murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the tag “Dartford Priory”

Did Edward IV’s daughter Bridget have an illegitimate child….?

Oil painting on canvas, Princess Bridget Plantagenet (1480-1517) dedicated to the Nunnery at Dartford, by James Northcote, RA (Plymouth 1746 – London 1831), signed and dated: James Northcote pinxt. 1822. Four full-length figures. The Princess is standing in the centre as a child, full length, full face, in white, with her mother kneeling holding her on the right. The Abbess is standing, on the left, bending over her and gesturing to heaven with her right hand ; in the right background the Prior can be seen standing with a crosier. In the left-hand corner is an open book with the royal arms and York roses inscribed with the story and signed ‘James Northcote – pinx, 1822’. Petworth Collection.

We all know that Edward IV’s youngest daughter, Bridget (born 10th November 1480), became a nun…or at least, entered the Dominican priory at Dartford at the age of ten. Not as a nun then, of course, because she was too young, but maybe she was always intended for the Church. And Dartford was a priory with aristocratic and family connections, including her paternal grandmother, Cecily, Duchess of York. Not your average House of God, I think.

Dartford Priory

If you go to this article you will find the following intriguing paragraph:-

“…. A new theory has come to light. One source believes she [Bridget] gave birth to an illegitimate child, a girl named Agnes, in 1498. Pregnancies were obviously very unusual at a priory and the cause of great scandal, though they did happen. There are no confirmed births to any of the nuns of Dartford. Still, this girl supposedly became a ward of the priory, her expenses paid by the queen. She was called Agnes of Eltham, a reference to the palace where Bridget was born….Agnes later left the Priory and was married Adam Langstroth, the head of a landed family in Yorkshire (the ancestral home of the Yorks and refuge of York loyalists in the early Tudor period) with ‘a considerable dowry….”

A rather unflattering likeness
of Bridget of York

Now, the source of this story is, apparently Elizabeth of York by Alison Weir, but where she got it I don’t know. Agnes’s financial needs were provided for by Elizabeth of York until the latter’s death in 1503. This might indicate that the story of Bridget and Agnes is true, for Agnes could well have been Elizabeth’s niece. The sources for Elizabeth’s involvement are The Life and Reign of King Henry VIII by Lord Edward Herbert of Cherbury (London, 1649) and Wives and Daughters: The Women of Sixteenth-Century England by Kathy Lynn Emerson (1984). I have found these references, but not actually read the publications concerned, but I imagine that they do indeed confirm the financial connection with Elizabeth of York.

An Adam Langstroth and his family can be traced to Arncliffe (and Cosh) both villages to be found in Littondale, Yorkshire. Whether or not he married Bridget’s daughter Agnes I cannot say, but he does seem to have had an Agnes as his wife.

Arncliffe, Littondale

A little further digging about Adam Langstroth reveals that he was a retainer of the 10th Lord Clifford, son of the 9th Lord, who is said to have killed Edmund of Rutland at Wakefield in 1460. It is believe that the 9th Lord Clifford acted out of revenge for the killing of his father (8th Lord Clifford) by the Yorkists at the 1455 Battle of St Albans. Langstroth was with the 10th Lord Clifford at the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513.

Flodden Field, 1513

Today is New Year’s Day, and so I raise a glass to Agnes, and hope that she lived happily ever after, with lots of presents every Christmas season!

Even Stanley suffered because of Henry VII’s avarice….

dartford_priory_kent_1783_3610453

This concerns Dartford Manor (and then priory) in Kent (above), of which you can read more at https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/02/DDAG/08/20.htm and http://www.akentishceremony.com/kcc-register-offices/the-manor-gatehouse/ My interest lies in the history of the manor, i.e. pre-Henry VIII.

The following, which is taken from http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol2/pp2-22, seems at first not to concern Dartford Manor, but its pattern of ownership is the same, I am assured, and the next link after this, to Dartford itself, does not relate this earlier ownership in full. It is of interest to Ricardians and all Yorkists, although the former had best grit their teeth for some of what it says. Poor old Richard is maligned again. Anyway, here goes with the ownership of Dartford, albeit from the BHO Chesilhurst pages.

“…[On the death of John, Earl of Somerset, then Duke of Somerset in the reign of Henry VI] his brother Edmund, marquis of Dorset, was found to be his next heir male, and as such possessed this estate [Chesilhurst – and also Dartford]. He was afterwards advanced to the title of Duke of Somerset, and taking part with Henry VI. was slain in the first battle of St. Alban’s … the manor of Dartford, with Chesilhurst, was … granted to Richard Nevill, earl of Warwick, commonly called the King Maker, who, after many changes from one side to the other, was slain, endeavouring to replace king Henry on the throne, at the battle of Barnet, in the year 1471. By his wife, Anne, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, who survived him, he left only two daughters, who both married into the royal family; Isabel to George duke of Clarence. brother to king Edward IV. and Anne, first to Edward prince of Wales, son of king Henry VI. and, secondly, to Richard duke of Gloucester, afterwards king Richard III.

“After the earl’s death, though his estates were seized by the authority of parliament, yet great part of them were afterwards given to his two daughters, and among others the manor of Dartford, with the rents of assize in Chesilhurst, was given to Isabel, whose husband, George duke of Clarence, in her right, became possessed of them. After which the duke falling under the suspicion of the king, his brother, was in parliament, anno 1477, attainted, being then a prisoner in the tower, and was soon afterwards, with the king’s consent, drowned in a butt of malmsey, the duke of Gloucester assisting with his own hands By Isabel his wife, who died of poison sometime before him, he had issue Edward earl of Warwick, then an infant, who never enjoyed any part of his patrimony.

“Soon after the duke’s death, this manor being in the king’s hands, by reason of his son’s nonage, was granted to Thomas lord Stanley for life, and although king Henry VII. in his third year, being desirous of securing to himself the possessions which the great earl of Warwick died possessed of, recalled the old countess of Warwick from her retirement in the north, where she lived in a distressed and mean condition, both her daughters being dead, and by a new act, annulling the former, restored to her all her late husband’s possessions, with power for her to alien any part of them, not with the intent that she should enjoy them, but merely that she might transfer them to the king, which she did that year, by a special seossment and a fine, by which she granted the whole, consisting of one hundred and fourteen manors, among which was that of Dartford, with the rents of assize in Chesilhurst, to the king and his heirs male, with remainder to herself and her heirs for ever. Yet this estate continued in possession of the lord Stanley. . .”

Right, did you get all that? Now let us go to http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol2/pp286-328, to find that Dartford may not quite have followed the same line as Chesilhurst.

“….manor [of Dartford] went in the same succession of ownership as that of Chesilhurst, which was a member of it, as has been already fully described before, and to which the reader is referred (excepting that king Richard III. in his first year, granted the reversion of it, being then in the possession of the lord Stanley, to John Brooke, lord Cobham, to hold by knights service; (Harleian MSS. No. 433–764. Dugd. Bar. vol. ii. p. 282.) but he [Cobham] never came to the possession of it, for king Henry VII. on his obtaining the crown, secured this reversion of it to himself….” 

Aha! Henry strikes again, keeping this reversion for himself instead of returning it to his father-in-law, Stanley. Wouldn’t you think he’d undo Richard’s work by rendering unto Stanley the things that were Stanley’s? And Stanley’s heirs?. But oh, no, we know Henry too well, do we not? If he could claw something close unto to his bony Tudor chest, he would! And, in this case, did. Look after the pennies, and the pounds look after themselves, right, Henry? Not that I care if Stanley was deprived of anything, you understand.

Dartford Manor HouseArtist’s impression of Henry VIII’s manor

Read more about the manor at https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/02/DDAG/08/20.htm and http://www.akentishceremony.com/kcc-register-offices/the-manor-gatehouse/ Unfortunately, the illustrations are of the buildings from the Henry VIII period, and do not show anything of what would have been there in Richard’s time.

 

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: