Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T09:26:25.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alice Chaucer and her Husbands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Marjorie Anderson
Marjorie Anderson*
Affiliation:
Hunter College of the City of New York
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is written on the assumption that Alice Chaucer was the granddaughter of the poet. That she was the daughter of Thomas Chaucer is easily proved and, despite skillful arguments to the contrary, the weight of evidence seems to the present writer to confirm the belief that Thomas was the son of Geoffrey. This paper is also written because of the assumption of Alice's relation to Geoffrey; her connection with the poet has been the chief reason for this study of her life. But such need not have been the case. Chaucer had no personal influence upon his granddaughter, unless by way of heredity, for their lives did not overlap. She was born four years after the poet's death. On the other hand, she lived to be the wife and widow of three successive men, two of whom were of great military and political prominence in English history; she was the friend and confidante of royalty; she became the mother-in-law of a king's sister. She was, in truth, a figure of sufficient social and political importance in the life of her time to merit consideration on her own account.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 60 , Issue 1: Number 1 Part 1 , March 1945, pp. 24 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1945

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Chancery Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry VI, File 70, No. 35. Quoted by M. B. Ruud in his monograph on Thomas Chaucer in Research Publications of the University of Minnesota. Studies in Language and Literature, No. 9 (1926), p. 2, note.

2 Ibid., File 83, No. 53. Quoted by Ruud, op. cit., p. 3, note, and referred to by White Kennett, Bp. of Peterborough, in Parochial Antiquities Attempted in the History of Ambrosden, Burcester, and other Adjacent Parts in the Counties of Oxford and Bucks (Oxford, 1818), ii, 324, and by Rev. Henry A. Napier, Historical Notices of the Parishes of Swyncombe and Ewelme in the County of Oxford (Oxford, 1858), p. 30. Kennett gives the date as the Saturday next after the feast.

3 See Patent Roll, 8 Hen. VI, pt. ii, mem. 31, Feb. 27, 1430 (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1429–36, p. 49); Close Roll, 13 Hen. VI, mem. 4, July 13, 1435 (Calendar of Close Rolls, 1429–35, p. 339); Fine Roll, 13 Hen. VI, mem. 4, July 12, 1435 (Calendar of Fine Rolls, xvi [1430–37], p. 239); Fine Roll, 15 Hen. VI, mem. 13, November 5, 1436 (CFR, xvi [1430–37], p. 346); Fine Roll, 15 Hen. VI, mem. 13, June 22, 1437 (CFR, xvi [1430–37], p. 346).

4 See Napier, op. cit., pp. 21–22; Richard Gough, Sepulchral Monuments in Great Britain (London, 1786), ii, Part 2, p. 108; G. E. Cockayne, Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Gt. Britain, and the United Kingdom (Exeter, 1896), vii, 199.

5 Francis Blomefield, History of the County of Norfolk (London, 1805–10), iii, 118.

6 This table is based on evidence found in Fine Roll, 9 Hen. V, mem. 10, November 7, 1421 (CFR, xiv [1415–22], p. 412); Patent Roll, 1 Hen. V, part i, mem. 15, June 13, 1413 (CPR, 1413–16, p. 26); Napier, op. cit., pp. 31–32, quoting from Inquisitions Post Mortem, 3 Hen. V, No. 40 and 6 Hen. VI, No. 47, from Archbishop Chichele's Register, i, f. 480, from Weever's Ancient Funerall Monuments, p. 782, and from Herald's Visitation of County of Worcester, 1634; Dugdale, Baronage of England (London, 1676) ii, 214; Gough, op. cit., ii, Part 2, pp. 45, 89; Samuel Moore, “Patrons of Letters in Norfolk and Suffolk, c1450” in PMLA, xxviii (1913), 100. The few discrepancies among these authorities I have no means of correcting.

7 Gough, op. cit., ii, Part 2, p. 44; Napier, op. cit., pp. 32–33.

8 Sir Francis Palgrave, ed., Antient Kalendars and Inventories of the Treasury of his Majesty's Exchequer (London, 1836), ii, 103. Cited by Napier, op. cit., p. 33.

9 Henry Godwin, “On Donnington Castle,” Archaeologia (London, 1824), xliv, 461. ff.

10 Godwin, op. cit., pp. 464–466; quoted by Ruud, op. cit., p. 59.

11 Raphael Holinshed, Chronicles, iii, 591/1/68, in W. G. Boswell-Stone, Shakespeare's Holinshed (New York, 1896), pp. 214–215.

12 Richard Grafton, Chronicle (London, 1809), i, 577. The original date of the Chronicle is 1569.

13 Dugdale, op. cit., i, 653; also Gough, op. cit., ii, Part 2, p. 91, who quotes the Latin will from the register of Archbishop Chichele, i, f. 406, a.

14 Napier, op. cit., p. 35.

15 G. E. Cockayne, Complete Peerage, vii, 156.

16 Close Rolls, 9 Hen. V, mem. 26 (CCR, 1419–22, p. 140) and 3 Hen. VI, mem. 15 (CCR, 1422–29, p. 159).

17 Pierre de Fénin, Memoires … sous les Regnes de Charles VI et Charles VII (new ed., Paris, 1837), pp. 224–224, 239. An account of the feast is also given in Enguerrand de Monstrelet, Chronicles, tr. T. Johnes (London, 1849), i, 515.

18 See CCR, 1422–29, pp. 422, 430, 431, 441; 1429–35, p. 13; CPR, 1422–29, pp. 474, 477, 478, 504, 541; 1429–36, pp. 36, 49.

19 Patent Roll, 8 Hen. VI, pt. i, mem. 29 (CPR, 1429–36, p. 86).

20 Napier, op. cit., p. 52, quoted from Anstis, Register of the Garter, i, 128. See Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, ed. Sir Harris Nicolas (1835). iv, 116 for the original grant.

21 Napier, op. cit., p. 50.

22 de Fénin, op. cit., p. 225.

23 H. N. MacCracken, “An English Friend of Charles of Orleans,” PMLA, xxvi (N.S. xix) (1911), 144, 146.

24 Op. cit., iii, 631/1/16, in Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. 245.

25 Napier, op. cit., p. 61, quoting from DeCoucy, Histoire de Charles VII.

26 Holinshed, op. cit., iii, 625/1/18 in Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. 243.

27 Dugdale, op. cit., ii, 188. See Patent Roll, 23 Hen. VI, part i, mem. 14, November 4, 1444 (CPR, 1441–46, p. 319) for the grant.

28 Napier, op. cit., p. 62. The picture belonged to Horace Walpole, and is described by him in his Anecdotes in Painting in England (1849), i, 34–35. He thought the lady in the turban was the queen's mother, but Napier says the latter was not in England at the time and inclines to the belief that it was the Marchioness of Suffolk.

29 Holinshed, op. cit., iii, 632/1/23, in Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. 269; John Speed, History of Great Brilaine (London, 1650), p. 675b.

30 William Worcester, “Annales Rerum Anglicarum,” Libri Nigri Scaccarii, ii, 469; Holinshed, op. cit., iii, 632/1/45, in Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. 270; Speed, op. cit., p. 675b.

31 On the assumption that Thomas Chaucer was the son of Geoffrey and Philippa, and that Catherine and Philippa were sisters.

32 MacCracken, op. cit., p. 144.

33 Ibid., pp. 143–144.

34 For an account of Suffolk's poetry see Dr. MacCracken's interesting article to which reference has already been made. Dr. MacCracken prints for the first time twenty courtly poems which on good evidence he ascribes to Suffolk.

35 Pierre Champion, “La Dame Anglaise de Charles d'Orleans,” Romania, xliv (1923), 580–584.

36 For an interesting discussion of this problem see Robert Steele, English Poems of Charles of Orleans, EETSOS, 215 (1941).

37 Acts of Privy Council, v, 156, quoted by Moore, “Patrons of Letters in Norfolk and Suffolk c1450,” PMLA, xxvii (N.S. xx) (1921), p. 203, from “Secrees of Old Philosophers,” ed. R. Steele, EETSES, lxvi (1894), p. xxvii.

38 MacCracken, op. cit., p. 148.

39 Ibid. p. 147.

40 Moore, op. cit., pp. 203-204.

41 Quoted by Moore, op. cit., p, 203, from Cat. Cod. MSS. in Coll. Aulisque Oxon., Pars ii. S. Johannis Baptistae, p. 16.

42 Napier, op. cit., p. 100.

43 Ibid., pp. 99-100. Napier says the letters are in the Almshouse at Ewelme in Oxfordshire.

44 John Leland, Itinerary (commissioned 25 Henry VIII, ed. 1710), n, 6.

45 Ibid., n, 5.

46 Op. cit., ii, 6.

47 Patent Roll, 15 Hen. VI, mem. 3, July 3, 1437 (CPR, 1436–41, p. 80).

48 Patent Roll, 20 Hen. VI, pt. ii, mem. 18 (CPR, 1441–46, p. 60).

49 Leland, op. cit., ii, 6; Dugdale, op. cit., ii, 189.

50 Inquisition 28 Hen. VI, No. 25, cited by Napier, op. cit., p. 64.

51 Patent Roll, 21 Hen. VI, part ii, mem. 1, February 27, 1443 (CPR, 1441–46, p. 198). See also Dugdale, op. cit., ii, 187.

52 Patent Rolls, 22 Hen. VI, part ii, mem. 3, June 8, 1444 (CPR, 1441–46, p. 283) and 25 Hen. VI, part i, mem. 26, September 16, 1446 (CPR, 1446–52, p. 1). See also Grafton, op. cit., p. 627; Napier, op. cit., pp. 57, 67.

53 Paston Letters, ed. James Gairdner (London, 1904), i, 62; ii, 121–22. See also Rolls of Parliament, v, 182.

54 Op. cit., ii, 188. The picturesque character of this “service” is interesting but no such grant, either of this date or any other is recorded in the CPR.

55 Patent Rolls, 18 Hen. VI, part i, mem. 1 (CPR, 1436–41, p. 366); 20 Hen. VI, part ii, mem. 4 (CPR, 1441–46, p. 74); 24 Hen. VI, part i, mem. 1 (CPR, 1441–46, p. 420). Thomas Chaucer had also been Constable of Wallingford; see Ruud, op. cit., pp. 17–18.

56 The passages in Holinshed upon which this idea is based need not be so interpreted. See Boswell-Stone, op. cit., p. xiv, who calls Margaret's love for Suffolk “sheer fiction.”

57 See Paston Letters, ii, 142–143 for the whole letter.

58 Kennett, op. cit., ii, 376. See also Napier, op. cit., p. 82.

59 Fine Roll, 28 Hen. VI, mem. 15, May 8, 1450 (CFR, 1445–52, p. 154).

60 William Worcester, op. cit., p. 471. See also Napier, op. cit., p. 91.

61 Rolls of Parliament, v, 216, quoted by Napier, op. cit., p. 92 and by Gairdner, ed. Paston Letters, in his Introduction, i, 93-94.

62 Op. cit., p. 475.

63 Patent Roll, 29 Hen. VI, part i, mem. 21d, October 8, 1450 (CPR, 1446–52, p. 431). This is the appointment of a commission of six to assist Alice's receiver in levying this sum.

64 Fine Roll, 29 Hen. VI, mem. 11, June 1, 1451 (CFR, 1445–52, pp. 220–221).

65 See supra, note 27.

66 Rolls of Parliament, v, 349a. This information is also given in a note to the Fine Roll mentioned in Note 64 (CFR, 1445–52, p. 221). See also Napier, op. cit., p. 92.

67 Rev. Joseph Hunter, “Catalogue of MSS. in the Library of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn” in Three Catalogues (London, 1838) p. 278. Cited by Napier, op. cit., p. 93.

68 Napier, op. cit., pp. 94-95.

69 See supra, Note 55.

70 Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, vi, 245–246. The original order to Worcester is not given.

71 Napier, op. cit., pp. 94–96.

72 There is no Coronation Roll of Edward IV. See Napier, op. cit., p. 97.

73 Op. cit., iii, 278, Letter 458 (June 5, 1461).

74 See supra, note 54.

75 Rolls of Parliament, v, 470. Quoted by Napier, op. cit., p. 97.

76 Patent Roll, 3 Ed. IV, part i, mem. 19 (CPR, 1461–67, p. 261).

77 Op. cit., iii, 271, 314, Letters 453, 484.

78 Ibid., iv, 25, Letter 504.

79 A Patent Roll of 27 March 3 Ed. IV (1463) referring to an inquisition taken 12 October 29 Hen. VI (1450), states that William Duke of Suffolk died May 2 and that John, his son and heir, was eight years of age on the September 27 last (1450). See CPR, 1461–67, p. 264.

80 Paston Letters, iv, 25, Letter 504.

81 Ibid., iv, 163, Letter 594 (July 12, 1465); iv, 168, Letter 598 (July 30, 1465). For an account of the whole controversy see Letters 578, 579, 581, 583, 584, 585, 592, 593, 595, 598, 599, 616, 617.

82 Ibid., iv, 221, Letter 629 (November 13 (?), 1466 (?)).

83 Ibid., v, 11, Letter 701 (March 12, 1469).

84 Ibid., v, 12–13, Letter 702 (1469); v, 15, Letter 704 (April 3, 1469); v, 31–32, Letter 716 (June, 1469); v, 155, Letter 811 (Oct. 23, 1472, (?)); v, 166, Letter 817 (Nov. 24, 1472); v, 324, Letter 933 (May 27, 1478); vi, 21, Letter 956 (Oct. 29, 1479).

85 Ibid., iv, 151, Letter 586 (June 15, 1465); iv, 303-4, Letter 690 (Oct. 28, 1468); v, 5, Letter 696 (Jan. 7, 1469(?)).

86 See Letters 229 (ii, 288); 415 (iii, 226); 337 (iii, 94); 384 (iii, 146); 482 (iii, 310), 492 (iv, 9); 650 (iv, 256); 664 (iv, 274); 711 (v, 24); 782 (v, 111); 793 (v, 128).

87 Napier, op. cit., p. 98.

88 Dugdale, op. cit., i, 580–581, cited by Napier, op. cit., p. 98.

89 Leland, Collectanea (1774), vi, 4, cited by Napier, op. cit., p. 98.

90 See CPR, 1467–77, pp. 325, 362, 435.

91 Patent Roll, 13 Ed. iv, pt. ii, mem. 14, December 4, 1473 (CPR, 1467–77, p. 417).

92 Paston Letters, v, 131, Letter 795.

93 Leland, Itinerary, ii, 6. Gough, op. cit., ii, part 2, p. 248 misquotes Leland, giving May 22.

94 Napier, op. cit., p. 102.

95 ii, 189.

96 Kennett, op. cit., p. 380; DNB. vide “William de la Pole.”

97 ii, part 2, p. 248. See also Leland, Itinerary, ii, 6; Dugdale, op. cit., ii, 189; Kennett, op. cit., p. 380; Napier, op. cit., p. 102, quoting a description by Joseph Clarke, F. S. A. Plates of the tomb may be seen in Gough and Napier.