In 1493 William Yewle and Thomas Grey both sued Katherine Garington, each claiming she had contracted marriage with him. As her father Robert Elys had a different surname, on first glance it seems likely she was a widow, suggesting one reason (property from her dead husband) why both men sought to marry her, though of course there could have been other reasons, too. Katherine Garington did not fit the usual widow profile, however, suggesting there might be another explanation for her different surname (though I honestly cannot see what it would have been): she was only eighteen years old and she evidently lived in Colchester as a servant, usually a job for the never-married. The elaborate courtship gifts the witnesses reported the two men exchanging with Katherine (for instance, a stomacher or ornamental bodice and an alabaster carving of a book) suggest that the people involved in this case were relatively well off. Robert Elys’s house in Great Wigborough, near Colchester, was said to have a “saffron garden” where his daughter, her suitor Thomas Grey, and others gathered to hear them exchange marriage vows. The depositions offer interesting evidence about courtship rituals, gifts, and the ceremonial exchange of consent.
The basics were these: William Yewle claimed that he and Katherine had exchanged vows of future consent in early June; Thomas Grey claimed that he and Katherine had contracted by present consent in August or September. From the evidence of the depositions, the legal issue appears to be straightforward: though Yewle’s contract was prior, the present-tense vows Grey was said to have made with Katherine would have superseded the future-tense contract.
There may have been other matters going on, however, about which the court was fully aware but are only obliquely present in the witness statements. Katherine’s father Robert Elys evidently worked hard on Thomas Grey’s behalf, organizing and paying expenses for the witnesses who supported his case; he may have gone further than that, as there are references to his “making an impediment” (calling out against banns that had been issued between Yewle and his daughter?) and acquiring an “inhibition,” presumably a document stopping the parish priest from solemnizing the marriage.
There were procedural irregularities, too; while the case was ongoing, as usual all parties were forbidden to take any further steps towards marriage and, as sometimes occurred, the woman at the centre of the lawsuits, Katherine Garington, was sequestered. That meant that she was put into the custody of the court’s registrar, Richard Spencer, who lived near St. Paul’s cathedral in London, and the two plaintiffs were not to have any communication with her. A sequestration was meant to prevent the men vying for a woman’s marriage from circumventing the court’s decision by abducting or luring her away to make a binding vow of marriage that even the court could not overturn. In March 1494, Thomas Grey was summoned to answer to his contempt of court for breaking these injunctions: he had procured banns between him and Garington (though he said he had done that before he had been forbidden to do so); and he admitted that he had violated her sequestration “many times” to speak to Garington in Spencer’s house.
And lastly there were some other apparently ruthless legal manoeuvres on Yewle’s part that cast what contemporaries would have seen as an unflattering light on Katherine Garington herself. The witnesses who appeared on Yewle’s behalf – two middle-aged women who were later characterized as women of low reputation, which may or may not have been fair – suggested that Katherine was aggressive in her pursuit of Yewle, acting with an unfeminine boldness in proposing marriage to him rather than the reverse. An odd answer to one of the statements submitted on his behalf suggests even that Yewle alleged that she was forcing herself sexually on men, a contention that could only have been designed to humiliate her.
On the basis of the depositions, Grey likely would have won this case, but unfortunately I have not been able to uncover any other documents that can tell us whether Katherine married Yewle or Grey (or neither). Her father’s 1499 will survives in the Essex Record Office (MS D/ACR 1/74/2): if anyone is ever there and wants to let me know if Katherine is named in it, I’d be interested to know!
[Shannon McSheffrey with Collin Bonnell]
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 167r-168v, 170v-171r, 179rv, 180v-181r, 191v-193v, 196v-197r
Testimony of Robert Elys, Witness for plaintiff William Yewle,1 4 Nov. 1493
In my, Richard Crome’s, presence, 4 November, by the lord chancellor, in the church of St. Paul.
On behalf of Yewle c. Garington
Robert Elys of Great Wigborough [Essex], London diocese, where he has lived for fifteen years, literate, of free condition, forty-six years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known William Yewle for half a year and Katherine Garington for eighteen years.[2] To the first and second articles of the libel, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third article, he says that he heard that William Yewle sent Katherine a stomacher,[3] although through Thomas Elys, Katherine’s brother, but she did not accept it and he says that immediately after she sent the stomacher back to William and did not wish to have it. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth article, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth and sixth articles, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents, except from what William has told him, which is not true. To the seventh article, he says that what he said above is true, and concerning fame he knows nothing to depose.
Testimony of Master Thomas Lowe, Witness for plaintiff William Yewle,4 10 Nov. 1493
10 November, before the lord chancellor in Pardon Churchyard, in my, Richard Crome’s, presence.
Master Thomas Lowe, vicar of Braintree [Essex], London diocese, where he has lived for six weeks and more, and before that time in the parish of Great Wigborough for three years, literate, of free condition, forty years old and more as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known William Yewle from the feast of St. Peter in Chains [1 Aug.], and Katherine Garington for two years. To the first and second articles, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third article, he says that he heard that William sent to Katherine by her brother, Thomas Elys, a pectoral, called a stomacher, but whether she received it in the name of marriage or not this witness does not know. And he says that Katherine sent it back to William by Thomas. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth article, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth and sixth articles, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents except from what William has told him. To the seventh article, he says that what he said above is true and concerning fame, he knows nothing to depose. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the second interrogatory, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third interrogatory, he says that he does not care which party wins victory other than according to justice. To the fourth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that he was compelled by Yewle’s proctor [lawyer] to come give testimony to the truth.
Testimony of Margery Kyrkeby, Witness for plaintiff William Yewle, 10 Nov. 1493
Margery Kyrkeby of the parish of the Holy Trinity in the town of Colchester, where she has lived for fourteen years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-three years old as she says. Sworn as a witness etc., she says that she has known William Yewle for three years and Katherine Garington from the last feast of the Holy Trinity [2 June 1493]. To the first and second articles, she says that on a Sunday about a fortnight before the feast of St. John the Baptist [perhaps Sunday, 9 June 1493] last past, this witness was present in her house at Colchester, together with Ellen Graveley, William Yewle, and Katherine Garington, when and where after many things discussed between William and Katherine, Katherine said to William these words in English or others similar in effect, “William, will ye have me to your wife?” And he responded in English, “Yea, by the mass, and all other women to forsake.” And she responded, “I will the same.” And also William said in English, “and if your father be displeased hereafter, I plight you my troth that there shall never man marry you without I give you leave.“[5] And otherwise she knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third article, she says that William gave to her one time a silver gilt heart as a sign of marriage, and another time he sent her by Margaret Bragma[..] (as she heard from Elena Graveley) a piece of gold worth five shillings. And afterwards Katherine sent Thomas Elys her brother to William for a stomacher and William sent it. And she believes in her conscience that Katherine received these gifts as a sign of marriage. To the fourth article, she says that Katherine sent William a book of alabaster[6] by Ellen Graveley, and he freely received it in the name of marriage. To the fifth article, she says that she knows nothing to depose except what she deposed above. To the sixth article, she says that she knows nothing to depose except what Ellen Graveley told her. To the seventh article, she says that what she said above is true, and that she knows nothing to depose about the fame concerning it except from what the said Ellen has told her. To the first and second interrogatories, she says as she said above, and she says that this discussion took place in a certain parlour in this witness’s house, between the hours of two and three in the afternoon. And she says that twice she came to this witness’s house to talk to William and on the third occasion William and Katherine discussed the contract as she deposed above. To the third interrogatory, she says that she would like William to gain victory, because she believes he has justice. To the fourth interrogatory, she says that she received from William Yewle 2 s. 8 d. for her costs and expenses, and to its other contents she responds negatively. To the fifth interrogatory, she says that she came to offer testimony to the truth at William’s request and not otherwise.
Testimony of Ellen Graveley, Witness for plaintiff William Yewle, 19 Nov. 1493
19 November, in the house of the Official by Paul’s Chain, by Master Blodywell in my, Richard Spencer’s, presence.
Ellen Graveley of the parish of St. Mary, in the town of Maldon [Essex], where she has lived for two years, of free condition, forty years old or thereabouts as she says. Sworn as a witness etc., she says that she has known William Yewle for two years, and Katherine Garington for four years. To the first and second articles of the libel, she says that within three weeks before or after last Trinity Sunday [late May or early June], Katherine told this witness that she would willingly speak and drink with William Yewle, and to that end she asked three or four times for him at Margery Kyrkeby’s house and could not find him, and because of this she asked this witness if she could on her behalf tell William her intent, and to have William tell this witness when he would come to that house. And afterwards this witness on the eve of Trinity Sunday [i.e. 1 June 1493] told William what Katherine wanted, and he told this witness that the following day he would by no means leave the town of Colchester but would come to this house for the sake of speaking with Katherine as soon as his master had dined. And then this witness told Katherine this response, and Katherine immediately after twelve went to the house, where this witness was at that time. She went right into a certain parlour in which William was sitting on a bed, and immediately after Katherine’s and this witness’s entrance William rose and greeted Katherine and kissed her. And Katherine offered to give him some wine, and Margery Kyrkeby, immediately having sent this witness for wine, leaving them there together talking, went out into the garden to pick some strawberries. A little while after, she went back into the parlour and there they drank together and talked in the presence of this witness and the said Margery. Then William said, “Mistress Katherine, me thinkith it were a meetly marriage between us two.” And then Katherine said, “Now by your faith, will you have me to your wife?” and he answered, “Yea, by the mass and forsake all others for your sake.” And then Katherine said straight away, “By my faith and will have you to my husband.” And then this witness said to Katherine, “Have you first thought about what you are saying?” And she answered yes, and this witness added, reproaching her frivolity, “It is a feeble one will fall at the first stroke.” This witness deposes these things from her own sight and hearing. To the third article, she says that on the day and at the place about which she deposed above, right away after the speaking of those words, William gave Katherine a certain silver gilt heart, and she received it gratefully from him as from her husband, as it appeared to this witness. To the fourth article, she says that within three or four days after this contract, Katherine sent to William by this witness a certain stone of alabaster made in the shape of a book. When she gave it to this witness she said, “Recommend me to William, and give this token to him on my behalf, asking him to accept it freely because I wish to send him a ring,” but she had not had the opportunity to go into the chamber for the ring because of fear of her mistress. William gratefully received the stone from this witness’s hands, saying that within a short time he would speak with Katherine. To the fifth article, she says as she said above, and otherwise she knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth and seventh articles, she says that what she said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the parish of the Holy Trinity in Colchester. To the first interrogatory, she says as she said above. And she says that [he was] standing near the side of the bed where the aforesaid words were said as deposed above, William holding Katherine in an embrace with his arms. And otherwise she knows nothing to depose concerning it. To the second interrogatory, she says that this discussion between them lasted until about two o’clock in the afternoon or thereabouts. To the third interrogatory, she says that she does not care which party obtains victory as long as justice is done. To the fourth interrogatory, she responds negatively to all its contents. To the fifth interrogatory, she says that she has come to offer testimony to the truth at William’s request and his expense. And to its other contents she responds negatively.
Testimony of William Gurney, Witness for defendant, 17 Jan. 1494
On behalf of Katherine Garington c. William Yewle
17 January, by the lord Official in his dwelling house, in my, Richard Grome’s, presence.
William Gurney of the parish of Great Wigborough, [Essex,] London diocese, where he has lived for fifteen years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old and more as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Katherine Garington from the time of her childhood, William Yewle for a year and more, Margery Kirkby he does not know, and Ellen Graveley for two or three years. To the first and second parts of the exceptions, he says as he will say below. To the third part, he says that on the day of St. Luke the Evangelist [18 Oct.] last past, this witness together with a certain Thomas Grey and John Elys rode towards the city of London, and as they rode through the town of Ingatestone [Essex], the aforesaid John Elys saw Ellen Graveley standing in a certain house situated within the said town where ale was for sale, and he told this witness and Thomas Grey about her. And then Grey told this witness that he wanted to speak with her in order to ask whether she ever knew of any words of marriage spoken between William Yewle and Katherine Garington. And so this witness at his request rode up to her and there in that house this witness drank with Grey, John Elys, and someone called Twity, and there they spoke with Ellen. After they had discussed many things, Grey asked her whether she had ever heard any words of marriage between William Yewle and Katherine, and Ellen answered that she had never heard any words spoken concerning a contract between them, and thus in the presence of this witness and the others named above she swore, giving her faith, that she had never heard any words of marriage spoken between them. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth part of the exceptions, he says that Ellen Graveley is a woman of ill fame, and dishonest opinion and conversation, and this he knows because Ellen told this witness that she had been impregnated by a certain man whose name and surname this witness does not know, and that that man often knew her carnally. And she was commonly said, taken, and reputed for a woman of ill fame and this he says from the public fame circulating about it. And he has heard that Margery Kirkby is a woman of ill fame and light condition, and she would perjure herself for little, and as such is commonly said, held, and reputed as he has heard. To the fifth and sixth parts, he says that what he has said above is true and that public voice and fame concerning it circulated and circulate in the county of Essex. To the first interrogatory, he says that he has come to offer testimony to the truth at the request of Robert Elys, and he responds negatively to its other contents. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the third interrogatory, he says that he does not favour one party more than the other, and that he does not care about victory as long as justice is done, and he says that he has come to offer testimony to the truth at Robert Elys’s expense. To its other contents he responds negatively. To the fourth interrogatory, he knows nothing to depose except from what William has told him.
Testimony of Richard Twety, Witness for defendant, 24 Jan. 1494
24 January
Richard Twety of Herford Stock [Essex], London diocese, where he has lived for eight or nine years, literate, of free condition, thirty-four years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he does not know William Yewle, Katherine Garington, or Margery Kirkby, and he first saw Ellen Graveley on the day about which he will depose below. To the first and second parts of the exceptions, he says as he will say below. To the third part of the exceptions, he says that on the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist last past [18 Oct.], this witness was present in the town of Ingatestone, together with William Grey[7] and Thomas Grey, standing at the door of a certain Goodfelow situated within the said town, when and where after many things were discussed between them, T. Grey asked this witness and the said Goodfelow’s wife for Ellen Graveley, and the wife answered that Ellen was in her house. Goodfelow’s wife called Ellen to Thomas and in the presence of this witness and William Gurney he stated and declared to her that he had come to ask her whether she ever knew, understood, or heard any matrimonial words between William Yewle and Katherine Garington. Ellen responded and swore by her faith that she never knew any words spoken between them concerning marriage, and she swore on her faith that she never knew or heard any words of marriage spoken between William and Katherine. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth part of the exceptions, he says that Ellen is a woman of ill fame, damaged opinion, and dishonest conversation and she was and is commonly said, held, and reputed as a woman of ill fame. And he knows this by the public fame circulating about it, as he heard from what John Taverner told him but whether she […].[8] And he says that Margery was a woman of ill fame and light condition and would perjure herself for little, and as such was and is commonly said, held, and reputed. To the fifth and sixth parts, he says that what he said above is true, and concerning fame about it he is doubtful. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above, and he says that he does not have more affection for one party than the other. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the third interrogatory, he says that up until now he has come to give testimony to the truth at his own expense, and he does not favour one party more than the other, and he does not care about the victory as long as justice is done. And to its other contents, he responds negatively, except that he hopes that he will receive his expenses. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents.
Response of Thomas Grey, plaintiff, 8 Mar. 1494
Responses personally made by Thomas Grey on the interrogatories of contempt, 8 March. To the first interrogatory, he admits its contents. To the second interrogatory, he admits it. To the third interrogatory, he denies its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he denies its contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that before it was forbidden him, he procured banns to be issued between them. Asked about the violation of the sequestration, he says that many times he went into Master Spencer’s house and talked with Katherine, without permission from the judge, and for this he submits himself, etc.
Testimony of Robert Howlett, Witness for plaintiff Thomas Grey, 13 Mar. 1494
On behalf of Grey c. Garington
13 March, by the lord chancellor Carnifex, in my, Richard Grome’s, presence
Robert Howlett of the parish of Witham [Essex], where he has lived for thirty years and more, illiterate, of free condition, forty-six years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Thomas Grey from the time of his childhood and Katherine Garington from the day about which he is about to testify below. To the first and second articles, he says that on a certain day falling between the feasts of St. Peter in Chains [1 Aug.] and St. Michael the Archangel [29 Sept.] last past, which day otherwise this witness cannot specify, this witness was present in a certain garden called the saffron garden of the dwelling house belonging to Robert Elys, father of Katherine, together with William Gurney, the aforesaid Robert Elys, Thomas Grey, and Katherine Garington, and none others. Then and there after many things were discussed between Thomas and Katherine about contracting marriage, this witness said to Thomas in English, “Ye come hither to have this woman to your wife?” And he responded yes. And then immediately Thomas took Katherine by her right hand and said to her, “I Thomas take ye Katherine to be my wedded wife, and thereto I plight you my troth.” And he withdrew his hand and then Katherine put her hand in Thomas’s hand and said to him, “I Katherine take you Thomas to my wedded husband, and thereto I plight thee my troth.” And afterwards she withdrew her hand and they kissed one another. This deponent testifies to these things from his own sight and hearing. To the third article, he says that its contents are true. To the fourth article, he says that Thomas gave to Katherine a gold ring, and this he knows because he was present when Thomas gave it to her. And Katherine received the ring happily as a token of making marriage between them. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth article, he says that it is disputed, because he has been produced as a witness. To the sixth article, he says that what he has said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate in the parishes of Wigborough [Essex,] Terling [Essex,] and Witham. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that it happened that he took notice of her at the request and means of Thomas Grey, and he knew the names of the parties because he knew her parents. To the second interrogatory, he says that he has come to offer testimony to the truth in this case at the request of Thomas Grey and at his expense. To its other contents, he responds negatively. To the third interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that the contract made as above in the second [article] with the parties and the witnesses standing in a certain pathway, and there came first to that place where the contract was made Thomas Elys and Grey, and then afterwards came Katherine and this witness, and lastly came William Gurney, who was called to hear the contract after some discussion between them and came to be present at the time of the contract. And he says that this witness wore a tawny[9] gown and Katherine wore a black gown, and concerning the colours of the others he does not know. And immediately without any interval Katherine’s response followed as he noted above, and not jokingly, nor for the sake of extorting sexual intercourse,[10] but in the spirit of contracting as he believes, and they contracted with happy faces, without any coercion or fear as far as this witness understood, no impediment intervening that this witness suspected or heard about as he says.
Testimony of William Gurney, Witness for plaintiff Thomas Grey, 13 Mar. 1494
William Gurney of the parish of Great Wigborough [Essex], London diocese, husbandman, where he has lived for seventeen years and still lives, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness, he says that he has known Thomas Grey from the day about which he will testify below and one time before the contract, and Katherine Garington from childhood. To the first and second articles, he says that on a certain day falling between the feasts of St. Peter in Chains [1 Aug.] and St. Michael the Archangel [29 Sept.] last past, which day this witness cannot otherwise specify, this witness was called at the request of Robert Elys and Thomas Grey and Katherine, at that time in a certain garden of the dwelling house belonging to Robert Elys, Katherine’s father, to hear a contract between Thomas Grey and Katherine. Then and there after many things had previously been discussed between them concerning contracting marriage between Thomas and Katherine, this witness saw and heard when Thomas, in the presence of this witness, Robert Elys, and Robert Howlett, took Katherine by the right hand and said to her in English, “I Thomas take thee Katherine to my wedded wife, and thereto I plight thee my troth.” And they unclasped their hands and then Katherine put her hand into Thomas’s hand and said, “I Katherine take you Thomas to my wedded husband, and thereto I plight you my troth.” And afterwards they unclasped their hands and kissed one another. These things this witness testifies from his own sight and hearing. To the third article, he says that its contents are true and also that banns were issued in Wigborough church. To the fourth article, he says that Thomas Grey gave Katherine a gold ring as he heard from Katherine. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth [fifth],[11] he says that its contents are true. To the fifth [sixth] article, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate in the parish of Wigborough and other neighbouring parishes and places, because there were banns and the father and brothers spoke about it. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that it happened that he took notice of Thomas Grey one time about three weeks before the contract at the house of Thomas Grey’s[12] father, Robert Elys, at Robert Elys’s request, as he testified above. To the second interrogatory, he says that he came to give testimony to the truth at Thomas Grey’s request and at his expense. To the other contents he responds negatively. To the third interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents except that he was brought forth as a witness on the exceptions, etc. To the fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that the contract was made as above in the second [article] with the parties and the witnesses standing in a certain pathway within the garden, and this witness was called there at the request of Robert Elys to hear the contract when, after some discussion between them, he happened to be present at the time of the contract. And he says that this witness wore a gown of violet colour, and Katherine wore a black gown, and concerning the colours of the other people he does not know. And immediately without any delay Katherine’s response followed as above, and not mockingly but in the spirit of contracting as he believes, and with happy faces without coercion or fear as far as this witness ever knew or understood. And this witness says that at that time this witness encouraged Katherine about what she should do in this case. And he says that he heard William and others saying that William Yewle contracted marriage with Katherine as he heard, and that he made a claim for her before the Official of Colchester.
Testimony of Robert Elys, Witness for plaintiff Thomas Grey, 8 May 1494
On behalf of Grey c. Garington
8 May by the lord chancellor
Robert Elys of the parish of Great Wigborough, London diocese, where he has lived for sixteen years, literate, of free condition, forty-six years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Thomas Grey for five years and Katherine Garington this witness’s naturaladaughter from the time of her birth. To the first and second articles, he says that on a certain day falling between the feasts of St. Peter, which is called in Chains [1 Aug.], and the feast of St. Michael the Archangel [29 Sept.] last past, which day this witness cannot further specify, this witness was present in a certain little garden within this witness’s dwelling house, together with William Gurney, Robert Howlett, Thomas Grey, and Katherine Garington, when after many things discussed amongst them about contracting marriage between Katherine and Thomas, Thomas took Katherine by the right hand saying thus, “I Thomas take thee, Katherine, to my wedded wife, and thereto I plight thee my troth,” and they unclasped their hands. And Katherine said similarly in English, “I Katherine take thee Thomas to my wedded husband, and thereto I plight you my troth.” And they kissed one another. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the third article, he says that its contents are true as he heard from what others told him. To the fourth article, he says that Thomas gave Katherine a gold ring which Katherine gratefully received from him. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth article, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in Great Wigborough. To the first interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents, except that this witness in Katherine’s name paid the expenses of the witnesses brought forth over the exceptions. To the second interrogatory, he says that he does not love Thomas Grey more than William Yewle other than justice allows. And he responds negatively to its other contents, and he says that he did not make any impediment except that in Katherine’s name he acquired an inhibition.
[1] Though the text explicitly indicates Elys appeared on behalf of Yewle, at least some of his testimony appears to contradict Yewle’s case (“except from what William has told him, which is not true”); he thus may have been summoned by Yewle as a witness but did not appear voluntarily.
[2] In a later deposition in this case, below, Elys indicated that he was, in fact, Katherine Garington’s father. As in that later deposition he says he has known her since her birth, this is a rare indication of the age of a party in a marriage case (as opposed to witnesses): Katherine was evidently eighteen, which was young for a woman to marry, especially if she was indeed a widow (as suggested by her different surname from her father’s).
[3] OED: An ornamental covering for the chest (often covered with jewels) worn by women under the lacing of the bodice.
[4] Lowe appears for William Yewle but explicitly says that he has appeared only under compulsion.
[5] That is, William is warning her that even if her father disapproves, he (William) would have to agree to dissolve this future contract before she could make a contract with another man: in other words, this future contract is binding. By canon law that was not, in fact, the case: a subsequent present contract would supersede.
[6] As Ellen Graveley’s deposition below indicates, this is an alabaster carving of a book.
[7] Grey: this is probably a scribal error for Gurney; William Gurney previously testified that he met Twety at a tavern in Ingatestone, and below Gurney is mentioned as being present.
[8] as he heard…she […]: inserted interlineally; the sentence does not appear to have been finished.
[9] A Brownish color with hints of yellow or orange (OED, “Tawny, adj. and n.”)
[10] This is an odd statement, the denial suggesting that he was answering a contention made in Yewle’s counter-statement (the interrogatories) that Katherine Garington had partaken in this exchange of consent in order to extort sex from William Grey. Given the context of a formal ceremony of the exchange of consent in her father’s garden, this could only have been calculated to insult.
[11] fourth: sic; the articles are numbered incorrectly.
[12] Thomas Grey’s: this is presumably an error for Katherine Garington, as Robert Elys was her father, not his.
[13] The expression “natural daughter” indicates that she was his biological child, rather than a stepchild or foster child – not (as “natural child” would later come to mean) that she was born out of wedlock.
Consistory 