#Kirkburn | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dwellordream · 2 years

Text

Wardship and First Marriage

“At the age of six or younger, Lucy inherited the manors of Danby, Brotton, Skinningrove, Yarm and Kirkburn (Yorks.), and Bozeat (Northants.), which were thought to be worth at least £241 13s. 8½d. a year, and were probably worth rather more. The Yorkshire lands were held in chief so custody of them during her minority, and the right to award her marriage, belonged to the king, Edward I. This was one of the occasions when secular rights conflicted very obviously with the church’s view of the primacy of consent in making a marriage.

The implications of the marriages of minor heirs differed according to whether the heir was male or female. A royal grant of the marriage of a minor male heir offered a father the opportunity to marry off a daughter without paying a cash portion, although very often these were bought and sold and in these cases the difference was immaterial. The marriage of a minor heiress was far more significant because of the land she brought with her.

The official attitude to these young girls is displayed in the terminology of administrative records. This was simply commercial and there is little or no indication that they were considered as persons in their own right. The inquisition after the death of Roger de Merlay concluded that the heirs were Merlay’s three daughters, aged twenty-four, ten and eight, and that the eldest and the youngest were married before their father’s death, the former to William de Greystoke and the latter to ‘the son and heir of Marmaduke de Thweng’.

Of the five young persons concerned, only Greystoke is actually named. The important points were that one daughter was of full age and her one-third of the estate would pass to her husband, Greystoke, who would take possession in the usual way. The king would have custody of the other two-thirds of the estate because the other two daughters were minors, but he would have the marriage of only one of them because the other was already married.

Similarly, on the death of Lucy’s son Nicholas Meinill in 1341, leaving his ten-year-old daughter Elizabeth as heir, Elizabeth’s marriage was immediately granted to the younger John Darcy, as a reward for the services of his father, and also because ‘of his own acceptable service in staying by the king’s side, and in the hope that for such increase of his estate, he will be the more diligent to serve him’.

Elizabeth was little more than a commodity and there is no hint here of the church’s view of marriage being predicated on the consent of the parties. Most heirs, it would seem, acquiesced in the marriages that were arranged for them, and this was also true, in general, of marriages arranged for children by their fathers. Nevertheless, whether or not it was the result of the church’s theory, it was possible for minor heirs to refuse to enter into marriages.

A marriage was ‘offered’ to the heir and he had the option of declining, the financial aspect being resolved by the heir paying his guardian, or whomever had acquired his marriage, a cash sum instead. Robert, later Sir Robert, Gower inherited the manor of Carlton as a minor and his marriage belonged to Nicholas Meinill (d.1299). Meinill offered to Robert an illegitimate cousin of his own but Robert objected on the grounds of disparagement. Meinill then sold the marriage to his knight, Sir William de Roseles, for his daughter but Robert refused this match as well, and this resulted in a case heard at the assizes in 1276.

The jury agreed with Gower about the first offer but not about the second, because there was no disparagement, and he was ordered to pay Roseles twice the value of his marriage, the figure being set at eighty marks (£53). Edmund Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, at first objected to his proposed marriage to Alice de Warenne, and in December 1304 she was granted the value of his marriage instead, but he later changed his mind and married her.

Sometimes, heirs were at least offered a choice. William de Cauntelo succeeded his father in 1308 when he was said to be fifteen or sixteen, and his wardship and marriage were granted to his father’s widow, Eve, who may have been his mother. He was still unmarried when, in January 1314, he came to Chancery to sue out the writ for his proof of age, and was offered a choice of two ladies. He refused both so he was told to pay Eve the value of his marriage.

When Thomas de Longvillers proved his age in June 1300 he confirmed that he was not married and it was testified that the king had offered him one of the daughters of the late Adam de Creting and, having seen them, Thomas had agreed to marry the eldest. More surprising, perhaps, is that the option of buying their own marriage might also be allowed to women.

Edmund de Mulford died leaving an underage daughter, Agnes. The king granted the wardship and marriage to his mother Queen Eleanor (d.1290); she gave them to her yeoman James Daubeney, who sold them to William le Noble. When an inquisition was made in 1305 Agnes was said to be twenty-four and it was reported that, having ‘satisfied’ Noble for her marriage, she was not yet married, but still ‘wholly free’.

While an heir who was nearly adult might object to a proposed marriage successfully, marriages that were contracted by girls under twelve and boys under fourteen required their consent at the age of puberty in order to remain valid. Usually this was simply assumed to have occurred when they began cohabiting but it was possible for either party to dissent, although this had to be made in public and in theory before the bishop or his court.

…While it was possible for young people to choose spouses for themselves, or to dissent to an arranged marriage on reaching the age of puberty, or for minor heirs and heiresses to refuse marriages offered to them, it is unlikely that any of these options were exercised very often. This was particularly the case for young minor heiresses such as Lucy.

Acquisition of the marriage of a minor, whether male or female, normally included custody of the child’s person, so they would spend some time in the full power of their prospective spouse’s family. Girls were thought to be mature enough to give their official consent at twelve and it is likely that they came under some pressure to do so. Their husband would wish to ensure that the marriage had been formalised within two years because at fourteen she reached full age and he would be able to take possession of her lands.

It seems unlikely that girls of this age would be able to resist this pressure, even if they wanted to. Having been brought up in the environment of expectation that young people married whom they were told to marry, many may not even have considered resistance. Some marriages contracted by underage heiresses are known to have failed but there were many others for which there is no evidence of breakdown. It is far from clear that a marriage arranged by a guardian rather than by a father was more likely to be unhappy, although there is a possibility, and no more than that, that their personal wishes may sometimes have been allowed to play a greater role in the latter.”

- Bridget Wells-Furby, Aristocratic Marriage, Adultery and Divorce in the Fourteenth Century: The Life of Lucy de Thweng (1279-1347)

#bridget wells-furby #late middle ages #medieval #marriage #history #lucy de thweng

8 notes · View notes

dwellordream · 2 years

Text

Adultery and Fornication

“Meinill was one of the leading members of North Riding society. He was around four years older than Lucy and had succeeded his father in May 1299 when he was twenty-four. His family was of rather higher standing than the Latimers and the Thwengs because it had been established since around 1100 and antiquity was an important element of the lineage’s status. By the latter part of the thirteenth century there were three junior branches established in the locality at East Rounton, Hilton and Middleton.

Nicholas bought out his cousin Sir John de Meinill of Middleton in 1303 when this manor was settled on John for life with remainder to Nicholas and his heirs. The estate, like Lucy’s, lay chiefly in Cleveland and consisted of the castle and manor of Whorlton, and the nearby manors of Potto, Trenholme, Ingleby Greenhow, Seamer, Eston, Hutton Rudby and Carlton, and the advowson of Rudby and, by 1314, the manor of Middleton, with Aldwark and Boynton some distance further away. Most of these manors made up what was called ‘the Canterbury fee’, held of the archbishops of Canterbury.

…In January 1300, he was one of the Yorkshire knights who were summoned to attend the Exchequer at York, representing the North Riding alongside the younger Latimer. In early 1302 he and Sir John de Meinill of Middleton were among the group assembled at Yarm to witness John de Aslackby’s grant to the Dominicans and the confirmation by William and Lucy Latimer. By the end of that year, however, Latimer and Meinill were enemies.

On 26 November 1302, according to a presentment made by the Langbaurgh jury before local justices in May 1305, Latimer and a gang went to Meinill’s manor at Ingleby Greenhow to kill him but, not finding him, had hunted in his chase and killed his deer. It was said that some of them had done this in revenge for a similar raid by Meinill on Latimer’s chase at Danby.

A number of Latimer’s party were dressed in haketons and armed with swords, bows and arrows, and a destrier was killed with a lance, but, while some of them were found guilty of the hunting offence, they were acquitted of trying to kill Meinill. Three years later, in 1305, the feud between the two men was widely known. The jurors of Ryedale and Bulmer wapentakes thought that Meinill might act against Latimer because of the enmity he held towards him and knew that this was an ancient hatred.

These judgements were made in connection with a famous accusation brought by Latimer against Meinill. Latimer came before the justices on 11 May (1305) and showed them his privy seal letter of 21 April, which granted him full power to recapture Lucy and instructed all the king’s ministers to assist him. He then said that three men had been procured to kill him and requested that they should be examined immediately.

The men were Robert de Bordesden, Thomas de Roston, and Robert, son of Philip le Marshal of Scampston, of whom Bordesden was the ringleader. When asked who it was who had procured him to arrange this, Bordesden answered that it was Nicholas de Meinill. The justices then asked Latimer whether he wanted to proceed against Meinill, Latimer agreed, and was bound over to prosecute Meinill at the next session on 18 May, along with his two pledges, Sir Robert Ughtred and Sir Henry de Boys.

The three hitmen were committed to gaol to await the next session. Meinill was summoned to attend and duly turned up, as did Latimer, and the hitmen were brought from gaol. Bordesden was called up to be examined again but this time he gave a completely different story. He said that he had been seized by Latimer on 6 May (1305) on the highway at Scampston, beaten and wounded, taken to Latimer’s manor of Kirkburn, and imprisoned there.

On the following day, Latimer had told him that he was to go before the justices at York and tell the tale against Meinill. If he did not do so, he would be taken to the Tower of London by virtue of Latimer’s privy seal letter, but, if he did, he would have fifty marks (£33). Latimer made out the bond promising to pay Robert the money and handed it to Robert de Boulton for safekeeping, and he also promised that he would protect Bordesden and ensure that he suffered no ill consequences.

In particular, he promised that he would not have to go to gaol. As Bordesdon and his two accomplices had been thrown into gaol, he felt that he was freed from his promise, which in any case had been extorted from him, so he made a full confession. The jury believed this tale and acquitted Meinill, although Bordesden remained in prison for some time. He petitioned for justice and, as a result, a writ of 28 October (1305) instructed the justice Mauley to send without delay the documents and records of the case, including Latimer’s bond to Bordesden.

Another writ of 12 November notified the justices that Ralph de Sandwich and William Inge had been appointed to deliver the gaol of Bordesden and Roston, but Bordesden petitioned again because he was still in prison, after which the king’s council directed that he should be released on bail. Some doubt about the truth of his second account may be cast by the fact that he is known to have been associated with Meinill before and after 1305.

He had campaigned with Meinill and his father in 1298, he was named as one of the gang with Meinill when he took Lucy from Everingham in 1313, and he campaigned with Meinill in 1314. This raises the possibility that Meinill really had incited him to kill Latimer, but it is equally possible that Latimer seized on him as his agent because he would be able to get close to Meinill. The detail in the second story that Bordesden had been threatened by Latimer’s use of the privy seal letter also perhaps implies that this was the true one.

…Whichever of Bordesden’s stories was the true one, there is no doubt that Meinill’s acquittal was a very public debacle for Latimer, a humiliation before a major gathering at the county town. The case was probably a local cause célèbre because the third version of the record (membrane 22d.) was copied into the Guisborough Cartulary. There is no obvious reason why this should have been done because it did not involve the priory in any way.

The item is headed ‘De Nicholao de Meynill’ and follows the copy of Lucy’s later confirmation to the priory while widowed. The priory’s interest may have been because Lucy later made over her rights in the patronage of the house to her granddaughter by Meinill, but it is still remarkable. The most important question is whether the feud between Latimer and Meinill, already at a potentially murderous level in November 1302, was connected with Lucy.

It is easy to assume that it had arisen because she and Meinill had begun their relationship by that date, and that she decided to divorce Latimer a year later because of it. Nevertheless, there is some considerable doubt about this and the available evidence suggests that, to the contrary, their relationship began after she had left Latimer and probably after their divorce was decreed.

Latimer’s deployment before the justices of his privy seal letter, issued the previous month, seems to suggest that he was trying to establish a direct link between Lucy’s flight from him and Meinill’s alleged plot to murder him, but nothing explicit was stated to this effect and he was probably using the letter improperly. The earliest evidence of the feud, manifested in mutual hunting raids, does not suggest a connection with Lucy.

Most significantly, it is quite clear that Meinill was not involved in Lucy’s flight from Latimer in late 1303. This was organised by her uncle and carried out by family friends, and if Latimer had any idea that Meinill had been involved he would surely have accused him, particularly as they were already enemies.

It seems likely that Lucy was living with the Constables in October 1304, when Latimer brought his lawsuit against them, and she was almost certainly still living with family, and not with Meinill, in June 1305 when the dean and chapter were urging that she should be allowed to remain in a refuge safe from Latimer while the divorce suit was pending.

There is also the important allied point that they may not have been willing to decree the divorce, which they had done by October, if there was any doubt of Lucy’s motives because, as has been seen, divorces were not always granted when it was clear that the plaintiff ’s motive was simply a wish to marry someone else. The earliest explicit evidence of their relationship is the accusation of adultery in April 1307.

This may have been prompted by the renewed threat to Latimer of excommunication for not paying the costs of the divorce. This was revived with the enquiry ordered on 15 March 1307; the summons for adultery was made on 28 April. The connection is emphasised by the fact that, on the day following the summons, Thweng demanded an inspection of Latimer’s response to the enquiry.

Both her Thweng uncles were actively involved in this move, and they may have been attempting to put pressure on Latimer over the delayed divorce proceedings. The citation for adultery may have been instigated by Latimer as a riposte to this threat. Alternatively, it may have been an ex officio summons responding to widespread knowledge of the relationship, and this may have resulted from the birth of Nicholas, Lucy’s son by Meinill.

There is only circumstantial evidence to suggest when he was born but one important fact is that he was not yet knighted in May 1324. This suggests that he was still quite young when his father died in 1322, but he was probably in his teens because he was old enough to act as one of his father’s executors, although jointly with a coadjutator, and to have been given the manor of Boynton by his father a few years before.

Perhaps most important is that Meinill had no doubt that this son of Lucy’s was also his son, which implies that their relationship was well-established by the time he was conceived, and this is not likely to have occurred until after the summer of 1305, when probably they were not yet living together openly.

The implication is that they began their physical relationship, or at least that they did so on a regular or established basis, after the church court declared Lucy’s divorce in October 1305; their son may have been born in late 1306 or early 1307. Thweng’s continuing concern in Lucy’s affairs is also important in establishing the nature of her relationship with Meinill because he was on close terms with Meinill in May and September 1305.

In May, he was one of Meinill’s mainpernors, along with his and Lucy’s kinsmen, Sir Robert Constable and his father Sir William, and Sir Walter and Sir John de Fauconberg, and other leading local figures, while on 29 September Meinill and Thweng together witnessed a charter of Gawain de Thweng, Lucy’s clerical uncle who was appointed to examine Latimer in March 1307. The Thwengs, who had earned Latimer’s enmity for assisting in Lucy’s flight, may have been drawn to Meinill because he was already Latimer’s enemy.

For Lucy, in particular, faced with Latimer’s furious attempts to recover her, this may have been a strong attraction, although there is no doubt that their relationship developed into something far more than a simple shared enmity. The connection between Meinill and the Thwengs in 1305, and the concern of both uncles in Lucy’s affairs in 1307, after her relationship with Meinill had certainly begun, implies that this relationship had their approval, which further implies that Meinill and Lucy intended to marry.

….The references in the register not only imply that Meinill was single, but also reflect the ambivalent nature of Lucy’s marital status, her divorce having been decreed but not published because of Latimer’s appeal. Those referring to Latimer’s failure to pay the costs of the suit refer to her simply as ‘Lady Lucy, daughter of the late Sir Robert de Thweng’, as was the case with other women who became single again after divorces, but the references to the adultery, although naming her in the same way, also refer to her as ‘wife of Latimer’, except Meinill’s bond of January 1310 where she is again simply ‘Lady Lucy de Thweng’.

These bonds are particularly important testimony because oaths to abstain from sex with one another until marriage was solemnised were imposed on couples cited for fornication (not adultery) who were generally ‘caught somewhere midway along the trajectory toward full, regularized marriage’. It therefore seems clear that Meinill was free to marry Lucy and intended to do so as soon as her divorce was finalised.

There is no evidence as to where Lucy was living during the seven years between the decree and the publication but it seems likely that she lived with Meinill, bringing up their son in his household in a pseudo-marital atmosphere. They probably had another child because Meinill had a daughter, Christine, who was almost certainly illegitimate. This is indicated by the marriage he arranged for her in 1321; her husband was Robert, son and heir of William de Sproxton, of Sproxton (Yorks.). The Sproxtons were an ancient and respectable family, but hardly of the quality that was appropriate for a legitimate daughter of Meinill.

Bastard daughters were disadvantaged by their illegitimate status, which placed them a rung or two below their legitimate sisters, even if fully acknowledged and assisted by their fathers. During this limbo period, while Lucy was still technically married to Latimer, he retained all his physical and financial rights over her. Residence with Meinill no doubt gave her some protection against the dangers of recapture, and there is no further evidence of attempts by Latimer to seize her, although this may have been an ever-present threat.

It also addressed the problem of how she was to support herself without access to her own lands, but their relationship may have been responsible for extending that period. It can be assumed that Latimer’s primary practical reason for resisting the divorce was the consequence that he would lose possession of her lands and this was addressed by the compromise reached in early 1311, which was weighted heavily in favour of him and his son.

Without this, her entire estate would have passed back into her sole possession after the annulment and into Meinill’s control after her remarriage. It is possible, therefore, that the limbo period was extended until this compromise was reached and Latimer ceased his opposition, allowing the decree to be published in due course. Lucy’s son by him remained, and would always remain, her heir apparent while he lived, but once her lands had passed out of his control they could have been settled away from him, and probably in favour of her younger son by Meinill.

It is equally probable, in the light of Meinill’s subsequent actions, that he intended to regularise the position of their pre-nuptial son by a settlement after their marriage, as was done by others. Preparation for this, in anticipation that the divorce was about to go through, may be suggested by his licence, obtained in July 1311, to settle the reversion of Castle Leavington after their mother’s death on his brother John and his issue.

Although it was not unknown for a landholder to grant land to a brother, this was comparatively unusual, especially as John had already been provided for by their father with the manor of Tanton. The grant therefore suggests a special motive and this may have been because John, as Meinill’s heir presumptive, was about to be disinherited Lucy’s relationship with Meinill, the cause of her reputation for moral frailty, was therefore far from being a casual sexual fling.

It remains possible that it had begun before November 1302 and that, like some other wives, she had left her husband and divorced him because of it, but the weight of evidence suggests that this was not so. Her flight from Latimer in 1303 was arranged by her uncle and Meinill had no part in it, although he and Latimer were already enemies. By the summer of 1305, when Latimer’s tactics had already drawn out the divorce proceedings to inordinate length, her uncles were on close terms with Meinill and it is likely that his marriage with Lucy was already in prospect.

They precipitated matters by beginning a regular sexual liaison before the annulment was published, but they may not have anticipated that this would take another seven years. Her uncles were still supporting them in the spring of 1307 when they were closely involved in the renewal of the threat of Latimer’s excommunication and Lucy and Meinill were first cited for adultery.

Her ambivalent marital status was recognised even by the church. The fact that they did not ever marry may cast some doubt on this interpretation of the circumstantial evidence and imply that their relationship was merely a casual affair, but it seems likely that there was a particular reason for them not marrying, and that they were prevented from doing so.”

- Bridget Wells-Furby, Aristocratic Marriage, Adultery and Divorce in the Fourteenth Century: The Life of Lucy de Thweng (1279-1347)

#lucy de thweng #marriage #history #late middle ages #medieval #bridget wells-furby

3 notes · View notes