Silver Boar - Vol VII No. 1- March 2000
Editor Jane Wilkinson. B.A.
THE ENGLISH BOWMAN by Angus Hirst
THE PRETENDERS by Dorothy Mitchell
CROWLAND REVISITED by Joyce Rossall
THE SIGN OF THE WHITE BOAR by Dorothy Mitchell
A LITTELL DITTYE by Debbi McCauley
MEDIAEVAL MARRIAGE by Ralph Tate
A DE VERE EMERGES by Charles Mighton
THE ENGLISH BOWMAN by ANGUS HIRST (A Bowman)
THE ENGLISH BOWMAN was a well trained person, educated in this art from a young age to use the long bow, by force of law. By the age of seven every boy had to have his own bow and two arrows and be capable of shooting them. To quote Bishop Latimer (1495 - 1555) on the sixth sermon he preached to Edward VI during April 1549:
“In my time, the poore father was as diligent to teach me to shoote, as to learn any other thynge, and so I think other mene did thyr children. He
taught me howe to draw, howe to laye my bodye in my bowe and not to drawe with strength of armes, but with strength of bodye. I had my bowe bought me a ccording to my age and strength and as I increased in them so my bowes were made bigger and bigger, for men shall shoote well, except they be bought up in it”
This holds as true today as it did then.
The age men were called upon to provide military service was from 16 to 60. To enforce this the King would issue a “Commission of Array” which was a throwback to the old feudal obligation when every man had to serve his country when needed. The “call up” was simplified so that only the best men, archers, pikemen, etc. were accepted into the huge army. When the “Commission of Array” was issued the King would send lords, or men greatly trusted by him, into very county to assess how many men it could provide. The Commissioners were issued with the King’s Warrant and had to test every “whole and hable” archer on the county list. When the archers were chosen the Commissioner had to provide horses and livery. They were paid half their wages on the promise that the other half would be paid at their final destination point, because if they were paid fully at first they would spend it on women and drink and fail to turn up at the muster point. Large and powerful cities such as York, also sent men under the Array System. For example, during the Scottish campaign 1480 - 1481, the city sent 120 archers, and a captain, all mounted and harnessed. This was the background to which the archer belonged.
There were three ways in which an archer could make a profession with his skill with the bow. Legally that is, first of all he could join the ranks of archers belonging to a great lord and become what became known as a “household” archer. These were the elite. They were looked after and were well fed and only used the best European yews for their bows. The crème de La crème were the King’s bodyguard archers, so - called “Yeomen of the Crown”. Secondly, there were the ‘indentured’ archers who were bound to serve their lord for life in times of war and peace. They were also well cared for, if they had a generous lord. They also owned first class bows. Sometimes these were made of English yew, slightly inferior to its European counterpart.
Finally there were the mercenaries who would sell their services to the highest bidder and would wear that lord’s badge and livery until someone offered him more money.
THE ARCHER WAS A MAN OF GREAT PHYSICAL STRENGTH from bending his back to the bow day after day. This has been borne out by the skeletons of archers, recently recovered from the wreck of the Tudor warship “The Mary Rose” which sank in 1545. Also the remains recently recovered from the battlefield of Towton (1461) near York, showed that the humerus on the left arm and radius and ulna bones on the right arm were between 10 - 15% denser than that of a non-archer. This comes from the push-pull action of drawing a long bow of great weight before the bones become fully developed which enabled the most powerful and skilled archers to draw a bow of between 180-200lb weight.
THE LONGBOW CAME INTO ITS OWN during the 100 Years War (1337 - 1453) but the tactics used had been honed during previous years in battle such as Falkirk (1298), Bannockburn (1314) with the tactics perfected by the battles of Dupplen Moor near Perth, in 1332 and Haledon Hill in 1333. Archers were used on the wings with dismounted Knights and men-at-arms in the Centre. This was the most common battle formation used during the 100 Years War.
THE DIAGRAM SHOWS HOW THE ARMY OF KING EDWARD III was drawn up at the Battle of Crècy (26th August 1346) with Edward in the Centre, his son Edward the Black Prince on his right, and the Earls of Northampton and Arundel on his left. The English army consisted of approximately 14,000 of which 7,000 were archers against around 36 - 40,000 men with all the French Kings such as the King of Bohemia, the King of the Romans, Jean de Hainault with his Luxembourgers, the King of Majorca and the Duke of Savoy, together with mercenaries It must have made a vast and impressive army.
THE ARCHERS, WHEN FORMING INTO THEIR BATTLE FORMATION, would carry with them two sheaves of arrows (48) which, with each arrow weighing two ounces, would mean each man carrying about 61b of arrows, which is nothing. They would be brought replacement arrows continually during the battle. These they would either stick in their belts or arrange them in the ground in front of them.
THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF ARROW HEADS.
1. The Barb, which is the type everyone recognises by its ‘V’ pointed head, which is basically a long distance manning arrow that can also be used close up.
2. The Head, which is designed to penetrate mail and armour at long and close distances.
3 .The Fauker, designed mainly to kill horses, was shaped like the old fashioned two-pronged fork with the sharp cutting edges on the inner sides. The Fauker, of all the arrows, was the most vicious as it ripped apart the insides even more the Barb.
DURING THE MORNING OF THE BATTLE OF CRÉCY it rained hard and the English and Welsh archers removed their bowstrings to keep them dry, placing them under their hats. This prevented the strings from shrinking and proving useless in the forthcoming battle. On the other hand, the French army possessed archers though not as skilful as the English and Welsh archers. These were mercenary Genoese Crossbowmen. There were 15,000 of them at Crècy who could not unstring their crossbows and as the strings were made of linen they shrank and were useless when battle commenced in the afternoon, prompting King Philip VI of France to shout out “They are getting in our way and serve no purpose, this rubbish!”.
Then the French Knights rode through them straight into a hail of English arrows
The three main battle formations of the English army consisted of the Vanguard, Middle, and Rearward. These battles would consist of Knights (dismounted, their horses being enclosed in the horse park at the rear of the field, but within easy reach if needed) and men-at-arms who would stand a sword’s wield apart. The archers would be positioned in the wings of the battle array, as in the drawing. so as the 14th Century Chronicler Geoffrey de Baker said: “not too close to the men-at-arms, but on the side of the King’s army as if they were wings and thus they could impede the men-at-arms or clash with the enemy head on, but could shoot their arrows from the side...”
The archers were drawn up in what the French Chronicler Froissart, called “heroes”. Although the meaning of that word has been lost to us we can assume that as archers need to see the target they are shooting at they would spread out - maybe up to 6 deep, depending on the terrain and amount of archers deployed. It is possible they were arranged in a chessboard pattern, with each row staggered slightly to given them room to manouevre.
This is how they could have been formed up at Crècy, but it’s just theory. Other chroniclers have used the word “Hedgehog” as to how archers were positioned.
THE CHRONICLERS OF THE DAY STATE that the French made up to 16 charges at the English line without breaking through, though at one point Edward the Black Prince was under serious attack and it was possible that he could be killed or captured. When the King his father was informed of this he is reported to have said: “Is my son dead or fallen, or too badly hurt to help himself” When the messenger replied “No sire, I thank God, but he sore pressed and needs your help”, to which the King said “Go back to him, Sir Thomas (Sir Thomas Norwich being the messenger) “and to those who sent you, and tell them not to seek help whilst my son lives. Say to them “I would have the boy win his spurs, for the days shall be his, please God, and he shall have the honour and glory of it, he and his men.” Edward the Black Prince was 16 at the time.
THE FRENCH LOST APPROXIMATELY 4,000 KNIGHTS IN THE BATTLE but the number of men-at-arms and cross bowmen is not clear but it is more than 4,000. The pattern continued from Crécy, through Poitiers (1356), Agincourt (1415), up to the final battle of the 100 Years War at Castillon (1453) when guns made a bigger impact.IN 1363, ONLY 17 YEARS AFTER THE BATTLE OF CRÉCY, and 52 years before Agincourt, Edward III complained. “Whereas the people of our realm, nobles as well as commons, usually practiced in their games the art of archery, leading to honour and profit for the realm and we gained not a little help in our wars. Now the art is totally neglected and the people amuse themselves with dishonest games so that the kingdom, in short, becomes truly destitute of archers.....”
Sheriff’s were forced to ensure that everybody practiced shooting their bows as the law stated. Edward was right in stating that England’s prowess with the bow required constant practice to maintain the strength and expertise needed to win battles.THE LAST BATTLE ON BRITISH SOIL IN WHICH THE LONG BOW PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN VICTORY was the Battle of Flodden (1513) in the reign of Henry VIII. The effective range of a long bow in the hands of a trained man was 350 yards and at which range he could lose, or shoot at least 15 arrows in a minute, although at that distance accuracy was unimportant as you were lucky to hit your target 1 out of 250 arrows, the effect being to frighten the horses as well as the men. At Agincourt there were 5,000 archers loosing 15 arrows a minute which meant 75,000 arrows per minute in total. Certainly this would have had a frightening effect. Only 1 in 250 would hit their target - the rest would be impaled in the ground; difficult to walk through in a suit of armour. 350 yards is the maximum effective range; 80 - 100 yards for an archer to be shooting apples in a barrel. At that range the Bodkin headed arrow could pierce a brigantine (a plate patched shirt) and the man himself, like a knife through butter.
IN CONCLUSION it can be said that the design of arrowheads and armour was inter-related and that a series of compromises between damage to the body, ease of penetration and the integrity of the penetrator had to be reconciled.
Sources:
“Longbow” Robert Hardy*
“The Mediaeval Archer” Jim Bradbury
The English Longbowman Clive Bartlett Gerry Embleton
*Appendix to “Longbow” Peter Jones/Robert HardyEDITOR’S NOTE. As Angus’s sketches have been lost, others have been used in the Centre Spread
THE PRETENDERS by Dorothy Mitchell
A MEDIAEVAL CITY naturally attracts lots of tourists. York is no exception - and in order to ascertain the expectations of tourists, a certain amount of market research is undertaken.
First on the list are museums, especially as York dates from Celtic times.
TheYorkshire Museum houses genuine Celtic and Roman finds and plays host to various exhibitions and is well worth a visit.
The Castle Museum, founded by a Dr. Kirk (who I knew when young), displays Jacobean and Georgian artifacts and Victorian farming implements. Many of these had been given to Dr. Kirk instead of payment for his medical services). The Museum also has an original gypsy caravan, tallow factory and a cobbled street containing original Victorian shop fronts displaying period clothes, sweets, lace and ribbons. There is also a military section and the Condemned Cell where highwayman Dick Turpin spent his last hours before being hanged on the Knavesmire.
The Railway Museum which houses numerous trains from steam to diesel including a replica of Stephenson’s ‘Rocket’ and the famous ‘Mallard’.NOW WE COME TO THE ‘NOT SO GOOD’ - to certain organisations who twist the truth to the trusting tourist. As I have been a bystander who has witnessed the twisting, then I write with conviction.
Youngs Hotel, Petergate, York The swinging inn sign signifies that this is the birthplace of Guy Fawkes, the man who in 1605 tried to blow up Parliament. This “declaration” is based on nothing more substantial than that Fawkes was christened in St. Michael le Belfry Church opposite. In my younger days I lived at the hotel and there was an old cottage attached to 20th Century extensions which were reached across a yard. The hotel itself dates from the l8thC. In the 1960’s when the tourist trade took off and York became a ‘must’, an enterprising hotelier decided that Fawkes was born there. BUT HE WAS NOT. Fawkes’ father had been an advocate for York Minster and Guy was born in a Minster owned property in Stonegate, as Minster records reveal. So we have an inn-sign depicting the birthplace of Guy Fawkes in Petergate while just round the corner in Stonegate a plaque proclaims that York’s most infamous son was born in a house there.
Margaret Clitheroe’s Shrine, The Shambles, York. In the early 1970’s I had a modelling school in the Shambles, York’s most famous street. One day a friend of mine informed me that she had bought a property there and was going to turn it into a shop selling ceramics. The property had once belonged to Margaret Clitheroe, a Catholic martyr who had been pressed to death on orders of Elizabeth 1st for practising her faith. The Shambles until well into this century, had always been The Street of the Butchers. Margaret Clitheroe had been the daughter and wife of men of this profession.
It so happened that several dilapidated Shambles properties came onto the market, so York City Council bought, gutted and renovated these properties. Some were let out as ‘tourist shops’ but one was turned into ‘Margaret Clitheroe’s Shrine’. The truth is that my friends property on the opposite side had the real honour.
‘The Shrine’ was officially opened and York Press had a field day. My friend was photographed outside her property holding aloft the Deeds of Purchase together with verification that this was Margaret Clitheroe’s birthplace. However York City Council did not intend to back down and lose face, together with a lucrative income. The property now boasts a plaque stating it is Margaret Clitheroe’s birthplace. Step inside and you will find it church quiet, complete with altar and offertory box.
Last but not least is BARLEY HALL, off Stonegate, York. It was here in Coffee Yard in 1969 that I started my modelling school. As the name indicates, Coffee Yard was the site of York’s first Coffee Shop and also its first printing press. I rented the house which dates from the 16th Century - along with its ghost. The public passage way running from Stonegate to Swinegate has done so since mediaeval times. When I was there the passage widened at one side in its Centre to house a signwriter, an electricians’s workshop and a plumber, the latter situated above a small section of the passage. The passage then continued uncovered into Swinegate.
In the early 1990’s due to York City Centre becoming pedestrianised, a York Trust bought the Coffee Yard, probably cheaply on account of its poor condition, and concluded that the workshops had once been part of a rich city merchant’s mansion, one William Snawsell Latching on to interest in Richard III in York (generated by The Friends of Richard), the Trust decided that Snaffles had entertained Richard during the Royal Progress of 1483. They also claimed that Snawsell had given one of the biggest donations towards the City’s gift to the King (see York City Records: Subscriptions List).
So, almost overnight a pseudo-mediaeval building arose from where once squatted a spread of dilapidated buildings Even the ‘Coffee House’ was improved, despite it being a listed building, but then Trusts often move in mysterious ways....
When the building was completed, experts visited and gave their opinion. They were not, to put it mildly, impressed (York Evening Press) as they could find nothing authentic. I have been inside Snawsell’s Mansion on two occasions, the first when it was opened and the second for a book launch. Everything appears to be contrived. If you do visit you are charged admission. Yet not many do, as it is nearly almost empty - no wonder the exterior itself is enough to put people off.
Seriously, would a rich businessman build a mansion down a passage, a byway for drunks, leading from Stonegate to Swinegate where, as the name indicates, pigs were penned and prostitutes preyed? For many years now I have studied the York City Archives and I have a good idea what mediaeval York looked like. Most merchant mansions were situated in the main street, Coney Street (Conying Street) or else The Pavement. The mansions faced the Street with a fountained garden in front and stables out back. The City Merchants flaunted their wealth by owning fabulous houses, clothes and jewels, so that everybody could see their wealth and envy it.
Snawsell might have lived in Stonegate, but I very much doubt if he lived down Coffee Yard (then called Langton Lane) or that he entertained Richard to dinner as claimed. There is no record of it. If he did he would have had to invite the Lord Mayor, eleven other Aldermen and the ‘twenty four Councillors’ so that they could witness his ‘conquest’. Can you imagine Richard walking along a filthy alleyway that you couldn’t get a horse down, so that a City alderman could boast that he had entertained royalty? It would never have been allowed. The Lord Mayor ran the city, together with his Council, and already he had entertained the royal family to dinner on two separate occasions (York City Records and York Memorandum Book). Besides, all the other aldermen would have jumped on the ‘entertainment wagon’ each trying to outdo the other. There might have been a ‘Barley Hall’ but I can find no records of one existing. If it had, it would have been in Stonegate, not down a disreputable alley.
There was and still is, a ‘Mulberry Hall’ in Stonegate, definitely of the mediaeval period and once the property of the Bishops of Durham. It is now a high class glass and porcelain shop.
So there you have it: three cases of truth being twisted on the anvil of opportunity. Just as in Richard’s time!
CROWLAND VISITED - 1469 by Joyce Rossall
It was June, the year of our Lord 1469. The Northern people, thoroughly fed up with the massive taxes imposed upon them by the family and favourites of the Woodville Queen, revolted. Instigated by a furious Warwick they appointed for themselves a leader (Robin of Redesdale) who marched South with a company 60,000 strong to join the Earl in London.
Edward’s spies had already got word to him, so he immediately set out to the shrine of Edmund the Martyr, as was the custom, to pray for divine aid. On his return he passed through Walsingham and Lynee and so it was that towards evening he and his company of 200 horsemen approached the Abbey of Crowland (Croyland). Ingulph’s Chronical records the visit thus:
“And the barriers having been opened and all obstacles removed, the King at last arrived at Croyland, where he passed the night a well pleased guest. On the morrow, being greatly delighted with the quietude of the place and the courtesy shown, he walked on foot through the street to the western outlet of the village, praising in high terms of commendment the plan of the stone bridge and surrounding houses. Then he and his company embarked, and set sail for Foderingay where his Queen awaited”.
The bridge at Crowland once spanned 3 streams, now it stands high and dry. It is obvious from the report that Croyland had already barricaded its doors against any marauding remnants of the rebel army by the time Edward reached the village, and though not recorded at the time, we now know that Richard was present also.
Some say the Abbey has a forlorn air about it. During its long history it had much ill luck, but rose to be a renowned centre of learning with a fine library, and the home of the famous “Chronicles”
Now the stone Bishops that once adorned the Abbey’s magnificent West Front lie propped against the ruined walls. Their stern faces give nothing away. Edward’s seemingly “laid back” attitude towards the impending storm is puzzling - but may be his way of hiding his true feelings!(lngulph’s Chronicle)
“THE SIGN OF THE WHITE BOAR” by Dorothy Mitchell
LIKE MOST RICARDIANS I love the challenge of research! Sometimes you can plough through pages of print and get nowhere. Another time the information you need is printed in the most unexpected places. The latter presented itself when I bought a booklet entitled “York’s Historic Inns”. A lot of the taverns the author Pete Coxen, describes have long been demolished in the name of ‘progress” Quite a number of Elizabethan and medieaval inns have been sacrificed to appease this insatiable monster. Reading through the booklet I came across an article on ‘The Little John” pub in Castlegate - a Street leading to the castle. As I had been there often my interest was aroused, it turned out that the inn had once been called “The Robin Hood”, before that “The Blue Boar” and before that “The White Boar”. As you know, after ‘Bosworth’ all the White Boar inns were turned overnight into Blue Boar inns, (as at Leicester) this being the cognizance of the Lancastrian ‘victors’.
Dick Turpin’s body was brought into the “Blue Boar” after he’d been hanged at the Tyeburn - Knavesmire - on Saturday April 7th 1739. The body was kept in the cellar overnight, the landlord charging customers if they wanted to see it. Next day he was buried in St. George’s churchyard, but that same night he was dug up by ‘resurrection’ men, who sold bodies for medical research. It was found later that day hidden in a surgeon’s front garden! A mob seized the body and carried it in procession through York, before placing Dick back in his coffin and covering him with lime before returning him to his grave.
GETTING BACK TO RICHARD - The York City Records show that there was an inn in Walmgate called “The White Boar”. After Richard’s death the York City Council informed Henry Percy, the Earl of Northumberland’s son, that they would meet him there, because if he came into the city his life would be at risk.
The fact that a “White Boar” inn where Richard no doubt “drunk and supped” is still standing, complete with ghosts: a dark - cloaked man (Turpin?); a man richly dressed - and a lady.
I wonder who the latter two can be?
“A LITTELL DITTYE” by Debbi McCauley
(to be sung to “You’ve Got to Pick a Pocket or Two”
with apologies to Lionel Bart)MORTON:
For many years I did bet
On Edward IV, Plantagenent
But in truth I’m a Red, Lancastrian bred
And life hasn’t been going as I planned
I hate the sight of the rose so white
And I want a chance to expand!MARGARET BEAUFORT:
My only son’s exiled in France
He can be helped to take any chance
Good Lancastrian stock,a chip off the block
He’ll reward you well and true.MORTON:
That’s the Sort of King I’d support!
I’ll help him pinch a Crown or two!HENRY:
When I consider Richard’s throne
I think of it really as my own
And thanks to my mum I’m not alone -
Shell help me steal a crown or two.
I’m sick of feeling vile in French exile
I need to pinch a throne or twoMORTON:
The solution’s easy as I see
To eliminate King Richard Three -
He’s in a tight spot, makes him perfect for plot
And a certain little rumour or two - ooh!
We need to spread a rumour or two!MORTON, MARGARET, HENRY:
We need to be quick to get rid of Dick!
We need to spread a rumour or two!
MARGARET:
His weakness is, if I’m not wrong
The safety of his brother’s sons -
We’ll have them done away and pretend it was his say
And spread a little rumour or two!
Those Princes in the Tower will haunt him every hour
Because we ‘ve spread a rumour or two!HENRY:
For reasons best not to state
England’s mine, on a plate.
There’ll be a little fight but I’ll keep well out of sight
And wait for step-dad Stanley to come through.
I’m useless with an axe, much better raising tax -
I cant wait to pick a pocket or two!RICHARD’S GHOST:
In Heaven’s Realm I’ve no fear
It’s wonderfully pleasant here -
I knew all along I did no wrong
And went to meet my Maker with glee.
You may spread your spite with all your might -
Those who care know I’m not guilty!MORTON, MARGARET, HENRY & STANLEY:
It’s not so nice, being dead.
We’re sick to death of the colour red!
From the River Styx we get no kicks
We should have let King Richard alone.
No throne Is worth eternal misery
Like being in this fizzery -
We should have let King Richard alone!(DEEP COLLECTIVE GROAN)
MEDIEVAL MARRIAGE by Ralph Tate.
To the educated medieval man and woman marriage was one relation of life, love another. Love might indeed grow out of marriage, as doubtless it often did. If not, the wife tried to assert her rights by her tongue, sometimes with success. Put the “lordship “ was held to be vested in the husband, and when he asserted it by fist and stick he was seldom blamed by public opinion. In this unequal struggle the woman also laboured under the handicap of constantly hearing children, most of them soon died and had to be replaced. Such a marriage was not an ideal state of things, but for centuries it served to people England. A difficult task in those days of plague and medical ignorance.
A nobler view of what marriage might and should mean had not yet been envisaged by general opinion. Even the Church had scarcely been helpful for her ascetic ideal was unsuited to the average human nature. The Fathers had regarded women as potential snares of Satan.
The Church had indeed endeavoured to protect them by her authority from a lawless lust and violence, and her support of the marriage tie had at least made it more difficult for a man to discard his wife, though often divorce was sometimes obtained by money. But ecclesiastical authority which insisted that priests must be celibate, regarded marriage as a lower state.
In this imperfect world the laity must be permitted to marry, but the relation of man and wife was not held to touch a high spiritual plane. It was not therefore wonderful that the clergy sanctioned by their ceremonials the customs of child betrothal and child marriage, therefore accepting the materialistic view of the laity, that the rational choice of the panes most concerned was not necessary, and that the marriage of a boy and girl might be a proper subject for barter between other persons.
Since, therefore, love was not the normal basis of marriage, the Troubadours of Langguedoc at the end of the 11th century, and the French and English poets who succeeded them in chanting the service of a pagan “God of Love” regarded the passion of love as being under no obligation to respect so irrelevant a thing as the marriage bond. It has been shrewdly said that “any idealization of sexual love in a society where marriage is purely utilitarian must begin by being an idealization of adultery”
The great gift of the medieval poets to the Western world was this new conception of the love of man and woman as a spiritual thing - the best of all spiritual things, raising men and women above their normal selves in all gentleness and virtue.
Here was a new and constant source of inspiration to the life of mankind, based on the facts of nature. It was an idea unknown the Ancients and unknown to the early Church. Could this thrice precious concept of the medieval poets be allied, by further revolution, to the State of Marriage? Could the lovers themselves become man and wife? Could the bond of young love be prolonged till age and death? This change has actually taken place in England in the gradual evolution of the idea and practice of marriage. It was not an inevitable change. In France, for instance, the arranged marriage is still normal, though of course the civilised French parent pays far greater consideration to the wishes and mutual compatibility of the young people than did Mistress Agnes Paston. And such marriages are often very happy. But in England, the arranged marriage has given place to the love match: the parents have yielded to the children the choice of their own destiny.
This victory of freedom and love has behind it a long roll of unknown warriors and martyrs. No doubt there were many cases of lovers marrying, all through the Middle Ages. Men did not always obey their fathers, and fathers were sometimes human, and often died young. Chaucer’s FRANKLIN’S TALE is a beautiful story of a marriage made and maintained by love. And in the 15th century things were slowly moving. Even in the society of the prosaic Pastons we have a record of at least two Love marriages. In the first case, that of Margery Brews and John Paston in 1477, evidently, the girl won over her mother to the romantic view.
The other Paston love story had a longer and rougher course, but reached an equally happy haven.Margery Paston had the courage, secretly, to plight herself to Richard Calle, the Bailiff of the Paston estates. Such betrothals were regarded as binding and the Church could not refuse to maintain them, but they were sometimes broken by the consent of the parties. For years the girl stood out against the fury and bullying of her family, till at last, wearied out by her obstinacy and still desiring to retain the indispensable services of their too aspiring Bailiff, the Pastons agreed to let thelovers marry.
Already in popular ballad literature of the later 15th century the motif of the love marriage was more and more making itself heard, as in The Nut Brown Maid.
Among the poor, it is probable that marriage choice had always been less clogged by mercenary motives. We have but slight evidence on the subject, hut we may presume that among the peasantry in the Middle Ages,’ as in all ages, Dick and Nan walked together in the woods and afterwards to church for reason of love liking, added to the belief that Nan would make a good mother and housewife, and that Dick was a good workman, or “had a pig put up in a stye” besides some strips in the open field. Marriage to legalise the consequences of incontinence was exceedingly common, especially in the lower ranks of society where maidens could not be so carefully guarded at all hours. But girls of the class of the Pastons were under their mother’s strict watch and ward, so that the licentious amours of the gentry had usually to be conducted either with the daughters of the poor or the wives of the rich.
When once a lady was married, she entered on a sphere of activity , influence and even authority. The Paston letters tell the tale of several generation of matrons by no means slaves to their husbands, hut rather their counselors and trusted lieutenants. They seem utterly devoted to their lord’s interests, to which their numerous children must be sacrificed. They are better wives and housekeepers than mothers. Their letters show them taking part in the legal and business interests of the family, as well as in the purely domestic sphere where they reigned supreme. If a girl., wealthy that is, were’ not married off, she must, if possible, be placed in a nunnery. To be well rid of her, money was piously paid and there the girl was respectfully settled for life. It was rarely possible to become a nun without a dowry. In this way the English nunneries were recruited and part financed. At least in the 14th and 15th centuries. Whatever they may have been in theory, or in the distant past, they were not in this era refuges for the poor or houses for women with a special call to religious life.
In conclusion, not all marriages were happy. There would be rows and desertion, just like today.
A DE VERE EMERGES by Charles Mighton.
Some time ago the magazine printed an article on the Earls of Warwick up to the present day. So, I thought members would he interested in the Earls of Oxford.
As we all know, John de Vere, Earl of Oxford was a stout Lancastrian and led Henry Tudor’s army at the Battle of Bosworth. Therefore, when I read an article relating to a claimant to the title, I thought it would be of great interest to members. The man concerned was born Aubrey de Vere, but to his friends he is Bill, a retired maintenance engineer from Limehouse, East London. “The idea of me in a coronet is a joke” says Bill, 74, “I don’t even wear a hat” IF he only had the papers to prove it he could quite well be the 28th Earl of Oxford. Apart from possessing the name Aubrey, which has knocked around the male heirs of Oxford since the 1400s, Bill’s only other inheritance is a rather special nose. The OXFORD NOSE HAS BEEN IN THE FAMILY FOP GENERATIONS, judging by pictures or famous forebears in the National Portrait Gallery. To the relief of the De Vere women, it tends to pass down the male line.
Spurred on by THE NOSE, and family stories, Bill’s family have spent two years in Essex Record Office and London’s Family Record Centre investigating the family tree. The quest began when they learned of a “battle” in the Twenties when an interloper, Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, was given the title, Earl of Oxford, Bill’s cousin, Paul, learned that his grandfather, not Asquith, was the rightful title holder. A newspaper of the time quoted Ernest as saying, My father, Harold, should now be the 26th Earl and my eldest brother should be a Viscount. We have only the graves in Barking Abbey churchyard to prove our case, But, as we have never had the money to fight for the title, we have never bothered”. Ernest argued that vital, claim-proving documents were destroyed by his great-grandfather, William, an eccentric old man Digging deeper, the family found a quote from The College of Arms,(founded by Richard III), it read, “...There may quite well be an Earl of Oxford and Asquith and an Earl of Oxford at the same time...”
The family spent £70 on an old book, “The Fighting Veres” obtained from a Barking bookshop. This gave a colourful account of Haration (known as Horace) who fought against the Spanish during the Armada, a cousin or Edward, Earl of Oxford. It is the relationship between these two cousins which lies at the heart of the present family’s claim to the title. The Earl of Oxford’s line finally died out in 1703, and the family maintains it should have then reverted to Horace’s line.
The problem is, first, in proving that Horace’s line is entitled to the peerage, the second, in proving that the present de Veres are descended from Horace’s family. Difficult without the necessary papers. But do the de Veres lose sleep over their lost inheritance? “My father was gassed in the First World War, and my uncle was buried up to his neck” says Bill de Vere. “Our family has served our country well, so who needs a title?”
The last word from the College of Heralds, “Too much time has elapsed, so it is unlikely to succeed”
From an article by Jane Furnival