Thomas Boteler was born in about 1421, at a time when Eleanor’s father, John Talbot (who had not yet succeeded to his family title), was still married to his first wife, Maud Neville. In fact, Thomas was roughly of an age with the younger children of John Talbot’s first marriage. He was, perhaps, two or three years younger than Sir Christopher Talbot, and about a year older than Maud Neville’s daughter, Joan Talbot (who, from the point of view of age, might have been a better match for him than her much younger half-sister, Eleanor). By the time that Lord Talbot married Eleanor’s mother, Margaret Beauchamp, Thomas Boteler was already about 5 years old. He was six years the senior of Eleanor’s oldest full-blood brother, John Talbot III (Lord Lisle), and probably about fifteen years older than Eleanor herself.
It was normal for a nobleman’s son to be brought up in the household of another noble family from about the age of 7, and to receive his training there. Was it, perhaps, in the Talbot household that young Thomas Boteler was placed? If so, he may have entered it in around 1428. He held no known offices in England in his youth, and his name is almost entirely absent from English records. It is possible that the reason for this is that, like Lord Talbot’s own young sons, he was serving in France. His father, Lord Sudeley, certainly served in the French wars almost as much as did Lord Talbot.
As we have seen, Thomas married Eleanor in 1449–50, when she was still a minor, aged 13 or 14, he himself being then probably about 28 years of age. Eleanor’s early marriage was typical for a girl of aristocratic family. She was probably not consulted regarding the marriage plans, and need not have met Thomas before her marriage. We can assume that her bridegroom was the choice of her parents who, like most of their contemporaries, were doubtless interested first in the extent of Thomas’ property, and second in his social status. His personal characteristics would have ranked low in their order of priorities.1 It is a curious fact, however, that from the standpoint of the Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury, Thomas Boteler’s rank was but middling, so that in some ways their choice of him as a son-in-law is a little surprising. By 1449 one might have expected a daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury to make a more advantageous marriage.
Nevertheless, it is possible to envisage a scenario which might help to explain why Eleanor Talbot’s marriage represented, if anything, a somewhat retrograde step for her, socially. On the assumption that he may have been brought up partly in the Talbot household, Thomas Boteler may have known Eleanor almost from the moment she was born. At the time of Eleanor’s birth her father as yet held no English earldom, and the Talbot and Boteler families were then still on terms of social equality. Little Eleanor’s betrothal in infancy to the heir of Lord Sudeley would therefore have been seen as a good match for her at that time. Moreover, if Thomas was serving in her father’s household it would have been an obvious alliance and one that was ready to hand. Indeed, whether or not Thomas Boteler served in the Talbot household, it is extremely plausible, even likely, that his marriage to Eleanor was a plan agreed upon by their parents quite soon after she was born.
Later, of course, her father became an earl, and the Sudeley marriage may then have come to seem rather less advantageous from the Talbot point of view. Lord Shrewsbury certainly aimed much higher for his youngest daughter, Elizabeth. But probably Eleanor’s Sudeley marriage contract had already been agreed. Since there was nothing actually against it, it was allowed to stand. On the basis of this reconstruction of events, Thomas Boteler will have been a man whom Eleanor may have known all her life. Not well, perhaps, because, like her father and brothers, he had probably been serving in France, but still a man who was familiar to her; one whom she may have accepted in her mind as her future husband for as long as she could remember.
Nothing whatever is known of Eleanor’s relationship with Thomas Boteler. However, the fact that she had not chosen him does not in itself preclude the possibility that an amicable relationship developed between them. This seems to have happened in many (perhaps most) fifteenth-century arranged marriages. If Eleanor had indeed known Thomas all her life, such amicable relations may already have existed by the time they were married.
For couples of their class and culture, married love was generally regarded as synonymous with affection. (Sexual passion was regarded with some suspicion, as being potentially sinful and socially disruptive.) A married relationship for nobles at this period may have lacked some of the closeness of a similar modern relationship. There would have been little privacy, and the couple may have spent a significant proportion of their time apart. Nevertheless, after Thomas had died, Eleanor included him among those close family members for whose souls prayers were endowed. She certainly remembered him with duty, and possibly also with affection.
Thomas himself remains a shadowy figure. Only four facts seem to be known about him: his parentage, his marriage, his knighthood and his death. Indeed, only after his demise is his name unequivocally preserved in the public records – in connection with the death of his widow, Eleanor, and the ensuing confiscation by Edward IV of two manors which Thomas had once held.2 Thomas’ parents and marriage have already been considered. Let us turn now to his knighthood and his death.
A deed issued by Lord Sudeley, dated 15 January 38 Henry VI (1459/60), specifies that Thomas had been a knight at the time of his death,3 and Eleanor’s later inquisition post-mortem confirms that this was the case. Since an earlier deed, issued by his father on 10 May 31 Henry VI (1453), accords Thomas no title, it appears that he must have received his knighthood between May 1453 and about December 1459 (when he died).4
This time period can be further narrowed by reference to negotiations between Lord Sudeley and the Abbot of St Albans. The surviving record of these negotiations explicitly describes Thomas as a knight (in Latin, miles) on 15 May 1456.5 It thus emerges that Thomas Boteler was knighted at some point between 10 May 1453 and 15 May 1456. It is not currently possible to specify the date more precisely. It is conceivable that he was knighted following the first battle of St Albans6 – a battle at which his father, at least, was undoubtedly present, in the entourage of Henry VI, receiving on that occasion an arrow wound to the face.7 However, it is equally plausible that Thomas was knighted quite soon after 10 May 1453.
Lord Sudeley’s negotiations with Abbot John Wheathamstead of St Albans (who was a cousin of Lady Sudeley – though precise details of their relationship are lacking) frequently mention Thomas’s half-brother, John Hende the younger (who, through his mother, was of course also related to the abbot). However, the St Albans archive does also provide a little additional information in respect of Thomas:
Whereas Thomas Boteler, knight, William Beaufitz and William Heynes hold of us (in the right of the aforesaid monastery) one messuage and various lands and tenements called ‘Langeleys’, with their appurtenances, in Rickmansworth aforesaid (late in the tenure of Roger Lynster) by fealty and by payment of ten shillings annually … [they] have given, and by these presents granted to the aforesaid Ralph Boteler nine shillings and eleven pence of the said rent of ten shillings.8
Three further references to a ‘Thomas Boteler’ are extant, which could potentially throw further light on Eleanor Talbot’s husband. We shall briefly look at these. However, we must remember that the person(s) named in these sources may or may not be identical with Lord Sudeley’s son and heir.
A grant survives by a Thomas Boteler who is described as ‘of Meridene’, of lands, tenements, rents etc. in Meridene and Alspath in the county of Warwickshire. This grant is dated June 1443, and it was issued in favour of Ralph Boteler, Lord of Sudeley.9 The mention of Lord Sudeley suggests some relationship, allowing for the possibility that this deed, like the St Albans grant, might have emanated from his son. The presence of the latter at Meriden (where the lordship of the manor was held by the Mowbray dukes of Norfolk) is not otherwise attested. However, the neighbouring manor of Alspath was certainly held from the 1470s until 1523 by a family called Boteler, who may have been relatives of Lord Sudeley.10
Confusingly, a modern calendar entry relating to this deed describes Thomas Boteler of Meriden as a knight. If he was a knight in 1443, Thomas of Meriden seems unlikely to have been Lord Sudeley’s son (who was apparently not knighted until the 1450s). However, an examination of the original document has failed to confirm its use of the word ‘knight’. The question of whether Thomas Boteler of Meriden was identical with the heir of Sudeley must therefore remain open.
Nine years later a reference survives to a ‘Thomas Boteler, knight’, to whom (in association with others) certain lands in Buckinghamshire were entrusted on 25 September 1452.11 Given that the heir of Sudeley apparently received his knighthood after 10 May 1453, this Thomas Boteler seems unlikely to be Lord Sudeley’s son.
There is a further record that in the same year (1452) a Sir Thomas Boteler, together with others, was granted land at Havering-at-Bower in Essex, which he subsequently released in 1457.12 If the knightly rank accorded to this Thomas is to be understood as relating to 1457 (the date at which the record was written) rather than to 1452, this may indeed refer to the heir of Sudeley. In that case this reference of March 1456/7 might be our last glimpse of Eleanor’s husband as a living man.
Eleanor’s inquisition post-mortem makes it clear that her husband died during the reign of Henry VI, and before Edward IV was proclaimed king on 4 March 1460/1.13 The deed issued by Lord Sudeley (see above) provides an even earlier terminus ad quem. This document, dated 15 January 38 Henry VI (1459/60), specifies that Thomas was dead by that date.14 It is therefore certain that the reference to a Sir Thomas Boteler who was listed among the dead on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Towton cannot possibly relate to Eleanor’s husband.15
The burial place of Eleanor’s Thomas is also unrecorded. Meriden church houses the anonymous tomb of a fifteenth-century knight, of which the stone effigy depicts the deceased in armour with his head supported by angels. This tomb dates from about 1450–60. It might be the tomb of Thomas Boteler of Meriden, but even that is not certain. Coupled with the further uncertainty regarding the relationship (if any) between Thomas Boteler of Meriden and Thomas, heir of Sudeley, it leaves very questionable the possibility that the Meriden tomb might be our Thomas Boteler’s last resting place.16
Given that Sir Thomas Boteler died before 15 January 1459/60, and probably during the latter part of 1459, it is conceivable that he died as a result of injuries sustained in battle, perhaps at Blore Heath – a battle which took place in Shropshire (a credible location for the death of Thomas Boteler), and a battle at which 2,000 are said to have been killed fighting on the Lancastrian side. However, the notion that Thomas was killed on the Lancastrian side, during a battle, is nothing more than speculation.
Thomas and Eleanor left no surviving children and it appears certain that their marriage was childless. It was a normal part of a widow’s duty to arrange, and pay for, her husband’s exequies, and Eleanor may have done so for Thomas. There is no information on this point. Nor (as we have seen) can we say for certain where Thomas was buried, although one possibility could be St Albans Abbey, where his father had already endowed prayers for Thomas during his lifetime.