Sir John Ingleby Again
Sir John Ingleby Again
Some months ago Hilary found a website claiming that the John Ingleby who was prior of Sheen and finally Bishop of Llandaff was the same individual as the Sir John Ingleby who was head of the family, married and succeeded by his son. The claim was that he had left his marriage to enter a monastery.
I was sceptical about this because the general attitude of canon law was that you couldn't leave a valid marriage, and that if your marriage was declared null the children were bastardised in the process.
It does appear, however, that there was one single exception to that rule. I have just been put on to a fascinating PhD paper on the subject of medieval bastardy, and it mentions very briefly that men and women were permitted to procure an annulment in order to become professed as monks or nuns (not merely to become priests, seemingly), and that in this one circumstance their children remained legitimate.
The relevant bit is in Chapter 3. The link is:
http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/files/16948954/2013matthewshsphd.pdf
That doesn't necessarily mean that this is what happened here, of course - we have no primary source yet for the marriage annulment and Sir John's transfer to the monastic life, nor any document suggesting the two John Inglebys were the same person. Perhaps we'll have to take it up again?
Marie
Re: Sir John Ingleby Again
Oh Marie, I just scanned through the paper very quickly, and will print it and read thoroughly tonight. That is fascinating. This leads me to other questions how many people have written books or theses on subjects germane to this time, and more specially to the Plantagenet Dynasty and Richard?
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:44 AM
To:
Subject: Sir John Ingleby Again
Some months ago Hilary found a website claiming that the John Ingleby who was prior of Sheen and finally Bishop of Llandaff was the same individual as the Sir John Ingleby who was head of the family, married and succeeded by his son. The claim was that he had left his marriage to enter a monastery.
I was sceptical about this because the general attitude of canon law was that you couldn't leave a valid marriage, and that if your marriage was declared null the children were bastardised in the process.
It does appear, however, that there was one single exception to that rule. I have just been put on to a fascinating PhD paper on the subject of medieval bastardy, and it mentions very briefly that men and women were permitted to procure an annulment in order to become professed as monks or nuns (not merely to become priests, seemingly), and that in this one circumstance their children remained legitimate.
The relevant bit is in Chapter 3. The link is:
http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/files/16948954/2013matthewshsphd.pdf
That doesn't necessarily mean that this is what happened here, of course - we have no primary source yet for the marriage annulment and Sir John's transfer to the monastic life, nor any document suggesting the two John Inglebys were the same person. Perhaps we'll have to take it up again?
Marie
Re: Sir John Ingleby Again
On Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 13:23, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:
Oh Marie, I just scanned through the paper very quickly, and will print it and read thoroughly tonight. That is fascinating. This leads me to other questions how many people have written books or theses on subjects germane to this time, and more specially to the Plantagenet Dynasty and Richard? From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:44 AM
To:
Subject: Sir John Ingleby Again Some months ago Hilary found a website claiming that the John Ingleby who was prior of Sheen and finally Bishop of Llandaff was the same individual as the Sir John Ingleby who was head of the family, married and succeeded by his son. The claim was that he had left his marriage to enter a monastery. I was sceptical about this because the general attitude of canon law was that you couldn't leave a valid marriage, and that if your marriage was declared null the children were bastardised in the process. It does appear, however, that there was one single exception to that rule. I have just been put on to a fascinating PhD paper on the subject of medieval bastardy, and it mentions very briefly that men and women were permitted to procure an annulment in order to become professed as monks or nuns (not merely to become priests, seemingly), and that in this one circumstance their children remained legitimate. The relevant bit is in Chapter 3. The link is: http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/files/16948954/2013matthewshsphd.pdf That doesn't necessarily mean that this is what happened here, of course - we have no primary source yet for the marriage annulment and Sir John's transfer to the monastic life, nor any document suggesting the two John Inglebys were the same person. Perhaps we'll have to take it up again? Marie
Re: Sir John Ingleby Again
Tamara (who wishes she had saved that link)
Re: Sir John Ingleby Again
On Thursday, 26 June 2014, 1:30, "khafara@... []" <> wrote:
I was traversing an online collection of medieval wills a few weeks back, and I was surprised by the considerable number -- between five and ten percent, by my very rough estimation -- written out by persons who were not near death but were instead preparing to "profess" and who were either going to join a monastery/nunnery or (as seemed to be the case with the poorer folk) live chastely and as religiouses with their spouses.
Tamara (who wishes she had saved that link)
Hey, you, get off of my cloud...!
Re: Hey, you, get off of my cloud...!
