Sir Thomas Vaughan

Hi all,

Sorry I couldn't find the original thread for this, but I actually went ahead and ordered a copy of the Monmouth document from TNA, and (after they initially sent me the wrong thing, as they do) it finally came and I transcribed it.

I don't think it's worth posting to files as the quality isn't a whole lot better than what we saw online.

Basically, it absolutely confirms that Sir Thomas's parents were Robert Vaughan Esquire and his wife Margaret. It doesn't say where they had lived.

What the TNA doc is, is a copy of tripartite indentures that were issued in tandem with an obligation (scriptum obligatorium) which would have set out the deal between Vaughan and Monmouth Priory in more detail. The indentures were really only there to ensure that the priory paid the agreed penalty if it failed to set the chantry up in time, or let the daily prayers lapse at any point (for 16 or 20 days - why the choice I don't know). The basic details are:-

Date: 20 February 1477, 17EIV (i.e. 1478)

Founder of chantry: Sir Thomas Vaughan, Chamberlain to Prince of Wales

Place prayers to be said: Monmouth Priory, diocese of Hereford

People to be prayed for: The King, Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, Sir Thomas's parents Robert Vaughan esquire and his wife Margaret, and all their friends and benefactors

Duration of chantry: perpetual

Penalty for non-compliance: Monmounth Priory to pay £200 to the Abbot of Westminster and the Chapter of Llandaff

Circumstances under which penalty payable: (a) if chaplain not in place and doing his job by the coming Easter Day, or (b) if chantry lapses at any point for more than 16-20 days.

As regards the £200 penalty - I'm assuming this would have been the size of Vaughan's endowment to Monmouth Priory to fund the chantry, but if anyone has any other ideas I'd be grateful to know. It's an awful lot of money.

Now, the other obvious question (which I remember being asked before) was why the Abbot of Westminster and the Chapter of Llandaff? Well, at this time the Bishop of Hereford (in whose diocese Monmouth Priory lay) and the Abbot of Westminster were the same person, i.e. Thomas Millyng.

Most of Monmouth, however, must have lain in the Diocese of Landaff as the modern diocese of Monmouth was formed out of part of the diocese of Llandaff. The reason only the Chapter of Llandaff is mentioned, and not the Bishop, is that the see was vacant at this time, the previous bishop having died on 29 January.

I think the deeds were probably all signed and sealed at Westminster, though it doesn't say. Parliament was just finishing, of course, so abbots, bishops and priors would have been at Westminster.

Now the other thing I noticed, which I don't know if I'd noticed before, is that this deed has the exact same date as the royal warrant for the grant of denizenship to Richard's Welsh servant Richard ap Robert ap Ivan Vaughan, which seems an awful coincidence. And that grant actually cites his good service to the king as the reason, not good service to Richard.

So is it possible that Richard ap Robert really was Sir Thomas' brother, and both these grants represent some sort of royal favour being shown to Sir Thomas Vaughan?

If I were doing a Michael Hicks, of course, I'd point out that all this is straight after Clarence's execution.

Happy Robert hunting,

Marie

Hi all,

Sorry I couldn't find the original thread for this, but I actually went ahead and ordered a copy of the Monmouth document from TNA, and (after they initially sent me the wrong thing, as they do) it finally came and I transcribed it.

I don't think it's worth posting to files as the quality isn't a whole lot better than what we saw online.

Basically, it absolutely confirms that Sir Thomas's parents were Robert Vaughan Esquire and his wife Margaret. It doesn't say where they had lived.

What the TNA doc is, is a copy of tripartite indentures that were issued in tandem with an obligation (scriptum obligatorium) which would have set out the deal between Vaughan and Monmouth Priory in more detail. The indentures were really only there to ensure that the priory paid the agreed penalty if it failed to set the chantry up in time, or let the daily prayers lapse at any point (for 16 or 20 days - why the choice I don't know). The basic details are:-

Date: 20 February 1477, 17EIV (i.e. 1478)

Founder of chantry: Sir Thomas Vaughan, Chamberlain to Prince of Wales

Place prayers to be said: Monmouth Priory, diocese of Hereford

People to be prayed for: The King, Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas Vaughan, Sir Thomas's parents Robert Vaughan esquire and his wife Margaret, and all their friends and benefactors

Duration of chantry: perpetual

Penalty for non-compliance: Monmounth Priory to pay £200 to the Abbot of Westminster and the Chapter of Llandaff

Circumstances under which penalty payable: (a) if chaplain not in place and doing his job by the coming Easter Day, or (b) if chantry lapses at any point for more than 16-20 days.

As regards the £200 penalty - I'm assuming this would have been the size of Vaughan's endowment to Monmouth Priory to fund the chantry, but if anyone has any other ideas I'd be grateful to know. It's an awful lot of money.

Now, the other obvious question (which I remember being asked before) was why the Abbot of Westminster and the Chapter of Llandaff? Well, at this time the Bishop of Hereford (in whose diocese Monmouth Priory lay) and the Abbot of Westminster were the same person, i.e. Thomas Millyng.

Most of Monmouth, however, must have lain in the Diocese of Landaff as the modern diocese of Monmouth was formed out of part of the diocese of Llandaff. The reason only the Chapter of Llandaff is mentioned, and not the Bishop, is that the see was vacant at this time, the previous bishop having died on 29 January.

I think the deeds were probably all signed and sealed at Westminster, though it doesn't say. Parliament was just finishing, of course, so abbots, bishops and priors would have been at Westminster.

Now the other thing I noticed, which I don't know if I'd noticed before, is that this deed has the exact same date as the royal warrant for the grant of denizenship to Richard's Welsh servant Richard ap Robert ap Ivan Vaughan, which seems an awful coincidence. And that grant actually cites his good service to the king as the reason, not good service to Richard.

So is it possible that Richard ap Robert really was Sir Thomas' brother, and both these grants represent some sort of royal favour being shown to Sir Thomas Vaughan?

If I were doing a Michael Hicks, of course, I'd point out that all this is straight after Clarence's execution.

Happy Robert hunting,

Marie

Hi, I'd ordered it ages ago too and they sent me the wrong thing - though it was very pretty writing. Thanks and thanks BTW for the bit on Forster, Hastings and St Albans. I'm all behind at the moment. H

Marie:

Did they send you the leper sisters as well?

Hi, I'd ordered it ages ago too and they sent me the wrong thing - though it was very pretty writing. Thanks and thanks BTW for the bit on Forster, Hastings and St Albans. I'm all behind at the moment. H

Marie:

Did they send you the leper sisters as well?

Nico wrote:Thank you so much for the transcription of the Vaughan document. It is very interesting.I never realized how much people paid for these chantries. According to the NA calculator £200 would now be worth £138,257.66, more than 18 years wages for a tradesman. I would assume that Vaughan contributed at least that much and as a fine for missed prayers that is shockingly punitive - quite an insight into a different mindset surrounding the repose of souls, or was it a way of showing off (perhaps a bit of both), sort of like people nowadays who pay that kind of money to go to a charity ball to hobnob with celebrities? I do agree with you that the date is significant, and Richard ap Robert ap Yeven is likely Thomas Vaughan's brother, and the prayers for the King and Prince of Wales were thanks for a denizenship that would open doors for Richard ap Robert.

Therefore, if that is the correct line, Thomas and Richard Vaughan (born c.1420) were the sons of Robert and Margaret (born c. 1390), who was the son of Evan/Yevan/John Vaughan (born c.1360). I can't recall anyone of that name in the Tretower/Bredwardine line for that time, but it was early days and most Welsh people were still using patronymics, so I would still guess that he was a cousin of some kind.
Marie replies:A pleasure, Nicholas. It's hard to know what to make of the penalty without the actual agreement for the chantry. From what I have seen in wills, the going rate for a priest just saying prayers was only 4d a day, and Vaughan is only talking about one chaplain, but perhaps he was making some big endowment of land to the priory in return for their prayers, or something. It seems unfathomable. Perhaps he was just a very punitive man.As regards the ancestry, I think it's very likely indeed that Richard ap R. was Sir Thomas's brother, but there is a small chance it is just a big coincidence, so worth keeping an open mind. I've just started a file on Sir Thomas, and over time I will do my usual thing of going through all the main sources to build a timeline of entries. So far I'm still only on my first source, the patent rolls. His first ever appearance there was in 1446 as "king's esquire" being granted offices in Herefordshire, Eweas and also the constableship of Abergavenny Castle. I'm, pretty sure this is him, as he goes on to be granted the house in Stepney called Garlek that we know belonged to Sir Thomas Vaughan the Chamberlain. Interestingly, by 1450 he is involved with the Tower armouries, and then turns up as Keeper of the King's Ordnance. I think he very likely is the Thomas Vaughan who was with the Duke of York in London before Ludford Bridge, and was attainted, but I've yet to verify that as the direct references to the attainder and to the attaintee afterwards don't describe him as an esquire. Nonetheless, Thomas Vaughan, Esquire of the Body, gets favoured treatment under Edward IV for his good service to Richard Duke of York.
Nico asked:By the way, what do you think that Hicks would make of the Clarence connection?
Marie replies:Hicks made dark hints that all the grants made to Richard just after Clarence's execution were rewards for supporting Edward in his determination to have their brother executed, and that the licence granted on 19 February for the colleges of priests at Middleham and Barnard Castle were Richard feeling the need of prayers to exculpate his sins. Actually, he even throws in this grant to a Welsh servant, rather vaguely, for good measure.

Hi Marie,
The Thomas Vaughans that you mention do sound consistent with being the same person. Hick's theory is interesting, but it suggests that Richard had the power the change Edward's mind about executing Clarence. I would have thought that if Edward had made his decision, there wasn't much Richard could actually do, although I suppose it was possible that Richard may have felt some guilt if he failed to persuade Edward. He may have a point though as it would make sense to be generous to Richard and his household to assure their continued support.

Nico

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, 19:35:42 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Nico wrote:Thank you so much for the transcription of the Vaughan document. It is very interesting.I never realized how much people paid for these chantries. According to the NA calculator £200 would now be worth £138,257.66, more than 18 years wages for a tradesman. I would assume that Vaughan contributed at least that much and as a fine for missed prayers that is shockingly punitive - quite an insight into a different mindset surrounding the repose of souls, or was it a way of showing off (perhaps a bit of both), sort of like people nowadays who pay that kind of money to go to a charity ball to hobnob with celebrities? I do agree with you that the date is significant, and Richard ap Robert ap Yeven is likely Thomas Vaughan's brother, and the prayers for the King and Prince of Wales were thanks for a denizenship that would open doors for Richard ap Robert.

Therefore, if that is the correct line, Thomas and Richard Vaughan (born c.1420) were the sons of Robert and Margaret (born c. 1390), who was the son of Evan/Yevan/John Vaughan (born c.1360). I can't recall anyone of that name in the Tretower/Bredwardine line for that time, but it was early days and most Welsh people were still using patronymics, so I would still guess that he was a cousin of some kind.
Marie replies:A pleasure, Nicholas. It's hard to know what to make of the penalty without the actual agreement for the chantry. From what I have seen in wills, the going rate for a priest just saying prayers was only 4d a day, and Vaughan is only talking about one chaplain, but perhaps he was making some big endowment of land to the priory in return for their prayers, or something. It seems unfathomable. Perhaps he was just a very punitive man.As regards the ancestry, I think it's very likely indeed that Richard ap R. was Sir Thomas's brother, but there is a small chance it is just a big coincidence, so worth keeping an open mind. I've just started a file on Sir Thomas, and over time I will do my usual thing of going through all the main sources to build a timeline of entries. So far I'm still only on my first source, the patent rolls. His first ever appearance there was in 1446 as "king's esquire" being granted offices in Herefordshire, Eweas and also the constableship of Abergavenny Castle. I'm, pretty sure this is him, as he goes on to be granted the house in Stepney called Garlek that we know belonged to Sir Thomas Vaughan the Chamberlain. Interestingly, by 1450 he is involved with the Tower armouries, and then turns up as Keeper of the King's Ordnance. I think he very likely is the Thomas Vaughan who was with the Duke of York in London before Ludford Bridge, and was attainted, but I've yet to verify that as the direct references to the attainder and to the attaintee afterwards don't describe him as an esquire. Nonetheless, Thomas Vaughan, Esquire of the Body, gets favoured treatment under Edward IV for his good service to Richard Duke of York.
Nico asked:By the way, what do you think that Hicks would make of the Clarence connection?
Marie replies:Hicks made dark hints that all the grants made to Richard just after Clarence's execution were rewards for supporting Edward in his determination to have their brother executed, and that the licence granted on 19 February for the colleges of priests at Middleham and Barnard Castle were Richard feeling the need of prayers to exculpate his sins. Actually, he even throws in this grant to a Welsh servant, rather vaguely, for good measure.

Thanks for the stuff from the parliament roll. I'll be copying all in due course. The identifying property is the one in Stepney (Stebenhith) called Garlek.

Doug wrote:

Thank you very much for the explanation about Vaughan's properties! I've
read about "Acts of Resumption" but never actually say the contents of any.
My apologies about the Attainders. I got thrown by the seeming discrepancies
between the dates mentioned in the Attainders and the actual dates of the
events. I have no idea why I didn't realize that one plots/plans, usually
anyway, before taking action, and the same would apply in this case!

Marie replies:

Also, in the case of Ludford Bridge, the royal army, with the King as its figurehead, had marched against Ludlow, and the Yorkist soldiers and leaders had melted away in the night without a blow being struck, so short of failing to stick around to bend the knee to the King, there was nothing that the Yorkist leaders had done there that could justify their attainders for treason. So it was vital for a narrative to be put forward that placed their presence together at Ludlow in the context of an existing plot to destroy the King. Also, since the Countess of Salisbury probably never went to Ludlow, if her enormous estates were to be seized some other context would have to be found for her treason.