The New Murrey and Blue blog

Margaret Beaufort’s wayward stepson….

, ,
, , , , , , ,

 

Not everything in the Stanley garden was rosy, and one of the 1st Earl of Derby’s son was a Bishop of Ely who broke the celibacy rules and was at 6′ 7″ described as the tallest man in England. His name was James Stanley, he was well liked and I don’t really think he was happy to be consigned to the Church.

I read about him here and then followed up at Wikipedia.

But one wonders what MB thought about him. Perhaps she was celibate with his father to make up for this stepson’s, um, misdemeanours! 😆

PS: Since writing this I have come across a very interesting paper that deals with Margaret’s relationship with her stepson. You can read it here https://www.academia.edu/50926057/A_Double_Storey_Episcopal_Chapel_in_Cambridge_or_possibly_two?email_work_card=title&fbclid=IwAR28MDi36QYkeGesIE-qgCq53xIK7Bcr8QmnVPi0v9FxOJKChsazCu9mVBI.

Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. sighthound6 Avatar
    sighthound6

    I must remember to look for his brass when I am next in Manchester Cathedral. The place does have many Stanley links, and I believe that although this chap was Bishop of Ely he spent a great deal of his time in Lancashire.

    Like

    Reply
  2. R. k Avatar
    R. k

    To be fair? I don’t trust any article which essentially says “I read about this elsewhere so I checked Wikipedia”. Wikipedia which can be updated by anyone to say anything. It’s also completely pointless to wonder what Margaret thought of it.

    A. It wasn’t uncommon for clergymen to have illegitimate children.

    B. Let’s say Margaret disapproved, what difference does this actually make to I). What he did or didn’t do, or, ii). The overall reaction to it. Margaret was one person. This really, really isn’t that significant.

    Like

    Reply
    1. viscountessw Avatar
      viscountessw

      Oh dear. The Happy Cherub has paid a visit.

      Like

      Reply
      1. RK Avatar
        RK

        A reply to me? If so? I’m always happy to see an intelligent response to my argument. Really stimulates debate.

        Like

  3. jay Avatar
    jay

    what does ‘margaret was one person’ mean? she wasnt important?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Rk Avatar
      Rk

      Not at all. She was the kings mother. What I mean is, from the actions of the clergy, her stepson even? It didn’t make much of a difference whether she disapproved.

      And? This is purest conjecture that she did disapprove. There’s no proof from what I can see in this that she did disapprove. All I’m saying is, I don’t understand the point of this post. Other than to imply Margaret Beaufort was sex averse in some way. Which? Again, there’s not much in the way of evidence that she felt that others, including members of the clergy who often had illegitimate children and no one cared one bit, was objecting (especially publicly) to them having sex.

      Frankly ridiculous as a point. Just saying

      Like

      Reply
  4. Rk Avatar
    Rk

    Also? If he wanted to do it, there would have to be a massive push against it to make him consider stopping. The disapproval of one person, important or not, wasn’t going to change anything. It doesn’t mean she wasn’t important, it simply means the world did not revolve around her. Not enough to change society in general.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Eac Avatar
      Eac

      Exactly- Margaret was obviously important but her approval or disapproval wouldn’t have much bearing on James’s career. We know Margaret got along with James anyway, they collaborated together on more than one occasion, and it was hardly unusual for a bishop or cardinal not to be celibate, and to have illegitimate children.
      I also wonder why it’s often assumed that Margaret led a celibate life. She took the vow after over two decades of marriage to Thomas Stanley and she seemed to attribute her lack of children after Henry to Henry’s birth when she was only 13. Surely, she’d want to make sure her marriages were consummated to be legally binding anyway, and she seemed to like children and probably wanted more. There is no evidence that she led a celibate life prior to 1499.

      Like

      Reply
      1. jay Avatar
        jay

        margaret’s biographer michael jones discusses her attitude to sex – her experience as a child bride/mother appear to have had an impact. one of her devotional works which was left to christs college cambridge contains a chapter on the responsibilities of marriage; the section on frigidity has been annotated and a question placed in the margin- asking if it was sinful to find sex abhorrent. her confessor john fisher also later shared his recollections of conversations with her which make clear that she found pregnancy and childbirth frightening. jones argues that her experience probably left her revolted by intimacy – but of course, no dutiful wife would have criticised her husbands conjugal demands.
        there is also evidence that margarets view’s were influential with her son – she intervened to request the delay of the marriage of henrys daughter (her namesake margaret) to king james of scotland – she feared that james would consummate the marriage before her granddaughter was physically mature and this would impact her health. surely speaking from experience, her arguments were immediatly respected by her son.
        so margarets views on sex are quite well recorded. she had influence with her son (if not her stepson). as a pious woman it does not follow that she would have approved of clerical indiscretions – some religious people do try and live within the rules . as a christian she probably regarded those clergy who could not live continently with ‘sorrow rather than anger’ – of course her grandson took a different view and corruption (including sexual practices) was one of the reasons to suppress the monasteries. henry 8 may have been acting cynically – but people were scandalized . society has a great capacity for hypocrisy – but where is the evidence that no one cared about clerical indiscretions?
        my reading of the original post was that it was intended to point out that her brother in law william wasnt the only stanley who rather let the side down – morally if not treasonably.
        michael jones ‘the kings mother’ is considered the definative biography of margaret.

        Like

  5. amma19542019 Avatar
    amma19542019

    Viscountessw, one of my fav sites for genealogy, a frustrating chore that my daughter considers “fun,” is linked below. Geni is not always (in my opinion) correct but they throw in everything AND the kitchen sink. I have found more than a few connections to OTHER people I was not looking for.
    As for James, I like him immensely! Born around 1465? Perfect, he must have been the source of many snide asides at court, who knows, George may have found someone with fewer friends than himself!
    I do wonder though, from whence did those other Stanleys come? George, the heir, the one who was later poisoned (it is said) was something of a boring dud (like dad), brother Edward may or may not have brought down James IV of Scotland at Flodden (depends on what you like to read, Sir Walter Scott’s version of Stanley, or battlefield details about Surrey, who relegated him to the rearguard) – but all the same the Nevilles were known for their height and daring, their exhuberance and strategic cunning. (I am personally fond of William Neville, Lord Fauconberg Earl of Kent, without whom Edw4 would never have consolidated his reign for a NY minute) … so James strikes me as entirely to character as a Neville.

    https://www.geni.com/people/James-Stanley-Bishop-of-Ely/6000000002812734070

    Like

    Reply
  6. jay Avatar
    jay

    eleanor neville, james mother was certainly a fiesty character. i remember reading one of her letters – basically telling someone to do what she expected of him if he wanted her to continue to be his ‘good lady’.!! (understatement is wonderful isnt it – better than ‘do it – or else’!!!)

    Like

    Reply
    1. Eac Avatar
      Eac

      James does sound interesting ! As does Eleanor Neville, Lady Stanley.

      As for Margaret , that information on the book is pretty vague. I’ll have to look at my book again but another biography Jones did with Philippa Gregory referenced it vaguely.
      “The recollections of John Fisher—an invaluable and intimate source about Margaret’s life—make clear that the birth was a very painful one because of her small build and young age. It must have been a terrible experience for her. But soon after her recovery from this ordeal, Margaret made a striking decision, to negotiate another match as quickly as possible. This was a quite remarkable course of action, for Margaret’s experience of sex within marriage at the age of twelve had damaged her and left her physically unable to bear any more children. It was likely to have put her off sex completely—indeed any form of close physical intimacy may have repelled her. One of the religious books owned by Margaret and later bequeathed to Christ’s College, Cambridge, contained a chapter on the spiritual responsibilities of marriage. The section on frigidity had been annotated, probably by Margaret herself or a scribe under her instruction, and a question was posed in the margin. It asked if it was a sin to find sex abhorrent. The thought clearly troubled Margaret, and almost certainly encapsulated her own experience.”

      We don’t know if Margaret wrote that herself and they don’t name what the book is and I’ve never seen a picture of it or more evidence of it outside this claim. Margaret having a scribe write in a question of if it’s ok to hate sex seems a bit far fetched. I’d be curious to find out more re the claim about this book.
      Certainly through, there is no evidence that she was celibate prior to 1499 and we do know she enjoyed a very close and happy marriage with Stafford.

      She also must have known that the early birth was why why didn’t have any subsequent children , she was worried about her grandchildren being harmed by too early of a consummation , as she seemed to state to her son and daughter in law, evidenced by Henry’s comments to an ambassador. She wouldn’t have known that she was unable to have children after Henry if she hadn’t tried to have children after Henry. Perhaps she was afraid of another pregnancy but she seemed to have tried for one.
      At any rate , her personally being put off sex, because of her horrible early experience, wouldn’t necessarily mean she judged others for enjoying it.

      Like

      Reply
  7. jay Avatar
    jay

    the book is called ‘the kings mother;lady margaret beaufort, countess of richmond and derby’ published by cambridge university press. it was co authored by malcolm underwood who i unforgiveably omitted to credit – truth be told i’m a bit preoccupied with michael jones as he’s comming to talk to us nest week about his book on the black prince!
    i think margaret must have had quite a spiritual struggle over her sexuality – from what we can infer are her comments – she knows that sex is a cornerstone of christian marriage -its encouraged (for procreation of course) – but her early experiences have left their mark. very sad – one of the aspects of history that, even though we know the context and the social and legal norms, it really does give pause for thought.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  8. amma19542019 Avatar
    amma19542019

    The Jones-Underwood bio of MB is excellent, and revealing of a cautious, acquisitive, competent landowner quite cognizant of her property rights and zealous of maintaining them, regardless of who was on the throne – one could even be forgiven if they sense that the authors described her as relentlessly devoted to her inherited social status above all other characteristics she may have possessed. Her (2nd) husband, Edmund Tudor, roughly in his 20’s when his half-brother, king Henry VI, provided this exceptional heiress in marriage to him, wasted no time in begetting a child from her, hence her consummation and impregnation at 12; for Tudor as well was driven by social status and the need to acquire HER financial assets, properties and access to the income, and he could only do that once he got her with child. In other ‘child’ marriages it was not uncommon to wait for both or one spouse to develop, mature, and then proceed with the marital relations. The very reason for child marriages was actually to prevent the king, or other predatory nobles, from claiming these children as wards and arranging lucrative marriages that suited their own needs. Once these children DID grow up (if they did survive) they could (with the Church to back them) refuse the contracts made by the parents, or if one or the other partners had predeceased them, marry a different brother/sister who did survive.

    That Edmund Tudor literally wasted NO time in claiming what he could from his newly acquired heiress wife is what should astonish (later) historians, yet hasn’t seemed to even get a mention, HIS behavior is quite hasty or precipitous, what was the rush? It couldn’t have been a mad love for this unknown child bride, and had he died suddenly (as we know he did, from the plague) then his brother Jasper would have been next in line to continue Henry VI’s desire to see his kinsman’s line merge with MB. (Although one could argue Jasper was surely Owen Tudor’s son, whereas Edmund?) Concern for the health and well being of young MB never seems to enter anyone’s plans here – a parallel could be drawn, if we want to, with R3’s natural daughter, Kateryn, who was married in March 1484 to Richard’s one time companion (in 1469-70 during the rough period following the execution of his father and most of earl of Pembroke, William Herbert’s whole affinity at Banbury). In 1484 we know she was at least 14, in order to receive the properties Richard wanted to bestow on the couple, meaning she was born by March of 1470, but we have no idea it Kateryn lived with Herbert or remained with his mother (Anne Devereux, Lady Herbert) at Weobley or Chartley – if Herbert was the chamberlain to Edward of Middleham, or simply traveled with Richard as king, then just as likely, they followed the convention of waiting (Herbert would have been born around 1460 but I’ve seen several alternate dates for him, some as early as 1455).

    All in all, it is Edmund Tudor’s expeditious decision to get an heir asap off MB that should have alarmed Jones and Underwood. They accept that the early pregnancy and lack of future ones must be connected to that early (2nd) marriage but do not question what the heck was behind Edmund’s excessive demands for an immediate heir (keep in mind that aside from the novel example of Elizabeth of York impregnated the night of HER wedding to Henry in 1486) one rarely manages to impregnate (a presumed 12 yr old virgin) in a matter of days. (You would need to be a Wingfield for that … check their fertility rate, over generations, for contrast, it is akin to the Conyers! Then again, no known 12 year olds involved)

    Quite a different situation from what Cecily Neville, (cousin to MB), experienced, which (to play devil’s advocate) I suspect was due to the mother Joan Beaufort who may have had her suspicions concerning the political viability of the marriage with young Richard duke of York. Preventing consummation with the heir of an executed traitor, Cambridge, was countess Westmorland’s primary means of controlling HER daughter’s future success. (She would also have been quite familiar with being married off by John of Gaunt, their common ancestor, and at a young age, probably about 13).

    As to MB’s interest or lack of interest in sex, I can’t say anything, the marriage to Thomas Stanley was intentionally celibate (can you imagine otherwise?) and the one to Stafford was, from the little we know, a good one – so with the info from Jones and Underwood, I’d say MB conducted marriage as a business contract, to ensure her property rights and influence, to control her ‘brand’ as we would call it today, and she was remarkably fierce, one could even say avaricious as she got older. She had no sympathy for other widows, even those she was tangentially related to (thanks to endogamy, like Richard, they were related to everyone!) and was as acquisitive with their properties as she was with her own.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment