Guest Post: Busting Mediaeval Building Myths: Part One

Tattershall Castle, Lincolnshire

Last week I had the pleasure of attending a talk given by buildings archaeologist James Wright, of Triskele Heritage, on Medieval Graffitti. It was a fascinating lecture and thoroughly enjoyable – if you ever get the chance to go and hear James talk, I highly recommend you do. Anyway, chatting to James afterwards we got on to the topic of the many myths surrounding medieval buildings and James very kindly agreed to write a blog post for me. It is, in fact, a rather large topic – especially after James’ Twitter followers got involved – and so has turned into 2 posts. Part Two will be along next week, but here’s Part One for your delectation.

Busting Mediaeval Building Myths: Part One

James Wright, Buildings Archaeologist, Triskele Heritage

As a buildings archaeologist, I am very fortunate to have access to all manner of mediaeval structures, many of which are not open to the public. I feel a great affinity with these buildings, be they timber-framed houses, stunning parish churches or the castles of great lords, and sense a responsibility to let folk know about new discoveries using a wide range of media. There is simply no point doing archaeology unless you tell others what you have done!

Recently I met my friend, the author Sharon Bennett Connolly, after giving a talk on the mediaeval period. Whilst we were having a catch-up, the subject of popular myths about mediaeval buildings cropped up and Sharon asked if I would be interested in submitting a guest blog for this website.

During my visits to mediaeval buildings, the information relayed on websites, leaflets and guidebooks or by property owners, custodians and stewards is not always wholly precise. I want to use this blog to gently bust a few of the more common myths. There is rarely any malicious intent in such stories – they are usually the result of the misidentification of a structure by an early antiquarian, amateur or even professional historian. If something has been repeated enough times or put into print it becomes “real”. Once it becomes “received wisdom” the myth is widely taken as factual and repeated often.

So here are the first five of ten myths, associated with mediaeval buildings, and the (often more interesting) realities hiding behind them…

  • Secret Passages
Secret Passages, Ashby

Tales of underground secret passages are so common that almost every village and town have their own version. Usually the tunnel connects two rather contrasting, and faintly scandalous, locations such as the manor house and the nunnery or the priest’s house and the local pub! In my own home town of Stone, Staffordshire, there is a persistent rumour that a passageway linked the site of the twelfth century priory to Aston Hall.

The fact that the two buildings are over one and half miles apart, and that the intervening land is on the flood plain of the River Trent, never seemed to raise any scepticism when the locals of various pubs were discussing this! How would the presence of the passage be kept secret? Who paid for it? Why was it constructed? Where was the spoil put? How was it kept drained? The practicalities all seem rather insurmountable.

Although some sites do feature genuine tunnels, such as Strelley Hall in Nottinghamshire or Ashby Castle in Leicestershire, they tend to be both post-mediaeval in date and are relatively short in length. In both cases they offer access for goods and connect different buildings within a single complex. The vast majority of tunnel myths turn out to be simple drains when investigated. The origin of the story at Stone is probably related to the survival of a small section of a storage undercroft, from the priory, which is now the cellars of a much later house.

  • Spiral Staircases
Spiral Stair, Newark

Go and visit any castle in the land and you will inevitably find a guidebook, audio-tour, interpretation panel or tour guide stating that all spiral staircases twist clockwise to provide a swordsman’s advantage for the right-handed defenders, who were able to easily wield their weapons, whilst attackers would be at a disadvantage. I’ve spotted this being presented to visitors recently at both Arundel, Sussex and Colchester, Essex.

A brilliant survey of castle staircases, by Neil Guy of the Castle Studies Group, has demonstrated that, contrary to the myth, anti-clockwise spiral staircases were incredibly common. We can find them in the eleventh century at the Tower of London; twelfth century at Newark, Nottinghamshire; thirteenth century at Conwy, Gwynedd; fourteenth century at Carisbrooke, Isle of Wight and fifteenth century at Kirby Muxloe, Leicestershire. Many of these castles were built during periods of military activity such as the Norman Conquest or Edwardian invasion of Wales – yet they still feature anti-clockwise stairs.

Some castle gatehouses (for example, Tonbridge, Kent) feature two staircase turrets, one clockwise and one anti-clockwise. They seem to relate to a similar pattern of access in monastery and cathedral towers (such as St Alphage Tower, London) which may be “up” and “down” routes to avoid collisions and jams. Many castles, such as Richmond, North Yorkshire, even feature straight stair passages. Finally, sieges rarely ended with fighting in the interiors of castles, let alone on the staircases – if the enemy was on your stair the battle was probably already lost!

  • Burn Marks
Burn marks, Gainsborough Old Hall

Huge numbers of timber-framed buildings are littered with curious tear-shaped burn marks which are often over-looked by custodians and visitors alike. However, when attention is drawn to them, as in the kitchens at Haddon Hall, Derbyshire or on an upper floor at Tudor House, Southampton, Hampshire, they are usually interpreted as being scorch marks left by unattended candles, rushlights, tapers or lamps. Many buildings, such as Gainsborough Old Hall, Lincolnshire, are so riddled with burn marks that their occupants must have been so careless that it is astonishing they are still standing!

Instead, a great piece of experimental archaeology, undertaken by John Dean and Nick Hill and published by the Vernacular Architecture Group, showed that these marks were deliberately created. A tear-shaped burn mark is almost impossible to replicate by leaving a light unattended. They found that the only way to leave such a mark was to hold a taper at a 45 degree angle, a few millimetres away from the timber, for between 5 and 15 minutes. Many marks are also found in locations unsuitable for supporting lights – the backs of doors and window shutters – and few had associated evidence of how lights would have been supported.

Once it was realised that the marks were created deliberately, archaeologists mapped their locations and found that the vast majority were on timbers near doors, windows and chimneys. In the mediaeval period, these areas were widely believed to be vulnerable to malicious fires and invasion by evil spirits. Therefore many of the marks were possibly created as part of a tradition of magical house protection. By burning the timber a little bit it would drive away the threat of more significant damage. Equally, there may be other ritual purposes associated with burn marks that may be connected to prayer, devotion, healing or purification.

  • Leper Squints
Leper squints, Lewes

Many parish churches feature curious holes penetrating their walls which are sometimes identified as windows through which sufferers of leprosy (now known as Hansen’s Disease) could observe services. Considered to be contagious and deformed, lepers were literally suffering purgatory on earth, and were therefore discouraged from mixing with the congregation.

Although lepers were considered to be outcasts, they were regularly provided for in charitable hospitals (such as St Nicholas, Harbledown, Kent) which were located on the edge of towns or at crossroads.  Ultimately, they were not encouraged to enter regular communities and the provision of squints at parish churches is unlikely.

Location and form is key here. A number features identified as leper squints (for example at St Cuthbert’s, Aldingham, Cumbria) are very small square holes, on the exterior of the church, capped by a thin lintel stone. These are relict putlog holes – left behind by builders whose mediaeval timber scaffolding was physically bonded into the masonry of the wall during construction. At the end of the work, carpenters would saw off the timber flush with the wall and over time the wood would rot away to leave a hole. Alternatively, small, low down windows like the one at St Leonard’s, Wollaton, Nottinghamshire (which usually have evidence for shutters) were probably built to allow ventilation rather than cater to lepers.

Holes found internally, such as that at St Thomas Becket, Lewes, East Sussex, are usually at an oblique angle through the wall separating the aisle from the chancel. These are formally designed, sometimes elaborately decorated, hagioscopes. This feature enabled priests officiating at side aisle altars to be able to simultaneously engage with the main celebrant, at the high altar in the chancel, during the Elevation of the Host – indicating that the ritual bread was now the body of Christ.

  • Mason’s Marks
Masons marks, Warkworth Castle

Stone buildings were constructed by masons – often considered to be a secretive bunch given to various arcane practises. One tradition states that masons had their own individual symbol (such as the illustrated example from Warkworth Castle, Northumberland) which they would chisel onto a piece of stone, once it was finished, so that they could be paid for it. By finding these marks we may be able to trace the career of a mason as he travelled from site to site.

Although there are definitely marks on the walls of mediaeval buildings which can be attributed to stonemasons, the reasons for their presence has become a little scrambled. Firstly, masons were very rarely paid per stone (i.e. piecework). Mediaeval building accounts (such as those for Caister Castle, Norfolk) indicate that masons were paid weekly wages. Secondly, the simplicity of masons marks means that they get widely repeated. Identical examples to those recorded in the early sixteenth century Hospital of the Savoy, London, were also found in fourteenth century Strasbourg Cathedral, France; seventeenth century Kirby Hall, Northamptonshire and nineteenth century Canton Viaduct, America.

The marks left behind by masons were not necessarily specific to an individual. There was no register of such things and it is likely that they were assigned to either individuals or entire work-gangs just for the lifespan of the building project. When they moved on to a new site, new marks were distributed. On a particular project the marks would be used by foremen to account for productivity, ensuring that the required number of stones were cut during set time periods.

—————————-

I hope that you enjoyed this blog and that it will prove useful in trying to fully understand mediaeval buildings on your own visits. Part two of this series will discuss subjects including crusader graffiti and ship’s timbers in mediaeval buildings.

Should you wish for more information on this subject, please feel free to tweet me on @jpwarchaeology or email on james@triskeleheritage.com

I have to extend a huge ‘thank you‘ to James for such a fabulous article. Can’t wait for Part Two!

*

My Books

Silk and the Sword: The Women of the Norman Conquest

From Emma of Normandy, wife of both King Cnut and Æthelred II to Saint Margaret, a descendant of Alfred the Great himself, Silk and the Sword: the Women of the Norman Conquest traces the fortunes of the women who had a significant role to play in the momentous events of 1066.  Available now from Amazon UK,  Amberley Publishing, Book Depository and Amazon US.

Heroines of the Medieval World

Telling the stories of some of the most remarkable women from Medieval history, from Eleanor of Aquitaine to Julian of Norwich, Heroines of the Medieval World,  is available now on kindle and in paperback in the UK from from both Amberley Publishing and Amazon, in the US from Amazon and worldwide from Book Depository.

*

You can be the first to read new articles by clicking the ‘Follow’ button, liking our Facebook page or joining me on Twitter and Instagram.

©2019 Sharon Bennett Connolly

The First Marriage of Katherine Parr

Katherine Parr

We often hear the story that Katherine Parr was used to marriage to older men when she accepted the proposal of Henry VIII in 1543. Her second husband, Lord Latimer, was a widower with young children and twenty years older than his bride. And her first husband, it has often been said was a man much older in years. However, this story has arisen from a case of mistaken identity, between a grandfather and grandson of the same name, Edward Burgh.

Katherine Parr’s first husband was Edward Burgh (pronounced Borough) of Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. And Katherine’s early biographers appear to have assumed that this was Edward Burgh senior, Lord Burgh from 1496 to his death in 1528.

The Burgh family were descended from Hubert de Burgh, 1st Earl of Kent and Justiciar for King John and Henry III. Hubert had even been married, briefly, to King John’s first, discarded wife, Isabel of Gloucester. The first Thomas Burgh had fought at Agincourt and married Elizabeth Percy, a co-heiress of a junior branch of the mighty Percy family, the Earls of Northumberland. It was through Elizabeth Percy that the manor house at Gainsborough came into the Burgh family, inherited from her father; she then left the estate to her son Thomas (II) Burgh, Baron  Gainsborough, on her death in 1455.

Thomas (II) Burgh was a trusted Yorkist, named sheriff of Lincoln in 1460 and, later, an Esquire of the Body for King Edward IV. By the end of 1462 he had been knighted and was a member of the Privy Council. By 1464 he had married a wealthy widow Margaret, dowager Lady Botreaux and daughter of Lord Thomas Ros. It was Sir Thomas Burgh who, along with Thomas Stanley, rescued Edward IV from his imprisonment in Middleham Castle by the Earl of Warwick.

The sacking of Burgh’s manor house at Gainsborough was the opening move of the rebellion of Richard, Lord Welles, in 1470, which eventually saw Edward IV escaping to Flanders and the brief readeption of Henry VI; Edward IV recovered his kingdom in 1471, with the Battle of Tewkesbury, and Henry VI’s mysterious death in the Tower of London just days later, putting an end to Lancastrian hopes. On Edward IV’s death, Sir Thomas had initially supported the succession of his brother, Richard III, but switched his allegiance to Henry Tudor shortly after King Richard visited the Sir Thomas’s Hall at Gainsborough. What had been said to make this staunch Yorkist transfer his support to a Lancastrian pretender, we can only guess….

Gainsborough Old Hall

In 1496, Thomas was succeeded as Baron Gainsborough by his son, Edward Burgh, who married Anne Cobham, daughter of Sir Thomas, 5th Baron Cobham of Starborough, when he was 13 and she was just 9 years old. It was from this marriage that the Burgh’s would inherit Starborough Castle.

Although he won his knighthood on the battlefield at Stoke in 1487, and was a Member of Parliament for Lincoln in 1492, Edward appears to have been less politically capable than his father. He soon fell foul of King Henry VII, whether it was because of the fact he associated with those the king distrusted, or due to early signs of mental illness, in December 1496, Edward was forced into a legal bond where he was obliged to present himself to the king wherever and whenever it was demanded, and to vow to do his subjects no harm.¹ He was even remanded to the custody of the Lord Chamberlain and had to seek royal permission if he wanted to leave court for any reason. For a time, he was incarcerated in the Fleet Prison, but managed to escape, despite his promise and financial guarantee not to; an action which put him in thousands of pounds of debt to the king.

From his mother, Margaret de Ros, it seems Edward had inherited a mental illness, one which also affected his Ros cousins, Sir George Tailboys and Lord Ros of Hamlake. As a result, in 1509, ‘distracted of memorie’, he was declared a lunatic.² His wife died in 1526 and he died in 1528, never quite recovering his wits. He was succeeded as Baron Burgh of Gainsborough by his son, Thomas (III).

In 1496, aged just 8-years-old, Thomas (III) had married Agnes Tyrwhitt. The marriage had been arranged by his grandfather, Thomas (II) and gave the younger Thomas useful contacts within Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, contacts he would need to counteract the damaging effects of his father’s mental illness and royal disfavour. Thomas (III) pursued a dual career, combining service as a justice of the peace in Lindsey with his service at court. In 1513 he was knighted on the battlefield of Flodden, the same field on which James IV of Scotland met his death. He was Sheriff of Lincoln in 1518-19 and 1524-25. He was appointed Anne Boelyn’s Lord Chamberlain in May 1533, and held the middle of the queen’s train at her coronation. He was also one of the twenty-six peers who sat at Anne’s trial in 1536.

Thomas (III) and his wife had as many as 12 children. The eldest of which was Edward, who died in 1533. It was this Edward who was the 1st husband of Katherine Parr, a marriage that had been arranged in 1529 by Sir Thomas and Katherine’s widowed mother, Maud Parr; her husband, Thomas Parr of Kendal, had died in 1517. Maud had taken it upon herself to arrange her daughter’s future. After a failed proposal to marry Katherine to Henry Scrope, the son of Lord Scrope of Bolton, due to the prospective groom’s lack of enthusiasm, Maud turned to another of her late husband’s relatives and arranged for Katherine to marry Edward.

Young Edward was of a similar age to his wife, not the old man as was stated in Katherine’s early biographies, when he was mistaken for his grandfather. Katherine was 17 at the time of the marriage, with Edward in his early twenties. It is impossible not to muse on how life could have been so different for Katherine, had this first marriage proved longer-lasting.

The great hall of Gainsborough Old Hall viewed from the solar

Sir Thomas, however, was renowned for his violent outbursts and wild rages (possibly due to the inherited mental instability in the family) and had a tyrannical control over his family. The first two years of the marriage, spent at Sir Thomas’s Hall at Gainsborough, was a miserable time for Katherine. She wrote, regularly, to her mother of her unhappiness and it seems the situation was only resolved following a visit by Maud Parr, who persuaded Sir Thomas to allow Edward and Katherine to move to their own, smaller, house at Kirton-in-Lindsey.

We don’t know whether Edward was a sickly individual (he may have inherited his grandfather’s mental illness), or whether or not he succumbed to a sudden illness, but their happiness was short-lived, as he died in the spring of 1533. Having no children, Katherine was left with little from the marriage, and, with her mother having died the previous year, and with her siblings in no position to assist her, she was virtually alone in the world. It was possibly as a remedy to her isolation that Katherine married her second husband, John Neville, 3rd Baron Latimer, who was twenty years her senior, in the 1534. There is no record that Katherine served any of Henry VIII’s queens. Her first appearance at court seems to be in 1542, when she became a lady-in-waiting in Mary Tudor’s household, before she caught the King’s eye.

Katherine had not forgotten her time with the Burgh family, however, and when she became queen Katherine paid a pension from her own purse to her former sister-in-law, Elizabeth Owen, widow of her husband’s younger brother, Thomas. Poor Elizabeth had been accused of adultery, during her husband’s lifetime, by her domineering father-in-law, Sir Thomas, and her children were declared illegitimate by a private Act of Parliament in 1542. Although, it does appear that Thomas had a partial change of heart before his death in 1550, as his will included a bequest for ‘700 marks towards the preferment and marriage of Margaret, daughter of Dame Elizabeth Burgh, late wife to Sir Thomas my son, deceased …’ ³

Gainsborough Old Hall

Sir Thomas, Baron Burgh of Gainsborough, was eventually succeeded by his third surviving son, William, born in the early 1520s. He married Katherine Fiennes de Clinton, daughter of Edward Fiennes de Clinton – the future Earl of Lincoln – and Elizabeth (Bessie) Blount, a former mistress of Henry VIII and mother of the king’s illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset.

Lord Latimer died on 2 March 1543 and Katherine became Queen of England when she married Henry VIII on 12 July the same year. Her marriage to the king would last less than 4 years and ended with Henry’s death on 28 January 1547. In May 1547 Katherine secretly married her 4th and final husband, Sir Thomas Seymour, brother of her predecessor as queen, Jane Seymour, and uncle of King Edward VI. She died at Sudeley Castle on 5 September 1548, having given birth to a daughter, Mary, 6 days earlier. She was buried in the chapel at Sudeley on the same day. Her daughter was given into the custody of Katherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk, but disappeared from history whilst still a toddler.

*

Footnotes: ¹ ² & ³ Gainsborough Old Hall, Extended Guide Book by Sue Allen

Sources: Gainsborough Old Hall, Extended Guide Book by Sue Allen; In Bed with the Tudors by Amy Licence; oxforddnb.com; The Life and Times of Henry VIII by Robert Lacey; England Under the Tudors by Arthur D Innes; The Earlier Tudors 185-1558 by JD Mackie; Elizabeth’s Women by Tracy Borman; Henry VIII: King and Court by Alison Weir; In the Footsteps of the Six Wives of Henry VIII by Sarah Morris and Natalie Grueninger; Ladies-in-Waiting: Women who Served at the Tudor Court by Victoria Sylvia Evans; The Life and Times of Henry VII by Neville Williams; The Six Wives and Many Mistresses of Henry VIII: The Women’s Stories by Amy Licence; Tudorplace.com; John Leland Leland’s itinerary in England and Wales 1535-43 edited by L Toulmin Smith (1906-10); Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII 1509-47 edited by JS Brewer, James Gairdner and RH Brodie, HMSO London 1862-1932; Privy Purse Expenses of King Henry VIII from November MDXIX to December MDXXXII edited by Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas 1827.

*

My books

Heroines of the Medieval World tells the stories of women, famous, infamous and unknown, who shaped the course of medieval history. It is available in hardback in the UK from both Amberley Publishing and Amazon UK. It is now available in Hardback from Amazon US  and worldwide from Book Depository.

 

From Emma of Normandy, wife of both King Cnut and Aethelred II to Saint Margaret, a descendant of Alfred the Great himself, Silk and the Sword: the Women of the Norman Conquest traces the fortunes of the women who had a significant role to play in the momentous events of 1066. Silk and the Sword: the Women of the Norman Conquest will be released in the UK on 15 November 2018 and is available for pre-order on Amazon UKAmberley Publishing and Book Depository.

You can be the first to read new articles by clicking the ‘Follow’ button, liking our Facebook page or joining me on Twitter.

*

©2018 Sharon Bennett Connolly

Lady Rose

Lady Rose

Lady Rose

Rose Locke was born in London on 26 December 1526. She was the daughter of Sir William Locke and his 2nd wife, Katherine. The 3rd of 11 children, her family were some of the earliest Protestants in England, and staunch supporters of Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon. The family lived in Cheapside in the 1530s, with Rose’s father and several brothers serving as agents of the king in France and Flanders during the 1540s. A mercer and alderman of London, Rose’s father was a gentleman usher of the chamber to Henry VIII and was appointed sheriff of London in 1548; he was knighted by Edward VI in 1549.

According to Rose her father, Sir William Locke, a merchant with strong links to Antwerp, had smuggled ‘herectic’ Protestant writings from abroad for Queen Anne Boleyne herself. Rose had long been familiar with the new learning and wrote in 1610: “My mother in the dayes of King Henry the 8th came to some light of the gospel by means of some English books sent privately to her by my father’s factor from beyond the sea: where upon she used to call me with my 2 sisters into her chamber to read to us out of these same good books very privately for feare of troble because these good books were then accepted hereticall…”¹

On 28 November 1543, just a month short of her 17th birthday, Rose married London merchant Anthony Hickman. They had as many as 7 children together and their eldest daughter, Mary, was born in 1547 and a son, William, was born in 1549. Sons Walter and Anthony were born in 1553 and 1560 respectively. Another son, Eleazar, born in 1562, was named after John Knox’s son, and the last, Matthew, was born in 1563. There were two other daughters, Frances and Rose, though their birth dates are unclear.

Anthony Hickman owned several ships, including the Great Christopher, given to Queen Elizabeth I’s navy in 1560 and renamed Victory; and had property in London, Essex and Antwerp. He had a business partnership with Rose’s brother, Thomas Locke, and both were favourites of Henry VIII and Edward VI, growing rich through their mercantile endeavours. The Hickmans entertained such eminent clergymen as John Foxe and John Knox; Rose’s sister-in-law Anne Locke was a correspondent of John Knox and he mentioned the family a number of times in his letters to her between 1556 and 1560.

044
Gainsborough Old Hall

However, the advent of the reign of Mary I, and the resurgence of the Catholic faith in England, meant that the staunchly Protestant family fell out of favour with the catholic queen. They defied Mary by holding private religious services in their homes.  Anthony and Thomas were both arrested and held in the Fleet prison for a time, before being released to house arrest. Anthony eventually escaped to Antwerp, with Rose and the children following him shortly after; the family would remain on the continent until after Queen Mary’s death.

They returned to England shortly after the accession of Elizabeth I. However, religious divisions were becoming more pronounced as Queen Elizabeth’s reign advanced, not only between Catholicism and Protestantism, but within Protestantism itself.

After Anthony’s death in 1573, Rose married again. Her 2nd husband was a widower, Simon Throckmorton of Brampton, who died in 1585. Rose rarely used the Throckmorton surname, possibly because of its association with plots to rescue Mary Queen of Scots by disaffected Catholics; the Throckmorton Plot being led by Sir Francis Throckmorton, a cousin of Queen Elizabeth’s lady in waiting, Bess Throckmorton.

The Hickman family had become known for their Puritan leanings; Puritans were those who wanted the ‘purer’ church as envisaged in the reign of Edward VI, rather than the compromise established by Elizabeth I. In 1593, in order to curb the activities of such religious dissidents, Elizabeth I’s government had approved the ‘Act Against Puritans’, whereby it became illegal to become a Puritan or encourage others to that tendency.

052
Gainsborough Old Hall

As a result, official appointments at court, for those known to have Puritan connections, suddenly dried up. Rose’s son Walter, deeply entrenched in court circles and an old hand at brokering appointments for friends and family (usually with a financial incentive) discovered the implications of the new stance in 1594. The Cecil Papers show that Walter was refused when he applied for the position of Receiver of the Court of Wards for his brother William, despite offering an inducement of £1,000.² The increasing hostility towards Puritans, and the possibility of escalating religious persecution, may well have persuaded William to move his family north; away from the prying eyes of the authorities and into Lincolnshire.

With the encouragement of Katherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk, ministers with Puritan leanings had been appointed to various churches throughout Lincolnshire. Several of the Pilgrim Fathers, who sailed to America on the Mayflower, would come from the region, including William Brewster and William Bradford. Families with strong ties to service at the Tudor court, such as the Burghs of Gainsborough, were moving south, closer to London and the person of the Queen, while other families were moving north.

In 1596 William Hickman bought the Old Hall at Gainsborough, which provided the merchant with his very own port on the River Trent. The move to Gainsborough was not without its challenges. With the Burgh family having essentially left the town to its own devices for the last 30 years, Hickman’s attempts to collect market revenues and port tolls met with opposition, including the apparent murder of one of his servants, who was stabbed to death. It may well have been that William’s puritan leanings exacerbated the situation, but the main unrest seems to have stemmed from relatives and retainers of the outgoing Burgh family. A Mr Topliff, who tried to stop William obtaining justice for his servant, was the son-in-law of Thomas Burgh III (himself the father-in-law of Henry VIII’s last queen, Katherine Parr).

028
The great hall of Gainsborough Old Hall viewed from the solar

Now approaching her 80s, Rose moved to Gainsborough with her eldest son. In 1610, at the age of 84, she wrote an account of her early life, from 1534, when her father removed the papal bull, which had been posted in Dunkirk, against Henry VIII. Her recollections ended in 1558, with the death of Mary I and her family’s return to England on the accession of Elizabeth.

Lady Rose Hickman died on 21 November 1613, a month short of her 87th birthday. She was buried in the Hickman Quire of the former Burgh chantry chapel in the parish church of All Saints in Gainsborough, just across the road from her home, Gainsborough Old Hall. Her epitaph was written in 1637 and reads:

God gave unto this matron in her days
Such pledges firm of his affliction dear
Such happy blessings as the psalmist says
They shall receive as serve the Lord in fear
Herself in wedlock as the fruitful vine
Her children like the olive plants to be
And of her issues in descendant line
She did her childrens childrens children see
And freed from the Babylonish awe
Peace permanent on Isreal saw
Now having fought a good and Christian fight
Against the spiritual common enemy
And exercis’d herself both day and night
In oracles divine continually.
And kept the sacred faith with constancy
Even in the midst of persecutions rage
Express’d by worthy works of peity
From time to time as well in youth as age
She finished her course and doth possess in heavenly bliss the crown of righteousness”³

 

 

*

Footnotes:

¹A Guide to Gainsborough Old Hall by Sue Allan; ²ibid; ³MS C Folio 7, deposited in the British Museum in 1935, quoted by gainsborougholdhall.co.uk/throckmorton

Images:

Rose Hickman from gainsborougholdhall.com; Gainsborough Old Hall photos ©SharonBennettConnolly 2017

Bibliography:

John Leland Leland’s Itinerary in England and Wales 1535-43 edited by L Toulmin Smith (1906-10); Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII 1509-47 edited by JS Brewer, James Gairdner and RH Brodie, HMSO London 1862-1932; Privy Purse Expenses of King Henry VIII from November MDXIX to December MDXXXII edited by Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas 1827; Religion and politics in mid-Tudor England through the eyes of an English Protestant Woman: the Recollections of Rose Hickman edited by Maria Dowling and Joy Shakespeare; Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 1980 & 1982; A Guide to Gainsborough Old Hall by Sue Allan; Elizabeth’s Women by Tracy Borman; England Under the Tudors by Arthur D Innes; Henry VIII: King and Court by Alison Weir; In Bed with the Tudors by Amy Licence; In the Footsteps of the Six Wives of Henry VIII by Sarah Morris and Natalie Grueninger; Ladies-in-Waiting: Women who Served at the Tudor Court by Victoria Sylvia Evans; The Six Wives and Many Mistresses of Henry VIII: The Women’s Stories by Amy Licence; Oxforddnb.com; Tudorplace.com; gainsborougholdhall.com.

Lady Rose also features in Marie McPherson’s novel on the life of John Knox, The Second Blast of the Trumpet.

*

Heroines of the Medieval World:

Heroines of the Medieval World,  is now available in hardback in the UK from both Amberley Publishing and Amazon UK and worldwide from Book Depository. It is also available on Kindle in both the UK and USA and will be available in Hardback from Amazon US from 1 May 2018.

23593407_1968209250117704_6252461679001074025_oa

You can be the first to read new articles by clicking the ‘Follow’ button, liking our Facebook page or joining me on Twitter.

*

©2017 Sharon Bennett Connolly