In July 1487, Beatrice Smyth sued John Crote to enforce a marriage contract she claimed they had made around 1482 while Crote lay ill in a chamber in the tower of the parish church of St Michael Queenhithe, where he worked. Witnesses testified that after this bedside exchange of consent, however, the couple could not solemnize their marriage in the church because of hostility from Crote’s employer, the parish priest of St Michael Queenhithe. There is some interesting evidence here of premarital sex and of common talk on the street about the couple’s relationship.
Testimony of Agnes Vaghan, 30 Jul. 1487
On behalf of Beatrice Smyth c. John Crote
Penultimate day of July, in my, Spencer’s, house, by Master John Millet, in my, Spencer’s, presence
Agnes Vaghan, wife of Robert Vaghan, of the parish of St. Andrew in Holbourn, where she has lived from the last feast of St. Michael the Archangel [29 Sept.], and before that in the parish of St. Clement without Temple Bar for four years, and before that in the parish of St. Michael Queenhithe for four years or thereabouts, of free condition, thirty years old or thereabouts, as she says. Inducted as a witness etc., she says that she has known Beatrice Smyth for eight years, and John Crote for the same time. To the first and second articles of the libel, she says that on a certain day between Christmas and Lent five years ago, which day she cannot otherwise specify, Beatrice agreed with this witness to pay her 4d. daily to look after John Crote, at that time lying sick in a chamber within the belltower of the aforesaid church of St. Michael, and to minister to him what he needed. And she led this witness up to and into the chamber, where she saw the aforesaid John lying ill in his bed. And Beatrice asked him how he was doing, and he responded thus, “I have a cause to curse you while I live, for the thought I have taken for you is all the cause of my sickness.” And she answered, “I am come now to make amends.” And she approached John and sat on the side of the bed in which John was lying, and then John reached out and, holding Beatrice’s right hand, he said thus in English, “Beatrice, I forsake all the world save you to my wife, and thereto I plight you my troth.” And she answered thus, “And all the world I forsake save you, John, to my husband, and thereto I plight you my troth.” And then John said that as soon as he got better he would have the marriage solemnized between them and after some other communication between them, Beatrice left the chamber, leaving this witness there with him. After a certain interval of about an hour Beatrice came back, bringing with her a caudle of almonds1 and, consoling him, made him eat from this caudle, and after he had eaten, she asked him if he remembered the words of marriage said between them before, and he said yes, and again he repeated the words and gave to her a silver jemew ring,2 and similarly Beatrice repeated what was deposed above, and stepping on this witness’s foot, she asked this witness to bear witness about the speaking of these words. And within a fortnight following, John, because of the sound of the bells, was removed to the house of Margeret Somer in the parish. And there on a certain day while [Margaret] was absent from the house Beatrice came back to him in a certain upper chamber of the house and asked him whether he would renew the pact previously made between them, and he answered her, “Yea, in good faith, Beatrice, wife, I shall never be merry till we have made an end of that matter and that I be in mine own house.” This witness deposes these things from her own sight and hearing, as she says. And she did not hear other words to that effect between them besides those above. To the third article, she says as she said above, and she says that at the time and place of the giving of the jemew Beatrice gave John a kerchief worth 16d. as she believes, and the gifts were given and received as though from a husband and wife. And otherwise she knows nothing concerning its contents. To the fourth and fifth articles, she says as she said above. And otherwise she knows nothing concerning their contents. To the sixth article, she says that after the aforesaid things, John and Beatrice were commonly said, taken, and reputed in the parish for a year or so as husband and wife, from the knowledge of this witness. To the seventh article, she says that the things she said above are true and that public voice and fame still circulates concerning them in the parish. To the first interrogatory, she says as she said above. And she says that she was born at Morpeth in Northumberland. She says that this contract, as she deposed above, was begun around eight o’clock and the second around ten o’clock, no others present except this witness and the parties. To third interrogatory, she says that Thomas Parker took this witness once to Master Nicholas Trap, who asked what she knew about the contract between the parties, and this witness told him before Thomas Parker the words deposed above, and Master Nicholas said thus, “I find no effect in no tale but in this.” And then Master Nicholas required her to give testimony of the truth in the matter. To the fourth interrogatory, she says that if it were in her power, she would give John Crote to Beatrice as her husband, because she knows well that she is his wife. To the fifth interrogatory, she responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth interrogatory, she says that she would give victory to Beatrice. To the seventh interrogatory, she says that she is receiving nothing for her labours from Thomas Parker or from anyone else, as she says.
Testimony of Joan Mortymer, 30 Jul. 1487
Joan Mortymer of the parish of St. Martin le Grand of the city of London, where she has lived for a year, and before that in the parish of St. Michael Queenhithe for thirteen years, and she was born at Thame in Oxfordshire, of free condition, twenty years old, as she says. Inducted as a witness etc., she says that she has known John Crote for eight or nine years, Beatrice Smyth for nine years. Questioned further concerning the contents of the libel, she says that around eight years ago, it was publicly said and divulged in the parish that Beatrice would have the aforesaid John Crote as her husband, and on a certain day around that time, Elisabeth Abel, at that time this witness’s mistress, in the presence of this witness, asked Beatrice whether she had contracted with John and whether she intended to have him as her husband, and she answered yes. And at the time of this communication, the rector of the parish church at the time, whose name she does not know, came along, and Elizabeth told him that John Crote, his servant, would have Beatrice, Elizabeth’s servant, as his wife. And he responded, “That is a gay marriage, they be two fools, but it better encumber one house than two.” And she heard it said that afterwards the same rector impeded solemnization of marriage between them, because of which John fell into illness and languished for several days and, at the time of his infirmity, Elizabeth called Beatrice to her, and by the hand of this witness caused to be given to her a pair of linen cloths, a small one for a table-cloth and the other for a gown, and ordered her to go to John and console him. This witness deposes these things from her own sight and hearing. And she says that many times this witness heard John calling Beatrice his wife, and she heard Beatrice often saying that John was ailing because he could not spend the night with her. And otherwise concerning the contents in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth articles, she says that she knows nothing concerning their contents. To the sixth, she says that about eight years ago public voice and fame circulated in the parish that Beatrice and John contracted marriage together and that they were husband and wife. To the seventh article, she says that what she deposed above is true and that public voice and fame circulated in the parish concerning it, as she says. To the first and second interrogatories, she says as she said above. And otherwise she knows nothing concerning their contents. To the third interrogatory, she says that she never discussed with them concerning her position. To the fourth interrogatory, she says that she would give John to Beatrice as her husband if it were in her power, as she says, and she would give victory to her. To the fifth interrogatory, she responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth, she says as she said above in the fourth interrogatory. To the seventh interrogatory, she says that she will receive nothing for her labours from Thomas or from anyone else, as she says.
Testimony of Thomas Stone, 30 Jul. 1487
Thomas Stone of the parish of St. Michael aforesaid, where he has lived for thirty-six years, literate, of free condition, sixty years old and more, as he says. Inducted as a witness, he says that he has known Beatrice Smyth for four years or thereabouts, John Crote for five or six years. To the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth articles, he says that many times within the last three years, Master Thomas Sutton, rector still of the church, after having communication concerning Beatrice, told this witness and his wife in their dwelling-house that except for him John would have had Beatrice as his wife, saying thus, “By God’s anguish, this knave John Crote would have had her had I not be.” And this witness and his wife said that if he impeded marriage he was in danger, and he said, “By God’s anguish, I had lief smite the brain out of his head than he should have her.” And otherwise he knows nothing concerning its contents except from what he has heard from others, as he says. To the sixth article, he says that about three years ago, John and Beatrice were commonly said, held, and reputed in the parish as husband and wife, from his own knowledge, as he says. To the seventh article, he says that what he has deposed above is true and that public voice and fame circulated about three years ago in the same parish that John would have the aforesaid Beatrice as his wife. To the first and second interrogatories, he says as he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing concerning their contents. To the third interrogatory, he says that he did not communicate with the persons named in the interrogatory concerning his deposition. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that because of what he has heard said, he would give John to Beatrice as her husband if it were in his power, and would give victory to her as he says. To the fifth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above in the fourth interrogatory. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he has received nothing for his labours from anyone, as he says.
Testimony of Margaret Smyth, 30 Jul. 1487
Margaret Smyth of the parish of St. Ann without Aldrichgate, where she has lived for half a year, and before that time in the aforesaid parish of St. Michael for five years, of free condition, forty years old, as she says. Inducted as a witness etc., she says that she has known Beatrice Smyth for six years, and John Crote for the same time. To the first, second, and third articles, she says that she knows nothing concerning their contents except from what she has heard from others, as she says. To the fourth article, she says that about four or five years ago, at the time that this witness was servant in the home of Thomas Parker, John Crote often acknowledged to this witness that he had contracted marriage with Beatrice and that he had known her carnally, and that he would lead her to the house at the sign of the Coop in Stew Alley,3 and he said that he would have been married before to Beatrice if the rector of the church and the wife at the sign of the Bells4 within the aforesaid parish had not impeded them. And she heard Beatrice often saying that she contracted with John. This witness deposes these things from her own hearing and knowledge, as she says. To the fifth and sixth articles, she agrees with Thomas Stone examined above, with this added, that this witness deposes concerning five years ago or thereabouts. To the first and second interrogatories, she says as she said above, and otherwise she knows nothing concerning their contents. To the third interrogatory, she says that she did not communicate with them concerning her deposition. To the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh interrogatories, she agrees with Thomas Stone examined above.
1. A warm drink consisting of thin gruel, mixed with wine or ale, sweetened and spiced, given chiefly to sick people (OED, s.v. caudle).
2. A double ring (OED, s.v. gemew, 3).
3. Stew Alley: probably the same as Stew Lane, which was in/neighbouring the parish of St. Michael Queenhithe, a short street leading down to the waterfront; it could also refer to an alley in Stewside or Bankside in Southwark. A stew was a brothel, and Stew Lane was likely a street known for prostitution (and certainly Stewside in Southwark was). As is implied in this case, brothels not only provided rooms for prostitutes, but also for fornicating couples (the line dividing prostitution and fornication was vague).
4. At the sign of the Bells: houses were known by their signs (rather than by street numbers). While this could indicate an inn or tavern (which were also and would continue to be known by their signs), it could simply designate the house of the wife (presumably Elizabeth Abel).
Consistory 