speaking of Eleanor Butler....

I had just been thinking about Eleanor Butler when she popped up in
the forum.

As usual I'm not at home near y reference material as I write this,
and I had been at the pre-research hmmmming stage in my wondering
when her name serendipitously came up, so there may be all sorts of
factual holes in this, but...

Sometime after her improper marriage/betrothal to Edward before he
became king in March 1461, Eleanor Butler entered a convent -- well,
sort of. She lived in housing owned by a religious order, and there
is a name for that sort of arrangement but darned if I can think of
it right now. A person, often a widow, would make a donation of her
property to a religious order in exchange for room and board for the
rest of her life. At any rate, Eleanor had died in this situation
by 1468.


There is this possibly apocryphal child of Edward and Eleanor called
Edward of Wigmore, Wigmore is a castle that went with the March
earldom and is near the site of the Battle of Mortimer's Cross, in
Herefordshire. The Talbots (Eleanor Butler was her married
name...she was the daughter of Jphn Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewbury)
were based in Herefordshire.

Is it possible that Edward married Eleanor Butler in an improper non-
binding way (as he did Elizabeth Woodville later) and left her
pregnant, she had a short-lived son later, and due to some sort of
complications it was clear she would have no more children.
Edward had become king in the meantime, and wanted to put the whole
thing behind him, since a king needs heirs.

Would that scenario be a reason an earl's daughter and widow of a
knight might retreat to a nunnery, in effect, for the rest of her
life? Having become pregnant in what was not a legitimate
marriage, and then been abandoned by her "husband" ...would that be
shameful enough?

Another of my crackpot what-ifs....

Katy

I'm about to check this out, but as I understand it the only thing
that was improper about Eleanor's marriage to Edward was that it was
clandestine. This didn't invalidate it; it made Edward and Eleanor,
in the eyes of the Church, naughty boys and girls in the eyes but
naughty married boys and girls.

The only thing that made Edward's clandestine marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville non-binding was the fact that he already had a wife. Until
the precontract was recognised in 1483 Edward and Elizabeth's
marriage was treated as shocking but valid - all the best efforts of
the country's canon lawyers had failed to find a way out of it.
The term 'precontract', I seem to recall reading in a very erudite
article in an old Ricardian, has been misinterpreted. Basically, a
precontract of marriage is not something less than a marriage or
preliminary to a marriage, it is simply a prior contract of marriage -
prior to the Woodville marriage, that is.
The other thing is that there is some circumstantial evidence that
Eleanor's encounter with Edward took place after he became king. I
recently looked this up for someone else. Basically, a passage in the
Patent Rolls dated 6 Feb 1469 states that between 1 September 1460
and 2 March 1461 [ie 39 Henry HVI], presumably after Sir Thoms
Butler's death, Eleanor had surrendered to her father-in-law Lord
Sudeley - presumably not voluntarily - the two manors he had settled
on the couple as their jointure, "and the said manors were taken into
the King's hands because the grant and acquisition of them and the
entries thereon were without licence." Eleanor died possesssed of the
two manors, and the supposition is that soon after Edward became king
she had gone to petition him for restitution. The same story, in
fact, as with Elizabeth Woodville and Lady Lucy.
If that is so, then they met at court. I'm not actually sure if
Thomas and Eleanor ever lived anywhere near Wigmore anyway (I know
Hugh Ross Williamson claims they did, but I'm not sure whether he was
induging in wishful thinking). Can anyone tell us where these
jointure manors lay? Certainly she lived in East Anglia near her
sister for most of her widowhood, and that's the opposite side of
England from Wigmore.
I'm personally not very convinced by this Edward of Wigmore story as
it doesn't really seem to fit the evidence. It looks as though
Eleanor wasn't widowed until at least mid-1460, in any case.
Apparently the Edward of Wigmore tale was a previously undocumented
family tradition which Hugh Ross Williamson was told and published in
the 1960s. I think perhaps Williamson's claims about the couple's
connections with the Wigmore area were exaggerated, but I'm not happy
to swear to this.
The family in question, I believe, claimed to be descended from this
Edward so he can't have died young. It is possible that this family
were descended from a bastard of Edward IV's fathered before he
became king. It's even possible that Edward had promised the mother
marriage, but I'm far from convinced that the mother was Eleanor
Butler. She may have become attached to the family tradition only
after Eleanor's identity as the precontract lady was rediscovered.

Eleanor did not give Sir Thomas Butler any children, and the skeleton
John Ashdown-Hill hopes is hers (he is trying to organise testing of
mitochondrial DNA) is of a woman who had not borne children. In an
old Ricardian article he shows an artist's impression of the woman's
profile next to a profile photo of Shrewsbury's face from his tomb
image, and the two are, it has to be said, strikingly similar.
However, I'd have been happier if he'd have shown us a computer
image, and I'm a bit wary because a lot of the similarity comes from
the noses and there's a good deal of room for interpretation with the
soft-tissue end of a nose.
I suppose we can but wait.

Marie

PS The living arrangement - is it called a corrody?











--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I had just been thinking about Eleanor Butler when she popped up in
> the forum.
>
> As usual I'm not at home near y reference material as I write this,
> and I had been at the pre-research hmmmming stage in my wondering
> when her name serendipitously came up, so there may be all sorts of
> factual holes in this, but...
>
> Sometime after her improper marriage/betrothal to Edward before he
> became king in March 1461, Eleanor Butler entered a convent --
well,
> sort of. She lived in housing owned by a religious order, and
there
> is a name for that sort of arrangement but darned if I can think of
> it right now. A person, often a widow, would make a donation of
her
> property to a religious order in exchange for room and board for
the
> rest of her life. At any rate, Eleanor had died in this situation
> by 1468.
>
>
> There is this possibly apocryphal child of Edward and Eleanor
called
> Edward of Wigmore, Wigmore is a castle that went with the March
> earldom and is near the site of the Battle of Mortimer's Cross, in
> Herefordshire. The Talbots (Eleanor Butler was her married
> name...she was the daughter of Jphn Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewbury)
> were based in Herefordshire.
>
> Is it possible that Edward married Eleanor Butler in an improper
non-
> binding way (as he did Elizabeth Woodville later) and left her
> pregnant, she had a short-lived son later, and due to some sort of
> complications it was clear she would have no more children.
> Edward had become king in the meantime, and wanted to put the whole
> thing behind him, since a king needs heirs.
>
> Would that scenario be a reason an earl's daughter and widow of a
> knight might retreat to a nunnery, in effect, for the rest of her
> life? Having become pregnant in what was not a legitimate
> marriage, and then been abandoned by her "husband" ...would that be
> shameful enough?
>
> Another of my crackpot what-ifs....
>
> Katy
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> I'm about to check this out, but as I understand it the only thing
> that was improper about Eleanor's marriage to Edward was that it
was
> clandestine. This didn't invalidate it; it made Edward and
Eleanor,
> in the eyes of the Church, naughty boys and girls in the eyes but
> naughty married boys and girls.
>
> The only thing that made Edward's clandestine marriage to
Elizabeth
> Woodville non-binding was the fact that he already had a wife.
Until
> the precontract was recognised in 1483 Edward and Elizabeth's
> marriage was treated as shocking but valid - all the best efforts
of
> the country's canon lawyers had failed to find a way out of it.
> The term 'precontract', I seem to recall reading in a very erudite
> article in an old Ricardian, has been misinterpreted. Basically, a
> precontract of marriage is not something less than a marriage or
> preliminary to a marriage, it is simply a prior contract of
marriage -
> prior to the Woodville marriage, that is.
> The other thing is that there is some circumstantial evidence that
> Eleanor's encounter with Edward took place after he became king. I
> recently looked this up for someone else. Basically, a passage in
the
> Patent Rolls dated 6 Feb 1469 states that between 1 September 1460
> and 2 March 1461 [ie 39 Henry HVI], presumably after Sir Thoms
> Butler's death, Eleanor had surrendered to her father-in-law Lord
> Sudeley - presumably not voluntarily - the two manors he had
settled
> on the couple as their jointure, "and the said manors were taken
into
> the King's hands because the grant and acquisition of them and the
> entries thereon were without licence." Eleanor died possesssed of
the
> two manors, and the supposition is that soon after Edward became
king
> she had gone to petition him for restitution. The same story, in
> fact, as with Elizabeth Woodville and Lady Lucy.
> If that is so, then they met at court. I'm not actually sure if
> Thomas and Eleanor ever lived anywhere near Wigmore anyway (I know
> Hugh Ross Williamson claims they did, but I'm not sure whether he
was
> induging in wishful thinking). Can anyone tell us where these
> jointure manors lay? Certainly she lived in East Anglia near her
> sister for most of her widowhood, and that's the opposite side of
> England from Wigmore.
> I'm personally not very convinced by this Edward of Wigmore story
as
> it doesn't really seem to fit the evidence. It looks as though
> Eleanor wasn't widowed until at least mid-1460, in any case.
> Apparently the Edward of Wigmore tale was a previously
undocumented
> family tradition which Hugh Ross Williamson was told and published
in
> the 1960s. I think perhaps Williamson's claims about the couple's
> connections with the Wigmore area were exaggerated, but I'm not
happy
> to swear to this.
> The family in question, I believe, claimed to be descended from
this
> Edward so he can't have died young. It is possible that this
family
> were descended from a bastard of Edward IV's fathered before he
> became king. It's even possible that Edward had promised the
mother
> marriage, but I'm far from convinced that the mother was Eleanor
> Butler. She may have become attached to the family tradition only
> after Eleanor's identity as the precontract lady was rediscovered.
>
> Eleanor did not give Sir Thomas Butler any children, and the
skeleton
> John Ashdown-Hill hopes is hers (he is trying to organise testing
of
> mitochondrial DNA) is of a woman who had not borne children. In an
> old Ricardian article he shows an artist's impression of the
woman's
> profile next to a profile photo of Shrewsbury's face from his tomb
> image, and the two are, it has to be said, strikingly similar.
> However, I'd have been happier if he'd have shown us a computer
> image, and I'm a bit wary because a lot of the similarity comes
from
> the noses and there's a good deal of room for interpretation with
the
> soft-tissue end of a nose.
> I suppose we can but wait.
>
> Marie
>
> PS The living arrangement - is it called a corrody?



Thank you for info, Marie. Alas, another romantic story runs
aground on the hard facts.

Corrody - that's it! I couldn't even begin to look the word up
because the definition is too vague for the dictionaries.

I wonder if Ashdown-Hill knows about the hereditary hand deformity
that ran in the Talbot family and persists unto the present
generation. I read about it in a medical journal article a few
years ago. It's the absence or very rudimentary development of the
distal phalanges of the hand -- the last joint of the fingers --
resulting in a stubby hand. The article traced it back, in a family
tree, to the first Earl of Shrewsbury, John Talbot, Eleanor's
father. It does not affect every person in a generation but
obviously it's a dominant gene or it would have died out by now.
One reason that it hasn't is that it does not interfetre with life
or reproduction -- nor witha career as a very successful Medieval
warrior, obviously. If the skeleton that might be Eleanor's had
such stubby fingers, it would certainly be strong evidence that she
was a Talbot. (If it did not, though, she could still be a Talbot,
of course.)

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:

> I wonder if Ashdown-Hill knows about the hereditary hand deformity
> that ran in the Talbot family and persists unto the present
> generation. I read about it in a medical journal article a few
> years ago. It's the absence or very rudimentary development of the
> distal phalanges of the hand -- the last joint of the fingers --
> resulting in a stubby hand.

I should correct myself -- now that I think about that article, it may
not be the last phalangeal bone of the hand, but rather *one* of them.

Katy

Here is a link to the Tudor Place Talbot page, which includes a brief
biography of Eleanor:

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/TALBOT.htm

It is interesting to note that Eleanor's mother was a Butler. This was
a member of the Irish family of Butlers, Earls of Ormonde and Wiltshire
and not, as far as I know, any relations of the Butlers (often spelled
Botiler) who obtained the Barony of Sudeley.

Anne Boleyn was also descended from the Butlers, and her Father held
the Earldom of Wiltshire in this right. She is also said to have had a
hand defect, sometimes described a a "stunted sixth finger" on one
hand. So perhaps this genetic defect was a Butler rather than a Talbot
inheritance.



--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
>
> > I wonder if Ashdown-Hill knows about the hereditary hand deformity
> > that ran in the Talbot family and persists unto the present
> > generation. I read about it in a medical journal article a few
> > years ago. It's the absence or very rudimentary development of the
> > distal phalanges of the hand -- the last joint of the fingers --
> > resulting in a stubby hand.
>
> I should correct myself -- now that I think about that article, it
may
> not be the last phalangeal bone of the hand, but rather *one* of them.
>
> Katy
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a link to the Tudor Place Talbot page, which includes a
brief
> biography of Eleanor:
>
> http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/TALBOT.htm
>
> It is interesting to note that Eleanor's mother was a Butler. This
was
> a member of the Irish family of Butlers, Earls of Ormonde and
Wiltshire
> and not, as far as I know, any relations of the Butlers (often
spelled
> Botiler) who obtained the Barony of Sudeley.

Actually, according to John Ashdown-Hill (and indeed everything I've
ever read), Eleanor's husband Sir Thomas Butler was the son and heir
of Ralph Butler, Lord Sudeley, and nothing - at least nothing close -
to do with the Irish Butlers.




>
> Anne Boleyn was also descended from the Butlers, and her Father
held
> the Earldom of Wiltshire in this right. She is also said to have
had a
> hand defect, sometimes described a a "stunted sixth finger" on one
> hand. So perhaps this genetic defect was a Butler rather than a
Talbot
> inheritance.
>
>
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if Ashdown-Hill knows about the hereditary hand
deformity
> > > that ran in the Talbot family and persists unto the present
> > > generation. I read about it in a medical journal article a few
> > > years ago. It's the absence or very rudimentary development of
the
> > > distal phalanges of the hand -- the last joint of the fingers --

> > > resulting in a stubby hand.
> >
> > I should correct myself -- now that I think about that article,
it
> may
> > not be the last phalangeal bone of the hand, but rather *one* of
them.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>