George Legh at Fleet Prison 1529

[Gail Peterson]

I need the help of fellow history geeks here on determining the cause of imprisonment of George Legh.

First, a little of the back story. George Legh was b about 1495 at Adlington Manor, Adlington, Cheshire, England. He was a minor noble but was doing fairly well for himself in the greater scheme of things.

About 1519-ish he was married to a commoner by the name of Joan Larke of Huntingdonshire, the daughter of tavern owner, Peter Larke. For the 10 years prior to her marriage to George, Joan had been the mistress of Thomas Wosley, but as Wosley began to rise in power in Henry VIII's court, he felt the long-term relationship with Joan may become a hinderance, so he arranged and paid for her marriage to George Legh.

Over the next several years, George Legh and Joan had four children, however George ended up in London's Fleet Prison where he died on 12 Jun 1529. This is also the time frame when Wosley fell out of favor with the Henry VIII.

What I am hoping to find out is when and for what crime George Legh was imprisoned? My local research facilities are still locked down from COVID and I have pretty much exhausted what Google can provide. Thanks.

Gail Peterson

[wjhonson]

Peter Larke has been described in sources as both a gentleman and an inn keeper. Which sounds a bit better than a tavern keeper.

There was also a man of this name who was Mayor of Thetford, which might be him.

The marriage of Jane Larke happened before, perhaps slightly before a post-nuptial agreement dated 29 Nov 1523
Thomas Leigh their only living male child was "aged 2 1/2" in his father's IPM 2 Sep 1529
In addition they had three daughters: Isabel, Margaret and Mary

After his death, Jane remarried to George Paulet of Crondall (by 1537) the brother of William Paulet later (1539) 1st Marquis of Winchester and they had a son William

[Gail Peterson]

On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 10:39:40 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote:
> Peter Larke has been described in sources as both a gentleman and an inn keeper. Which sounds a bit better than a tavern keeper.
>
> There was also a man of this name who was Mayor of Thetford, which might be him.

Yes, It makes sense that Peter Larke would have been considered a gentleman and quite possibly was a mayor of Thetford since his two sons, Thomas and John became clerics of some note. Thomas became an Archdeacon of Sudbury from 1517 to 1522 and of Norwich from 1522 to 1528. His fate afterward is unknown to me. While John, a Catholic priest, was executed on 7 March 1544 at Tybum for opposing the religious supremacy of Henry VIII.

How this ties into the imprisionment and death of George Legh still escapes me though...

[wjhonson]

The best way to attack who what and why is to pinpoint specific points in the life of those involved.
That is what leads you to sources that are useful.

On the point of Joan Larke, I had not known prior, that Wikipedia has an entry for her
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Larke

There they are specific in saying that she died c 1532 and in childbirth

Do you know a source for that claim?
And was it in childbirth of William Paulet in particular?

[taf]

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:29:35 AM UTC-7, Gail Peterson wrote:

> About 1519-ish he was married to a commoner by the name of Joan Larke
> of Huntingdonshire, the daughter of tavern owner, Peter Larke.

George Legh was unmarried 8 October 1519, when he reached an accord with his cousin Robert Legh 'of Eygenton' not to marry 'except by advice' of the latter.

https://calmview.derbyshire.gov.uk/calmview/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=D5236%2f10%2f15&pos=444

(erroneously catalogued as 11 Henry VII, but clearly 11 Henry VIII)

taf

[taf]

On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Gail Peterson wrote:
> Yes, It makes sense that Peter Larke would have been considered a
> gentleman and quite possibly was a mayor of Thetford since his two
> sons, Thomas and John became clerics of some note. Thomas became an
> Archdeacon of Sudbury from 1517 to 1522 and of Norwich from 1522 to
> 1528. His fate afterward is unknown to me.

He might be the Thomas Larke, priest, who wrote his will 20 April 1529, dying by January 1533(/4). Unfortunately, the only relatives he named (in my quick eyeballing of it) were his "kynnsman Peter Larke" and "any of my kynnsfolke". During the pandemic, this can be downloaded for free from The National Archives:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D976804

taf

[Vance Mead]

I suppose you've seen George Legh's will? Made June 11th, 1529, PCC, he mentions daughters Elyn/Ellen, Isabel and Mary, son Thomas and wife Joan. It's available for free download from TNA Discovery.

It's my understanding that the Fleet was mainly for debt.

Vance

[Vance Mead]

There are several Chancery cases involving George Legh recorded in TNA Discovery.

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_ep=george%20legh&_dss=range&_sd=1500&_ed=1550&_ro=any&_st=adv

The originals can be seen in AALT.

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/ChanPro.html

For example, here in C 1/654/33 the plaintiff is Thomas Legh, son and heir of George Legh, esquire, late of Adlyngton, deceased.
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/ChP/C1no654/IMG_0052.htm

[Gail Peterson]

Thank you, gentlemen. I see I must learn to utilize the search features available in the UK more efficiently. I greatly appreciate the information you have been able to garner for me regarding this individual and his kin and will add the sites to my list of research avenues. Cheers!

[Gail Peterson]

Thank you taf. I did not know this records site even existed.

[taf]

On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 11:56:49 PM UTC-7, Vance Mead wrote:
> I suppose you've seen George Legh's will? Made June 11th, 1529, PCC, he mentions daughters Elyn/Ellen, Isabel and Mary, son Thomas and wife Joan. It's available for free download from TNA Discovery.
>
> It's my understanding that the Fleet was mainly for debt.

That is what it became, but when George Legh married Wolsey's mistress, it is related that Wolsey tried to strongarm John Stanley into making them a substantial wedding gift, and when he persisted in his refusal, Wolsey threw him into Fleet and completely broke his spirit.

The closest thing I found to addressing the question with regard to George Legh suggested that it was probably brute retaliation after Wolsey's fall from power. (Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive, a small debt could have provided a legalistic justification as pretext for retribution.)

taf

[Gail Peterson]

I believe you're spot on, taf. I found this listing this morning in the civil case load:

"Plaintiffs: George Legh, esquire, son and executor of Thomas Legh of Adlington [in Prestbury], esquire. Chancery pleadings (addressed to Thomas Wolsey, Archbishop of York, Cardinal and Papal Legate as Lord Chancellor.)
Defendants: John Stanley, knight.
Subject: Lease of the premises by the said abbot, and of land and rent in Prestbury, Heybreth, and Ewood. Cheshire.
11 documents"

Is it possible that the dowery that Wosley paid on behalf of Joan Larke contained a portion of Stanley's land that was not his to legally convey? Why else would an Archbishop be involved in a land dispute?

I'm going to have to dig deeper into Wosley's personal life to determine the extent of the relationship between him and George Legh.

Is there anyway to get copies of these documents pertaining to these individuals sent to the USA with the UK Archives still on partial lockdown from COVID?

~Gail

[Vance Mead]

Here is the original of the Chancery case. It's in English and not too hard to read. This doesn't include all the background documents.

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/ChP/C1no511/IMG_0070.htm

Wolsey was involved because he was both Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor, presiding over the Court of Chancery. He was often accused of being quite arbitrary.

[taf]

On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 10:23:03 AM UTC-7, Gail Peterson wrote:
> Is there anyway to get copies of these documents pertaining to these
> individuals sent to the USA with the UK Archives still on partial
> lockdown from COVID?

There are several categories of document availability:

1) some documents have been systematically scanned by The National Archives, and can be downloaded from their site for free (example, the Prerogative Court wills)

2) some documents have been scanned via the AALT project and can be found there - these are harder to locate on the site, as they are just raw scans with individual cases not directly linked, and only a minority of them indexed. It can take some searching to find what you want, until you get the hang of the system.

3) some documents (mostly more recent ones: regional wills, nonconformist registers, others relating to the American colonies)) have been scanned by the LDS church, and some of these can be viewed online via FamilySearch, but many of these can only be accessed at Family History Centers, which are in turn closed due to COVID.

4) some have been published or abstracted in book form (like the inquisitions post mortem down to Henry VI, and during Henry VII). These you can usually turn up using Google Booke, HathiTrust, and Internet Archive searches.

5) some regional archives have scanned and uploaded documents to their own web sites, often free but some change subscription or use fees for online access.

6) everything else, the vast majority of the collections, are unavailable indefinitely.

taf

[Gail Peterson]

Wow, this is great--thanks Vance, I owe you one!

~Gail

[Gail Peterson]

On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 10:23:03 AM UTC-7, Gail Peterson wrote:
> > Is there anyway to get copies of these documents pertaining to these
> > individuals sent to the USA with the UK Archives still on partial
> > lockdown from COVID?

> There are several categories of document availability:

> taf

Thanks, Man--that's a HUGE help. Greatly appreciated!

~Gail

[Peter Stewart]

Around this time there was a long-running legal stoush involving John
Birchenshaw, abbot of Chester, against Wolsey and his supporters over
the powers of government in the palatinate. This was a factor in the
fall of Wolsey - I can't recall details, but if Birkenshaw was "the said
abbot" the imprisonment of George Legh may have been a collateral aspect
of the larger dispute.

Peter Stewart

[Vance Mead]

I can narrow down the date of this Chancery proceeding. There had been a matter of “variance” between George Legh, esquire, on one part, and Sir John Stanley, knight, on the other, concerning a lease of the rectory, parsonage and manor of Prestbury, Cheshire, which George Legh claimed to have for a term of certain years from the abbot of the Monastery of Chester. But John Stanley claims that he had a lease on the same property for a term of years not yet passed from the abbot’s predecessor. So Wolsey, in Trinity term in the 16th year of the reign of Henry VIII (1524) ordered that neither George nor John should meddle in the possession of the premises until he could examine and decide on the issue. Also two men, the orators in the present case, Ralph Green and James Kynder, should have possession of the property, keep accounts, and retain the profits until Wolsey can make a decision on the matter. Now, one Jeffery Moores of Prestbury, yeoman, has refused to pay the tithes on corn to “your orators” for two years since Wolsey gave his order in the summer of 1524.

So this entry would date between 1526 and 1529, when Wolsey lost the Chancellorship.


http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/ChP/C1no511/IMG_0070.htm

[Peter Stewart]

On 27-Oct-20 8:28 PM, Vance Mead wrote:
> I can narrow down the date of this Chancery proceeding. There had been a matter of “variance” between George Legh, esquire, on one part, and Sir John Stanley, knight, on the other, concerning a lease of the rectory, parsonage and manor of Prestbury, Cheshire, which George Legh claimed to have for a term of certain years from the abbot of the Monastery of Chester. But John Stanley claims that he had a lease on the same property for a term of years not yet passed from the abbot’s predecessor. So Wolsey, in Trinity term in the 16th year of the reign of Henry VIII (1524) ordered that neither George nor John should meddle in the possession of the premises until he could examine and decide on the issue. Also two men, the orators in the present case, Ralph Green and James Kynder, should have possession of the property, keep accounts, and retain the profits until Wolsey can make a decision on the matter. Now, one Jeffery Moores of Prestbury, yeoman, has refused to pay the tithes on corn to “your orators” for two years since Wolsey gave his order in the summer of 1524.
>
> So this entry would date between 1526 and 1529, when Wolsey lost the Chancellorship.

This the upshot of this case is discussed by Tim Thornton in *Cheshire
and the Tudor State* (2000), pp 193-194:

"Wolsey's involvement in Cheshire also affected the monastic houses of
the shire. The experience of Abbot John Birchenshawe of Chester
illustrates again that the impact of Wolsey on Cheshire could be
impressive in the short term, but also confused and strictly limited. It
shows Wolsey challenging a major bastion of political power in the
palatinate, but it also demonstrates that this challenge and the
response to it were focused on specific problems and that the centre did
not intend ultimately to destroy provincial privilege. The first
significant conclusion from the evidence is that Wolsey was very slow to
get involved and, when he did, acted without extreme partiality.
Birchenshawe came into conflict with Bishop Blythe of Coventry and
Lichfield over the abbot's use of the mitre, ring and pontificals. The
abbot refused to co-operate with the case at Rome and, during 1516, the
pope invoked Wolsey's assistance allowing the cardinal to become
involved. This dispute interacted with conflict over the lease of
Prestbury made by Chester abbey. In 1515–16, due to financial
difficulties caused by the dispute with Bishop Blythe, the abbot broke
an agreement with Thomas Legh of Adlington and leased the tithes to Sir
John Stanley of Handforth. Yet only in 1524 did Wolsey act decisively.
On 14 March a congé d'élire was granted to the Chester monks to replace
Birchenshawe, and a month later they elected Thomas Highfield, sub-prior
of the monastery, at the nomination of the cardinal. Even then Chester's
immunities were not undermined in the long term, for soon after, on 19
July 1524, letters of exemption from the jurisdiction of Lichfield and
Canterbury were issued in the abbey's favour. Only with the removal of
Birchenshawe was a judgement brought in the Prestbury dispute. It went
in favour of George, heir of Thomas Legh. There were contemporary
allegations of bias, due to the fact that George Legh's wife was Jane
Larke, Wolsey's mistress. Yet the fact that there was no conclusive end
to the chancery suit for such a long period and the evidence for
Birchenshawe's sharp dealing with Stanley suggests Wolsey was not acting
in an outrageously partial way. Unfortunately for Wolsey, on 25 June
1528, Sir John Stanley and his wife Margaret were released from their
marriage vows, and Sir John ended his life as a monk of Westminster,
allegedly broken by the cardinal's harsh dealing."

From memory I had read about this in Thornton's 1995 article in
*History Today*,
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/cardinal-wolsey-and-abbot-chester.

Peter Stewart

[Gail Peterson]

Thomas Wosley provided George Legh with Stanley's land that had been at issue during the above long-standing ecclesiastical conflict and actually went so far as to have Stanly imprisioned at Fleet until he relinquished his claim to the land.

“Stanley had leased a certain farm from the abbot of St Werburgh, Chester. When Wosley earmarked the land for George Legh of Adlington, Stanley was imprisoned in the Fleet until he relinquished his claim.”
Fletcher, Stella, Cardinal Wosley: A Life in Renaissance Europe. London-New York, Continuum, 2009. Pg 160.

This act of overt favortism placed George Legh on even footing with Wosley in the eyes of the barons and other nobles who had grown very weary of Worsley's perceived abuse of power. When Wosley finally fell out of favor with Henry VIII for not successfully orchestrating his annulment from Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn, George Legh, having been a recent receipiant of Wosley's ill-gotten favor, fell along with him and was himself imprisioned at Fleet where he died on 12 June 1529 at the approximate age of 34 years.

What a fascinating history of the political intrigue surrounding a minor noble household in early Tudor England. Thanks to all who assisted in bringing this story to light.

~Gail