The Elusive Mistress: Elizabeth Lucyand Her Family

JOHN ASHDOWN—HILL

‘Elizabeth Lucy is one of those well-known people whose life is wrapped in complete obscurity and whom nobody seems able to identify’.‘ Such, at any rate, was the somewhat depressing conclusion of one recent writer. It is certainly true that less information seems currently to be readily available about Elizabeth Lucy and her family background than is the case with most of Edward IV’s other sexual partners: Eleanor Talbot, and Elizabeth (Jane) Shore. Nevertheless, while it is true that many details of her life are obscure, some facts about Elizabeth Lucy and her family are well established. Despite this, published accounts of her have been contradictory. Scofield called her ‘Lady Elizabeth Lucy" as though she had been the daughter of an earl or a duke, although there has never been any evidence to suggest that this was the case. Potter wrote of her rather as though she were a common trollop3 — with an equal lack of evidence. It is perhaps appropriate, therefore, to re-examine what is known about Elizabeth Lucy and, at the same time, to present for consideration some new evidence relating to her and her family. In fact she seems to have been Lady Lucy, if not Lady Elizabeth; the wife of a rather than the daughter of a peer. We shall return to the problem of her husband’s identity later. Buck, however, supplies her maiden name, referring to her as ‘Elizabeth Wayte (alias Lucy)’, and specifying elsewhere that ‘Elizabeth Lucy was the daughter of one Wayte of Southampton, 21 mean gentleman, if he were one’. He also tells us that ‘the had a child by her, and that child was the bastard Arthur, and commonly called (but unduly) Arthur Plantagenet. And he was afterwards made Viscount Lisle by Henry VII’.‘ Lord Lisle was known, in his early life, by the name of Arthur Wayte,in fact.’Buck does not mention, and perhaps did

490 not know the first name of Elizabeth’s father, but his contention regarding the surname was confirmed and supplemented, early in the eighteenth century, by Anstis, who wrote that Lord Lisle was Edward IV’s natural son ‘by Eliz. the Daughter of Thomas Wayte of Hampshire, the widow of Lucy’.6 The Lisle correspondence confirms that Arthur Plantagenet recognised, and had contact with, numerous relatives called Wayte, from one of whom, his second cousin, John Wayte, ‘the Fool’, or ‘the Innocent’ (who was mentally retarded) he first leased and subsequently purchased the manors of Lee Marks and Segenworth, in the hundred of Titchfield, in Hampshire, in return for taking care of John for the rest of his life.7 Although Buck characterised Thomas Wayte as a ‘mean gentleman’, the Wayte family was in fact well established in Hampshire, where it first appears in the records about the beginning of the fourteenth century, at which time members of the family already held lands and possessions in the county.“ It is not certain whether the Waytes were established first at the manor of Segenworth in the parish of Titchfield, or at the manor of Wayte’s Court (which bore their family name) at Brighstone on the Isle of Wight. Both manors, however, were early and long standing possessions of the family. On four occasions in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, members of the Wayte family held the office of escheator for the county,9 and the family bore a coat of arms. There are several surviving sources for the Wayte family genealogy. One of the most important is the ‘Philipot pedigree'. This was collected in 1629 by the Herald John Philipot, and was the pedigree of one Anthony Bruning of Wymering, who was a descendant, in the female line, of one branch of the Wayte family. The pedigree is chiefly concerned with the descent of the Brunings from the Waytes (from whom they inherited the manor of Wymering) but it also includes details of another branch of the Wayte family, in order to highlight the relationship of Anthony Bruning to Elizabeth Wayte, Lady Lucy, whom it describes as ‘first concubine to King Edward the 4th, mother of Arthur Viscount Lisley (sic)’. It is thus evident that, far from being a skeleton in the family cupboard, by the early seventeenth century Elizabeth Lucy was regarded as the pinnacle of the Wayte pedigree!lo The Philipot pedigree is probably accurate as far as the Bruning descent is concerned, but seems to contain minor inaccuracies in Elizabeth Lucy’s line of descent, and it. is possible that in his anxiety to claim kinship with Edward IV’s ‘first concubine’, Anthony Bruning represented her as a slightly closer relative than she actually was. The evidence which leads me to suggest this appears below. The other chief source for the Wayte family tree is the information from the Feudal Aids, the Hampshire Feet of Fines, and other material, collected in the Victoria County History of Hampshire. Although I have used the Victoria County History, I have also checked its sources for this material. Despite some anxieties

491 over the point on the part of Muriel St Clare Byme, the Philipot pedigree and the pedigree which can be deduced from the Victoria County History and its sources are, in fact, generally compatible back as far as John Wayte I on the Wayte pedigree as I publish it here. Earlier than that there are greater discrepancies, and, as has been said, this is perhaps because Anthony Bruning wished to claim a closer association with Elizabeth Lucy than was strictly justified, or perhaps simply because he did not know her pedigree as precisely as he knew his own. At all events, since, as a result, the details of the family are in doubt earlier than John Wayte I (flourished 1398, died before 1403) it has seemed preferable to omit, here, the preceding generations on the grounds that the facts are uncertain. For the same reason I have omitted the details of the Bruning connection, which is, in any case, not directly relevant to this article. John Wayte I, his son, Thomas Wayte I, Thomas’ grandson, William Wayte, and the latter's descendants, Thomas IV and John IV are all attested in connection with the manor of West Stratton,” while the fact that Thomas I had a son called John II emerges from the history of the manor of Chark.” The Philipot pedigree apparently confuses John 11 with his elder brother, Thomas II, who died childless in 1448. Thomas Wayte II and John Wayte II were the sons of Thomas Wayte I and Margaret Popham. The Popham family was a longer-established one than that of the Waytes, and stood a little higher in the social hierachy. Margaret’s ancestors were first granted the manor of Popham by the Empress Mathilda. Margaret had relatives in quite high places. Her cousin, Sir John Popham, was chancellor of the duchy of Normandy and treasurer of the king’s household in the reign of Henry VI. He also served Edward IV’s father in France, where he had been a member of the duke of ’s council. The duke of Suffolk evidently regarded him as a partisan of the duke of York, for when Sir John was elected speaker of the Commons in 1449 he was regarded by the government as unacceptable, and pressure was brought to bear to make him stand down on the grounds of age and infirmity. Resident for many years in, or just outside London, Sir John Popham was a benefactor of the church of the Holy Sepulchre without Newgate, and of the London Carthusian monastery (Charterhquse), at both of which, traces of his building activities are still to be found. Sir John was buried at the Charterhouse. John Wayte H, the younger son of Thomas Wayte I and Margaret Popham, had several children, of whom Thomas III, the father of Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy) was probably the eldest. The name of Thomas 111’s first wife, Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy)’s mother, is unknown. It is possible that either she or Thomas III's mother was a connection of the Hampton family of Stoke Charity, with whom Thomas appears to have had some unexplained link. In 1465, however, Thomas married (as her second husband, and his second wife) Elizabeth, daughter of John Skilling, who

492 Possible Popham Family Tree The Popham family tree published here is derived from the VCH. Hampshire. supplemented and modified, see n. 29.

Robert de Popham m. Alice [—1 II. 1317-1346

Laurence de Popham Henry de Popham m. lsahelRomeseye Sir John Popham Sir Philip Popham d. s. p. Sherifi of Hampshire . fl. 1368-1402 fl. 1362 fl. 1360 In. d. 1397 d. 1417 Mathilda [—1 m. Elizabeth de Coudray d. before 1397

Sir Stephen de Popham Sir John Popham Philip Popham 1 392-1445 (Knighted before 1400) 1370-1400 (Chancellor of he Duchy m. of Normandy. Treasurer Elizabeth [—1 4 daughters of the King's Household. d. 1409 Benefactor of St. Sepulchre wflhout Newgate) d. s. p. 1463

(1) John de Coudray m. Margaret Popham Maud Popham Philip Popham (3) Robert Long b. 1400 b. 1 401 1399-1401 m. m. d. s. p. (2) Thomas Wayte Peter de Coudray fl. 1402-1431 d. s. p.

John Wayte fl. 1 453

Thomas Wayte d. 1482

Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy) 4

493 held the manor of Shoddesden, also in Hampshire. In addition, the Skillings held land at Collingboume in Wiltshire, which Elizabeth Skilling inherited, and which both of her husbands held by virtue of their marriages to her. She was the wife first of John Wynnard, who is recorded as having been alive as late as 1464, though he must have died, at the latest, early in 1465. This marriage appears to have been childless.” The marriage of Elizabeth Skilling to Thomas Wayte was also without offspring, although Thomas did father an illegitimate daughter during the period of this marriage, who is named in his widow’s will of 1487 (see appendix). Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy) was perhaps born in about 1445, which would mean that she was rather younger than either Eleanor Talbot or Elizabeth Woodville and indeed, probably younger than Edward IV. Her father, Thomas Wayte, died in 1482, and was buried at St Michael's Church, Stoke Charity, Hampshire. It is not known why this particular church should have been chosen, but the Wayte family held lands in two adjoining parishes: Barton Stacey and Micheldever. Also, the family of Thomas’ grandmother, Margaret Popham, had connections with this region, and her family’s ancestral manor is only a few miles from Stoke Charity. Thomas’ second wife, Elizabeth Skilling, survived him, " and may perhaps have been responsible for Thomas’ rather fine monument, which seems to have been intended to serve also as an Easter Sepulchre during the observations of Holy Week. It is, however, also possible that Thomas himself had the tomb prepared during his lifetime, perhaps in the 14705, when a number of other improvements ' and modemisations were carried out in the church, including the insertion of a new window in the south wall of the nave, just above the site of Thomas’ tomb. The tomb is a raised monument of the ‘table’ type, topped by a purbeck marble slab four feet seven inches long and two feet one inch wide, under an arch, in a recess of the south wall of the nave. The purbeck marble slab has brass insets. These include, at the base of the figure, the inscription: Hic iacet Thomas Wayte Amiger qui obiit x°die Aprilis Anno Domini MCCCIxxxij" cuius anime propitietur Deus. Amen. (Here lies Thomas Wayte Esquire who died on the tenth day of April in the year of Our Lord 1482 on whose soul may God have mercy. Amen.) There is a figure of Thomas, depicted as a good-looking man with his hair long in the style of Edward IV’s reign. His age is hinted at discreetly by the lines on his face, the slightly hollow cheeks and the deep-set eyes. He is dressed in fine armour. The figure is similar to that on another brass, installed only a year later in the same church,Is although the other person — Thomas de Hampton — is taller and his brass image appears to represent a slightly younger man. All of which is not to suggest that the brasses are actual portraits in the modern sense. On the Wayte tomb, in a scroll, the medieval brass equivalent of a speech bubble, Thomas again asks for God’s mercy: Iesus fili Dei miserere mei. Above Thomas’ head,

494 Possible Wayte Pedigree

John Wayte 1. fl. 1398 d. before 1403

(1) John de Coudray m. Margaret Popham m. Thomas Wayte I d. s. p fl. 1402-1431 (3) Robert Long ‘ d. 1 447

Thomas Wayte ll Margaret Wayte John Wayte [1 d. s. p 1448 _ m. John Long (son of fl. 1453 her stepfather by his 1st marriage).

'? (1) m. ThomasWaytelll m.‘.(2) Elizabeth Shilling William Wayte d. 1482 ! 1465 d. s. p 1487 -fl. 1437 m. Margaret [—1 E (i‘llegifimate) "

Sir [—1 Lucy In. Elizabeth Wayte Alice Wayke John Wayte II], 'the elder b. c. 1445 living unmarried fl. 1501 d. before 1487 7 1487

(iflegitima‘e)

7"”"7 Elizabeth Plantagenet Arthur Plantagenet Thomas Wayte W John Wayte IV. 'Ihe younger I). c. 146213 Viscount Lisle d. s. p 1521/8 11. 1527-31 rn. c. 1475 b. c. 1465-7 m. Elizabeth [—1 (calledW '00” and 'the Thomas Lumley ' (she m. (2) Reynold Williams) innocent'. Mentally retarded. - His estates passed to Lord Lisle in retum for taking care of him).

495 u «x - (’7'

Thomas Waylc Esq.. from his tomb at Stoke Charity Church, Hams. (121m grateful to Mr. AD. Perry for taking rubbings of the brass insets on this tomb for me).

reflecting both his own hope of the resurrection, and the tombs probable secondary purpose as the church‘s Easter Sepulchre, is inset a scene of Christ rising from the tomb. At the four corners of the slab were brass shields, only one of which now survives intact. It shows the arms of Wayte impaling Skilling. Windows in the church contain stained glass bearing the same arms of Wae impaling Skilling. although in the glass the Wayte arms have been somewhat sketchily restored in comparatively recent times. Elsewhere in the stained glass there are numerous representations of Edward IV‘s emblem. the sunburst, sometimes with straight rays. sometimes with curly rays.” These may have been intended to convey discreetly the Wayle family’s connection with the king. In fact quite a lot of medieval glass survives in [his little church. albeit in a somewhat fragmentary condition. This glass all dates from about 1475. at which time someone paid to have the church windows enlarged and replaced by tracery of a more up—IO—dale design. In addition to [he Yorkist sunburst, another royal emblem also figures in the pattern of the new fifteenth century glazing, for the east window. which depicts the Annunciation. has a number of decorative roundels. each one containing a crowned lion‘s head.

496 Thomas’ daughter, Elizabeth, was possibly his only legitimate offspring. At all events, he seems to have had no son, and his brother, William Wayte, was named as his heir.” The fact that Thomas’ daughter, Elizabeth, was not mentioned as one of her father’s heirs may possibly indicate that she predeceased him and was already dead by 1482. £3 6%?:33: 4% .4 Q? 0% é? é? °€§°

WAYTE LUCY OF CHARLECOTE Argent a chevron gules between three Gules crusilly argent with three hunting horns sable. luces argent.

The identity of Elizabeth’s husband remains uncertain, although it seems that he must have been a scion of the Lucy family, the main branch of which was established, at this period, at Charlecote in Warwickshire. Although members of the Lucy family were prominent in Hampshire both earlier (in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries) and later (in the seventeenth century and beyond) there do not seem to have been any Lucys based in Hampshire in the fifteenth century. Given Elizabeth’s age, however, the marriage is virtually certain to have been an arranged one, and there is no reason why Elizabeth’s husband would have needed to be based in the same county as her father’s family. The marriage seems to have been of short duration and was apparently childless. Indeed, it may never have been consumated,for Elizabeth Lucy was a very young widow, evidently, when she attracted the king’s attention. The main line of Lucy descent can be reconstructed in some detail" but Elizabeth Wayte is not mentioned there and if her husband figures on the family tree as it has come down to us, that fact is not now readily apparent, though there are several collateral Lucys who lived at about the right period and whose wives’ names are not recorded. It is possible that Elizabeth’s husband may have been the Sir William Lucy who was killed fighting for King Henry VI against the Yorkists. A rather obscure surviving account of what

497 subsequently became of Sir William’s widow could perhaps be interpreted to imply a liaison with Edward IV.” Scofield suggests that Elizabeth Lucy’s relationship with the king began in about 1461, in which case she must have become his mistress before she reached the age of twenty, and during or immediately after the period of his involvement with Lady Eleanor Talbot. At about the same period Edward also met and began to pursue Elizabeth Woodville. All three ladies were apparently widows when they met the king, and it may well be the case, although there is no evidence to prove it, that, like Eleanor Talbot and Elizabeth Woodville, the young, widowed Lady Lucy first came to the new king’s attention when she approached him as a suppliant as a result of her insecurity or penury following her husband’s recent death on the wrong side. It has been asserted that, in addition to Arthur Plantagenet, later Lord Lisle — the son that Elizabeth Lucy, ne’e Wayte, bore Edward IV — she also bore the king 3 daughter. This daughter was called (presumably after her mother) Elizabeth. While there is no proof that Elizabeth fille and Arthur Plantagenet had the same mother, this is perfectly plausible. Indeed, so far as one can tell, it is the only explanation that is chronologically possible, for despite later rumours of his great promiscuity, in fact only five women have ever been actually named as Edward IV’s sexual partners. This hardly sounds like a harem of Salomonian proportions, and one of the five, Catharine de Claringdon, is mentioned only by Buck.20 (Interestingly, it is, in fact, the case that Richard IH, who is generally considered to have been guiltless of excess, at least in the matter of extra-marital sexual activity has been credited with having fathered more bastards than his reputedly promiscuous elder brother that is, if Edward IV ’5 children by Elizabeth Woodville are counted as legitimate). Thus Elizabeth Lucy, née Wayte is Edward’s only known mistress at the likely time of his illegitimate daughter’s birth, which probably occurred as early as 1462/3. Very little is known for certain about this illegitimate daughter, but she is said by Leland2l to have mam'ed Thomas Lumley, and as can been seen from the Lumley pedigree, such a match,while not otherwise documented until a much later period, would have been perfectly possible chronologically. Her daughter was apparently the first child of Elizabeth’s liaison with the king. Arthur was born later, perhaps in 1465, perhaps as late as 1467. Edward IV recognised both children, apparently, but did nothing for them. The fact that Arthur, at least, apparently bore the surname ‘Wayte’ as a child, may suggest that he was under the care of his mother’s relatives at that period. Strangely, it was Henry VII who brought Arthur — by then already an adult — into a degree of prominence and established him with the surname ‘Plantagenet’ and the title Viscount Lisle, the right to which title Arthur acquired, by a curious co-incidence, as a result of his marriage with the niece and heiress of Lady Eleanor Talbot’s nephew and heir, Thomas Talbot, Viscount Lisle.22 There was probably a careful

498 Lumley Pedigree

Thomas. second Baron Lumley 1408-1485

George. thin! Baron Lumley 7 c. 1440-1507 m. ElizabethThomlon

Thomas Lumley _; c. 1453-1431 7m. Elizabeth Planlaganal. daughler of Edward IV , b. c. 1462

Richard. fourth Baron Lumley c. 1476-1530

I V (earls of Scarborough)

policy underlying Henry VII’s of his illegitimate half-brother-in-law, and the fact that he allowed him to use the surname P1antagenet._It established that this was no longer the royal surname, but that of a bastard line, and proclaimed that Henry was kind to members of the house of York (so long as they were no threat to him). Henry VIII, always less subtle than his father, imprisoned Arthur, and he died in the Tower, though he left three daughters, and has living descendants. Elizabeth Lucy’s stepmother, Elizabeth Wayte, ne’e Skilling, was the ‘Dame Elizabeth Wayte’ who died in London in 1487, owning property in Hampshire, Wiltshire and two London parishes, and whose will survives." This identity is clearly established by the reference in her Will to the Skilling property at Collingbourne in Wiltshire. As a result; one might conclude that Elizabeth Lucy had died before 1487, for she is not mentioned in her stepmother’s will, although her father's bastard daughter, Alice Wayte, is left a bequest. Elizabeth Lucy’s final fate is, in fact, unknown, for she is likewise never mentioned by her son during the period after he became Lord Lisle, although a great deal of his correspondence survives. There is no will or inquisition post mortem, charter or other document

499 00 o

SKILLING POPHAM Argent two chevrons gules on a chief Argent on a chief gules two bucks‘ of the second three roundels. heads, cabossed, or.

referring to her either under the name of Wayte or under the name of Lucy. It is, of course, possible that she remarried — as her successor as Edward’s mistress, Elizabeth (‘Jane’) Shore, later did — with the result that she is hidden from us behind some other surname. However, the inference that Elizabeth Lucy was alive after Edward IV's death is derived only from a misunderstanding of the story recounted by Tudor historians that she,rather than Eleanor Talbot, was the person named by Stillington as Edward IV's wife, and that she had specifically denied this. This tale might appear to imply that Elizabeth Lucy must have been alive at least in 1483, and probably also early in the reign of Henry VH. In fact, however, specifically locates his supposed interview between Cecily, Duchess of York, and Elizabeth Lucy, at the time of the announcement of the Woodville ‘marriage’, that is to say, in 1464. It is even just possible that this part of the tale, as More recounts it, is true: that the duchess of York had heard rumours of the king’s precontract with Elfinor, Lady Butler, but, ignorant of the true identity of his partner, assumed that the person involved was her son’s acknowledged mistress (the mother already of one child by the king, as More points out) namely Elizabeth Lucy. If this were so, then the interview that More reports might actually have taken place. Elizabeth’s denial of her marriage with the king, when she said that ‘his grace spake so loving wordes unto her, that she verely hopid he wold have mam'cd her’z‘ has a gentle n'ng to it, and may just possibly be the one and only occasion when we actually hear an echo of this elusive lady speaking for herself. But we must be careful. The sixteenth century English version 500 of More’s text which is frequently quoted is a rather free translation of his original Latin, which was more laconic: ‘he bore her such love that she, through compliance, hoped for future marriage’. In any case, the value of this account as evidence as to whether or not Elizabeth long survived her former royal lover is non-existent. On the whole, based on the authentic, if negative evidence of the will of Dame Elizabeth Wayte, made in 1487, and on the silence of Elizabeth Lucy’s son, it seems more than likely that she had died before 1487. Indeed, as we have already seen, the fact that she was not mentioned as one of her father’s heirs may well mean that she had died even before his death in 1482, and it is even possible although this is speculation — that she died at or soon after the birth of her second child by the king, her son, Arthur, for she does not appear to have figured in Edward IV ’s life after the late 14605, and the king's ‘association with Jane [sic] Shore is generally supposed to have begun about 1470’.”

Appendix PRO PROB 11/8, f. 52 r-v, will of Elizabeth Wayte née Skilling, 1487 [Punctuation and capitalisation have been modernised, Otiose abbreviations have been ignored]

[f 52] In the name of God Almyghty Amen the vj“ day of the moneth of October the yere of my maker and savior Ihesu M'CCCCIxxxvij. And the iij“c yere of the regne of King Henry the vij". I Dame Elizabeth Wayte widowe, being hoole of mynde and in good memorye, loving and preising be to my saviour Ihesu Crist, make and ordeyne this my present testament concerning my last wil, as wele of all and singuler my goodes and cataillis of fortune meveable and unmeveable, as of alle suche landes and tenementez as I have and hold the day of my decesse in fee simple, in maner and fourme as herafter ensuith. First, I bequeth and recommende my soule to my said Maker and saviour Ihesu Crist and to the blissed Virgin Our Lady, Seint Mary and to all the Holy Company of Hevin. And my body to be buried in the Chapell of Corpus Christi in the chirch [f. 52v] of Seint Sepulchre withoute Newgate of London26 and I bequeth for my burying there to be had x s. Item I bequeth to the brethem and sustern of the fratemite of Corpus Christi there to pray for my soule x 3. Item I bequeth to the high auter of the parissh chirch of Seint Bride in Fletestrete27 in the suburbez of London where I was late parisshioner for my tithes and offeringes negligently foryeten and withdrawin in discharge of my soule xx (1. Item I bequeth to the Fraternite of Oure blissed Lady within the saide chirch of Seint Brydc to thentent that all the brethem and sustern of the same fraternite the more specially pray for my soule iij s iiij d. Item I will that principally and a fore alle other thinges {that alle suche dettes as I owe of right by myne executours undre wretin be treuly content and paied in discharge of my

501 soule. Item I wil that my said executours immediatly the day of my decesse provide and ordeyne to be said in every ordre of the iiij orders of ffreres within London a trentall of masses for my soule and all cristen soulez and I bequeth to every of the said iiij orders for the said trentall so to be said x s. Item I bequeth to the priour and convent of the howse of Howdeslowe [Hounslow]“ to thentent that the said priour and convent the day of my decesse or the morowe aftre sey for my soule and all cristen soules placebo and dirige and masse of requiem by note xx s. Item I will that myne executours urdrewretin provide and ordeyne for an honest auter cloth to be made for the high auter of the parissh chirch of Seint James of Ludgarshale [LudgershalL near Collingboume, Wiltshire] aftre my decesse in as goodly hast as he came or may. And the same geve to the said parissh chirch to thentent that alle the parissheners of the same the more specially pray for my soule. Item I bequeth to Alice Wayte my husbandes bastard doughter toward her mariage a ffedirbed, a bolster, x paire of shetis, iij pelowes of down, a coveryng for a bed of grene and red, a grate pott and a litill pott of brasse, a grete panne and a litell panne of brasse, ij basins of peawtre, iij candilstikkes of Iaton, ij qwisshins [cushions] of carpette ij quysshins of ffloures. And if it happen the said Alice to decesse or she be maried, thenne I will that alle the bequest by me to hir bequethed be distributed and disposed by myre executour for the soule of the said Alice, my soule and all cristen soulez after his best discrecioun to the pleasure of Almyghte Ihesu. And as to the disposicioun of alle my londes that I have in the countees of Southampton and Wiltshire except the landes in Romsey and Rudenam [Rownhams?] in the said counte of Southampton and all the londes in Colyngboume in the said counte of Wiltshire which I sold long byfore my decesse, I will that alle tho my feofees enfeoffed therin to myn use and behofe, whanne and as sone as they be requirid by John Thorneburgh gentilman make or do to be made aftre my decesse unto the same John a sufficiant and a sure astate in the lawe of alle the said landes as the said John and his counsel] shall devise, to have to him and to his heires for evermore according to a peir of endentures of sale therof by me to him made. The residue of all and singuler my said goodes and catailles meveable and unmeveable that I have, as wele in the Citte of London as elswhere within the realme of Ingelond wheresoever they be founde not bequethen, aftre my bodye buried, my dettes paied and my bequestes in alle thinges fulfillid, for the trewe and feithfull love that my right trusty frend William Brigge citezin and iremonger of London hath doon and shewed to me at alle tymes, I yeve and bequeth to him hooly the same residue, it to dispose in almes dedes aftre his discrecioun, to the pleasure of Almyghte God, whiche William I make and ordeyn my soole executour of this my present testament, and will that noone other personne medill or intremet with it. And I bequeth to him for his labour x li. And of the same my testament I make and ordeyne William Frost gentilman, overseer. And I bequeth to hym for his labour xls.

502 HP‘P‘P In witnesse whereof to this my present testament and last will I have sette my seale. Yevin the day and and [sic] yere abovesaid. Proved 4 December [1487].

NOTES AND REFERENCES

l. Muriel St Clare Byme, ed., The Lisle Letters, 6 vols, Chicago 198 I , vol. 1, p.l40.

2. C. Scofield. The Life and Reign of Edward IV, 2 vols. London l923, vol.2, pp. 56.]61. In Scofield’s defence one might observe that the distinction between. for example, ‘Lady Elizabeth Lucy’ and ‘Elizabeth, Lady Lucy' does not seem to have been very precisely observed in the fifteenth century.

3. J. Potter, Good King Riclmrtl?, London 1983, p. 42, p. 178. Wishing to emphasise the difference between Elizabeth Lucy and the Lady Eleanor Talbm, Poncr refers m Elizabeth Lucy as a ‘counesan’ and suesses her ‘obscure birth', creating the impression of a Nell Gwynne-like figure. Her birth, as we shall see, was not, in fact, particularly obscure and some of her relatives were well-known in court circles before her own advent there.

G. Buck, The History of King Richard III (1619), ed., AN. Kincaid, Gloucester 1979, pp. 175, 182. Complete Peerage, vol. 8, p. 63.

St Clare Byme, vol.l, p.140, citing Anslis, Regixler. afthe Garter, 1724. vol. 2. p. 366, fn. 9. Viccoria County Hismry of Hampshire, vol. 3, London I973, pp. 228-29, and St Clare Byme, vol. 1, p. 218.

Victoria County History of Hampshire, vol.4, London, 191 I, pp. 403, 407, 408, 410, 501. By the fifteenth century members of the Wayte family held, or had held the following manors in Hampshire: Lee Marks and Segenworth, both in the parish of Tilchfield and adjacent to Tilchfield Abbey; Limboume in the parish of Havam: Denmead in the parish of Hambleden; Bere in the parish of Soberton; Westcote in the parish of Binsted; West Stratton in the parish of Micheldever, Barton Stacey in the parish of the same name, and Wayte's Court at Brighstone on the Isle of Wight. The Isle of Wight was possibly the family’s original home in the county, and perhaps even the origin of their surname, although a different derivation is normally given.

9. List of Eschemors for and Wales, List and Index Society, vol.72. London 197], p.l43: Richard le Wayle, Eschcator for Southampton, Wiltshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghnmshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire, 29 Nov. 1323 - 28 June l326; p. I45: William Wayte, Escheator for Hampshire and Wiltshire, l6 Nov. 1420 - 19 May 1422, and 1 Oct. I422 - [2 Nov. 1423; p. I47: John Wayte (Elizabeth Lucy's first cousin), Eschealor 6 Nov. I488 - 5 Nov. 1489. In addition John Wayte was Sheriff of the county of Hampshire in 1396-97. A number of Thomas Wayte's Popham ancestors also held the office of sheriff A list of Hampshire sheriffs is published in W. Berry, County Genealogies. Pedigrees of the Families of the County of Hampshire, London 1333, p. viii.

The Philipot pedigree is published in St Clare Byme, vol. 1. p. 383, and discussed on p. 210. . VCH, Hampshire. vol. 3, p. 392. Thomas Wayle W is, however, mistakenly named as John. VCH, Hampshire, vol. 3. p. 226.

VCH, Hampshire, vol. 4, p. 374. John Skilling was probably a relative (perhaps a brother, perhaps the son) of Michael Skilling, whose will was proved on 8 October I463. John was named as an executor. First Register of Bishop William Wayneflete: probate of the will of Michael Skyllyng, Hampshire County Record Office, 2lM65/Al/l3, f. 79". For details of the Skilling’s holdings in Wiltshire, see VCH, Willshire, vol. II, London 1980, p. ”0.

VCH, Hampshire, vol. 4. p. 374.

15. N. Pevsner and D. Lloyd, The Buildings of England: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, Harmondsworth 1967, p. 613.

503 A. Mee. The King's England: Hampshire. London 1939, pp. 348, 349.

. VCH. Hampshire, vol. 4, p. 374. [n the manor of Barton Stacey, however, it was Thomas’ sister, Margaret, and her husband, John Long, who inherited. This was perhaps because John’s father, Robert. had held this manor before it passed to Thomas Wayte.

. See for example the Dictionary of National Biography, vol.l2, Oxford I968, pp. 248-249, and The Visitation of Warwickshire. l6l9, Harleian Society, vol. 12, 1877, p. 286 & passim.

. Anon., Chronic-12x of the While Rose, London 1845. p. lxxvii. ‘Towards the close of the battle the retainers of John Stafford killed Sir William Lucy, whose widow shortly after was wedded to their master’. The interpretation depends upon whether ‘their master’ refers to Stafford or Edward IV. If this does refer to Elizabeth Lucy, the use of the word ‘wedded' would, of course, be something of a euphemism. In fact this identification appears to be rather unlikely.

20. l have been unable to establish for certain that Catharine de Claringdon really existed. In the early summer of 1402. however, Henry IV put to death Sir Roger dc Claryngdon (or Clarendon) because he was reputed to be a bastard son of the Black Prince, and was thus a possible claimant to the throne. (OMB and CPR I401— 05, pp. 126, 239, 472). Sir Roger was married to a lady named Margaret, and they may have had children. In I450 the letters patent of Henry VI refer to a Thomas Clarendon, ‘yoman’ of Cockehull (or Cokehill). Worcs.. and he could have been a descendant of Sir Roger, for the surname seems to be very rare. We have thus the possible hazy outline of the pedigree of a fifteenth century family of this name, to which Catharine de Claringdon may have belonged. 2l. L. Toulmin Smith, ed., The Itinerary af in or about Ihe years 1535-1543, pans 7 and 8, London 1909, p. HS: ‘The advancimem of Lumley to be lord was by mariage of a bastard daughter of King Edwnrde 4'. As it stands, of course, this statement is clearly inaccurate, as the Lumleys already held the title of lord.

22. Thomas Talbot, Viscount Lisle, was named as the heir of his aunt, Lady Eleanor, in her inquisilion post morlem. PRO, C l40/29: ‘...Thomas Talbot miles daminus Lisle es! hares eius propinquiar‘. Arthur Plantagenet's first wife was Thomas Talbot‘s niece.

23. PRO, PROB ”/8, f 52. For a transcript of this will. see the appendix. Elizabeth Wayle was living in London at the lime of her death and asked to be buried in the Chapel of Corpus Christi in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre without Newgate. She left bequests to several other churches. including St Bride’s. Fleet Street and one church in Wiltshire. It is fortunate that she mentions, in the will, her land at Collingboume in Wiltshire (which allows her to be identified for certain as Thomas Wayle's widow) for she no longer held this land in [487, and refers to it only to point out that she ‘sold [it] long byfore my decesse’. Her will is much concerned with religious matters and provision for the well-being of her soul after death. No members of the Wayte family are mentioned with the exception of her husband's bastard daughter, Alice, to whom Elizabeth left goods ‘lowards hir maringe', suggesting that Alice was still comparatively young in I487.

24. J. Rawson Lumby, ed., Sir Thomas More, History of King Richard III. Cambridge 1833. p. 62, and D. Kinney, ed.. The Complete Works afSt Thamax More, 15 volumes. vol. IS, Hisroria Richardi Tertii, Yale University I936, p. 446. 25. St Clare Byme, vol. I, p. I41.

26. The family of Thomas Wayte had, through his grandmother’s cousin. Sir John Popham, a connection with the church of the Holy Sepulchre without Newgate. See the Popham Family Tree. Sir John Popham had been chancellor of the duchy of Normandy, treasurer of the king’s household (l437-l439) and speaker-elect of the House of Commons (1449), although he was prevented from serving in the last capacity because the duke of Suffolk objected to his Yorkist leanings. and he was encouraged to stand down on the grounds of his age and infirmity. (See R.A. Griffiths. The Reign afHenry VI, London 1981. p.677). He had served in France, both as a member of the council of Edward lV's father. the third duke of York (1433) and with the latter's uncle, the second duke of York, from whom he had an annuity. A wealthy man, resident in or near London, he rebuilt the church of the Holy Sepulchre about the middle of the fifteenth century, adding a handsome new chapel on the south side of the choir — this was the Chapel

504 of Corpus Christi. where Elizabeth Wayte asked to be buried — and a new south porch. The latter, albeit much restored in the last century, still survives. although Sir John's stone effigy, which once adorned it, was lost by the early seventeenth century. The Church of the Holy Scpulchre was famous, in the fifteenth century, for its numerous fratemilies and chantries. See W. Thombury, Old and New London, 6 vols [n.d.. l9lh century], vol. 2, pp. 447, 448 and figs, pp. 481, 486. Also C.L. Kingsford, ed., A Survey of London by John Stow, reprinted from the [ext 0f1603, 2 vols, vol. 2, Oxford 1908. pp. 33-34 and DNB. vol. 46. London 1896, p. 146 and passim.

27. This church had recently (1480) been enlarged by the addition of side aisles. Thombury, Old and New London. vol. I, p. 56.

28. E. Wnlford, Greater londan, 2 vols, London [n.d., 19th century], vol. 1, p. 61. ‘The place was called in Domesday Book Honeslowe, and later on it was spelt Hundeslawe and Hundeslowe. In ‘lhe thirteenth century a priory. dedicated to the Holy Trinity, was founded here, the peculiar office of the brethren being to solicit alms ‘for the redemption of caplives‘.

29. Sir John Popham the elder was still living' m 1402, CPR l40l- 1405, p. 93. Sir John Popham the younger was knighted before 1400 and married Isabel, daughter of William and Alice Romeseye, CPR I399- l40], p. 372. For details of the family of Sir Philip Popham. Calendar of lnquisilianx Post Marlem. vol. 17, p. 39l, vol. 18, ppull 1-12, vol. 20, p. 53, and pp. 89-90, also Calendar of lnquisilians. Edward Ill, VOL] 1, p. 95. together-with CPR 1399-1401, p. 405, and CPR 1413-1416, p. 371. The Popham pedigree published here differs in some particulars from the relevant section of the one published in Berry, County Genealogies, p. 181, but it is based upon the evidence which I have found, although the precise relationship of Sir Philip Popham to Sir John Popham the elder seems not to be recorded and, as shown here, is therefore speculative.

505