This case has a somewhat unusual form: a woman named Emma Rose sued a couple, Thomas and Margery Dicons, in order to have her own marriage to Thomas Dicons annulled. As all the witnesses including Thomas himself agreed, his marriage to Emma Rose had occurred after he was already married to Margery, making the second union bigamous. The testimony is interesting in the evidence it provides about the “normal” making of a marriage, as witnesses emphasized that every procedure had been followed, especially in the first (true) marriage. When Thomas and Margery had married at Stratford-at Bow in Middlesex about five years before, the banns were thrice called; a church solemnization took place; neighbours helped them celebrate with a wedding breakfast and afternoon drinking; they lived together afterwards for perhaps two years and had multiple children. Then, as he himself confessed, Thomas left his properly contracted and indissoluble marriage to go to the town of Long Stanton in Cambridgeshire and married Emma Rose. Again, witnesses emphasized that all the procedures were followed and Thomas lived with this second wife for about nine months in Long Stanton, having a daughter with her. In both cases the cohabitation and the children were circumstantial rather than probative evidence of a marital relationship: the point was that they had acted as if they were married.
In a formal sense, all the witnesses appeared on the plaintiff Emma Rose’s behalf, though some did not even know her (so must, in fact, have been asked to testify by Thomas and Margery Dicons). Though ecclesiastical law did not allow for “collusive suits” to dissolve marriages (no-fault divorce was not a thing), this was how the system managed such a situation: Thomas confessed to his sin and was “forced” back to his first and true marriage, though there is no sign that he was resisting. The completeness of both the first and the second contracts needed to be demonstrated, explaining the purpose of the detailed statements about the marriage between Thomas and Emma even though all agreed that this was a bigamous union: in order for a contract to be annulled, it was necessary to show that it had appeared to form. We are left with big gaps: there are, of course, many reasons why Thomas might have left Margery after two years and gone off to marry in Cambridgeshire, but we are given no hint as to what they were. More mysteriously, why did he go back to Stratford to live with Margery again: because his bigamy was discovered and he surrendered to the inevitable? Emma’s goal would have been to clarify her own ambiguous marital status, to have a definitive judgment that she was not married to Thomas Dicons, perhaps so that she could marry someone else.
In some instances, these kinds of uncontested bigamy suits were probably fictive[1]: in other words, it is remotely possible that, in fact, Margery was the second relationship rather than the first, and that all the evidence that their marriage had been prior was invented in order to end the union between Thomas and Emma Rose, which had proved to be mutually unsatisfactory. That would, however, be an elaborate conspiracy given the number of witnesses here.
[Shannon McSheffrey and Collin Bonnell]
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 172r-173r, 177v-178v
Response of Thomas Dicons, Defendant, 5 Dec. 1493
Responses personally made by Thomas Dicons, 5 December, before the lord Official in the church of St. Paul, London, in my, Richard Grome’s, presence.
Thomas Dicons, sworn and diligently examined concerning the article etc. Examined further, this witness says that on a certain day falling after the feast of the nativity of St. John the Baptist [24 June] last past five years ago, on which day he cannot otherwise specify, this witness, in the presence of Nicholas Tornley and Thomas Bakar, in the dwelling house of Margery Dicons now his wife, contracted marriage with Margery, and he had banns issued three times in the church of Stratford-at-Bow [Middlesex].[2] And this marriage was begun, made, and solemnized in the church there by the curate. And he says that around three years ago he contracted another marriage with Emma Rose and it was solemnized between them in the town of [Long] Stanton in Cambridgeshire. And for three quarters of a year they lived together as man and wife, and as such in the said town for that period of time they were said and reputed. And he says that what he said above is true and he admits the fame.
Response of Margery Dicons, Defendant, 5 Dec. 1493
Responses personally made by Margery[3] Dicons
Margery Dicons, sworn etc. on the article etc. She says that on a certain day falling after the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist [24 June] five years ago, in the dwelling house of this witness, who was at that time a widow, in the presence of Nicholas Tornley and Thomas Bakar, the said Thomas Dicons contracted marriage with this witness by appropriate words in the present tense. And she says that banns were issued three times between them in the church of Stratford and that the marriage was solemnized between them in that church. And she says that what she said above is true and that public voice and fame circulate about it in the town of Stratford.
Testimony of William Freman, Witness for the plaintiff, 5 Dec. 1493
On behalf of Rose c. Dicons and Dicons
William Freman of the town of Ely [Cambridgeshire], where he has lived for ten years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old or thereabouts as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Emma Dicons for ten years, and Thomas Dicons from the day about which he is about to depose below. This witness examined further on the article, he says that on a certain Saturday falling between the feasts of Christmas and the Purification of the Blessed Mary [2 Feb.] a year ago, more specifically which day he does not know, this witness was present in the church of Stanton, Ely diocese, together with Master Basset, the vicar priest of the said church, Clement Rose, Robert Salman, Edmund Flynt, John Wryght, and others, when and where Master Basset solemnized marriage between Thomas Dicons and Emma Rose in the church of Stanton. And he says that after the solemnization of marriage they lived together as man and wife for the following three quarters of a year. And he says that he knows this because Thomas fathered a daughter with her. And he testifies to these things from his own sight and hearing. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents, but he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the town of Stanton.
Testimony of John Wryght, Witness for the plaintiff, 5 Dec. 1493
John Wryght of Ely, where he has lived from the time of his birth, and where he was born, illiterate, of free condition, twenty-eight years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Emma Rose from childhood and Thomas Dicons for two years. Examined further on the articles, he agrees with William Freman examined above.
Testimony of Richard Knyght, Witness for plaintiff, 17 Jan. 1494
On behalf of Rose c. Dicons and Dicons
17 January, by the lord Official in Holmes Chapel,[4] in the presence of Master Richard Spencer.
Richard Knyght of Stratford[-at-Bow] [Middlesex], London diocese, where he has lived for twenty-two years, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc. on the article etc., he says that he has known Thomas Dicons for eight years and Margery now his wife for six years, and Emma Rose he does not know. Examined further on the article, this witness says that the marriage contracted between Emma Rose and Thomas Dicons is not valid and was not valid and can never be valid, because around four years ago, Thomas and Margery contracted marriage between them in the town of Stratford by words in the present tense, as he heard it said, and this marriage was solemnized in the chapel in the town of Stratford by the chaplain there. He was not, however, present at the solemnization of this marriage but he says he knows it because he heard the banns being issued three times in chapel by the curate there on three holy days, and he says that on the day the marriage was solemnized this witness’s wife breakfasted with Thomas and this witness in the afternoon of that day drank with the said Thomas. And he says that for three quarters of a year following they lived together in the town of Stratford as man and wife, and they procreated children together, and they were commonly said, held, and reputed as man and wife. And afterwards Thomas left the town to go to Cambridgeshire, and there he contracted marriage with Emma as he heard, and this marriage was solemnized between them as he heard from Emma’s father. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents, but he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in the town.
Testimony of John Newbond, Witness for the plaintiff, 17 Jan. 1494
John Newbond of the town of Stratford aforesaid, where he has lived for nine years, literate, of free condition, seventy-six years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Thomas Dicons for nine years and Margery Dicons for eight or nine years, Emma Rose he does not know. Examined further on the article, this witness says that he agrees with the first witness examined above.[5]
Testimony of William Bote, Witness for the plaintiff, 17 Jan. 1494
On the same day.
William Bote of the parish of Stratford aforesaid, where he has lived for forty years and more, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Thomas Dicons for five years, Margery his wife from the time of her birth, and Emma Rose he does not know. Examined further on the article, this witness says that around four years ago and more, Thomas and Margery contracted marriage between them in the town of Stratford by words in the present tense, as he heard it said, and this marriage was solemnized between them in the chapel in the town by the curate there, and he knows this because he heard banns issued between them by the curate on three holy days, and also he was present at the solemnization of the marriage, and after the solemnization on that day he breakfasted with them. And thus for the two years following as he believes they lived together as husband and wife, and they had several children together, and as such they were commonly said, held, and reputed. And he says that afterwards he left the town to go to Cambridgeshire, and there he contracted with another woman as he heard, and marriage was solemnized between them. And this witness believes in his conscience that that marriage between them, thus solemnized, has no worth, because Margery, who contracted with Thomas before, is still living. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents, but he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in the town of Stratford.
Testimony of William Pere, Witness for the plaintiff, 17 Jan. 1494
[Probably on Dicons’ behalf as he didn’t know Emma, agreed with Bote but said Thomas lived with Margery for five years] William Pere of the parish of Stratford at Bow, London diocese, where he has lived for twenty years, illiterate, of free condition, thirty-three years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Thomas Dicons for five years and more, Margery for the same time, and Emma he does not know. Questioned further on the article, this witness agrees with the witness who was examined before him, except that this witness testifies that the marriage was solemnized five years before, and in the other things he agrees with him.
[1] See Shannon McSheffrey, “Detective Fiction in the Archives: Court Records and the Uses of Law in Late Medieval England,” History Workshop Journal, 65 (1). pp. 65-78.
[2] Stratford-at-Bow had a priory of Benedictine nuns, St. Leonard’s priory, near Stepney, Middlesex. The chapel of St. Mary in the priory church served as the parish church for the parish of St. Leonard, Stratford, subsequently known as Bromley-at-Bow. See “Religious Houses: House of Benedictine nuns,” A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 1 (1969), pp. 156-159, at British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22115.
[3] In some of the subsequent testimony by witnesses, she was called Margaret rather than Margery: this might be a different form of Latinization of the word, though the names Margery and Margaret were often treated as variations of the same name. Here to avoid confusion she has been called Margery throughout.
[4] A chapel within St. Paul’s Cathedral. See “Secular canons: Cathedral of St. Paul,” in A History of the County of London, volume 1, ed. William Page, British History Online.
[5] The first witness that day, that is Richard Knyght.
Consistory 
One thought on “Emma Rose c. Thomas Dicons and Margery Dicons”
Comments are closed.