This posting does not pretend to give a comprehensive argument for the details of the life of William la Zouche, either before or after he became archbishop of York. It is merely is meant to give an outline of the tentative conclusions I have so far reached based on on-going research that has lasted, off and on, for eight years, in the hope that should I never be in a position to publish a polished version of my research, others might find a certain amount of stimulation and may be spared some of the long hours of academic struggle that will have gone into these few lines.
All previous studies of the archbishop's life depend heavily on his will as a means for establishing a framework to his life in which to include to mass of other surviving details from the contemporary written record of his time. One point of the published version of the will is quite curious and that is the phrase "parentes, consanguineos meos" which is normally translated as "parents, blood relations". I have come to the conclusion that this should be read as "parentes consanguineos meos" without the comma which almost certainly represents an editorial addition in the printed version and cannot have existed in the original 14th century Latin. As a phrase "parentes consanguineos" was a legal term which exists even today in the Portuguese legal code to indicate someone too closely related for a marriage to be legally binding. If we remember that the archbishop was a university trained specialist in canon law, then, considering the way church law was applied in his lifetime, we might just as easily interpret the passage concerned as meaning "individuals related to me within the degree of 3rd cousin or less". The passage concerned, thus, cannot be taken as an indication that his parents were still alive, though for six out of the last seven years of my research, just like all of my predecessors, this is a position that I took, too.
On close examination, the archbishop's will shows a far greater partiality to his relatives than is apparent at first sight, as an examination of the executors of his will would show. Lord Neville of Raby, the first person mentioned as an executor, is the husband of an individual my current research indicates to have been a second cousin of the archbishop. In addition, he was a companion in war and can be shown to have been a political ally. Ralph la Zouche is specifically mentioned as being the archbishop's brother. Anketil Mallory is either a brother-in-law (more probably) or a half-brother (less probably). Christopher Mallory is either a first or a second cousin, depending on whether his mother was a much younger sister of the archbishop's father or a first cousin of that man. Robert Constable would have been directly ancestral to the man who was either contracted or already married to the archbishop's neice. This would lead one to expect that the other executors would also have some family connection, either direct or indirect, with the archbishop, too.
Another thing one should be careful about is not to confuse the archbishop or his brother Roger with two sons of the first baron William la Zouche of Harringworth. It is extremely easy to do as it would seem that both Williams became clerics and both Rogers were knights and lords of manors, though it would seem that the Roger who was the son of William la Zouche of Harringworth did not leave descendants. It is on the basis of this overlapping in naming and what I believe to be a mistaken reading of the archbishop's will that many people in the past (including myself) have assumed that the baron was the father of the archbishop, as he was old enough to be the archbishop's father, alive at the archbishop's death, and clearly the father of a William who was a cleric. Other contemporary evidence, however, makes it impossible to believe that this could be the case.
The archbishop and his brother Roger have to be the sons of the first Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe and Juliana (Tresgoz?). Moreover, William would appear to have been a youngest son, being born either shortly before or soon after his father's death, as he is nowhere mentioned in the property settlements made after the first Roger's death, whereas as various other sons are. One can assume, on this basis, that the archbishop was probably born around 1300 or 1301. Ecclesiastical preferment before the mid-1320s probably refers, not to him but to his cousin who was the son of the first baron la Zouche of Harringworth.
The archbishop's career was a brilliant one and he was undoubtedly a man of energy and, being highly educated, of talent. What should not be overlooked is that he was also well-connected in terms of family and that he placed importance on family interest in the management of his affairs, both as archbishop and before. Moreover, this was natural for a man of his times.
Concerning the archbishop's Mallory connections, Anketil Mallory is mentioned by a late 14th century memorandum of a complicated series of land transfers as being the brother of the archbishop which would not be impossible if we assume that this particular Anketil is the son of the archbishop's mother, Juliana, and her second husband Reginald Mallory. However, another document in the same collection refers to a William Mallory as being this Anketil's brother, though he is closely associated with Anketil, at no time does he appear in connection with the archbishop during the archbishop's life. Considering other matters that cannot be gone into here, it would be easier to assume that Anketil was the husband of a sister of the archbishop, thus making him a brother-in-law instead of a blood brother. On the other hand, William would have been a blood brother of Anketil, though not directly connected with the archbishop by blood or marriage.
Christopher Mallory, however, would appear to be a representative of a different branch of the Mallory family (Kirkby Mallory) from Anketil (Walton on the Wold). His connection can best be explained as a cousin (either first or second) but would have been well within the degree of blood relationship for the archbishop to have considered him as being closely related according to the definitions provided by canon law at the time.
I hope eventually to provide a fuller and much more coherent life of the archbishop in the future, but, even if I don't, a better understanding of the points raised above can help a future researcher do the same. I don't see anything brought up in this blog as being a final statement of fact, but rather as an attempt to stimulate research taking place in directions it may not have otherwise gone.
All previous studies of the archbishop's life depend heavily on his will as a means for establishing a framework to his life in which to include to mass of other surviving details from the contemporary written record of his time. One point of the published version of the will is quite curious and that is the phrase "parentes, consanguineos meos" which is normally translated as "parents, blood relations". I have come to the conclusion that this should be read as "parentes consanguineos meos" without the comma which almost certainly represents an editorial addition in the printed version and cannot have existed in the original 14th century Latin. As a phrase "parentes consanguineos" was a legal term which exists even today in the Portuguese legal code to indicate someone too closely related for a marriage to be legally binding. If we remember that the archbishop was a university trained specialist in canon law, then, considering the way church law was applied in his lifetime, we might just as easily interpret the passage concerned as meaning "individuals related to me within the degree of 3rd cousin or less". The passage concerned, thus, cannot be taken as an indication that his parents were still alive, though for six out of the last seven years of my research, just like all of my predecessors, this is a position that I took, too.
On close examination, the archbishop's will shows a far greater partiality to his relatives than is apparent at first sight, as an examination of the executors of his will would show. Lord Neville of Raby, the first person mentioned as an executor, is the husband of an individual my current research indicates to have been a second cousin of the archbishop. In addition, he was a companion in war and can be shown to have been a political ally. Ralph la Zouche is specifically mentioned as being the archbishop's brother. Anketil Mallory is either a brother-in-law (more probably) or a half-brother (less probably). Christopher Mallory is either a first or a second cousin, depending on whether his mother was a much younger sister of the archbishop's father or a first cousin of that man. Robert Constable would have been directly ancestral to the man who was either contracted or already married to the archbishop's neice. This would lead one to expect that the other executors would also have some family connection, either direct or indirect, with the archbishop, too.
Another thing one should be careful about is not to confuse the archbishop or his brother Roger with two sons of the first baron William la Zouche of Harringworth. It is extremely easy to do as it would seem that both Williams became clerics and both Rogers were knights and lords of manors, though it would seem that the Roger who was the son of William la Zouche of Harringworth did not leave descendants. It is on the basis of this overlapping in naming and what I believe to be a mistaken reading of the archbishop's will that many people in the past (including myself) have assumed that the baron was the father of the archbishop, as he was old enough to be the archbishop's father, alive at the archbishop's death, and clearly the father of a William who was a cleric. Other contemporary evidence, however, makes it impossible to believe that this could be the case.
The archbishop and his brother Roger have to be the sons of the first Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe and Juliana (Tresgoz?). Moreover, William would appear to have been a youngest son, being born either shortly before or soon after his father's death, as he is nowhere mentioned in the property settlements made after the first Roger's death, whereas as various other sons are. One can assume, on this basis, that the archbishop was probably born around 1300 or 1301. Ecclesiastical preferment before the mid-1320s probably refers, not to him but to his cousin who was the son of the first baron la Zouche of Harringworth.
The archbishop's career was a brilliant one and he was undoubtedly a man of energy and, being highly educated, of talent. What should not be overlooked is that he was also well-connected in terms of family and that he placed importance on family interest in the management of his affairs, both as archbishop and before. Moreover, this was natural for a man of his times.
Concerning the archbishop's Mallory connections, Anketil Mallory is mentioned by a late 14th century memorandum of a complicated series of land transfers as being the brother of the archbishop which would not be impossible if we assume that this particular Anketil is the son of the archbishop's mother, Juliana, and her second husband Reginald Mallory. However, another document in the same collection refers to a William Mallory as being this Anketil's brother, though he is closely associated with Anketil, at no time does he appear in connection with the archbishop during the archbishop's life. Considering other matters that cannot be gone into here, it would be easier to assume that Anketil was the husband of a sister of the archbishop, thus making him a brother-in-law instead of a blood brother. On the other hand, William would have been a blood brother of Anketil, though not directly connected with the archbishop by blood or marriage.
Christopher Mallory, however, would appear to be a representative of a different branch of the Mallory family (Kirkby Mallory) from Anketil (Walton on the Wold). His connection can best be explained as a cousin (either first or second) but would have been well within the degree of blood relationship for the archbishop to have considered him as being closely related according to the definitions provided by canon law at the time.
I hope eventually to provide a fuller and much more coherent life of the archbishop in the future, but, even if I don't, a better understanding of the points raised above can help a future researcher do the same. I don't see anything brought up in this blog as being a final statement of fact, but rather as an attempt to stimulate research taking place in directions it may not have otherwise gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment