Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-01 11:06:53
hjnatdat

Here we are Marie:


Ibid. (fn. 25)
(f. 218.)To the abbots of St. Edmunds in the diocese of Norwich and St. Albans in the diocese of Lincoln, and the prior of St. Mary's de Overes in the diocese of Winchester. Mandate, at the recent petition of Robert Stilly[n]gton, canon of Wells. D.C.L. (containing that he was lawfully presented to the parish church of Cotyngham in the diocese of York, on its voidance in a certain way, by the patrons Henry Vavysour and William Holthorp, esquires, of that diocese, and John Say, esquire, of the diocese of Lincoln, to Robert Dobblis [sic], doctor of canon law, official and vicar-general in spirituals of John, archbishop of York, but that the said Robert Dobbys refused to institute him, and intruded himself, alleging, even openly and publicly, that the said Robert Stillyngton had no right or titile, wherefore the said Robert Stillyngton has appealed to the apostolic see; and adding that the matter can be better and more conveniently made clear in those parts than in the Roman court), to summon the said Robert Dobbis and others concerned, and decide what is just, causing their decision to be enforced by censure etc. Honestis supplicum votis. (Pe. de Noxeto. | Gratis de mandato domini nostri pape. L. de Castiliono.)

Vatican Regestra 385 1447-8 (Stillington about 25)
This is not the end of the feud. Stillington was not one to get on the wrong side of was he?
1452.
Kal. Nov.
(1 Nov.)
St. Peter's, Rome
(f. 301d.)To the abbots of St. Peter's, Westminster, and Bury St. Edmunds and the archdeacon of Stowe. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of Robert Stillyngton, archdeacon of Colchester and Taunton and canon and prebendary of Fenton in York and Geuendale in Ripon, contained that by the negligence of divers of his predecessors, and especially of the late John Stopyndon and the late Robert Ascogh, successively holders of the archdeaconry of Colchester, of the late Thomas Palton [rectius Polton] and Adam Moleyns, sometime bishops of Worcester and Chichester, and Nicholas Calton, successive holders of the archdeaconry of Taunton, the said late Robert Ascogh and John Bradston, successive holders of the canonry and prebend of Fe[n]ton, and the said late John Stopyndon and Robert Dobbys, successive holders of the canonry and prebend of Geuendale, or by the negligence of their proctors, many of their buildings, churches etc. are in ruinous condition, to the prejudice and loss of the said Robert (who has appealed to the apostolic see from a number of undue grievances), and of the said benefices. The pope therefore orders the above to summon those concerned, hear such appeals and the principal matters and all other causes belonging to the ecclesiastical forum between the said Robert Stillyngton of the one part, and the said John Bradsten [sic] and Robert Dobbys and the executors of the said late John Stopyndon, Robert Ascogh, Thomas and Adam, sometime bishops of Worcester and Chichester, and Nicholas (fn. 5)Calton, and decide them in accordance with the custom of England in such matters or otherwise, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure, without appeal. Humilibus supplicum. (Poggius. | xxvi. F. de Laude. Constantinus.) [In the margin: No(vembris). 2 pp. .] Lateran Regestra 422 1452By now Stillington is described as 'counsellor to King Henry of England' quite an accolade for one so young. There is another petition to the Pope in 1450 in the Lateran.
The feud with Kempe seems to have gone back to Stillington's Oxford days at Deep Hall (Lincoln College) whose founder was Robert Fleming a man greatly disliked by Kempe. Certainly by the early 1440s Stillington had caught the attention of Beckington and it was the latter who sponsored him for most of his other prebendaries. Hence no great surprise for him to have succeeded Beckington.in 1465.
Hope this helps. Hilary
(PS I did write this (and more) up for the Society years' ago but it didn't receive much of a welcome). Oooh I'm sounding like Stillington :) :) H

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-01 15:50:38
mariewalsh2003

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

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-02 10:04:22
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie,
Your analysis is how I have him too - someone definitely not to cross,he'd remember forever.
I can give you a bit of information on one of those who presented him - William Holthorpe. He was Stillington's uncle,brother of his mother Katherine who eventually inherited Great Edstone which went to the bishop. The pair were the children of John Holthorpe (d. circa 1398) Coroner of the North Riding.
I hadn't looked at the Cottingham thing. I'll have a hunt round. Thanks! H
On Monday, 1 July 2019, 15:50:45 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> 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

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-02 10:45:16
Hilary Jones
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 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> 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

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-02 12:44:52
Hilary Jones
Hi, I've found the 1475 'An act of exchange between the king and the duke of Gloucester.' It's too long to put here but as you probably know it's to do with sorting out Anne's lands as part of the Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury inheritance after the death of Warwick and Anne is cited in one part as the heiress of Alice, Countess of Salisbury.
As you say Cottingham does seem at some point to have been 'used' by Richard Duke of York, Salisbury's brother in law - still looking for that. The advowson was in the hands of Ralph Neville, 2 Earl of Westmorland in the 1430s when he transferred it to his eldest son John and his wife Anne Holland. So were those who presented Stillington working on behalf of the Nevilles? It does fit with my theory that he was in some way sponsored by them and the Somerset connection.
Lot of interesting work to do. H
On Tuesday, 2 July 2019, 10:45:21 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

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 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> 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

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-03 14:26:47
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I've been reading your and Marie's exchanges concerning this and something's been bothering me. If I understand it correctly, the question is why/how did Stillington manage to get such an in with the Vatican so early in his career that complaints from him were quickly dealt with? Or relatively quickly anyway? Now, I'm very possibly wrong about this, but I definitely remember reading that appeals to the Vatican had to be approved by the King or Royal Council or the person making the appeal ran the risk of fines and/or imprisonment. Have I misplaced this in time or was it indeed applicable during Stillington's lifetime? Because if it was, then it seems to me that someone fairly high up in the political food chain supported Stillington; and this at a time when he was just getting started. I didn't see a date for the first extract, but the second is 1452, which means the matter was almost certainly sent to Rome several months prior to the Vatican's decision. If Stillington was indeed a protégé of the Nevilles, perhaps we need to delve into what they were up to at that point in time? Better still, what were the Talbots up to? Perhaps Stillington's upward climb began with the Talbots, and segued, first to the Nevilles, then to the Yorks? Something else also occurred to me concerning your post containing the extracts from the Vatican Register. In the first extract, if I understand it correctly, the Vatican is saying that Stillington's appeal to the Vatican would better be handled at the more local level of the see of York? In the second extract, the Vatican is basically telling the Abbots to hold a tribunal regarding Stillington's charges, make a decision in conformity with the laws of England and that decision is to be enforced by ecclesiastical means (ecclesiastical censure) and will be final (without appeal). IOW, in both instances the Pope/Vatican is saying these matters need to be handled on a local/national level. What I'm trying to get at is that, while the simple matter of the expeditious handling of the appeals is interesting, the Vatican itself made no decisions, really, one way or another. All the Papal bureaucrats did was kick the decision back to the English religious establishment. Rather quickly, yes, but does that really mean Stillington had an in with the Vatican? In fact, was the Pope even involved, other than signing/sealing the documents (which might even have been done by his secretary)? BTW, who was this Robert Dobbys? Perhaps he was the person Stillington was feuding with? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi, I've found the 1475  An act of exchange between the king and the duke of Gloucester.' It's too long to put here but as you probably know it's to do with sorting out Anne's lands as part of the Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury inheritance after the death of Warwick and Anne is cited in one part as the heiress of Alice, Countess of Salisbury. As you say Cottingham does seem at some point to have been used' by Richard Duke of York, Salisbury's brother in law  still looking for that. The advowson was in the hands of Ralph Neville, 2 Earl of Westmoreland in the 1430s when he transferred it to his eldest son John and his wife Anne Holland. So were those who presented Stillington working on behalf of the Nevilles? It does fit with my theory that he was in some way sponsored by them and the Somerset connection. Lot of interesting work to do.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-03 14:51:58
Hilary Jones
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.
I came to Stillington's Neville connections from two directions - firstly if 'Egelina Neville' did exist then she was the daughter of Cis's brother and a cousin of Warwick. And there's Stillington marrying his daughter to her son, so a nice royal connection. Secondly, you may recall Nico and I did some work around London, Thomas Vaughan, Thomas Beaumont, Oliver King. In 1458/9 Alice Neville, nee Monatagu, Countess of Salisbury in her own right, got herself attainted for aiding her husband and ROY. And ended up in Ireland. And one of those involved was Thomas Vaughan and a female Beaumont's husband, Philip Malpas. The Montagus had great influence in Somerset.
The more I dig on Stillington, the more I think his family, particularly through his mother, has quite significant historical connections, particularly with the Mowbrays and the Holmes of Holderness. In fact although his father seems to have come from the affluent merchant class of York (his grandfather was Chamberlain there too) his mother was of the 'old blood' - we're back to pedigree versus 'trade'. It takes a lot of digging and a lot of wills and IPMs but I am creeping there.
Incidentally only today I came across something where he 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! H Sorry Robert Dobbys was I recall Vicar-General, sort of deputy to the Archbishop of York; sorry if I've got it wrong without looking it up. Marie did say.


On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 14:26:53 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I've been reading your and Marie's exchanges concerning this and something's been bothering me. If I understand it correctly, the question is why/how did Stillington manage to get such an in with the Vatican so early in his career that complaints from him were quickly dealt with? Or relatively quickly anyway? Now, I'm very possibly wrong about this, but I definitely remember reading that appeals to the Vatican had to be approved by the King or Royal Council or the person making the appeal ran the risk of fines and/or imprisonment. Have I misplaced this in time or was it indeed applicable during Stillington's lifetime? Because if it was, then it seems to me that someone fairly high up in the political food chain supported Stillington; and this at a time when he was just getting started. I didn't see a date for the first extract, but the second is 1452, which means the matter was almost certainly sent to Rome several months prior to the Vatican's decision. If Stillington was indeed a protégé of the Nevilles, perhaps we need to delve into what they were up to at that point in time? Better still, what were the Talbots up to? Perhaps Stillington's upward climb began with the Talbots, and segued, first to the Nevilles, then to the Yorks? Something else also occurred to me concerning your post containing the extracts from the Vatican Register. In the first extract, if I understand it correctly, the Vatican is saying that Stillington's appeal to the Vatican would better be handled at the more local level of the see of York? In the second extract, the Vatican is basically telling the Abbots to hold a tribunal regarding Stillington's charges, make a decision in conformity with the laws of England and that decision is to be enforced by ecclesiastical means (ecclesiastical censure) and will be final (without appeal). IOW, in both instances the Pope/Vatican is saying these matters need to be handled on a local/national level. What I'm trying to get at is that, while the simple matter of the expeditious handling of the appeals is interesting, the Vatican itself made no decisions, really, one way or another. All the Papal bureaucrats did was kick the decision back to the English religious establishment. Rather quickly, yes, but does that really mean Stillington had an in with the Vatican? In fact, was the Pope even involved, other than signing/sealing the documents (which might even have been done by his secretary)? BTW, who was this Robert Dobbys? Perhaps he was the person Stillington was feuding with? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi, I've found the 1475  An act of exchange between the king and the duke of Gloucester.' It's too long to put here but as you probably know it's to do with sorting out Anne's lands as part of the Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury inheritance after the death of Warwick and Anne is cited in one part as the heiress of Alice, Countess of Salisbury. As you say Cottingham does seem at some point to have been used' by Richard Duke of York, Salisbury's brother in law  still looking for that. The advowson was in the hands of Ralph Neville, 2 Earl of Westmoreland in the 1430s when he transferred it to his eldest son John and his wife Anne Holland. So were those who presented Stillington working on behalf of the Nevilles? It does fit with my theory that he was in some way sponsored by them and the Somerset connection. Lot of interesting work to do.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-03 20:37:17
mariewalsh2003

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?



Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-04 10:34:58
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie. These are the only letters I have found so far, as you say, from the early days.
They are unusual. I spend a lot of time in the Lateran and the Fasti and, although you get the odd complaint from or about an Abbot or Prioress you don't even get them from someone at bishop level, let alone archdeacon.
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?
I'm currently ploughing through Beckington's correspondence. I wonder if it will provide any clues? H (sorry Yahoo is playing up and I can't correct spellings without wiping the whole lot)

On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 20:37:19 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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?



Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-05 16:25:37
Doug Stamate
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. Doug here: I did a check in Wikipedia and found the following: 1. William Ayscough was Bishop of Salisbury from 20 July 1438 until he was murdered in 1450 by a mob during the Cade Rebellion. Apparently he'd married Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou and that was held against him. He was succeeded by: 2. Richard Beauchamp, who was Bishop of Salisbury from 14 August 1450 until his death in 1481. Beauchamp was nominated to the See of Hereford 4 December 1448 and installed 9 February 1449, then moved to Salisbury on Ayscough's death. Is that William Ayscough any relation to the Robert Ascogh in that letter concerning the dilapidated buildings? Hilary continued: I came to Stillington's Neville connections from two directions - firstly if 'Egelina Neville' did exist then she was the daughter of Cis's brother and a cousin of Warwick. And there's Stillington marrying his daughter to her son, so a nice royal connection. Secondly, you may recall Nico and I did some work around London, Thomas Vaughan, Thomas Beaumont, Oliver King. In 1458/9 Alice Neville, nee Monatagu, Countess of Salisbury in her own right, got herself attainted for aiding her husband and ROY. And ended up in Ireland. And one of those involved was Thomas Vaughan and a female Beaumont's husband, Philip Malpas. The Montagus had great influence in Somerset. Doug here: I don't know if it matters, but the Bishop of Salisbury immediately preceding Ayscough was Robert Neville, who served at Salisbury from 1427 to 1438 before being moved to Durham where he remained until his death in 1457. FWIW, his parents were Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort (daughter of John of Gaunt). I'm presuming his appointments in Somerset were due to his friendship with Beckington and that's why Stillington wasn't given any benefice in his home area? Hilary continued: The more I dig on Stillington, the more I think his family, particularly through his mother, has quite significant historical connections, particularly with the Mowbrays and the Holmes of Holderness. In fact although his father seems to have come from the affluent merchant class of York (his grandfather was Chamberlain there too) his mother was of the 'old blood' - we're back to pedigree versus 'trade'. It takes a lot of digging and a lot of wills and IPMs but I am creeping there. Doug here: I was going to ask what we knew about Stillington's family (other than his children/grandchildren), but it appears they were fairly substantial people; possibly with links to the nobility (that old blood')? As you may have noticed, I'm a bit leery of attributing too much to family influence, but for someone determined to make their way, maintaining family links, especially links to any member of the nobility, would be essential. If only to get introductions... Hilary concluded: Incidentally only today I came across something where he 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! H Sorry Robert Dobbys was I recall Vicar-General, sort of deputy to the Archbishop of York; sorry if I've got it wrong without looking it up. Marie did say. Doug here: I would imagine that simply to be appointed Keeper of the Privy Seal would have meant a fairly close personal connection, wouldn't it? Next to Lord Chamberlain, Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer, it was one of the most important and powerful positions in government. Perhaps Edward viewed Stillington as a mentor? Nor should we forget the possibility that, on the whole, Stillington's personality might best have been described as, well, pleasing? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-06 15:24:04
Doug Stamate
Marie, 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 Wikipedia article on praemunire had several extracts from the Act of 1392. The extract I found interesting says ...that the right of recovering the presentments to churches, prebends, and other benefices...belongeth only to the King's court of the old right of his crown, used and approved in the time of all his progenitors kings of England. If I understand this correctly then, while the Pope, or the Curia acting for him, couldn't appoint someone to a prebendary, they did have the right to determine if the appointment was properly made? Or whether someone who claimed such a benefice actually had the right to it? As you said, however, that right was usually demonstrated by the appointment of a locally-drawn commission. 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.... Which to me seems to completely forbid anyone from resorting to the Vatican. Have I misread this? BTW, do you know if I'm correct in presuming that any appeals made to the Pope or Curia would still have required processing fees being paid? In order, say, first for the paperwork to reach the proper authority/authorities in the correct form, and then to ensure a prompt reply, also in the correct form? Or am I making more of what I've read about the corruptness of the Vatican/Roman Curia than is justified? I ask because, if as you suggested, one reason for Stillington's pertinacity might have been a need for money, then where'd he get the money for those fees? Doug Marie wrote:

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?


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-07 04:10:27
mariewalsh2003

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.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-07 04:15:58
mariewalsh2003

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.)

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-07 11:31:15
mariewalsh2003

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.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-07 16:22:57
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I was re-reading your post (7/1/19, I believe) that contained the extracts from the Lateran archives and came across something that bothered me. In the first extract, the reason for Stillington's appeal to Rome was because the person against whom he was appealing was also the person who'd normally be the adjudicator of the appeal. Now, in the second extract, Dobbys is again listed, so I'm presuming the same problem with an appeal that went through Dobbys still stood. But what about the others? Could it be because the appeal was against bishops and/or their proctors? Why couldn't the appeal have been handled, as it later was directed to be, by some other bishop/s in England? Wasn't there any system set up in England for such matters? To be honest, I'm at bit of loss when it comes to the process of making an appeal to Rome. I'm presuming that usually an appeal would simply go up the ecclesiastical channels from the appellant to whomever handles such appeals. If that person was, as in the case of Dobbys, also the person being appealed against, then just how did the appeal get to Rome? Did one do a side-step and simply contact some other bishop and send the appeal via them? Of course, it would require the agreement of the bishop who would forward the appeal. Was that where Beckington came in  Stillington's postman, so to speak? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Marie. These are the only letters I have found so far, as you say, from the early days. They are unusual. I spend a lot of time in the Lateran and the Fasti and, although you get the odd complaint from or about an Abbot or Prioress you don't even get them from someone at bishop level, let alone archdeacon. 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 whic h the Pope had earmarked for his own nuncio and put a stop on it. So did Beckington encourage Stillington to write these letters? I'm currently ploughing through Beckington's correspondence. I wonder if it will provide any clues? H (sorry Yahoo is playing up and I can't correct spellings without wiping the whole lot)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-07 16:54:47
Doug Stamate
Marie, Just to make certain I've gotten it correctly: In cases such as in Hilary's post, the Church, and only the Church, was involved, so the entire matter would have been handled in ecclesiastical channels; all the way up to Rome if need be. Now, had the case/s been about, say, noble providing fees from manors to the Church for something such as building chantries, but the manor was required to provide men/money as part of what was owed to the King because of his feudal rights, then any legal dispute over the money/men would be decided in the King's courts with no appeal to Rome if the case went against the Church. Also, could that be the reason we see gifts of money, rather than lands (or the fees from those lands) in wills? Less hassle/legal problems? Stillington comes across, to me anyway, as a very competent advocate/administrator whose talents would have been welcomed by anyone higher up the ladder and it was that which explains not only his rise, but also his remaining at/near the top of the political heap. Undoubtedly, it wouldn't have hurt to have Beckington and Kemp in his corner, but they could only do so much without Stillington's demonstration of his much-needed abilities. Doug Marie wrote:  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.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-08 00:00:13
mariewalsh2003
Doug wrote:Just to make certain I've gotten it correctly:In cases such as in Hilary's post, the Church, and only the Church, was involved, so the entire matter would have been handled in ecclesiastical channels; all the way up to Rome if need be.Now, had the case/s been about, say, noble providing fees from manors to the Church for something such as building chantries, but the manor was required to provide men/money as part of what was owed to the King because of his feudal rights, then any legal dispute over the money/men would be decided in the King's courts with no appeal to Rome if the case went against the Church. Also, could that be the reason we see gifts of money, rather than lands (or the fees from those lands) in wills? Less hassle/legal problems?

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.


Doug wrote Stillington comes across, to me anyway, as a very competent advocate/administrator whose talents would have been welcomed by anyone higher up the ladder and it was that which explains not only his rise, but also his remaining at/near the top of the political heap. Undoubtedly, it wouldn't have hurt to have Beckington and Kemp in his corner, but they could only do so much without Stillington's demonstration of his much-needed abilities.
Marie:Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge these petitions, and why.It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench.



Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-08 16:23:11
Doug Stamate
Marie 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?

Marie concluded: Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge these petitions, and why. It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench. Doug here: I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that (totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea where/how to go looking for it. I have to admit it never occurred to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English courts!



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-09 14:32:16
Hilary Jones
I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury.
There is one person however who writes continually in that vein. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and Henry
Marie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection. Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

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

Marie 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?

Marie concluded: Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge these petitions, and why. It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench. Doug here: I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that (totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea where/how to go looking for it. I have to admit it never occurred to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English courts!



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-09 14:36:34
Hilary Jones
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:

I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury.
There is one person however who writes continually in that vein. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and Henry
Marie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection. Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

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

Marie 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?

Marie concluded: Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge these petitions, and why. It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench. Doug here: I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that (totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea where/how to go looking for it. I have to admit it never occurred to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English courts!



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-09 16:13:22
Doug Stamate
Hilary, You wrote There is one person who writes continually in that vein in reference to letters from Henry VI to the Pope. In the following sentence you wrote ...the Henry we find in Beckington's correspondence.... What do you think of the idea that one person is Beckington himself? The little I know about Beckington is what I've garnered from posts here and the few details provided in his Wikipedia article, but it does seem to me that it's more likely the author of those letters to the Pope, or more likely Popes, was Beckington; undoubtedly writing on Henry's behalf, but still Beckington. I did see in the Wikipedia article that Beckington served as Henry's secretary in the early 1440s, as well as Lord Privy Seal during 1443-1444, but doesn't have him involved in royal affairs afterwards. Is that correct? Or is it possible Beckington remained as Henry's secretary after his short term as Lord Privy Seal and wrote those letters for Henry? The link with Stillington's papal correspondence would then be Stillington being a protégé of Beckington and following in his mentor's footsteps; well, in regards to sending off letters to the Pope, anyway. I can't find Stillington having any specific Royal employment before he became Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal; could Stillington have been assisting Beckington during this period? Much of that charge about Henry's incompetence is based, I believe, on what happened during his lengthy reign, with emphasis on the failures of the French wars, increasing violence in England and the inability of Henry, or his appointees, to handle those matters competently. Part of their inability was due simply to the intractable nature of the fighting in France; with spillover into England, especially English politics. However, even after taking account of those failures, it's also always been recognized that Henry had a deep abiding interest in religious matters. Maybe it's me, but it does seem that, if it was Henry who actually wrote those letters, some of that competence and authoritative manner should also have been noted in Henry's handling of other matters. Doug Hope the hols are happy! Hilary wrote: I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury. There is one person however who writes continually in that vein.. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and Henry Marie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection. Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

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

Marie 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?

Marie concluded: Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge these petitions, and why. It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench. Doug here: I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that (totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea where/how to go looking for it. I have to admit it never occurred to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English courts!


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-09 20:44:59
Nicholas Brown


I haven't read the Beckington letters myself, but I wouldn't mind taking a look at them one day. What you say supports my view that Henry VI is another misunderstood figure from that time. He was clearly a very intelligent man, just not a traditional medieval King. I also suspect that his illness wasn't mental, but something physical like encephalitis. There is a new book out on him by Lauren Johnson. I haven't read it yet, but HVI is long overdue of a more in depth examination.
Enjoy your holiday!Nico





On Tuesday, 9 July 2019, 16:13:27 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, You wrote There is one person who writes continually in that vein in reference to letters from Henry VI to the Pope. In the following sentence you wrote ...the Henry we find in Beckington's correspondence.... What do you think of the idea that one person is Beckington himself? The little I know about Beckington is what I've garnered from posts here and the few details provided in his Wikipedia article, but it does seem to me that it's more likely the author of those letters to the Pope, or more likely Popes, was Beckington; undoubtedly writing on Henry's behalf, but still Beckington. I did see in the Wikipedia article that Beckington served as Henry's secretary in the early 1440s, as well as Lord Privy Seal during 1443-1444, but doesn't have him involved in royal affairs afterwards. Is that correct? Or is it possible Beckington remained as Henry's secretary after his short term as Lord Privy Seal and wrote those letters for Henry? The link with Stillington's papal correspondence would then be Stillington being a protégé of Beckington and following in his mentor's footsteps; well, in regards to sending off letters to the Pope, anyway. I can't find Stillington having any specific Royal employment before he became Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal; could Stillington have been assisting Beckington during this period? Much of that charge about Henry's incompetence is based, I believe, on what happened during his lengthy reign, with emphasis on the failures of the French wars, increasing violence in England and the inability of Henry, or his appointees, to handle those matters competently. Part of their inability was due simply to the intractable nature of the fighting in France; with spillover into England, especially English politics. However, even after taking account of those failures, it's also always been recognized that Henry had a deep abiding interest in religious matters. Maybe it's me, but it does seem that, if it was Henry who actually wrote those letters, some of that competence and authoritative manner should also have been noted in Henry's handling of other matters. Doug Hope the hols are happy! Hilary wrote: I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury. There is one person however who writes continually in that vein.. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and Henry Marie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection. Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

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

Marie 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?

Marie concluded: Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge these petitions, and why. It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench. Doug here: I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that (totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea where/how to go looking for it. I have to admit it never occurred to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English courts!


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-16 11:04:07
Hilary Jones
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:

I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury.
There is one person however who writes continually in that vein. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and Henry
Marie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection.. Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

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

Marie 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?

Marie concluded: Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge these petitions, and why. It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench. Doug here: I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that (totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea where/how to go looking for it. I have to admit it never occurred to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English courts!



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-18 10:21:38
Hilary Jones
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:

I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury.
There is one person however who writes continually in that vein. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and Henry
Marie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection... Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

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

Marie 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?

Marie concluded: Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge these petitions, and why. It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench. Doug here: I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that (totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea where/how to go looking for it. I have to admit it never occurred to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English courts!



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-18 10:39:40
Hilary Jones
Forgot to say, Stillington himself was never Lincon's benefactor. That was left to another Yorkshireman, Thomas Rotherham. I have never teased out the relationship between the two. H
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 10:21:42 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

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:

I'm on holiday at the moment but before I went I did a number of searches on other of Stillington's contemporaries eg Rotherham, Russell, Bothe and even Morton but none appear to have written similarly to the Pope. Neither do any lower orders'. One did though - Beckington who entered into a big dispute with the Abbot of Glastonbury.
There is one person however who writes continually in that vein. And that is - Henry VI. Nothing escapes Henry. Even if the Pope claims to have got an appointment wrong Henry tells him in no uncertain terms to get it right. In fact the Henry we find in Beckingtons correspondence is a mile from the incompetent shallow dabbler of Shakespeare and the Victorians. He is every way a king, far less subservient than his two successors and very knowledgeable on everything concerning the Church and Canon Law. So Stillington, who at this period became his counsellor' could well have been emulating both him and Beckington. Stillington wasn't poor. He came from a family who had been rich merchants and officials of York for over a century. He didn't need to chase Prebendary dues except to fund his school, just like Beckington and Henry
Marie, re Cottingham I also found John Say, who was another of Stillington's sponsors. Master William Say his brother or son (there were two JS's in this period) was Dean of St Paul's and friend of Beckington. John Say appears again in the will of Isabel (Ingoldsby) Neville, wife of John and daughter in law of Alice. So there is probably a Neville/Montague/Beckington connection.... Particularly as Beckington came from Somerset. The Pope tells us that. Batter running out. H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

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

Marie 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?

Marie concluded: Wholly agreed. And, as regards the appeals to Rome of the late 1440s and early 1450s, on their own they provide no evidence of anything odd going on in political circles vis a vis Stillington. Further evidence would be needed before any interpretation could be made of who , if anyone, was backing him to lodge these petitions, and why. It strikes me that, if Stillington was just highly litigious by nature there should be further evidence of this in the records of Common Pleas, Chancery and possibly even King's Bench. Doug here: I did a quick Google search on appeals to Rome, but all that came up were links to Henry VIII's legislation forbidding them, so that didn't help. It would be very nice if someone had done something such as that (totaling appeals to Rome) for a thesis, but I haven't the faintest idea where/how to go looking for it. I have to admit it never occurred to me that Stillington might also be appearing in English courts!



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-18 21:34:37
mariewalsh2003

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.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-19 06:43:04
Doug Stamate
Hilary 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'? Doug here: Yup, that was me! I think the easiest way is simply to show how I arrived at the idea of Beckington possibly being Henry's ghostwriter. What first led me to consider Beckington as the possible author was this (from Wikipedia): At this time Beckington was acting as secretary to Henry VI, and soon after his return [from an embassy to Armagnac  D] in 1443 he was appointed Lord Privy Seal, an office he held until 1444. Then I found this link: http://www.berkshirehistory.com/bios/tbeckington.html which has Beckington referring to himself as the King's secretary as early as 1439. However, once Beckington became Bishop of Bath and Wells, he seems, more or less to have disappeared from view, only popping up now and then in his role as Bishop of Bath and Wells. It's my understanding that Henry had his first break-down in August 1453 and didn't recover until Christmas 1454. During that period, John Kemp, Archbishop of York was Henry's Lord Chancellor (1450-54). Kemp had previously served as Lord Chancellor from 1426 to 1432, but I don't know if that has any significance. Kemp was succeeded by Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury as Lord Chancellor, serving during 1454 and 55, before being succeeded by Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury who filled the post of Lord Chancellor during 1455 and 1456. Bourchier in turn was succeeded by William Waynflete, Bishop of Winchester who served as Lord Chancellor from 1456 to 1460 and he was succeeded as Lord Chancellor by George Neville, Bishop of Exeter, who served as Lord Chancellor from 1460 to 1467 (according to Wikipedia he received the Great Seal in July of 1460 after the Battle of Northampton at which he'd been present. Between the Battle of Northampton in July of 1460 and the 2nd Battle of St. Albans at the beginning of February 1461, Henry was under the control of the Yorkists. Again according to Wikipedia, Henry was reported as singing and dancing during the 2nd Battle of St. Albans, but I couldn't find any reference. So what I was faced with was a lack of continuity in Henry's Lord Chancellors, which ruled them out as possible authors of those letters. But at the same time, I was faced with problem of Henry's illness. If Henry was so ill that he couldn't recognize his wife or son, then he obviously couldn't have written any letters to the Pope. At least between August 1453 and Christmas 1454, anyway and then again during, at least, early 1461. A rather long way to get to the point that we know who Henry's Lord Chancellors were and the list doesn't provide any continuity. We don't know who served as Henry's secretary after Beckington, so it seemed entirely possible to me that Beckington may have continued in that role. I guess it boils down to trying to answer two questions. Do any of Henry's letters fall within the dates when we know for certain Henry wasn't capable of writing them? And do we have a list of those who may have served as successors to Beckington as Henry's secretary? Hilary concluded: 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. Doug here: Ask and ye shall receive! Can Stillington be tied into the dates of those letters? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-19 13:49:20
Hilary Jones
Yes I agree. The other benefactor, John Forest, later Dean of Wells, had worked at Lincoln (diocese) with Fleming.
Sorry, I meant that I really don't know how Rotherham and Stillington got on. You'd expect it to be well, given that they shared the same county of birth and the same commitment to learning. But it seems to fall apart in 1483. I'm still puzzled by Rotherham's reaction to the 'Tower' incident, which landed him out of favour and in gaol for some time. He's someone still in the shadows to me. H
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 21:34:42 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-21 15:15:25
Doug Stamate
Hilary, In another post I suggested, after abandoning Beckington for the role, that perhaps it was Stillington who was the author of those letters. What I really should have written was that perhaps it was Stillington who composed the letters, all the while ensuring the contents met with Henry's approval. From what I understand, Henry took a great interest in Church affairs, but even so it would be most unusual for the king himself to actually sit down and write a letter, even to the Pope. Perhaps especially to the Pope who combined both Church and foreign relations in one person? If, a very big if, Stillington's work for Henry included taking over from Beckington as Henry's private secretary, then might that explain the continuity of the tone of the letters? It's obvious that something happened to Henry during August 1453, but whether that something was caused by an emotional/psychological problem or a physical one, it made it impossible for Henry to carry out the duties of a monarch and someone (or group?) had to manage things. Who better placed than the King's private secretary? There's also the possibility, if whatever Henry suffered from was a medical condition, that August 1453 wasn't the first time Henry had one of his bouts, only the first occasion when the effects were severe enough to completely incapacitate him. When it comes to that short stint in the Tower, what do you think of the idea that it may have due to Edward not knowing how involved Stillington was in George's plans? Especially if it had been the case that Edward had charged Stillington with keeping an eye on George and what went on in the good Bishop's See? Nor do we know exactly what George may have said to Edward during any meeting/s the two may have had. Perhaps it was something George said that landed Stillington in the Tower, rather than anything Stillington had actually done (or not done)? I do agree that Stillington seems to have behaved more on the order of a current, highly-placed Civil Servant than anything else, as did quite a few other Bishops. But then, while kings (or governments) come and go, the country always needs administering! Doug Hilary wrote: 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 ce hollege 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?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-21 15:26:53
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Even though he later got it back and gave it to Archbishop Bourchier, Rotherham was the one who gave the Great Seal to ElizabethWoodville. As it was when she'd gone into sanctuary immediately after hearing what happened at Stony Stratford, the presumption is that Rotherham supported the Woodville faction. Do we know which committee he was on, the coronation or Tower one? If he was on the coronation committee with Hastings and Morton (among others), perhaps he was confined until it could be determined just how much he knew about the plotting? Or how much could be proven, anyway... Doug Hilary wrote: Yes I agree. The other benefactor, John Forest, later Dean of Wells, had worked at Lincoln (diocese) with Fleming. Sorry, I meant that I really don't know how Rotherham and Stillington got on. You'd expect it to be well, given that they shared the same county of birth and the same commitment to learning. But it seems to fall apart in 1483. I'm still puzzled by Rotherham's reaction to the 'Tower' incident, which landed him out of favour and in gaol for some time. He's someone still in the shadows to me.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-22 09:16:05
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug I was about to come back about your suggestion in your other post. Henry's letters to the Pope span a couple of decades, Stillington's just two or three years from about 1449 to 1451 (I think without looking them up).One problem is that although we have the Pope's reply to Stillington, we don't have the actual letters that he originally wrote. Stillington does indeed start working for Henry in about 1451, but some of Henry's letters are much earlier.
Beckington had been around Court for a long time before he became bishop in 1446 and we do have his writings of course. He comes across as quite an affable and not particularly ambitious person - foreign trips are obviously a bit of a pain, as are some foreigners; his love is clearly his schools and colleges, something he shares very much with the King. He would have to adopt an entirely different tone to be the 'Henry' writing to the Pope, and there is a continuity of style in Henry before and after Beckington left him. It wouldn't surprise me if Henry did write (or dictate) his own letters; he writes as one Head of State to the Head of the Church and things like the incursion of the Moors are very important to him. He was a scholar; he'd rather write than fight.
I'm off to check his new biography which I've downloaded and see what it says. H
On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 15:15:32 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, In another post I suggested, after abandoning Beckington for the role, that perhaps it was Stillington who was the author of those letters. What I really should have written was that perhaps it was Stillington who composed the letters, all the while ensuring the contents met with Henry's approval. From what I understand, Henry took a great interest in Church affairs, but even so it would be most unusual for the king himself to actually sit down and write a letter, even to the Pope. Perhaps especially to the Pope who combined both Church and foreign relations in one person? If, a very big if, Stillington's work for Henry included taking over from Beckington as Henry's private secretary, then might that explain the continuity of the tone of the letters? It's obvious that something happened to Henry during August 1453, but whether that something was caused by an emotional/psychological problem or a physical one, it made it impossible for Henry to carry out the duties of a monarch and someone (or group?) had to manage things. Who better placed than the King's private secretary? There's also the possibility, if whatever Henry suffered from was a medical condition, that August 1453 wasn't the first time Henry had one of his bouts, only the first occasion when the effects were severe enough to completely incapacitate him. When it comes to that short stint in the Tower, what do you think of the idea that it may have due to Edward not knowing how involved Stillington was in George's plans? Especially if it had been the case that Edward had charged Stillington with keeping an eye on George and what went on in the good Bishop's See? Nor do we know exactly what George may have said to Edward during any meeting/s the two may have had. Perhaps it was something George said that landed Stillington in the Tower, rather than anything Stillington had actually done (or not done)? I do agree that Stillington seems to have behaved more on the order of a current, highly-placed Civil Servant than anything else, as did quite a few other Bishops. But then, while kings (or governments) come and go, the country always needs administering! Doug Hilary wrote: 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 ce hollege 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?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-22 09:21:52
Hilary Jones
Doug, I've found him quite difficult to track and wondered if anyone else knew For a start, I find it strange that a Yorkshireman would be on the Woodville side. I did wonder if the Scotts of Rotherham were related to the rebel Scotts of Kent? In one document about Lincoln College I found him referred to as Thomas Scott and certainly in his will his kinsmen in Rotherham are the Scotts. He seems to have a strange quick rise to power, a sharp fall and a resurgence under HT.
Anyone know any more? H
On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 15:26:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Even though he later got it back and gave it to Archbishop Bourchier, Rotherham was the one who gave the Great Seal to ElizabethWoodville. As it was when she'd gone into sanctuary immediately after hearing what happened at Stony Stratford, the presumption is that Rotherham supported the Woodville faction. Do we know which committee he was on, the coronation or Tower one? If he was on the coronation committee with Hastings and Morton (among others), perhaps he was confined until it could be determined just how much he knew about the plotting? Or how much could be proven, anyway... Doug Hilary wrote: Yes I agree. The other benefactor, John Forest, later Dean of Wells, had worked at Lincoln (diocese) with Fleming. Sorry, I meant that I really don't know how Rotherham and Stillington got on. You'd expect it to be well, given that they shared the same county of birth and the same commitment to learning. But it seems to fall apart in 1483. I'm still puzzled by Rotherham's reaction to the 'Tower' incident, which landed him out of favour and in gaol for some time. He's someone still in the shadows to me.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-23 14:23:51
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I rather wonder if that continuity in style wasn't due to whomever was actually drawing up those letters for Henry? Sort of an official medieval bureaucratic style? If that was the case, then Henry would dictate what he wanted to say, then someone would go off and set up what Henry had said in the official format, which would then be reviewed by Henry before being dispatched. It wouldn't be so much that Henry wasn't composing the letters so much as what Henry wanted to say was being transcribed by a second party, who put Henry's words/thoughts into the proper form. Dealings with heads of state would have their own style, as would letters concerning solely English matters. In either case, if Henry wanted to also include a more personal note, that part would be added/inserted, utilizing (more or less) Henry's own words, but also with the possibility that addition would succumb to officialese. I think that makes sense? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug I was about to come back about your suggestion in your other post. Henry's letters to the Pope span a couple of decades, Stillington's just two or three years from about 1449 to 1451 (I think without looking them up).One problem is that although we have the Pope's reply to Stillington, we don't have the actual letters that he originally wrote. Stillington does indeed start working for Henry in about 1451, but some of Henry's letters are much earlier. Beckington had been around Court for a long time before he became bishop in 1446 and we do have his writings of course. He comes across as quite an affable and not particularly ambitious person - foreign trips are obviously a bit of a pain, as are some foreigners; his love is clearly his schools and colleges, something he shares very much with the King. He would have to adopt an entirely different tone to be the 'Henry' writing to the Pope, and there is a continuity of style in Henry before and after Beckington left him. It wouldn't surprise me if Henry did write (or dictate) his own letters; he writes as one Head of State to the Head of the Church and things like the incursion of the Moors are very important to him. He was a scholar; he'd rather write than fight. I'm off to check his new biography which I've downloaded and see what it says.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-23 14:33:25
Doug Stamate
Hilary, FWIW, the first sentence of this Wikipedia link is very interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rotherham Thomas Rotherham (24 August 1423  29 May 1500), also known as Thomas (Scot) de Rotherham... (my emphasis). The article goes on to state that the Bishop's father was Sir Thomas Rotherham, but only refers to his mother as Dame Alice. The article continues by saying Rotherham never used Scot/Scott during his lifetime, but did refer to a John Scott of Ecclesfield Yorkshire as his kinsman. Perhaps the Scott connection was via his mother? Rotherham served as Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal from 1467 to 1474, then served as his Lord Chancellor from 1474 to 1483, so it certainly looks as if Edward was satisfied with his work. Perhaps this was when Rotherham developed his Woodville leanings? While Rotherham did serve as Henry VI's Lord Chancellor, apparently it was a very brief stint sometime during 1485; IOW, after Bosworth, but before Henry married Elizabeth of York in January 1486. Maybe I'm just getting suspicious in my old age, but those dates are very interesting; and cause to me wonder just what the reason was for Henry not keeping someone who'd demonstrated their support for his wife's family? Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, I've found him quite difficult to track and wondered if anyone else knew For a start, I find it strange that a Yorkshireman would be on the Woodville side. I did wonder if the Scotts of Rotherham were related to the rebel Scotts of Kent? In one document about Lincoln College I found him referred to as Thomas Scott and certainly in his will his kinsmen in Rotherham are the Scotts. He seems to have a strange quick rise to power, a sharp fall and a resurgence under HT.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-23 22:08:16
mariewalsh2003
BackReplyViewNextPreviousBackReplyViewNextPreviousFixed Width FontView Source56726Re: Re: Stillington - Lateran RegestraExpand MessagesDoug StamateToday at 6:33 AM Hilary,FWIW, the first sentence of this Wikipedia link is very interesting:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_RotherhamThomas Rotherham (24 August 1423  29 May 1500), also known as Thomas (Scot) de Rotherham... (my emphasis).The article goes on to state that the Bishop's father was Sir Thomas Rotherham, but only refers to his mother as Dame Alice. The article continues by saying Rotherham never used Scot/Scott during his lifetime, but did refer to a John Scott of Ecclesfield Yorkshire as his kinsman. Perhaps the Scott connection was via his mother?Rotherham served as Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal from 1467 to 1474, then served as his Lord Chancellor from 1474 to 1483, so it certainly looks as if Edward was satisfied with his work. Perhaps this was when Rotherham developed his Woodville leanings? While Rotherham did serve as Henry VI's Lord Chancellor, apparently it was a very brief stint sometime during 1485; IOW, after Bosworth, but before Henry married Elizabeth of York in January 1486. Maybe I'm just getting suspicious in my old age, but those dates are very interesting; and cause to me wonder just what the reason was for Henry not keeping someone who'd demonstrated their support for his wife's family?Doug Hilary wrote:Doug, I've found him quite difficult to track and wondered if anyone else knew For a start, I find it strange that a Yorkshireman would be on the Woodville side. I did wonder if the Scotts of Rotherham were related to the rebel Scotts of Kent? In one document about Lincoln College I found him referred to as Thomas Scott and certainly in his will his kinsmen in Rotherham are the Scotts. He seems to have a strange quick rise to power, a sharp fall and a resurgence under HT.


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.


Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-24 10:36:55
Hilary Jones
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 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

BackReplyViewNextPrevious

BackReplyViewNextPreviousFixed Width FontView Source56726Re: Re: Stillington - Lateran RegestraExpand MessagesDoug StamateToday at 6:33 AM Hilary,FWIW, the first sentence of this Wikipedia link is very interesting:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_RotherhamThomas Rotherham (24 August 1423  29 May 1500), also known as Thomas (Scot) de Rotherham... (my emphasis).The article goes on to state that the Bishop's father was Sir Thomas Rotherham, but only refers to his mother as Dame Alice. The article continues by saying Rotherham never used Scot/Scott during his lifetime, but did refer to a John Scott of Ecclesfield Yorkshire as his kinsman. Perhaps the Scott connection was via his mother?Rotherham served as Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal from 1467 to 1474, then served as his Lord Chancellor from 1474 to 1483, so it certainly looks as if Edward was satisfied with his work. Perhaps this was when Rotherham developed his Woodville leanings? While Rotherham did serve as Henry VI's Lord Chancellor, apparently it was a very brief stint sometime during 1485; IOW, after Bosworth, but before Henry married Elizabeth of York in January 1486. Maybe I'm just getting suspicious in my old age, but those dates are very interesting; and cause to me wonder just what the reason was for Henry not keeping someone who'd demonstrated their support for his wife's family?Doug Hilary wrote:Doug, I've found him quite difficult to track and wondered if anyone else knew For a start, I find it strange that a Yorkshireman would be on the Woodville side. I did wonder if the Scotts of Rotherham were related to the rebel Scotts of Kent? In one document about Lincoln College I found him referred to as Thomas Scott and certainly in his will his kinsmen in Rotherham are the Scotts. He seems to have a strange quick rise to power, a sharp fall and a resurgence under HT.


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.


Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-24 11:54:58
Hilary Jones
Ah ha! Rotherham was obviously an associate of John Forster! Forster left him and Morton money in his will of 1483. I wonder if he was implicated in the Forster plot of June that year hence the arrest? H
On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, 10:36:58 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

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 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

BackReplyViewNextPrevious

BackReplyViewNextPreviousFixed Width FontView Source56726Re: Re: Stillington - Lateran RegestraExpand MessagesDoug StamateToday at 6:33 AM Hilary,FWIW, the first sentence of this Wikipedia link is very interesting:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_RotherhamThomas Rotherham (24 August 1423  29 May 1500), also known as Thomas (Scot) de Rotherham... (my emphasis).The article goes on to state that the Bishop's father was Sir Thomas Rotherham, but only refers to his mother as Dame Alice. The article continues by saying Rotherham never used Scot/Scott during his lifetime, but did refer to a John Scott of Ecclesfield Yorkshire as his kinsman. Perhaps the Scott connection was via his mother?Rotherham served as Edward IV's Lord Privy Seal from 1467 to 1474, then served as his Lord Chancellor from 1474 to 1483, so it certainly looks as if Edward was satisfied with his work. Perhaps this was when Rotherham developed his Woodville leanings? While Rotherham did serve as Henry VI's Lord Chancellor, apparently it was a very brief stint sometime during 1485; IOW, after Bosworth, but before Henry married Elizabeth of York in January 1486. Maybe I'm just getting suspicious in my old age, but those dates are very interesting; and cause to me wonder just what the reason was for Henry not keeping someone who'd demonstrated their support for his wife's family?Doug Hilary wrote:Doug, I've found him quite difficult to track and wondered if anyone else knew For a start, I find it strange that a Yorkshireman would be on the Woodville side. I did wonder if the Scotts of Rotherham were related to the rebel Scotts of Kent? In one document about Lincoln College I found him referred to as Thomas Scott and certainly in his will his kinsmen in Rotherham are the Scotts. He seems to have a strange quick rise to power, a sharp fall and a resurgence under HT.


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.


Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-24 15:01:07
Doug Stamate

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.

Doug

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.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-24 15:07:24
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Add Rotherham's original political faux pas of entrusting the Great Seal to Elizabeth Woodville to any relationship to Forster he may have had and that likely explains his short spell in the pokey. Doug Hilary wrote: Ah ha! Rotherham was obviously an associate of John Forster! Forster left him and Morton money in his will of 1483. I wonder if he was implicated in the Forster plot of June that year hence the arrest?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-24 22:23:29
mariewalsh2003

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.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-25 09:14:50
mariewalsh2003
Oops, I meant Northampton , not Nottingham!

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-25 15:26:36
Doug Stamate
Marie, Perhaps using the town's name rather than his family's was a way of saying that the Church was now his family? Otherwise, I'm at a loss as well. Lacking further information, for the present I'm viewing Rotherham's actions regarding the Great Seal as one of those occasions when a personal relationship (Rotherham's with the royal family) was allowed to trump what that person should have done (retain the Great Seal). Sometimes such actions are to the better, sometimes they don't matter, and sometimes they're for the worse. I wonder if that error about Rotherham being freed in July 1483 merely wasn't another example of a London-centric history? Perhaps July was when the Archbishop left London, if not custody? Going by his ecclesiastical advancements, Rotherham was definitely a creature of Edward IV, going from a prebendary at Salisbury in 1465 to Bishop of Rochester in 1467, two years after becoming Edward's Lord Privy Seal. Then he's made Lord Chancellor in 1470 and becomes Archbishop of York in 1475. This is not to say he wasn't qualified, only that, at least by appearances, Rotherham's positions in Edward's governments certainly didn't hurt his advancement in the Church. Not unusual, I suspect. His being impeached during the PW years is interesting! Your assessment about Rotherham being attached to Edward's line does seem to have the most support. It might even explain why Rotherham only served as Tudor's Lord Chancellor for such a short time; perhaps he was too vociferous in urging Henry to marry Elizabeth of York? Then again, as you say, he was 62 and perhaps his retirement was voluntary. Doug Marie wrote:

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.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-25 15:45:22
Doug Stamate
Marie wrote: Oops, I meant Northampton , not Nottingham! Caught it! Well, the second time, anyway. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-25 22:12:25
mariewalsh2003
Doug wrote:Perhaps using the town's name rather than his family's was a way of saying that the Church was now his family? Otherwise, I'm at a loss as well.
Marie popping in:It was very common practice with monks (most of whom used a surname in those days) but not so much with secular ecclesiastics.

Doug:I wonder if that error about Rotherham being freed in July 1483 merely wasn't another example of a London-centric history? Perhaps July was when the Archbishop left London, if not custody?
Marie:I think it was an assumption based on lack of anybody having bothered to hunt out evidence beyond what was in the Cely and Stonor letters, which only record his arrest and the fact that he was still in the Tower a week later. Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs took things further with their article in The Ricardian on the letters from Morton and Rotherham's universities asking for clemency, but again the letter from Cambridge on Rotherham's behalf isn't dated and seems to have been written very soon after his arrest. I can't recall whether this article refers to the Cardiff entry, but I think it might. It is actually noted in a published source, the Testamenta Eboracensia, so should really have been picked up a long time ago, but probably nobody realised the significance.
Doug: Your assessment about Rotherham being attached to Edward's line does seem to have the most support. It might even explain why Rotherham only served as Tudor's Lord Chancellor for such a short time; perhaps he was too vociferous in urging Henry to marry Elizabeth of York?


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.


Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-28 15:46:22
Doug Stamate
Marie, A thought occurred to me just as I was preparing to file this post away. What if, besides urging too vehemently that Henry marry Elizabeth of York, Henry discovered that Rotherham didn't know exactly what had happened to young Edward and his brother? Other than their mother, and considering his attachment to the family of Edward IV, Rotherham might easily have been expected to know what had happened to them, and when he wasn't able to definitely confirm their status, Henry, possibly already irked over Rotherham pushing a quick marriage to Elizabeth of York, fired him. While it almost certainly doesn't mean anything, I found it interesting that both times Rotherham was replaced as Lord Chancellor, his successor was Alcock. Doug Marie wrote: Doug wrote: Perhaps using the town's name rather than his family's was a way of saying that the Church was now his family? Otherwise, I'm at a loss as well. Marie popping in: It was very common practice with monks (most of whom used a surname in those days) but not so much with secular ecclesiastics.
Doug: I wonder if that error about Rotherham being freed in July 1483 merely wasn't another example of a London-centric history? Perhaps July was when the Archbishop left London, if not custody? Marie: I think it was an assumption based on lack of anybody having bothered to hunt out evidence beyond what was in the Cely and Stonor letters, which only record his arrest and the fact that he was still in the Tower a week later. Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs took things further with their article in The Ricardian on the letters from Morton and Rotherham's universities asking for clemency, but again the letter from Cambridge on Rotherham's behalf isn't dated and seems to have been written very soon after his arrest. I can't recall whether this article refers to the Cardiff entry, but I think it might. It is actually noted in a published source, the Testamenta Eboracensia, so should really have been picked up a long time ago, but probably nobody realised the significance.
Doug: Your assessment about Rotherham being attached to Edward's line does seem to have the most support. It might even explain why Rotherham only served as Tudor's Lord Chancellor for such a short time; perhaps he was too vociferous in urging Henry to marry Elizabeth of York? 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.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-28 17:43:15
mariewalsh2003
Doug wrote:A thought occurred to me just as I was preparing to file this post away. What if, besides urging too vehemently that Henry marry Elizabeth of York, Henry discovered that Rotherham didn't know exactly what had happened to young Edward and his brother? Other than their mother, and considering his attachment to the family of Edward IV, Rotherham might easily have been expected to know what had happened to them, and when he wasn't able to definitely confirm their status, Henry, possibly already irked over Rotherham pushing a quick marriage to Elizabeth of York, fired him.
Marie:I imagine Henry had his spies working flat out during Richard's reign, as much as anything with his mother's help, and probably wouldn't have expected someone who was out of favour and incarcerated in Wales at the time of the boys' disappearance to be able to provide any useful information about their fate. Whatever their fate, I suspect that Richard - if he properly knew himself and it wasn't something like a botched attempt to move them - would only have shared that information with his most trusted inner circle. I think it wouldn't simply have been a case of Rotherham pushing for a rushed wedding. Henry already knew, probably before Bosworth but certainly soon afterwards, that it wasn't going to be possible to account for Elizabeth's brothers, and thus he tried not to marry her at all. It became politically impossible not to, but that is something I plan to write about at more length. This may well have been a shocking revelation for Rotherham, whom I see as a naïve man, albeit one with great administrative gifts.
Doug:While it almost certainly doesn't mean anything, I found it interesting that both times Rotherham was replaced as Lord Chancellor, his successor was Alcock.


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.


*To change the subject on to something you haven't said at all, I do so wish Hall's mistaken belief that the frequently infirm Stillington was the Bishop of Bath who was sent to Brittany about Henry Tudor would just die a natural death. There, that's that off my chest.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-30 14:14:04
Doug Stamate
Marie, I'd missed that about Bourchier being told to take the Great Seal, thus making him rather than Alcock the interim Lord Chancellor! Obviously I'm going to have to be more careful when it comes to Wikipedia's facts! Perhaps it'll be best to view whatever is in a Wikipedia entry as presumed, and not necessarily proven? Another thought on Rotherham's very short tenure as Lord Chancellor under Henry; possibly he was appointed simply because of his arrest and confinement after Hastings' execution? Tudor's presumption being that, if Rotherham had been arrested and confined at the same time as Morton, he shared Morton's views? Yet another puzzle... Doug Who has his own quibbles with Hall... Marie wrote: Doug wrote: A thought occurred to me just as I was preparing to file this post away. What if, besides urging too vehemently that Henry marry Elizabeth of York, Henry discovered that Rotherham didn't know exactly what had happened to young Edward and his brother? Other than their mother, and considering his attachment to the family of Edward IV, Rotherham might easily have been expected to know what had happened to them, and when he wasn't able to definitely confirm their status, Henry, possibly already irked over Rotherham pushing a quick marriage to Elizabeth of York, fired him. Marie: I imagine Henry had his spies working flat out during Richard's reign, as much as anything with his mother's help, and probably wouldn't have expected someone who was out of favour and incarcerated in Wales at the time of the boys' disappearance to be able to provide any useful information about their fate. Whatever their fate, I suspect that Richard - if he properly knew himself and it wasn't something like a botched attempt to move them - would only have shared that information with his most trusted inner circle. I think it wouldn't simply have been a case of Rotherham pushing for a rushed wedding. Henry already knew, probably before Bosworth but certainly soon afterwards, that it wasn't going to be possible to account for Elizabeth's brothers, and thus he tried not to marry her at all. It became politically impossible not to, but that is something I plan to write about at more length. This may well have been a shocking revelation for Rotherham, whom I see as a naïve man, albeit one with great administrative gifts.
Doug: While it almost certainly doesn't mean anything, I found it interesting that both times Rotherham was replaced as Lord Chancellor, his successor was Alcock. 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. *To change the subject on to something you haven't said at all, I do so wish Hall's mistaken belief that the frequently infirm Stillington was the Bishop of Bath who was sent to Brittany about Henry Tudor would just die a natural death. There, that's off my chest.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-30 14:31:55
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, me catching up again.
Firstly, on the Scot or Rotherham name, he appears in quite a few contemporary mentions as either. The deeds of Lincoln College have him as Thomas Scot (alias Rotherham), elsewhere he is both Thomas Scot and Thomas Rotherham.
One theory is that his father was called Thomas Rotherham and his mother Alice Scot. Certainly the wills (Test Ebor) of himself and his brother John (died 1492) name them as Rotherham and the IPM of his nephew Sir Thomas In 1504 uses the name Rotherham. There was certainly a Thomas Rotherham, Coroner of York, who is mentioned in 1421. 'Dame Alice' his mother certainly seemed quite influential in her own right. She was writing to the Corporation of Grimsby in the 1470s as 'mother of the chancellor'.
As Marie says names often do denote the place of origins of a person, particularly after the 'de' was dropped in the late fourteenth century. Our other Thomas, Beckington, did indeed come from Beckington in Somerset.
Edward does seem to have heaped rewards on Rotherham, in particular lots of attainted lands in Bedfordshire and surrounding areas. He never gave Stillington any for the same job. And it was Edward himself who recommended Rotherham for the see of York - it's in the Foedora.
There's an alternative parentage for Thomas, see below:
"The History of Parliament, 1439-1509 Biography volume, provides some
interesting particulars in relation to John Rotherham of Luton, elected
MP for Canterbury in 1472, and for Bedfordshire in 1478. He was
educated at Eton, and then went up to King's College, Cambridge -
following in the footsteps of his elder brother, Thomas, afterwards
Archbishop of York. A freeman of Canterbury by 1469, he married Alice
Forster, the daughter of John and Jane Winter of Canterbury; appointed
JP for Bedfordshire in 1472, he was Sheriff of Bucks and Beds in 1476-7
and again 1488-9; died 1492 and left a PCC will.

HoP says his father was "Sir John Rotherham alias Scott", and refers to
Marl MS 4600 and Harl. Soc Pub XIX. This latter is the Visitations of
Bedfordshire where, sub Rotheram, John's father is refered to as "Scott
of Rotherham" (ie no Christian name).

According to the Eton College registers (1441-1698), ed. Sir Wasey
Sterry, John and Thomas (alias Scott) were sons of "Sir Thomas
Rotherham of Rotherham". Unsurprisingly, ODNB simply states that the
identity of their father is unknown (their mother was named Alice).

Interestingly, the registers also add that John Rotheram was admitted
to King's College on 14 September 1448, and that "one of the posthumous
miracles of Henry VI was the cure of his lunatic servant".
This is from a genealogy site but hey ho! Thomas Forster, Alice's husband, came from Canterbury (her father left a will) but the Forster name is an interesting connection, given that Thomas benefited from John Forster of Luton, EW's treasurer and 1483 plotter. H

On Sunday, 28 July 2019, 15:46:26 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie, A thought occurred to me just as I was preparing to file this post away. What if, besides urging too vehemently that Henry marry Elizabeth of York, Henry discovered that Rotherham didn't know exactly what had happened to young Edward and his brother? Other than their mother, and considering his attachment to the family of Edward IV, Rotherham might easily have been expected to know what had happened to them, and when he wasn't able to definitely confirm their status, Henry, possibly already irked over Rotherham pushing a quick marriage to Elizabeth of York, fired him. While it almost certainly doesn't mean anything, I found it interesting that both times Rotherham was replaced as Lord Chancellor, his successor was Alcock. Doug Marie wrote: Doug wrote: Perhaps using the town's name rather than his family's was a way of saying that the Church was now his family? Otherwise, I'm at a loss as well. Marie popping in: It was very common practice with monks (most of whom used a surname in those days) but not so much with secular ecclesiastics.
Doug: I wonder if that error about Rotherham being freed in July 1483 merely wasn't another example of a London-centric history? Perhaps July was when the Archbishop left London, if not custody? Marie: I think it was an assumption based on lack of anybody having bothered to hunt out evidence beyond what was in the Cely and Stonor letters, which only record his arrest and the fact that he was still in the Tower a week later. Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs took things further with their article in The Ricardian on the letters from Morton and Rotherham's universities asking for clemency, but again the letter from Cambridge on Rotherham's behalf isn't dated and seems to have been written very soon after his arrest. I can't recall whether this article refers to the Cardiff entry, but I think it might. It is actually noted in a published source, the Testamenta Eboracensia, so should really have been picked up a long time ago, but probably nobody realised the significance.
Doug: Your assessment about Rotherham being attached to Edward's line does seem to have the most support. It might even explain why Rotherham only served as Tudor's Lord Chancellor for such a short time; perhaps he was too vociferous in urging Henry to marry Elizabeth of York? 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.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-31 05:35:32
Doug Stamate
Hilary, So it rather looks as if what may have happened is that the de got dropped at some point and from there on he became generally known simply Rotherham? I believe Marie mentioned that the name Scot might have been viewed with some disfavor and that could be why his brother used Rotherham as well. As for his mother being known as Alice Scot; well, wouldn't that have been her legal married name? 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?) Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, me catching up again. Firstly, on the Scot or Rotherham name, he appears in quite a few contemporary mentions as either. The deeds of Lincoln College have him as Thomas Scot (alias Rotherham), elsewhere he is both Thomas Scot and Thomas Rotherham. One theory is that his father was called Thomas Rotherham and his mother Alice Scot. Certainly the wills (Test Ebor) of himself and his brother John (died 1492) name them as Rotherham and the IPM of his nephew Sir Thomas In 1504 uses the name Rotherham. There was certainly a Thomas Rotherham, Coroner of York, who is mentioned in 1421. 'Dame Alice' his mother certainly seemed quite influential in her own right. She was writing to the Corporation of Grimsby in the 1470s as 'mother of the chancellor'. As Marie says names often do denote the place of origins of a person, particularly after the 'de' was dropped in the late fourteenth century. Our other Thomas, Beckington, did indeed come from Beckington in Somerset. Edward does seem to have heaped rewards on Rotherham, in particular lots of attainted lands in Bedfordshire and surrounding areas. He never gave Stillington any for the same job. And it was Edward himself who recommended Rotherham for the see of York - it's in the Foedora. There's an alternative parentage for Thomas, see below: "The History of Parliament, 1439-1509 Biography volume, provides some
interesting particulars in relation to John Rotherham of Luton, elected
MP for Canterbury in 1472, and for Bedfordshire in 1478. He was
educated at Eton, and then went up to King's College, Cambridge -
following in the footsteps of his elder brother, Thomas, afterwards
Archbishop of York. A freeman of Canterbury by 1469, he married Alice
Forster, the daughter of John and Jane Winter of Canterbury; appointed
JP for Bedfordshire in 1472, he was Sheriff of Bucks and Beds in 1476-7
and again 1488-9; died 1492 and left a PCC will.

HoP says his father was "Sir John Rotherham alias Scott", and refers to
Marl MS 4600 and Harl. Soc Pub XIX. This latter is the Visitations of
Bedfordshire where, sub Rotheram, John's father is refered to as "Scott
of Rotherham" (ie no Christian name)..

According to the Eton College registers (1441-1698), ed. Sir Wasey
Sterry, John and Thomas (alias Scott) were sons of "Sir Thomas
Rotherham of Rotherham". Unsurprisingly, ODNB simply states that the
identity of their father is unknown (their mother was named Alice).

Interestingly, the registers also add that John Rotheram was admitted
to King's College on 14 September 1448, and that "one of the posthumous
miracles of Henry VI was the cure of his lunatic servant".
This is from a genealogy site but hey ho! Thomas Forster, Alice's husband, came from Canterbury (her father left a will) but the Forster name is an interesting connection, given that Thomas benefited from John Forster of Luton, EW's treasurer and 1483 plotter.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-07-31 12:04:02
Hilary Jones
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:

Hilary, So it rather looks as if what may have happened is that the de got dropped at some point and from there on he became generally known simply Rotherham? I believe Marie mentioned that the name Scot might have been viewed with some disfavor and that could be why his brother used Rotherham as well. As for his mother being known as Alice Scot; well, wouldn't that have been her legal married name? 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?) Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, me catching up again. Firstly, on the Scot or Rotherham name, he appears in quite a few contemporary mentions as either. The deeds of Lincoln College have him as Thomas Scot (alias Rotherham), elsewhere he is both Thomas Scot and Thomas Rotherham. One theory is that his father was called Thomas Rotherham and his mother Alice Scot. Certainly the wills (Test Ebor) of himself and his brother John (died 1492) name them as Rotherham and the IPM of his nephew Sir Thomas In 1504 uses the name Rotherham. There was certainly a Thomas Rotherham, Coroner of York, who is mentioned in 1421. 'Dame Alice' his mother certainly seemed quite influential in her own right. She was writing to the Corporation of Grimsby in the 1470s as 'mother of the chancellor'. As Marie says names often do denote the place of origins of a person, particularly after the 'de' was dropped in the late fourteenth century. Our other Thomas, Beckington, did indeed come from Beckington in Somerset. Edward does seem to have heaped rewards on Rotherham, in particular lots of attainted lands in Bedfordshire and surrounding areas. He never gave Stillington any for the same job. And it was Edward himself who recommended Rotherham for the see of York - it's in the Foedora. There's an alternative parentage for Thomas, see below: "The History of Parliament, 1439-1509 Biography volume, provides some
interesting particulars in relation to John Rotherham of Luton, elected
MP for Canterbury in 1472, and for Bedfordshire in 1478. He was
educated at Eton, and then went up to King's College, Cambridge -
following in the footsteps of his elder brother, Thomas, afterwards
Archbishop of York. A freeman of Canterbury by 1469, he married Alice
Forster, the daughter of John and Jane Winter of Canterbury; appointed
JP for Bedfordshire in 1472, he was Sheriff of Bucks and Beds in 1476-7
and again 1488-9; died 1492 and left a PCC will.

HoP says his father was "Sir John Rotherham alias Scott", and refers to
Marl MS 4600 and Harl. Soc Pub XIX. This latter is the Visitations of
Bedfordshire where, sub Rotheram, John's father is refered to as "Scott
of Rotherham" (ie no Christian name)..

According to the Eton College registers (1441-1698), ed. Sir Wasey
Sterry, John and Thomas (alias Scott) were sons of "Sir Thomas
Rotherham of Rotherham". Unsurprisingly, ODNB simply states that the
identity of their father is unknown (their mother was named Alice).

Interestingly, the registers also add that John Rotheram was admitted
to King's College on 14 September 1448, and that "one of the posthumous
miracles of Henry VI was the cure of his lunatic servant".
This is from a genealogy site but hey ho! Thomas Forster, Alice's husband, came from Canterbury (her father left a will) but the Forster name is an interesting connection, given that Thomas benefited from John Forster of Luton, EW's treasurer and 1483 plotter.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-08-01 14:44:33
Hilary Jones
Hi having checked here I made a mistake about the Robert Morton who was married to John Forster's sister. He was indeed a lawyer, but he was also a kinsman to Bishop John. He is mentioned in several documents with the other Robert Morton and Thomas Morton. He died in 1486. And here we have them all together:
C 1/102/10Description:

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:

a) The manor of Mullesworth, late of John Forster, esquire, of London, deceased, in Hunts, and Northants, Robert Morton, bishop of Worcester,Thomas Bryan, and John Fortescu, knights, and others, feoffees to uses:b) The manor of Mawdeleyns, late of the said John: Herts Thomas [Rotheram], archbishop of York, William Say, knight, and John Sturgeon, feoffees to uses:c)The manor of Weldhall, and lands in St Albans, Park, Soken, Shenley, Tydbrist, and Aldenham, late of the said John.

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

11 documents

Date:1486-1493Carnebull was a friend of Rotherham and continued some of his works after his death. He was also an archdeacon and a Yorkshireman.
Sorry again! H



On Wednesday, 31 July 2019, 12:04:06 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

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:

Hilary, So it rather looks as if what may have happened is that the de got dropped at some point and from there on he became generally known simply Rotherham? I believe Marie mentioned that the name Scot might have been viewed with some disfavor and that could be why his brother used Rotherham as well. As for his mother being known as Alice Scot; well, wouldn't that have been her legal married name? 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?) Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, me catching up again. Firstly, on the Scot or Rotherham name, he appears in quite a few contemporary mentions as either. The deeds of Lincoln College have him as Thomas Scot (alias Rotherham), elsewhere he is both Thomas Scot and Thomas Rotherham. One theory is that his father was called Thomas Rotherham and his mother Alice Scot. Certainly the wills (Test Ebor) of himself and his brother John (died 1492) name them as Rotherham and the IPM of his nephew Sir Thomas In 1504 uses the name Rotherham. There was certainly a Thomas Rotherham, Coroner of York, who is mentioned in 1421. 'Dame Alice' his mother certainly seemed quite influential in her own right. She was writing to the Corporation of Grimsby in the 1470s as 'mother of the chancellor'. As Marie says names often do denote the place of origins of a person, particularly after the 'de' was dropped in the late fourteenth century. Our other Thomas, Beckington, did indeed come from Beckington in Somerset. Edward does seem to have heaped rewards on Rotherham, in particular lots of attainted lands in Bedfordshire and surrounding areas. He never gave Stillington any for the same job. And it was Edward himself who recommended Rotherham for the see of York - it's in the Foedora. There's an alternative parentage for Thomas, see below: "The History of Parliament, 1439-1509 Biography volume, provides some
interesting particulars in relation to John Rotherham of Luton, elected
MP for Canterbury in 1472, and for Bedfordshire in 1478. He was
educated at Eton, and then went up to King's College, Cambridge -
following in the footsteps of his elder brother, Thomas, afterwards
Archbishop of York. A freeman of Canterbury by 1469, he married Alice
Forster, the daughter of John and Jane Winter of Canterbury; appointed
JP for Bedfordshire in 1472, he was Sheriff of Bucks and Beds in 1476-7
and again 1488-9; died 1492 and left a PCC will.

HoP says his father was "Sir John Rotherham alias Scott", and refers to
Marl MS 4600 and Harl. Soc Pub XIX. This latter is the Visitations of
Bedfordshire where, sub Rotheram, John's father is refered to as "Scott
of Rotherham" (ie no Christian name)..

According to the Eton College registers (1441-1698), ed. Sir Wasey
Sterry, John and Thomas (alias Scott) were sons of "Sir Thomas
Rotherham of Rotherham". Unsurprisingly, ODNB simply states that the
identity of their father is unknown (their mother was named Alice).

Interestingly, the registers also add that John Rotheram was admitted
to King's College on 14 September 1448, and that "one of the posthumous
miracles of Henry VI was the cure of his lunatic servant".
This is from a genealogy site but hey ho! Thomas Forster, Alice's husband, came from Canterbury (her father left a will) but the Forster name is an interesting connection, given that Thomas benefited from John Forster of Luton, EW's treasurer and 1483 plotter.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-08-01 15:40:54
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I didn't even think of the possibility of multiple marriages, so thanks for the clarification! The Forster to whom she was married may, or may not, have been some relation to our John Forster, but any link has yet to be determined. OTOH, Alice's third marriage most definitely was to the brother of Archbishop Rotherham. Further than that, we can't go  yet. Now, our Forster, John Forster, had a sister named Agnes who married one Robert Morton (of Bawtry) who, again, may or may not have been related to Bishop John Morton. And just to make things interesting, Bawtry is, what, 15-20 miles east of Rotherham? So might possibly maybe perhaps be able to tie our Forster in with Archbishop Rotherham via geography and to Bishop Morton via her marriage? Good grief! Doug Hilary wrote: 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)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-08-01 15:56:49
Doug Stamate
Hilary, So we have two Robert Mortons, father and son? FWIW, when I went to Wikipedia and typed in Robert Morton Bishop of Worcester the following article popped up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morton_(bishop) According to the article, this Robert Morton was John Morton's nephew and was with Tudor at Bosworth, so is this just a case of two different men with the same name? IOW, we have a Robert Morton who married Agnes, John Forster's sister and had a son also named Robert. Then we have another Robert Morton who definitely was John Morton's nephew and also became Bishop of Worcester. What the links, if any, between the two Roberts aren't known (other than their names). Did I get it right? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi having checked here I made a mistake about the Robert Morton who was married to John Forster's sister. He was indeed a lawyer, but he was also a kinsman to Bishop John. He is mentioned in several documents with the other Robert Morton and Thomas Morton. He died in 1486. And here we have them all together: C 1/102/10 Description:

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:

a) The manor of Mullesworth, late of John Forster, esquire, of London, deceased, in Hunts, and Northants, Robert Morton, bishop of Worcester,Thomas Bryan, and John Fortescu, knights, and others, feoffees to uses: b) The manor of Mawdeleyns, late of the said John: Herts Thomas [Rotheram], archbishop of York, William Say, knight, and John Sturgeon, feoffees to uses: c)The manor of Weldhall, and lands in St Albans, Park, Soken, Shenley, Tydbrist, and Aldenham, late of the said John.

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

11 documents

Date: 1486-1493Carnebull was a friend of Rotherham and continued some of his works after his death. He was also an archdeacon and a Yorkshireman. Sorry again!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-08-02 09:54:07
Hilary Jones
Doug we actually have at least four!
1. Robert Morton of York who fought for Richard at Bosworth, died in 1493, and said he was a 'most excellent King'. He was of the Bawtry/York direct branch
2. Robert Morton, later Bishop of Worcester, Master of the Rolls, son of Archbishop John's brother William. The Thomas mentioned in some of the documents is also William's son. He was married to Dorothy Twynyho.
3. Robert Morton who married Agnes Forster, sister of John. He seems to have been descended from the Archbishop's uncle, another William of Cerne, Dorset. Lots of documents connect him to Archbishop John, whose arms appear on his granddaughter's tomb.
4. Robert Morton, their son, who married Dorothy Fitzjames, daughter of Sir John Fitzjames, Lord Chief Justice and Baron of the Exchequer. Interestlingly their son, yet another Robert married into the Moyle/Finch family i.e. of Sir Thomas Moyle in the Richard of Eastwell case.
Fun isn't it? H(Then of course there was Uncle Robert of Pulham who died in 1467)
On Thursday, 1 August 2019, 15:59:08 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, So we have two Robert Mortons, father and son? FWIW, when I went to Wikipedia and typed in Robert Morton Bishop of Worcester the following article popped up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morton_(bishop) According to the article, this Robert Morton was John Morton's nephew and was with Tudor at Bosworth, so is this just a case of two different men with the same name? IOW, we have a Robert Morton who married Agnes, John Forster's sister and had a son also named Robert. Then we have another Robert Morton who definitely was John Morton's nephew and also became Bishop of Worcester. What the links, if any, between the two Roberts aren't known (other than their names). Did I get it right? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi having checked here I made a mistake about the Robert Morton who was married to John Forster's sister. He was indeed a lawyer, but he was also a kinsman to Bishop John. He is mentioned in several documents with the other Robert Morton and Thomas Morton. He died in 1486. And here we have them all together: C 1/102/10Description:

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:

a) The manor of Mullesworth, late of John Forster, esquire, of London, deceased, in Hunts, and Northants, Robert Morton, bishop of Worcester,Thomas Bryan, and John Fortescu, knights, and others, feoffees to uses: b) The manor of Mawdeleyns, late of the said John: Herts Thomas [Rotheram], archbishop of York, William Say, knight, and John Sturgeon, feoffees to uses: c)The manor of Weldhall, and lands in St Albans, Park, Soken, Shenley, Tydbrist, and Aldenham, late of the said John.

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

11 documents

Date:1486-1493Carnebull was a friend of Rotherham and continued some of his works after his death. He was also an archdeacon and a Yorkshireman. Sorry again!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-08-03 14:10:40
Doug Stamate
Hilary, How did anyone ever keep this straight before computers? I t certainly helps explain all those families, searching for long-lost relatives of good stock to glom onto, who've managed to go, um, astray...deliberately or not. You said that Robert #1 was of the direct branch from York. Does that mean that the others were offshoots, so to speak, of that line? Doug Hilary wrote: Doug we actually have at least four! 1. Robert Morton of York who fought for Richard at Bosworth, died in 1493, and said he was a most excellent King.' He was of the Bawtry/York direct branch. 2. Robert Morton, later Bishop of Worcester, Master of the Rolls, son of Archbishop John's brother William. The Thomas mentioned in some of the documents is also William's son. He was married to Dorothy Twynyho. 3. Robert Morton who married Agnes Forster, sister of John. He seems to have been descended from the Archbishop's uncle, another William of Cerne, Dorset. Lots of documents connect him to Archbishop John, whose arms appear on his granddaughter's tomb. 4. Robert Morton, their son, who married Dorothy Fitzjames, daughter of Sir John Fitzjames, Lord Chief Justice and Baron of the Exchequer. Interestlingly their son, yet another Robert married into the Moyle/Finch family i.e. of Sir Thomas Moyle in the Richard of Eastwell case. Fun isn't it? (Then of course there was Uncle Robert of Pulham who died in 1467)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-08-04 11:09:52
Hilary Jones
Exactly Doug. I have the greatest respect for those who toiled with paper and pen, or even quill and paper!
The most prestigious branch of the family came from Bawtry, which is down the road from Rotherham. But they were also (like the Stillingtons) Chancellors of York. We know the York and Bawtry are related because we have their wills. After digging around in the Dorset Fines I can date the Dorset branch from the end of the fourteenth century so I would speculate that they came from a younger son who married into land there. Certainly it's the woman who holds the land.
We then have 'Uncle Robert' from Pulsham, Norfolk, to whom Bishop John devoted a memorial window. We know he's from Bawtry because he's in his father's will. He left a will and I've ordered it from Norwich RO. That would clinch it.
Talking about the Bawtry Mortons though, they are supposed to descend from 'Thomas Morton, Secretary to Edward III'. I have yet to find a single mention of him despite his prestige. Though I did find a Thomas Morton, Archer to Edward III!!! H
On Saturday, 3 August 2019, 14:13:26 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, How did anyone ever keep this straight before computers? I t certainly helps explain all those families, searching for long-lost relatives of good stock to glom onto, who've managed to go, um, astray...deliberately or not. You said that Robert #1 was of the direct branch from York. Does that mean that the others were offshoots, so to speak, of that line? Doug Hilary wrote: Doug we actually have at least four! 1. Robert Morton of York who fought for Richard at Bosworth, died in 1493, and said he was a most excellent King.' He was of the Bawtry/York direct branch. 2. Robert Morton, later Bishop of Worcester, Master of the Rolls, son of Archbishop John's brother William. The Thomas mentioned in some of the documents is also William's son. He was married to Dorothy Twynyho. 3. Robert Morton who married Agnes Forster, sister of John. He seems to have been descended from the Archbishop's uncle, another William of Cerne, Dorset. Lots of documents connect him to Archbishop John, whose arms appear on his granddaughter's tomb. 4. Robert Morton, their son, who married Dorothy Fitzjames, daughter of Sir John Fitzjames, Lord Chief Justice and Baron of the Exchequer. Interestlingly their son, yet another Robert married into the Moyle/Finch family i.e. of Sir Thomas Moyle in the Richard of Eastwell case. Fun isn't it? (Then of course there was Uncle Robert of Pulham who died in 1467)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington - Lateran Regestra

2019-08-05 06:20:55
Doug Stamate
Hilary, My sympathies are for anyone who had to completely re-write several generations because new information was found! I wonder if being from a junior branch of the family might partially account for Bishop Morton's determination to not keep his abilities under a bushel? Even if it meant treason... Doug Hilary wrote: Exactly Doug. I have the greatest respect for those who toiled with paper and pen, or even quill and paper! The most prestigious branch of the family came from Bawtry, which is down the road from Rotherham. But they were also (like the Stillingtons) Chancellors of York. We know the York and Bawtry are related because we have their wills. After digging around in the Dorset Fines I can date the Dorset branch from the end of the fourteenth century so I would speculate that they came from a younger son who married into land there. Certainly it's the woman who holds the land. We then have 'Uncle Robert' from Pulsham, Norfolk, to whom Bishop John devoted a memorial window. We know he's from Bawtry because he's in his father's will. He left a will and I've ordered it from Norwich RO. That would clinch it. Talking about the Bawtry Mortons though, they are supposed to descend from 'Thomas Morton, Secretary to Edward III'. I have yet to find a single mention of him despite his prestige. Though I did find a Thomas Morton, Archer to Edward III!!!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.