'My lord of Salysbury'

Hi everyone - back again with typically bizarre speculations à la Pansy... ;)

I was reading the Stonor letters and one sentence in Simon Stallworth's famous letter of 9 June 1483 suddenly jumped at me:

"The Quene kepys stylle Westm., my lord of Yorke, my lord of Salysbury with othyr mo wyche wyll nott departe as yett."

I had the earldom of Salisbury on my brain so I immediately thought - wait, what? 'My lord of Salysbury' is Edward of Middleham, isn't it?

Then I remembered it must be referring to Lionel Woodville, Bishop of Salisbury. All secondary sources I could come up with naturally assume Lionel was in sanctuary with Elizabeth - but their only source for this is Simon Stallworth's letter.

Two things make this a bit strange. Firstly, in other places Stallworth refers to other people with their proper titles: the Bishop of Ely is named as 'the Byshop of Ely' (NOT 'my lord of Ely'), and the Archbishop of York is mentioned as 'the lord Arsbyschop of Yorke'; Dorset is 'my lord Markques', Richard 'my lord Protector'. Then there's 'my lord Cardenale' and 'my lord Chaunceler'. 'My lord of Yorke', 'my lord of Buckingham', 'my lady of Glocestre' are obviously all noble titles. 'My lord of Salisbury' would, as a title, be a much better fit for the Earl of Salisbury.

Another thing that makes me go 'hmm' is the chronology of Lionel Woodville's whereabouts that summer. Susan Higginbotham's page on Lionel Woodville has a good summary (which I'll copy below, though I know Higginbotham is not well liked here):

"Following Edward IV's death on April 9, 1483, Lionel apparently attended his funeral services, according to Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs, who have collated the various manuscripts describing the ceremonies. By April 26, 1483, however, Lionel was back at Oxford. On June 9, 1483, Simon Stallworth reported that Lionel had entered sanctuary with his sister the queen; Thomson speculates that he had traveled there for his nephew's coronation and fled into sanctuary upon hearing of the arrest of his brother Anthony at the hands of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and Harry, Duke of Buckingham (the latter married to Katherine Woodville, Lionel's sister). Gloucester evidently was wary of Lionel, for on June 3, 1483, he removed Lionel's name from a commission of the peace for Dorset. Later in June, however, Lionel appears to have reconciled with Richard and left sanctuary, for Richard restored Lionel to the Dorset commission on June 26, 1483, and appointed him to a Wiltshire commission on July 20, 1483. Lionel, however, is not recorded as being at Richard's coronation on July 6, 1483.

In late July, Richard III set off on a royal progress, visiting Oxford's Magdalen College on July 24 and 25, 1483. The college register records that the new king was greeted by the university's chancellorwho, of course, was Lionel Woodville. Since Richard had recently executed Lionel's older brother Anthony, this must have been a rather awkward occasion, but ceremony presumably carried the day."

I know 'my lord of Salysbury' is, of course, most likely Lionel Woodville - and there's probably a reasonable explanation as to why he was first at Oxford, then stopped by at Westminster Abbey for a small vacation in sanctuary, and then was soon back at Oxford again as if nothing had happened.

But it's interesting to ponder: *what if* Elizabeth Woodville were not only keeping her younger son in Westminster Abbey, but Edward of Middleham too (as hostage?)? Wouldn't that put an interesting twist on everything else that happened around that time?

It's an utterly bizarre thought, I know, but then - which part of that summer of 1483 *isn't* bizarre?

Pansy

I agree about missing pieces - we are both on the same quest! Now here's one. Why didn't York send a deputation to the funeral of EOM? Now we know records in London could have been destroyed but the YHB seem not to have been doctored, given the most famous minute of all. That would seem to say he wasn't buried at the Minster (surely we'd have the details we had for his investiture - he was the King's son). We know royalty didn't attend funerals so we can't rely on his parents being there. And although we have records of gifts being sent to him we have nothing about his funeral. So was he buried hastily, which would indicated Middleham and why? H

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014, 19:31, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:
"Good to have you back. On 27 July Edward was in Middleham because the City of York sent him some gifts and Thomas Asper was reimbursed on 19 July for his expenses for riding to him. There's no mention of the Prince having returned from London. Don't know whether this helps or not. H"
Thanks, Hilary! It's tricky, isn't it - at the end of July, one 'Salysbury' is at Oxford, the other at Middleham, and we don't know for sure whether either of them had been in London...
I expect if Edward of Middleham had been in London at all, there'd be more sources saying so... but still, it's interesting to think about. I'm always looking for the missing pieces in the puzzle, however implausible. There *are* missing pieces, there's got to be - too many people's behaviour has question marks all over it...
Pansy

I agree about missing pieces - we are both on the same quest! Now here's one. Why didn't York send a deputation to the funeral of EOM? Now we know records in London could have been destroyed but the YHB seem not to have been doctored, given the most famous minute of all. That would seem to say he wasn't buried at the Minster (surely we'd have the details we had for his investiture - he was the King's son). We know royalty didn't attend funerals so we can't rely on his parents being there. And although we have records of gifts being sent to him we have nothing about his funeral. So was he buried hastily, which would indicated Middleham and why? H

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014, 19:31, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:
"Good to have you back. On 27 July Edward was in Middleham because the City of York sent him some gifts and Thomas Asper was reimbursed on 19 July for his expenses for riding to him. There's no mention of the Prince having returned from London. Don't know whether this helps or not. H"
Thanks, Hilary! It's tricky, isn't it - at the end of July, one 'Salysbury' is at Oxford, the other at Middleham, and we don't know for sure whether either of them had been in London...
I expect if Edward of Middleham had been in London at all, there'd be more sources saying so... but still, it's interesting to think about. I'm always looking for the missing pieces in the puzzle, however implausible. There *are* missing pieces, there's got to be - too many people's behaviour has question marks all over it...
Pansy

Rous has it that "it was recorded that Edward died at Middleham and was buried honourably".

Also there is a mention in the Calendar of Patent Rolls of 28th June 1484 - "Grant for life to Henry Burgh and Isabel his wife, for their good service to the king and his consort Anne and especially to his son Edward, deceased, whose nurse the said Isabel was, of an annuity of 20 marks from the issues of the lordship of Middleham."

There are various theories as to where Edward might have been buried.

Rous has it that "it was recorded that Edward died at Middleham and was buried honourably".

Also there is a mention in the Calendar of Patent Rolls of 28th June 1484 - "Grant for life to Henry Burgh and Isabel his wife, for their good service to the king and his consort Anne and especially to his son Edward, deceased, whose nurse the said Isabel was, of an annuity of 20 marks from the issues of the lordship of Middleham."

There are various theories as to where Edward might have been buried.

Edwardus illustris Princeps Wallie Regis Ricardi tercij et venerabilis consortis sue Anne Regine Anglie unica Proles & Heres, immo heres Celi, quem in sancta anima nunquam infecit macula culpe sed ante parentes infans obijt et apud Midleham honorifice sepulture traditur."

I don't think this utterly confirms that EoM was buried at Middleham.
Nicolas von Poppelau was visiting with Richard at this time and makes no mention of the King's loss.

Edwardus illustris Princeps Wallie Regis Ricardi tercij et venerabilis consortis sue Anne Regine Anglie unica Proles & Heres, immo heres Celi, quem in sancta anima nunquam infecit macula culpe sed ante parentes infans obijt et apud Midleham honorifice sepulture traditur."

I don't think this utterly confirms that EoM was buried at Middleham.
Nicolas von Poppelau was visiting with Richard at this time and makes no mention of the King's loss.

So do I Pansy. As I said before you came back I've been chasing my own lot (no they were not aristos or royalty) and I keep bumping into the Stanleys and MB - which is not surprising since they came from Staffordshire and Northants. Indeed as my cousin said 'cor blimey o'riley!' It's compulsive, isn't it? But at least these days you can use genealogical software to help keep track a bit but I'm dreadful disorganised at storing random sources. I have the greatest respect for those who did research on this in the days before the internet. It must have been eye-achingly tedious. H

On Friday, 14 February 2014, 10:23, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
Edwardus illustris Princeps Wallie Regis Ricardi tercij et venerabilis consortis sue Anne Regine Anglie unica Proles & Heres, immo heres Celi, quem in sancta anima nunquam infecit macula culpe sed ante parentes infans obijt et apud Midleham honorifice sepulture traditur."
I don't think this utterly confirms that EoM was buried at Middleham.
Nicolas von Poppelau was visiting with Richard at this time and makes no mention of the King's loss.

So do I Pansy. As I said before you came back I've been chasing my own lot (no they were not aristos or royalty) and I keep bumping into the Stanleys and MB - which is not surprising since they came from Staffordshire and Northants. Indeed as my cousin said 'cor blimey o'riley!' It's compulsive, isn't it? But at least these days you can use genealogical software to help keep track a bit but I'm dreadful disorganised at storing random sources. I have the greatest respect for those who did research on this in the days before the internet. It must have been eye-achingly tedious. H

On Friday, 14 February 2014, 10:23, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
Edwardus illustris Princeps Wallie Regis Ricardi tercij et venerabilis consortis sue Anne Regine Anglie unica Proles & Heres, immo heres Celi, quem in sancta anima nunquam infecit macula culpe sed ante parentes infans obijt et apud Midleham honorifice sepulture traditur."
I don't think this utterly confirms that EoM was buried at Middleham.
Nicolas von Poppelau was visiting with Richard at this time and makes no mention of the King's loss.

Oops, I was stuck with 'immo heres Celi' so forgot to translate it altogether. 'Heres Caeli' would be 'heir of the Heavens' and immo is referring to the preceding part, so er& something like this:

'Edward, the illustrious Prince of Wales, the only son and heir of King Richard the third and his venerable consort Queen Anne of England, now rather an heir to Heaven, whose sacred soul was never stained by guilt but who died an infant before his parents and is honourably consigned to his grave at Middleham'.

Pansy

Then I added that I suppose you could also translate the last part as 'is left to be buried honourably at Middleham', depending on whether you translate the 'sepulturae' as 'to (his) burial' or 'into (his) tomb'.

And 'apud' might also mean 'near Middleham' rather than 'at Middleham'...

Pansy

Oops, I was stuck with 'immo heres Celi' so forgot to translate it altogether. 'Heres Caeli' would be 'heir of the Heavens' and immo is referring to the preceding part, so er& something like this:

'Edward, the illustrious Prince of Wales, the only son and heir of King Richard the third and his venerable consort Queen Anne of England, now rather an heir to Heaven, whose sacred soul was never stained by guilt but who died an infant before his parents and is honourably consigned to his grave at Middleham'.

Pansy

The excerpt wasn't posted by me but by Colyngbourne, but here's my attempt at translating it from Latin:

'Edward, the illustrious Prince of Wales, the only son and heir of King Richard the third and his venerable consort Queen Anne of England, whose sacred soul was never stained by guilt but who died an infant before his parents and is honourably consigned to his grave at Middleham'.

I supposed you could also translate the last part as 'is left to be buried honourably at Middleham', depending on whether you translate the 'sepulturae' as 'to (his) burial' or 'into his tomb'.

And 'apud' might also mean 'near Middleham' rather than 'at Middleham', I think?

Pansy, self-taught in Latin so take it with a pinch of salt...

I have eleven years of Latin study including a degree, but I am less familiar with the medieval quirks of Latin style. However, this would be my translation of the latter part of the Rous excerpt:

"sed ante parentes infans obijt et apud Midleham honorifice sepulture traditur."

"But it is recorded that that he died, a young child, at home in Middleham, before his parents' deaths and with honourable burial."

Just because "apud Middleham" is next to the bit about burial does not mean the two phrases are necessarily connected - grammatically, in my opinion, they are not. connected.

I would say the statement by Rous is ambiguous - Edward could have been buried entirely elsewhere depending on how this sentence is formulated, and also what one understands by "apud". It's certainly used in other medieval documents alongside "castle of *NAME*", meaning "whilst residing at". It's most typical use is "at the home of". Rous might have known for certain that Edward died at Middleham Castle and "apud" refers purely to his death, and the burial could be in a number of places but was definitely honourable. Or he wrote "apud" with reference to the burial, not just the death, and it might mean anything from St Alkelda's to Coverham to Jervaulx was possible as a burial site.

In terms of the Latin, the "honorifice sepulture" stands on its own, and the position of the other words around it does not necessarily implicate Middleham as also the place of burial for Edward.

Colyngbourne, I'm embarrassed to even ask this from someone who knows Latin so much better than I do, but& though 'he died before his parents when he was still a young child and at Middleham' makes perfect sense to me, how typical would such a phrase be in Mediaeval Latin?

I suppose it's that 'et' that throws me a bit - I haven't really seen that sort of construction ('obijt infans et apud Placename X') in records etc., whereas I've often come across things like 'obijt infans sine prole apud Placename X'. And then, you often see 'et' when the death and the burial are mentioned separately - for example 'obijt infans et sepult. apud Placename X' or 'Person X obijt apud Placename Y et sepultus est apud Placename Z'. Another thing that strikes me is that in mediaeval texts, the place of burial seems be of more importance than the place of death& the latter sometimes isn't mentioned at all, but the former is.

Of course, just because something is often done in a certain way doesn't mean that someone (like Rous) wouldn't do it the other way& I'm just wondering, basically!

Pansy

"Edwardus illustris Princeps Wallie Regis Ricardi tercij et venerabilis consortis sue Anne Regine Anglie unica Proles & Heres, immo heres Celi, quem in sancta anima nunquam infecit macula culpe sed ante parentes infans obijt et apud Midleham honorifice sepulture traditur."

Carol responds:

Hi, Col. Is this passage from Rous? Do you have a translation? Whose post are you answering? Since the quoted messages aren't appearing, maybe we should provide a bit more context in our responses.

Thanks,

Carol

"Oops, I was stuck with 'immo heres Celi' so forgot to translate it altogether. 'Heres Caeli' would be 'heir of the Heavens' and immo is referring to the preceding part, so er& something like this: 'Edward, the illustrious Prince of Wales, the only son and heir of King Richard the third and his venerable consort Queen Anne of England, now rather an heir to Heaven, whose sacred soul was never stained by guilt but who died an infant before his parents and is honourably consigned to his grave at Middleham'."

Carol responds:

Thanks very much. Apparently, the messages are out of order again as I never saw your original translation or I wouldn't have posted mine.

Now if we can just find out the context and whom or what we're translating.

Also, isn't "traditur" reportedly, which would indicate that our author was working from hearsay, not firsthand knowledge?

Carol

Carol wrote:

"Now if we can just find out the context and whom or what we're translating.

Also, isn't "traditur" reportedly, which would indicate that our author was working from hearsay, not firsthand knowledge?"

a) The snippet was from John Rous' Lancastrian Roll.

b) 'Reportedly'/'it is reported' would seem likely, wouldn't it - but as the verb has alternative meanings (e.g. 'give something up'), I actually think had another, specific meaning in Mediaeval Latin which was something along the lines of 'consigned to his grave'.

If you look up 'sepultura/sepulture/sepulturae traditur' on Google Books, you'll see that the phrase is used *a lot* - and in many cases 'reportedly' doesn't make any sense in the context. A couple of examples:

- When it's said of some person 'defunctus sepulture traditur' without any other specifics - doesn't it seem a bit silly to say 'when he was dead, he was reportedly buried'?

- From a piece of mediaeval burial liturgy: 'cujus corpusculum hodie sepulturae traditur'... 'whose body we are reportedly burying today' doesn't sound too likely

- From a medical book: 'Fata cadaveris: Mortui hominis cadaver sepulturae traditur, in hac per putredinem in sua, quibus constat principia, solvitur'... which I understand to mean that the bodies of dead people are buried in order to solve the problem of their inevitable putrefaction. This really can't be 'reportedly'! At least I hope not ;)

Pansy

"Also, isn't "traditur" reportedly, which would indicate that our author was working from hearsay, not firsthand knowledge?"

Pansy responded:

"'Reportedly'/'it is reported' would seem likely, wouldn't it - but as the verb has alternative meanings (e.g. 'give something up'), I actually think had another, specific meaning in Mediaeval Latin which was something along the lines of 'consigned to his grave'.[snip arguments and evidence]"

Carol again:

Thanks, Pansy, for your very thorough and convincing response. So there can be no doubt that Rous (assuming that he was being truthful here) *knew* that Prince Edward (EoM) was buried at Middleham and was not just reporting what he had heard. Incidentally, If "traditur" means "consigned to his grave," how would you say "reportedly"?

It's good to have you back in the group!

Carol

Carol wrote:

"Thanks, Pansy, for your very thorough and convincing response. So there can be no doubt that Rous (assuming that he was being truthful here) *knew* that Prince Edward (EoM) was buried at Middleham and was not just reporting what he had heard. Incidentally, If "traditur" means "consigned to his grave," how would you say "reportedly"?"

It's good to have you back in the group!"

Thanks, Carol! It's good to be back :) I just have to take a break from the fifteenth century every now and then - I get a bit obsessive, and it can get awfully tiring...

I must emphasise that I don't actually *know* that 'traditur' had an alternative meaning of 'is consigned (to his grave)'; I'm merely speculating about such an alternative meaning, because in the contexts I quoted earlier it can't possibly mean 'it is reported', and 'consigned to his grave' would make a lot more sense. But I think it should be double-checked with someone who's actually an expert on Mediaeval Latin, to be sure: I'm really just a beginner, myself.

And of course, even if 'traditur' can mean both 'it is reported' and 'consigned to his grave', Rous may have meant it either way, or even been ambiguous on purpose...!

Pansy

Carol wrote:

"Thanks, Pansy, for your very thorough and convincing response. So there can be no doubt that Rous (assuming that he was being truthful here) *knew* that Prince Edward (EoM) was buried at Middleham and was not just reporting what he had heard. Incidentally, If "traditur" means "consigned to his grave," how would you say "reportedly"?"

It's good to have you back in the group!"

Thanks, Carol! It's good to be back :) I just have to take a break from the fifteenth century every now and then - I get a bit obsessive, and it can get awfully tiring...

I must emphasise that I don't actually *know* that 'traditur' had an alternative meaning of 'is consigned (to his grave)'; I'm merely speculating about such an alternative meaning, because in the contexts I quoted earlier it can't possibly mean 'it is reported', and 'consigned to his grave' would make a lot more sense. But I think it should be double-checked with someone who's actually an expert on Mediaeval Latin, to be sure: I'm really just a beginner, myself.

And of course, even if 'traditur' can mean both 'it is reported' and 'consigned to his grave', Rous may have meant it either way, or even been ambiguous on purpose...!

Pansy