Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-17 12:16:21
mariewalsh2003

Hi all,


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Duration of chantry: perpetual

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Happy Robert hunting,

Marie







Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-17 12:22:26
Hilary Jones
Hi, I'd ordered it ages ago too and they sent me the wrong thing - though it was very pretty writing. Thanks and thanks BTW for the bit on Forster, Hastings and St Albans. I'm all behind at the moment. H

On Tuesday, 17 September 2019, 12:19:44 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi all,


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Duration of chantry: perpetual

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Happy Robert hunting,

Marie







Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-17 12:31:31
mariewalsh2003

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


Marie:

Did they send you the leper sisters as well?


Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-18 13:52:41
Nicholas Brown
Hi Marie,
Thank you so much for the transcription of the Vaughan document. It is very interesting.I never realized how much people paid for these chantries. According to the NA calculator £200 would now be worth £138,257.66, more than 18 years wages for a tradesman. I would assume that Vaughan contributed at least that much and as a fine for missed prayers that is shockingly punitive - quite an insight into a different mindset surrounding the repose of souls, or was it a way of showing off (perhaps a bit of both), sort of like people nowadays who pay that kind of money to go to a charity ball to hobnob with celebrities? I do agree with you that the date is significant, and Richard ap Robert ap Yeven is likely Thomas Vaughan's brother, and the prayers for the King and Prince of Wales were thanks for a denizenship that would open doors for Richard ap Robert.

Therefore, if that is the correct line, Thomas and Richard Vaughan (born c.1420) were the sons of Robert and Margaret (born c. 1390), who was the son of Evan/Yevan/John Vaughan (born c.1360). I can't recall anyone of that name in the Tretower/Bredwardine line for that time, but it was early days and most Welsh people were still using patronymics, so I would still guess that he was a cousin of some kind.
By the way, what do you think that Hicks would make of the Clarence connection?
Nico

On Tuesday, 17 September 2019, 12:32:37 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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


Marie:

Did they send you the leper sisters as well?


Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-18 19:35:38
mariewalsh2003
Nico wrote:Thank you so much for the transcription of the Vaughan document. It is very interesting.I never realized how much people paid for these chantries. According to the NA calculator £200 would now be worth £138,257.66, more than 18 years wages for a tradesman. I would assume that Vaughan contributed at least that much and as a fine for missed prayers that is shockingly punitive - quite an insight into a different mindset surrounding the repose of souls, or was it a way of showing off (perhaps a bit of both), sort of like people nowadays who pay that kind of money to go to a charity ball to hobnob with celebrities? I do agree with you that the date is significant, and Richard ap Robert ap Yeven is likely Thomas Vaughan's brother, and the prayers for the King and Prince of Wales were thanks for a denizenship that would open doors for Richard ap Robert.

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

Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-19 11:53:35
Nicholas Brown

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

Nico

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, 19:35:42 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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

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

Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-19 13:06:08
Hilary Jones
Are these any use Marie:
Parl Roll 1455 Henry VI
'Provided also, that this acte of resumpcion extende not nor be prejudiciall unto Thomas Vaghan, squier, by what name soever he be called, for terme of his lif, in or of a graunte made by us unto him of a mese, and certaine housyngs and gardeynes in Colmanstrete of London: nor in or of a graunte made by us unto him, of a mese called Garlek, with a gardeyn therto annexid, in the parisshe of Stebenhith, in the counte of Midd': but that oure seid grauntes and lettres patentes severally made of the premisses be good and effectuall unto the seid Thomas, after the tenour and purport of the same grauntes and lettres patentes, the seid acte notwithstondyng. (fn. v-278-537-1) Provided also that this act of resumption shall not extend or be prejudicial to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, by whatever name he is called, with regard to a grant made by us to him for term of his life, of a messuage and certain houses and gardens in Colman Street, London; or with regard to a grant made by us to him of a messuage called Garlic, with an attached garden, in the parish of Stepney, in the county of Middlesex: but that our said grants and letters patent individually made of the aforesaid shall be good and effectual to the said Thomas, according to the tenor and purport of the same grants and letters patent, notwithstanding the said act. (fn. v-278-537-1) Parl 1455'

And this the attainder with Oldhall and Alice Montague. Even though they were in different places it does look as though they were acting together: Parl Rolls 1459
'Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
BTW Vaughan and Hastings do several large transactions together through the years. H

On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 11:53:39 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


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

Nico

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, 19:35:42 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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

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

Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-19 20:11:29
mariewalsh2003
Thanks for the stuff from the parliament roll. I'll be copying all in due course. The identifying property is the one in Stepney (Stebenhith) called Garlek.

Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-20 10:14:47
Hilary Jones
Pleasure! Vaughan seems to have made quite a lot of money in London, including a bond from Sir John Newton, the Talbots' lawyer. I could see he would fit very well into the merchant/moneylender mentality. In some ways a strange choice for Comptroller of Edward POW's household. H
On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 20:22:07 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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

Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-21 03:37:22
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Pleasure! Vaughan seems to have made quite a lot of money in London, including a bond from Sir John Newton, the Talbots' lawyer. I could see he would fit very well into the merchant/moneylender mentality. In some ways a strange choice for Comptroller of Edward POW's household. Doug here: The nobility, as well as monarchs, often faced cash-flow problems didn't they? Perhaps Sir Thomas' nomination as Comptroller was at least partially due to his knowing some of those merchants/moneylenders? (Although one would think an IOU from the Prince of Wales would be accepted nearly as widely in 15th century England/Wales as Visa is nowadays...) There's also the fact that everything purchased for/by the Prince's Household couldn't be locally-sourced, so reliable merchant contacts in the country's largest port certainly wouldn't hurt when luxury items were wanted. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-21 16:08:14
Doug Stamate
Hilary, That first extract, if I understand it correctly, is saying that Vaughan has the rights to the use/income from those properties, but doesn't give any reason for the reconfirmation of his rights? Did someone not want to relinquish a previous grant? Or did someone claim they had been granted those properties? Do we know? The second extract made my head spin! We have Alice Montague at Middleham, Yorkshire on 1 August, with Oldhall and Vaughan in Queenhithe, London on 4 July. The reference to Blore is to the Battle of Blore Heath on 23 September, 1459, I presume While Ludford is the market town for Ludlow castle. So we have the attainder charging that Alice in Yorkshire and Oldhall and Vaughan in London were conspiring with York, Salisbury and Warwick who were in Shropshire and Staffordshire? The Wikipedia article on Attainder has this interesting bit: A person attainted need not have been convicted of treason in a court of law..., leads me to believe that Henry VI, more likely his wife Margaret, knew, just knew, I tell you! that Alice, Oldhall and Vaughan were somehow mixed up in the doings of York, Warwick and Salisbury, but had no proof. Which is why Alice, Oldhall and Vaughan are said to have schemed and plotted, that they worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked York, Warwick and Salisbury in their later actions. BTW, was Alice an heiress in her own right? I ask because anyone attainted forfeits their property to the crown, I believe... Regarding Vaughan and Hastings' relationship; Hastings was the only person who served as Edward IV's Lord Chamberlain. Even if Vaughan was acquainted with Edward, had met him before Edward became king, once Edward was on the throne, unless Vaughan was serving Edward in some position where he interacted with the King on a daily basis (or at least regularly for some other reason), going through Hastings would have been Vaughan's only option  and, unless I'm mistaken, Lord Chamberlains expected a tip for arranging an audience with the king. Perhaps that's what those large transactions were? Doug Hilary wrote: re these any use Marie: Parl. Roll 1455 Henry VI ' Provided also, that this acte of resumpcion extende not nor be prejudiciall unto Thomas Vaghan, squier, by what name soever he be called, for terme of his lif, in or of a graunte made by us unto him of a mese, and certaine housyngs and gardeynes in Colmanstrete of London: nor in or of a graunte made by us unto him, of a mese called Garlek, with a gardeyn therto annexid, in the parisshe of Stebenhith, in the counte of Midd': but that oure seid grauntes and lettres patentes severally made of the premisses be good and effectuall unto the seid Thomas, after the tenour and purport of the same grauntes and lettres patentes, the seid acte notwithstondyng. (fn. v-278-537-1) Provided also that this act of resumption shall not extend or be prejudicial to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, by whatever name he is called, with regard to a grant made by us to him for term of his life, of a messuage and certain houses and gardens in Colman Street, London; or with regard to a grant made by us to him of a messuage called Garlic, with an attached garden, in the parish of Stepney, in the county of Middlesex: but that our said grants and letters patent individually made of the aforesaid shall be good and effectual to the said Thomas, according to the tenor and purport of the same grants and letters patent, notwithstanding the said act. (fn. v-278-537-1) Parl 1455'

And this the attainder with Oldhall and Alice Montague. Even though they were in different places it does look as though they were acting together. Parl. Rolls 1459 'Other persons attainted.] 21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459' Btw Vaughan and Hastings do several large transactions together through the years.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-21 17:18:31
mariewalsh2003
Hi Doug.

Briefly, the first extract is an addendum to an Act of Resumption ( whereby all grants made by the King since a specified time were resumed - I.e snatched back). Acts of Resumption were always accompanied by lists of exceptions, set out with that same sort of wording. Vaughan had received the said properties by royal grant a few years earlier so without that clause they would have been automatically forfeit.

The other was discussed recently on the forum. These are the attainder after the aborted battle at Ludford Bridge. (The market town for the castle is called Ludlow like the castle. Ludford was/is a little hamlet outside the walls, just across the River Teme. There is a bridge over the river there and that is Ludford Bridge.)

The Yorkists decided to make Ludlow their joint HQ that year as they feared attack. Salisbury set out from Middleham and was intercepted en route, having to fight the battle of Blore Heath in order to continue on his way. That explains the meeting at Middleham on 1August involving his countess.
York, I think, set out from London, and Garlickhithe is the parish in which the Herberts had their London mansion, so that would explain the meeting involving Vaughan and Oldhall.
Again, I'm sorry if this sounds whiny -I don't mean it to - but I did explain this one on here recently as well and I'm seriously badly struggling to keep up with things so it would maybe be a good idea for people to copy and paste things of interest. Yahoo won't let me paste directly from the messages on the website, but I find it will let me copy and then paste into a reply, then if I cut or recopy the text from the unSent Reply box that will paste fine into a Word doc. If you're not actually wanting to send a reply you can then just delete it.
Marie

Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-22 06:29:02
Doug Stamate
Marie,
Thank you very much for the explanation about Vaughan's properties! I've
read about "Acts of Resumption" but never actually say the contents of any.
My apologies about the Attainders. I got thrown by the seeming discrepancies
between the dates mentioned in the Attainders and the actual dates of the
events. I have no idea why I didn't realize that one plots/plans, usually
anyway, before taking action, and the same would apply in this case!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"Hi Doug.
Briefly, the first extract is an addendum to an Act of Resumption ( whereby
all grants made by the King since a specified time were resumed - I.e
snatched back). Acts of Resumption were always accompanied by lists of
exceptions, set out with that same sort of wording. Vaughan had received the
said properties by royal grant a few years earlier so without that clause
they would have been automatically forfeit.

The other was discussed recently on the forum. These are the attainder
after the aborted battle at Ludford Bridge. (The market town for the castle
is called Ludlow like the castle. Ludford was/is a little hamlet outside the
walls, just across the River Teme. There is a bridge over the river there
and that is Ludford Bridge.)
The Yorkists decided to make Ludlow their joint HQ that year as they feared
attack. Salisbury set out from Middleham and was intercepted en route,
having to fight the battle of Blore Heath in order to continue on his way.
That explains the meeting at Middleham on 1August involving his countess.
York, I think, set out from London, and Garlickhithe is the parish in which
the Herberts had their London mansion, so that would explain the meeting
involving Vaughan and Oldhall.
Again, I'm sorry if this sounds whiny -I don't mean it to - but I did
explain this one on here recently as well and I'm seriously badly
struggling to keep up with things so it would maybe be a good idea for
people to copy and paste things of interest. Yahoo won't let me paste
directly from the messages on the website, but I find it will let me copy
and then paste into a reply, then if I cut or recopy the text from the
unSent Reply box that will paste fine into a Word doc. If you're not
actually wanting to send a reply you can then just delete it."


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

Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-27 20:10:58
mariewalsh2003

Doug wrote:

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


Marie replies:

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

Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan

2019-09-28 03:02:20
Doug Stamate
Marie wrote: Also, in the case of Ludford Bridge, the royal army, with the King as its figurehead, had marched against Ludlow, and the Yorkist soldiers and leaders had melted away in the night without a blow being struck, so short of failing to stick around to bend the knee to the King, there was nothing that the Yorkist leaders had done there that could justify their attainders for treason. So it was vital for a narrative to be put forward that placed their presence together at Ludlow in the context of an existing plot to destroy the King. Also, since the Countess of Salisbury probably never went to Ludlow, if her enormous estates were to be seized some other context would have to be found for her treason. Doug here: Talk about guilt by association! I found this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder so apparently I'm correct in presuming Attainders didn't have to meet the same scrutiny as, say, a charge of treason brought before the courts. As for the Countess of Salisbury, it's obviously yet another example of that old saying Behind every man... (See also, Margaret of Anjou and Henry VI). Projection, much? Doug


--
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.