Siblings with the same names...

Happy (belated) International Women’s Day!  To mark the occasion I wanted to look at an aspect of late medieval/Tudor family life that interests me – the names chosen for children.

It was surprisingly common in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries for siblings to be given the same Christian names – something which would be largely unthinkable now. It is perhaps no surprise that names were re-used after the early death of a child. For example, at Blickling Church in Norfolk there is a memorial brass to Anne, the eldest daughter of William Boleyn and Margaret Butler, who died young. This Anne Boleyn was the elder sister of another Anne Boleyn (the Lady Shelton of Henry VIII’s reign), who was born after her death. Clearly, cases such as these were about the commemoration of the dead and ensuring that an important family name remained in use (here, Anne was the name of William Boleyn’s mother, to whom he was close).

Sometimes two children born close together were also given the same name – for example, Catherine Howard’s lover, Thomas Culpepper and his brother, Thomas, who was close to him in age. Obviously this was not intended as an act of commemoration of the elder, still living, sibling, but, in an age of high infant mortality, it was probably done to ensure the continuation of the family Christian name in a similar way to the re-use of the name of a deceased child.

What I am particularly interested in, however, is the re-use of a name when the elder sibling had already survived infancy and would be considered to have a good chance of survival. This was often the result of a parents’ remarriage. Elizabeth Woodville, the queen of Edward IV, had two sons named Richard: Sir Richard Grey, the younger son of her first marriage and Richard, Duke of York, the younger son of her second. As queen, Elizabeth may have had little input into the decision to name her youngest son after her husband’s father. However, even here there is a sense that the re-use of a name was considered acceptable amongst half-siblings.

This seems particularly likely where the siblings concerned were paternal half-siblings. Fathers had a great deal of authority over their families in the period and would have been largely in control of selecting their child’s name. The first Anne Boleyn, who was the second wife of Geoffrey Boleyn, Lord Mayor of London, was the daughter of Sir Thomas Hoo, Lord Hoo and Hastings. Her father remarried when she was an adult, producing a further three daughters: Anne, Alianore and Elizabeth.  The younger Anne, who was the eldest child of this marriage, was born in 1448, some years after her elder half-sister’s marriage. The re-use of the elder Anne’s name was therefore not connected with concerns that she would not survive to adulthood – she already had.

The Hoo family were particularly keen on re-using names amongst half-siblings. I have been recently studying a chancery case brought by Anne and her half-siblings which, highlighting the confusion that could arise, refers to the ‘said Anne, Anne, Alianore, & Elizabeth’ as daughters of Sir Thomas Hoo. The sisters’ father, Sir Thomas Hoo, also had a paternal half-brother named Thomas Hoo, Esquire, with both brothers named after their father. This pattern was also not solely a Hoo family tradition. Elizabeth Howard, the mother of Queen Anne Boleyn, had much younger half-sister named Elizabeth who also survived to adulthood. These are only the examples in the Boleyn family. There are numerous examples from the period: the Imperial ambassador, Eustace Chapuys, famously, was horrified when he heard rumours that Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn’s new daughter was to be given the name Mary, which was already borne by her elder half-sister.

So the question must be, why was a Christian name re-used by a parent when their child was still living and had survived infancy. The policy was considerably more common amongst half-siblings and it appears that the answer was that such families were considered as distinct units from each other. When a man or woman remarried and started a new family, this really was considered a new family, with the ability to once again commemorate ancestors or re-use favourite names. Although half-siblings recognised each other as siblings, and would refer to each other as ‘brother’ and ‘sister’, there was also a distinction between them.

I would argue that this distinction was due to the fact that, although inheritance in England was largely through the male line, the importance of lateral kinship was also very high. A person was considered to be the product of both their mother and their father’s families. So, for example, when Anne Boleyn reportedly threatened to marry Princess Mary to a low-born man, she would be debasing the throne-worthiness of Mary’s children due to the lack of status of the husband. Similarly, for Anne Boleyn, her links to the Howards were very important to her status – a family connection that came through her mother. When challenged on his plans to marry Anne, Henry Percy, heir to the Earl of Northumberland, defended her by pointing out her links to the Dukes of Norfolk and the Earls of Ormond, both of which came through female lines in her family.

Inheritance in England also passed through the full blood in the medieval and Tudor periods, with half-siblings rarely being heirs to each other – this was why Queen Anne Neville’s mother was able to inherit from her full brother, the Earl of Warwick, with her elder paternal half-sisters receiving nothing. This was also the rationale behind the mention in Edward VI’s Device for the succession that Mary and Elizabeth were only related to him in the half-blood.

Since lateral kinship was so important in the period, it is no surprise that, with each remarriage, a man or a woman was considered to start a new family, which was distinct from their previous. This accounts for the re-use of a Christian name.

For anyone interested, there is more on Anne Hoo and the other women described above in my book, Boleyn Women, which is available from July.

Boleyn Women - July 2013

My new book was announced today: Boleyn Women - The Tudor Femmes Fatales who Changed English History. It is due out at the end of July with Amberley.

Despite the sub-title, the book actually goes back into the medieval period to examine the lives of all recorded women of the Boleyn family. The family first appear as prosperous peasants at the manor of Salle, with their exact origins not recorded. An Emma Boleyn, who lived in the late fourteenth century may be the first known female member of the family. There is considerably more evidence for the heiress, Alice Bracton Boleyn, who lived a few generations later and whose ambition for her family and children helped their rise. By the mid-fiifteenth century, the Boleyns were prominent in London trade and in educational circles. By the late fifteenth century they were mixing with, and marrying into, the nobility. In 1533 they produced a queen, repeating this success with a queen regnant in 1558.

This is the first book to tell the story of the Boleyns through the women of the family: wives, daughters, sisters and nieces. The life of every woman in the family who was either born with the surname Boleyn or became a Boleyn on marriage is included, as well as a number of women descended from female members of the family. While the Boleyn men were prominent in English history, the women of the family certainly increased that prominence, as well as acting independently on their own behalves. In the late fifteenth century, three marriages (that of Geoffrey Boleyn to Anne Hoo, William Boleyn to Margaret Butler and Thomas Boleyn to Elizabeth Howard) anchored the Boleyns firmly into the nobility. It was on this basis that the court careers of a number of Boleyn daughters were launched: most notably, that of the most famous family member, Queen Anne Boleyn herself.

With their ambition and influence, the Boleyns were a dynasty that proved to be as influential as many of the great aristocratic houses of the period. Largely, the family's story is the story of its women and it is fitting that the daughter of a Boleyn became England's first truly great queen regnant.

Pre-Conquest Ancestors

My article on tracing pre-Conquest ancestors has just been published in Your Family History magazine (issue 38, March 2013).

1066 is generally seen as a barrier to family research, with good reason, and I wanted to look at ways that it is possible to track your family back through the barrier. To do so, it will be necessary to find a ‘gateway ancestor’ in your own family tree – someone whose pedigree is known to take you through the barrier. For 1066 this will need to be someone with a drop of royal blood, which providing that it is from the English royal family, will be enough to take you back to the Anglo-Saxon kings (since even William the Conqueror, who was not descended from the Anglo-Saxon royal family married Matilda of Flanders, who was).

I carry out much of my research on the Blount family of Kinlet and a central aim of my research project is to promulgate my research to a wider audience. When writing about family history, I often use them as a case study as, indeed, I did with this article. Interestingly the Blounts, who came to national attention through the birth in 1519 of Henry Fitzroy, an illegitimate son of Henry VIII and Bessie Blount, have their own gateway ancestor: Edmund de Cornwall, son of an illegitimate son of King John. Some kings had a particularly high number of illegitimate offspring, vastly increasing the chances that you are descended from them...

Margaret Beaufort

I gave a talk today on Margaret Beaufort, looking in particular at her early life and the role that she played in bringing her son, Henry VII, to the throne. For much of his life Henry VII was a penniless exile, living in Brittany. The fact that he was able to become a credible contender for the crown owes much to his mother's persistence in attempting to engineer his return to England.

Margaret Beaufort is one of the most fascinating characters from the late medieval/early Tudor period. You can read more about her in my biography of her!

Emma of Normandy

I posted recently about Matilda of Scotland, a woman who famously changed her name on becoming queen of England An earlier queen also changed her name for political reasons. We know the woman who was the queen of both Aethelred II and Cnut as Emma of Normandy, but to her contemporaries in England, she was always the Lady Aelfgifu.

Emma of Normandy was the eldest of the nine children of Richard I, Duke of Normandy and his second wife, Gunnor and was born between 980 and 990. Gunnor ruled as regent for her son Richard II following his accession as Duke of Normandy in 996. The Normans, who were descended from Scandinavian settlers, had a good deal of sympathy for the Viking raiders who harried England during the period, leading the duchy into conflict with the English king, Aethelred II. In a bid to enjoy friendlier relations, a marriage alliance was proposed between Emma and the widowed English king early in the eleventh century.

In late 1001, Aethelred moved his court to Kent to await Emma’s coming. She arrived a few weeks later, early in 1002, and the couple married that spring at Canterbury. Unusually for an Anglo-Saxon queen, Emma was crowned. She also took the popular English name of Aelfgifu in order to demonstrate that she had become an English queen. Aethelred was considerably older than Emma and had a number of adult children. The couple never became close and Emma bore her husband only three children in a marriage of fourteen years. She was based at Winchester, where she owned property. She is likely to have been responsible for the upbringing of her stepdaughters, and also for raising her own children: Edward, born in 1004 or 1005, Godgiva born in around 1007 and Alfred, born by 1013. Emma rarely appears in sources for Aethelred’s reign and, with the large age gap between herself and her husband, it would have been difficult for her to establish herself politically. She was also perceived in England to have Danish sympathies. In 1003 the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded that the city of Exeter was destroyed by the treachery of Emma’s French reeve who helped the Vikings gain access to the city. Emma did witness some of Aethelred’s charters, an honour that was not granted to his first wife, but, in the main, she had little public role.

Aethelred’s long reign was continually troubled by Viking raids. The biggest crisis came in 1013 when Sweyn Forkbeard, King of Denmark, landed in England, intent on conquest. Aethelred sent Emma to Normandy with her daughter, Godgiva. This was both for Emma’s own protection and in order to allow her to appeal personally to her brother for aid. She was soon joined by her sons, Edward and Alfred and, shortly afterwards, by Aethelred himself who had abandoned his kingdom to Sweyn. It was a relief, in February 1014 when, following the sudden death of Sweyn, the family were invited to return to England and Aethelred recovered his throne. It cannot have been an easy homecoming and, within a year, Aethelred’s eldest son, Edmund, was in open rebellion against his father. Sweyn’s son, Cnut, was also active in the kingdom. Aethelred died quietly in London on 23 April 1016, beset on all sides. Emma was with him.

Aethelred’s death left Emma in a perilous position whilst Cnut and Edmund fought over the country. She, at first, threw in her lot behind her stepson, Edmund, who was immediately proclaimed king. In spite of this, she was under no illusions about the danger that she faced and, soon after Aethelred’s death, her children returned to Normandy. Edmund’s death late in 1016 left Cnut as king of the entire kingdom and, in mid 1017, he ordered Emma to be ‘fetched’ as his wife.

While Emma was effectively Cnut’s prisoner at the time of their marriage, she was valuable to him: marriage to the English queen helped cement his position as King of England and neutralised Norman support for her sons. He was not, in fact, entirely free to marry, as Cnut already had a wife, Aelfgifu of Northampton, who he did not repudiate. However, it was Emma who took the role of queen and she shared Cnut’s coronation. In Cnut’s charters of 1018-1019, Emma’s name often appeared low down in the list of witnesses. After 1019, she tended to witness directly behind the king himself, demonstrating her rapidly increasing political power.

 Emma bore Cnut two children, Harthacnut and Gunnhild, between 1018 and 1020. Harthacnut was Cnut’s favourite child and, in 1023, he was sent to Denmark to be raised as the future king of his father’s ancestral kingdom. Gunnhild made an advantageous marriage to the eldest son of the Holy Roman Emperor. For Emma, her time as Cnut’s queen was much more satisfying than her marriage to Aethelred and she was given much more freedom to act. She and Cnut were often together and they jointly took part in conspicuous patronage, together presenting a shrine to Abingdon Abbey, for example. They are depicted as jointly presenting a cross to the New Minster, Winchester, on the frontispiece of the manuscript, the Liber Vitae. In 1023 Emma was present at the most important church event of Cnut’s reign, the reburial of St Alfheah at Canterbury. She and Cnut acted together throughout Cnut’s reign in their attempts to establish a new Danish dynasty in England.

Emma was at Winchester when Cnut died suddenly at Shaftesbury on 12 November 1035. She was entirely unprepared for the death of her still young and, apparently, healthy husband. Cnut’s surviving son by Aelfgifu of Northampton, Harold Harefoot, was his only son present in England and he took the initiative, rushing to Winchester and taking Cnut’s treasure from Emma before attempting to secure the crown for himself. Emma immediately threw her support behind Harthacnut and a council at Oxford agreed that her son, as the son of his legitimate wife, was Cnut’s heir, offering the compromise that Harold should rule as regent until his half-brother returned from Denmark. Emma set about trying to protect her own child’s position, both by slandering Harold and his mother, Aelfgifu, and by buying support in England. Harthacnut, however, had no desire to leave his primary kingdom of Denmark and, by 1036, with Harold’s position daily increasing in strength, Emma decided to take drastic action and recall one of her elder sons to England to take up the throne in their half-brother’s stead.

 A letter exists, summoning Edward and Alfred to England from Normandy. Emma herself, in a book she commissioned called the Encomium Emmae Reginae, maintained that this letter was a forgery produced by Harold in order to trick her sons into leaving the safety of Normandy. This is not impossible, but it is more likely that the summons came from Emma herself, desperate to maintain her position in England at any cost. Emma wrote:

‘Emma, queen in name only, imparts motherly salutations on her sons, Edward and Alfred. Since we severally lament the death of our lord, the king, most dear sons, and since daily you are deprived of more and more of the kingdom, your inheritance, I wonder what plan you are adopting, since you are aware that the delay arising from your procrastination is becoming from day to day a support for the usurper of your rule. For he goes round hamlets and cities ceaselessly, and makes the chief men his friends by gifts, threats and prayers. But they would prefer that one of you should rule over them, than that they should be held in the power of him who now commands them. I entreat, therefore, that one of you come to me speedily and privately, to receive from me wholesome counsel, and to know in what manner this matter, which I desire, must be brought to pass. Send back word what you are going to do about these matters by the present messenger, whoever he may be. Farewell, beloved ones of my heart’.

This was the first direct contact that Emma had had with her elder sons for twenty years. While Emma requested that only one of her sons come to her, Edward and Alfred, who had spent their entire adulthoods in exile and as the penniless guests of their family in Normandy, were both determined to make an attempt on the English throne. Edward arrived safely with Emma in Winchester but Alfred fell into the hands of Godwin, Harold’s advisor, who had him blinded on Harold’s orders. On hearing of his brother’s death soon afterwards, Edward returned to Normandy, leaving Emma alone in Winchester. Alfred’s death and Edward’s departure signalled the final blow for Emma’s hopes and, in 1037, Harold seized the crown, exiling Emma to Flanders.

Following her exile, Emma turned once again towards Harthacnut for support and, finally, in 1040, he sailed from Denmark, bringing a large fleet to Flanders in preparation for an invasion of England. Before they could sail, word arrived that Harold had died and that Harthacnut had been proclaimed king. Harthacnut and Emma sailed at once and Emma was able to establish herself as the power behind the throne, always witnessing immediately after the king in charters. During the reign Emma commissioned what is, essentially, her autobiography, the Encomium Emmae Reginae, which she used to justify her actions throughout her lifetime. Emma became increasingly concerned about her youngest son’s health and, loath to find herself alone and unprotected as she had been in 1035, in 1041 she persuaded Harthacnut to recall Edward to England to share in his rule. When Harthacnut died suddenly in 1042 Edward was proclaimed king in his place, just as Emma had hoped.

 Edward the Confessor, who had spent most of his life waiting to become king of England, was in no mood to share his throne with his mother. Soon after his coronation in 1042 he deprived her of all her lands and treasures. According to William of Malmesbury, this was something that Edward had been planning for some time and his ‘royal spirit was woken to hostility against his mother by the memory of past events. She had not been very generous in her treatment of her son, while he was passing through his teenage years, and so he ordered all his mother’s effects to be ransacked, down to the last pennyworth’. After 1043 Emma virtually disappears from the sources. Her last public appearance was at London in 1045 when she witnessed a charter granting privileges to Westminster Abbey.She died at Winchester on 14 March 1052 and was buried beside Cnut in the Old Minster there.

Emma is discussed in my books England’s Queens: The Biography (Amberley, 2011) and She Wolves: The Notorious Queens of England (The History Press, 2008). She is also the subject of several recent biographies. She is not the only woman to have been the wife of two English kings however and her predecessor, Judith of Francia, will be the subject of a later blog post...

Did Lady Jane Grey Influence History?

I have just been asked my view on whether or not Lady Jane Grey influenced history. It is an interesting question and I set out below one way in which I think she (or, at least the political idea of Jane) did have a long-lasting impact.

Jane as a person did not really act independently. She was sixteen at the time of her death and had been used politically, rather than formulating political policy herself. As a person, she is a fascinating figure and the main sense of her that I have is of wasted potential: she could have been so much more had she lived and her party succeeded.

In spite of this, I do think that Jane had an influence on history due to what she embodied. Before the reign of Henry VIII, the succession had been, at least nominally, based on hereditary, with sons succeeding fathers, etc. Henry VIII, with his difficulties in obtaining a male heir, moved away from this. In the first two Acts of Succession of his reign, he disinherited each of his daughters in turn, based on the supposed invalidity of his marriages to their mothers. These marriages were arguably valid but Henry did, at least, base his attempts to change the succession on the principals of hereditary: illegitimate children had no right to succeed. The second Act of Succession made a real change however in that it allowed the king to name a successor if he had no legitimate heir: something which gave him the power to choose anyone that he liked. This was followed by the Third Act of Succession, which reinstated the two daughters, in spite of the fact that they were illegitimate. Henry VIII’s Will made the final change, bequeathing the crown to his legitimate son, Edward, and then to his two ‘illegitimate’ daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, before passing the throne to the heirs of his younger sister, Mary Tudor, ignoring the heirs of his elder sister, Margaret.

Henry VIII set a precedent in altering the succession and his son, Edward VI, followed this in his Device, passing over the claims of his two half-sisters, the heirs of Margaret Tudor and his cousin, Frances Brandon (the daughter of the elder Mary Tudor) in order to pass the crown to Lady Jane Grey. Had Jane secured the throne, this would arguably have cemented the precedent into law that the monarch had some ability to choose their own successor.

The failure of Jane’s attempt at the crown therefore did influence history and once again put the emphasis on the importance of strict hereditary title. Mary I hated her half-sister, Elizabeth I, but did not attempt to divert the succession from her. On her accession in 1558, Elizabeth I’s heirs were legally Frances Brandon and her daughter, Catherine Grey, due to the terms of Henry VIII’s Will. However, it was well known that Mary, Queen of Scots and, later, her son, James VI, had the strongest hereditary title. The succession in Elizabeth’s reign was always open to question and yet she always refused to name a successor, even on her deathbed in 1603. The fact that James VI of Scotland was able to succeed smoothly to the throne arguably has its roots in Jane Grey’s failed bid for the crown. In 1603 hereditary won over strict legal title. This was the same for Jane in 1553. It would be nearly the end of the seventeenth century, and after a civil war, before the succession again moved away from the strict hereditary line.

Looking ahead to the New Year

I was featured on the David Prever show this morning on BBC Three Counties Radio, looking ahead at the likely big news stories of 2013. We were discussing the expected royal baby and the fact that any daughter will now succeed to the throne regardless of whether she has younger brothers. This will obviously be a major change to the succession given that male primogeniture has prevailed in England for one thousand years. Even the Anglo-Saxons, who recognised any son of a king as 'throne-worthy' employed a version of the system, with the elder brother always succeeding in precedence to the younger (although sometimes with a brother succeeding rather than a son). The legislation to allow an elder sister to succeed is not yet in place but the decision has been made. In any event, male or female, the royal baby must be one of the biggest news stories of the year to come.

In the programme, we also discussed the fact that the new baby will probably be elderly by the time they actually come to the throne. I mentioned Sophia of Hannover, who, had she survived for a few more weeks would have become queen of England in 1714 at the age of 83. Prince William would need to live to 114 for the new baby to beat that - but who knows?

Anyway, Happy New Year everyone!