Divorce

Are you all watching the Tsars on Channel 4?
Tsar Vasily, during the 1510s and 1520s changes his wife after a long marriage because she has not had a child.
So that's where Henry the Unspeakable got the idea from.

Marie wrote: //snip// The other problem is that John Ingleby's son succeeded him, so if the marriage had been annulled it would seem to have happened without the children being bastardised." Doug here: That was the question I was trying to ask - was it possible for a marriage to be annulled *without* bastardizing any offspring? I believe that a divorce that allowed for re-marriage *could* be accomplished by a Member's Private Bill in Parliament, but the only instances that I can recall come after the Reformation. Do you know of any examples of something such as that occurring *prior* to the Reformation? Even if such a thing (Parliamentary "divorce") *did* exist however, that still wouldn't explain the lack of references in wills, etc to said Act, would it? Oh well... Of course if as it seems quite possible, we're talking about two separate "John Inglebys", then my question becomes one of merely academic interest (which is good - I think?). Doug

Just as an interesting sideline, Sir William Ingleby his son, who married Stillington's niece, was a squire of the body to Richard when he became King. Horrox mentions him.

On Sunday, 10 November 2013, 16:38, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Marie wrote: //snip// The other problem is that John Ingleby's son succeeded him, so if the marriage had been annulled it would seem to have happened without the children being bastardised." Doug here: That was the question I was trying to ask - was it possible for a marriage to be annulled *without* bastardizing any offspring? I believe that a divorce that allowed for re-marriage *could* be accomplished by a Member's Private Bill in Parliament, but the only instances that I can recall come after the Reformation. Do you know of any examples of something such as that occurring *prior* to the Reformation? Even if such a thing (Parliamentary "divorce") *did* exist however, that still wouldn't explain the lack of references in wills, etc to said Act, would it? Oh well... Of course if as it seems quite possible, we're talking about two separate "John Inglebys", then my question becomes one of merely academic interest (which is good - I think?). Doug

Doug wrote:

"That was the question I was trying to ask - was it possible for a marriage to be annulled *without* bastardizing any offspring? I believe that a divorce that allowed for re-marriage *could* be accomplished by a Member's Private Bill in Parliament, but the only instances that I can recall come after the Reformation. Do you know of any examples of something such as that occurring *prior* to the Reformation? Even if such a thing (Parliamentary "divorce") *did* exist however, that still wouldn't explain the lack of references in wills, etc to said Act, would it?"

Marie replies:

Prior to the Reformation the validity of a marriage per se was the realm of the Church. I'm not familiar with the post-Reformation private members' bills, but I imagine they accomplished the sort of thing we mean by divorce today - ie the dissolution of a marriage that had been validly contracted. Such a thing was not possible in the 15th century because it ran totally counter to Church teaching. So if John Ingelby got a full divorce 'a vinculo' (from the bonds of marriage) it must have been an annulment granted by a church court.

There was a role for parliament, however, in legislating on the legitimacy of the offspring of a marriage for the purely civil purpose of inheritance. The Beauforts had their canonical legitimacy ratified by parliament for this purpose, and Edward V's bastardisation was of a similar sort: although the canonical position was clear (assuming there was proof of the precontract), a church court never ruled on the validity of Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville; rather, parliament (initially a quasi parliament) took it upon itself to rule on Edward's legitimacy for the purpose of the succession to the throne. But I've just done a quick search in the Parliament Rolls on the name Ingleby/Ingelby/Ingilby, and the same again with a Y, and turned up nothing relevant.

There are circumstances in which the Church itself would dissolve a marriage but protect the legitimacy of the offspring, ie where the marriage had been properly conducted in church, after calling of banns, but there turned out nonetheless to have been an impediment unknown to at least one party to that marriage. It is, therefore, technically possible that if John Ingleby had found out his wife was already clandestinely married then he would have been declared a single man but his children's legitimacy protected. In order to answer that question it would be useful to look at how his wife is referred to immediately after his death, ie as widow or as wife of someone else. Another sort of nullifying impediment, of course, would be one of consanguinity or affinity; although a couple (properly married in church) could usually get a dispensation retrospectively, it's also true that other couples came up with such impediments in order to get shot of each other. How the church would look at a man in such a position entering a monastery, I don't know.

I think the idea that monks and nuns became 'dead' to the world gets overblown. Great in theory, but people often remembered in their will family members who were monks or nuns, and a man who retained his birth surname on entering the Church would not seem to have been dying to his former life in any real sense.

I'm not saying that John Ingleby Esquire definitely wasn't the same man as Prior/Bishop Ingleby, but I would want to see some evidence before accepting such an unusual occurrence, no matter how many times it's been repeated in print. It's quite possible, for instance, that a later genealogist found proof that both Johns had the same parentsr and therefore concluded they must be the same individual. But as we who are familiar with the 15th century know only too well, parents in those days very often gave the same name to two children, and divorce was a different matter in those days from what it later became.

I don't have the time to investigate this very interesting conundrum, but I hope Hilary can eventually solve it for us.

By the way, academic interest very good; helps to get to the bottom of things, doesn't it?

Marie

---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Marie wrote: //snip// The other problem is that John Ingleby's son succeeded him, so if the marriage had been annulled it would seem to have happened without the children being bastardised." Doug here: That was the question I was trying to ask - was it possible for a marriage to be annulled *without* bastardizing any offspring? I believe that a divorce that allowed for re-marriage *could* be accomplished by a Member's Private Bill in Parliament, but the only instances that I can recall come after the Reformation. Do you know of any examples of something such as that occurring *prior* to the Reformation? Even if such a thing (Parliamentary "divorce") *did* exist however, that still wouldn't explain the lack of references in wills, etc to said Act, would it? Oh well... Of course if as it seems quite possible, we're talking about two separate "John Inglebys", then my question becomes one of merely academic interest (which is good - I think?). Doug

Another task for the back burner - we need at least 3 lives for research don't we Marie? Cheers H.

On Sunday, 10 November 2013, 17:56, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Doug wrote:"That was the question I was trying to ask - was it possible for a marriage to be annulled *without* bastardizing any offspring? I believe that a divorce that allowed for re-marriage *could* be accomplished by a Member's Private Bill in Parliament, but the only instances that I can recall come after the Reformation. Do you know of any examples of something such as that occurring *prior* to the Reformation? Even if such a thing (Parliamentary "divorce") *did* exist however, that still wouldn't explain the lack of references in wills, etc to said Act, would it?" Marie replies:Prior to the Reformation the validity of a marriage per se was the realm of the Church. I'm not familiar with the post-Reformation private members' bills, but I imagine they accomplished the sort of thing we mean by divorce today - ie the dissolution of a marriage that had been validly contracted. Such a thing was not possible in the 15th century because it ran totally counter to Church teaching. So if John Ingelby got a full divorce 'a vinculo' (from the bonds of marriage) it must have been an annulment granted by a church court. There was a role for parliament, however, in legislating on the legitimacy of the offspring of a marriage for the purely civil purpose of inheritance. The Beauforts had their canonical legitimacy ratified by parliament for this purpose, and Edward V's bastardisation was of a similar sort: although the canonical position was clear (assuming there was proof of the precontract), a church court never ruled on the validity of Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville; rather, parliament (initially a quasi parliament) took it upon itself to rule on Edward's legitimacy for the purpose of the succession to the throne. But I've just done a quick search in the Parliament Rolls on the name Ingleby/Ingelby/Ingilby, and the same again with a Y, and turned up nothing relevant. There are circumstances in which the Church itself would dissolve a marriage but protect the legitimacy of the offspring, ie where the marriage had been properly conducted in church, after calling of banns, but there turned out nonetheless to have been an impediment unknown to at least one party to that marriage. It is, therefore, technically possible that if John Ingleby had found out his wife was already clandestinely married then he would have been declared a single man but his children's legitimacy protected. In order to answer that question it would be useful to look at how his wife is referred to immediately after his death, ie as widow or as wife of someone else. Another sort of nullifying impediment, of course, would be one of consanguinity or affinity; although a couple (properly married in church) could usually get a dispensation retrospectively, it's also true that other couples came up with such impediments in order to get shot of each other. How the church would look at a man in such a position entering a monastery, I don't know. I think the idea that monks and nuns became 'dead' to the world gets overblown. Great in theory, but people often remembered in their will family members who were monks or nuns, and a man who retained his birth surname on entering the Church would not seem to have been dying to his former life in any real sense. I'm not saying that John Ingleby Esquire definitely wasn't the same man as Prior/Bishop Ingleby, but I would want to see some evidence before accepting such an unusual occurrence, no matter how many times it's been repeated in print. It's quite possible, for instance, that a later genealogist found proof that both Johns had the same parentsr and therefore concluded they must be the same individual. But as we who are familiar with the 15th century know only too well, parents in those days very often gave the same name to two children, and divorce was a different matter in those days from what it later became. I don't have the time to investigate this very interesting conundrum, but I hope Hilary can eventually solve it for us. By the way, academic interest very good; helps to get to the bottom of things, doesn't it? Marie

---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Marie wrote: //snip// The other problem is that John Ingleby's son succeeded him, so if the marriage had been annulled it would seem to have happened without the children being bastardised." Doug here: That was the question I was trying to ask - was it possible for a marriage to be annulled *without* bastardizing any offspring? I believe that a divorce that allowed for re-marriage *could* be accomplished by a Member's Private Bill in Parliament, but the only instances that I can recall come after the Reformation. Do you know of any examples of something such as that occurring *prior* to the Reformation? Even if such a thing (Parliamentary "divorce") *did* exist however, that still wouldn't explain the lack of references in wills, etc to said Act, would it? Oh well... Of course if as it seems quite possible, we're talking about two separate "John Inglebys", then my question becomes one of merely academic interest (which is good - I think?). Doug

I know that today a Catholic woman can divorce, renounce her children (without their becoming bastards), and become a nun, so was something akin to that also available to men/women in the middle ages? The woman is no longer "alive" in society but isn't physically dead.

~Weds

---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Marie wrote: //snip// The other problem is that John Ingleby's son succeeded him, so if the marriage had been annulled it would seem to have happened without the children being bastardised." Doug here: That was the question I was trying to ask - was it possible for a marriage to be annulled *without* bastardizing any offspring? I believe that a divorce that allowed for re-marriage *could* be accomplished by a Member's Private Bill in Parliament, but the only instances that I can recall come after the Reformation. Do you know of any examples of something such as that occurring *prior* to the Reformation? Even if such a thing (Parliamentary "divorce") *did* exist however, that still wouldn't explain the lack of references in wills, etc to said Act, would it? Oh well... Of course if as it seems quite possible, we're talking about two separate "John Inglebys", then my question becomes one of merely academic interest (which is good - I think?). Doug

Hilary wrote:

Just as an interesting sideline, Sir William Ingleby his son, who married Stillington's niece, was a squire of the body to Richard when he became King. Horrox mentions him.
Carol responds:

Which reminds me of a question I've been intending to ask: What exactly were the duties of a squire of the body and how did they differ from those of a knight of the body? I'm guessing that one helped a king get into his armor and the other fought alongside him, but they must have had duties other than those related to battle.

Does anyone know a good book on the duties of royal (and noble) household servants? I'm thinking of the higher echelons, not cooks and scullery maids, whose duties are obvious.

Carol

Marie, Thanks for your "take" (and all that information!) on the whole matter. It does look as if there were two different people named "John Ingleby." Perhaps they were related and *that* was where the original confusion came from. Easy enough to do, especially if their life spans overlapped. The only thought I have left is whether the Church would consider someone having a "calling" to be a religous as an "impediment" to their marriage? I've read of people *leaving* Orders because they hadn't entered completely voluntarily, but I don't know of any cases the other 'way round. Seems doubtful to me, but then there's so much about this period I don't know... Anyway, thanks again, Doug

Hi Doug,

not an impediment I've ever heard of. Marriage was a commitment you couldn't get out of. If the person had a religious calling, why did they marry? Were they forced? If so, that would have been the impediment, and any resulting children would be bastards. You can take religious vows after being widowed, but you can't use a vocation as an excuse to dump your spouse.

Marie

---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Marie, Thanks for your "take" (and all that information!) on the whole matter. It does look as if there were two different people named "John Ingleby." Perhaps they were related and *that* was where the original confusion came from. Easy enough to do, especially if their life spans overlapped. The only thought I have left is whether the Church would consider someone having a "calling" to be a religous as an "impediment" to their marriage? I've read of people *leaving* Orders because they hadn't entered completely voluntarily, but I don't know of any cases the other 'way round. Seems doubtful to me, but then there's so much about this period I don't know... Anyway, thanks again, Doug

Carol: Tamara here.

I don't know of any book, but I do note, with the appropriate amount of caution, that the Wikipedia entry for "squire" states the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squire#The_formal_term_.22esquire.22

The "Royal Equires" of the late-medieval English Court (upon which most of the other European Courts modelled themselves[citation needed]), were not young men studying for knighthood. Far more frequently, and certainly from Edward III of England to the Reign of Henry VIII of England, they tended to be men of a similar age to the Monarch; having his complete trust.

In the 15th Century "Black Book of The Household" - a set of Ordinances composed for Edward IV of England for the "Governaunce and Regulation of the Royal Household", the King had only 4 "Esquires For The Bodie"; these were the most senior Servants in the Royal Household with total access to the Royal Person at all hours. They were the Senior Staff of the Privy Chamber, and the closest of the King's "Affinity" (i.e. his most intimate daily companions), and were the only Servants in the entire Household who were required - not just allowed - to bear arms in the King's presence, as one of their duties was to act as personal bodyguards "of last resort" in the event of an immediate threat to the Royal person.

In times of War when their Royal Master was "under arms" himself, they would also fight (literally) at his side, defending him with their own bodies, if needed. They oversaw his Pages and the other lesser servants of the Privy Chamber, and arranged for his daily clothing, for his laundry, helped him dress and undress, stood guard while he was shaved, washed or bathed, - one stood behind his Chair of estate when he dined; - they accompanied him while at leisure - when hunting, at archery, at tennis, - they played cards and other board games with him, wagering with him on the results (see wagers lost and won recorded in the Account Books of Henry VII of England, each page signed by the King in person, National Archives at Kew) and were the bearers of confidential messages to and from, both diplomatic and amorous.

King Edward IV of England and King Richard III of England only appointed 4 Esquires For The Bodie each. King Henry VII of England appointed four of his closest "companions of Our late Exile" within days of his victory at Battle of Bosworth Field on 22 August 1485,[6] and had appointed an extra five Esquires by the end of his Reign in 1509.[7] His son King Henry VIII not only retained all of his father's Esquires of the Body while dismissing others of his Father's senior Officers and even executing some (for example, Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley) but he vastly increased the number of that select group, as he enlarged the rest of the Royal Household as set down in the "Statutes of Eltham". The position was so highly regarded, for the value of its continuous close-access to the King, that at least two notable late-medieval Gentles are recorded contemporaneously as having famously refused offers of knighthood, declaring that to be an "Esquire of the Body" was a far-greater honour.

In the post-medieval world, the title of esquire came to belong to all men of the higher landed gentry; an esquire ranked socially above a gentleman but below a knight. In the modern world, where all men are assumed to be gentlemen,[citation needed] the term has correspondingly often been extended (albeit only in very formal writing) to all men without any higher title. It is used post-nominally, usually in abbreviated form: "John Smith, Esq.", for example.

-----------

---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Just as an interesting sideline, Sir William Ingleby his son, who married Stillington's niece, was a squire of the body to Richard when he became King. Horrox mentions him.
Carol responds:

Which reminds me of a question I've been intending to ask: What exactly were the duties of a squire of the body and how did they differ from those of a knight of the body? I'm guessing that one helped a king get into his armor and the other fought alongside him, but they must have had duties other than those related to battle.

Does anyone know a good book on the duties of royal (and noble) household servants? I'm thinking of the higher echelons, not cooks and scullery maids, whose duties are obvious.

Carol

Right after I hit "Send" on the previous message, I found a copy online of *The Household of Edward IV: The Black Book and the Ordinance of 1478*. "Esquires of the Body" (De scutiferarijs pro corpore Regius) are mentioned:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ihu9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA76&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

There is also a Wikipedia page which might have some useful sources cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire_of_the_Body

Tamara

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

Carol: Tamara here.

I don't know of any book, but I do note, with the appropriate amount of caution, that the Wikipedia entry for "squire" states the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squire#The_formal_term_.22esquire.22

The "Royal Equires" of the late-medieval English Court (upon which most of the other European Courts modelled themselves[citation needed]), were not young men studying for knighthood. Far more frequently, and certainly from Edward III of England to the Reign of Henry VIII of England, they tended to be men of a similar age to the Monarch; having his complete trust.

In the 15th Century "Black Book of The Household" - a set of Ordinances composed for Edward IV of England for the "Governaunce and Regulation of the Royal Household", the King had only 4 "Esquires For The Bodie"; these were the most senior Servants in the Royal Household with total access to the Royal Person at all hours. They were the Senior Staff of the Privy Chamber, and the closest of the King's "Affinity" (i.e. his most intimate daily companions), and were the only Servants in the entire Household who were required - not just allowed - to bear arms in the King's presence, as one of their duties was to act as personal bodyguards "of last resort" in the event of an immediate threat to the Royal person.

In times of War when their Royal Master was "under arms" himself, they would also fight (literally) at his side, defending him with their own bodies, if needed. They oversaw his Pages and the other lesser servants of the Privy Chamber, and arranged for his daily clothing, for his laundry, helped him dress and undress, stood guard while he was shaved, washed or bathed, - one stood behind his Chair of estate when he dined; - they accompanied him while at leisure - when hunting, at archery, at tennis, - they played cards and other board games with him, wagering with him on the results (see wagers lost and won recorded in the Account Books of Henry VII of England, each page signed by the King in person, National Archives at Kew) and were the bearers of confidential messages to and from, both diplomatic and amorous.

King Edward IV of England and King Richard III of England only appointed 4 Esquires For The Bodie each. King Henry VII of England appointed four of his closest "companions of Our late Exile" within days of his victory at Battle of Bosworth Field on 22 August 1485,[6] and had appointed an extra five Esquires by the end of his Reign in 1509.[7] His son King Henry VIII not only retained all of his father's Esquires of the Body while dismissing others of his Father's senior Officers and even executing some (for example, Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley) but he vastly increased the number of that select group, as he enlarged the rest of the Royal Household as set down in the "Statutes of Eltham". The position was so highly regarded, for the value of its continuous close-access to the King, that at least two notable late-medieval Gentles are recorded contemporaneously as having famously refused offers of knighthood, declaring that to be an "Esquire of the Body" was a far-greater honour.

In the post-medieval world, the title of esquire came to belong to all men of the higher landed gentry; an esquire ranked socially above a gentleman but below a knight. In the modern world, where all men are assumed to be gentlemen,[citation needed] the term has correspondingly often been extended (albeit only in very formal writing) to all men without any higher title. It is used post-nominally, usually in abbreviated form: "John Smith, Esq.", for example.

-----------

---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Just as an interesting sideline, Sir William Ingleby his son, who married Stillington's niece, was a squire of the body to Richard when he became King. Horrox mentions him.
Carol responds:

Which reminds me of a question I've been intending to ask: What exactly were the duties of a squire of the body and how did they differ from those of a knight of the body? I'm guessing that one helped a king get into his armor and the other fought alongside him, but they must have had duties other than those related to battle.

Does anyone know a good book on the duties of royal (and noble) household servants? I'm thinking of the higher echelons, not cooks and scullery maids, whose duties are obvious.

Carol

Tamara wrote:

"I don't know of any book, but I do note, with the appropriate amount of caution, that the Wikipedia entry for "squire" states the following: <snip URL and quote>"

Carol responds:

Thanks, Tamara. Who'd have thought that Wikipedia would have such an interesting article? I'll just add that here in the United States, at least, "Esq." after a name is primarily if not exclusively used by lawyers (male and female). How that tradition got started, I have no idea, unless possibly some esquires of the body were lawyers.

Does anyone know the names of Richard's four esquires (or squires?) after he became king? Did they remain loyal and fight and die with him?

By the way, someone wrote a letter to the editor in either the Ricardian Register or the Ricardian Bulletin suggesting that Richard fought alone at Bosworth, without any of his household knights or squires. That sounds like Tudor propaganda to me. Surely, the knights, at least, were sworn to fight and die with him. We know that his standard bearer did, which suggests that the rest of the knights were with him. Also, some of the dead (e.g., Robert Percy) were household knights (knights of the body) if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, I hope that some more knowledgeable person will respond to that person's letter and disabuse her(?) of the notion that Richard's knights failed him or deserted him on the battlefield.

Carol

I think if you look in the files area there's at least one list of combatants at Bosworth, & one of you has commented on the number of dead who fought for Richard.
You might also look here, where I've attempted to show the information given me by Paul Trevor Bale & David Rayner.
https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/bosworth

A J

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
 

Tamara wrote:

"I don't know of any book, but I do note, with the appropriate amount of caution, that the Wikipedia entry for "squire" states the following: <snip URL and quote>"

Carol responds:

Thanks, Tamara. Who'd have thought that Wikipedia would have such an interesting article? I'll just add that here in the United States, at least, "Esq." after a name is primarily if not exclusively used by lawyers (male and female). How that tradition got started, I have no idea, unless possibly some esquires of the body were lawyers.

Does anyone know the names of Richard's four esquires (or squires?) after he became king? Did they remain loyal and fight and die with him?

By the way, someone wrote a letter to the editor in either the Ricardian Register or the Ricardian Bulletin suggesting that Richard fought alone at Bosworth, without any of his household knights or squires. That sounds like Tudor propaganda to me. Surely, the knights, at least, were sworn to fight and die with him. We know that his standard bearer did, which suggests that the rest of the knights were with him. Also, some of the dead (e.g., Robert Percy) were household knights (knights of the body) if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, I hope that some more knowledgeable person will respond to that person's letter and disabuse her(?) of the notion that Richard's knights failed him or deserted him on the battlefield.

Carol

On squires of the body, Horrox lists a lot of them and what they were paid - eg our William Ingleby was paid a lot less than Ratcliffe. But that's probably because, Richard being Richard, realised that it was better if they served on a rota basis so that they could also be back looking after their estates; I always think how very modern. Richard's seem to come (as you would expect) mainly from the north and the lesser aristocracy - he deliberately took on a lot of Edward's which is another argument against the assertion that Edward's supporters were disaffected . That's what I remember of Horrox, I haven't checked in the last couple of months.The ones I've come across so far for H7 seem to come from more middle class familes with a history of service going back to Richard II who rewarded such service by making them High Sheriffs, escheators etc. They'd also lent money to H5 for his French campaign. Money was beginning to talk! I've not seen 'Esq' used to denote lawyers. It seems to be interchangeable with 'gent' in wills and documents to denote someone who was not a knight, but higher up the social strata than the hoi polloi. Is that so, Marie, or is it more subtle? Certainly in correspondence until the last 40 odd years you addressed a man in a letter as J. Bloggs, Esq., when you were sending him a formal letter.

On Wednesday, 13 November 2013, 16:45, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
I think if you look in the files area there's at least one list of combatants at Bosworth, & one of you has commented on the number of dead who fought for Richard.
You might also look here, where I've attempted to show the information given me by Paul Trevor Bale & David Rayner.
https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/bosworth

A J

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Tamara wrote:

"I don't know of any book, but I do note, with the appropriate amount of caution, that the Wikipedia entry for "squire" states the following: <snip URL and quote>"
Carol responds:
Thanks, Tamara. Who'd have thought that Wikipedia would have such an interesting article? I'll just add that here in the United States, at least, "Esq." after a name is primarily if not exclusively used by lawyers (male and female). How that tradition got started, I have no idea, unless possibly some esquires of the body were lawyers.
Does anyone know the names of Richard's four esquires (or squires?) after he became king? Did they remain loyal and fight and die with him?
By the way, someone wrote a letter to the editor in either the Ricardian Register or the Ricardian Bulletin suggesting that Richard fought alone at Bosworth, without any of his household knights or squires. That sounds like Tudor propaganda to me. Surely, the knights, at least, were sworn to fight and die with him. We know that his standard bearer did, which suggests that the rest of the knights were with him. Also, some of the dead (e.g., Robert Percy) were household knights (knights of the body) if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, I hope that some more knowledgeable person will respond to that person's letter and disabuse her(?) of the notion that Richard's knights failed him or deserted him on the battlefield.

Carol

Richard Ratcliffe was a knight, therefore a knight of the Body. That would explain his higher salary. (In fact, he was elected to the Order of the Garter during Richard's reign.)

The word esquire comes from the Norman French for ' shield-bearer'. Esquires originally carried the shield for the knight. But I think (I'm not entirely sure) that it also referred to persons below the rank of knight who were had their own coat of arms. The Latin is 'armiger'. Basically, in the 15th century esquires sat between knights and gentlemen in the pecking order. The esquires of the Body would have to be of that rank, just as the knights of the Body would have to be knights. There were also gentlemen and yeomen of the Chamber, and they would have been paid less and would have been the middle class men. It was a strictly hierarchical system.

Esquire came to be extended as a courtesy title in later centuries, differently apparently in the USA from the custom in England.

I'm pretty sure that Edward IV's body servants also served on a set rota basis, but it's a long time since I've looked at the Black Book. It would surely have been completely impossible for members of the landowning classes to be at court 52 weeks a year.

Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On squires of the body, Horrox lists a lot of them and what they were paid - eg our William Ingleby was paid a lot less than Ratcliffe. But that's probably because, Richard being Richard, realised that it was better if they served on a rota basis so that they could also be back looking after their estates; I always think how very modern. Richard's seem to come (as you would expect) mainly from the north and the lesser aristocracy - he deliberately took on a lot of Edward's which is another argument against the assertion that Edward's supporters were disaffected . That's what I remember of Horrox, I haven't checked in the last couple of months.The ones I've come across so far for H7 seem to come from more middle class familes with a history of service going back to Richard II who rewarded such service by making them High Sheriffs, escheators etc. They'd also lent money to H5 for his French campaign. Money was beginning to talk! I've not seen 'Esq' used to denote lawyers. It seems to be interchangeable with 'gent' in wills and documents to denote someone who was not a knight, but higher up the social strata than the hoi polloi. Is that so, Marie, or is it more subtle? Certainly in correspondence until the last 40 odd years you addressed a man in a letter as J. Bloggs, Esq., when you were sending him a formal letter.

On Wednesday, 13 November 2013, 16:45, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
I think if you look in the files area there's at least one list of combatants at Bosworth, & one of you has commented on the number of dead who fought for Richard.
You might also look here, where I've attempted to show the information given me by Paul Trevor Bale & David Rayner.
https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/bosworth

A J

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Tamara wrote:

"I don't know of any book, but I do note, with the appropriate amount of caution, that the Wikipedia entry for "squire" states the following: <snip URL and quote>"
Carol responds:
Thanks, Tamara. Who'd have thought that Wikipedia would have such an interesting article? I'll just add that here in the United States, at least, "Esq." after a name is primarily if not exclusively used by lawyers (male and female). How that tradition got started, I have no idea, unless possibly some esquires of the body were lawyers.
Does anyone know the names of Richard's four esquires (or squires?) after he became king? Did they remain loyal and fight and die with him?
By the way, someone wrote a letter to the editor in either the Ricardian Register or the Ricardian Bulletin suggesting that Richard fought alone at Bosworth, without any of his household knights or squires. That sounds like Tudor propaganda to me. Surely, the knights, at least, were sworn to fight and die with him. We know that his standard bearer did, which suggests that the rest of the knights were with him. Also, some of the dead (e.g., Robert Percy) were household knights (knights of the body) if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, I hope that some more knowledgeable person will respond to that person's letter and disabuse her(?) of the notion that Richard's knights failed him or deserted him on the battlefield.

Carol

Wasn't Sir William Ingleby a knight? Think I recall he got £10 pa and Ratcliffe £52. Horrox attributes Ratcliffe's salary to favouritism but that's Horrox, not me! But perhaps Ratcliffe did longer stints? Incidentally how could you be an armiger and not have a title? Is it because your ancestors once did or you were a younger son? I notice in the visitations that there are several armigers named who do not have a title but have a coat of arms and therefore give credence to their descendants. I've often wondered that. H.

On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 15:53, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Richard Ratcliffe was a knight, therefore a knight of the Body. That would explain his higher salary. (In fact, he was elected to the Order of the Garter during Richard's reign.)The word esquire comes from the Norman French for ' shield-bearer'. Esquires originally carried the shield for the knight. But I think (I'm not entirely sure) that it also referred to persons below the rank of knight who were had their own coat of arms. The Latin is 'armiger'. Basically, in the 15th century esquires sat between knights and gentlemen in the pecking order. The esquires of the Body would have to be of that rank, just as the knights of the Body would have to be knights. There were also gentlemen and yeomen of the Chamber, and they would have been paid less and would have been the middle class men. It was a strictly hierarchical system. Esquire came to be extended as a courtesy title in later centuries, differently apparently in the USA from the custom in England. I'm pretty sure that Edward IV's body servants also served on a set rota basis, but it's a long time since I've looked at the Black Book. It would surely have been completely impossible for members of the landowning classes to be at court 52 weeks a year. Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On squires of the body, Horrox lists a lot of them and what they were paid - eg our William Ingleby was paid a lot less than Ratcliffe. But that's probably because, Richard being Richard, realised that it was better if they served on a rota basis so that they could also be back looking after their estates; I always think how very modern. Richard's seem to come (as you would expect) mainly from the north and the lesser aristocracy - he deliberately took on a lot of Edward's which is another argument against the assertion that Edward's supporters were disaffected . That's what I remember of Horrox, I haven't checked in the last couple of months.The ones I've come across so far for H7 seem to come from more middle class familes with a history of service going back to Richard II who rewarded such service by making them High Sheriffs, escheators etc. They'd also lent money to H5 for his French campaign. Money was beginning to talk! I've not seen 'Esq' used to denote lawyers. It seems to be interchangeable with 'gent' in wills and documents to denote someone who was not a knight, but higher up the social strata than the hoi polloi. Is that so, Marie, or is it more subtle? Certainly in correspondence until the last 40 odd years you addressed a man in a letter as J. Bloggs, Esq., when you were sending him a formal letter.

On Wednesday, 13 November 2013, 16:45, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
I think if you look in the files area there's at least one list of combatants at Bosworth, & one of you has commented on the number of dead who fought for Richard.
You might also look here, where I've attempted to show the information given me by Paul Trevor Bale & David Rayner.
https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/bosworth

A J

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Tamara wrote:

"I don't know of any book, but I do note, with the appropriate amount of caution, that the Wikipedia entry for "squire" states the following: <snip URL and quote>"
Carol responds:
Thanks, Tamara. Who'd have thought that Wikipedia would have such an interesting article? I'll just add that here in the United States, at least, "Esq." after a name is primarily if not exclusively used by lawyers (male and female). How that tradition got started, I have no idea, unless possibly some esquires of the body were lawyers.
Does anyone know the names of Richard's four esquires (or squires?) after he became king? Did they remain loyal and fight and die with him?
By the way, someone wrote a letter to the editor in either the Ricardian Register or the Ricardian Bulletin suggesting that Richard fought alone at Bosworth, without any of his household knights or squires. That sounds like Tudor propaganda to me. Surely, the knights, at least, were sworn to fight and die with him. We know that his standard bearer did, which suggests that the rest of the knights were with him. Also, some of the dead (e.g., Robert Percy) were household knights (knights of the body) if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, I hope that some more knowledgeable person will respond to that person's letter and disabuse her(?) of the notion that Richard's knights failed him or deserted him on the battlefield.

Carol

Yes, you're right of course, Hilary - William Imgleby was also a knight. So neither Ingleby nor Ratcliffe was an esquire of the Body, they were both knights of the Body. Ratcliffe had been made a knight banneret in Scotland, which was better than an ordinary knight, and then became a KG during Richard's reign (probably early 1484 but I would need to check). So - unless Horrox was quoting from documents predating Ratcliffe's elevation to the Order of the Garter and Ingleby was also a banneret - that might explain the pay differential.

About armigers without titles: all knights must have had arms, I presume, but knighthoods weren't hereditary. Certainly sons of the nobility who hadn't been knighted were referred to as 'esquire' but there also seem to have been families headed by esquires.Do we have someone into heraldry who can shed some light?

Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Wasn't Sir William Ingleby a knight? Think I recall he got £10 pa and Ratcliffe £52. Horrox attributes Ratcliffe's salary to favouritism but that's Horrox, not me! But perhaps Ratcliffe did longer stints? Incidentally how could you be an armiger and not have a title? Is it because your ancestors once did or you were a younger son? I notice in the visitations that there are several armigers named who do not have a title but have a coat of arms and therefore give credence to their descendants. I've often wondered that. H.

On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 15:53, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Richard Ratcliffe was a knight, therefore a knight of the Body. That would explain his higher salary. (In fact, he was elected to the Order of the Garter during Richard's reign.)The word esquire comes from the Norman French for ' shield-bearer'. Esquires originally carried the shield for the knight. But I think (I'm not entirely sure) that it also referred to persons below the rank of knight who were had their own coat of arms. The Latin is 'armiger'. Basically, in the 15th century esquires sat between knights and gentlemen in the pecking order. The esquires of the Body would have to be of that rank, just as the knights of the Body would have to be knights. There were also gentlemen and yeomen of the Chamber, and they would have been paid less and would have been the middle class men. It was a strictly hierarchical system. Esquire came to be extended as a courtesy title in later centuries, differently apparently in the USA from the custom in England. I'm pretty sure that Edward IV's body servants also served on a set rota basis, but it's a long time since I've looked at the Black Book. It would surely have been completely impossible for members of the landowning classes to be at court 52 weeks a year. Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On squires of the body, Horrox lists a lot of them and what they were paid - eg our William Ingleby was paid a lot less than Ratcliffe. But that's probably because, Richard being Richard, realised that it was better if they served on a rota basis so that they could also be back looking after their estates; I always think how very modern. Richard's seem to come (as you would expect) mainly from the north and the lesser aristocracy - he deliberately took on a lot of Edward's which is another argument against the assertion that Edward's supporters were disaffected . That's what I remember of Horrox, I haven't checked in the last couple of months.The ones I've come across so far for H7 seem to come from more middle class familes with a history of service going back to Richard II who rewarded such service by making them High Sheriffs, escheators etc. They'd also lent money to H5 for his French campaign. Money was beginning to talk! I've not seen 'Esq' used to denote lawyers. It seems to be interchangeable with 'gent' in wills and documents to denote someone who was not a knight, but higher up the social strata than the hoi polloi. Is that so, Marie, or is it more subtle? Certainly in correspondence until the last 40 odd years you addressed a man in a letter as J. Bloggs, Esq., when you were sending him a formal letter.

On Wednesday, 13 November 2013, 16:45, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
I think if you look in the files area there's at least one list of combatants at Bosworth, & one of you has commented on the number of dead who fought for Richard.
You might also look here, where I've attempted to show the information given me by Paul Trevor Bale & David Rayner.
https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/bosworth

A J

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Tamara wrote:

"I don't know of any book, but I do note, with the appropriate amount of caution, that the Wikipedia entry for "squire" states the following: <snip URL and quote>"
Carol responds:
Thanks, Tamara. Who'd have thought that Wikipedia would have such an interesting article? I'll just add that here in the United States, at least, "Esq." after a name is primarily if not exclusively used by lawyers (male and female). How that tradition got started, I have no idea, unless possibly some esquires of the body were lawyers.
Does anyone know the names of Richard's four esquires (or squires?) after he became king? Did they remain loyal and fight and die with him?
By the way, someone wrote a letter to the editor in either the Ricardian Register or the Ricardian Bulletin suggesting that Richard fought alone at Bosworth, without any of his household knights or squires. That sounds like Tudor propaganda to me. Surely, the knights, at least, were sworn to fight and die with him. We know that his standard bearer did, which suggests that the rest of the knights were with him. Also, some of the dead (e.g., Robert Percy) were household knights (knights of the body) if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, I hope that some more knowledgeable person will respond to that person's letter and disabuse her(?) of the notion that Richard's knights failed him or deserted him on the battlefield.

Carol

Oh, and I meant to add that Ratcliffe could well have worked more stints, as you suggest, since as one of Richard's right-hand men he would presumably have been at court most of the time anyway. I'm trying to remember from the Black Book of the Household, but I think the rotas were 3 months or six months at a time. Often there's no way of answering these questions except by looking at the historian's source documents oneself, unfortunately.

Marie

---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes, you're right of course, Hilary - William Imgleby was also a knight. So neither Ingleby nor Ratcliffe was an esquire of the Body, they were both knights of the Body. Ratcliffe had been made a knight banneret in Scotland, which was better than an ordinary knight, and then became a KG during Richard's reign (probably early 1484 but I would need to check). So - unless Horrox was quoting from documents predating Ratcliffe's elevation to the Order of the Garter and Ingleby was also a banneret - that might explain the pay differential.

About armigers without titles: all knights must have had arms, I presume, but knighthoods weren't hereditary. Certainly sons of the nobility who hadn't been knighted were referred to as 'esquire' but there also seem to have been families headed by esquires.Do we have someone into heraldry who can shed some light?

Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Wasn't Sir William Ingleby a knight? Think I recall he got £10 pa and Ratcliffe £52. Horrox attributes Ratcliffe's salary to favouritism but that's Horrox, not me! But perhaps Ratcliffe did longer stints? Incidentally how could you be an armiger and not have a title? Is it because your ancestors once did or you were a younger son? I notice in the visitations that there are several armigers named who do not have a title but have a coat of arms and therefore give credence to their descendants. I've often wondered that. H.

On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 15:53, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Richard Ratcliffe was a knight, therefore a knight of the Body. That would explain his higher salary. (In fact, he was elected to the Order of the Garter during Richard's reign.)The word esquire comes from the Norman French for ' shield-bearer'. Esquires originally carried the shield for the knight. But I think (I'm not entirely sure) that it also referred to persons below the rank of knight who were had their own coat of arms. The Latin is 'armiger'. Basically, in the 15th century esquires sat between knights and gentlemen in the pecking order. The esquires of the Body would have to be of that rank, just as the knights of the Body would have to be knights. There were also gentlemen and yeomen of the Chamber, and they would have been paid less and would have been the middle class men. It was a strictly hierarchical system. Esquire came to be extended as a courtesy title in later centuries, differently apparently in the USA from the custom in England. I'm pretty sure that Edward IV's body servants also served on a set rota basis, but it's a long time since I've looked at the Black Book. It would surely have been completely impossible for members of the landowning classes to be at court 52 weeks a year. Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On squires of the body, Horrox lists a lot of them and what they were paid - eg our William Ingleby was paid a lot less than Ratcliffe. But that's probably because, Richard being Richard, realised that it was better if they served on a rota basis so that they could also be back looking after their estates; I always think how very modern. Richard's seem to come (as you would expect) mainly from the north and the lesser aristocracy - he deliberately took on a lot of Edward's which is another argument against the assertion that Edward's supporters were disaffected . That's what I remember of Horrox, I haven't checked in the last couple of months.The ones I've come across so far for H7 seem to come from more middle class familes with a history of service going back to Richard II who rewarded such service by making them High Sheriffs, escheators etc. They'd also lent money to H5 for his French campaign. Money was beginning to talk! I've not seen 'Esq' used to denote lawyers. It seems to be interchangeable with 'gent' in wills and documents to denote someone who was not a knight, but higher up the social strata than the hoi polloi. Is that so, Marie, or is it more subtle? Certainly in correspondence until the last 40 odd years you addressed a man in a letter as J. Bloggs, Esq., when you were sending him a formal letter.

On Wednesday, 13 November 2013, 16:45, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
I think if you look in the files area there's at least one list of combatants at Bosworth, & one of you has commented on the number of dead who fought for Richard.
You might also look here, where I've attempted to show the information given me by Paul Trevor Bale & David Rayner.
https://sites.google.com/site/gettingrichardright/home/bosworth

A J

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Tamara wrote:

"I don't know of any book, but I do note, with the appropriate amount of caution, that the Wikipedia entry for "squire" states the following: <snip URL and quote>"
Carol responds:
Thanks, Tamara. Who'd have thought that Wikipedia would have such an interesting article? I'll just add that here in the United States, at least, "Esq." after a name is primarily if not exclusively used by lawyers (male and female). How that tradition got started, I have no idea, unless possibly some esquires of the body were lawyers.
Does anyone know the names of Richard's four esquires (or squires?) after he became king? Did they remain loyal and fight and die with him?
By the way, someone wrote a letter to the editor in either the Ricardian Register or the Ricardian Bulletin suggesting that Richard fought alone at Bosworth, without any of his household knights or squires. That sounds like Tudor propaganda to me. Surely, the knights, at least, were sworn to fight and die with him. We know that his standard bearer did, which suggests that the rest of the knights were with him. Also, some of the dead (e.g., Robert Percy) were household knights (knights of the body) if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, I hope that some more knowledgeable person will respond to that person's letter and disabuse her(?) of the notion that Richard's knights failed him or deserted him on the battlefield.

Carol