Embedded Files
An Unbecoming Medieval Wrangle Over the Dead Bodies of Two Knights
I first read about this in about 2000, whilst researching the Exeter wool trade- although at the time I was not aware that it involved a Pomeroy.
A vellum roll containing articles of controversy between the Dean and Chapter of Exeter and the Friars Preachers of Exeter respecting the right of burial in the Church of the Friars, and the contention with respect to the bodies of Sir Henry de Raleigh and Henry de la Pomeray.
This was the 6thof 9 successive Sir Henry Pomeroy's, whose wife was Isolda or Iseult Bathonia, whose son Henry married Amica de Canville In the reign of King Edward I
Henry Pomeroy fought in Wales against Llewellyn ap Griffiths in 1216. After a turbulent & rebellious life the 6th Sir Henry Pomeroy died 12 July 1281.
His widow Isuelt had Royal licence to marry whomsoever she pleased.
St Nicholas Priory doorway.
AJP photo 1996
EXETER
The Friars involved were either the Dominican Black Friars at Bedford House, or Augustinian White Friars, of St Nicholas Priory in Friernhay Street, in Exeter who were in competition with the Cathedral to bury bodies for which they were paid useful sums of money !
( AJP When I read about this originally I understood it was about the St Nicholas Priory and was oddly amused by the idea of a corpse being lugged up and down the hill between the Cathedral and the Priory - a smelly undertaking because Sir Henry died in the middle of summer )
It is noteworthy that while the friars are accused of stealing a body from the cathedral, they complain of a similar act on the part of the authorities of the latter
. Illustration by AJP ©1997
A roll (a record on vellum) containing articles of controversy between the Dean and Chapter of Exeter and the Friars Preachers of Exeter respecting the right of burial in the Church of the Friars and the contention with respect to the bodies of Sir Henry de Raleigh and Henry de la Pomeray.
This would have been Sir Henry whose wife was Isolda Bathonia and whose son Henry married Amica de Canville – He died 12 July 1281 in the reign of King Edward I, Edward Longshanks.
The 2nd Henry Pomeroy, son of Henry & Marjorie de Vernon & grandson of Sir Henry by his wife Joan Vaulletort, was nephew of Joselin de Pomeroy who became a monk at Ford Abbey to escape punishment for treason and quit the religious life on the death of Richard I - Henry & Joselin's Pomeroy's mother was one of the many illegitimate daughters of Henry I, (the son of William the Conqueror) & thus related Richard the Lionheart - king from 1189 to 1199.
Henry Pomeroy who confirmed the grants made by his grandfather & his uncle to the Abbey of Ford; he fought for Henry III (1216-1272) in Wales against Llewellyn ap Griffiths in 1216 and died in 1281
St Nicholas Priory Exeter 2005- AJP Photo
The records consists of two distinct portions, of which the first contains certain charges made by the Dean and Chapter against the friars ;and the second the replies of the latter to them.
The Dean and Chapter commence by stating that, not-withstanding the numerous good offices of the prelates and Presidents of the Church generally to the friars, from the time of the latter being founded by them, who promised in no manner to prejudice the liberties of the former, yet, not without the vice of notable ingratitude. (" non absque vicio notabilis ingratitudinis ") against the Exeter Church, and also against parish churches and their rectors in the diocese, they (the friars) have committed the following acts (now given in abstract).
They accused the friars of having violently, injuriously, with their own hands, and not without the crime of sacrilege, carried away("violenter et injuriose non absque crimine sacrilegii, manibus propriis asportarunt ") the body of Sir Henry de la Pomeray,with the leathern and silken clothing, and offerings, from the choir of the cathedral, against the desire and manifest prohibition of the Dean and Chapter, and entombed it in their own church ( at the friary.)
The friars complain of being defamed by certain of the friars, who had falsely and maliciously (" falso et maliciose ") imputed to them the crime of sacrilege, theft, pillage, and breaking into their church, of laying violent hands on some of the brothers, and of having with violence carried away the body of Sir Henry de Ralegh.
They affirm that from time immemorial, and also by especial agreement with the friars, they possessed the right to have all bodies (excepting of those belonging to the convent) requiring burial in the church of the latter, to be conveyed, with the wax and other things, to the cathedral, where the first Mass was to be said. Also that the friars had the body removed to their church for interment, against, it is said, the desire of the executors and friends (" ut dicebatur, sepulture tradendum, contra voluntatem executorum et amicorum ejusdem ") ;
(the Friars) subsequently impeded the removal of Sir Henry's body to the cathedral, and detained the wax and other ornaments prepared for it, thus despoiling the cathedral church of its rights; that the friars unlawfully induced Sir Henry, then being alive, to be buried at his death in their church, although such choice of burial is of no force nevertheless, yet they would not desire to change the place of interment selected by him. But even supposing the said Sir Henry chose to be buried by the friars, which is not believed (" quod non creditor"), they had no right to detain the fourth part of the goods of the deceased, which ought to be delivered to the parish in which he had lived.
That some of the friars (especially Adam Haym and Johannes de Toritone) had, even in taverns ("eciam in tabernis "), been publicly and daily defaming two of the canons, asserting they were under sentence of the greater excommunication, for their part in the proceedings attending the funeral and burial of Sir Henry de Ralegh, and, further, threatening them with loss of their goods, and also with death or torture.
They conclude by bringing a special charge against Hamelinus, one of the friars, for having performed divine service in a chapel at Tawstock, knowing it was underan interdict, and that many of the parishioners were under sentence of the greater excommunication, to all of which the friar could not plead ignorance ; and that he induced others to follow his example.
In their reply to these charges, the friars, through the prior provincial, state they are unaware of having made any agreement such as is referred to and claimed by the Chapter. They express great surprise at the remarks concerning the burial of the body of Sir H. de la Pomeray, which took place twenty years ago, from which time they had been on friendly terms with the canons, and no such charge had previously been made against them respecting it. Moreover, they deny the body to have been removed violently or injuriously.
They absolutely deny the claim set up by the Chapter — for the first Mass to be said on bodies destined to be interred in the convent chapel — as a recognised custom, as, if such ever existed, it had been revoked by papal order. That from the time of their arrival in Exeter they have always withstood such custom as an interference with their privileges, and as examples cite those of William Cofyn and others, whose bodies were brought to the city by the friars themselves, and were buried by them. Moreover, the circumstance of Sir Henry having resided in their house as a servant and co-brother ("familiaris et confrater") and died there, would abrogate the right to any such custom,
to which they make the singular admission that no other case of the kind had occurred since their residence in Exeter.
They declare that he remained with them of his own free will, that no unlawful inducement was held out to him to
do so, and that it was his own expressed wish to be buried among them. They deny detaining anything (an evident allusion to the wax, etc.) but what was their own, and complain of being despoiled by the canons in causing the body to be removed.
These are the main points included in the document, and the only one of interest that requires to be noticed here, is that which relates to the case of Sir Henry de la Pomeray.
According to a deed of July 22, 1275, printed at length in Bishop Broneacomb’s Register he had incurred the sentence of the greater excommunication for having, with his servants and others, trespassed in the bishop's park at Paignton (Peyntone), and killed certain wild animals (" feras bestias").
He made his submission to the bishop, and on his promising to restock the park with a competent number of animals, the excommunication was removed, with the proviso of its reinfliction and a penalty of a hundred marks be enforced for any repetition of the offence. The deed shows that the act complained of was not the first which had been committed by the same offender, and probably the grant of certain Devon churches made by him to the same bishop in 1267 9 was to make amends for a like occurrence.
From 1275 until the year of his death, 1280, he appears to have lived on good terms with the ecclesiastical authorities, and his remains, after the squabble alluded to, were interred in the convent chapel. In the text the year 1265 is noted, but in a footnote the editor shows this to be " an obvious clerical error " for 1275. A deed of crimination and recrimination apparently constituted a portion of the pleadings or statements of their respective cases, which formed the subject of inquiry at the Mayor's Court in September, 1301, when the capitular body was indicted by the friars for robbery and violence.
Of this a record is preserved in the municipal archives, and is headed (translation) "Inquisition taken before William de Gatepathe, then Mayor of Exeter,on Saturday, being the morrow of Saint Michael, in the twenty- ninth year of the reign of King Edward"(1301)
In it the friars preachers state that certain malefactors and disturbers of the peace ("quidam malefactores, ignoti et pads perturbatores ")broke open a certain door (of the convent) and forcibly carried away the body of Sir Henry de Ralegh, Knight, together with other of their goodsto the value of forty pounds, and violated a certain privilege of theirs. (" quoddam privilegium ipsorum f ratrum f regerunt ").
All of which they ask to be fully inquired into by the oath of Roger Benyns and other (jurors), who (after inquiry) say that no one has inflicted such injury as the friars state ; that it has always been the custom, confirmed by mutual agreement of the two parties, for any layman who has died and by his last wish (" in ultimate voluntate ") has desired to be buried by the friars, for the body to be conveyed to the cathedral, where Mass might be solemnly said for the soul of the deceased. (" ipso corpore presente," )
The body of Sir Henry de Raleigh, Knight, a layman, and having a wife (" secularis, et habentis uxorem "), was in the church of the friars, in the custody of the
executors of the deceased, two of the cathedral canons. At the desire of the executors and friends of the deceased, not violently, but amicably (" non vi et armis set amicabiliter "), requested the friars to permit the body, before burial, to be taken to the cathedral according to custom and agreement, forbidding the friars to inter it until this had been done.
On the friars' refusal, the canons withdrew, and the executors and friends removed the body, with a pall commonly called a " baudekyn," and a bier belonging to the friars, to the cathedral, not forcibly nor against the king's peace, but for the honour of the body and for the observance of the said custom and agreement. (" non vi et armis nee contra paoem regiam, set pro honore corporis, et pro dictis consuetidine et convencione observances").
After Mass was celebrated, the body, with the pall and bier, were peaceably carried back to the convent doors, but the friars, having closed them and keeping them closed, refused to admit the body, whereupon the executors, etc., carried it back to the cathedral. After keeping it for a day and a night, with the friars still refusing to receive it, they caused it to be buried in the cathedral, as it could not be left longer unburied owing to the stench (" fetore ").
( I wonder if that was the original reason for using incense- to mask the stink from bodies buried within the church! AJP)
On the refusal of the friars to take back the pall and bier, they deposited the former in the custody of the civic authorities for delivery to the friars, and the bier they placed in front of the convent doors. The body of Sir Henry remained undisturbed in the cathedral, and two years elapsed before the subject was again reopened. A letter from Robert Winchelsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, dated March 28th, 1303, showing that the friars, undeterred by the adverse verdict of the Mayor's Court, had tried another mode of attacking their adversaries.
On the 29th October, 1389, the Bishop ordered the sentence of excommunication to be pronounced in the cathedral, and in all parochial churches and chapels in the city of Exeter, against certain persons who had unjustly invaded the property and privileges of St. Nicholas' Priory.
Sources Historic collections, relating to the monasteries in Devon
After 1114 the Normans rebuilt Exeter Cathedral but it was demolished in 1260 and rebuilt again.
In 1080 a Benedictine priory (St Nicholas Priory) was founded in Exeter. The Benedictine nunnery at Polsloe was founded in honour of St. Catharine, In the 13th century friars arrived in Exeter. The friars were like monks but instead of withdrawing from the world they went out to preach. There were two denominations of friars in Exeter.
The Augustinians were called grey friars because of their grey habits. At first their friary was on the site of Friernhay Street. Later they moved to a site east of the town walls. St Andrews Priory at Cowick the Benedictine Order, were a filiation from Bee, as King Henry VI informs us, in a letter addressed to Bishop Lacy and its Priors were regularly appointed by the Abbots of that great monastery.
There were also Dominican friars in Exeter, known as black friars because of their black habits. Their location at Bedford House , which in its original form is no more , must rank as one of the most historically interesting places in the entire city. Once part of the Roman civitas, the site's medieval history begins in the 13th century when a portion of ground within the city walls and just north of the cathedral was granted to the religious order known as the Dominicans, or Black Friars. They are first recorded in Exeter in 1232 although their friary church wasn't dedicated until 1259 by the Bishop of Exeter, Walter Bronescombe.
St Catherines in 2000= AJP photo
The area of their new religious precinct was bounded by Chapel Street, Catherine Street and the city walls, and the Black Friars' quickly established a monastic complex on the site that survived for over 300 years before it was dissolved by Henry VIII on 15 September 1538. Today nothing remains of Bedford House which, like much of Exeter's ancient past, has vanished under modern development precipitated by the 1942 bombing of the city by the Nazis In fol. 91—2. of Bishop Bronescombe's Register, three records are extracted from the ancient book called *' The Leger Prioratus Sci Nicholai Exon"—a book that seems to have perished in 1731 (Oct. 23,) in the fire in the Cotton Library.The first is an amicable composition between the Dean and Chapter of St. Peter's, Exeter, and the Prior and Monks of St. Nicholas,
respecting certain tithes issuing from two mills, and the fishery of the river Exe, near St. Clement's Chapel
de Piscaria super aqua que dicitur Exe prope Capellam Si Clementist –St. Clement’s, at Powderham is a beautiful old church on the Exe Estuary, adjacent to the grounds of Powderham Castle.
The Chapter resigned all claim and pretension to the said tithes, on condition that the Prior and Convent pay them forty-pence sterling, viz twenty-pence at Michaelmas, and twenty-pence at Easter.
This composition was made whilst Simon de Apulia was Bishop, consequently between 1214 and 1224.
The second refers to a taxation, soon after, by Richard Blondy, Chancellor to Bishop Brewer, for the better support of the Vicar of Cadbury.
The Prior of St. Nicholas is directed to allow the Vicar certain houses on the north-side of the church, four acres of land, and a part of the tithes.
The third is an agreement between the Prior and Julian, Rector of Thorverton, respecting the tithes of the mill of Cadbury.
The Prior agrees to pay him six-pence in lieu of tithes.
Bishop Brewer, who succeeded Simon de Apulia in the See of Exeter, was a benefactor to this establishment.
We are informed by Bishop Grandisson, fol. 12. vol. 2. of his Register, that he appropriated to it the parish church of Poughill, in this county, for the purpose of furnishing the conventual church with lights, during the celebration of divine service.
The Tomb of Sir Henry de Raleigh in Exeter Cathedral
( NOTE AJP there does not appear to be a tomb to Sir Henry Pomeroy in the Cathedral, although there is one to Raleigh,
so I wonder where the good SIr Henry was buried ??)
source
Reprinted from the Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature, and Art. 1902. — xxxiv. pp. 4oo-45l
Photographs by AJP
One version of Visitations tells us
Iseult Bathonia widow of Roger Bodrugan & wife of Baron Henry Pomeroy, was dowered in April 1282
with 3 knights fees and1/3 a moiety of both Beri Pomeroy & Stockleigh Pomeroy plus & a Royal licence, for a fee of £20, to marry whomsoever she pleased. She chose William d'Albamara & lived till 1310. William De Arbermara was dead by 1290.
£20 in 1282 is equivilent to about £13,8900. It would buy you 23 horses or 44 cows or 2,000 days wages for a skilled tradesman.
In other words it was a heft sum.
However it seems this may be an error & itmay have been their daughter Joan who married d'Arbemara.
Wikitree According to Wikitree Joan daughter of Henry Pomeroy & Issualt Bathonia was married to Geoffrey son of William d'Arbermal/.
Geoffrey Daumarle formerly Albemarle aka de Alba Marlia
Born before 1268 in Woodbury, Devon- Died before 21 Feb 1321 at about age 53 in Lympstone, Devon, England
Son of William de Albemarle wife Joan Pomeroy & son William d'Aumarle(Damerel)
Biography
4 May 1290 : Geoffrey son of William de Alba Marlia of Wodebyry, William de Bodrugan, Richard de Bingham, and John Gerveys acknowledge that they owe to William de Hamilton 17/.; to be levied, in default of payment, of their lands and chattels in county Devon. [1]
8 February 1289 : Geoffrey de Alba Marlia acknowledges that he owes William de Hamilton 32/.; to be levied in default of payment of his lands and chattels in county Devon. [2]
IPM Geoffrey de Alba Marlia, alias Daumarle
Writ: 14 July 1321 Inq: 7 March 1321
• Manor of Wodebury and the hamlet of Leveneston (Lympstone).
• William his son, aged 24, is his next heir.
Sources 1 ↑ "Close Rolls, Edward I: May 1290," in Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I Volume 3, 1288-1296, ed. H C Maxwell Lyte (His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1904), pp. 127-132. British History Online
2 ↑ "Close Rolls, Edward I: February 1289," in Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I Volume 3, 1288-1296, ed. H C Maxwell Lyte (His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1904), pp. 33-36. British History Online
3 ↑ J E E S Sharp and A E Stamp. "Inquisitions Post Mortem, Edward II, File 66", in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem Volume 6, Edward II, (His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1910), pp. 149-157. British History Online
• Ancestry Profile: #605.
"It was shown that a 1353 lawsuit alleged that Sir William Daumarle [great-grandfather of Sir William Bonville, Lord Bonville], descended from a certain Iseult, wido of Roger Bedrugan & wife of Henry de Pomeroy . Evidence was presented which showed that the Iseult in question married Henry de Pomeroy in or before 1276/7, and that she survived him as his widow in 1281. Following Pomeroy's death, she remarried before 1303 Sir Walter de Aylesbury. Iseult died in 1311. But when did she marry Sir Roger de Bodrugan? Was she the widow of Roger dead by 1277, or did she marry him after Henry dead by 1281
Dates suggest suggests Bodrugan came 1st.
Three charters involving Sir Roger de Bodrugan are presented below which are labelled A, B, and C, as well as a fourth undated charter of Henry de Pomeroy labelled D. Charters A, B, and C indicate that Sir Roger de Bodrugan was living in the period, 1256/9 through 1272, and that he was the son and heir of Sir Philip de Bodrugan, Knt.
Strangely enough, two standard Bodrugan pedigrees in print entirely ignore the existence of Sir Roger de Bodrugan. One of these pedigrees can be found in the book, Deanery of Trigg Minor, by Sir John Maclean, 1 (1976): 554-555. Maclean asserts that Sir Philip de Bodrugan, living 1253, was succeeded by a son and heir, Henry de Bodrugan, living 1283. This Henry de Bodrugan is stated to have been succeeded in turn by another Henry de Bodrugan, died 1309, who Complete Peerage states was posthumously summoned to Parliament 26 October 1309, by writ directed Henrico de Bodrigan [Reference: Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 199 (sub Bodrigan)].
Complete Peerage follows Maclean's arrangement of the Bodrugan family. In point of fact, Sir Philip de Bodrugan, living 1268-9, styled lord of Pendrym [see Launceston Priory charters], was succeeded by his son and heir, Sir Roger de Bodrugan, living 1272, who in turn was succeeded by his son and heir, Sir Henry de Bodrugan, who occurs 1283-1309. Thus, Complete Peerage is incorrect in stating that the Sir Henry de Bodrugan, who died in 1309, was the "son and heir of Henry de Bodrugan, living 1283." Sir Henry de Bodrugan, died 1309, was actually the son and heir of Sir Roger de Bodrugan, living 1272, dead before 1276/7, and his wife, Iseult, as correctly stated in the 1353 lawsuit which commenced this post. Elsewhere, in the newsgroup archives, I note that back in 2001 Pat Patterson gave the following information regarding Sir Roger de Bodrugan's wife, Iseult, who she identified as Isolde de Pyn, daughter of Simon de Pyn. Pat cited as her source, Whetter, Bodrugans, which source I haven't yet seen. "Isolde de Pyn ...dau of Simon de Pyn. She was also the great-niece of Stephen Heym, steward of the earl of Cornwall in the 1260s and a prominent ecclesiastic" (Whetter, Bodrugans.). She died in 1311." END OF QUOTE
In summary, it appears that Sir William Daumarle's great-grandmother, Iseult (either de Pyn or Bathonia ), married (1st) Sir Roger de Bodrugan, living 1272; (2nd) before 1276/7 Sir Henry de Pomeroy, born c. 1236, died 1281; and (3rd) before 1303 Sir Walter de Aylesbury.
By Iseult's first marriage, she had two sons, Sir Henry and Peter de Bodrugan [see Charter E below for evidence of Peter].
By Iseult's second marriage, she had one daughter, Joan de Pomeroy, mother of William Daumarle. Sir John Maclean, Trigg Minor (pg. 549) states that Sir Henry de Bodrugan [son of Sir Roger and Iseult above] had a sister, Joan, who married Henry de Champernoun, died 1329, to whom he gave the manor of Tywardreth, Cornwall. If correct, perhaps Joan, wife of Henry de Champernoun, is the same lady as Sir Henry de Bodrugan's half-sister, Joan Pomeroy, who married a Daumarle. Whatever the case, it would seem that Joan, wife of Henry de Champernoun, was much younger than her alleged brother, Sir Henry de Bodrugan. William Champernoun, son and heir of Henry and Joan Champernoun, was born about 1313, he being aged 16 at the time of his father's death in 1329.
Sir Henry de Bodrugan, on the other hand, was born say 1262, as he first occurs in records in 1283. This matter deserves further study. Lastly, the evidence indicates that Iseult [possibly de Pyn], widow of Sir Roger de Bodrugan, was the 2nd wife of Henry de Pomeroy (died 1281).
Henry de Pomeroy appears to have married (1st) Isabel de Bathonia, who was the mother of his son and heir, another Henry de Pomeroy, born in 1265. Presumably Isabel de Bathia was nearly related to the John de Bath, of Suffolk, for whom Henry de Pomeroy mainperned in 1268." (Ref; Douglas Richardson posting on Gen-Medieval)
Sources
6 Dec 2006 posting of Douglas Richardson - soc.genealogy.medieval, at groups - google.com
Celtic Casimir website
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse