This may be an example of a stalled marriage process: according to the three witnesses, more than two years before, Marion Filders and John Arnold had contracted marriage in the house of John and Elizabeth Hayward in Stratford Langthorne, Essex. The only hint as to what had gone wrong afterwards is in the third witness’s testimony that the neighbours were not in favour of the marriage, and that after about a year his mother had urged Arnold to bring it to a conclusion by solemnizing the marriage. Evidently Arnold did not do so: hence the lawsuit.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 138r-139v.
Testimony of John Hayward, Witness for Plaintiff, 15 Feb. 1493
15 February by the lord Official, in my, Richard Grome’s, presence.
On behalf of Filders c. Arnold
John Hayward of the parish of Stratford Langthorne [Essex], London diocese, where he has lived for six years, and before that time in Weald Gullet [North Weald Basset, Essex] for four years, illiterate, of free condition, twenty-five years old, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Marion Filders for three years and John Arnold for five years and more. To the first, second, and third articles he says that on a certain day between the feasts of Easter and Pentecost [April-May] two years ago, which day otherwise he cannot specify, between the hours of two and three of that day, this witness was present in his own house together with Eizabeth Hayward his wife, John Arnold, and Marion Filders. Then and there, after John Arnold and Marion had talked together about contracting marriage, John said to Marion in English these words or others similar in effect, “May ye not find in your heart to love me as I may find in mine to love you?” And she answered in English, “On a condition, that ye may do the same to me.” And immediately afterwards, John put his hand in Marion’s, saying in English, “I John take ye Marion to my wif, all other to forsake, and thereto I plight thee my troth.” And then she said in similar fashion to John, “I Marion take thee John to my husband, and thereto I plight thee my troth.” This witness testifies to these things from his own sight and hearing. To the fourth article, he has 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 circulates about it in the parish of West Ham [Essex] and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second and third interrogatory, he says as he said above and otherwise has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by Marion and at her instance has come to give testimony of the truth. To the fifth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, he responds negatively and says that he does not favour one party more than the other other than what justice permits, and otherwise knows nothing to depose.
Testimony of Elizabeth Hayward, Witness for Plaintiff, 15 Feb. 1493
Elizabeth Hayward of Stratford aforesaid, where she has lived for seven years, illiterate, of free condition, twenty-three years old as she says. Sworn as a witness etc., she says that she has known John Arnold for seven years and more, and Marion Filders for three years. To the first, second, and third articles, she agrees with the first witness examined above, except that she says that she was present on a certain day between the feasts of Easter and Pentecost. To the fourth article, she says that she has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth article, she says that its contents are true. To the sixth article, she says that what she said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulates about it in the parish of West Ham [Essex] and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, she says as she said above. To the second and third interrogatory, she says as she said above, and she says that Marion was wearing a red gown called a red kirtle and John was wearing a gown of the colour that is called a white russet [beige or light grey]. To the fourth interrogatory, she says that she was asked on the part of and at the instance of Marion to come and give testimony to the truth. To the fifth interrogatory, she responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, she agrees with the first witness.
Testimony of Quentin Brakvale, Witness for Plaintiff, 15 Feb. 1493
Quentin Brakvale of Stratford aforesaid, where he has lived from the last feast of St. Michael, and before that time in the county of Surrey for a year and a half, and before that time in the county of Kent for five years, illiterate, of free condition, thirty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness, he says that he has known John Arnold for five years and more and Marion Filders for three years and more. To the first, second, and third articles, he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the fourth article, he says that on the vigil of St. Peter [31 July] two years ago, this witness was present in the house of his father, where and when John Arnold gave this witness a set of beads and a groat to deliver to Marion, and he was to ask Marion to make as good a promise for herself as she knew how, because her neighbours did not want him to solemnize marriage with her. And she answered that she would keep the promise she had made with him. Around the middle of the following year, this witness was present in the house of his father and heard when his mother said to John that he should bring to a conclusion the making of a marriage contract between them and said that such goods as she had he would have part. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the fourth part, he says that its contents are true. To the fifth part, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulates about it in the parish of West Ham. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second and third interrogatories, he knows nothing to depose about their contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by Marion to come to offer testimony to the truth. To the fifth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, he agrees with the first witness.
Consistory 