Stillington - Lateran Regestra

Here we are Marie:

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

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

On Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> 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?

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019, 3:32 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> 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?

On Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> 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?

On Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> 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?

Sorry not will, IPM, which doesn't surface till the reign of HT


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019, 3:32 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> 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?

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'?
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 HT


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019, 3:32 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> 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?

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 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'?
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 HT


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019, 3:32 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On Monday, July 8, 2019, 5:23 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> 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?

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:

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.

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.

BackReplyViewNextPrevious

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:

BackReplyViewNextPrevious

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.

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.

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; 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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

(Annexed are interpleaders by the said Agnes, and by John Verney, knight, and Margaret, his wife.): Herts.

11 documents

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:

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:

(Annexed are interpleaders by the said Agnes, and by John Verney, knight, and Margaret, his wife.): Herts.

11 documents

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:

(Annexed are interpleaders by the said Agnes, and by John Verney, knight, and Margaret, his wife.): Herts.

11 documents