On a Sunday morning in early February 1493, a group of people met in the parish vestry of the church in Enfield, Middlesex, to discuss some problem regarding a wedding that had been planned for that day between Joan Cordewell and Thomas King. Thomas King’s brother or half-brother, William Ulvestur of London, had travelled up to Enfield to deliver an “inhibition,” a document from the Consistory court in London forbidding the marriage from going ahead. (The reason for such an order is not disclosed in the testimony.) This lawsuit, however, did not involve the marriage but rather some words uttered during the apparently heated discussion: Joan Cordewell’s mother, Denise Barley, was alleged to have said that all this trouble had been caused by Master and Mistress Wroth, who in this had been “false” rather than “true” gentlefolk. As the testimony implies, the Wroth family were lords of the manor of Enfield, the local gentry.[1] It was Mistress Christian Wroth, rather than her husband, who within a few weeks of this episode brought a case against Denise Barley in the Consistory for the loss of reputation resulting from these words; the two witnesses both testified that as a result of Barley’s utterances that Mistress Wroth’s “good fame… fell among many,” the standard formulation to allege defamation. Though certainly the idea of being “true” and not “false” were central terms of virtue in late medieval English society,[2] and the tie here to the gentility of the Wroths significant, this seems a somewhat weaker allegation than most defamation cases heard in the London Consistory. It would be interesting to know if Mistress Wroth’s high social status would have given her claims of damaged reputation extra weight in the Consistory, but unfortunately (as usual) we do not know the outcome of this case.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 140r-141r
Testimony of William Ulvestur, Witness for the plaintiff, 26 Feb. 1493
On behalf of Wroth c. Barley
William Ulvestur of the parish of St. Mary Magdalen in the Fishmarket, of the City, where he has lived for fourteen years and more, literate, of free condition, twenty-eight years old and more as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Mistress Christian Wroth for ten years and Denise Barley for a year and more. To the first, second, and third articles, he says that their contents are true. To the fourth, he says that their contents are true. To the fifth article, he says that on Sunday before the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary [2 Feb.] last past, between the hours of nine and ten, this witness was present in the church of Enfield [Middlesex], in the place called the Vestry, together with Joan Cordewell and a certain brother of hers, and others whose names and surnames he does not know. There and then after conversation amongst them about a marriage made between this witness’s brother and the said Joan Cordewell, this witness brought out an inhibition from the court of the official of the Consistory of the bishop to impede the said marriage. And immediately he heard the said Denise saying in English about Master Wroth and Mistress Wroth, “If Master Wroth had been a true gentleman and Mistress Wroth a true gentlewoman, this trouble had not be.” And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth article, he believes that the good fame of Christian fell amongst many. To the seventh article, he says its contents are true. To the eighth article, he believes it is disputed. To the ninth article, he says that what he said above is true and concerning fame he knows nothing to depose. To the first and second interrogatories, he says as he said above. To the third interrogatory, he says that he does not favour one party more than the other, and he says that he does not care who has victory as long as justice is done, and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and he says that Mistress Wroth wore a gown of Camlet[3] and Denise wore a blue gown edged with greyfurs.[4] To the fifth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that if it were in his power to confer victory he would confer it on the one having right and not otherwise. And to its other contents he responds negatively.
Testimony of Thomas Elderton, Witness for the plaintiff, 26 Feb. 1493
Thomas Elderton of Enfield, where he has lived for four years and more, literate, of free condition, thirty-four years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Christian Wroth for seven years and Denise Barley for three years. To the first, second, third, and fourth articles, he says that their contents are true. To the fifth article, he says that on Sunday before the feast of the Purification of the blessed Virgin Mary last past, between the hours of noon and one, this witness was present in the church of Enfield in the place called the Vestry together with William Ulvestur, Joan Cordewell, the said Denise, and many others whose names and surnames he cannot now say. There and then after much communication amongst them about solemnizing marriage between the said Thomas Kyng and Joan, this witness said to Denise in English, “Hold your peace, for I and my fellowship will speak to Master Wroth and to my mistress that your daughter shall be wedded this day.” And Denise answered and said about Master Wroth and Mistress Christian Wroth, then absent, in English, “Nay, I care not, for I know who is causer of it, well I know, for it is that false gentleman’s and that false gentlewoman’s work.” And this he deposes from his own sight and hearing. To the sixth article, he believes that the good fame of the said Christian fell among many. To the seventh article, he says that its contents are true. To the eighth article, he says that it is disputed. To the ninth article, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the parish of Enfield and in neighbouring places. To the first and second interrogatories, he says as he said above. To the third interrogatory, he says that he does not favour one party over the other, and that he does not care which party has victory, and to its other contents he responds [negatively?]. To the fourth and fifth interrogatories, he says as he said above. And he says that the parties were standing at the time the words were spoken, and concerning the colour of the clothes he knows nothing to depose. To the sixth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the seventh interrogatory, he says as he said above and he says that the fame originated from Denise. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that if it were in his power to confer victory he would confer it on the one having right and not otherwise. And to its other contents he responds negatively.
[1] A P Baggs, Diane K Bolton, Eileen P Scarff and G C Tyack, ‘Enfield: Manors’, in A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 5, ed. T F T Baker and R B Pugh (London, 1976), pp. 224-229. British History Online.
[2] Most discussions of “trustworthiness” refer to the much more voluminous evidence about medieval men – see most recently Ian Forrest, Trustworthy Men: How Inequality and Faith Made the Medieval Church (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018) – this case suggests that it was also important for medieval women, or at least for Mistress Wroth.
[3] OED, s.v. camlet, n.: “A name originally applied to some beautiful and costly eastern fabric, afterwards to imitations and substitutes the nature of which has changed many times over…. It is uncertain whether it was ever made of camel’s hair; but in the 16th and 17th c. it was made of the hair of the Angora goat.”
[4] OED, s.v. grey: usually fur from a badger.
Consistory 