Stillington - Lateran Regestra

Here we are Marie:Ibid. (fn. 25) (f. 218.)To the abbots of St. Edmunds in the diocese of Norwich and St. Albans in the diocese of Lincoln, and the prior of St. Mary's de Overes in the diocese of Winchester. Mandate, at the recent petition of Robert Stilly[n]gton, canon of Wells. D.C.L. (containing that he was lawfully presented to the parish church of Cotyngham in the diocese of York, on its voidance in a certain way, by the patrons Henry Vavysour and William Holthorp, esquires, of that diocese, and John Say, esquire, of the diocese of Lincoln, to Robert Dobblis [sic], doctor of canon law, official and vicar-general in spirituals of John, archbishop of York, but that the said Robert Dobbys refused to institute him, and intruded himself, alleging, even openly and publicly, that the said Robert Stillyngton had no right or titile, wherefore the said Robert Stillyngton has appealed to the apostolic see; and adding that the matter can be better and more conveniently made clear in those parts than in the Roman court), to summon the said Robert Dobbis and others concerned, and decide what is just, causing their decision to be enforced by censure etc. Honestis supplicum votis. (Pe. de Noxeto. | Gratis de mandato domini nostri pape. L. de Castiliono.)Vatican Regestra 385 1447-8 (Stillington about 25) This is not the end of the feud. Stillington was not one to get on the wrong side of was he?1452.Kal. Nov.(1 Nov.)St. Peter's, Rome(f. 301d.)To the abbots of St. Peter's, Westminster, and Bury St. Edmunds and the archdeacon of Stowe. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of Robert Stillyngton, archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton and canon and prebendary of Fenton in York and Geuendale in Ripon, contained that by the negligence of divers of his predecessors, and especially of the late John Stopyndon and the late Robert Ascogh, successively holders of the archdeaconry of Colchester, of the late Thomas Palton [rectius Polton] and Adam Moleyns, sometime bishops of Worcester and Chichester, and Nicholas Calton, successive holders of the archdeaconry of Taunton, the said late Robert Ascogh and John Bradston, successive holders of the canonry and prebend of Fe[n]ton, and the said late John Stopyndon and Robert Dobbys, successive holders of the canonry and prebend of Geuendale, or by the negligence of their proctors, many of their buildings, churches etc. are in ruinous condition, to the prejudice and loss of the said Robert (who has appealed to the apostolic see from a number of undue grievances), and of the said benefices. The pope therefore orders the above to summon those concerned, hear such appeals and the principal matters and all other causes belonging to the ecclesiastical forum between the said Robert Stillyngton of the one part, and the said John Bradsten [sic] and Robert Dobbys and the executors of the said late John Stopyndon, Robert Ascogh, Thomas and Adam, sometime bishops of Worcester and Chichester, and Nicholas (fn. 5)Calton, and decide them in accordance with the custom of England in such matters or otherwise, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure, without appeal. Humilibus supplicum. (Poggius. | xxvi. F. de Laude. Constantinus.) [In the margin: No(vembris). 2 pp. .] Lateran Regestra 422 1452By now Stillington is described as 'counsellor to King Henry of England' quite an accolade for one so young. There is another petition to the Pope in 1450 in the Lateran.The feud with Kempe seems to have gone back to Stillington's Oxford days at Deep Hall (Lincoln College) whose founder was Robert Fleming a man greatly disliked by Kempe. Certainly by the early 1440s Stillington had caught the attention of Beckington and it was the latter who sponsored him for most of his other prebendaries. Hence no great surprise for him to have succeeded Beckington.in 1465.Hope this helps. Hilary (PS I did write this (and more) up for the Society years' ago but it didn't receive much of a welcome). Oooh I'm sounding like Stillington :) :) H

Thanks, Hilary.It's certainly interesting to see all these complaints to the Pope, although Stillington actually falls short of implicating the Archbishop of York, pinning all the blame on his Vicar General, Robert Dobbys. This evidence certainly seems to present Stillington as one of those people born with an inbuilt sense that the world is robbing them. Maybe he had been the sort of little boy who disrupts all the birthday parties he gets invited to, opening the pass-the-parcel parcel before the music stops because he's convinced the whole thing is rigged and other people are getting all the prizes, or rummaging through the kitchen cupboards looking for extra party food that's been unfairly hidden away from him. So maybe that gift for bearing grudges is the trait we should bear in mind when looking for a motive for Stillington's revelation of the precontract?But, to return to the complaints to the Vatican, maybe there is more to it and there was some political backing for this, given that at least two of the pervious archdeacons/ canons Stillington was complaining about had been highly placed and contentious members of the Lancastrian administration.Cottingham is one of those places I have on my long to-do list as meaning to learn more about because Richard acquired land there in 1475, and from an administrative viewpoint the place was very complicated and I don't understand it all yet. What I do know is that Cottingham had been a Holland manor, and was split in three in 1407. One manor went to the earl of Westmorland, a second to Lord Powys, whilst the third formed part of the Richmond Fee. There was also a religious house at Cottingham, Haltemprice Priory, which had been endowed at its establishment with the advowson of Cottingham Church. Where the land Richard of Gloucester was to be granted in Cottingham in 1475, which according to the grant had previously belonged to Richard Duke of York, fits into this I don't know, but Richard's grant also came with the advowson of Cottingham church! My guess is that the three individuals who had presented Stillington to the living were some sort of representatives of the owners of the three manors, but even if this is so it doesn't seem likely that those owners had the right to appoint the rector. So Robert Dobbys may well have been completely correct in saying that Stillington had no right or title to the living, and might have persuaded the Priory that he himself - being much closer to hand, in York - would be a much better candidate. So I wasn't surprised when I googled 'Rectors of Cottingham', in order to see which party won the case, to see that Robert Dobbys remained rector until 1472:https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Cottingham/CottinghamStMaryRectorsPhoto(I wonder if this complaint may just possibly have been a means by the various landowners in the parish to settle a dispute over the right to the advowson? Would love to know more.)Marie

Hi Marie,Your analysis is how I have him too - someone definitely not to cross,he'd remember forever.I can give you a bit of information on one of those who presented him - William Holthorpe. He was Stillington's uncle,brother of his mother Katherine who eventually inherited Great Edstone which went to the bishop. The pair were the children of John Holthorpe (d. circa 1398) Coroner of the North Riding.I hadn't looked at the Cottingham thing. I'll have a hunt round. Thanks! H
On Monday, 1 July 2019, 15:50:45 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Thanks, Hilary.It's certainly interesting to see all these complaints to the Pope, although Stillington actually falls short of implicating the Archbishop of York, pinning all the blame on his Vicar General, Robert Dobbys. This evidence certainly seems to present Stillington as one of those people born with an inbuilt sense that the world is robbing them. Maybe he had been the sort of little boy who disrupts all the birthday parties he gets invited to, opening the pass-the-parcel parcel before the music stops because he's convinced the whole thing is rigged and other people are getting all the prizes, or rummaging through the kitchen cupboards looking for extra party food that's been unfairly hidden away from him. So maybe that gift for bearing grudges is the trait we should bear in mind when looking for a motive for Stillington's revelation of the precontract?But, to return to the complaints to the Vatican, maybe there is more to it and there was some political backing for this, given that at least two of the pervious archdeacons/ canons Stillington was complaining about had been highly placed and contentious members of the Lancastrian administration.Cottingham is one of those places I have on my long to-do list as meaning to learn more about because Richard acquired land there in 1475, and from an administrative viewpoint the place was very complicated and I don't understand it all yet. What I do know is that Cottingham had been a Holland manor, and was split in three in 1407. One manor went to the earl of Westmorland, a second to Lord Powys, whilst the third formed part of the Richmond Fee. There was also a religious house at Cottingham, Haltemprice Priory, which had been endowed at its establishment with the advowson of Cottingham Church. Where the land Richard of Gloucester was to be granted in Cottingham in 1475, which according to the grant had previously belonged to Richard Duke of York, fits into this I don't know, but Richard's grant also came with the advowson of Cottingham church! My guess is that the three individuals who had presented Stillington to the living were some sort of representatives of the owners of the three manors, but even if this is so it doesn't seem likely that those owners had the right to appoint the rector. So Robert Dobbys may well have been completely correct in saying that Stillington had no right or title to the living, and might have persuaded the Priory that he himself - being much closer to hand, in York - would be a much better candidate. So I wasn't surprised when I googled 'Rectors of Cottingham', in order to see which party won the case, to see that Robert Dobbys remained rector until 1472:https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Cottingham/CottinghamStMaryRectorsPhoto(I wonder if this complaint may just possibly have been a means by the various landowners in the parish to settle a dispute over the right to the advowson? Would love to know more.)Marie

Hi Marie (and Nico) this is getting interesting indeed. I think it was whilst you were away Marie that Nico and I investigated the name 'Lucy', one of Stillington's granddaughters. It was quite unusual for the period.We came up with Lucia Visconti, wife of Edmund Holland Earl of Kent, who just happened to be Alice (Montagu) Neville's aunt, through her mother Eleanor Holland, one of Edmund's sisters.So here we have your partitioning of 1408:'Dec. 1.Westminster. To the escheator in Yorkshire. Order to give Lucy who was wife of Edmund late earl of Kent livery of such of the lands etc. hereinafter mentioned as are in his bailiwick; as with assent of the council, of Nicholas Gascoigne and John Bache attorneys of the said Lucy who is guardian of the purparty of Edmund son of Eleanor late countess of March one of the daughters of Thomas earl of Kent and sister of the deceased earl, being his cousin and one of his heirs, of Thomas Enderby attorney of William de Wylughby knight and Joan his wife duchess of York a second sister, of William Flete attorney of John earl of Somerset and Margaret his wife a third sister, of John Scarburgh attorney of Thomas earl of Salisbury and Eleanor his wife a fourth sister, and of John Ellerker attorney of John de Nevylle and Elizabeth his wife the fifth sister, the king has assigned to the said Lucy as dower of the lands of the earl, in her ward and ward of others by grant of the king, having taken of her an oath etc., the site of the manor of Cotyngham with a croft called 'Appulgarth,' a park with outwoods adjoining, namely 'Northwode, Pratwode' and Harlande, seventeen bovates of demesne land in Cotyngham fields, a piece of pasture called Lortley containing 10 acres, a piece at the east end of 'Southwode,' a pasture called 'Midelpece' of Lortley containing 40 acres, a pasture called 'Southside' of Lortley containing 26 acres, three water mills, one windmill, certain rents and services of freeholders and tenants at the lord's will according to the custom of the manor in Cotyngham, 'Northous,' Douncenalle, Hulbanke, 'Neulande' and Eppilworth, common in the marsh, turbary in the Fryth, 30 acres of meadow in Iglemer meads in a place called 'Middelhulle,' 4l. of rent issuing from the Dynges in Beverley, 66s. 8d. of the ferry at Hesylle, the profits and perquisites of the court and leet, all in Yorkshire, certain lands in Berham and Stowe, a pasture called 'Cranemore,' three water mills in 'Estdepynge' and 'Westdepynge,' 48 acres 2½ roods of demesne land in the parish of St. James 'Estdepynge,' 81 acres 1½ rood of demesne land in the parish of St. Cutlac there, 20 acres of demesne land in 'Northmede,' 14 acres of meadow in 'Fletgate wange,' and 3½ acres of meadow on the west side of Lolham bridge co. Lincoln. By K.[FSdera.]To the escheator in Lincolnshire. Order to give the said Lucy livery of the lands, pastures, mills and meadow (above mentioned) in Berham, Stowe, Estdepynge etc. which among other manors and lands the king has assigned to her. By K.'Lucy died in 1424 and Alice daughter of her sister-in-law was one of her heirs, together with the other surviving sisters. (IPM)I wonder if those guys were presenting Stillington on behalf of Alice?I'll keep digging. H
On Monday, 1 July 2019, 15:50:45 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Thanks, Hilary.It's certainly interesting to see all these complaints to the Pope, although Stillington actually falls short of implicating the Archbishop of York, pinning all the blame on his Vicar General, Robert Dobbys. This evidence certainly seems to present Stillington as one of those people born with an inbuilt sense that the world is robbing them. Maybe he had been the sort of little boy who disrupts all the birthday parties he gets invited to, opening the pass-the-parcel parcel before the music stops because he's convinced the whole thing is rigged and other people are getting all the prizes, or rummaging through the kitchen cupboards looking for extra party food that's been unfairly hidden away from him. So maybe that gift for bearing grudges is the trait we should bear in mind when looking for a motive for Stillington's revelation of the precontract?But, to return to the complaints to the Vatican, maybe there is more to it and there was some political backing for this, given that at least two of the pervious archdeacons/ canons Stillington was complaining about had been highly placed and contentious members of the Lancastrian administration.Cottingham is one of those places I have on my long to-do list as meaning to learn more about because Richard acquired land there in 1475, and from an administrative viewpoint the place was very complicated and I don't understand it all yet. What I do know is that Cottingham had been a Holland manor, and was split in three in 1407. One manor went to the earl of Westmorland, a second to Lord Powys, whilst the third formed part of the Richmond Fee. There was also a religious house at Cottingham, Haltemprice Priory, which had been endowed at its establishment with the advowson of Cottingham Church. Where the land Richard of Gloucester was to be granted in Cottingham in 1475, which according to the grant had previously belonged to Richard Duke of York, fits into this I don't know, but Richard's grant also came with the advowson of Cottingham church! My guess is that the three individuals who had presented Stillington to the living were some sort of representatives of the owners of the three manors, but even if this is so it doesn't seem likely that those owners had the right to appoint the rector. So Robert Dobbys may well have been completely correct in saying that Stillington had no right or title to the living, and might have persuaded the Priory that he himself - being much closer to hand, in York - would be a much better candidate. So I wasn't surprised when I googled 'Rectors of Cottingham', in order to see which party won the case, to see that Robert Dobbys remained rector until 1472:https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Cottingham/CottinghamStMaryRectorsPhoto(I wonder if this complaint may just possibly have been a means by the various landowners in the parish to settle a dispute over the right to the advowson? Would love to know more.)Marie

Hi, I've found the 1475 'An act of exchange between the king and the duke of Gloucester.' It's too long to put here but as you probably know it's to do with sorting out Anne's lands as part of the Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury inheritance after the death of Warwick and Anne is cited in one part as the heiress of Alice, Countess of Salisbury.As you say Cottingham does seem at some point to have been 'used' by Richard Duke of York, Salisbury's brother in law - still looking for that. The advowson was in the hands of Ralph Neville, 2 Earl of Westmorland in the 1430s when he transferred it to his eldest son John and his wife Anne Holland. So were those who presented Stillington working on behalf of the Nevilles? It does fit with my theory that he was in some way sponsored by them and the Somerset connection.Lot of interesting work to do. H
On Tuesday, 2 July 2019, 10:45:21 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:



Hi Marie (and Nico) this is getting interesting indeed. I think it was whilst you were away Marie that Nico and I investigated the name 'Lucy', one of Stillington's granddaughters. It was quite unusual for the period.We came up with Lucia Visconti, wife of Edmund Holland Earl of Kent, who just happened to be Alice (Montagu) Neville's aunt, through her mother Eleanor Holland, one of Edmund's sisters.So here we have your partitioning of 1408:'Dec. 1.Westminster. To the escheator in Yorkshire. Order to give Lucy who was wife of Edmund late earl of Kent livery of such of the lands etc. hereinafter mentioned as are in his bailiwick; as with assent of the council, of Nicholas Gascoigne and John Bache attorneys of the said Lucy who is guardian of the purparty of Edmund son of Eleanor late countess of March one of the daughters of Thomas earl of Kent and sister of the deceased earl, being his cousin and one of his heirs, of Thomas Enderby attorney of William de Wylughby knight and Joan his wife duchess of York a second sister, of William Flete attorney of John earl of Somerset and Margaret his wife a third sister, of John Scarburgh attorney of Thomas earl of Salisbury and Eleanor his wife a fourth sister, and of John Ellerker attorney of John de Nevylle and Elizabeth his wife the fifth sister, the king has assigned to the said Lucy as dower of the lands of the earl, in her ward and ward of others by grant of the king, having taken of her an oath etc., the site of the manor of Cotyngham with a croft called 'Appulgarth,' a park with outwoods adjoining, namely 'Northwode, Pratwode' and Harlande, seventeen bovates of demesne land in Cotyngham fields, a piece of pasture called Lortley containing 10 acres, a piece at the east end of 'Southwode,' a pasture called 'Midelpece' of Lortley containing 40 acres, a pasture called 'Southside' of Lortley containing 26 acres, three water mills, one windmill, certain rents and services of freeholders and tenants at the lord's will according to the custom of the manor in Cotyngham, 'Northous,' Douncenalle, Hulbanke, 'Neulande' and Eppilworth, common in the marsh, turbary in the Fryth, 30 acres of meadow in Iglemer meads in a place called 'Middelhulle,' 4l. of rent issuing from the Dynges in Beverley, 66s. 8d. of the ferry at Hesylle, the profits and perquisites of the court and leet, all in Yorkshire, certain lands in Berham and Stowe, a pasture called 'Cranemore,' three water mills in 'Estdepynge' and 'Westdepynge,' 48 acres 2½ roods of demesne land in the parish of St. James 'Estdepynge,' 81 acres 1½ rood of demesne land in the parish of St. Cutlac there, 20 acres of demesne land in 'Northmede,' 14 acres of meadow in 'Fletgate wange,' and 3½ acres of meadow on the west side of Lolham bridge co. Lincoln. By K.[FSdera.]To the escheator in Lincolnshire. Order to give the said Lucy livery of the lands, pastures, mills and meadow (above mentioned) in Berham, Stowe, Estdepynge etc. which among other manors and lands the king has assigned to her. By K.'Lucy died in 1424 and Alice daughter of her sister-in-law was one of her heirs, together with the other surviving sisters. (IPM)I wonder if those guys were presenting Stillington on behalf of Alice?I'll keep digging. H
On Monday, 1 July 2019, 15:50:45 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Thanks, Hilary.It's certainly interesting to see all these complaints to the Pope, although Stillington actually falls short of implicating the Archbishop of York, pinning all the blame on his Vicar General, Robert Dobbys. This evidence certainly seems to present Stillington as one of those people born with an inbuilt sense that the world is robbing them. Maybe he had been the sort of little boy who disrupts all the birthday parties he gets invited to, opening the pass-the-parcel parcel before the music stops because he's convinced the whole thing is rigged and other people are getting all the prizes, or rummaging through the kitchen cupboards looking for extra party food that's been unfairly hidden away from him. So maybe that gift for bearing grudges is the trait we should bear in mind when looking for a motive for Stillington's revelation of the precontract?But, to return to the complaints to the Vatican, maybe there is more to it and there was some political backing for this, given that at least two of the pervious archdeacons/ canons Stillington was complaining about had been highly placed and contentious members of the Lancastrian administration.Cottingham is one of those places I have on my long to-do list as meaning to learn more about because Richard acquired land there in 1475, and from an administrative viewpoint the place was very complicated and I don't understand it all yet. What I do know is that Cottingham had been a Holland manor, and was split in three in 1407. One manor went to the earl of Westmorland, a second to Lord Powys, whilst the third formed part of the Richmond Fee. There was also a religious house at Cottingham, Haltemprice Priory, which had been endowed at its establishment with the advowson of Cottingham Church. Where the land Richard of Gloucester was to be granted in Cottingham in 1475, which according to the grant had previously belonged to Richard Duke of York, fits into this I don't know, but Richard's grant also came with the advowson of Cottingham church! My guess is that the three individuals who had presented Stillington to the living were some sort of representatives of the owners of the three manors, but even if this is so it doesn't seem likely that those owners had the right to appoint the rector. So Robert Dobbys may well have been completely correct in saying that Stillington had no right or title to the living, and might have persuaded the Priory that he himself - being much closer to hand, in York - would be a much better candidate. So I wasn't surprised when I googled 'Rectors of Cottingham', in order to see which party won the case, to see that Robert Dobbys remained rector until 1472:https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Cottingham/CottinghamStMaryRectorsPhoto(I wonder if this complaint may just possibly have been a means by the various landowners in the parish to settle a dispute over the right to the advowson? Would love to know more.)Marie

Hilary,
I've
been reading your and Marie's exchanges concerning this and something's been
bothering me.
If
I understand it correctly, the question is why/how did Stillington manage to get
such an in with the Vatican so early in his career that complaints from him
were quickly dealt with? Or relatively quickly anyway? Now, I'm very possibly
wrong about this, but I definitely remember reading that appeals to the Vatican
had to be approved by the King or Royal Council or the person
making the appeal ran the risk of fines and/or imprisonment. Have I misplaced
this in time or was it indeed applicable during Stillington's lifetime?
Because
if it was, then it seems to me that someone fairly high up in the
political food chain supported Stillington; and this at a time when he was just
getting started. I didn't see a date for the first extract, but the second is
1452, which means the matter was almost certainly sent to Rome several months
prior to the Vatican's decision. If Stillington was indeed a protégé of the
Nevilles, perhaps we need to delve into what they were
up to at that point in time? Better still, what were the Talbots up to? Perhaps
Stillington's upward climb began with the Talbots, and segued, first to the
Nevilles, then to the Yorks?
Something
else also occurred to me concerning your post containing the extracts from the
Vatican Register. In the first extract, if I understand it correctly, the
Vatican is saying that Stillington's appeal to the Vatican would better be
handled at the more local level of the see of York? In the second extract, the
Vatican is basically telling the Abbots to hold a tribunal regarding
Stillington's charges, make a decision in conformity with the laws of England
and that decision is to be enforced by ecclesiastical means (ecclesiastical
censure) and will be final (without appeal). IOW, in both instances the
Pope/Vatican is saying these matters need to be handled on a local/national
level. What I'm trying to get at is that, while the simple matter of the
expeditious handling of the appeals is interesting, the Vatican itself made no
decisions, really, one way or another. All the Papal bureaucrats did was kick
the decision back to the English religious establishment. Rather quickly, yes,
but does that really mean Stillington had an in with the Vatican? In fact, was
the Pope even involved, other than signing/sealing the documents (which might
even have been done by his secretary)?
BTW,
who was this Robert Dobbys? Perhaps he was the person Stillington was
feuding with?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi,
I've found the 1475

An act of exchange between the king and the duke of Gloucester.' It's too long
to put here but as you probably know it's to do with sorting out Anne's lands as
part of the Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury inheritance after the death of
Warwick and Anne is cited in one part as the heiress of Alice, Countess of
Salisbury.
As you say Cottingham does seem at some point
to have been used' by Richard Duke of York, Salisbury's brother in law  still
looking for that. The advowson was in the hands of Ralph Neville, 2 Earl of
Westmoreland in the 1430s when he transferred it to his eldest son John and his
wife Anne Holland. So were those who presented Stillington working on behalf of
the Nevilles? It does fit with my theory that he was in some way sponsored by
them and the Somerset connection.
Lot of interesting work to
do.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Doug, I don't know about Royal Council approval (perhaps Marie does) but yes, that is what I'm getting at. You would have had to have had pretty good backing in your twenties to have written to the Pope - and for him to take action. I haven't copied the third directive from the Pope in 1450 which doesn't concern Dobbys , it's whinging about the state of a prebendary in Salisbury (note Salisbury) and the Pope is telling two bishops, one of them Beckington, to get it sorted out. Someone of more influence than a mere Archdeacon has to be behind this.I came to Stillington's Neville connections from two directions - firstly if 'Egelina Neville' did exist then she was the daughter of Cis's brother and a cousin of Warwick. And there's Stillington marrying his daughter to her son, so a nice royal connection. Secondly, you may recall Nico and I did some work around London, Thomas Vaughan, Thomas Beaumont, Oliver King. In 1458/9 Alice Neville, nee Monatagu, Countess of Salisbury in her own right, got herself attainted for aiding her husband and ROY. And ended up in Ireland. And one of those involved was Thomas Vaughan and a female Beaumont's husband, Philip Malpas. The Montagus had great influence in Somerset.The more I dig on Stillington, the more I think his family, particularly through his mother, has quite significant historical connections, particularly with the Mowbrays and the Holmes of Holderness. In fact although his father seems to have come from the affluent merchant class of York (his grandfather was Chamberlain there too) his mother was of the 'old blood' - we're back to pedigree versus 'trade'. It takes a lot of digging and a lot of wills and IPMs but I am creeping there.Incidentally only today I came across something where he is described as 'our well-beloved Clerk, Keeper of the Privy Seal' and that's on 18 Dec 1461 in of all places the charters of the City of Bristol. And it's by Edward. So he was 'well in' then! H Sorry Robert Dobbys was I recall Vicar-General, sort of deputy to the Archbishop of York; sorry if I've got it wrong without looking it up. Marie did say.
On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 14:26:53 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary,
I've
been reading your and Marie's exchanges concerning this and something's been
bothering me.
If
I understand it correctly, the question is why/how did Stillington manage to get
such an in with the Vatican so early in his career that complaints from him
were quickly dealt with? Or relatively quickly anyway? Now, I'm very possibly
wrong about this, but I definitely remember reading that appeals to the Vatican
had to be approved by the King or Royal Council or the person
making the appeal ran the risk of fines and/or imprisonment. Have I misplaced
this in time or was it indeed applicable during Stillington's lifetime?
Because
if it was, then it seems to me that someone fairly high up in the
political food chain supported Stillington; and this at a time when he was just
getting started. I didn't see a date for the first extract, but the second is
1452, which means the matter was almost certainly sent to Rome several months
prior to the Vatican's decision. If Stillington was indeed a protégé of the
Nevilles, perhaps we need to delve into what they were
up to at that point in time? Better still, what were the Talbots up to? Perhaps
Stillington's upward climb began with the Talbots, and segued, first to the
Nevilles, then to the Yorks?
Something
else also occurred to me concerning your post containing the extracts from the
Vatican Register. In the first extract, if I understand it correctly, the
Vatican is saying that Stillington's appeal to the Vatican would better be
handled at the more local level of the see of York? In the second extract, the
Vatican is basically telling the Abbots to hold a tribunal regarding
Stillington's charges, make a decision in conformity with the laws of England
and that decision is to be enforced by ecclesiastical means (ecclesiastical
censure) and will be final (without appeal). IOW, in both instances the
Pope/Vatican is saying these matters need to be handled on a local/national
level. What I'm trying to get at is that, while the simple matter of the
expeditious handling of the appeals is interesting, the Vatican itself made no
decisions, really, one way or another. All the Papal bureaucrats did was kick
the decision back to the English religious establishment. Rather quickly, yes,
but does that really mean Stillington had an in with the Vatican? In fact, was
the Pope even involved, other than signing/sealing the documents (which might
even have been done by his secretary)?
BTW,
who was this Robert Dobbys? Perhaps he was the person Stillington was
feuding with?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi,
I've found the 1475

An act of exchange between the king and the duke of Gloucester.' It's too long
to put here but as you probably know it's to do with sorting out Anne's lands as
part of the Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury inheritance after the death of
Warwick and Anne is cited in one part as the heiress of Alice, Countess of
Salisbury.
As you say Cottingham does seem at some point
to have been used' by Richard Duke of York, Salisbury's brother in law  still
looking for that. The advowson was in the hands of Ralph Neville, 2 Earl of
Westmoreland in the 1430s when he transferred it to his eldest son John and his
wife Anne Holland. So were those who presented Stillington working on behalf of
the Nevilles? It does fit with my theory that he was in some way sponsored by
them and the Somerset connection.
Lot of interesting work to
do.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote:Hi Doug, I don't know about Royal Council approval (perhaps Marie does) but yes, that is what I'm getting at. You would have had to have had pretty good backing in your twenties to have written to the Pope - and for him to take action. I haven't copied the third directive from the Pope in 1450 which doesn't concern Dobbys , it's whinging about the state of a prebendary in Salisbury (note Salisbury) and the Pope is telling two bishops, one of them Beckington, to get it sorted out. Someone of more influence than a mere Archdeacon has to be behind this.Marie:I know this wasn't directed at me, but I thought it a useful place to come in. I don't know that royal approval was needed by anyone appealing to the Pope; the only rule I know of is that it was forbidden to seek redress from the Pope and one of the King's courts simultaneously. Perhaps this was a later thing, as you say, but I can't imagine this can ever have applied to, say, requests for marriage dispensations. I also don't know, Hilary, that popes were in the habit of just binning the majority of supplications. Surely the relative lack of petitions from humble folk had more to do with the level of the fees charged? The action the pope took in the above cases is also quite normal. Such petitions would come because the individual had found himself/herself unable to get satisfaction from the normal channels at home. For instance in the Cottingham case, the go-to person for a ruling would have been the Archbishop of York, but his Vicar-General (i.e. the person running the diocese for him at York) was the other party in the dispute. The Pope would get one of his functionaries to appoint a special commission of English clerics with no particular links to either side to re-examine the case because it would be impractical to summon all the necessary witnesses to Rome (these letters are not signed by the Pope himself). This is the same procedure, for instance, that was adopted in the case of Mistress Shore's appeal to the Pope for annulment of her marriage to William Shore. The Bishop of London had rejected her claim that William was impotent. The Vatican appointed a commission of other top clerics who were resident in or near London to re-examine the case and give a ruling. Clearly, as the list of rectors of Cottingham shows, the papal commission found in favour of Dobbys on that one, so that doesn't exactly argue for Stillington having royal backing. I don't think these cases show any more than that Stillington was a man with a strong sense of his rights and determined to enforce them.He was probably a very good arguer - he was appointed to treat with foreign ambassadors as early as 1448. Also, perhaps he was in debt (keeping a family?) and desperately needed the income from these benefices. Hilary, do these sorts of petition continue throughout Stillington's life, or are they just a feature of the early years after his ordination?

Hi Marie. These are the only letters I have found so far, as you say, from the early days.They are unusual. I spend a lot of time in the Lateran and the Fasti and, although you get the odd complaint from or about an Abbot or Prioress you don't even get them from someone at bishop level, let alone archdeacon.I've had a thought. Stillington had been a protegee of Beckington since Oxford and indeed Beckington held the Prebenday of Stillington in Yorkshire until he was made a bishop. Couple of things. Firstly was it through Beckington, the King's Secretary that Henry VI first became aware of the talents of Stillington? Secondly, Beckington was himself a great correspont and wasn't particularly liked by the Pope. In the late 1430s Henry tried to give him a Prebendary which the Pope had earmarked for his own nuncio and put a stop on it. So did Beckington encourage Stillington to write these letters?I'm currently ploughing through Beckington's correspondence. I wonder if it will provide any clues? H (sorry Yahoo is playing up and I can't correct spellings without wiping the whole lot)
On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 20:37:19 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Hilary wrote:Hi Doug, I don't know about Royal Council approval (perhaps Marie does) but yes, that is what I'm getting at. You would have had to have had pretty good backing in your twenties to have written to the Pope - and for him to take action. I haven't copied the third directive from the Pope in 1450 which doesn't concern Dobbys , it's whinging about the state of a prebendary in Salisbury (note Salisbury) and the Pope is telling two bishops, one of them Beckington, to get it sorted out. Someone of more influence than a mere Archdeacon has to be behind this.Marie:I know this wasn't directed at me, but I thought it a useful place to come in. I don't know that royal approval was needed by anyone appealing to the Pope; the only rule I know of is that it was forbidden to seek redress from the Pope and one of the King's courts simultaneously. Perhaps this was a later thing, as you say, but I can't imagine this can ever have applied to, say, requests for marriage dispensations. I also don't know, Hilary, that popes were in the habit of just binning the majority of supplications. Surely the relative lack of petitions from humble folk had more to do with the level of the fees charged? The action the pope took in the above cases is also quite normal. Such petitions would come because the individual had found himself/herself unable to get satisfaction from the normal channels at home. For instance in the Cottingham case, the go-to person for a ruling would have been the Archbishop of York, but his Vicar-General (i.e. the person running the diocese for him at York) was the other party in the dispute. The Pope would get one of his functionaries to appoint a special commission of English clerics with no particular links to either side to re-examine the case because it would be impractical to summon all the necessary witnesses to Rome (these letters are not signed by the Pope himself). This is the same procedure, for instance, that was adopted in the case of Mistress Shore's appeal to the Pope for annulment of her marriage to William Shore. The Bishop of London had rejected her claim that William was impotent. The Vatican appointed a commission of other top clerics who were resident in or near London to re-examine the case and give a ruling. Clearly, as the list of rectors of Cottingham shows, the papal commission found in favour of Dobbys on that one, so that doesn't exactly argue for Stillington having royal backing. I don't think these cases show any more than that Stillington was a man with a strong sense of his rights and determined to enforce them.He was probably a very good arguer - he was appointed to treat with foreign ambassadors as early as 1448. Also, perhaps he was in debt (keeping a family?) and desperately needed the income from these benefices. Hilary, do these sorts of petition continue throughout Stillington's life, or are they just a feature of the early years after his ordination?

Hilary wrote:
Hi
Doug, I don't know about Royal Council approval (perhaps Marie does) but yes,
that is what I'm getting at. You would have had to have had pretty good backing
in your twenties to have written to the Pope - and for him to take action. I
haven't copied the third directive from the Pope in 1450 which doesn't concern
Dobbys , it's whinging about the state of a prebendary in Salisbury (note
Salisbury) and the Pope is telling two bishops, one of them Beckington, to get
it sorted out. Someone of more influence than a mere Archdeacon has to be behind
this.
Doug
here:
I
did a check in Wikipedia and found the following:
1.
William Ayscough was Bishop of Salisbury from 20 July 1438 until he was murdered
in 1450 by a mob during the Cade Rebellion. Apparently he'd married Henry VI and
Margaret of Anjou and that was held against him. He was succeeded
by:
2.
Richard Beauchamp, who was Bishop of Salisbury from 14 August 1450 until his
death in 1481. Beauchamp was nominated to the See of Hereford 4 December 1448
and installed 9 February 1449, then moved to Salisbury on Ayscough's
death.
Is
that William Ayscough any relation to the Robert Ascogh in that letter
concerning the dilapidated buildings?
Hilary
continued:
I came to Stillington's Neville connections from two directions - firstly
if 'Egelina Neville' did exist then she was the daughter of Cis's brother and a
cousin of Warwick. And there's Stillington marrying his daughter to her son, so
a nice royal connection. Secondly, you may recall Nico and I did some work
around London, Thomas Vaughan, Thomas Beaumont, Oliver King. In 1458/9 Alice
Neville, nee Monatagu, Countess of Salisbury in her own right, got herself
attainted for aiding her husband and ROY. And ended up in Ireland. And one of
those involved was Thomas Vaughan and a female Beaumont's husband, Philip
Malpas. The Montagus had great influence in Somerset.
Doug here:
I don't know if it matters, but the Bishop of
Salisbury immediately preceding Ayscough was Robert Neville, who served at
Salisbury from 1427 to 1438 before being moved to Durham where he remained until
his death in 1457. FWIW, his parents were Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort
(daughter of John of Gaunt).
I'm presuming his appointments in Somerset were
due to his friendship with Beckington and that's why Stillington wasn't given
any benefice in his home area?
Hilary continued:
The more I dig on Stillington, the more I think his family, particularly
through his mother, has quite significant historical connections, particularly
with the Mowbrays and the Holmes of Holderness. In fact although his father
seems to have come from the affluent merchant class of York (his grandfather was
Chamberlain there too) his mother was of the 'old blood' - we're back to
pedigree versus 'trade'. It takes a lot of digging and a lot of wills and IPMs
but I am creeping there.
Doug here:
I was going to ask what we knew about Stillington's family (other than his
children/grandchildren), but it appears they were fairly substantial people;
possibly with links to the nobility (that old blood')? As you may have noticed,
I'm a bit leery of attributing too much to family influence, but for
someone determined to make their way, maintaining family links, especially links
to any member of the nobility, would be essential. If only to get
introductions...
Hilary concluded:
Incidentally only today I came across something where he is described as
'our well-beloved Clerk, Keeper of the Privy Seal' and that's on 18 Dec 1461 in
of all places the charters of the City of Bristol. And it's by Edward. So he was
'well in' then! H Sorry Robert Dobbys was I recall Vicar-General,
sort of deputy to the Archbishop of York; sorry if I've got it wrong without
looking it up. Marie did say.
Doug here:
I would imagine that simply to be appointed Keeper of the Privy Seal
would have meant a fairly close personal connection, wouldn't it? Next to Lord
Chamberlain, Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer, it was one of the most
important and powerful positions in government. Perhaps Edward viewed
Stillington as a mentor? Nor should we forget the possibility that, on the
whole, Stillington's personality might best have been described as, well,
pleasing?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Marie,
I had to go looking, but I found what I was thinking of, it's the
Statute of Praemunire. It was passed during Richard II's reign and,
according to the Wikipedia article, made it illegal to ...appeal an
English court case to the pope if the king objected, or for anyone to act in a
way that recognized papal authority over the authority of the king. Apparently
Richard II's statute of 1392 was a follow-on to one under Edward III in 1352,
but went further, if only in being more exact in what constituted an illegal
act.
The Wikipedia article on praemunire had several extracts from the
Act of 1392. The extract I found interesting says ...that the right of
recovering the presentments to churches, prebends, and other
benefices...belongeth only to the King's court of the old right of his crown,
used and approved in the time of all his progenitors kings of England. If
I understand this correctly then, while the Pope, or the Curia acting for him,
couldn't appoint someone to a prebendary, they did have the
right to determine if the appointment was properly made? Or whether someone who
claimed such a benefice actually had the right to it? As you said, however, that
right was usually demonstrated by the appointment of a locally-drawn
commission.
The Act then goes on and says ...that if any purchase or pursue, or caused
to be purchased or pursued in the Court of Rome or elsewhere, any such
translations, processes, and sentences of excommunications, bulls, instruments
or any other things whatsoever.... Which to me seems to completely
forbid anyone from resorting to the Vatican. Have I misread this?
BTW, do you know if I'm correct in presuming that any appeals made to the
Pope or Curia would still have required processing fees being paid? In order,
say, first for the paperwork to reach the proper authority/authorities in the
correct form, and then to ensure a prompt reply, also in the correct form? Or am
I making more of what I've read about the corruptness of the Vatican/Roman
Curia than is justified? I ask because, if as you suggested, one reason for
Stillington's pertinacity might have been a need for money, then where'd he get
the money for those fees?
Doug
Marie
wrote:
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I thought it a useful place to come
in. I don't know that royal approval was needed by anyone appealing to the Pope;
the only rule I know of is that it was forbidden to seek redress from the Pope
and one of the King's courts simultaneously. Perhaps this was a later thing, as
you say, but I can't imagine this can ever have applied to, say, requests for
marriage dispensations. I also don't know, Hilary, that popes were in the habit
of just binning the majority of supplications. Surely the relative lack of
petitions from humble folk had more to do with the level of the fees charged?

The action the pope took in the above cases is also quite normal. Such
petitions would come because the individual had found himself/herself unable to
get satisfaction from the normal channels at home. For instance in the
Cottingham case, the go-to person for a ruling would have been the Archbishop of
York, but his Vicar-General (i.e. the person running the diocese for him at
York) was the other party in the dispute.
The Pope would get one of his functionaries to appoint a special commission
of English clerics with no particular links to either side to re-examine the
case because it would be impractical to summon all the necessary witnesses to
Rome (th ese letters are not signed by the Pope himself). This is the same
procedure, for instance, that was adopted in the case of Mistress Shore's appeal
to the Pope for annulment of her marriage to William Shore. The Bishop of London
had rejected her claim that William was impotent. The Vatican appointed a
commission of other top clerics who were resident in or near London to
re-examine the case and give a ruling.
Clearly, as the list of rectors of Cottingham shows, the papal commission
found in favour of Dobbys on that one, so that doesn't exactly argue for
Stillington having royal backing.
I don't think these cases show any more than that Stillington was a man with
a strong sense of his rights and determined to enforce them.He was probably a
very good arguer - he was appointed to treat with foreign ambassadors as early
as 1448.
Also, perhaps he was in debt (keeping a family?) and desperately needed the
income from these benefices.
Hilary, do these sorts o f petition continue throughout Stillington's life,
or are they just a feature of the early years after his ordination?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote:I've had a thought. Stillington had been a protegee of Beckington since Oxford and indeed Beckington held the Prebenday of Stillington in Yorkshire until he was made a bishop. Couple of things. Firstly was it through Beckington, the King's Secretary that Henry VI first became aware of the talents of Stillington? Secondly, Beckington was himself a great correspont and wasn't particularly liked by the Pope. In the late 1430s Henry tried to give him a Prebendary which the Pope had earmarked for his own nuncio and put a stop on it. So did Beckington encourage Stillington to write these letters?Marie replies:I do agree that it was likely Beckington who first advanced Stillington's government career. And that would have been precisely it - making the King (or, more likely, the King's closest advisors) aware of Stillington's talents, which I'm sure were very real. This was in the late 1440s before the battle lines were drawn. He seems to have been favoured more by he Yorkists than the Lancastrian court faction in the late 1450s, and was first appointed Keeper of the Privy Seal after the Battle of Northampton, when Warwick and March were in control of the King and the government; the appointment was confirmed in November after York's arrival. As we know, he prospered under Edward IV, and was completely out of favour during the Readeption. Thus I doubt there was any strong friendship with Henry VI himself.

Hilary wrote:Incidentally only today I came across something where he [Stillington] is described as 'our well-beloved Clerk, Keeper of the Privy Seal' and that's on 18 Dec 1461 in of all places the charters of the City of Bristol. And it's by Edward. So he was 'well in' then! Marie replies:He was first appointed Keeper of the PS in late July 1460, after the Yorkist earls returned to the capital with Henry following the Battle of Northampton. the "well-beloved" in the wording of this document is completely standard. Everybody was so described. You can never read anything into it. (And that goes for Richard's "well-beloved gentlewoman" Alice Burgh as well.)

Doug wrote:I had to go looking, but I found what I was thinking of, it's the Statute of Praemunire. It was passed during Richard II's reign and, according to the Wikipedia article, made it illegal to ...appeal an English court case to the pope if the king objected, or for anyone to act in a way that recognized papal authority over the authority of the king. Apparently Richard II's statute of 1392 was a follow-on to one under Edward III in 1352, but went further, if only in being more exact in what constituted an illegal act. . . .The Act then goes on and says ...that if any purchase or pursue, or caused to be purchased or pursued in the Court of Rome or elsewhere, any such translations, processes, and sentences of excommunications, bulls, instruments or any other things whatsoever.... Marie replies:I've highlighted the relevant words. Stillington was not appealing an English court case.There was a centuries-old friction between the kings of various Christian countries and the papacy over rights. The Church held that it was the supreme authority, and its doing should not be interfered with by monarchs. Kings disliked the idea of a powerful body in the realm over which they had no control, and English kings reserved the right to appoint bishops.In practice I would say that ways and means were found to keep both sides relatively happy. The King, for instance, would give the pope the name of the person he would like for a vacant bishopric and generally the Pope would comply. The king would ratify the appointment with the exception of clauses that interfered with his own rights. The papal commission appointed to look into the advowson of Cottingham was asked by the Vatican to rule in accordance with English law.I honestly think we could make far too much of these appeals. There is absolutely no evidence either that they got Stillington into trouble with the King or that Stillington was close to Henry VI in a personal way. There is evidence that he was favoured by Bishop Beckington and Cardinal Kemp, and later by the Yorkists.

Hilary,
I
was re-reading your post (7/1/19, I believe) that contained the extracts from
the Lateran archives and came across something that bothered me.
In
the first extract, the reason for Stillington's appeal to Rome was because the
person against whom he was appealing was also the person who'd normally be the
adjudicator of the appeal.
Now,
in the second extract, Dobbys is again listed, so I'm presuming the same problem
with an appeal that went through Dobbys still stood. But what about the others?
Could it be because the appeal was against bishops and/or their
proctors? Why couldn't the appeal have been handled, as it later was directed to
be, by some other bishop/s in England? Wasn't there any system set up in England
for such matters?
To
be honest, I'm at bit of loss when it comes to the process of making an
appeal to Rome. I'm presuming that usually an appeal would simply go up the
ecclesiastical channels from the appellant to whomever handles such appeals. If
that person was, as in the case of Dobbys, also the person being appealed
against, then just how did the appeal get to Rome? Did one do a side-step and
simply contact some other bishop and send the appeal via them? Of course, it
would require the agreement of the bishop who would forward the appeal. Was that
where Beckington came in  Stillington's postman, so to speak?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Marie. These are the only letters I have found so far, as you say, from the
early days.
They are unusual. I spend a lot of time in the Lateran and the Fasti and,
although you get the odd complaint from or about an Abbot or Prioress you don't
even get them from someone at bishop level, let alone archdeacon.
I've had a thought. Stillington had been a protegee of Beckington since
Oxford and indeed Beckington held the Prebenday of Stillington in Yorkshire
until he was made a bishop. Couple of things. Firstly was it through Beckington,
the King's Secretary that Henry VI first became aware of the talents of
Stillington? Secondly, Beckington was himself a great correspont and
wasn't particularly liked by the Pope. In the late 1430s Henry tried to give him
a Prebendary whic h the Pope had earmarked for his own nuncio and put a stop on
it. So did Beckington encourage Stillington to write these letters?
I'm currently ploughing through Beckington's correspondence. I wonder if it
will provide any clues? H (sorry Yahoo is playing up and I can't correct
spellings without wiping the whole lot)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Marie,
Just to make certain
I've gotten it correctly:
In cases such as in
Hilary's post, the Church, and only the Church, was involved, so the
entire matter would have been handled in ecclesiastical channels; all the way up
to Rome if need be.
Now, had the case/s
been about, say, noble providing fees from manors to the Church for something
such as building chantries, but the manor was required to provide men/money as
part of what was owed to the King because of his feudal rights, then any legal
dispute over the money/men would be decided in the King's courts with no appeal
to Rome if the case went against the Church. Also, could that be the reason we see gifts of money, rather
than lands (or the fees from those lands) in wills? Less hassle/legal
problems?
Stillington comes
across, to me anyway, as a very competent advocate/administrator whose talents
would have been welcomed by anyone higher up the ladder and it was that which
explains not only his rise, but also his remaining at/near the top of the
political heap. Undoubtedly, it wouldn't have hurt to have Beckington and Kemp
in his corner, but they could only do so much without Stillington's
demonstration of his much-needed abilities.
Doug
Marie
wrote:

Doug
wrote:
I had to go looking, but I found what I was thinking of, it's the
Statute of Praemunire.
It was passed during Richard II's reign and, according to the Wikipedia
article, made it illegal to ...appeal an English court case to the
pope if the king objected, or for anyone to act in a way that recognized papal
authority over the authority of the king. Apparently Richard II's
statute of 1392 was a follow-on to one under Edward III in 1352, but went
further, if only in being more exact in what constituted an illegal act. . .
.
The Act then goes on and says ...that if any purchase or pursue, or caused
to be purchased or pursued in the Court of Rome or elsewhere, any such translations, processes,
and sentences of excommunications, bulls, instruments or any other things
whatsoever....
Marie replies:
I've highlighted the relevant words.
Stillington was not appealing an English court case.
There was a centuries-old friction between the kings of various Christian
countries and the papacy over rights. The Church held that it was the supreme
authority, and its doing should not be interfered with by monarchs. Kings
disliked the idea of a powerful body in the realm over which they had no
control, and English kings reserved the right to appoint bishops.
In practice I would say that ways and means were found to keep both sides
relatively happy. The King, for instance, would give the pope the name of the
person he would like for a vacant bishopric and generally the Pope would comply.
The king would ratify the appointment with the exception of clauses that
interfered with his own rights. The papal commission appointed to look into the
advowson of Cottingham was asked by the Vatican to rule in accordance with
English law.
I honestly think we could make far too much of these appeals. There is
absolutely no evidence either that they got Stillington into trouble with the
King or that Stillington was close to Henry VI in a personal way. There is
evidence that he was favoured by Bishop Beckington and Cardinal Kemp, and later
by the Yorkists.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote:Just to make certain I've gotten it correctly:In cases such as in Hilary's post, the Church, and only the Church, was involved, so the entire matter would have been handled in ecclesiastical channels; all the way up to Rome if need be.Now, had the case/s been about, say, noble providing fees from manors to the Church for something such as building chantries, but the manor was required to provide men/money as part of what was owed to the King because of his feudal rights, then any legal dispute over the money/men would be decided in the King's courts with no appeal to Rome if the case went against the Church. Also, could that be the reason we see gifts of money, rather than lands (or the fees from those lands) in wills? Less hassle/legal problems?Marie:I have to admit I'm a tad out of my depth with all this, but yes, if lands were held in chief the holder had to get royal licence to alienate them as a source of funds for a charitable foundation. That was known as mortmain. Wills of the very wealthy often do specify which manors were to be used to provide an income for a particular purpose, but most often these are temporary arrangements such as for funding the other bequests in the will or paying for a priest to say prayers for the soul of the deceased for a set period of time, and such arrangements would be handled by transferring the lands to feoffees. A chantry was a private foundation, so I doubt the papacy would have got involved, and I've certainly never come across a case such as the one you have in mind.Doug wrote Stillington comes across, to me anyway, as a very competent advocate/administrator whose talents would have been welcomed by anyone higher up the ladder and it was that which explains not only his rise, but also his remaining at/near the top of the political heap. Undoubtedly, it wouldn't have hurt to have Beckington and Kemp in his corner, but they could only do so much without Stillington's demonstration of his much-needed abilities.Marie:Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge these petitions, and why.It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench.

Marie wrote:
I have to admit I'm a tad out of my depth with all
this, but yes, if lands were held in chief the holder had to get royal licence
to alienate them as a source of funds for a charitable foundation. That was
known as mortmain. Wills of the very wealthy often do specify which manors were
to be used to provide an income for a particular purpose, but most often these
are temporary arrangements such as for funding the other bequests in the will or
paying for a priest to say prayers for the soul of the deceased for a set period
of time, and such arrangements would be handled by transferring the lands to
feoffees. A chantry was a private foundation, so I doubt the papacy would have
got involved, and I've certainly never come across a case such as the one you
have in mind.
Doug here:
My apologies for using chantries as an example; I didn't realize they were
private foundations (possibly attached to a church, but not under its'
cognizance). Am I correct in presuming that any dispute involving those
feoffees would be handled in Royal, as opposed to Church, courts as it would
simply be a matter of someone not carrying out the terms of a will?

Marie concluded:
Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the
late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything
odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would
be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was
backing him to lodge these petitions, and why.
It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious
by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common
Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench.
Doug here:
I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all
that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that
didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that
(totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea
where/how to go looking for it.
I have to admit it never occurred
to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English
courts!

-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury.There is one person however who writes continually in that vein. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and HenryMarie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection. Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Marie wrote:
I have to admit I'm a tad out of my depth with all
this, but yes, if lands were held in chief the holder had to get royal licence
to alienate them as a source of funds for a charitable foundation. That was
known as mortmain. Wills of the very wealthy often do specify which manors were
to be used to provide an income for a particular purpose, but most often these
are temporary arrangements such as for funding the other bequests in the will or
paying for a priest to say prayers for the soul of the deceased for a set period
of time, and such arrangements would be handled by transferring the lands to
feoffees. A chantry was a private foundation, so I doubt the papacy would have
got involved, and I've certainly never come across a case such as the one you
have in mind.
Doug here:
My apologies for using chantries as an example; I didn't realize they were
private foundations (possibly attached to a church, but not under its'
cognizance). Am I correct in presuming that any dispute involving those
feoffees would be handled in Royal, as opposed to Church, courts as it would
simply be a matter of someone not carrying out the terms of a will?

Marie concluded:
Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the
late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything
odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would
be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was
backing him to lodge these petitions, and why.
It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious
by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common
Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench.
Doug here:
I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all
that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that
didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that
(totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea
where/how to go looking for it.
I have to admit it never occurred
to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English
courts!

-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Sorry not will, IPM, which doesn't surface till the reign of HTSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, July 9, 2019, 3:32 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury.There is one person however who writes continually in that vein. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and HenryMarie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection. Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Marie wrote:
I have to admit I'm a tad out of my depth with all
this, but yes, if lands were held in chief the holder had to get royal licence
to alienate them as a source of funds for a charitable foundation. That was
known as mortmain. Wills of the very wealthy often do specify which manors were
to be used to provide an income for a particular purpose, but most often these
are temporary arrangements such as for funding the other bequests in the will or
paying for a priest to say prayers for the soul of the deceased for a set period
of time, and such arrangements would be handled by transferring the lands to
feoffees. A chantry was a private foundation, so I doubt the papacy would have
got involved, and I've certainly never come across a case such as the one you
have in mind.
Doug here:
My apologies for using chantries as an example; I didn't realize they were
private foundations (possibly attached to a church, but not under its'
cognizance). Am I correct in presuming that any dispute involving those
feoffees would be handled in Royal, as opposed to Church, courts as it would
simply be a matter of someone not carrying out the terms of a will?

Marie concluded:
Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the
late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything
odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would
be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was
backing him to lodge these petitions, and why.
It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious
by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common
Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench.
Doug here:
I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all
that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that
didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that
(totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea
where/how to go looking for it.
I have to admit it never occurred
to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English
courts!

-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
You
wrote There is one person who writes continually in that vein
in reference to letters from Henry VI to the Pope. In the following sentence you
wrote ...the Henry we find in Beckington's
correspondence....
What
do you think of the idea that one person is Beckington himself? The little I
know about Beckington is what I've garnered from posts here and the few details
provided in his Wikipedia article, but it does seem to me that it's
more likely the author of those letters to the Pope, or more likely Popes, was
Beckington; undoubtedly writing on Henry's behalf, but still Beckington. I did
see in the Wikipedia article that Beckington served as Henry's
secretary in the early 1440s, as well as Lord Privy Seal during 1443-1444, but
doesn't have him involved in royal affairs afterwards. Is that correct? Or is it
possible Beckington remained as Henry's secretary after his short term
as Lord Privy Seal and wrote those letters for Henry?
The
link with Stillington's papal correspondence would then be Stillington being a
protégé of Beckington and following in his mentor's footsteps; well, in regards
to sending off letters to the Pope, anyway. I can't find Stillington having any
specific Royal employment before he became Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal; could
Stillington have been assisting Beckington during this period?
Much
of that charge about Henry's incompetence is based, I believe, on what
happened during his lengthy reign, with emphasis on the failures of the French
wars, increasing violence in England and the inability of Henry, or his
appointees, to handle those matters competently. Part of their inability was due
simply to the intractable nature of the fighting in France; with spillover into
England, especially English politics.
However,
even after taking account of those failures, it's also always been recognized
that Henry had a deep abiding interest in religious matters. Maybe it's me, but
it does seem that, if it was Henry who actually wrote those letters,
some of that competence and authoritative manner should also have been
noted in Henry's handling of other matters.
Doug
Hope
the hols are happy!
Hilary
wrote:
I'm
on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other
of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but
none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower
orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the
Abbot of Glastonbury.
There is one person however who writes continually in that vein.. And that
is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got
an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In
fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the
incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every
way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable
on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this
period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and
Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich
merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase
Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and Henry
Marie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of
Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two
JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say
appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and
daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington
connection. Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us
that. Batter running out. H
Sent from Yahoo
Mail for iPhone
On
Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@...
[] <>
wrote:
Marie wrote:
I have to admit I'm a tad out of my depth with all this, but yes, if lands
were held in chief the holder had to get royal licence to alienate them as a
source of funds for a charitable foundation. That was known as mortmain. Wills
of the very wealthy often do specify which manors were to be used to provide
an income for a particular purpose, but most often these are temporary
arrangements such as for funding the other bequests in the will or paying for
a priest to say prayers for the soul of the deceased for a set period of time,
and such arrangements would be handled by transferring the lands to feoffees.
A chantry was a private foundation, so I doubt the papacy would have got
involved, and I've certainly never come across a case such as the one you have
in mind.
Doug here:
My apologies for using chantries as an example; I didn't realize they were
private foundations (possibly attached to a church, but not under its'
cognizance). Am I correct in presuming that any dispute involving those
feoffees would be handled in Royal, as opposed to Church, courts as it would
simply be a matter of someone not carrying out the terms of a will?

Marie
concluded:
Wholly
agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s,
on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political
circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any
interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge
these petitions, and why.
It
strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there
should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery
and possibly even King's Bench.
Doug
here:
I
did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all that came up were
links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that didn't help. It
would be very nice if someone had done something such as that (totaling
appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea where/how to go
looking for it.
I
have to admit it never occurred to me that Stillington might also be appearing
in English courts!

-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be
clean. -- This message has
been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be
clean.
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I haven't read the Beckington letters myself, but I wouldn't mind taking a look at them one day. What you say supports my view that Henry VI is another misunderstood figure from that time. He was clearly a very intelligent man, just not a traditional medieval King. I also suspect that his illness wasn't mental, but something physical like encephalitis. There is a new book out on him by Lauren Johnson. I haven't read it yet, but HVI is long overdue of a more in depth examination.Enjoy your holiday!Nico
On Tuesday, 9 July 2019, 16:13:27 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary,
You
wrote There is one person who writes continually in that vein
in reference to letters from Henry VI to the Pope. In the following sentence you
wrote ...the Henry we find in Beckington's
correspondence....
What
do you think of the idea that one person is Beckington himself? The little I
know about Beckington is what I've garnered from posts here and the few details
provided in his Wikipedia article, but it does seem to me that it's
more likely the author of those letters to the Pope, or more likely Popes, was
Beckington; undoubtedly writing on Henry's behalf, but still Beckington. I did
see in the Wikipedia article that Beckington served as Henry's
secretary in the early 1440s, as well as Lord Privy Seal during 1443-1444, but
doesn't have him involved in royal affairs afterwards. Is that correct? Or is it
possible Beckington remained as Henry's secretary after his short term
as Lord Privy Seal and wrote those letters for Henry?
The
link with Stillington's papal correspondence would then be Stillington being a
protégé of Beckington and following in his mentor's footsteps; well, in regards
to sending off letters to the Pope, anyway. I can't find Stillington having any
specific Royal employment before he became Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal; could
Stillington have been assisting Beckington during this period?
Much
of that charge about Henry's incompetence is based, I believe, on what
happened during his lengthy reign, with emphasis on the failures of the French
wars, increasing violence in England and the inability of Henry, or his
appointees, to handle those matters competently. Part of their inability was due
simply to the intractable nature of the fighting in France; with spillover into
England, especially English politics.
However,
even after taking account of those failures, it's also always been recognized
that Henry had a deep abiding interest in religious matters. Maybe it's me, but
it does seem that, if it was Henry who actually wrote those letters,
some of that competence and authoritative manner should also have been
noted in Henry's handling of other matters.
Doug
Hope
the hols are happy!
Hilary
wrote:
I'm
on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other
of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but
none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower
orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the
Abbot of Glastonbury.
There is one person however who writes continually in that vein.. And that
is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got
an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In
fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the
incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every
way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable
on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this
period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and
Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich
merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase
Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and Henry
Marie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of
Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two
JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say
appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and
daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington
connection. Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us
that. Batter running out. H
Sent from Yahoo
Mail for iPhone
On
Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@...
[] <>
wrote:
Marie wrote:
I have to admit I'm a tad out of my depth with all this, but yes, if lands
were held in chief the holder had to get royal licence to alienate them as a
source of funds for a charitable foundation. That was known as mortmain. Wills
of the very wealthy often do specify which manors were to be used to provide
an income for a particular purpose, but most often these are temporary
arrangements such as for funding the other bequests in the will or paying for
a priest to say prayers for the soul of the deceased for a set period of time,
and such arrangements would be handled by transferring the lands to feoffees.
A chantry was a private foundation, so I doubt the papacy would have got
involved, and I've certainly never come across a case such as the one you have
in mind.
Doug here:
My apologies for using chantries as an example; I didn't realize they were
private foundations (possibly attached to a church, but not under its'
cognizance). Am I correct in presuming that any dispute involving those
feoffees would be handled in Royal, as opposed to Church, courts as it would
simply be a matter of someone not carrying out the terms of a will?

Marie
concluded:
Wholly
agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s,
on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political
circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any
interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge
these petitions, and why.
It
strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there
should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery
and possibly even King's Bench.
Doug
here:
I
did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all that came up were
links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that didn't help. It
would be very nice if someone had done something such as that (totaling
appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea where/how to go
looking for it.
I
have to admit it never occurred to me that Stillington might also be appearing
in English courts!

-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be
clean. -- This message has
been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be
clean.
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi I know Doug replied to this about Beckington and Henry VI but it seems to have vanished into the ether. (Nico I have downloaded the new 'Henry VI' on Kindle) However, what I think you said Doug was that Beckington could have written some of those letters to the Pope in the King's name?Firstly, if we look at Beckington he was first and foremost a Wykehamist, not a career politican. He almost certainly gelled with Henry because they shared that view and, once he becomes a Bishop he almost vanishes from the political landscape but he remains as someone who was clearly loved and admired by those who knew him; including those in his own diocese. True he did go on diplomatic missions, like the one to France in 1442/3, but not with a great deal of enjoyment as you learn from his writings. Incidentally, he was not Henry's first choice for Bath and Wells, he got it because Ayscough turned it down. He was originally put forward for Salisbury. So I don't think he was in any way bending Henry's armSecondly, the style of Henry's letters is very much that of a king, and one who has been a king all his life. And he has his finger on the pulse on virtually everything that is going on in ecclesiastical circles in Europe. Yes, he would have been told about this but his writing shows a real grasp of the issues which is not surprising for one whose uncle is the erudite Duke Humphrey. There's just a moment, in some correspondence of 1458, when he chides someone for doing something and the person comes back and says that he clearly doesn't remember that he authorised it. Was this after one of his 'bouts'?If we then go on to Stillington I think we have someone who does wish to be on the political scene. He worked for Henry during most of the 1450s and it's logical that Beckington would have provided an introduction after spotting his legal talents. In the Papal registers of 1451/52 he is described as 'Counsellor' to Henry VI and he served on a number of Commissions between 1450 and 1452. In 1456 he was described as the King's 'clerk and servant', in 1458 he was made Dean of St Martin's and on 28 Jul 1460 he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal to Henry. Henry also owed him £600! So he certainly wasn't appointed by Edward in 1461 out of nowhere. My guess is it was like the Civil Service - continuity in these sorts of offices, and talent. H
On Tuesday, 9 July 2019, 15:23:05 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:



Sorry not will, IPM, which doesn't surface till the reign of HTSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Tuesday, July 9, 2019, 3:32 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury.There is one person however who writes continually in that vein. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and HenryMarie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection.. Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Marie wrote:
I have to admit I'm a tad out of my depth with all
this, but yes, if lands were held in chief the holder had to get royal licence
to alienate them as a source of funds for a charitable foundation. That was
known as mortmain. Wills of the very wealthy often do specify which manors were
to be used to provide an income for a particular purpose, but most often these
are temporary arrangements such as for funding the other bequests in the will or
paying for a priest to say prayers for the soul of the deceased for a set period
of time, and such arrangements would be handled by transferring the lands to
feoffees. A chantry was a private foundation, so I doubt the papacy would have
got involved, and I've certainly never come across a case such as the one you
have in mind.
Doug here:
My apologies for using chantries as an example; I didn't realize they were
private foundations (possibly attached to a church, but not under its'
cognizance). Am I correct in presuming that any dispute involving those
feoffees would be handled in Royal, as opposed to Church, courts as it would
simply be a matter of someone not carrying out the terms of a will?

Marie concluded:
Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the
late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything
odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would
be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was
backing him to lodge these petitions, and why.
It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious
by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common
Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench.
Doug here:
I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all
that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that
didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that
(totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea
where/how to go looking for it.
I have to admit it never occurred
to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English
courts!

-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I am beginning to have second thoughts about my cynicism over Stillington's fit of conscience in 1483.After I posted below, I at last found the link between Stillington and Beckington and almost certainly therefore Stillington and Henry VI. It's Lincoln College, Oxford. Now I of course knew that Stillington had been Principal of Deep Hall (Lincoln) in the late 1440s but what I never noticed before was that its founder, Bishop Richard Fleming, was a Yorkshireman, in fact his family had married into the Yorkshire High Sheriff network. Fleming died in 1431, when Stillington of course was still a child, but at the time he was Principal there the college was struggling and two of its benefactors were Beckington and John Forest, Dean of Wells. Fleming was also an associate of John Say, who is one of those who proposed Stillington for the Prebendary at Cottingham.So Stillington, like Beckington and Henry VI was almost certainly a Wykehamist and Stillington worked for Henry VI for ten years. And it's pretty clear that Henry valued him. Stillington went on of course to work for Edward on and off for twenty years but did he feel so valued? And what about that short stint in the Tower? Did Stillington really still share Henry VI's values? In fact the tirade about Edward's morals in the 1484 Parliament Roll could have been written by Henry himself. So was Stillington doing what Henry would have done, and at the same time getting a bit of revenge on Edward? And Richard? Well he was a Yorkshireman of high moral values. Perhaps Stillington saw that as a way of putting the whole thing right? H(who would really love to know why Stillington was put in the Tower)
On Tuesday, 16 July 2019, 11:04:18 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:



Hi I know Doug replied to this about Beckington and Henry VI but it seems to have vanished into the ether. (Nico I have downloaded the new 'Henry VI' on Kindle) However, what I think you said Doug was that Beckington could have written some of those letters to the Pope in the King's name?Firstly, if we look at Beckington he was first and foremost a Wykehamist, not a career politican. He almost certainly gelled with Henry because they shared that view and, once he becomes a Bishop he almost vanishes from the political landscape but he remains as someone who was clearly loved and admired by those who knew him; including those in his own diocese. True he did go on diplomatic missions, like the one to France in 1442/3, but not with a great deal of enjoyment as you learn from his writings. Incidentally, he was not Henry's first choice for Bath and Wells, he got it because Ayscough turned it down. He was originally put forward for Salisbury. So I don't think he was in any way bending Henry's armSecondly, the style of Henry's letters is very much that of a king, and one who has been a king all his life. And he has his finger on the pulse on virtually everything that is going on in ecclesiastical circles in Europe. Yes, he would have been told about this but his writing shows a real grasp of the issues which is not surprising for one whose uncle is the erudite Duke Humphrey. There's just a moment, in some correspondence of 1458, when he chides someone for doing something and the person comes back and says that he clearly doesn't remember that he authorised it. Was this after one of his 'bouts'?If we then go on to Stillington I think we have someone who does wish to be on the political scene. He worked for Henry during most of the 1450s and it's logical that Beckington would have provided an introduction after spotting his legal talents. In the Papal registers of 1451/52 he is described as 'Counsellor' to Henry VI and he served on a number of Commissions between 1450 and 1452. In 1456 he was described as the King's 'clerk and servant', in 1458 he was made Dean of St Martin's and on 28 Jul 1460 he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal to Henry. Henry also owed him £600! So he certainly wasn't appointed by Edward in 1461 out of nowhere. My guess is it was like the Civil Service - continuity in these sorts of offices, and talent. H
On Tuesday, 9 July 2019, 15:23:05 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:



Sorry not will, IPM, which doesn't surface till the reign of HTSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Tuesday, July 9, 2019, 3:32 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury.There is one person however who writes continually in that vein. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and HenryMarie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection... Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Marie wrote:
I have to admit I'm a tad out of my depth with all
this, but yes, if lands were held in chief the holder had to get royal licence
to alienate them as a source of funds for a charitable foundation. That was
known as mortmain. Wills of the very wealthy often do specify which manors were
to be used to provide an income for a particular purpose, but most often these
are temporary arrangements such as for funding the other bequests in the will or
paying for a priest to say prayers for the soul of the deceased for a set period
of time, and such arrangements would be handled by transferring the lands to
feoffees. A chantry was a private foundation, so I doubt the papacy would have
got involved, and I've certainly never come across a case such as the one you
have in mind.
Doug here:
My apologies for using chantries as an example; I didn't realize they were
private foundations (possibly attached to a church, but not under its'
cognizance). Am I correct in presuming that any dispute involving those
feoffees would be handled in Royal, as opposed to Church, courts as it would
simply be a matter of someone not carrying out the terms of a will?

Marie concluded:
Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the
late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything
odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would
be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was
backing him to lodge these petitions, and why.
It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious
by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common
Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench.
Doug here:
I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all
that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that
didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that
(totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea
where/how to go looking for it.
I have to admit it never occurred
to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English
courts!

-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Forgot to say, Stillington himself was never Lincon's benefactor. That was left to another Yorkshireman, Thomas Rotherham. I have never teased out the relationship between the two. H
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 10:21:42 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:



I am beginning to have second thoughts about my cynicism over Stillington's fit of conscience in 1483.After I posted below, I at last found the link between Stillington and Beckington and almost certainly therefore Stillington and Henry VI. It's Lincoln College, Oxford. Now I of course knew that Stillington had been Principal of Deep Hall (Lincoln) in the late 1440s but what I never noticed before was that its founder, Bishop Richard Fleming, was a Yorkshireman, in fact his family had married into the Yorkshire High Sheriff network. Fleming died in 1431, when Stillington of course was still a child, but at the time he was Principal there the college was struggling and two of its benefactors were Beckington and John Forest, Dean of Wells. Fleming was also an associate of John Say, who is one of those who proposed Stillington for the Prebendary at Cottingham.So Stillington, like Beckington and Henry VI was almost certainly a Wykehamist and Stillington worked for Henry VI for ten years. And it's pretty clear that Henry valued him. Stillington went on of course to work for Edward on and off for twenty years but did he feel so valued? And what about that short stint in the Tower? Did Stillington really still share Henry VI's values? In fact the tirade about Edward's morals in the 1484 Parliament Roll could have been written by Henry himself. So was Stillington doing what Henry would have done, and at the same time getting a bit of revenge on Edward? And Richard? Well he was a Yorkshireman of high moral values. Perhaps Stillington saw that as a way of putting the whole thing right? H(who would really love to know why Stillington was put in the Tower)
On Tuesday, 16 July 2019, 11:04:18 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:



Hi I know Doug replied to this about Beckington and Henry VI but it seems to have vanished into the ether. (Nico I have downloaded the new 'Henry VI' on Kindle) However, what I think you said Doug was that Beckington could have written some of those letters to the Pope in the King's name?Firstly, if we look at Beckington he was first and foremost a Wykehamist, not a career politican. He almost certainly gelled with Henry because they shared that view and, once he becomes a Bishop he almost vanishes from the political landscape but he remains as someone who was clearly loved and admired by those who knew him; including those in his own diocese. True he did go on diplomatic missions, like the one to France in 1442/3, but not with a great deal of enjoyment as you learn from his writings. Incidentally, he was not Henry's first choice for Bath and Wells, he got it because Ayscough turned it down. He was originally put forward for Salisbury. So I don't think he was in any way bending Henry's armSecondly, the style of Henry's letters is very much that of a king, and one who has been a king all his life. And he has his finger on the pulse on virtually everything that is going on in ecclesiastical circles in Europe. Yes, he would have been told about this but his writing shows a real grasp of the issues which is not surprising for one whose uncle is the erudite Duke Humphrey. There's just a moment, in some correspondence of 1458, when he chides someone for doing something and the person comes back and says that he clearly doesn't remember that he authorised it. Was this after one of his 'bouts'?If we then go on to Stillington I think we have someone who does wish to be on the political scene. He worked for Henry during most of the 1450s and it's logical that Beckington would have provided an introduction after spotting his legal talents. In the Papal registers of 1451/52 he is described as 'Counsellor' to Henry VI and he served on a number of Commissions between 1450 and 1452. In 1456 he was described as the King's 'clerk and servant', in 1458 he was made Dean of St Martin's and on 28 Jul 1460 he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal to Henry. Henry also owed him £600! So he certainly wasn't appointed by Edward in 1461 out of nowhere. My guess is it was like the Civil Service - continuity in these sorts of offices, and talent. H
On Tuesday, 9 July 2019, 15:23:05 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:



Sorry not will, IPM, which doesn't surface till the reign of HTSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Tuesday, July 9, 2019, 3:32 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury.There is one person however who writes continually in that vein. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and HenryMarie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection.... Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Marie wrote:
I have to admit I'm a tad out of my depth with all
this, but yes, if lands were held in chief the holder had to get royal licence
to alienate them as a source of funds for a charitable foundation. That was
known as mortmain. Wills of the very wealthy often do specify which manors were
to be used to provide an income for a particular purpose, but most often these
are temporary arrangements such as for funding the other bequests in the will or
paying for a priest to say prayers for the soul of the deceased for a set period
of time, and such arrangements would be handled by transferring the lands to
feoffees. A chantry was a private foundation, so I doubt the papacy would have
got involved, and I've certainly never come across a case such as the one you
have in mind.
Doug here:
My apologies for using chantries as an example; I didn't realize they were
private foundations (possibly attached to a church, but not under its'
cognizance). Am I correct in presuming that any dispute involving those
feoffees would be handled in Royal, as opposed to Church, courts as it would
simply be a matter of someone not carrying out the terms of a will?

Marie concluded:
Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the
late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything
odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would
be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was
backing him to lodge these petitions, and why.
It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious
by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common
Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench.
Doug here:
I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all
that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that
didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that
(totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea
where/how to go looking for it.
I have to admit it never occurred
to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English
courts!

-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote:Forgot to say, Stillington himself was never Lincon [College]'s benefactor. That was left to another Yorkshireman, Thomas Rotherham. I have never teased out the relationship between the two. Marie adds:That would make sense because Lincoln College had links to the see. Thomas Rotherham was Bishop of Lincoln for several years. It probably wasn't about Rotherham's Yorkshire birth.

Hilary
wrote:
Hi
I know Doug replied to this about Beckington and Henry VI but it seems to have
vanished into the ether. (Nico I have downloaded the new 'Henry VI' on Kindle)
However, what I think you said Doug was that Beckington could have written
some of those letters to the Pope in the King's name?
Firstly, if we look at Beckington he was first and foremost a Wykehamist,
not a career politican. He almost certainly gelled with Henry because they
shared that view and, once he becomes a Bishop he almost vanishes from the
political landscape but he remains as someone who was clearly loved and admired
by those who knew him; including those in his own diocese. True he did go on
diplomatic missions, like the one to France in 1442/3, but not with a great deal
of enjoyment as you learn from his writings. Incidentally, he was not Henry's
first choice for Bath and Wells, he got it because Ayscough turned it down. He
was originally put forward for Salisbury. So I don't think he was in any way
bending Henry's arm.
Secondly, the style of Henry's letters is very much that of a king, and one
who has been a king all his life. And he has his finger on the pulse on
virtually everything that is going on in ecclesiastical circles in Europe. Yes,
he would have been told about this but his writing shows a real grasp of the
issues which is not surprising for one whose uncle is the erudite Duke Humphrey.
There's just a moment, in some correspondence of 1458, when he chides someone
for doing something and the person comes back and says that he clearly doesn't
remember that he authorised it. Was this after one of his 'bouts'?
Doug here:
Yup, that was me! I think the easiest way is simply to show how I arrived
at the idea of Beckington possibly being Henry's ghostwriter.
What first led me to consider Beckington as the possible author was this
(from Wikipedia):
At this time Beckington was acting as secretary to Henry VI, and soon
after his return [from an embassy to Armagnac  D] in 1443 he was appointed Lord
Privy Seal, an office he held until 1444.
Then I found this link:
http://www.berkshirehistory.com/bios/tbeckington.html
which has Beckington referring to himself as the King's secretary as early
as 1439. However, once Beckington became Bishop of Bath and Wells, he seems,
more or less to have disappeared from view, only popping up now and then in
his role as Bishop of Bath and Wells.
It's my understanding that Henry had his first break-down in August 1453
and didn't recover until Christmas 1454. During that period, John Kemp,
Archbishop of York was Henry's Lord Chancellor (1450-54). Kemp had previously
served as Lord Chancellor from 1426 to 1432, but I don't know if that has any
significance. Kemp was succeeded by Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury as
Lord Chancellor, serving during 1454 and 55, before being succeeded by Thomas
Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury who filled the post of Lord Chancellor
during 1455 and 1456. Bourchier in turn was succeeded by William Waynflete,
Bishop of Winchester who served as Lord Chancellor from 1456 to 1460 and
he was succeeded as Lord Chancellor by George Neville, Bishop of
Exeter, who served as Lord Chancellor from 1460 to 1467 (according to
Wikipedia he received the Great Seal in July of 1460 after the Battle
of Northampton at which he'd been present. Between the Battle of Northampton in
July of 1460 and the 2nd Battle of St. Albans at the beginning of February 1461,
Henry was under the control of the Yorkists. Again according to
Wikipedia, Henry was reported as singing and dancing during the 2nd
Battle of St. Albans, but I couldn't find any reference.
So what I was faced with was a lack of continuity in Henry's Lord
Chancellors, which ruled them out as possible authors of those letters. But at
the same time, I was faced with problem of Henry's illness. If Henry was so ill
that he couldn't recognize his wife or son, then he obviously couldn't have
written any letters to the Pope. At least between August 1453 and Christmas
1454, anyway and then again during, at least, early 1461.
A rather long way to get to the point that we know who Henry's Lord
Chancellors were and the list doesn't provide any continuity. We don't know who
served as Henry's secretary after Beckington, so it seemed
entirely possible to me that Beckington may have continued in that role.
I guess it boils down to trying to answer two questions. Do any of Henry's
letters fall within the dates when we know for certain Henry wasn't capable of
writing them? And do we have a list of those who may have served as successors
to Beckington as Henry's secretary?
Hilary concluded:
If we then go on to Stillington I think we have someone who does wish to
be on the political scene. He worked for Henry during most of the 1450s and it's
logical that Beckington would have provided an introduction after spotting his
legal talents. In the Papal registers of 1451/52 he is described as 'Counsellor'
to Henry VI and he served on a number of Commissions between 1450 and 1452. In
1456 he was described as the King's 'clerk and servant', in 1458 he was made
Dean of St Martin's and on 28 Jul 1460 he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal to
Henry. Henry also owed him £600! So he certainly wasn't appointed by Edward in
1461 out of nowhere. My guess is it was like the Civil Service - continuity in
these sorts of offices, and talent.
Doug here:
Ask and ye shall receive!
Can Stillington be tied into the dates of those letters?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Yes I agree. The other benefactor, John Forest, later Dean of Wells, had worked at Lincoln (diocese) with Fleming.Sorry, I meant that I really don't know how Rotherham and Stillington got on. You'd expect it to be well, given that they shared the same county of birth and the same commitment to learning. But it seems to fall apart in 1483. I'm still puzzled by Rotherham's reaction to the 'Tower' incident, which landed him out of favour and in gaol for some time. He's someone still in the shadows to me. H
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 21:34:42 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Hilary wrote:Forgot to say, Stillington himself was never Lincon [College]'s benefactor. That was left to another Yorkshireman, Thomas Rotherham. I have never teased out the relationship between the two. Marie adds:That would make sense because Lincoln College had links to the see. Thomas Rotherham was Bishop of Lincoln for several years. It probably wasn't about Rotherham's Yorkshire birth.

Hilary,
In
another post I suggested, after abandoning Beckington for the role, that perhaps
it was Stillington who was the author of those letters. What I really should
have written was that perhaps it was Stillington who composed the letters, all
the while ensuring the contents met with Henry's approval. From what I
understand, Henry took a great interest in Church affairs, but even so it would
be most unusual for the king himself to actually sit down and write a letter,
even to the Pope. Perhaps especially to the Pope who combined both Church and
foreign relations in one person? If, a very big if,
Stillington's work for Henry included taking over from Beckington as Henry's
private secretary, then might that explain the continuity of the tone of the
letters?
It's
obvious that something happened to Henry during August 1453, but
whether that something was caused by an emotional/psychological problem or a
physical one, it made it impossible for Henry to carry out the duties of a
monarch and someone (or group?) had to manage things. Who better placed
than the King's private secretary? There's also the possibility, if whatever
Henry suffered from was a medical condition, that August 1453 wasn't
the first time Henry had one of his bouts, only the first occasion
when the effects were severe enough to completely incapacitate him.
When
it comes to that short stint in the Tower, what do you think of the idea that
it may have due to Edward not knowing how involved Stillington was in George's
plans? Especially if it had been the case that Edward had charged Stillington
with keeping an eye on George and what went on in the good Bishop's See? Nor do
we know exactly what George may have said to Edward during any meeting/s the two
may have had. Perhaps it was something George said that landed Stillington in
the Tower, rather than anything Stillington had actually done (or not
done)?
I
do agree that Stillington seems to have behaved more on the order of a current,
highly-placed Civil Servant than anything else, as did quite a few other
Bishops. But then, while kings (or governments) come and go, the country
always needs administering!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
I
am beginning to have second thoughts about my cynicism over Stillington's fit of
conscience in 1483.
After I posted below, I at last found the link between Stillington and
Beckington and almost certainly therefore Stillington and Henry VI. It's Lincoln
College, Oxford. Now I of course knew that Stillington had been Principal of
Deep Hall (Lincoln) in the late 1440s but what I never noticed before was that
its founder, Bishop Richard Fleming, was a Yorkshireman, in fact his family had
married into the Yorkshire High Sheriff network. Fleming died in 1431, when
Stillington of course was still a child, but at the time he was Principal there
the ce hollege was struggling and two of its benefactors were Beckington and
John Forest, Dean of Wells. Fleming was also an associate of John Say, who is
one of those who proposed Stillington for the Prebendary at Cottingham.
So Stillington, like Beckington and Henry VI was almost certainly a
Wykehamist and Stillington worked for Henry VI for ten years. And it's pretty
clear that Henry valued him. Stillington went on of course to work for Edward on
and off for twenty years but did he feel so valued? And what about that short
stint in the Tower? Did Stillington really still share Henry VI's values? In
fact the tirade about Edward's morals in the 1484 Parliament Roll could have
been written by Henry himself. So was Stillington doing what Henry would have
done, and at the same time getting a bit of revenge on Edward? And Richard? Well
he was a Yorkshireman of high moral values. Perhaps Stillington saw that as a
way of putting the whole thing right?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
Even
though he later got it back and gave it to Archbishop Bourchier, Rotherham was
the one who gave the Great Seal to ElizabethWoodville. As it was when she'd gone
into sanctuary immediately after hearing what happened at Stony Stratford, the
presumption is that Rotherham supported the Woodville faction. Do we know which
committee he was on, the coronation or Tower one? If he was on the coronation
committee with Hastings and Morton (among others), perhaps he was confined until
it could be determined just how much he knew about the plotting? Or how much
could be proven, anyway...
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Yes
I agree. The other benefactor, John Forest, later Dean of Wells, had worked at
Lincoln (diocese) with Fleming.
Sorry, I meant that I really don't know how Rotherham and Stillington got
on. You'd expect it to be well, given that they shared the same county of birth
and the same commitment to learning. But it seems to fall apart in 1483. I'm
still puzzled by Rotherham's reaction to the 'Tower' incident, which landed him
out of favour and in gaol for some time. He's someone still in the shadows to
me.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Doug I was about to come back about your suggestion in your other post. Henry's letters to the Pope span a couple of decades, Stillington's just two or three years from about 1449 to 1451 (I think without looking them up).One problem is that although we have the Pope's reply to Stillington, we don't have the actual letters that he originally wrote. Stillington does indeed start working for Henry in about 1451, but some of Henry's letters are much earlier.Beckington had been around Court for a long time before he became bishop in 1446 and we do have his writings of course. He comes across as quite an affable and not particularly ambitious person - foreign trips are obviously a bit of a pain, as are some foreigners; his love is clearly his schools and colleges, something he shares very much with the King. He would have to adopt an entirely different tone to be the 'Henry' writing to the Pope, and there is a continuity of style in Henry before and after Beckington left him. It wouldn't surprise me if Henry did write (or dictate) his own letters; he writes as one Head of State to the Head of the Church and things like the incursion of the Moors are very important to him. He was a scholar; he'd rather write than fight.I'm off to check his new biography which I've downloaded and see what it says. H
On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 15:15:32 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary,
In
another post I suggested, after abandoning Beckington for the role, that perhaps
it was Stillington who was the author of those letters. What I really should
have written was that perhaps it was Stillington who composed the letters, all
the while ensuring the contents met with Henry's approval. From what I
understand, Henry took a great interest in Church affairs, but even so it would
be most unusual for the king himself to actually sit down and write a letter,
even to the Pope. Perhaps especially to the Pope who combined both Church and
foreign relations in one person? If, a very big if,
Stillington's work for Henry included taking over from Beckington as Henry's
private secretary, then might that explain the continuity of the tone of the
letters?
It's
obvious that something happened to Henry during August 1453, but
whether that something was caused by an emotional/psychological problem or a
physical one, it made it impossible for Henry to carry out the duties of a
monarch and someone (or group?) had to manage things. Who better placed
than the King's private secretary? There's also the possibility, if whatever
Henry suffered from was a medical condition, that August 1453 wasn't
the first time Henry had one of his bouts, only the first occasion
when the effects were severe enough to completely incapacitate him.
When
it comes to that short stint in the Tower, what do you think of the idea that
it may have due to Edward not knowing how involved Stillington was in George's
plans? Especially if it had been the case that Edward had charged Stillington
with keeping an eye on George and what went on in the good Bishop's See? Nor do
we know exactly what George may have said to Edward during any meeting/s the two
may have had. Perhaps it was something George said that landed Stillington in
the Tower, rather than anything Stillington had actually done (or not
done)?
I
do agree that Stillington seems to have behaved more on the order of a current,
highly-placed Civil Servant than anything else, as did quite a few other
Bishops. But then, while kings (or governments) come and go, the country
always needs administering!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
I
am beginning to have second thoughts about my cynicism over Stillington's fit of
conscience in 1483.
After I posted below, I at last found the link between Stillington and
Beckington and almost certainly therefore Stillington and Henry VI. It's Lincoln
College, Oxford. Now I of course knew that Stillington had been Principal of
Deep Hall (Lincoln) in the late 1440s but what I never noticed before was that
its founder, Bishop Richard Fleming, was a Yorkshireman, in fact his family had
married into the Yorkshire High Sheriff network. Fleming died in 1431, when
Stillington of course was still a child, but at the time he was Principal there
the ce hollege was struggling and two of its benefactors were Beckington and
John Forest, Dean of Wells. Fleming was also an associate of John Say, who is
one of those who proposed Stillington for the Prebendary at Cottingham.
So Stillington, like Beckington and Henry VI was almost certainly a
Wykehamist and Stillington worked for Henry VI for ten years. And it's pretty
clear that Henry valued him. Stillington went on of course to work for Edward on
and off for twenty years but did he feel so valued? And what about that short
stint in the Tower? Did Stillington really still share Henry VI's values? In
fact the tirade about Edward's morals in the 1484 Parliament Roll could have
been written by Henry himself. So was Stillington doing what Henry would have
done, and at the same time getting a bit of revenge on Edward? And Richard? Well
he was a Yorkshireman of high moral values. Perhaps Stillington saw that as a
way of putting the whole thing right?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug, I've found him quite difficult to track and wondered if anyone else knew For a start, I find it strange that a Yorkshireman would be on the Woodville side. I did wonder if the Scotts of Rotherham were related to the rebel Scotts of Kent? In one document about Lincoln College I found him referred to as Thomas Scott and certainly in his will his kinsmen in Rotherham are the Scotts. He seems to have a strange quick rise to power, a sharp fall and a resurgence under HT.Anyone know any more? H
On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 15:26:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary,
Even
though he later got it back and gave it to Archbishop Bourchier, Rotherham was
the one who gave the Great Seal to ElizabethWoodville. As it was when she'd gone
into sanctuary immediately after hearing what happened at Stony Stratford, the
presumption is that Rotherham supported the Woodville faction. Do we know which
committee he was on, the coronation or Tower one? If he was on the coronation
committee with Hastings and Morton (among others), perhaps he was confined until
it could be determined just how much he knew about the plotting? Or how much
could be proven, anyway...
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Yes
I agree. The other benefactor, John Forest, later Dean of Wells, had worked at
Lincoln (diocese) with Fleming.
Sorry, I meant that I really don't know how Rotherham and Stillington got
on. You'd expect it to be well, given that they shared the same county of birth
and the same commitment to learning. But it seems to fall apart in 1483. I'm
still puzzled by Rotherham's reaction to the 'Tower' incident, which landed him
out of favour and in gaol for some time. He's someone still in the shadows to
me.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
I
rather wonder if that continuity in style wasn't due to whomever was actually
drawing up those letters for Henry? Sort of an official medieval bureaucratic
style? If that was the case, then Henry would dictate what he wanted to say,
then someone would go off and set up what Henry had said in the official
format, which would then be reviewed by Henry before being dispatched. It
wouldn't be so much that Henry wasn't composing the letters so much as what
Henry wanted to say was being transcribed by a second party, who put Henry's
words/thoughts into the proper form. Dealings with heads of state would have
their own style, as would letters concerning solely English matters. In either
case, if Henry wanted to also include a more personal note, that part would be
added/inserted, utilizing (more or less) Henry's own words, but also with the
possibility that addition would succumb to officialese.
I
think that makes sense?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug I was about to come back about your suggestion in your other post. Henry's
letters to the Pope span a couple of decades, Stillington's just two or three
years from about 1449 to 1451 (I think without looking them up).One problem is
that although we have the Pope's reply to Stillington, we don't have the actual
letters that he originally wrote. Stillington does indeed start working for
Henry in about 1451, but some of Henry's letters are much
earlier.
Beckington had been around Court for a long time before he became bishop in
1446 and we do have his writings of course. He comes across as quite an affable
and not particularly ambitious person - foreign trips are obviously a bit of a
pain, as are some foreigners; his love is clearly his schools and colleges,
something he shares very much with the King. He would have to adopt an entirely
different tone to be the 'Henry' writing to the Pope, and there is a continuity
of style in Henry before and after Beckington left him. It wouldn't surprise me
if Henry did write (or dictate) his own letters; he writes as one Head of State
to the Head of the Church and things like the incursion of the Moors are very
important to him. He was a scholar; he'd rather write than fight.
I'm off to check his new biography which I've downloaded and see what it
says.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
FWIW,
the first sentence of this Wikipedia link is very
interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rotherham
Thomas
Rotherham (24 August 1423  29 May 1500), also known as Thomas (Scot) de
Rotherham... (my emphasis).
The
article goes on to state that the Bishop's father was Sir Thomas Rotherham, but
only refers to his mother as Dame Alice. The article continues by saying
Rotherham never used Scot/Scott during his lifetime, but did refer to a John
Scott of Ecclesfield Yorkshire as his kinsman. Perhaps the Scott connection
was via his mother?
Rotherham
served as Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal from 1467 to 1474, then served as his Lord
Chancellor from 1474 to 1483, so it certainly looks as if Edward was satisfied
with his work. Perhaps this was when Rotherham developed his Woodville leanings?
While Rotherham did serve as Henry VI's Lord Chancellor, apparently it was a
very brief stint sometime during 1485; IOW, after Bosworth, but
before Henry married Elizabeth of York in January 1486. Maybe I'm just
getting suspicious in my old age, but those dates are very interesting; and
cause to me wonder just what the reason was for Henry not keeping someone who'd
demonstrated their support for his wife's family?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
I've found him quite difficult to track and wondered if anyone else knew
For a start, I find it strange that a Yorkshireman would be on the Woodville
side. I did wonder if the Scotts of Rotherham were related to the rebel Scotts
of Kent? In one document about Lincoln College I found him referred to as Thomas
Scott and certainly in his will his kinsmen in Rotherham are the Scotts. He
seems to have a strange quick rise to power, a sharp fall and a resurgence under
HT.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

BackReplyViewNextPreviousBackReplyViewNextPreviousFixed Width FontView Source56726Re: Re: Stillington - Lateran RegestraExpand MessagesDoug StamateToday at 6:33 AM
Hilary,FWIW, the first sentence of this Wikipedia link is very interesting:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_RotherhamThomas Rotherham (24 August 1423  29 May 1500), also known as Thomas (Scot) de Rotherham... (my emphasis).The article goes on to state that the Bishop's father was Sir Thomas Rotherham, but only refers to his mother as Dame Alice. The article continues by saying Rotherham never used Scot/Scott during his lifetime, but did refer to a John Scott of Ecclesfield Yorkshire as his kinsman. Perhaps the Scott connection was via his mother?Rotherham served as Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal from 1467 to 1474, then served as his Lord Chancellor from 1474 to 1483, so it certainly looks as if Edward was satisfied with his work. Perhaps this was when Rotherham developed his Woodville leanings? While Rotherham did serve as Henry VI's Lord Chancellor, apparently it was a very brief stint sometime during 1485; IOW, after Bosworth, but before Henry married Elizabeth of York in January 1486. Maybe I'm just getting suspicious in my old age, but those dates are very interesting; and cause to me wonder just what the reason was for Henry not keeping someone who'd demonstrated their support for his wife's family?Doug Hilary wrote:Doug, I've found him quite difficult to track and wondered if anyone else knew For a start, I find it strange that a Yorkshireman would be on the Woodville side. I did wonder if the Scotts of Rotherham were related to the rebel Scotts of Kent? In one document about Lincoln College I found him referred to as Thomas Scott and certainly in his will his kinsmen in Rotherham are the Scotts. He seems to have a strange quick rise to power, a sharp fall and a resurgence under HT.Marie:I think, with a large, subdivided county like Yorkshire in particular, county of origin would have been much less important for churchmen when it came to finding friends than their alma mater and their diocesan links early in their career. By no means the whole of Yorkshire was Neville territory - the Rotherham/ Sheffield area certainly wasn't. Plus, Stillington was an Oxford man, and Rotherham a Cambridge man. Their ecclesiastical appointments hadn't really placed them in the same circles either. Taking one's birthplace as surname was a fairly common, though by no means universal, practice for churchmen so there's nothing particularly odd about the two surnames. From what I have read elsewhere, Bishop Rotherham's father was generally known as Sir Thomas Scot.The Bishop, his mother Dame Alice Scot and his brother John Scot were the founders of the prestigious Holy Trinity Guild of Luton, whose founder members included the Queen and the Duchess of York. Rotherham could well have developed a friendship with the Queen via her support for this foundation, or she may have taken a particular interest in it because she liked Rotherham.Power politics in this era was, as you have rightly observed, Doug, very much about personal relationships, and there are no rules that tell you who you are going to get on with in life.

Thanks Marie, I think the Luton thing explains it! Compared with Morton and Stillington he gets relatively few mentions in contemporary documents and I really don't understand what happened during the Hastings arrest. As I recall it he's mentioned by Stallworth as one of those arrested.Then, as Nico says, he gets restored to grace under HT but for a very limited time. More work! H(PS Stillington also had a lot of connections in Beverley and Hull with the Holme family there)
On Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 22:18:18 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


BackReplyViewNextPreviousBackReplyViewNextPreviousFixed Width FontView Source56726Re: Re: Stillington - Lateran RegestraExpand MessagesDoug StamateToday at 6:33 AM
Hilary,FWIW, the first sentence of this Wikipedia link is very interesting:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_RotherhamThomas Rotherham (24 August 1423  29 May 1500), also known as Thomas (Scot) de Rotherham... (my emphasis).The article goes on to state that the Bishop's father was Sir Thomas Rotherham, but only refers to his mother as Dame Alice. The article continues by saying Rotherham never used Scot/Scott during his lifetime, but did refer to a John Scott of Ecclesfield Yorkshire as his kinsman. Perhaps the Scott connection was via his mother?Rotherham served as Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal from 1467 to 1474, then served as his Lord Chancellor from 1474 to 1483, so it certainly looks as if Edward was satisfied with his work. Perhaps this was when Rotherham developed his Woodville leanings? While Rotherham did serve as Henry VI's Lord Chancellor, apparently it was a very brief stint sometime during 1485; IOW, after Bosworth, but before Henry married Elizabeth of York in January 1486. Maybe I'm just getting suspicious in my old age, but those dates are very interesting; and cause to me wonder just what the reason was for Henry not keeping someone who'd demonstrated their support for his wife's family?Doug Hilary wrote:Doug, I've found him quite difficult to track and wondered if anyone else knew For a start, I find it strange that a Yorkshireman would be on the Woodville side. I did wonder if the Scotts of Rotherham were related to the rebel Scotts of Kent? In one document about Lincoln College I found him referred to as Thomas Scott and certainly in his will his kinsmen in Rotherham are the Scotts. He seems to have a strange quick rise to power, a sharp fall and a resurgence under HT.Marie:I think, with a large, subdivided county like Yorkshire in particular, county of origin would have been much less important for churchmen when it came to finding friends than their alma mater and their diocesan links early in their career. By no means the whole of Yorkshire was Neville territory - the Rotherham/ Sheffield area certainly wasn't. Plus, Stillington was an Oxford man, and Rotherham a Cambridge man. Their ecclesiastical appointments hadn't really placed them in the same circles either. Taking one's birthplace as surname was a fairly common, though by no means universal, practice for churchmen so there's nothing particularly odd about the two surnames. From what I have read elsewhere, Bishop Rotherham's father was generally known as Sir Thomas Scot.The Bishop, his mother Dame Alice Scot and his brother John Scot were the founders of the prestigious Holy Trinity Guild of Luton, whose founder members included the Queen and the Duchess of York. Rotherham could well have developed a friendship with the Queen via her support for this foundation, or she may have taken a particular interest in it because she liked Rotherham.Power politics in this era was, as you have rightly observed, Doug, very much about personal relationships, and there are no rules that tell you who you are going to get on with in life.

Ah ha! Rotherham was obviously an associate of John Forster! Forster left him and Morton money in his will of 1483. I wonder if he was implicated in the Forster plot of June that year hence the arrest? H
On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, 10:36:58 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:



Thanks Marie, I think the Luton thing explains it! Compared with Morton and Stillington he gets relatively few mentions in contemporary documents and I really don't understand what happened during the Hastings arrest. As I recall it he's mentioned by Stallworth as one of those arrested.Then, as Nico says, he gets restored to grace under HT but for a very limited time. More work! H(PS Stillington also had a lot of connections in Beverley and Hull with the Holme family there)
On Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 22:18:18 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


BackReplyViewNextPreviousBackReplyViewNextPreviousFixed Width FontView Source56726Re: Re: Stillington - Lateran RegestraExpand MessagesDoug StamateToday at 6:33 AM
Hilary,FWIW, the first sentence of this Wikipedia link is very interesting:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_RotherhamThomas Rotherham (24 August 1423  29 May 1500), also known as Thomas (Scot) de Rotherham... (my emphasis).The article goes on to state that the Bishop's father was Sir Thomas Rotherham, but only refers to his mother as Dame Alice. The article continues by saying Rotherham never used Scot/Scott during his lifetime, but did refer to a John Scott of Ecclesfield Yorkshire as his kinsman. Perhaps the Scott connection was via his mother?Rotherham served as Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal from 1467 to 1474, then served as his Lord Chancellor from 1474 to 1483, so it certainly looks as if Edward was satisfied with his work. Perhaps this was when Rotherham developed his Woodville leanings? While Rotherham did serve as Henry VI's Lord Chancellor, apparently it was a very brief stint sometime during 1485; IOW, after Bosworth, but before Henry married Elizabeth of York in January 1486. Maybe I'm just getting suspicious in my old age, but those dates are very interesting; and cause to me wonder just what the reason was for Henry not keeping someone who'd demonstrated their support for his wife's family?Doug Hilary wrote:Doug, I've found him quite difficult to track and wondered if anyone else knew For a start, I find it strange that a Yorkshireman would be on the Woodville side. I did wonder if the Scotts of Rotherham were related to the rebel Scotts of Kent? In one document about Lincoln College I found him referred to as Thomas Scott and certainly in his will his kinsmen in Rotherham are the Scotts. He seems to have a strange quick rise to power, a sharp fall and a resurgence under HT.Marie:I think, with a large, subdivided county like Yorkshire in particular, county of origin would have been much less important for churchmen when it came to finding friends than their alma mater and their diocesan links early in their career. By no means the whole of Yorkshire was Neville territory - the Rotherham/ Sheffield area certainly wasn't. Plus, Stillington was an Oxford man, and Rotherham a Cambridge man. Their ecclesiastical appointments hadn't really placed them in the same circles either. Taking one's birthplace as surname was a fairly common, though by no means universal, practice for churchmen so there's nothing particularly odd about the two surnames. From what I have read elsewhere, Bishop Rotherham's father was generally known as Sir Thomas Scot.The Bishop, his mother Dame Alice Scot and his brother John Scot were the founders of the prestigious Holy Trinity Guild of Luton, whose founder members included the Queen and the Duchess of York. Rotherham could well have developed a friendship with the Queen via her support for this foundation, or she may have taken a particular interest in it because she liked Rotherham.Power politics in this era was, as you have rightly observed, Doug, very much about personal relationships, and there are no rules that tell you who you are going to get on with in life.

Marie,
So that Thomas Scot de Rotherham would nowadays be likely something on the
order of Thomas Scot from Rotherham? Which means the Sir Thomas Rotherham
listed as the Bishop's father should have been listed as Sir Thomas Scot not
Sir Thomas Rotherham. (Imagine that, a mistake in Wikipedia!)
It's completely speculative, of course, but Rotherham did work for
Edward for 17 years or so and I wonder why he thought it appropriate(?) to
entrust Elizabeth Woodville with the Great Seal at all? As Edward's Lord
Chancellor, wouldn't he also have knowledge of Edward's up-dated will making
Richard Protector? Or were the changes to Edward's will so last-minute the Lord
Chancellor mightn't have been in the loop; particularly if Rotherham wasn't at
Windsor? Still, I'd have imagined that, even with a possible close relationship
with the Queen, the Lord Chancellor would still have retained the Great Seal
until otherwise directed by the Protector and Council. Perhaps it was simply a
matter of the Bishop being a better administrator/manager than politician?
He only spent a month in jail after l'affaire Hastings, wasn't
employed by Richard at all, and only served as Tudor's Lord Chancellor for about
three months, so it does look to me as if Rotherham's government jobs depended
very much on his personal relations with whomever employed him.
Doug
Marie wrote:
I think, with a large, subdivided county like Yorkshire in particular,
county of origin would have been much less important for churchmen when it came
to finding friends than their alma mater and their diocesan links early in their
career. By no means the whole of Yorkshire was Neville territory - the
Rotherham/ Sheffield area certainly wasn't. Plus, Stillington was an Oxford man,
and Rotherham a Cambridge man. Their ecclesiastical appointments hadn't really
placed them in the same circles either.
Taking one's birthplace as surname was a fairly common, though by no means
universal, practice for churchmen so there's nothing particularly odd about the
two surnames. From what I have read elsewhere, Bishop Rotherham's father was
generally known as Sir Thomas Scot.
The Bishop, his mother Dame Alice Scot and his brother John Scot were the
founders of the prestigious Holy Trinity Guild of Luton, whose founder members
included the Queen and the Duchess of York. Rotherham could well have developed
a friendship with the Queen via her support for this foundation, or she may have
taken a particular interest in it because she liked Rotherham.
Power politics in this era was, as you have rightly observed, Doug, very much
about personal relationships, and there are no rules that tell you who you are
going to get on with in life.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
Add
Rotherham's original political faux pas of entrusting the Great Seal to
Elizabeth Woodville to any relationship to Forster he may have had and that
likely explains his short spell in the pokey.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Ah
ha! Rotherham was obviously an associate of John Forster! Forster left him and
Morton money in his will of 1483. I wonder if he was implicated in the Forster
plot of June that year hence the arrest?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote:So that Thomas Scot de Rotherham would nowadays be likely something on the order of Thomas Scot from Rotherham? Which means the Sir Thomas Rotherham listed as the Bishop's father should have been listed as Sir Thomas Scot not Sir Thomas Rotherham. (Imagine that, a mistake in Wikipedia!)Marie:I think so - not that I've tried looking for references to him in the Yorkshire records or anything. Certainly he was Scot most of the time if not all, and the other brother, John, was definitely known as Scot. I think Thomas' choice was an ecclesiastical affectation, or act of humility or whatever - simply calling yourself by your place of birth rather than using the family surname to get on. I've also seen it suggested that Scot might not have been a very comfortable surname to be sporting in 15th-century England.Doug:It's completely speculative, of course, but Rotherham did work for Edward for 17 years or so and I wonder why he thought it appropriate(?) to entrust Elizabeth Woodville with the Great Seal at all? As Edward's Lord Chancellor, wouldn't he also have knowledge of Edward's up-dated will making Richard Protector? Or were the changes to Edward's will so last-minute the Lord Chancellor mightn't have been in the loop; particularly if Rotherham wasn't at Windsor? Still, I'd have imagined that, even with a possible close relationship with the Queen, the Lord Chancellor would still have retained the Great Seal until otherwise directed by the Protector and Council. Perhaps it was simply a matter of the Bishop being a better administrator/manager than politician?Marie:Good questions which I can't properly answer, I'm afraid. Yes, I'm sure he knew about the codicil because either Commines or Mancini picked it up - both of them, I think, though I haven't got time to check. The earliest source for his having given the Great Seal to the Queen then fetched it back is More, but there seems to be something in the tale because:-1) Richard replaced him as Chancellor; and2) After the arrests of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, Richard returned to Nottingham with the young king to spend the night. He set off again the next day, but before leaving Nottingham wrote a very interesting letter to Cardinal Bourchier commanding him to take charge of the Great Seal and secure the treasure in the Tower. It seems to me that it's too much of a coincidence that the Woodvilles were soon widely believed to have made off with the Tower treasure, and that we have this story from More about the Queen persuading Chancellor Rotherham to give her the Great Seal (albeit More places this incident after the Queen had taken sanctuary). I do strongly suspect that Richard had learned something from his prisoners about the Woodville plans, and that it was this information which prompted him to write this brief and hurried letter to the Cardinal.So yes, I do think the Woodvilles were keen to get the Seal for themselves - even if Rotherham was on their side, he doesn't seem to have been a particularly strong character.Why would Rotherham have succumbed? That is the part that is unanswerable. But as you so rightly say, politics was all about personalities and personal relationships. Rotherham probably didn't know Richard very well, and might have been persuaded by the poor distraught widow that he had dark designs. Picking up on Hilary's point, Forster may possibly have been involved even as early as this, as he had worked directly for the Queen as well as being a friend of Rotherham's. I don't know who recommended Rotherham for the see of York. It probably wasn't Richard, and if Richard had perhaps favoured a different candidate, that might have left Rotherham with a bad taste in his mouth. Doug wrote:He only spent a month in jail after l'affaire Hastings, wasn't employed by Richard at all, and only served as Tudor's Lord Chancellor for about three months, so it does look to me as if Rotherham's government jobs depended very much on his personal relations with whomever employed him.Marie:Another Wikipedia mistake? This is widely credited but is not so. Crowland tells us that both Morton and Rotherham were sent to imprisonment in castles in Wales. We know where Morton went, of course, and an entry in Archbishop Rotherham's register shows he was at Cardiff Castle, the capital of Richard's Lordship of Glamorgan, as late as 24 September. This explains why he was not in York to greet the king and Queen in late August - early September.Henry did indeed only employ Rotherham as Chancellor very briefly, before handing the Great Seal to John Alcock, who held it a bit longer but not very long. Once Bishop Morton was home and had his feet under the table he became Henry's chosen man.Rotherham may simply have been past his best. He turned 60 in August 1483, and so by the time Henry came to the throne he was 62, a respectable retirement age even by today's standards.Apparently he was impeached on an unknown charge during the PW conspiracy, so it may be he was loyal first and foremost to Edward IV's line, and had been persuaded by the Woodvilles from the outset that Richard posed a threat to its continuity.

Oops, I meant Northampton , not Nottingham!

Marie,
Perhaps using the
town's name rather than his family's was a way of saying that the Church was now
his family? Otherwise, I'm at a loss as well.
Lacking further
information, for the present I'm viewing Rotherham's actions regarding the Great
Seal as one of those occasions when a personal relationship (Rotherham's with
the royal family) was allowed to trump what that person should have
done (retain the Great Seal). Sometimes such actions are to the better,
sometimes they don't matter, and sometimes they're for the worse.
I wonder if that
error about Rotherham being freed in July 1483 merely wasn't another example of
a London-centric history? Perhaps July was when the Archbishop left London, if
not custody?
Going by his
ecclesiastical advancements, Rotherham was definitely a creature of Edward IV,
going from a prebendary at Salisbury in 1465 to Bishop of Rochester in 1467, two
years after becoming Edward's Lord Privy Seal. Then he's made Lord Chancellor in
1470 and becomes Archbishop of York in 1475. This is not to say he wasn't
qualified, only that, at least by appearances, Rotherham's positions in Edward's
governments certainly didn't hurt his advancement in the Church. Not unusual, I
suspect.
His being impeached
during the PW years is interesting! Your assessment about Rotherham being
attached to Edward's line does seem to have the most support. It might even
explain why Rotherham only served as Tudor's Lord Chancellor for such a short
time; perhaps he was too vociferous in urging Henry to marry Elizabeth of York?
Then again, as you say, he was 62 and perhaps his retirement was
voluntary.
Doug
Marie
wrote:
I think so - not that I've tried looking for references to him in the
Yorkshire records or anything. Certainly he was Scot most of the time if not
all, and the other brother, John, was definitely known as Scot. I think Thomas'
choice was an ecclesiastical affectation, or act of humility or whatever -
simply calling yourself by your place of birth rather than using the family
surname to get on. I've also seen it suggested that Scot might not have been a
very comfortable surname to be sporting in 15th-century England.
Good questions which I can't properly answer, I'm afraid. Yes, I'm sure he
knew about the codicil because either Commines or Mancini picked it up - both of
them, I think, though I haven't got time to check. The earliest source for his
having given the Great Seal to the Queen then fetched it back is More, but there
seems to be something in the tale because:-
1) Richard replaced him as Chancellor; and
2) After the arrests of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, Richard returned to
Nottingham with the young king to spend the night. He set off again the next
day, but before leaving Nottingham wrote a very interesting letter to Cardinal
Bourchier commanding him to take charge of the Great Seal and secure the
treasure in the Tower. It seems to me that it's too much of a coincidence that
the Woodvilles were soon widely believed to have made off with the Tower
treasure, and that we have this story from More about the Queen persuading
Chancellor Rotherham to give her the Great Seal (albeit More places this
incident after the Queen had taken sanctuary). I do strongly suspect that
Richard had learned something from his prisoners about the Woodville plans, and
that it was this information which prompted him to write this brief and hurried
letter to the Cardinal.
So yes, I do think the Woodvilles were keen to get the Seal for themselves -
even if Rotherham was on their side, he doesn't seem to have been a particularly
strong character.
Why would Rotherham have succumbed? That is the part that is unanswerable.
But as you so rightly say, politics was all about personalities and personal
relationships. Rotherham probably didn't know Richard very well, and might have
been persuaded by the poor distraught widow that he had dark designs.
Picking up on Hilary's point, Forster may possibly have been involved even as
early as this, as he had worked directly for the Queen as well as being a friend
of Rotherham's.
I don't know who recommended Rotherham for the see of York. It probably
wasn't Richard, and if Richard had perhaps favoured a different candidate, that
might have left Rotherham with a bad taste in his mouth.
Another Wikipedia mistake? This is widely credited but is not so. Crowland
tells us that both Morton and Rotherham were sent to imprisonment in castles in
Wales. We know where Morton went, of course, and an entry in Archbishop
Rotherham's register shows he was at Cardiff Castle, the capital of Richard's
Lordship of Glamorgan, as late as 24 September. This explains why he was not in
York to greet the king and Queen in late August - early September.
Henry did indeed only employ Rotherham as Chancellor very briefly, before
handing the Great Seal to John Alcock, who held it a bit longer but not very
long. Once Bishop Morton was home and had his feet under the table he became
Henry's chosen man.
Rotherham may simply have been past his best. He turned 60 in August 1483,
and so by the time Henry came to the throne he was 62, a respectable retirement
age even by today's standards.
Apparently he was impeached on an unknown charge during the PW conspiracy, so
it may be he was loyal first and foremost to Edward IV's line, and had been
persuaded by the Woodvilles from the outset that Richard posed a threat to its
continuity.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Marie
wrote:
Oops, I meant Northampton , not
Nottingham!
Caught it!
Well, the second time, anyway.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote:Perhaps using the town's name rather than his family's was a way of saying that the Church was now his family? Otherwise, I'm at a loss as well.Marie popping in:It was very common practice with monks (most of whom used a surname in those days) but not so much with secular ecclesiastics.Doug:I wonder if that error about Rotherham being freed in July 1483 merely wasn't another example of a London-centric history? Perhaps July was when the Archbishop left London, if not custody?Marie:I think it was an assumption based on lack of anybody having bothered to hunt out evidence beyond what was in the Cely and Stonor letters, which only record his arrest and the fact that he was still in the Tower a week later. Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs took things further with their article in The Ricardian on the letters from Morton and Rotherham's universities asking for clemency, but again the letter from Cambridge on Rotherham's behalf isn't dated and seems to have been written very soon after his arrest. I can't recall whether this article refers to the Cardiff entry, but I think it might. It is actually noted in a published source, the Testamenta Eboracensia, so should really have been picked up a long time ago, but probably nobody realised the significance.Doug: Your assessment about Rotherham being attached to Edward's line does seem to have the most support. It might even explain why Rotherham only served as Tudor's Lord Chancellor for such a short time; perhaps he was too vociferous in urging Henry to marry Elizabeth of York? Marie answers:Funnily I'd been wondering the same thing myself after I posted. His stint as Chancellor to Henry VII really was extremely short - less than three weeks (if Wikipedia says 3 months, they have it wrong again). Rotherham had in time worked himself back into Richard's good graces, and was readmitted to the Council, and helped negotiate with the Scots in 1484, but after his dismissal as Chancellor by Henry VII he retired to his diocese, in which he'd previously shown only limited interest, leaving the administration to the experienced and dependable William Poteman. Maybe it was ill health, but he was appointed Chancellor of Cambridge University as late as 1499. I'll have a look to see if Vergil has any comment on his disappearance from public life. If he says Henry couldn't forgive him for being reconciled with Richard, then I won't believe it because Henry was happy enough to appoint him as Chancellor four weeks after Bosworth.

Marie,
A thought occurred to
me just as I was preparing to file this post away. What if, besides urging too
vehemently that Henry marry Elizabeth of York, Henry discovered that Rotherham
didn't know exactly what had happened to young Edward and his brother? Other than their mother, and considering his attachment to
the family of Edward IV, Rotherham might easily have been expected to know what
had happened to them, and when he wasn't able to definitely confirm their
status, Henry, possibly already irked over Rotherham pushing a quick marriage to
Elizabeth of York, fired him.
While it almost
certainly doesn't mean anything, I found it interesting that both times
Rotherham was replaced as Lord Chancellor, his successor was
Alcock.
Doug
Marie
wrote:
Doug wrote:
Perhaps using the town's name rather
than his family's was a way of saying that the Church was now his family?
Otherwise, I'm at a loss as well.
Marie popping in:
It was very common practice with monks
(most of whom used a surname in those days) but not so much with secular
ecclesiastics.

Doug:
I wonder if that error about Rotherham
being freed in July 1483 merely wasn't another example of a London-centric
history? Perhaps July was when the Archbishop left London, if not custody?
Marie:
I think it was an assumption based on
lack of anybody having bothered to hunt out evidence beyond what was in the Cely
and Stonor letters, which only record his arrest and the fact that he was still
in the Tower a week later. Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs took things
further with their article in The Ricardian on the letters from Morton and
Rotherham's universities asking for clemency, but again the letter from
Cambridge on Rotherham's behalf isn't dated and seems to have been written very
soon after his arrest. I can't recall whether this article refers to the
Cardiff entry, but I think it might. It is actually noted in a published source,
the Testamenta Eboracensia, so should really have been picked up a long time
ago, but probably nobody realised the significance.

Doug:
Your assessment about Rotherham being
attached to Edward's line does seem to have the most support. It might even
explain why Rotherham only served as Tudor's Lord Chancellor for such a short
time; perhaps he was too vociferous in urging Henry to marry Elizabeth of York?
Marie answers:
Funnily I'd been wondering the same
thing myself after I posted. His stint as Chancellor to Henry VII really was
extremely short - less than three weeks (if Wikipedia says 3 months, they have
it wrong again). Rotherham had in time worked himself back into Richard's good
graces, and was readmitted to the Council, and helped negotiate with the Scots
in 1484, but after his dismissal as Chancellor by Henry VII he retired to his
diocese, in which he'd previously shown only limited interest, leaving the
administration to the experienced and dependable William Poteman. Maybe it was
ill health, but he was appointed Chancellor of Cambridge University as late as
1499. I'll have a look to see if Vergil has any comment on his disappearance
from public life. If he says Henry couldn't forgive him for being reconciled
with Richard, then I won't believe it because Henry was happy enough to appoint
him as Chancellor four weeks after Bosworth.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote:A thought occurred to me just as I was preparing to file this post away. What if, besides urging too vehemently that Henry marry Elizabeth of York, Henry discovered that Rotherham didn't know exactly what had happened to young Edward and his brother? Other than their mother, and considering his attachment to the family of Edward IV, Rotherham might easily have been expected to know what had happened to them, and when he wasn't able to definitely confirm their status, Henry, possibly already irked over Rotherham pushing a quick marriage to Elizabeth of York, fired him.Marie:I imagine Henry had his spies working flat out during Richard's reign, as much as anything with his mother's help, and probably wouldn't have expected someone who was out of favour and incarcerated in Wales at the time of the boys' disappearance to be able to provide any useful information about their fate. Whatever their fate, I suspect that Richard - if he properly knew himself and it wasn't something like a botched attempt to move them - would only have shared that information with his most trusted inner circle. I think it wouldn't simply have been a case of Rotherham pushing for a rushed wedding. Henry already knew, probably before Bosworth but certainly soon afterwards, that it wasn't going to be possible to account for Elizabeth's brothers, and thus he tried not to marry her at all. It became politically impossible not to, but that is something I plan to write about at more length. This may well have been a shocking revelation for Rotherham, whom I see as a naïve man, albeit one with great administrative gifts. Doug:While it almost certainly doesn't mean anything, I found it interesting that both times Rotherham was replaced as Lord Chancellor, his successor was Alcock.Marie:Not quite. Alcock had temporarily stepped in in place of Stillington for nine months (1472-3) on account of Stillington being ill,* but he wasn't the man who replaced Rotherham in 1483. Before he reached London, Richard authorized Cardinal Bourchier to take the Seal from Rotherham and act as its keeper until a new Chancellor could be properly appointed; when the appointment was made, of course, it went to Bishop Russell. In fact, Rous claims that Alcock was in Edward V's entourage when he came from Ludlow, and was one of those Richard sent away at Stony Stratford.*To change the subject on to something you haven't said at all, I do so wish Hall's mistaken belief that the frequently infirm Stillington was the Bishop of Bath who was sent to Brittany about Henry Tudor would just die a natural death. There, that's that off my chest.

Marie,
I'd
missed that about Bourchier being told to take the Great Seal, thus making him
rather than Alcock the interim Lord Chancellor! Obviously I'm going to have to
be more careful when it comes to Wikipedia's facts! Perhaps it'll be
best to view whatever is in a Wikipedia entry as presumed, and not
necessarily proven?
Another
thought on Rotherham's very short tenure as Lord Chancellor under Henry;
possibly he was appointed simply because of his arrest and confinement after
Hastings' execution? Tudor's presumption being that, if Rotherham had been
arrested and confined at the same time as Morton, he shared Morton's views? Yet
another puzzle...
Doug
Who
has his own quibbles with Hall...
Marie
wrote:
Doug
wrote:
A thought
occurred to me just as I was preparing to file this post away. What if, besides
urging too vehemently that Henry marry Elizabeth of York, Henry discovered that
Rotherham didn't know exactly what had happened to young Edward and his brother?
Other than their mother, and considering his
attachment to the family of Edward IV, Rotherham might easily have been expected
to know what had happened to them, and when he wasn't able to definitely confirm
their status, Henry, possibly already irked over Rotherham pushing a quick
marriage to Elizabeth of York, fired him.
Marie:
I imagine
Henry had his spies working flat out during Richard's reign, as much as anything
with his mother's help, and probably wouldn't have expected someone who was out
of favour and incarcerated in Wales at the time of the boys' disappearance to be
able to provide any useful information about their fate. Whatever their fate, I
suspect that Richard - if he properly knew himself and it wasn't something like
a botched attempt to move them - would only have shared that information with
his most trusted inner circle.
I think it
wouldn't simply have been a case of Rotherham pushing for a rushed
wedding. Henry already knew, probably before Bosworth but certainly soon
afterwards, that it wasn't going to be possible to account for Elizabeth's
brothers, and thus he tried not to marry her at all. It became politically
impossible not to, but that is something I plan to write about at more length.
This may well have been a shocking revelation for Rotherham, whom I see as a
naïve man, albeit one with great administrative gifts.

Doug:
While it
almost certainly doesn't mean anything, I found it interesting that both times
Rotherham was replaced as Lord Chancellor, his successor was
Alcock.
Marie:
Not quite. Alcock had temporarily stepped in in
place of Stillington for nine months (1472-3) on account of Stillington being
ill,* but he wasn't the man who replaced Rotherham in 1483. Before he reached
London, Richard authorized Cardinal Bourchier to take the Seal from Rotherham
and act as its keeper until a new Chancellor could be properly appointed; when
the appointment was made, of course, it went to Bishop Russell. In fact,
Rous claims that Alcock was in Edward V's entourage when he came from Ludlow,
and was one of those Richard sent away at Stony
Stratford.
*To change the subject on to something you haven't
said at all, I do so wish Hall's mistaken belief that the frequently infirm
Stillington was the Bishop of Bath who was sent to Brittany about Henry Tudor
would just die a natural death. There, that's off my
chest.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Doug, me catching up again.Firstly, on the Scot or Rotherham name, he appears in quite a few contemporary mentions as either. The deeds of Lincoln College have him as Thomas Scot (alias Rotherham), elsewhere he is both Thomas Scot and Thomas Rotherham. One theory is that his father was called Thomas Rotherham and his mother Alice Scot. Certainly the wills (Test Ebor) of himself and his brother John (died 1492) name them as Rotherham and the IPM of his nephew Sir Thomas In 1504 uses the name Rotherham. There was certainly a Thomas Rotherham, Coroner of York, who is mentioned in 1421. 'Dame Alice' his mother certainly seemed quite influential in her own right. She was writing to the Corporation of Grimsby in the 1470s as 'mother of the chancellor'.As Marie says names often do denote the place of origins of a person, particularly after the 'de' was dropped in the late fourteenth century. Our other Thomas, Beckington, did indeed come from Beckington in Somerset.Edward does seem to have heaped rewards on Rotherham, in particular lots of attainted lands in Bedfordshire and surrounding areas. He never gave Stillington any for the same job. And it was Edward himself who recommended Rotherham for the see of York - it's in the Foedora.There's an alternative parentage for Thomas, see below:"The History of Parliament, 1439-1509 Biography volume, provides someinteresting particulars in relation to John Rotherham of Luton, electedMP for Canterbury in 1472, and for Bedfordshire in 1478. He waseducated at Eton, and then went up to King's College, Cambridge -following in the footsteps of his elder brother, Thomas, afterwardsArchbishop of York. A freeman of Canterbury by 1469, he married AliceForster, the daughter of John and Jane Winter of Canterbury; appointedJP for Bedfordshire in 1472, he was Sheriff of Bucks and Beds in 1476-7and again 1488-9; died 1492 and left a PCC will.HoP says his father was "Sir John Rotherham alias Scott", and refers toMarl MS 4600 and Harl. Soc Pub XIX. This latter is the Visitations ofBedfordshire where, sub Rotheram, John's father is refered to as "Scottof Rotherham" (ie no Christian name).According to the Eton College registers (1441-1698), ed. Sir WaseySterry, John and Thomas (alias Scott) were sons of "Sir ThomasRotherham of Rotherham". Unsurprisingly, ODNB simply states that theidentity of their father is unknown (their mother was named Alice).Interestingly, the registers also add that John Rotheram was admittedto King's College on 14 September 1448, and that "one of the posthumousmiracles of Henry VI was the cure of his lunatic servant".This is from a genealogy site but hey ho! Thomas Forster, Alice's husband, came from Canterbury (her father left a will) but the Forster name is an interesting connection, given that Thomas benefited from John Forster of Luton, EW's treasurer and 1483 plotter. H
On Sunday, 28 July 2019, 15:46:26 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Marie,
A thought occurred to
me just as I was preparing to file this post away. What if, besides urging too
vehemently that Henry marry Elizabeth of York, Henry discovered that Rotherham
didn't know exactly what had happened to young Edward and his brother? Other than their mother, and considering his attachment to
the family of Edward IV, Rotherham might easily have been expected to know what
had happened to them, and when he wasn't able to definitely confirm their
status, Henry, possibly already irked over Rotherham pushing a quick marriage to
Elizabeth of York, fired him.
While it almost
certainly doesn't mean anything, I found it interesting that both times
Rotherham was replaced as Lord Chancellor, his successor was
Alcock.
Doug
Marie
wrote:
Doug wrote:
Perhaps using the town's name rather
than his family's was a way of saying that the Church was now his family?
Otherwise, I'm at a loss as well.
Marie popping in:
It was very common practice with monks
(most of whom used a surname in those days) but not so much with secular
ecclesiastics.

Doug:
I wonder if that error about Rotherham
being freed in July 1483 merely wasn't another example of a London-centric
history? Perhaps July was when the Archbishop left London, if not custody?
Marie:
I think it was an assumption based on
lack of anybody having bothered to hunt out evidence beyond what was in the Cely
and Stonor letters, which only record his arrest and the fact that he was still
in the Tower a week later. Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs took things
further with their article in The Ricardian on the letters from Morton and
Rotherham's universities asking for clemency, but again the letter from
Cambridge on Rotherham's behalf isn't dated and seems to have been written very
soon after his arrest. I can't recall whether this article refers to the
Cardiff entry, but I think it might. It is actually noted in a published source,
the Testamenta Eboracensia, so should really have been picked up a long time
ago, but probably nobody realised the significance.

Doug:
Your assessment about Rotherham being
attached to Edward's line does seem to have the most support. It might even
explain why Rotherham only served as Tudor's Lord Chancellor for such a short
time; perhaps he was too vociferous in urging Henry to marry Elizabeth of York?
Marie answers:
Funnily I'd been wondering the same
thing myself after I posted. His stint as Chancellor to Henry VII really was
extremely short - less than three weeks (if Wikipedia says 3 months, they have
it wrong again). Rotherham had in time worked himself back into Richard's good
graces, and was readmitted to the Council, and helped negotiate with the Scots
in 1484, but after his dismissal as Chancellor by Henry VII he retired to his
diocese, in which he'd previously shown only limited interest, leaving the
administration to the experienced and dependable William Poteman. Maybe it was
ill health, but he was appointed Chancellor of Cambridge University as late as
1499. I'll have a look to see if Vergil has any comment on his disappearance
from public life. If he says Henry couldn't forgive him for being reconciled
with Richard, then I won't believe it because Henry was happy enough to appoint
him as Chancellor four weeks after Bosworth.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
So
it rather looks as if what may have happened is that the de got dropped at
some point and from there on he became generally known simply Rotherham? I
believe Marie mentioned that the name Scot might have been viewed with some
disfavor and that could be why his brother used Rotherham as well. As for his
mother being known as Alice Scot; well, wouldn't that have been her legal
married name?
If
I understand the genealogy entry correctly, Archbishop Rotherham's brother John
married an Alice Forster from Canterbury, the daughter of John Forster and his
wife Jane (Winter) Forster. Is this John Forster, Rotherham's brother's
father-in-law, our Forster? (I think I got the relationship
correct?)
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, me catching up again.
Firstly, on the Scot or Rotherham name, he appears in quite a few
contemporary mentions as either. The deeds of Lincoln College have him as Thomas
Scot (alias Rotherham), elsewhere he is both Thomas Scot and Thomas Rotherham.
One theory is that his father was called Thomas Rotherham and his mother
Alice Scot. Certainly the wills (Test Ebor) of himself and his brother John
(died 1492) name them as Rotherham and the IPM of his nephew Sir Thomas In 1504
uses the name Rotherham. There was certainly a Thomas Rotherham, Coroner of
York, who is mentioned in 1421. 'Dame Alice' his mother certainly seemed quite
influential in her own right. She was writing to the Corporation of Grimsby in
the 1470s as 'mother of the chancellor'.
As Marie says names often do denote the place of origins of a person,
particularly after the 'de' was dropped in the late fourteenth century. Our
other Thomas, Beckington, did indeed come from Beckington in Somerset.
Edward does seem to have heaped rewards on Rotherham, in particular lots of
attainted lands in Bedfordshire and surrounding areas. He never gave Stillington
any for the same job. And it was Edward himself who recommended Rotherham for
the see of York - it's in the Foedora.
There's an alternative parentage for Thomas, see below:
"The
History of Parliament, 1439-1509 Biography volume, provides someinteresting
particulars in relation to John Rotherham of Luton, electedMP
for Canterbury in 1472, and for Bedfordshire in 1478. He waseducated
at Eton, and then went up to King's College, Cambridge -following
in the footsteps of his elder brother, Thomas, afterwardsArchbishop
of York. A freeman of Canterbury by 1469, he married AliceForster,
the daughter of John and Jane Winter of Canterbury; appointedJP
for Bedfordshire in 1472, he was Sheriff of Bucks and Beds in 1476-7and
again 1488-9; died 1492 and left a PCC will.HoP
says his father was "Sir John Rotherham alias Scott", and refers toMarl
MS 4600 and Harl. Soc Pub XIX. This latter is the Visitations ofBedfordshire
where, sub Rotheram, John's father is refered to as "Scottof
Rotherham" (ie no Christian name)..According
to the Eton College registers (1441-1698), ed. Sir WaseySterry,
John and Thomas (alias Scott) were sons of "Sir ThomasRotherham
of Rotherham". Unsurprisingly, ODNB simply states that theidentity
of their father is unknown (their mother was named Alice).Interestingly,
the registers also add that John Rotheram was admittedto
King's College on 14 September 1448, and that "one of the posthumousmiracles
of Henry VI was the cure of his lunatic
servant".
This is from a genealogy site but hey ho!
Thomas Forster, Alice's husband, came from Canterbury (her father left a will)
but the Forster name is an interesting connection, given that Thomas benefited
from John Forster of Luton, EW's treasurer and 1483 plotter.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote:If I understand the genealogy entry correctly, Archbishop Rotherham's brother John married an Alice Forster from Canterbury, the daughter of John Forster and his wife Jane (Winter) Forster. Is this John Forster, Rotherham's brother's father-in-law, our Forster? (I think I got the relationship correct?)Sorry no! John Rotherham (Tom's brother) married Alice Wynter, the daughter of John Wynter MP and Joane his wife. Alice married 3 times, first to William Denington, then to Thomas Forster (who is buried at Canterbury and mentioned in her father's will) and thirdly to John Rotherham. I have been able to check this out and it's true: 'Alice widow of John Rotherham, to William Roos, William Patrik and Thomas Pawston, their heirs and assigns. Gift by charter with warranty of all those lands and tenements, rents and services in Canterbury or elsewhere in Kent, formerly of Thomas Forster, and of a certain tenement of John Wynter in St. Margaret's parish Canterbury: another called 'the Bull' in High Street and a third in Jury Lane: and appointment of John Beell and Roger Blythe as her attorneys etc. to convey seisin of the same.Feb. 24. Indenture triplicate, whereby the said William Roos etc. has confirmed to the said Alice all the above lands etc. in Canterbury, for term of her life without impeachment of waste, with remainder to Thomas her son, and George her son: the lands of John Wynter to George Rotherham: 'the Bull' and tenement in Jury Lane to Alice her daughter, with remainder to Joan Rotherham sister of Alice and the right heirs of Alice; and appointment of James Ace and Richard Wellis as her attorneys, jointly and severally to convey seisin of the same.Memorandum of acknowledgment of the foregoing writings, 7 March. 1492'This is a lovely example of where a visitation is wrong since it gives her name as Alice Becket.I can't yet tie in Thomas Forster with John Forster, EW's Treasurer, who came from London and was the son of Stephen Forster, Mayor. We know he had a brothers Robert and Stephen and a sister Agnes who married Robert Morton of Bawtry possibly a distant relative of Bishop John. Robert Morton fought for Richard at Bosworth and praises him in his will. Incidentally, Bawtry is just down the road from Rotherham.(Still waiting for that Will, Marie, but was late sending for it) H
On Wednesday, 31 July 2019, 05:35:38 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary,
So
it rather looks as if what may have happened is that the de got dropped at
some point and from there on he became generally known simply Rotherham? I
believe Marie mentioned that the name Scot might have been viewed with some
disfavor and that could be why his brother used Rotherham as well. As for his
mother being known as Alice Scot; well, wouldn't that have been her legal
married name?
If
I understand the genealogy entry correctly, Archbishop Rotherham's brother John
married an Alice Forster from Canterbury, the daughter of John Forster and his
wife Jane (Winter) Forster. Is this John Forster, Rotherham's brother's
father-in-law, our Forster? (I think I got the relationship
correct?)
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, me catching up again.
Firstly, on the Scot or Rotherham name, he appears in quite a few
contemporary mentions as either. The deeds of Lincoln College have him as Thomas
Scot (alias Rotherham), elsewhere he is both Thomas Scot and Thomas Rotherham.
One theory is that his father was called Thomas Rotherham and his mother
Alice Scot. Certainly the wills (Test Ebor) of himself and his brother John
(died 1492) name them as Rotherham and the IPM of his nephew Sir Thomas In 1504
uses the name Rotherham. There was certainly a Thomas Rotherham, Coroner of
York, who is mentioned in 1421. 'Dame Alice' his mother certainly seemed quite
influential in her own right. She was writing to the Corporation of Grimsby in
the 1470s as 'mother of the chancellor'.
As Marie says names often do denote the place of origins of a person,
particularly after the 'de' was dropped in the late fourteenth century. Our
other Thomas, Beckington, did indeed come from Beckington in Somerset.
Edward does seem to have heaped rewards on Rotherham, in particular lots of
attainted lands in Bedfordshire and surrounding areas. He never gave Stillington
any for the same job. And it was Edward himself who recommended Rotherham for
the see of York - it's in the Foedora.
There's an alternative parentage for Thomas, see below:
"The
History of Parliament, 1439-1509 Biography volume, provides someinteresting
particulars in relation to John Rotherham of Luton, electedMP
for Canterbury in 1472, and for Bedfordshire in 1478. He waseducated
at Eton, and then went up to King's College, Cambridge -following
in the footsteps of his elder brother, Thomas, afterwardsArchbishop
of York. A freeman of Canterbury by 1469, he married AliceForster,
the daughter of John and Jane Winter of Canterbury; appointedJP
for Bedfordshire in 1472, he was Sheriff of Bucks and Beds in 1476-7and
again 1488-9; died 1492 and left a PCC will.HoP
says his father was "Sir John Rotherham alias Scott", and refers toMarl
MS 4600 and Harl. Soc Pub XIX. This latter is the Visitations ofBedfordshire
where, sub Rotheram, John's father is refered to as "Scottof
Rotherham" (ie no Christian name)..According
to the Eton College registers (1441-1698), ed. Sir WaseySterry,
John and Thomas (alias Scott) were sons of "Sir ThomasRotherham
of Rotherham". Unsurprisingly, ODNB simply states that theidentity
of their father is unknown (their mother was named Alice).Interestingly,
the registers also add that John Rotheram was admittedto
King's College on 14 September 1448, and that "one of the posthumousmiracles
of Henry VI was the cure of his lunatic
servant".
This is from a genealogy site but hey ho!
Thomas Forster, Alice's husband, came from Canterbury (her father left a will)
but the Forster name is an interesting connection, given that Thomas benefited
from John Forster of Luton, EW's treasurer and 1483 plotter.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi having checked here I made a mistake about the Robert Morton who was married to John Forster's sister. He was indeed a lawyer, but he was also a kinsman to Bishop John. He is mentioned in several documents with the other Robert Morton and Thomas Morton. He died in 1486. And here we have them all together:C 1/102/10Description:Short title: Morton v Carnebull.Plaintiffs: Robert, son of Robert Morton and Agnes, his wife.Defendants: Henry Carnebull, clerk, Thomas Burton, and others, feoffees to uses.Subject:a) The manor of Mullesworth, late of John Forster, esquire, of London, deceased, in Hunts, and Northants, Robert Morton, bishop of Worcester,Thomas Bryan, and John Fortescu, knights, and others, feoffees to uses:b) The manor of Mawdeleyns, late of the said John: Herts Thomas [Rotheram], archbishop of York, William Say, knight, and John Sturgeon, feoffees to uses:c)The manor of Weldhall, and lands in St Albans, Park, Soken, Shenley, Tydbrist, and Aldenham, late of the said John.(Annexed are interpleaders by the said Agnes, and by John Verney, knight, and Margaret, his wife.): Herts.11 documentsDate:1486-1493Carnebull was a friend of Rotherham and continued some of his works after his death. He was also an archdeacon and a Yorkshireman. Sorry again! H
On Wednesday, 31 July 2019, 12:04:06 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:



Doug wrote:If I understand the genealogy entry correctly, Archbishop Rotherham's brother John married an Alice Forster from Canterbury, the daughter of John Forster and his wife Jane (Winter) Forster. Is this John Forster, Rotherham's brother's father-in-law, our Forster? (I think I got the relationship correct?)Sorry no! John Rotherham (Tom's brother) married Alice Wynter, the daughter of John Wynter MP and Joane his wife. Alice married 3 times, first to William Denington, then to Thomas Forster (who is buried at Canterbury and mentioned in her father's will) and thirdly to John Rotherham. I have been able to check this out and it's true: 'Alice widow of John Rotherham, to William Roos, William Patrik and Thomas Pawston, their heirs and assigns. Gift by charter with warranty of all those lands and tenements, rents and services in Canterbury or elsewhere in Kent, formerly of Thomas Forster, and of a certain tenement of John Wynter in St. Margaret's parish Canterbury: another called 'the Bull' in High Street and a third in Jury Lane: and appointment of John Beell and Roger Blythe as her attorneys etc. to convey seisin of the same.Feb. 24. Indenture triplicate, whereby the said William Roos etc. has confirmed to the said Alice all the above lands etc. in Canterbury, for term of her life without impeachment of waste, with remainder to Thomas her son, and George her son: the lands of John Wynter to George Rotherham: 'the Bull' and tenement in Jury Lane to Alice her daughter, with remainder to Joan Rotherham sister of Alice and the right heirs of Alice; and appointment of James Ace and Richard Wellis as her attorneys, jointly and severally to convey seisin of the same.Memorandum of acknowledgment of the foregoing writings, 7 March. 1492'This is a lovely example of where a visitation is wrong since it gives her name as Alice Becket.I can't yet tie in Thomas Forster with John Forster, EW's Treasurer, who came from London and was the son of Stephen Forster, Mayor. We know he had a brothers Robert and Stephen and a sister Agnes who married Robert Morton of Bawtry possibly a distant relative of Bishop John. Robert Morton fought for Richard at Bosworth and praises him in his will. Incidentally, Bawtry is just down the road from Rotherham.(Still waiting for that Will, Marie, but was late sending for it) H
On Wednesday, 31 July 2019, 05:35:38 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary,
So
it rather looks as if what may have happened is that the de got dropped at
some point and from there on he became generally known simply Rotherham? I
believe Marie mentioned that the name Scot might have been viewed with some
disfavor and that could be why his brother used Rotherham as well. As for his
mother being known as Alice Scot; well, wouldn't that have been her legal
married name?
If
I understand the genealogy entry correctly, Archbishop Rotherham's brother John
married an Alice Forster from Canterbury, the daughter of John Forster and his
wife Jane (Winter) Forster. Is this John Forster, Rotherham's brother's
father-in-law, our Forster? (I think I got the relationship
correct?)
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, me catching up again.
Firstly, on the Scot or Rotherham name, he appears in quite a few
contemporary mentions as either. The deeds of Lincoln College have him as Thomas
Scot (alias Rotherham), elsewhere he is both Thomas Scot and Thomas Rotherham.
One theory is that his father was called Thomas Rotherham and his mother
Alice Scot. Certainly the wills (Test Ebor) of himself and his brother John
(died 1492) name them as Rotherham and the IPM of his nephew Sir Thomas In 1504
uses the name Rotherham. There was certainly a Thomas Rotherham, Coroner of
York, who is mentioned in 1421. 'Dame Alice' his mother certainly seemed quite
influential in her own right. She was writing to the Corporation of Grimsby in
the 1470s as 'mother of the chancellor'.
As Marie says names often do denote the place of origins of a person,
particularly after the 'de' was dropped in the late fourteenth century. Our
other Thomas, Beckington, did indeed come from Beckington in Somerset.
Edward does seem to have heaped rewards on Rotherham, in particular lots of
attainted lands in Bedfordshire and surrounding areas. He never gave Stillington
any for the same job. And it was Edward himself who recommended Rotherham for
the see of York - it's in the Foedora.
There's an alternative parentage for Thomas, see below:
"The
History of Parliament, 1439-1509 Biography volume, provides someinteresting
particulars in relation to John Rotherham of Luton, electedMP
for Canterbury in 1472, and for Bedfordshire in 1478. He waseducated
at Eton, and then went up to King's College, Cambridge -following
in the footsteps of his elder brother, Thomas, afterwardsArchbishop
of York. A freeman of Canterbury by 1469, he married AliceForster,
the daughter of John and Jane Winter of Canterbury; appointedJP
for Bedfordshire in 1472, he was Sheriff of Bucks and Beds in 1476-7and
again 1488-9; died 1492 and left a PCC will.HoP
says his father was "Sir John Rotherham alias Scott", and refers toMarl
MS 4600 and Harl. Soc Pub XIX. This latter is the Visitations ofBedfordshire
where, sub Rotheram, John's father is refered to as "Scottof
Rotherham" (ie no Christian name)..According
to the Eton College registers (1441-1698), ed. Sir WaseySterry,
John and Thomas (alias Scott) were sons of "Sir ThomasRotherham
of Rotherham". Unsurprisingly, ODNB simply states that theidentity
of their father is unknown (their mother was named Alice).Interestingly,
the registers also add that John Rotheram was admittedto
King's College on 14 September 1448, and that "one of the posthumousmiracles
of Henry VI was the cure of his lunatic
servant".
This is from a genealogy site but hey ho!
Thomas Forster, Alice's husband, came from Canterbury (her father left a will)
but the Forster name is an interesting connection, given that Thomas benefited
from John Forster of Luton, EW's treasurer and 1483 plotter.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
I
didn't even think of the possibility of multiple marriages, so thanks for the
clarification!
The
Forster to whom she was married may, or may not, have been some relation to
our John Forster, but any link has yet to be determined. OTOH, Alice's third
marriage most definitely was to the brother of Archbishop Rotherham. Further
than that, we can't go  yet.
Now,
our Forster, John Forster, had a sister named Agnes who married one Robert
Morton (of Bawtry) who, again, may or may not have been related to Bishop John
Morton. And just to make things interesting, Bawtry is, what, 15-20 miles east
of Rotherham?
So
might possibly maybe perhaps be able to tie our Forster in with Archbishop
Rotherham via geography and to Bishop Morton via her marriage? Good
grief!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
wrote:
If I understand the genealogy entry correctly,
Archbishop Rotherham's brother John married an Alice Forster from Canterbury,
the daughter of John Forster and his wife Jane (Winter) Forster. Is this John
Forster, Rotherham's brother's father-in-law, our Forster? (I think I got the
relationship correct?)
Sorry no! John Rotherham (Tom's brother) married
Alice Wynter, the daughter of John Wynter MP and Joane his wife. Alice married 3
times, first to William Denington, then to Thomas Forster (who is buried at
Canterbury and mentioned in her father's will) and thirdly to John Rotherham. I
have been able to check this out and it's true:
'Alice widow of John Rotherham, to William Roos, William Patrik and
Thomas Pawston, their heirs and assigns. Gift by charter with warranty of all
those lands and tenements, rents and services in Canterbury or elsewhere in
Kent, formerly of Thomas Forster, and of a certain tenement of John Wynter in
St. Margaret's parish Canterbury: another called 'the Bull' in High Street and a
third in Jury Lane: and appointment of John Beell and Roger Blythe as her
attorneys etc. to convey seisin of the same.
Feb. 24. Indenture
triplicate, whereby the said William Roos etc. has confirmed to the said Alice
all the above lands etc. in Canterbury, for term of her life without impeachment
of waste, with remainder to Thomas her son, and George her son: the lands of
John Wynter to George Rotherham: 'the Bull' and tenement in Jury Lane to Alice
her daughter, with remainder to Joan Rotherham sister of Alice and the right
heirs of Alice; and appointment of James Ace and Richard Wellis as her
attorneys, jointly and severally to convey seisin of the same.
Memorandum of acknowledgment of the foregoing writings, 7 March.
1492'
This is a lovely example of where a visitation is wrong since it gives her
name as Alice Becket.
I can't yet tie in Thomas Forster with John Forster, EW's Treasurer, who
came from London and was the son of Stephen Forster, Mayor. We know he had
a brothers Robert and Stephen and a sister Agnes who married Robert Morton of
Bawtry possibly a distant relative of Bishop John. Robert Morton fought
for Richard at Bosworth and praises him in his will. Incidentally, Bawtry is
just down the road from Rotherham.
(Still waiting for that Will, Marie, but was late sending for it)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
So
we have two Robert Mortons, father and son?
FWIW,
when I went to Wikipedia and typed in Robert Morton Bishop of
Worcester the following article popped up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morton_(bishop)
According
to the article, this Robert Morton was John Morton's nephew and was with
Tudor at Bosworth, so is this just
a
case of two different men with the same name?
IOW,
we have a Robert Morton who married Agnes, John Forster's sister and had a son
also named Robert. Then we have another Robert Morton who definitely was John
Morton's nephew and also became Bishop of Worcester. What the links, if any,
between the two Roberts aren't known (other than their names).
Did
I get it right?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
having checked here I made a mistake about the Robert Morton who was married to
John Forster's sister. He was indeed a lawyer, but he was also a kinsman to
Bishop John. He is mentioned in several documents with the other Robert Morton
and Thomas Morton. He died in 1486. And here we have them all
together:
C 1/102/10
Description:
Short title:
Morton v Carnebull.
Plaintiffs:
Robert, son of Robert Morton and Agnes, his wife.
Defendants: Henry
Carnebull, clerk, Thomas Burton, and others, feoffees to
uses.
Subject:
a) The manor of Mullesworth, late of John Forster, esquire, of
London, deceased, in Hunts, and Northants, Robert Morton, bishop of
Worcester,Thomas Bryan, and John Fortescu, knights, and others, feoffees
to uses:
b) The manor of Mawdeleyns, late of the said John: Herts
Thomas [Rotheram], archbishop of York, William Say, knight, and John
Sturgeon, feoffees to uses:
c)The manor of Weldhall, and lands in St Albans, Park, Soken,
Shenley, Tydbrist, and Aldenham, late of the said
John.

(Annexed are
interpleaders by the said Agnes, and by John Verney, knight, and Margaret,
his wife.): Herts.
11
documents
Date:
1486-1493Carnebull was a friend of Rotherham and continued some of his works after
his death. He was also an archdeacon and a Yorkshireman.
Sorry again!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug we actually have at least four! 1. Robert Morton of York who fought for Richard at Bosworth, died in 1493, and said he was a 'most excellent King'. He was of the Bawtry/York direct branch2. Robert Morton, later Bishop of Worcester, Master of the Rolls, son of Archbishop John's brother William. The Thomas mentioned in some of the documents is also William's son. He was married to Dorothy Twynyho.3. Robert Morton who married Agnes Forster, sister of John. He seems to have been descended from the Archbishop's uncle, another William of Cerne, Dorset. Lots of documents connect him to Archbishop John, whose arms appear on his granddaughter's tomb. 4. Robert Morton, their son, who married Dorothy Fitzjames, daughter of Sir John Fitzjames, Lord Chief Justice and Baron of the Exchequer. Interestlingly their son, yet another Robert married into the Moyle/Finch family i.e. of Sir Thomas Moyle in the Richard of Eastwell case.Fun isn't it? H(Then of course there was Uncle Robert of Pulham who died in 1467)
On Thursday, 1 August 2019, 15:59:08 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary,
So
we have two Robert Mortons, father and son?
FWIW,
when I went to Wikipedia and typed in Robert Morton Bishop of
Worcester the following article popped up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morton_(bishop)
According
to the article, this Robert Morton was John Morton's nephew and was with
Tudor at Bosworth, so is this just
a
case of two different men with the same name?
IOW,
we have a Robert Morton who married Agnes, John Forster's sister and had a son
also named Robert. Then we have another Robert Morton who definitely was John
Morton's nephew and also became Bishop of Worcester. What the links, if any,
between the two Roberts aren't known (other than their names).
Did
I get it right?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
having checked here I made a mistake about the Robert Morton who was married to
John Forster's sister. He was indeed a lawyer, but he was also a kinsman to
Bishop John. He is mentioned in several documents with the other Robert Morton
and Thomas Morton. He died in 1486. And here we have them all
together:
C 1/102/10Description:
Short title:
Morton v Carnebull.
Plaintiffs:
Robert, son of Robert Morton and Agnes, his wife.
Defendants: Henry
Carnebull, clerk, Thomas Burton, and others, feoffees to
uses.
Subject:
a) The manor of Mullesworth, late of John Forster, esquire, of
London, deceased, in Hunts, and Northants, Robert Morton, bishop of
Worcester,Thomas Bryan, and John Fortescu, knights, and others, feoffees
to uses:
b) The manor of Mawdeleyns, late of the said John: Herts
Thomas [Rotheram], archbishop of York, William Say, knight, and John
Sturgeon, feoffees to uses:
c)The manor of Weldhall, and lands in St Albans, Park, Soken,
Shenley, Tydbrist, and Aldenham, late of the said
John.

(Annexed are
interpleaders by the said Agnes, and by John Verney, knight, and Margaret,
his wife.): Herts.
11
documentsDate:1486-1493Carnebull was a friend of Rotherham and continued some of his works after
his death. He was also an archdeacon and a Yorkshireman.
Sorry again!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
How
did anyone ever keep this straight before computers? I
t
certainly helps explain all those families, searching for long-lost relatives of
good stock to glom onto, who've managed to go, um, astray...deliberately or
not.
You
said that Robert #1 was of the direct branch from York. Does that mean that
the others were offshoots, so to speak, of that line?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
we actually have at least four!
1.
Robert Morton of York who fought for Richard at Bosworth, died in 1493, and said
he was a most excellent King.' He was of the Bawtry/York direct
branch.
2. Robert Morton, later Bishop of Worcester, Master of the Rolls, son of
Archbishop John's brother William. The Thomas mentioned in some of the documents
is also William's son. He was married to Dorothy Twynyho.
3. Robert Morton who married Agnes Forster, sister of John. He seems to
have been descended from the Archbishop's uncle, another William of Cerne,
Dorset. Lots of documents connect him to Archbishop John, whose arms appear on
his granddaughter's tomb.
4. Robert Morton, their son, who married Dorothy Fitzjames, daughter of Sir
John Fitzjames, Lord Chief Justice and Baron of the Exchequer. Interestlingly
their son, yet another Robert married into the Moyle/Finch family i.e. of Sir
Thomas Moyle in the Richard of Eastwell case.
Fun isn't it?
(Then of course there was Uncle Robert of Pulham who died in 1467)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Exactly Doug. I have the greatest respect for those who toiled with paper and pen, or even quill and paper!The most prestigious branch of the family came from Bawtry, which is down the road from Rotherham. But they were also (like the Stillingtons) Chancellors of York. We know the York and Bawtry are related because we have their wills. After digging around in the Dorset Fines I can date the Dorset branch from the end of the fourteenth century so I would speculate that they came from a younger son who married into land there. Certainly it's the woman who holds the land.We then have 'Uncle Robert' from Pulsham, Norfolk, to whom Bishop John devoted a memorial window. We know he's from Bawtry because he's in his father's will. He left a will and I've ordered it from Norwich RO. That would clinch it.Talking about the Bawtry Mortons though, they are supposed to descend from 'Thomas Morton, Secretary to Edward III'. I have yet to find a single mention of him despite his prestige. Though I did find a Thomas Morton, Archer to Edward III!!! H
On Saturday, 3 August 2019, 14:13:26 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary,
How
did anyone ever keep this straight before computers? I
t
certainly helps explain all those families, searching for long-lost relatives of
good stock to glom onto, who've managed to go, um, astray...deliberately or
not.
You
said that Robert #1 was of the direct branch from York. Does that mean that
the others were offshoots, so to speak, of that line?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
we actually have at least four!
1.
Robert Morton of York who fought for Richard at Bosworth, died in 1493, and said
he was a most excellent King.' He was of the Bawtry/York direct
branch.
2. Robert Morton, later Bishop of Worcester, Master of the Rolls, son of
Archbishop John's brother William. The Thomas mentioned in some of the documents
is also William's son. He was married to Dorothy Twynyho.
3. Robert Morton who married Agnes Forster, sister of John. He seems to
have been descended from the Archbishop's uncle, another William of Cerne,
Dorset. Lots of documents connect him to Archbishop John, whose arms appear on
his granddaughter's tomb.
4. Robert Morton, their son, who married Dorothy Fitzjames, daughter of Sir
John Fitzjames, Lord Chief Justice and Baron of the Exchequer. Interestlingly
their son, yet another Robert married into the Moyle/Finch family i.e. of Sir
Thomas Moyle in the Richard of Eastwell case.
Fun isn't it?
(Then of course there was Uncle Robert of Pulham who died in 1467)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
My sympathies are for anyone who had to
completely re-write several generations because new information was
found!
I wonder if being from a junior branch of the
family might partially account for Bishop Morton's determination to not keep his
abilities under a bushel?
Even if it meant treason...
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Exactly
Doug. I have the greatest respect for those who toiled with paper and pen, or
even quill and paper!
The most prestigious branch of the family came from Bawtry, which is down
the road from Rotherham. But they were also (like the Stillingtons) Chancellors
of York. We know the York and Bawtry are related because we have their wills.
After digging around in the Dorset Fines I can date the Dorset branch from the
end of the fourteenth century so I would speculate that they came from a younger
son who married into land there. Certainly it's the woman who holds the
land.
We then have 'Uncle Robert' from Pulsham, Norfolk, to whom Bishop John
devoted a memorial window. We know he's from Bawtry because he's in his father's
will. He left a will and I've ordered it from Norwich RO. That would clinch
it.
Talking about the Bawtry Mortons though, they are supposed to descend from
'Thomas Morton, Secretary to Edward III'. I have yet to find a single
mention of him despite his prestige. Though I did find a Thomas Morton,
Archer to Edward III!!!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.