Corrodies

From Rpalmer

Revision as of 20:34, 26 March 2013; view current revision
←Older revision | Newer revision→
Jump to: navigation, search

This page will be segmented when it gets too long. Add information by clicking on "edit" above. Items should begin with term (if available) and year together with a letter to allow for distinguishing subsequent documents in the same year and term. The designation should be in bold. Thus an entry will appear as H1285 A:. Text thereafter should indicate what the document concerns. The link to the document should be a copied and pasted full web address (http:// . . .) surrounded by single brackets ( [ ] ). Leave a line between entries. The 25-year segments begin with a vertical bar and end with a vertical bar minus. Avoid other more complex codes. If you want to append a translation, provide a completely unique address surrounded by double brackets: Duties H1275 A Tr. Such an address indicates sector and year, the A indicates it is the first document entered for that year and term, the Tr indicates it is a translation. That will constitute a unique address. DO NOT attempt to re-order documents within a term to achieve a perfect chronology, since it will invalidate other references to re-named documents. A document written in Notepad will copy into the site without any complicating code. Avoid more complicated coding. Check your entry before saving by clicking on "show preview below (return here by using the back arrow); before leaving the document, remember to save the page.

1225:

1250:

1275:

1300:

T1318 A: Corrody for Simon Plane in Sawtry Abbey. [1]

T1318 B: Corrody for William Spyne serjeant at arms in Newenham Abbey. Devon. [2]

T1318 C: Corrody for Arnald de Saux for service to king and queen in Ely Priory. Cambridgeshire. [3]

M1318 A: Corrody for Master Henry de Thornhull cook in Great Malverne Priory in the place of John de Waltham. Worcestershire. [4], [5]

M1318 B: Corrody for William de Rampton valet of the pantry in Pershore Abbey in the place of Richard Fytel. [6]

1325:

1342

  • T1342 A: Northamptonshire. Rex v. John, prior of Ware. The king wanted to provide for William de London and so ordered the prior to provide for William the sustenance that Henry de Marham had had at the request of Edward II, but the prior neither so provided nor gave an explanation. [7] rcp
  • T1342 B: Berkshire. Rex v. Roger, abbot of Abingdon. The king often ordered the abbot to provide for Stephen de Wytlesford the sustenance that Philip le Baker had had at the request of the Edward I, but he did not. [8] rcp
  • M1342 A: Cambridgeshire. Rex v. John, prior of Barnwell. The king wanted to provide for his valet John de Barton and thus ordered the prior to provide him such sustenance as William de Chipenham had had at the request of Edward II, but the prior did not. [9] rcp
  • M1346 B: Warwickshire. Rex v. William, prior of Coventry. The king had wanted to provide for Roger de Clonne an annual pension and had ordered the prior to provide it until Clonne received a permanent position. [10], [11], [12] rcp
  • M1346 C: Nottinghamshire. Rex v. Astorgius, prior of Lenton. The king wanted to provide for William de Coulgath, and so asked the prior to provide the sustenance John de Marre had had, but the prior did not. [13] rcp


1343

  • E1343 A: Worcestershire. Rex v. Thomas, abbot of Bordesley. The king ordered that the abbey provide to Stephen de Bitterle, who had long served Edward II and Edward III in arms, the sustenance that Master Richard de Clebury had had; the abbot spurned the order. [14] rcp
  • E1343 B: Devon. Rex v. Abbot of Torre. The king wanted to provide suitable sustenance for Roger Copper and thus asked the Abbot to provide for him such sustenance as Robert de la Panetrie had had at the request of Edward II. The abbot spurned the request and gave no cause. [15] rcp
  • E1343 C: Hampshire. Rex v. William, prior of Hayling. The king requested that the prior of Hayling provide to William de Usheburn the same sustenance as Philip de Candevere had had at the request of Edward II. [16] rcp
  • T1343 A: Cornwall. Rex v. Nicholas, prior of St Michael's Mount. To provide sustenance for Roger Coppere the king asked the prior to provide him with the sustenance that Rolland Trewynard (now outlawed for divers felonies) had had; the prior did not. [17] rcp
  • T1343 B: Northamptonshire. Rex v. Francis prior of St Andrew of Northampton. By reason of his new creation, the prior is bound in a certain pension from his house as the king should designate. The king promoted John de Feriby, but the prior did not provide the pension. [18] rcp
  • T1343 C: Oxfordshire. Rex v. John, abbot of Thame. The king wanted to provide for his valet William de la Marche and ordered the abbot to admit William the sustenance that John de Carleford had had at the request of Edward II. The abbot did not admit him or provide a reason. [19] rcp
  • M1343 A: Rex v. Abbot of Battle. The king had asked the Abbot of Battle to admit Richard Vigerous to the sustenance that Adam Savage had had, but the abbot did not. [20] rcp
  • M1344 B: Northumberland. Rex v. Prior of Hexham. The king had requested that the prior admit William Dautry (for his service to himself and to Edward II in wars with the Scots) to the support that Robert le Archer had had. The prior refused. [21], [22] rcp
  • E1344 C: Surrey. Rex v. John, Prior of Merton. The king had requested that the prior admit John Marreys to the support that Nicholas de la Garderobe had had at the prior request of Edward III. The prior refused. [23], [24], [25], [26] rcp

1344

  • H1344 A: Worcestershire. Rex v. Abbot of Pershore. The king asked the abbot to provide for Thomas de Mussenden for life in the same way as he had for William Pate, and the abbot refused. [27], [28], [29] rcp
  • E1344 A: Devon. Rex v. Abbot of Torre. The king had asked the abot to admit Roger Copper to the support that Robert de la Panetrie had had at the request of Edward II, but the abbot did not. The expected support is detailed.[30], [31], [32] rcp


  • E1344 C: Hampshire. Rex v. Abbot of Little. The king had requested that the abbot admit William de Portcestre to the support that William de Bereford late vicar of Portchester had. The abbot refused. [33], [34] rcp
  • T1344 A: Dorset. Rex v. Abbot of Sherbourne. The king had requested that the abbot admit John Tessaunt to the support that Richard le Saucer had had at the request of Edward II. The abbot refused. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] rcp


  • M1344 A: London. Matilda who was the wife of Thomas Colly late royal armorer (qui tam) v. John, prior of St Bartholomew of Smithfield. The king had ordered the prior to provide support to Matilda for her life, but he refused. [44],[45], [46] rcp
  • M1344 B: Hampshire. Rex v. William, abbot of Jumieges. The king had ordered the abbot to provide for William de Husheburn in the priory of Hailing (a cell of Jumieges) as had been provided to Phillip de Candeure, but the abbot refused. [47], [48] rcp
  • M1344 C: Yorkshire. Writ close ordering the Prior of Drax to provide for Richard de Brotherton. [49] rcp


1345

  • T1345 A: Rex v. Roberga, abbess of Wilton. The king ordered the abbess to provide, by reason of her new creation, sustenance for William de Lambeth. She refused. Extensive pleading. [50] rcp
  • T1345 B: Staffordshire. Rex v. Ranulf, abbot of Dieulacres. The king had granted to Richard de Preston such sustenance from the house of the abbot as Robert de Carmenton had had at the request of Edward I. The abbot refused. [51], [52] rcp
  • T1345 C: Cambridgeshire. Rex v. John, prior of Barnwell. The king had, by reason of new creation, ordered the prior to provide sustenance to David de Wolloure, but the prior refused. [53] rcp
  • M1345 A: Somerset. Rex v. Prior of Goldcliff. The king had ordered the prior to provide the place for John Seys that Thomas de Martele deceased had had at the request of Edward II. The prior did not do so. [54], [55];; then Rex v. William, prior of Goldcliff, in which the king wanted the prior to provide to Thomas Fuere the sustenance that Geoffrey Uske had had. [56], [57] rcp
  • M1345 B: Northamptonshire. Rex v. Thomas, prior of St Andrew of Northampton. By reason of the prior's new creation, the king ordered him to provide a pension for William de Boulton, but the prior refused. [58], [59]
  • M1345 C: Yorkshire. Rex v. John, prior of Gisborough. The king had named Adam de Walton to the prior of Gisburn for provision to the same sustenance that Robert Pikebusko had had at the nomination of Edward II. The prior refused to so provide. [60], [61], [62] rcp
  • M1345 D: Rex v. Simon, prior of Norwich. The king had ordered the prior to provide for Henry de Cauntebrigge the sustenance that Master John de Stretford had had at the request of Edward III, but he did not. [63], [64], [65] rcp

1346

  • E1346 A: Kent. Rex v. William, abbot of St Augustines, Canterbury. The king had ordered the abbot to provide such sustenance to Jordan de Canterbury physician of the king as Master John de Stratford had had, but he did not. [66], [67] rcp


1347

  • T1347 A: Surrey. Robert le Chaundeler (qui tam) v. John, prior of St Saviour, Bermondsey. The king, by reason of Chaundeler's service to Queen Philippa, had named him to the prior to receive the same sustenance as had a now dead servant of Queen Isabella, but the prior had refused. [68], [69]. rcp
  • M1347 B: Surrey. Rex v. John, abbot of Chertsey. By reason of his creation, the abbot is bound to an annual pension for a cleric whom the king will name, but he does not. [70], [71] rcp
  • M1347 C: Suffolk. Agnes de Bedyngfeld (qui tam) v. Clement, prior of St Peter, Ipswich. The king had named Agnes to receive the same pension as Nichola late wife of Gerard de Eltham. The prior did not do so. [72], [73] rcp
  • M1347 E: Huntingdonshire. Richard de Eccleshale jr (qui tam) v. William, abot of Thorney. The abbot refused to provide an annual pension to Richard de Eccleshale jr at the king's order (by reason of the abbot's new creation) until a suitable position was found for him. The abbot was sent without day on proof that Eccleshale had been given an annual pension of 5 marks. [74] rcp

1348


H1348 A: Derb. Rex v. Simon, prior of Reppingdon. Prior did not provide an annual pension for the king's clerk John de Wath, to be named by reason of the creation of the prior. [75], [76]

M1348 A: Yorkshire. Thomas de Tatersale qui tam v. John Giffard master of the Hospital of St Leonard of York. Robert Polidad had had a corrody in the Hospital. When he died, the king ordered the Hospital to accept Tatersale to the corrody. The Hospital countered with a charter from Edward III that relieved the Hospital from the obligation of corrodies so that they could take care of the poor. [77] rcp.

M1348 B: Suffolk. Hervey de Bermere (qui tam) v. Nicholas Bonde and Henry de Elmham. The king had acquired custody of the priory and committed it to Nicholas and Henry. Before the king's acquisition Hervey had a corrody in the priory for his life and had been so seised. The king had ordered Nicholas and Henry to resume payments to Hervy, but they had not. [78] rcp

M1348 C: Suffolk. Rex v. James prior of Thetford. The king wanted to reward William de Coventry for his good service, so he many times ordered the prior to admit him to the place of John de Rydesdale who had been situated by Edward I, but the prior neither admitted William to the position nor appeared to explain why he did not. [79] rcp. [80]

E1349 B: Northamptonshire. Rex v. Gerard abbot of St James by Northampton. The king ordered the abbot and convent to give sustenance to John de Swyne in the place of John de Dunstall now dead (who had been provided for by Edward II); the abbot and convent ignored the orders. [81], [82](now for Ralph valetto naparie) rcp

E1349 C: Lincolnshire. Rex and Richard de Eccleshale v. Robert, abbot of Thornton. The king had ordered the abbot and convent of of Thornton to provide a pension for Richard de Eccleshale by reason of the new creation of the abbot, the pension to last until a competent benefice was found for Eccleshale. The abbot did not do so. [83], [84], [85] rcp

M1349 A: Yorkshire. Rex v. John, prior of St Oswald. The king wanted to provide for John Styrop and had ordered the prior to provide for Styrop what had been being provided to John Cole, now deceased. The prior did not do so. [86], [87] rcp

1350:

H1350 A: Hampshire. Rex v. Abbot of Netley. King had ordered the abbot to provide the place for his valet William de Porcestre that William de Bereford lte vicar of Porcestre now deceased had had. The abbot did not do so. This case had been initiated sometime before. [88], [89], [90] rcp


H1350 B: John Merlowe (qui tam) v. Thomas abot of St Osith. THe king wanted to provide for Merlowe and ordered the abbot to admit Merlowe, but he would not. [91], [92] rcp

H1350 C: Somerset. Rex v. Abbot of Netley. The king had ordered the abbot to provide the place for his valet William de Porcestre that William de Bereford lte vicar of Porcestre now deceased had had. The abbot did not do so. This case had been initiated sometime before. [93] rcp

T1350 E: Dorset. Walter de Stodeleye (qui tam) v. Abbot of Milton. The king had wanted to provide for Stodeleye and ordered the Abbot to provide for him as had been provided for William le Baker now deceased at the request of Edward II. The abbot did not bother to signify to the king why he did not do so. [94], [95] rcp

M1350 A: Somerset. Rex v. Robert, abbot of Athelney. By reason of his new creation the abbot was obliged to provide an annual pension to the king's nominee until the abbot found permanent place for him. The king nominated John de Kele, but the abbot refused even to answer. [96] rcp

H1351 A: Devon. Rex v. Abbot of Torre. The king ordered the abbot to provide for Roger Copper such sustenance as Robert de Panetrye (named by Edward II) now deceased had had. [97] rcp

H1351 B: Hampshire. Rex v. Abbot of Jumieges, Prior of Hayling, and the general procurator of the abbot. The king had granted to William de Husheburn the same sustenance as Phillip de Candevere now deceased had had at the request of Edward II in the priory of Hayling (amounts specified); the amount had been recovered in court. The king' order had been delivered to the abbot, but the abbot had not complied. [98], [99]

H1351 D: Nottinghamshire. Rex v. John, abbot of Welbeck. The king had wanted to provide for Richard de Merton and had ordered the abbot so to provide the place that had been held by John atte Lane at the request of Edward III, but the abbot did not care even to respond. [100], [101] rcp

  • T1356 A: Kent. Rex v. William, abbot of Faversham. By reason of his new creation, the abbot was bound to provide an annual rent to a clerk of the king until the abbot provided a benefice. The king presented John de Swynleye, but the abbot ignored the king's orders. [102] rcp
  • M1356 A: Hampshire. Plea before the king's council: order to William, prior of Christ Church, Twynham, to show cause why Gilbert Martyn should not have such sustenance in the priory as John de Windsor had had at the mandate of Edward III. [103] rcp
  • M1358 A: Norfolk. John de Swenton (qui tam) v. Nicholas, prior of Norwich. The king ordered the prior to provide a place such as John de Stratford had had, but the prior did not. [104] rcp
  • T1360 A: Cornwall. Rex v. Oger prior of Bodmin. The king ordered the prior to provide for Walter Chantermerle as had been done for Ralph de Aldingbourn at the request of Edward II. [105] rcp


1375:

1400:

1425:

1450

1475:

1500:

1525:

1550:

1575:

1600:

1625:

1650:

1675:

Personal tools