Sir Thomas le Walsh (Wallis) of (W) Anlip, Leics

[CE Wood]

The death date of Sir Thomas le Walsh (Wallis) of Wanlip, formerly Anlip), Leics, is usually given as 1397/8. According to the inscription on a flat stone in the chancel of the church in Anlip and another in the window, he died in 1393.

"Here lies Thomas Wallis, knight, lord of Anlip, and Dame Katrin his wife, which in her time made the kirk of Anlip, and hallowed the kirkend first, in worship of God, and our Lady, and Seint Nicholas, That God have their souls and mercy. An. Dn'i millefimo ccc nonagesimo tertio [1393]." [transcribed by Staveley, p. 138]

-or-

"Here lyeth Thomas Walsh, knight, and Dame Katharine his wife, who in their time made the kirk of Wanlip, and hallowed it and the church-yard, to the worship of God and Saint Nicholas, 1393." [trans. by Burton, _Description of Leicestershire_, p. 299]

And in the east window: ""Orate pro anima Thomæ Walsh, militis, qui hoc templum fieri fecit M.ccclxxxxiii. et pro anima Katherinæ uxoris ejus." [Burton, Description of Leicestershire, p. 298]

These would also seem to indicate that his wife, Katherine, had died by 1393.

see Pegge, Samuel,_A Sylloge of the Remaining Ancient Inscriptions Relative to the Erection of our English Churches_, p. 43-44.
http://books.google.com/books?id=mSx3flkWzckC&vq=anlip&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q=anlip&f=false


CE Wood

[Jan]

Perhaps the date in the inscription and window commemorate the roles of Katherine and Thomas in building the church rather than the death of either Katherine or Thomas. HOP cites evidence that Thomas was living after 1393 and that his wife outlived him by more than two decades.

[John Higgins]

> >http://books.google.com/books?id=mSx3flkWzckC&vq=anlip&pg=PA43#v=onep...
>
> > CE Wood

Here's the HOP biography, which indicates that Sir Thomas Walsh was an
MP for (among other years) 1394, 1395, and 1397:

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/walsh-sir-thomas-1346-13978

[CE Wood]

I had seen the HOP article, which is why I posted. The window
inscription is not specific, but the chancel plaque is: "Here lies...
1393."

Am I reading this incorrectly?


CE Wood

> http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/wals...

[Wjhonson]

http://books.google.com/books?id=mSx3flkWzckC&pg=PA43

Curious how different these transcriptions are from each other

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[Jan]

The differences in the two transcriptions of the inscription suggest it is difficult to know exactly what this inscription said. I noticed the author in a footnote states his opinion that neither of the transcribers was reliable. Perhaps Sir Thomas and his wife built their tomb at the time they built the church but died later.

This IPM appears to suggest that Thomas was dead by 16 March 1396/7:

"William la Zouche of Haryngworth, Knight, contd. ... 733. Leicester. Inq. take at Leycestre, Friday after St Gregory, 20 Richard II. ... Cropston. Half a knight's fee, held by the heirs of Thomas Walsche, knight." CIPM, Richard II, vol. 17, p. 274.

This entry from Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II, vol 5: 1392-1396 (1925), pp. 415-423, www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=102264, suggests that Thomas was living in February 1394/5:

"1395
Feb. 15.
Westminster. ... Writ de expensis for 12l. 16s. in favour of ... knights ... at the parliament summoned at Westminster in the quinzaine of St. Hilary last, namely 4s. a day each for 32 days. ...
[Prynne, Parliamentary Writs, iv. p. 427.] ...
The following have like writs: ...
Leycestershire. Thomas Walshe knight and Nicholas Colman 10l. 8s. for 26 days."

And this entry (one of the items cited in footnote 5 in the HOP bio), from the same volume of Close Rolls (p. 212) suggests Thomas was living in April 1394 :

"1394 ...
April 10. Westminster. To Thomas Walsshe keeper of Leycestre castle, and to his lieutenant. Order by mainprise of Nicholas Munketon of Bukinghamshire, Thomas Mewe and Ralph Tuder of Kent and William Russell of Warwickshire to set free Thomas Virly of Leycestre, who is in custody in the castle prison it is said; as on his behalf it is shewn the king that he is by certain his enemies indicted for aiding and consenting to the manslaughter of Robert Burstall of Leycestre 'corviser,' slain by John Pykerynge of London 'vestementmakere' who is indicted and not yet convicted, and that he is ready after such conviction to answer for such aid and consent before the king or before the justices elsewhere at the king's command, and to stand to right in all things; and in the statute published at Westminster it is contained that persons indicted for aiding etc. are replevisable until the principals shall be convicted."

[Wjhonson]

Perhaps the original said "vii" and it was so worn out that when it was replaced, they thought it said "iii"
So what we're seeing are transcriptions of something more modern, not contemporary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan <janw...@umich.edu>
To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; wood_ce <woo...@msn.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 4:56 pm
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas le Walsh (Wallis) of (W) Anlip, Leics

[MILLARD A.R.]

> From: Wjhonson [mailto:wjho...@aol.com]
> Sent: 05 March 2013 22:28

>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=mSx3flkWzckC&pg=PA43
>
> Curious how different these transcriptions are from each other
>
> -----Original Message-----

> From: CE Wood <woo...@msn.com>
> Sent: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 2:25 pm
>
> I had seen the HOP article, which is why I posted. The window
> inscription is not specific, but the chancel plaque is: "Here lies...
> 1393."
>
> Am I reading this incorrectly?

Neither of these is a transcription, as neither of them is in 14th century English or Latin. They are probably translations of a Latin inscription. There is no specific attachment of the date to any clause in the chancel plaque inscription. Staveley has it as a separate sentence so it is not clear whether it refers to the creation of the inscription or to the making of the church. Burton has the whole thing as a complex sentence with subclauses and it is equally unclear to what event the date is attached. If it is the date of the inscription we should conclude that both Thomas and Katherine were dead by 1393.

However, the window inscription is clearer as the date follows 'fecit' rather than at the end of the inscription. If this is one inscription then I'd attach 1393 to the making of the church, but it is possible that "et pro anima Katherinæ uxoris ejus" is an addition after her death. In the latter case Thomas died before 1393 and Katherine after 1393, which does not accord with the date-of-inscription interpretation of the chancel plaque. Furthermore, an addition seems unlikely because of the difficulty of adding to an inscription in stained glass.

On that basis I conclude that, rather than the inscriptions being created in 1393, this is most likely the date of the making of the church.

Best wishes

Andrew
--
Andrew Millard - A.R.M...@durham.ac.uk
Bodimeade genealogy:   http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/
My family history:     http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/
GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

[CE Wood]

As to the language of the inscription, I found the following snippet stating that it was in English:

The Buildings of England: Leicestershire and Rutland - Page 260
books.google.com/books?id=FfVNAAAAMAAJ
Nikolaus Pevsner - 1960 - Snippet view -

"Brass to Sir Thomas Walsh f 1393 and wife; the inscription which says that she 'made the Kirke of Anlep' is the first in English on any ..."


CE Wood


On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:25:58 AM UTC-8, MILLARD A.R. wrote:
> > From: Wjhonson

> > Sent: 05 March 2013 22:28
>
> >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=mSx3flkWzckC&pg=PA43
> >
> > Curious how different these transcriptions are from each other
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: CE Wood
> > Sent: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 2:25 pm
> >
> > I had seen the HOP article, which is why I posted. The window
> > inscription is not specific, but the chancel plaque is: "Here lies...
> > 1393."
> >
> > Am I reading this incorrectly?
>
>
>
> Neither of these is a transcription, as neither of them is in 14th century English or Latin. They are probably translations of a Latin inscription. There is no specific attachment of the date to any clause in the chancel plaque inscription. Staveley has it as a separate sentence so it is not clear whether it refers to the creation of the inscription or to the making of the church. Burton has the whole thing as a complex sentence with subclauses and it is equally unclear to what event the date is attached. If it is the date of the inscription we should conclude that both Thomas and Katherine were dead by 1393.
>
>
>
> However, the window inscription is clearer as the date follows 'fecit' rather than at the end of the inscription. If this is one inscription then I'd attach 1393 to the making of the church, but it is possible that "et pro anima Katherinæ uxoris ejus" is an addition after her death. In the latter case Thomas died before 1393 and Katherine after 1393, which does not accord with the date-of-inscription interpretation of the chancel plaque. Furthermore, an addition seems unlikely because of the difficulty of adding to an inscription in stained glass.
>
>
>
> On that basis I conclude that, rather than the inscriptions being created in 1393, this is most likely the date of the making of the church.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
> --
>
> Andrew Millard -

[CE Wood]

I found a 2nd edition of the book at: http://books.google.com/books?id=UYlQ6DJdJ4AC&dq=anlep+leicestershire&source=


Page 418 - "Sir Thomas Walsh f 1393 and wife. The inscription which says that she 'made the kirke of Anlep' is the first in English on any brass. The figures are 4 ft 2 in. long."


CE Wood

[CE Wood]

Beating this horse to death, William White, Notes & Queries, Volume 8 (Nov. 26, 1853), p. 515, at: http://books.google.com/books?id=Brri34stXrwC&dq=anlep+leicestershire&source=

"Monumental Brass at Wanlip, Co. Leicester, and Sepulchral Inscriptions in English. — In the church of Wanlip, near this town, is a fine brass of a knight and his lady, and round the margin the following inscription, divided at the corners of the slab by the Evangelistic symbols:

'Here lyes Thomas Walssh, Knyght, lorde of Anlep, and dame Kat'ine his Wyfe, whiche in yer tyme made the Kirke of Anlep, and halud the Kirkyerd first, in Wirchip of God, and of oure lady, and seynt Nicholas, that God haue yer soules and mercy, Anno Dni millïno CCCmo nonagesimo tercio.'"

CE Wood

[MILLARD A.R.]

> From: CE Wood [mailto:woo...@msn.com]
> Sent: 06 March 2013 21:41

>
> Beating this horse to death, William White, Notes & Queries, Volume 8
> (Nov. 26, 1853), p. 515, at:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Brri34stXrwC&dq=anlep+leicestershire&
> source=
>
> "Monumental Brass at Wanlip, Co. Leicester, and Sepulchral

> Inscriptions in English. - In the church of Wanlip, near this town, is

> a fine brass of a knight and his lady, and round the margin the
> following inscription, divided at the corners of the slab by the
> Evangelistic symbols:
>
> 'Here lyes Thomas Walssh, Knyght, lorde of Anlep, and dame Kat'ine his
> Wyfe, whiche in yer tyme made the Kirke of Anlep, and halud the
> Kirkyerd first, in Wirchip of God, and of oure lady, and seynt
> Nicholas, that God haue yer soules and mercy, Anno Dni millïno CCCmo
> nonagesimo tercio.'"

That's much better as a source. So the two we had earlier were modernisations of this 14th century English inscription. This is slightly ambiguous, but I still think that as the only event mentioned here is that they "made the Kirk of Anlip and hallowed the Kirkyard first", the date refers to that.

Best wishes

Andrew
--
Andrew Millard - A.R.M...@durham.ac.uk