Crowland, Mancini, etc. and contemporary records

I have been wondering about the reliability of the few "contemporary" indirect reports of the Crowland chronicle, Mancini's "De occupatione" etc with respect to what we have in terms of contemporary records (I do not even want to take More into consideration, let alone Vergil or the second version of the tudorised Rous).

For example: the Crowland chronicler fans on the rumours that Richard intended to marry his niece EoY, says he was forced to rethink his incestous plans by his council, especially Sir Richard Ratclyffe and William Catesby, for fear of losing the support of his Northern affinity and states

"Besides this, they brought to him more than twelve Doctors of Divinity, who asserted that the pope could grant no dispensation in the case of such a degree of consanguinity."

Is there any trace in contemporary records supporting this statement? I mean, twelve Doctors of Divinity cannot have moved unnoticed. Who were they? Where did they come from, where did they lodge if anywhere?
I recall Marie mentioned the entry in the State Treasury Accounts where Richard allowed to finance Edward Brampton's mission to negotiate the Portoguese marriage "by advice of the council" some 6 days after Anne's death and we have the Court minutes of the Mercer's company dated 31 March 1485 recording Richard's public refutal of the rumours he had poisoned his wife to marry his niece (which Crowland does not seem to take at face value), but is there any record supporting Crowland's description of the events?

Another example: I always found Mancini's story of the friendly dinner in Northampton somehow dubious, did he have the tavern's bill confirming any such dinner occurred?

More in general, have the statements and indirect reports from Crowland and Mancini etc. been sistematically compared with first hand contemporary records (Richard's letters, minutes of the Council, etc.) to separate "the wheat from the chaff" or better facts from biased distortions?

Hi Mac,

You ask a very good question.

Re the payment to Brampton, I didn't exactly find it; it was Barrie Williams, if I recall, who did that. I just used the reference he gave to order a copy from TNA because BW hadn't actually quoted the contents. The source is an Exchequer warrant. I would love some time to go to TNA and study all the Exchequer warrants for Richard's reign but no idea when that might happen. There have been suggestions from time to time that they might be a good subject for a Society transcription project, or at least we could calendar the contents, but nothing has come of it so far.

It would be wonderful to see if we could find a payment for the twelve doctors of divinity! Actually, my thoughts on both the DDs and Ratcliffe and Catesby's fears are set out in a small book on Elizabeth's marriage to HT that I'm working on. I'm hoping to publish as an e-book some time this year.

Marie

.

Dear Marie,

please do let us know when you publish your work and where to purchase it, I can't wait to read it.

Do you want to know MY thoughts on Crowland's story of the 12 doctors of divinity and all the crap about Richard's incestous marriage plans written, as I understand, some 2 years after Richard's death without, as you say, a shred of a council minute, a payment bill for these doctors of divinity, with all real extant contemporary records and evidence pointing the other way, etc.? Well, I guess you can well imagine them...

But the general question is, as I think you understood, have Crowland and Mancini, both working on hearsay, been tested against contemporary records? Has any historian made this exercise? Sistematically? I wish some structured work could be done on this issue, do you not? Mac

I understand the kitchen maid story was not written by the same man as the one writing about Christmas 1484 and the following tragic months and it did not say it was Anne hiding from Richard it said

" Clarence "caused the damsel (Anne) to be concealed in order that it might not be known by his Brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the Earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not be obliged to share it with any other person." ,

so it was Clarence hiding her away against Anne's will disguised as a kitchen maid, which might be exaggerated (yet who knows, the Cinderella story came later and might have been an echo of this real story...), but is at least consistent with Paston's letter of February 1472 describing how the 2 brothers were still arguing over the marriage and related inheritance - and we all know how it ended up, with the agreement of March 1472 where Richard renounced the titles of Earl of Warwick and Salisbury and related estates among others and relented the office of Great Chamberlain to George, the papal dispensation being issued on 22 April (did not waste time our chap, he must have been eager to marry his girl), a record retrieved by Rosemary Horrox of autumn 1472 which Marie mentioned some time earlier here that describes Richard and Anne as man and wife, etc.

All I am saying is: whatever the "time to market" of both Mancini (the closest one to the events) and the Crowland chronicler, especially the continuator, it's all about biased hearsay and we need to compare their statements with real contemporary records that people wrote for the precise meaning they carried, and not with an intent to educate people on what they should think of the events.

In the case e.g. of Richard and EoY what we really have from the time the events unfolded is:

- Anne's death on 16 March 1485

- Richard financing Brampton's mission to Portugal some 6 days later "on the advice of his council", quite understandably and reasonably and yet it does not sound like someone who could not wait to be rid of his wife

- the Court minutes of the Mercer's company dated 31 March 1485 recording what happened the day before at the assembly in St John's Hospital with Richard's public display of sorrow over his wife's death and refutal of the rumours he had poisoned her to marry his niece

- his orders to arrest anyone spreading such slanders, both on this occasion and over the entire realm, including York where Richard's orders were recorded on 5 April 1485

- the Portoguese records on his negotiations to marry the king's sister Joana and to have EoY marry the king's cousin Manuel

EoY's supposed letter of February 1472 George Buck referred to was never produced, does not seem to point to a mutual interest in any case if she needed to involve a third party to help her, and as Annette Carson quite rightly argued, it can well be interpreted as a plea to the king to think of her marriage in general, not necessarily to him.

Please do correct me if I miss other records on this issue.

And we could play doing the same exercise on a number of other instances.

I only wish someone more competent than me would play this game sistematically and question these sources just like we have finally come to question More, until our common wish that a few more contemporary records show up eventually comes true... Mac

Hi Hilary, I'm not sure the illegitimate bishops were also Doctors of Divinity and among the ones who were allegedly summoned (by the Crowland continuator?...) to persuade Richard of the unviability of his marriage to EoY, but there are precedents - was not Geoffrey, Henry II's illegitimate son, archbishop of York?

I personally find it a quite hilarious paradox that a father should condemn his illegitimate sons to a life of celibacy after he had practised at least fornication, if not adultery, himself, but since they could not inherit it seems to have been a practical escamotage to let them live a life of comfort. Monastic life probably applied to illegitimate children of the lower classes. Mac

I said celibacy, not chastity and deliberately so... I'm not so naive... shall we agree in saying that they were unable to build a legitimate family and not entirely out of their own choice? :)

Mac

Ah yes of course Mac!..a gap of about 13 years there...silly me....but having said that and going off a little from your original points I do find the kitchen maid story intriguing. I would love to get to the bottom of it because it could possibly throw a lot of light on Anne's personality.  If, for example she had gotten herself away under her own steam from George's clutches would be so different from how she is portrayed in lots of novels, as a bit of a wilting violet..I can't see how George could have hidden her, without her cooperation - especially in disguise - and yet when Richard does find her she goes off quite willingly...IMHO she done a runner from George, got a message to Richard and the rest is of course history!  Eileen 

Hilary wrote:

If you're still out there Marie, a couple of things re Ingleby the confessor and Bishop. I've been doing a bit of digging in the Registra and Close Rolls. Firstly his name was John and he was a member if the Carthusian Order (not a D.D. or D.Th.) so that fits with your religious order stipulation. Secondly an earlier John Ingleby was a member of the Hospitallers, (interesting re this topic and their later connection with Warbeck) and an even earlier one (Henry) was a prebend of East Harptree in Somerset, Stillington's prebend for a time and the home of the Cholkes and Newtons. He was criticised for pluralism but got away with it. Shall keep digging.

Marie replies:

Yes, we got quite a long way last time round with John Ingleby's church career - it was just the proof that he was the same John Ingleby who had been married to Margery Strangeways that was lacking. I've taken a look at the ODNB article and it suggests that no definitive proof has been found - he "may" have been the same man, although apparently his arms show he belonged to the same family. If so, then there would seem to be a slight discrepancy because surely when he became a bishop he re-entered the world? I imagine his wife was dead by that time, but can you be allowed to undie? I suspect the source for the career move (and for John husband of William and Joan being an only child) is a 16th or 17th century visitation. There's a reference to a chaplain named John Ingleby in 1453 (patent rolls), four years before the death of Margery's husband John. Anyway, this is what the ODNB piece says:-

" Ingleby, John (1434?1499), bishop of Llandaff, came of the distinguished family of Ingleby of Yorkshire. He may have been the only son of Sir William Ingleby of Ripley and Joan, daughter of Sir Brian Stapleton of Carlton, in which case he was born on 7 July 1434, married Margery, daughter of Sir James Strangways of Harsley, and died' (when he became a monk) on 21 September 1457. He was ordained subdeacon and deacon as a monk of Mount Grace, Yorkshire, a Charterhouse with which his family was closely connected, in 1457. He was elected prior of Hinton, Somerset, in 14767, but the Carthusian general chapter of 1477 refused to confirm his election and appointed him rector only. After he was elected prior of Sheen in 1477, the general chapter confirmed him as prior between 1478 and 1496, appointed and confirmed him as first visitor of the English province between 1478 and 1496, and made him a diffinitor of the general chapter in 14878 and 149091. As prior of Sheen he was among the co-founders of the Guild of St Mary, Bagshot, in 1480.
Ingleby acquired the confidence of kings and queens who with increasing regularity attended services at Sheen throughout his time there. Edward IV's queen, Elizabeth, who gained permission from Pope Sixtus IV (r. 147184) to attend services at Sheen in 1479, made him the first of three executors in 1492. Henry VII asked him to deliver to Pope Innocent VIII (r. 148492) a letter dated 10 February 1490, in which he extolled the Carthusians above the Cistercians and referred to Ingleby as his captain and envoy'. Henry also appointed him to oversee the works, which, between 1495 and 1499, transformed the manor house of Sheen into the palace of Richmond. At Henry's request he was provided to the see of Llandaff by Pope Alexander VI (r. 14921503) on 27 June 1496. He continued to be active in Carthusian affairs, however, visiting Sheen on 28 October 1496 when he probably presented to his successor, Ralph Tracy, a copy of Chrysostom's Homilies on St John. Such a visit, combined with his works at Richmond, make it likely that he was usually a non-resident bishop, but since his diocese does not appear to have suffered from his absences, it may be assumed that he took steps to ensure continuity of administration. Ingleby's episcopal register and seal have been lost, although his armorial bearings have survived as those of his family: sable, an estoile argent. According to the acts of the general chapter and a brass inscription from Sheen, he died on 7 September 1499.
W. N. M. Beckett

Sources J. Foster, ed., Pedigrees of the county families of Yorkshire, 1 (1874) · J. Hogg and others, eds., The chartae of the Carthusian general chapter, Analecta Cartusiana, 100/124 (198294) · W. N. M. Beckett, Sheen Charterhouse from its foundation to its dissolution', DPhil diss., U. Oxf., 1992 · C. B. Rowntree, Studies in Carthusian history in later medieval England', DPhil diss., York University, 1981 · J. Hogg, The pre-Reformation priors of the Provincia Angliae', Analecta Cartusiana, new ser., 1 (1989), 2559 · L. Le Vasseur, Ephemerides ordinis cartusiensis, 3 (1891) · J. Page-Phillips, Palimpsests: the backs of monumental brasses, 2 vols. (1980) · Chancery records · TNA: PRO, exchequer, accounts various, E101 · CSP Venice, 12021509 · W. de Gray Birch, Memorials of the see and cathedral of Llandaff (1912) · D. H. Williams, A catalogue of Welsh ecclesiastical seals, as known down to AD 1600, part 1: episcopal seals', Archaeologia Cambrensis, 133 (1984), 10035

Archives Gon. & Caius Cam., MS 732/771 · Jesus College, Cambridge, MS Q. A. 12 · TNA: PRO, E101"

Hi Hilary - Re St Martin Le Grand, I once read it was under the jurisdiction of George Neville Archbishop of York, Anne's uncle, which would make it a more than safe place for his niece, and I am sure rooms removed from the scoundrels' ones could be arranged, but I confess I might be confusing fiction with non fiction books.

Edward was somehow backing up Richard in his marriage plans, sanctuary was meant to protect Anne from George, who was certainly "ruthless in his acquisitiveness" as others have branded Richard, but does not seem to have ever been described as disrepectful of the Church, so under these circumstances I do not see anything strange in it.

With respect to Paston's letter, stating the two brothers were still arguing over marriage and inheritance in February 1472, I would hardly expect Richard would have let Anne be his brother's hostage until the end of the dispute so as to weaken his position in the negotiations. Wherever Anne was in February 1472 and until her wedding, I tend to agree that she was no longer in George's household, nor in Richard's. Mac

Marie replies:

Look forward to the Russell dispensation (could you possibly provide reference) - there's no suggestion of illegitimacy in his ODNB article.

Hi Hilary,

I agree the Catesby as precontract source theory has little going for it. What would be nice would be direct evidence that Stillington was in personal touch with the suspected source.

I did not know the Earl of Oxford's wife was also at St Martin, that's interesting, Marie! And of course George's allegation of Richard abducting and forcing Anne to marry him is also consistant with Richard's choice to place her in a safe neutral place and makes that part of the Crowland chronicle closer to the actual events than the continuator's one.

Taking a step back, I have been thinking on how the Crowland continuator claims he knows everything about what was going at court and in the King's council, where they supposedly invited more than a dozen nameless Doctors of Divinity to dissuade Richard from marrying EoY, yet the same continuator fails to mention anything about the Portoguese negotiations that are the only real records from the time.

It seems pretty clear to me that whoever he was or his source was, he was not privy to anyone close to the king, had no idea of what had been really going on in the council during those fatal days and was only further blackening Richard's reputation to the benefit of the new establishment, building up castles out of the very thin air of the wicked gossip that Richard felt sorrowfully forced to publicly refute on 30 March 1485.

I hate to sound repetitive, but every statement written after Richard's death about what was going on during his reign needs to be taken with a pinch of salt and tested against the actual records of the time. Mac

Hi Hilary,

I was aware of this entry, but honestly I think these problems were ones to which sanctuaries were prone, and perhaps we hear more about St Martins than most because the sanctuary area took up a sizeable chunk of the city of London and so was a source of extreme frustration to the city authorities. This 1457 council ruling (partly occasioned by the political stresses) is the last we hear of these complaints for several decades so perhaps the keeping of a register got the problem under some sort of control. Also, in deciding whether Richard would have taken Anne there other factors need to be taken into account:-

2) Richard supposedly found her in the city, he needed to get her into good sanctuary immediately and St Martin's was the one and only sanctuary within the City of London. To have tried to get her into Westminster Sanctuary would have been to risk her being hijacked, particularly as they passed the palace.

3) She had an aunt there, viz. Sir John Paston wrote from London to his brother on 30 April 1472: "The Countess of Oxford is still in St. Martin's."

Also, although Crowland gets details of incidents wrong time and again, he was a contemporary and so if he thought St Martins was a *plausible* place for Richard to take Anne then it probably was. Evidently the Countess of Oxford had made the same decision. How long Anne might have stayed at St Martin's, though, is another question entirely.

Hi Hilary,

I guess we shouldn't assume that Cis would have been on Richard's side rather than Clarence's. Also, placing his intended with his own mother would still have left Richard open to a charge of marriage by abduction. I know Henry did it after Bosworth but it's interesting that the Pope had to prohibit people speaking against his marriage and Vergil felt the need to rewrite that bit of history to make out that Elizabethwas taken to her own mother. The thing is, King Edward seems to have given Anne into Clarence's household and, although she was a widow and over 14, Clarence clearly regarded himself as her legal guardian, so only a properly constituted sanctuary would enable Richard to stay clearly and unequivocally clear of a charge of raptus.

No, St Martin's was a royal chapel so the Dean was a royal appointment. It was whilst he had Stillington in custody after Bosworth that Henry took the post from him and gave it to Lord Stanley's clerical son James. James Stanley's explanation was that Henry had done this because such a benefice was incompatible with holding a bishopric and also

"for the horrible and heyneous offences ymagened and doon by the bisshoppe of Bathe, aswell ageinst your highnes as otherwise...."

But perhaps it was more about keeping the Stanleys happy than depriving the Bishop of Bath. Or keeping this great sanctuary in the capital in the control of someone he could trust. As the events of the following year were to show, Henry didn't have much patience with the idea of traitors claiming sanctuary.

I'd love to have the Russell reference. I must admit I looked through the Vatican Papers for it myself over the weekend but couldn't find it. Only found one dispensation for a John Russell, priest, and that was to own a portable altar.

Marie