Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: speaking of Eleanor Butler....

Eleanor Talbot-Butler was a member of the Third Order of St Francis, which is open to lay people (it is still in existence) and bestows certain spiritual privileges, notably the right to wear the habit. Her attachment was actually to the (male) friars in Norwich.

John Ashdown-Hill has written extensively in the Ricardian about Eleanor, and is for all practical purposes the fount of all knowledge on the matter. I would recommend a read of his series of articles for anyone interested. They include detailed references to her lands.

The latest, and for me most interesting, information from this source (2006 Ricardian) is that Eleanor gave one of her manors to her sister Elizabeth Talbot Duchess of Norfolk just before her death, and did so by deed of gift. J A-H suggests that this is an indication that she considered herself married, as a married woman needed her husband's permission to do the normal thing of leaving property by will.

Other relevant articles:

Ashdown-Hill, John, "Lady Eleanor Talbot's Other Husband", The Ricardian, 2004

Ashdown-Hill, John, "The Endowments of Lady Eleanor Talbot And Of Elizabeth Talbot, Duchess of Norfolk, At Corpus Christi College Cambridge" The Ricardian, 2004

Ashdown-Hill, John, "Further Reflections on Lady Eleanor Talbot", The Ricardian, vol 11, no 144, March 1999.

Ashdown-Hill, John, "The Inquistion post mortem of Eleanor Talbot, Lady Butler," The Ricardian vol. 12, no 159, December 2002.

Ashdown-Hill, John, "Edward IV's uncrowned queen", The Ricardian, Vol. 9, no 139, December 1997.

Murray, Barabara, A., "Lady Eleanor Butler And John Crowne's The Misey of Civil War." The Ricardian, 2004.

Smith, Muriel, "Reflections on Lady Eleanor", The Ricardian, vol. 11, no 142, September 1998.


Brian W

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
> Eleanor Talbot-Butler was a member of the Third Order of St
Francis, which is open to lay people (it is still in existence) and
bestows certain spiritual privileges, notably the right to wear the
habit. Her attachment was actually to the (male) friars in Norwich.
>
> John Ashdown-Hill has written extensively in the Ricardian about
Eleanor, and is for all practical purposes the fount of all knowledge
on the matter. I would recommend a read of his series of articles for
anyone interested. They include detailed references to her lands.
>
> The latest, and for me most interesting, information from this
source (2006 Ricardian) is that Eleanor gave one of her manors to her
sister Elizabeth Talbot Duchess of Norfolk just before her death, and
did so by deed of gift. J A-H suggests that this is an indication
that she considered herself married, as a married woman needed her
husband's permission to do the normal thing of leaving property by
will.


I have read John's articles, but my memory is hazy on the details
now. I must admit I wondered if he was pushing his argument on this
one beyond what the evidence would bear. It was common generally for
people to settle their lands without reference to wills -
enfeoffments to the use being an obvious example - and many of the
15th century "wills" which survive are consequently only testaments
in the strict sense, ie they contain no reference to the landed
property because it has already been devised by other means. Others
mention some of the land but not all of it. Wills could be an
unsatisfactory means of passing on land because executors did not
always carry out the dead person's wishes.
If Eleanor didn't make a will or testament at all but found time to
make a deed of gift, then that might be more interesting. But I
should have thought it would be very hard to prove there never was a
will.

Also, whilst browsing those same papal registers I found a licence
for a monastery, for the monks to erect houses for female corrodians
or something of that ilk (I'm sorry, I didn't take down the details
and now I'm kicking myself), so maybe we shouldn't assume that
Eleanor can't have been living on the site (fulltime or part-time)
simply because it was a male house. Do we know enough about the
Norwich Carmelites to be sure there was not some sort of an
arrangement for female club members to reside within the grounds?
Certainly, however, John is right and she did not become a Carmelite
nun enclosed in a nunnery as people once imagined.

Marie



>
> Other relevant articles:
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John, "Lady Eleanor Talbot's Other
Husband", The Ricardian, 2004
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John, "The Endowments of Lady Eleanor Talbot And Of
Elizabeth Talbot, Duchess of Norfolk, At Corpus Christi College
Cambridge" The Ricardian, 2004
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John, "Further Reflections on Lady
Eleanor Talbot", The Ricardian, vol 11, no 144, March 1999.
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John, "The Inquistion post mortem of
Eleanor Talbot, Lady Butler," The Ricardian vol. 12, no 159, December
2002.
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John, "Edward IV's uncrowned queen", The
Ricardian, Vol. 9, no 139, December 1997.
>
> Murray, Barabara, A., "Lady Eleanor Butler And John
Crowne's The Misey of Civil War." The Ricardian, 2004.
>
> Smith, Muriel, "Reflections on Lady Eleanor", The
Ricardian, vol. 11, no 142, September 1998.
>
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>

Marie, your point about medieval lands often not being left by will is of course valid. Much of the land in question was of course entailed or held in jointure, which meant that its next owner was pre-determined. It was therefore vain to refer to it in a will. The fact that Eleanor chose to use deed of gift is perhaps suggestive, but certainly not conclusive. Apparently however she did also leave a will of which her sister was executrix.

Another interesting aspect from John Ashdown-Hill's latest research is that not all of Eleanor's land came from the Butlers, and yet nor did it come from the Talbots. Again, what evidence we have isn't conclusive, but it looks as if the land may have come from Edward IV. It is slightly unusual for a widow of this era, other than an heiress, to hold lands in her own right, as opposed to by dower or jointure. I can't honestly say it's unique, but off hand I don't recall another example. J A-H points out that Eleanor's income was modest, and so it's not likely she would have been able to afford to purchase property.

I doubt we shall ever have 101% proof that Eleanor, in some way or other, married Edward IV. But on balance of available evidence, I rather think she did.

Regards

Brian W

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, your point about medieval lands often not being left by will
is of course valid. Much of the land in question was of course
entailed or held in jointure, which meant that its next owner was pre-
determined. It was therefore vain to refer to it in a will. The fact
that Eleanor chose to use deed of gift is perhaps suggestive, but
certainly not conclusive. Apparently however she did also leave a
will of which her sister was executrix.
>
> Another interesting aspect from John Ashdown-Hill's latest research
is that not all of Eleanor's land came from the Butlers, and yet nor
did it come from the Talbots. Again, what evidence we have isn't
conclusive, but it looks as if the land may have come from Edward
IV. It is slightly unusual for a widow of this era, other than an
heiress, to hold lands in her own right, as opposed to by dower or
jointure. I can't honestly say it's unique, but off hand I don't
recall another example. J A-H points out that Eleanor's income was
modest, and so it's not likely she would have been able to afford to
purchase property.
>
> I doubt we shall ever have 101% proof that Eleanor, in some way or
other, married Edward IV. But on balance of available evidence, I
rather think she did.

So do I. Proving it is not so easy, though, as we both acknowledge.
So there was a will. Also, would not a married woman also have needed
her husband's permission to make a deed of gift? The law stated that
on marriage a woman's property became her husband's business - it
wasn't a rule that was specific to the making of a will. The Countess
of Warwick even used the rules to disclaim all responsiblity for her
treasonable actions up till the day of the Kingmaker's death.
I don't really see how Eleanor, whether married to Edward or not,
could in any practical sense have behaved as a covered woman since
the husband in question acknowledged no rights nor responsibilities
in the matter. She would simply have been unable to get on with
business.

Marie

PS. Thanks for listing all those articles, by the way. It'll be a
great help to a lot of people, I'm sure.
Also, I've just finished The Adventures of Alienore Audley. I assume
you would be the same Brian Wainwright??? I enjoyed it no end,
particularly the identification of Edward's holy mistress.

>>Also, would not a married woman also have needed
>>her husband's permission to make a deed of gift? The law stated that
>>on marriage a woman's property became her husband's business - it
>>wasn't a rule that was specific to the making of a will.


I suspect you are right, Marie. The default position was that a woman's property was her husband's. Sorting the mess out in a case like this would surely have required a score of canon and common lawyers.

I suppose we can say that, largely down to John Ashdown-Hill, we now have quite a bit of evidence about Eleanor Talbot-Butler, and she has become a much less shadowy figure than she was. Only a few years ago at least one distinguished academic was arguing that we could not even be sure that Sir Thomas Butler's wife was John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury's daughter. From that veil of ignorance, at least, we are now lifted, because J A-H has identified the lady and her place in her family beyond all reasonable doubt.

The problem is, as so often with Ricardian issues, each file of new evidence produces as much legitimate enquiry as it does outright proof of anything, and different people will read different interpretations into it, as they are entitled to do.

Guilty as charged re Alianore Audley - glad you enjoyed it.

Regards

Brian

given that e4 was offically recognised as being married to woodville..could talbot not have had more freedom to disburse her lands as she saw fit? "the offical" husband would have outted himself if he had made an issure of any of eleanor's land exchanges...however as king, he could later reclaim any lands he held a liking to...especially after eleanor's death...give it a a few years to kinda become a fog in most people's memories.

also..eleanor's will is not supposed to be in existance, although a ipm is.

can one check her sister and the sister's husband's wills/ipm for property that may have passed unto them via eleanor? are these wills/ipms in existance?

roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, your point about medieval lands often not being left by will
is of course valid. Much of the land in question was of course
entailed or held in jointure, which meant that its next owner was pre-
determined. It was therefore vain to refer to it in a will. The fact
that Eleanor chose to use deed of gift is perhaps suggestive, but
certainly not conclusive. Apparently however she did also leave a
will of which her sister was executrix.
>
> Another interesting aspect from John Ashdown-Hill's latest research
is that not all of Eleanor's land came from the Butlers, and yet nor
did it come from the Talbots. Again, what evidence we have isn't
conclusive, but it looks as if the land may have come from Edward
IV. It is slightly unusual for a widow of this era, other than an
heiress, to hold lands in her own right, as opposed to by dower or
jointure. I can't honestly say it's unique, but off hand I don't
recall another example. J A-H points out that Eleanor's income was
modest, and so it's not likely she would have been able to afford to
purchase property.
>
> I doubt we shall ever have 101% proof that Eleanor, in some way or
other, married Edward IV. But on balance of available evidence, I
rather think she did.

So do I. Proving it is not so easy, though, as we both acknowledge.
So there was a will. Also, would not a married woman also have needed
her husband's permission to make a deed of gift? The law stated that
on marriage a woman's property became her husband's business - it
wasn't a rule that was specific to the making of a will. The Countess
of Warwick even used the rules to disclaim all responsiblity for her
treasonable actions up till the day of the Kingmaker's death.
I don't really see how Eleanor, whether married to Edward or not,
could in any practical sense have behaved as a covered woman since
the husband in question acknowledged no rights nor responsibilities
in the matter. She would simply have been unable to get on with
business.

Marie

PS. Thanks for listing all those articles, by the way. It'll be a
great help to a lot of people, I'm sure.
Also, I've just finished The Adventures of Alienore Audley. I assume
you would be the same Brian Wainwright??? I enjoyed it no end,
particularly the identification of Edward's holy mistress.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> given that e4 was offically recognised as being married to
woodville..could talbot not have had more freedom to disburse her
lands as she saw fit? "the offical" husband would have outted himself
if he had made an issure of any of eleanor's land exchanges...however
as king, he could later reclaim any lands he held a liking
to...especially after eleanor's death...give it a a few years to
kinda become a fog in most people's memories.


I think that's the same thing I was saying, but looked at from the
other viewpoint. There is no way Edward could, or would, have exerted
his rights as a husband, and if he wouldn't either administer
Eleanor's property himself, or give her the proper permission to do
so, she was going to have to act as a single woman.

I've also looked back through John Ashdown-Hill's last article on
her, and to be honest I don't see a reference to a will either.
Her IPMs will be in existence or they wouldn't be known about, but I
have a feeling the ones for Edward's reign might be unpublished. Can
anyone shed light on that?
Her sister's will (1507) is certainly in existence, but as we've
discussed it may not mention much property. IPMs usually give you
more information on property than wills do, but they were carried out
on a county-by-county basis and don't all survive, which can give a
skewed impression.
She died in the Minories like so many ladies from the Yorkist era. A
photocopy of the will (which I haven't read) is available from
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk (click on Search the Archives, then
Documents Online). Credit card purchase of £3.50 sterling will get
you the will to download instantaneously. For anyone who hasn't used
this service before, the pages of the register are shrunk down to
print on normal size paper, which makes them virtually unreadable for
anyone not actually myopic. I can just take off my glasses and stick
my face in, but if I want to work on them I print them off landscape
in expanded sections.

Marie

PS. I much preferred it when they were the Public Record Office.
www.pro.gov.uk was a much easier website address.



>
> also..eleanor's will is not supposed to be in existance, although
a ipm is.
>
> can one check her sister and the sister's husband's wills/ipm for
property that may have passed unto them via eleanor? are these
wills/ipms in existance?
>
> roslyn
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
> --- In , "Brian
Wainwright"
> <Brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie, your point about medieval lands often not being left by
will
> is of course valid. Much of the land in question was of course
> entailed or held in jointure, which meant that its next owner was
pre-
> determined. It was therefore vain to refer to it in a will. The
fact
> that Eleanor chose to use deed of gift is perhaps suggestive, but
> certainly not conclusive. Apparently however she did also leave a
> will of which her sister was executrix.
> >
> > Another interesting aspect from John Ashdown-Hill's latest
research
> is that not all of Eleanor's land came from the Butlers, and yet
nor
> did it come from the Talbots. Again, what evidence we have isn't
> conclusive, but it looks as if the land may have come from Edward
> IV. It is slightly unusual for a widow of this era, other than an
> heiress, to hold lands in her own right, as opposed to by dower or
> jointure. I can't honestly say it's unique, but off hand I don't
> recall another example. J A-H points out that Eleanor's income was
> modest, and so it's not likely she would have been able to afford
to
> purchase property.
> >
> > I doubt we shall ever have 101% proof that Eleanor, in some way
or
> other, married Edward IV. But on balance of available evidence, I
> rather think she did.
>
> So do I. Proving it is not so easy, though, as we both acknowledge.
> So there was a will. Also, would not a married woman also have
needed
> her husband's permission to make a deed of gift? The law stated
that
> on marriage a woman's property became her husband's business - it
> wasn't a rule that was specific to the making of a will. The
Countess
> of Warwick even used the rules to disclaim all responsiblity for
her
> treasonable actions up till the day of the Kingmaker's death.
> I don't really see how Eleanor, whether married to Edward or not,
> could in any practical sense have behaved as a covered woman since
> the husband in question acknowledged no rights nor responsibilities
> in the matter. She would simply have been unable to get on with
> business.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. Thanks for listing all those articles, by the way. It'll be a
> great help to a lot of people, I'm sure.
> Also, I've just finished The Adventures of Alienore Audley. I
assume
> you would be the same Brian Wainwright??? I enjoyed it no end,
> particularly the identification of Edward's holy mistress.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>>It is interesting to note that Eleanor's mother was a Butler.


I don't see how she could be. John Talbot had two wives, Maud Neville (aka Furnival, her father being Thomas Neville, Lord Furnival) and Margaret Beauchamp. Chronology, if nothing else, tends to allocate Eleanor to Countess Margaret, who was herself the daughter of the well-known Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick and his first wife, Elizabeth Berkeley.

Brian W

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
> >>It is interesting to note that Eleanor's mother was a Butler.
>
>
> I don't see how she could be. John Talbot had two wives, Maud
Neville (aka Furnival, her father being Thomas Neville, Lord
Furnival) and Margaret Beauchamp. Chronology, if nothing else, tends
to allocate Eleanor to Countess Margaret, who was herself the
daughter of the well-known Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick and
his first wife, Elizabeth Berkeley.


The second wife of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, was Isabel
Despenser, widow of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Worcester. Isabel
Despenser and her two husbands, Richard Beauchamp and Richard
Beauchamp, is one of my favorite examples of the Same-Name
Complication.

Another is John Paston and his sons John and John, by the same wife,
all three of whom were, for several important years,all adults going
about their various business at the same time.

But the best example is Barbara Tuchman's account, in her foreword
to A Distant Mirror, that at one point in her research she
discovered that she had spent about a year and a half tracing the
life and career of her focus individual, Engerrand de Coucy, only to
real that there were *two* noblemen of that name, living at the same
time and moving in the same circles, and she had been following the
wrong one.

Katy

You're telling me. I recently confirmed Henry Tudor, Richard Pole and Lord Welles as having a common ancestor - Margaret Beauchamp - who appears to be totally unrelated to either of them.

----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: speaking of Eleanor Butler....


--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
> >>It is interesting to note that Eleanor's mother was a Butler.
>
>
> I don't see how she could be. John Talbot had two wives, Maud
Neville (aka Furnival, her father being Thomas Neville, Lord
Furnival) and Margaret Beauchamp. Chronology, if nothing else, tends
to allocate Eleanor to Countess Margaret, who was herself the
daughter of the well-known Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick and
his first wife, Elizabeth Berkeley.

The second wife of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, was Isabel
Despenser, widow of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Worcester. Isabel
Despenser and her two husbands, Richard Beauchamp and Richard
Beauchamp, is one of my favorite examples of the Same-Name
Complication.

Another is John Paston and his sons John and John, by the same wife,
all three of whom were, for several important years,all adults going
about their various business at the same time.

But the best example is Barbara Tuchman's account, in her foreword
to A Distant Mirror, that at one point in her research she
discovered that she had spent about a year and a half tracing the
life and career of her focus individual, Engerrand de Coucy, only to
real that there were *two* noblemen of that name, living at the same
time and moving in the same circles, and she had been following the
wrong one.

Katy