Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:17:03.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

For love, money, or politics? A clandestine marriage and the Elizabethan court of Arches*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Alison Wall
Alison Wall
Affiliation:
Christ Church, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The strange circumstances of the hasty clandestine wedding of Thomas Thynne and Maria Audley in 1594 raise questions about possible motives for it. He was the teenage heir to a rich Wiltshire gentleman, and she was a young attendant of Queen Elizabeth, but their families were divided by political faction. Private correspondence afterwards and contentious court of Arches proceedings lasting to 1601 reveal the tactics adopted on the one hand by her family to try to prove consent of both bride and groom to marriage, on the other the countering tactics of the Thynnes to disprove it. The parents exploited ecclesiastical court procedure, and attempted to influence witnesses and judge. This case shows attitudes to marriage making, beliefs about rituals and tokens, and conceptions of the law of marriage in Elizabethan England.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 511 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 MSS of the marquess of Bath, Longleat, Thynne papers [hereafter T.P.], VI, fos. 197–8; Box XXXII, fo. 22; V. fo. 73. The late marquess of Bath generously gave permission for me to use the Longleat MSS. Fowler, T., History of Corpus Christi College (Oxford, 1893), p. 436Google Scholar. All printed works published London unless specified.

2 The evidence for this paper is correspondence in the Thynne papers (see n. 12), and an unmarked and unfoliated MS at Longleat, book 190, with formal proceedings in Latin, and depositions mainly in English. It is a contemporary transcript of an ecclesiastical court suit, with the hearings, then the libel, allegations, interrogatory articles, depositions, etc., apparently in the court of Arches. The libel, dated 26 Apr. 1597, was given before Richard Cosin, doctor of law: he was dean of Arches until his death in Nov. 1597. Dr Daniel Donne, dean of the Arches from May 1598, judged this suit (see n. 71). The MS is probably a record of all that had been done, made up for the advocates, see H[enry], C[onsett], The practice of the spirituall or ecclesiasticall courts… (3rd edn, Dublin, 1708), p. 159Google Scholar. The form ‘Maria’ is used because that is what she called herself; her family's pet name was ‘Mall’. Since there are no folio numbers, references will be to date and section of the suit; Latin is summarized in English.

Unfortunately, the Arches archives at Lambeth Palace Library commence in 1666; there are only rare scattered earlier documents, see Lambeth Palace Library (L.P.L.), Arches F 1–12. See Slatter, D. M., ‘The records of the Court of Arches’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, IV (1953), 139–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barber, M., ‘Records of genealogical interest in Lambeth Palace library’, Genealogists' Magazine [G.M.], XVII, 8 (1973), 430–8Google Scholar; Barber, M., ‘Records of marriage and divorce in Lambeth Palace library’, G.M., XX, 4 (1980), 109–17Google Scholar. Baker, J. H., English legal manuscripts, II (1978), 150Google Scholar, lists a few reports of Arches suits; reports normally summarize the major argument only. This therefore may be the best recorded sixteenth or early seventeenth-century Arches suit so far found (it lacks just the sentence). Private letters about it also survive from most of the people involved, and legal advisers.

3 Lucy was sole heiress to Sir James Marvin, she spent much time with him, and stated that she depended partly on him for her living. He exerted strong influence over the family until his death in 1611; he probably paid for the lawsuit, and the witnesses refer to the roles of Sir James Marvin and Lady Audley. Lord Audley was seldom mentioned; he was a nonentity, relatively poor, often away soldiering, and presumably deferred to Sir James. He rarely attended parliament, going four times in 1592–3, only once in 1597, Journals of the house of lords, II, 178–225.Google Scholar

4 P.R.O. E351/541, membr. 224, Queen Elizabeth sent gifts to Sir James Marvin's house in Whitefriars; Nichols, J., Progresses of Queen Elizabeth (1823), II, 274Google Scholar; Bradford, C. A., Helena, marchioness of Northampton (1936), pp. 65–8.Google Scholar

5 Klarwill, V. von, ed., Queen Elizabeth and some foreigners (1928), p. 394Google Scholar; Rye, W. B., ed., England as seen by foreigners (1865), III, 103–6.Google Scholar

6 Service at court and request to the queen for absence of Maria Touchet (or Audley), book 190, depositions of Edward Tennant 28 Apr. 1597 and Lucy Audley 7 May 1597. The outline of events is in the depositions of six witnesses, all Maria's family or their attendants, dated 27, 28, 29 Apr., 7 May, 1597, and of Thomas Thynne 5 May 1601.

7 Edmund Marvin deposition 29 Apr. 1597.

8 Lucy Audley dep. 7 May 1597.

9 John Marvin dep. 27 Apr. 1597 (though Tennant's comes before it in the MS).

10 Edw. Tennant dep. 28 Apr. 1597. There is a real question about Welles – the libel, and initial deposition of Edward Tennant say Henry Welles, whereas other deps. and articles for Maria of July 1598 have William Welles. Perhaps they found a clergyman with the same surname?

11 Edm. Marvin's dep.

12 Thomas Maudesley or Mosely dep., undated, follows Tennant's of 28 Apr. 1597.

13 One of many letters about the marriage, some printed (in modernized spelling) in Alison, Wall, ed., Two Elizabethan women: correspondence of Joan and Maria Thynne 1575–1612 (Wiltshire Record Society, XXXVIII, 1983)Google Scholar [Eliz. women] and references will be to that volume where possible. This letter pp. 65–7.

14 John Marvin dep. John Marvin's motives are unclear. He was a forty-year old minor gentleman, a friend of the Thynnes, and with his own home, in contrast with the rest of the Marvin party who were of the households of Sir James Marvin or his daughter Lucy Audley. Possibly John was divided in loyalties, yet hoping to see an eventual alliance to heal the feud.

15 Mosely dep., Lucy Audley dep.

16 Laslett, P., The world we have lost (2nd edn, 1971), pp. 81–90Google Scholar; Wrightson, K., English society 1580–1680 (1982), p. 68Google Scholar; Schofield, R., ‘English marriage patterns revisited’, Journal of Family History, X (1985), 2–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Houlbrooke, R., The English family 1450–1700 (1984)Google Scholar; Priestley, J. Robyn, ‘Marriage and family life in the seventeenth century’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney, 1988), chs. 1 & 2Google Scholar; Hollingsworth, T. H., ‘The demography of the British peerage’, Population Studies, XVIII, 2 (1964), 1–108Google Scholar. Some Elizabethan aristocrats were married quite young, but by the arrangement of their parents.

17 Bodleian Library MS Tanner 427, fo. 234V; fos. 118–19, 145, 44–5.

18 Diana, O'Hara, ‘“Ruled by my friends”: aspects of marriage in the diocese of Canterbury c. 1540–1570’, Continuity and Change, VI, 1 (1991), 9–41, esp. pp. 14–15Google Scholar; and see her references.

19 Houlbrooke, , English family, p. 84.Google Scholar

20 Lucy Audley's dep., 7 May 1597, Ed. Tennant's dep., 28 Apr. 1597.

21 Collins, A., Letters and memorials (Sidney Papers, 1746), I, 361Google Scholar, from original in MSS of Lord de Lisle, Centre for Kentish Studies, U 1475, C12/25, where spelling differs. I thank Lord de Lisle for permission to consult the MSS.

22 Eliz, . women, p. 20Google Scholar; ibid. pp. 8–9; T.P. Box XXXVII, vol. LXXXIV; Box XI.

23 Ed. Tennant, answers, undated, follows his dep. 28 Apr. 1597. For Manners, John, L. C., ‘Sir Roger Manners, Elizabethan courtier’, Huntington Library Quarterly, XII (1948), 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 T.P., VII, fo. 200.

25 T.P. VIII, fos. 60, 61, 63; the third is after 1603 when Thomas was knighted; Eliz, . women, p. 50Google Scholar. Manin's will in 1610 left his main estate to a Sussex cousin, Henry Marvin who had married Lucy's daughter, Christian, Prerogative court of Canterbury, Prob. 11, 89 Wood. (John and Edmund had both died earlier.) He bequeathed a mare to Thomas, and to Lucy's eldest son the goods at Compton.

26 Alison, Wall, ‘Faction in local politics 1580–1620’, Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine, 72–3 (1980), 119–33Google Scholar; Alison, Wall, ‘Patterns of politics in Elizabethan and Jacobean England’, Historical Journal, XXXI, 4 (1988), 947–63.Google Scholar

27 Jay, W., ‘Sir Rowland Hayward’, London & Middlesex Archaeological Society Transactions, VI (1953), 509–27Google Scholar; T.P. VI, fos. 296, 302.

28 Thomas Knyvett D.N.B.; Eliz, . women, p. 56.Google Scholar

29 Eliz, . women, pp. 56–7.Google Scholar

30 Helmholz, R. H., Roman canon law in Reformation England (Cambridge, 1990), esp. pp. 71–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, Ingram, Church courts, sex and marriage in England, 1570–1640 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 213–18Google Scholar; Ingram, M., ‘Spousals litigation in the English ecclesiastical courts, c. 1350–c. 1640’, in Outhwaite, R. B. (ed.), Marriage and society: studies in the social history of marriage (1981), pp. 35–57, esp. pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

31 Lucy Audley dep. 7 May 1597.

32 Christopher, Haigh, Elizabeth I (London and New York, 1988), pp. 95–6Google Scholar; John, L. C., ‘Sir Roger Manners’, p. 77Google Scholar; Historical Manuscripts Commission [H.M.C.] Rutland, I, 107.

33 H.M.C. Rutland, 1, 275, 278, 300–4, 320–3; H.M.C. Shrewsbury and Talbot papers, 1, 77; II, H. fo. 763; H.M.C. Cecil, VI, 596, V, 267, 288, VIII, 9, 269; H.M.C. 7th Report (Frere MSS) p. 523. Bridget eventually returned to court service, Charlotte, Merton, ‘“The forgotten crowd of common beauties’: the women who served Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth 1553–1603’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1992), esp. pp. 39, 47Google Scholar; Maria Touchet (Audley) is not included. Whyte discussed other changes among the maids in 1597, De Lisle MSS, U 1475, C 57/57.

34 Wall, A., ‘Faction in local polities’.Google Scholar

35 Ibid. p. 125.

36 Eliz, . women, pp. 9–12.Google Scholar

37 Ibid. pp. 8, 10.

38 Ibid. p. 8.

39 Ibid. pp. 8–12, 56–7.

40 Ibid. p. 57.

41 Ibid. pp. 10–12, 57.

42 See n. 21.

43 Maria's departure, and that of Bridget Manners, may be the reason there are only four maids of honour on the next extant list after 1593, Pierrepont Morgan Library, MSS, M.A. 3199, New Year gift roll 1596. I am indebted to Sybil Jack for transcripts of this and other unprinted New Year gift lists and Exchequer Subsidy Rolls.

44 Lucy Audley's 2nd dep.

45 See n. 2. The suit apparently commenced in the Arches, as there appears to be no record of proceedings in either London or Salisbury consistory courts, nor in family correspondence. Greater London Record Office, DL/C612, Act Book 1593–1600; Wiltshire County Record Office [W.R.C.O.], Salisbury Act Books D1/39/1/23, D1/39/1/24, D1/39/1/26. Volume 25 is severely damaged and I could not search it thoroughly – but complex suits usually appear in more than one book. Salisbury Deposition Books do survive and I found nothing relating to this cause.

46 Libel 26 Apr. 1597, given before Dr Richard Cosin, in book 190 following final hearing of 22 May 1601. (Clerical error in no. 7, 1595 recte 1594); deps. and answers to interrogatories, John Marvin and Thomas Mosely or Maudesley both 27 Apr., Edw. Tennant 28 Apr., Edmund Marvin 29 Apr. 1597.

47 William Ley to John Thynne, 17 Mar. 1597, T.P. VII, fo. 74.

48 William Ley to John Thynne, 16 Apr. 1597, T.P. VII, fo. 80; Richard Halliwell to John Thynne, 19 Sept. 1597, T.P. VII, fo. 98V; Richard Halliwell to John Thynne, 15 Feb. 1598, T.P. VII, fo. IIIV.

49 ‘Sir Galy Halt’, Lancelot and Guinevere's go-between, refers to Edward Tennant, who had fetched Thomas from Oxford, and carried letters between the young pair. Ley was correct: on 26 Apr. these three, with Sir James Marvin, and Moseley, were listed to testify for Maria. John Marvin, although a Marvin kinsman, had formerly been a friend of John Thynne, who now considered him ‘that Judas’, Thynne to Richard Halliwell, 23 Nov. 1598, T.P. VII, fo. 128. See no. 14.

50 Hearing, 26 Apr. 1597; John Thynne's 31 interrogatories against the witnesses; hearing 6 May 1597; deps. Lucy Audley, Amy Audley 7 May, Charles Reeves (Rives) 31 May 1597.

51 Halliwell to John Thynne, 19 Sept. 1597, T.P. VII, fo. 98V; same to same, 15 Feb. 1598, T.P. VII, fo. IIIV.

52 Hearing 21 Nov. 1597.

53 Halliwell to John Thynne, 15 Feb. 1598, T.P. VII, fo. 112V.

54 Hearing 4 July; Maria's allegations, 4 July 1598.

55 Halliwell to Thynne, 5 Nov. 1598, T.P. VII, fo. 126.

56 Hearing 13 Nov. 1598; deps. Edm. Marvin, Tennant, Lucy and Amy Audley 15 Nov. 1598; deps. (numbered 1 to 5) of Colston, Lewes, Florence Welles, Mosely, and Durant, taken Bristol 5 Sept. 1598.

57 John Thynne to Halliwell, 23 Nov. 1598, T.P. VII, fo. 128 (copy endorsed by Thynne).

58 Hearing 1 Dec. 1598; Thynne's undated numbered interrogatories (40 articles) starting with denial of legal sufficiency of the testimony of all the witnesses.

59 These claims about Welles cannot be checked, as no Gloucester assizes and quarter sessions survive for the sixteenth century.

60 Halliwell to Thynne, 10 Feb. 1598/9, T.P. VII, fo. 133.

61 Ibid.; hearings 26 Jan., 5 and 12 Feb. 1598/9.

62 Hearings 12, 20 June, 15, 24, 27 Oct., 3, 12 Nov., 1 Dec. 1599, 21 Jan. 1599/1600.

63 ‘Maria Titchet’, 9 Oct. 1599 personal responses to allegations of John Thynne; Lucy and Amy Audley's second depositions. We have less evidence of Marvin backstage manoeuvres than of the Thynnes' because there is no family archive.

64 Katherine Newton to John Thynne ‘from the court’, 17 Dec. 1599, T.P. VII, fos. 154–5. Thomas had been reported undutiful to his parents, Halliwell to Thynne, 9 Sept. 1599, T.P. VII, fo. 150.

65 Elizabeth Knyvett to John Thynne, 11 Sept. 1600, T.P. VII, fo. 185.

66 Eliz, . women, p. 17.Google Scholar

67 Eliz. Knyvett to John Thynne, 16 Mar. 1600/1, T.P. VII, fo. 200.

68 Hearings 4 and 12 May 1601; Thomas Thynne's personal answers 5 May 1601, to Maria (‘Titchet's’) libel of 1597, and to her interrogatory articles of 4 July 1598.

69 Final hearing 22 May 1601; also Goodall's separate summing up under six numbered headings alleging Thomas's signed letter and gold ring – the last section of the MS.

70 Eliz, . women, p. 20.Google Scholar

71 Ibid. pp. 40–1; for Donne or Dun, D.N.B.; B.L. Harl. MS 39; Squibb, G. D., Doctors Commons: a history of the college of advocates and doctors of law (Oxford, 1977), p. 116Google Scholar. Cosin d. 3 Nov. 1597, and Donne became official principal (dean) 27 May 1598; Brian, Levack, The civil lawyers in England 1603–1641 (Oxford, 1973), pp. 226–7.Google Scholar

72 Eliz, . women, p. 21Google Scholar; T.P. VIII, fo. 12.

73 Eliz, . women, p. 58Google Scholar. This case, in which highly placed parents and their court supporters made such a fuss, may have influenced the canons of 1604 restricting marriage by minors without parental consent.

74 Furnivall, F. J., ed., Child marriages, divorces and ratifications etc in the diocese of Chester 1561–6, Early English Text Society, orig. ser. CVIII (1897), 2, 140, 65–8, 52–3Google Scholar; Bodl. MS Tanner 427, fo. 34.

75 Carlson, E. J., ‘Marriage reform and the Elizabethan High Commission’, Sixteenth Century Journal, XXI, 3 (1990), 437–51, esp. 449, 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 W.C.R.O. D1/42/14 fos. 15–17; D1/39/1/26, fos. 3V, 26V, 33V.

77 Eliz, . women, p. 41Google Scholar, hearings 1 Dec. 1598; 20, 26 Jan., 5, 12 Feb. 1598/9.

78 Durham, Library of the dean and chapter, MS Hunter 70, esp. fos. 16, 5, 14, 78.

79 Bodl. MS Tanner 427, fo. 145.

80 cf. Ingram, M., ‘Spousals litigation’, pp. 40, 45–9, 56–7.Google Scholar

81 Helmholz, , Roman canon law, esp. pp. 69–73.Google Scholar

82 Swinburne, H., A treatise ofspousals or matrimonial contracts… (1686, 1st edn, although written late sixteenth century), p. 14.Google Scholar

83 L.P.L. MS 2451, Francis Clerke's Praxis (c. late sixteenth century) new fo. 346 has a brief summary under 8 heads of inquiries, including: ‘6. Whether one did kiss the other in toaken of the contract and whether they gave any Gifts mutually one to the other uppon the said contract’. Thomas, Oughton, Ordo judiciorum sive methodus procendi in negotiis et litibus in foro ecclesiastico-civili (1728)Google Scholar, based on Francis Clerke's Praxis.

84 Eliz, . women, p. 41.Google Scholar

85 See above p. 519, and n. 33.

86 Mosely dep.

87 Philip, Sidney, The countesse of Pembroke's Arcadia (1590, facsimile Kent State Univ. Press, 1970)Google Scholar, see n. 1; Orlando furioso too has stories of lovers faced with hazards. I intend to write further on the implications for literature of this marriage.

88 Eliz, . women, pp. 29, 38, 36Google Scholar. His letters to her (all but one lost) were ‘wanton’, according to her responses.

89 Ralph, Houlbrooke, Church courts and the people during the English Reformation, 1520–1570 (Oxford, 1979).Google Scholar

90 After 1597 clergy could be prosecuted for conducting clandestine marriages, in Wiltshire in the 1620s and 1630s ten or more per year, Ingram, , ‘Spousals litigation’, pp. 40–3Google Scholar. Some lawsuits testing clandestine marriages appear in surviving consistory court records. A book of reports of some Arches suits 1597–1601 contains a few among its 236 folios, Bodl. MS Tanner 427. Another contemporary set of notes on ecclesiastical suits includes a restitution suit against a T. T. (initials only given), and a J. M. rebuked for interfering in a case (possibly Sir James Marvin?), L. P. L. MS 2085, old p. 30, new fo. 36V, ibid, old p. 29.

91 See n. 77.

92 T.P. VII, fo. 253.