17

DEATH

The dowager Countess of Shrewsbury enjoyed Edward IV’s generosity for less than two years, for she died on Sunday 14 June 1467, at the age of 63, and was buried in the Jesus Chapel of St Paul’s Cathedral.¹ If she came to London for her mother’s funeral, Eleanor may have met any number of important people on that occasion, for London was particularly crowded at that time due to the opening of Parliament, the presence in the capital of ambassadors from the Duke of Burgundy, the great tournament between Lord Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy at Smithfield and the return of her uncle, the Earl of Warwick, from his embassy in France.

Warwick was, at this point, very angry with the king because in the matter of the negotiations for the marriage of Margaret of York the king was once again ignoring his advice. Also his brother, George Neville, Archbishop of York, had just been dismissed from the post of chancellor; a promised royal marriage for one of his nephews had been cancelled; and Edward IV was blocking the marriage of Warwick’s daughter Isabel to the Duke of Clarence. Warwick was also at odds with Elizabeth Widville’s kindred. Any hint to him at this point of the existence of a marriage between his wife’s niece and the king would have been potentially very dangerous for Edward.

Eleanor had, of course, kept silent for six years, and there is no reason to suppose that, even if she met her uncle at her mother’s funeral, she herself spoke to him of her marriage to the king. There is a slight hint that Warwick might have had some awareness of the questions surrounding the validity of the king’s Widville marriage because of his insistent promotion of his daughter Isabel’s marriage to the Duke of Clarence. However, the earl might simply have adopted that policy because Edward IV had, as yet, no son by Elizabeth Widville, so that George, Duke of Clarence, still had some chance of one day becoming king.

It is just possible that Eleanor herself was unwell by the time of her mother’s death, because she died just over a year later, on 30 June 1468, at the comparatively early age of 32.² However, it also is possible that her subsequent demise was not the result of any kind of natural illness. She may have been murdered. It has never been clearly established what caused her death. Buck merely remarks laconically that the king did not kill her with kindness,³ a vague phraseology that permits varied interpretations. As we shall see, however, the circumstances surrounding Eleanor’s death were both unusual and intriguing.

In terms of the modern calendar, the year date of Eleanor’s death coincides with that of another death that is said to have been intimately associated with the issue of Edward IV’s marital situation. Thomas Fitzgerald, seventh Earl of Desmond,⁴ the former deputy governor of Ireland and the friend and ally of Edward IV, was beheaded at Drogheda on 15 February 1467/8 by his successor as lord deputy John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester. One of the reasons given for Desmond’s execution is the allegation that he had told Edward IV that the king’s marriage with Elizabeth Widville was a mésalliance and that Edward should have chosen a more suitable bride. This is reported to have been a piece of frank speaking that had earned him the undying hatred of the queen, ‘a spightfull woeman [who] sought and studyed out meanes how to be revenged upon the Earle’.⁵

It is undoubtedly the case that a conflict between the Earl of Desmond and the Bishop of Meath happened to have brought Desmond to Edward IV’s court at precisely the time when the king’s marriage to Elizabeth Widville became public knowledge. Desmond’s presence at the English court at that point in time makes it eminently credible that the king, who trusted the Irish earl and who must have known that his Widville marriage was being very widely discussed, may have sought the earl’s opinion, just as the surviving sixteenth century accounts suggest.⁶ It is also eminently plausible that if word had subsequently reached the ears of Elizabeth Widville that Desmond had classified her as an unsuitable royal bride, she would have been very angry.

The king – and therefore presumably also Elizabeth Widville – was subsequently said ‘to suspect Desmond and his brother-in-law, Kildare, of favouring the projects of the Earl of Warwick, which originated in dissatisfaction at the royal marriage with Elizabeth Grey, and the consequent advancement of her obscure relatives’.⁷ It is well known now – and was well known at the time – that the Earl of Warwick and his son-in-law, George, Duke of Clarence, were heartily opposed to the Widvilles and their power behind Edward IV’s throne.

Intriguingly, the Annales attributed to William Worcester state specifically that Edward IV was shocked by the execution of his former friend, Desmond:

[1467/8] About the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary [2 February], in Ireland, the Earl of Worcester had the Earl of Desmond beheaded, at which the king was initially displeased.⁸

The importance of this evidence can hardly be over-emphasised, for it makes nonsense of any suggestion that Desmond’s execution was an official act of policy on the part of the king himself. Edward’s reported reaction could only mean that he had neither ordered not authorised Desmond’s execution.

It is also intriguing that later, soon after his accession to the English throne, King Richard III sent conciliatory messages to James, eighth Earl of Desmond - a younger son of the executed earl. There was a letter addressed from the king to the earl himself, dated 29 September 1484,⁹ but the king’s written message was meant to be expanded upon by his messenger, Thomas Barrett, Bishop of Annaghdown (‘Enachden’). The written instructions which Richard III sent to the bishop regarding what he was to say have survived. Richard wrote:

the said bisshop shall thank him ... as remembryng the manyfold notable service and kyndnesse by therle’s fadre unto the famous prince the duc of York the king’s fader ... Also he shalle shewe that albe it the fadre of the said erle, the king than being of yong age, was extorciously slayne and murdred by colour of the lawes within Ireland by certain persons than havyng the governaunce and rule there, ayenst alle manhode, reason, and good conscience; yet, notwithstanding that the semblable chaunce was and hapned sithen within this royaume of Eingland, as wele of his brother the duc of Clarence as other his nigh kynnesmen and gret frendes, the kinge’s grace alweys contynueth and hathe inward compassion of the dethe of his said fadre, and is content that his said cousyn now erle by alle ordinate meanes and due course of the lawes, when it shalle lust him at any tyme hereafter to sue or attempt for the punishment therof.¹⁰

Some modern writers have dismissed this letter as containing merely generalities and platitudes.¹¹ It is important to remember that what we have surviving from Richard is only in the nature of his notes for guidance, addressed to a messenger who was clearly intended to amplify the basic material in the course of his interview with the eighth earl. Nevertheless even the notes are actually quite explicit on certain points. The bishop is instructed to communicate Richard’s opinion that the execution of the earl’s late father was murder under the form of law. This was a very strong statement for Richard III to make. Secondly a parallel was explicitly to be drawn between the execution of the seventh Earl of Desmond and the execution of Richard’s own brother, the Duke of Clarence. This is a highly significant analogy, for we are told by Domenico Mancini that contemporary opinion ascribed the responsibility for Clarence’s death to Elizabeth Widville. Mancini, writing in November 1483, stated this quite specifically, telling us that ‘the queen … concluded that her offspring by the king would never come to the throne unless the duke of Clarence were removed; and of this she easily persuaded the king … He [Clarence] was condemned and put to death. The mode of execution preferred in this case was that he should die by being plunged into a jar of sweet wine.’¹²

The implication appears to be that Richard III himself believed that Elizabeth Widville was the person ultimately responsible for the execution of the Earl of Desmond. And as we have seen, Elizabeth Widville is also said to have been the person responsible for the death of another potential threat to herself and her royal children – namely her royal brother-in-law George, Duke of Clarence. This raises the intriguing question of whether she also took action against other possible threats to herself, the validity of her marriage, the future of her royal children, and the power of the Widville family. If she did, assuming that she had discovered that Edward IV had contracted an earlier secret marriage with Eleanor Talbot at a time when Eleanor was still living, it appears highly plausible that Elizabeth Widville would then have taken action to remove Eleanor from the scene.

It is therefore intriguing that Eleanor died at a time when careful arrangements had been set in place to ensure that all the living members of her family were out of the country, leaving Eleanor alone and unprotected. Her relatives had all been commanded to assume honorary roles in connection with the marriage of Edward IV’s younger sister Margaret of York, with Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. As we shall see, it appears absolutely certain that, in June 1468, Eleanor knew that she was dying. Could she have been experiencing the pain and digestive disorders associated with something such as the slow and systematic poisoning which can be brought about by use of a chemical such as arsenic?

William Catesby - Richard III’s ‘Cat’.

On 4 June 1468 Eleanor made a deed of gift in favour of her sister Elizabeth.¹³ The witnesses included her cousin by marriage, Sir William Catesby, whose son was later celebrated in rhyme as Richard III’s ‘Cat’, and was ultimately hanged by Henry VII in the aftermath of the battle of Bosworth. Among other things, this deed proves Eleanor’s active association with the Catesby family. In the deed Eleanor, describing herself as ‘lately the wife of Thomas Boteler, knight, now deceased’,¹⁴ conveyed to her sister absolutely and with immediate effect the Warwickshire manor of Fenny Compton, and granted her also the reversion of all her Wiltshire property, which is specifically stated in the deed to be leased to John Cheney for life. This grant of one of her manors strongly suggests that at the beginning of June 1468 Eleanor knew that she was about to die.

It has been observed that aristocratic women in the fifteenth century tended to develop networks centred on their female relations. ‘These ties encouraged them to assist one another emotionally and materially throughout their lives and influenced the way in which widows distributed their property. Childless aristocratic widows often had particularly strong bonds with their sisters and nieces and chose them as major beneficiaries of their estates.’¹⁵ The relationship between Eleanor and Elizabeth Talbot seems always to have been a close one. Elizabeth had protected and helped Eleanor, particularly since the death of her first husband. In return, what property Eleanor possessed, or the reversion thereof, now passed to Elizabeth.

As we have already seen, it may be that Eleanor wished and intended Elizabeth to use some or all of this property for religious endowments (as indeed the duchess ultimately did). It can hardly be coincidental that Eleanor’s measures were put in place only weeks before she died. The deed was sealed on Saturday 4 June 1468, the eve of Whit Sunday. Less than four weeks later, on Thursday 30 June, Eleanor was no more.

The deed of gift is dated from Fenny Compton. Was Eleanor herself in Fenny Compton to issue it? As we have seen, her role as a Carmelite oblate might possibly have involved a vow of stabilitas. If so, it would have required her to live in a fixed abode within a reasonable distance of the priory; an abode which she would then not normally have left. Bearing this in mind, are we to contemplate a dying Eleanor (having presumably obtained a dispensation from Prior Richard Water of the Norwich Carmel) setting off on the not inconsiderable journey from Norfolk to Warwickshire and back, just to cede her property to her sister? It seems highly improbable. And what would have happened afterwards? Having deeded Fenny Compton away, Eleanor can hardly be supposed to have continued to reside there (if, indeed, she had ever done so). Her manor of Griff had been surrendered to Lord Sudeley by 1461 at the latest. Her property in Wiltshire was in the hands of a sub-tenant. The only property left to Eleanor where she might have resided for the last three weeks of her life was the manor of Burton Dassett, which she still held in dower.

However, very clear evidence exists to prove that Eleanor did not spend her last days at Burton Dassett. Nor can she have died anywhere in Warwickshire. In cases where the deceased had died in the county in which their inquisition post-mortem was later held, the report to the chancery normally contained the phrase … obiit in comitatu predicto (‘… died in the aforesaid county’). This can be seen, for example, in the inquisition post-mortem of Eleanor’s mother-in-law, Elizabeth Norbury, Lady Sudeley.¹⁶ Eleanor’s Warwickshire inquisition does not contain this phrase, thus clearly implying that Eleanor died outside the county of Warwick. It is far more likely that she was living at Kenninghall in Norfolk and that during the summer of 1468 she never left East Hall.

Eleanor’s deed of gift in favour of her sister is accompanied by letters of attorney.¹⁷ It is therefore probable that neither she nor her sister was in Warwickshire on 4 June 1468, and that their respective attorneys and assigns acted for them. The Duchess of Norfolk was already very busy with other matters at the beginning of June 1468. Exactly two weeks after the date of the deed of gift, she was definitely in London. On Saturday 18 June the king’s sister, Margaret of York, set out from the Royal Wardrobe on her wedding journey to the Low Countries. The princess’s suite of attendants was headed by Elizabeth Talbot, Duchess of Norfolk, ‘a very beautiful English lady’,¹⁸ who took with her a large train of her own.¹⁹ All the preparations for this wedding journey had been in progress since May.

It might be appropriate at this point to consider why Eleanor decided to give Fenny Compton to her sister during her own lifetime, and why she granted Elizabeth the reversion of all her Wiltshire properties at the same time. The answer to these questions is related to the medieval legal position of wives and widows in respect of the making of wills and testaments.

Wills and testaments in the fifteenth century were two quite different things. Wills disposed of real estate, testaments disposed of personal property. Fenny Compton and the Wiltshire estates represented the entirety of Eleanor’s personal land holdings. The only other way in which she could have arranged for their transfer to her sister (or indeed, to anyone else) would have been by making a will.

In Eleanor’s own eyes, however, this may not have been an option open to her. According to medieval law, although a widow was free to make a will, a wife could not do so without the permission of her husband. If Eleanor considered herself married to Edward IV, then she was not free to make a will, and the only way to ensure with absolute certainty that her lands passed to her sister was by a deed of gift executed in her own lifetime.

This is precisely the course that Eleanor took. It is significant that in the matter of the disposal of her estate, Eleanor chose to behave as a wife, rather than as a widow. Her action on this occasion was also entirely consistent with the choice that she had made earlier in respect of her religious commitment. On that occasion too, she had chosen an option that was open to a married woman.

She was, of course, still at liberty to make a testament, arranging for the disposal of her personal property after her death. And although no such document now appears to survive, it is certain that she made one, because her sister, Elizabeth, later described herself as the executrix of Eleanor’s testament:

The Lady Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, sister of the said Eleanor and executrix of the testament of the said Eleanor … has given to us the said Master and fellows or scholars [of Corpus Christi College] two hundred and twenty marcs in good coined money, from the goods of the said Eleanor and Duchess Elizabeth for the upkeep, repair and renewal of the fabric of our houses, messuages and tenements, at the present time in decay.²⁰

Eleanor’s testament would have disposed of her personal jewellery, clothing, silverware and so on. Some of these valuables were apparently turned into money for the benefit of Corpus Christi College Cambridge.

It is highly likely that a further bequest favoured the Norwich Carmel, possibly with the intention of supporting Prior Water’s ambitions to develop the priory’s library, which had been built by his predecessor, Prior John Keninghale, in 1450.²¹ Improving the library of the Norwich Carmel was a project to which Agnes Paston (like Eleanor, a Carmelite tertiary)²² later contributed ‘a charger of silver in value x marke, and iij bollys of silver … to th’entent that a certeyn coost shuld ben doon upon the liberarye of the Friers Carmelites aforesaid’.²³

Curiously, Eleanor’s death – which the king cannot but have greeted with some relief, and which she herself seems to have anticipated, and been prepared for – appears to have been entirely unexpected in other quarters. As we have seen, Eleanor’s sister and executrix, the Duchess of Norfolk, was out of the country at the time, as were all Eleanor’s other close living relatives.²⁴ As a result, the legal processes attendant upon her death were not, in fact, set in motion until two weeks later, when Elizabeth returned to England:

This seventh year [1468], Margaret Sister unto King Edward beforesaid, departed from the King, and rode throughout London behind the Earl of Warwick, and rode that night to Stratford Abbey, and from thence to the sea-side, and went into Flanders to Bruges, where she was married with great solemnity’.²⁵

The Duchess of Norfolk had embarked with Margaret of York at Margate on Thursday 23 June, arriving at Sluis on Saturday 25. On Monday 27 June she was present at the exchange of promises between Charles and Margaret that transformed the English princess into the Duchess of Burgundy, and she was still in Sluis with the new duchess on the last day of June. At that point, at home in England, her sister lay dying.

On Saturday 2 July Elizabeth accompanied Margaret by water to Damme, where the formal marriage ceremony took place, and the following day she was in Margaret’s train for her state entry to Bruges where she witnessed with the princess the pageantry of the tournament of the Golden Tree:

and after the feast done, the same night ther Duke and she rode out of the Town to a Castle called Male, one mile out of Bruges: and when they were both in bed, the Castle was set on fire by treason, so that the Duke and she ’scaped narrowly.²⁶

Not until Wednesday 13 July, almost a fortnight after Eleanor’s death, did Elizabeth and the other English guests finally take their leave of the ducal couple and begin their journey back to England, where the news of Eleanor’s demise was awaiting the duchess.²⁷ What is more, the death of her sister proved to be not the only sad news which Elizabeth had to confront following her return to her homeland:

The Duchess of Norfolk with others returned into England, in whose company were two young gentlemen, that one named John Poyntz, and that other William Alsford, the which were arrested because, in the time of the ’foresaid marriage, they had familiar communication with the Duke of Somerset and his ’complices there, in the which they were both detected of treason: whereupon one Richard Steris (Steers), skinner of London, with those two were beheaded at Tower Hill the 21st day of November.²⁸

This story of the execution of two of the Duchess of Norfolk’s servants is also reported by other contemporary sources, which present a picture of a troubled time in London, with people being executed or deprived of their belongings:

That yere [1468] were meny men a pechyd of treson, bothe of the cytte and of othyr townys. Of the cytte Thomas Goke, knyght and aldyrman, and John Plummer, knyght and aldyrman, but the kyng [p. 237] gave hem bothe pardon. And a man of the Lorde Wenlockys, John Haukyns was hys name, was hangyd at Tyburne and beheddyd for treson.

And Umfray Hayforde, the Scheryffe of London, was a pechyd and loste hys cloke for the same mater; and many moo of the cytte loste moche goode for suche maters.

Ande that same yere the Kyngys suster, my Lady Margerete, was weddyd unto the Duke of Burgon; and she was brught thedyr with many worschypfulle lordys, knyghtys, and squyers. And the Byschoppe of Salysbury [Richard Beauchamp] resayvyd hyr, for he hadde ben in that londe many dayes before. And sum gentylly men that brought hyr there bare hem soo evylle in hyr gydynge, that they loste hyr heddys at London sone after that they come home. One Rychard Skyrys, squyer, Pounyngys, and Alphey, the iij were by heddyd at the Towre Hylle.²⁹

Curiously two sources suggest that the Duchess of Norfolk’s servants, John Poyntz (Pounyngys) and William Alsford (Alphey), were condemned to death, but were not executed.³⁰ However, both of these sources seem very confused in terms of the date of the event, so they may well be inaccurate. Intriguingly, however, one of these two sources specifically links the condemnation of Elizabeth Talbot’s servants with subsequent condemnations and executions in another direction – namely those of Earl Rivers and his son (the Duchess of Norfolk’s youthful step-grandfather-in-law) John Widville:

This yere [1468? 1469?], the thursday after Martilmas day [St Martin’s Day – 11 November – so Thursday 17 November 1468?], Richard Steeres, a seruaunt of the Duke of Excetir, was dampned, and drawyn through the Cite, and behedid at the Tower hill. And vpon the next day [?18 November – but this does not correspond with the date given in the Plumton correspondence – see above, note 28] wer Alford and poynes drawen to Tybourn there to be hanged and quartered, but they were pardoned and lived. And sone after was therle of Oxenford arrested for treason. And on Monday the xxjth [sic for xxjst – 21 November 1468 was a Monday] day of Novembre the merchauntes Esterlinges were condempned to merchaundes Englissh in xiij ml vc. xx li. The same yere [in fact they were executed in August 1469] the lord Ryvers was beheded, and his son sir John Wodevyle wt hym.³¹

It sounds as though the attacks by the king and his court against the servants of the Duchess of Norfolk may have been seen by some people as in a sense corresponding to – and subsequently being countered by – the attacks of the Duke of Clarence (friend and cousin of the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk) and the Earl of Warwick (uncle of the Duchess of Norfolk) against Elizabeth Widville and her family.

Could it therefore be the case that when Elizabeth Talbot returned to England from the Low Countries she was very shocked to discover that her sister had died? Did she suspect that Eleanor had been killed? Did she moreover feel able to guess the identity of the powerful person who may have been behind Eleanor’s death? Did she somewhat incautiously voice her suspicions – and the reasons for them – perhaps to her friend and cousin by marriage the Duke of Clarence and to his father-in-law, her uncle, the Earl of Warwick? In consequence, might Edward IV – and Elizabeth Widville – have felt a strong need to demonstrate to the Duchess of Norfolk that she would be well advised to be extremely careful in respect of what she said and what she did? It is interesting to note, in this context, that on 8 December 1468, Edward IV granted a ‘general pardon to Elizabeth, wife of the king’s kinsman John, Duke of Norfolk, of all offences committed by her before 7 December’.³² The other possible reasons for the grant of this royal pardon would also have been connected with Eleanor’s death (see below, chapter 18).

Eleanor almost certainly died at East Hall, the old manor house at Kenninghall which her sister held in dower. Writing in the sixteenth century, John Leland recalled the following tradition relating to the site of this house, which had by then been demolished by the Howard Dukes of Norfolk, to make way for a larger modern house not far away: ‘There apperith at Keninghaule not far from the Duke of Northfolkes new place a grete mote, withyn the cumpace whereof there was sumtyme a fair place, and there the saying is that there lay a Quene or sum grete lady, and there dyed.’³³ This is probably a reference to Eleanor. Certainly no other explanation of Leland’s story is known.

In her lost testament Eleanor may have specifically requested burial at the Norwich Carmel. At all events, when Elizabeth returned to England that was where she had her sister’s remains taken for interment. Widowed in her first marriage, deceived and then abandoned in her second, Eleanor had ultimately taken on the coverture of religion in place of that of a husband. This choice was reflected in the disposal of her remains. Sixty-six per cent of widows (even those who had remarried) chose to be buried with their first husbands.³⁴ Eleanor (or Elizabeth, on her behalf) chose otherwise. Like other Carmelite lay oblates and patrons of high rank she was buried in the choir of the Carmelite Priory church in Norwich.³⁵

This church stood a little to the north of the cathedral, over the River Wensum across Whitefriars’ Bridge and near the city wall in an area bounded by the river and Cowgate Street (now Whitefriars). Almost nothing now remains of the friary above ground level. There is the archway (see plate 8) of the great west door of the priory church (through which Eleanor’s coffin must have passed), which has been rebuilt in the entrance of the magistrates’ court, just across the river from its original site.³⁶ On the original site itself a so-called ‘undercroft’ and a wall and entrance archway formerly leading to an anchorite’s cell which adjoined the main friary are still in situ. The anchorite’s arch bears a modern plaque (erected by the present writer via the Richard III Society) commemorating Eleanor’s burial at the priory.³⁷

From time to time, during building work on the Whitefriars site, further fragments of the friary have come to light. What became of Eleanor’s tomb is not known, and her body may still lie on the site, under the present constructions. Interestingly, however, a medieval female skeleton was discovered here during building work in 1958. It and what may have been its wooden coffin are now at Norwich Castle Museum. Remains of at least one other body, probably male, were also discovered at this time, together with fragments of painted masonry from a window and pottery sherds, the latter dating from about the fourteenth century.

These remains were found in an area near the surviving wall and archway of the anchorite’s cell, and well to the south of where the friary church is thought to have stood (although there is some doubt about the exact location of the church building). From the very meagre surviving accounts of the excavation it seems that the body now in Norwich Castle Museum was found with a coffin crushed and broken on top of it, lying in a sixteenth-century rubbish dump. This strongly suggests that the burial had been disturbed, and the evidence relating to the status of the dead person corroborates this, since an aristocratic lady (as this proved to be) would originally have been interred within the choir of the priory church.

There is little evidence that tombs were systematically despoiled at the time of the Dissolution. Moreover, it seems that substantial ruins of the Whitefriars church in Norwich may have remained standing until the mid-seventeenth century at least. The west doorway (now re-erected in the Norwich Magistrates’ Court) certainly remained in situ until the late sixteenth century, when it was dismantled by the then owners of the site and incorporated (together with other portions of the priory) in a manor house which they were constructing. When Weever visited the Whitefriars’, in the early seventeenth century, he was still able to find and record Eleanor’s tomb. ‘When Blomefield published his second volume in 1745, the Friars’ Hall and kitchen below, the Chapel of the Holy Cross at the west end, and a part of the cloister were remaining.’³⁸ In fact the priory’s Holy Cross chapel was still standing, and in use for Baptist services, towards the end of the nineteenth century. Demolition in the area of the former choir must have taken place after Weever’s visit, perhaps during the time of the Commonwealth. At that period desecration of a tomb would certainly have been a possibility.³⁹

No detailed study had been made of the body from the Whitefriars’ until, at the request of the present writer, the Director of the Norfolk Museums Service agreed to an examination of the bones by a consultant osteologist, Mr. W.J. White. The aim of this examination was to seek to establish the age at death of the deceased person and other relevant information, in the hope of coming closer to being able to establish the identity of the remains.

Eleanor’s was not the only female body interred in the Whitefriars’ church. Weever, who must have seen the surviving tombs himself, listed twenty aristocratic female interments, including Eleanor’s. Extant wills indicate that several other interments of women (of lower social class) also took place in this church, but Weever makes no mention of these additional burials, and was probably unaware of them. The graves in question may always have been unmarked – or perhaps they had been marked by brasses, which could have been removed and sold as scrap metal before 1630.

The body at the Castle Museum was thought to be that of a laywoman who was a friend and benefactress of the friary, and who, for that reason, was given the privilege of burial within the friary precincts. This was a description which would certainly have fitted Eleanor Talbot. An examination of the remains took place on 29 August 1996. The resultant report, together with other evidence bearing on these remains and their identity, will be discussed in detail in chapter 20.