 1484
Speaker. (NB: no firm date for his knighthood given here).

Armed w. this info, I turned to the Harley MS index for more on our
man, and find him described as 'esquire of the body'. (Richard
Ratcliffe on the other hand is described as a '*knight* of the body').

However, in MacGibbon's biog of Eliz. Wydeville (quoting the
Elizabethan antiquarian John Stow's 'Annals'), he mentions a Wm
Catesby being knighted by E4 in Feb 2 1484, along w. Sir Richard
Wood. MacGibbon describes this particular WM Catesby was one of
the 'Justices of Common Place', which seems like a typo for 'Common
Pleas' and a case of mistaken identity for John Catesby, to me.

I'm now totally baffled!

Incidentally, further to the observations by your original poster,
Laura, I think it's in MacGibbon today that I saw Sir John Say (he of
the £100 Loan Richard asked for) was also Speaker of the Commons.
Being a 'Sir' presumably wasn't a bar to this office, but, I have
to confess I have no idea if Say would have been regarded as
nobility, or merely as 'gentry' at the time.

I may be quite wrong here, but despite all their preferments, I've
not thought of Catesby, Ratcliffe and Rob Percy as being of the
nobility, whereas I assume Francis Lovell, by virtue of his
Viscountcy, was rather more elevated than the other 3.

Harrumph! Is there NO-ONE out there who knows the who by and when of
Catesby's knighthood, then? [I can't believe the more I dig the more
confused I'm getting - I should KNOW this stuff off by heart!] :(

Regards - Lorraine

Lorraine

I don't know anything specific about Catesby, but to be a knight -
Sir John Say - was no bar to being Speaker of the Commons, and still
is not. In fact, I would guess that the majority of 15th century
Speakers were knights. The only laymen who were excluded from the
Commons by status were peers (Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and
Barons) because they sat in the Lords.

The difference between nobility and gentry was fairly fluid, not
least because gentlemen could be given peers and so become noblemen,
and the younger sons of peers inherited neither land nor title and
their issue would sink down into the gentry in a generation or two.
As to knighthoods, many gentlemen would be 'Sir X', but so would
younger sons of peers and the heir to a peerage in his father's
lifetime.

I suppose a working definition of the nobility would be families
where the head of the family was a peer, but how remote from the main
stem the idea of nobility lasted is an open question. Would every
Neville consider himself a nobleman, for example?

Francis Lovell was a Baron before he was given his viscountcy, so,
yes, he was rather more elevated than Catesby, Ratcliffe and Rob
Percy.

Ann


--- In , "mrslpickering
<mrslpickering@y...>" <mrslpickering@y...> wrote:
> Hi Laura
>
> More on Catesby: this time from Sutton/Visser-Fuchs book on R3's
> Coronation (the Bios in the back):
>
> Sir JOHN Catesby, uncle to 'our' Wm. Catesby, was knighted by E4 in
> 1483. He was a Justice of Common Pleas and Keeper of Westminster
by
> 1484.
>
> Wm Catesby, esquire. Son of Sir Wm of Ashby St Leger...Many
favours
> and KNIGHTHOOD from R3 to whom is was an inner councillor. 1484
> Speaker. (NB: no firm date for his knighthood given here).
>
> Armed w. this info, I turned to the Harley MS index for more on our
> man, and find him described as 'esquire of the body'. (Richard
> Ratcliffe on the other hand is described as a '*knight* of the
body').
>
> However, in MacGibbon's biog of Eliz. Wydeville (quoting the
> Elizabethan antiquarian John Stow's 'Annals'), he mentions a Wm
> Catesby being knighted by E4 in Feb 2 1484, along w. Sir Richard
> Wood. MacGibbon describes this particular WM Catesby was one of
> the 'Justices of Common Place', which seems like a typo for 'Common
> Pleas' and a case of mistaken identity for John Catesby, to me.
>
> I'm now totally baffled!
>
> Incidentally, further to the observations by your original poster,
> Laura, I think it's in MacGibbon today that I saw Sir John Say (he
of
> the £100 Loan Richard asked for) was also Speaker of the Commons.
> Being a 'Sir' presumably wasn't a bar to this office, but, I have
> to confess I have no idea if Say would have been regarded as
> nobility, or merely as 'gentry' at the time.
>
> I may be quite wrong here, but despite all their preferments, I've
> not thought of Catesby, Ratcliffe and Rob Percy as being of the
> nobility, whereas I assume Francis Lovell, by virtue of his
> Viscountcy, was rather more elevated than the other 3.
>
> Harrumph! Is there NO-ONE out there who knows the who by and when
of
> Catesby's knighthood, then? [I can't believe the more I dig the
more
> confused I'm getting - I should KNOW this stuff off by heart!] :(
>
> Regards - Lorraine

Many thanks for your detailed clarification, Ann.
This was pretty much in line with what I thought
originally, but after a bit I started doubting myself.

For chasing up Catesby had not only highlighted some
anomolies in my own early note-taking, seemingly,
but it's been interesting to read how different authors
have dealt with titles. Some don't refer to 'em
at all, and yet others call everyone but the meanest menial
a 'Sir'.

And I'm certainly beginning to think there should've been
a law banning anyone from using the same name twice
in one family <g>. It would make researching MUCH easier! ;)

Regards - Lorraine

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I don't know anything specific about Catesby, but to be a knight -
> Sir John Say - was no bar to being Speaker of the Commons, and
still is not. In fact, I would guess that the majority of 15th
century Speakers were knights. [snipped throughout w. apols].>
The difference between nobility and gentry was fairly fluid, [snip]>
I suppose a working definition of the nobility would be families
where the head of the family was a peer, but how remote from the main
> stem the idea of nobility lasted is an open question.[snip] >
> Francis Lovell was a Baron before he was given his viscountcy, so,
> yes, he was rather more elevated than Catesby, Ratcliffe and Rob
> Percy.

>
>

Many thanks for your detailed clarification, Ann.
This was pretty much in line with what I thought
originally, but after a bit I started doubting myself.

For chasing up Catesby had not only highlighted some
anomolies in my own early note-taking, seemingly,
but it's been interesting to read how different authors
have dealt with titles. Some don't refer to 'em
at all, and yet others call everyone but the meanest menial
a 'Sir'.

And I'm certainly beginning to think there should've been
a law banning anyone from using the same name twice
in one family <g>. It would make researching MUCH easier! ;)

Regards - Lorraine

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I don't know anything specific about Catesby, but to be a knight -
> Sir John Say - was no bar to being Speaker of the Commons, and
still is not. In fact, I would guess that the majority of 15th
century Speakers were knights. [snipped throughout w. apols].>
The difference between nobility and gentry was fairly fluid, [snip]>
I suppose a working definition of the nobility would be families
where the head of the family was a peer, but how remote from the main
> stem the idea of nobility lasted is an open question.[snip] >
> Francis Lovell was a Baron before he was given his viscountcy, so,
> yes, he was rather more elevated than Catesby, Ratcliffe and Rob
> Percy.

>
>

At 12:38 PM 2/4/03 -0000, Lorraine wrote:
>Many thanks for your detailed clarification, Ann.
>This was pretty much in line with what I thought
>originally, but after a bit I started doubting myself.
>
>For chasing up Catesby had not only highlighted some

Etc. Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. I will try to locate the
e-mail address of the person who originated the query in the heap of
outgoing e-mails and direct him/her to the forum's website to read it all.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha