Sir John Vavasour

John Vavasour, known as 'the elder' was born around 1440, probably at Spaldington.  His father was John Vavasour of Hazlewood Castle, who, on his marriage to Isabella de la Haye of Spaldington (c.1431), moved from his ancestral home to settle at Spaldington, presumably inheriting the estate on the death of his father in 1456.

John the elder has been described as the Vavasour family's 'most notable careerist'.  He was certainly one of the richest members of the Spaldington lords, becoming an English judge after studying law at the Inner Temple.

At some point (date as yet unknown) John married Elizabeth Talboys / Tailboys.  Elizabeth was born in 1468 and was the daughter of Sir Robert Tailboys, who was a member of Gloucester's (Richard III's) circle.  The marriage of John and Elizabeth seems to have been an unhappy one, leading to their separation in around 1484.  Could this have been due to conflict caused by John's perceived disloyalty to the late Richard III in his move across to the court of Henry VII, perhaps?

The year after his separation, John was appointed as one of the justices of pleas within the Duchy of Lancaster.  He also became Recorder of York.  In the first year of Henry's reign, the post of recorder was contested by candidates who had been nominated by the king and by the Earl of Northumberland.  The corporation took advantage of this rivalry and made the decision to elect John Vavasour in 1486.  

Like John, many recorders were professional lawyers.  Their role was to ensure adequate, secure lines of communication between towns and cities and the central authorities.  In this way, they were able to push the demands of their own city and, at the same time, respond to the demands of central government.  Their role was particularly important at times of change in dynasty when recorders acted as intermediaries between urban and central government.  Recorders were also sources of news.  They had considerable social status, not only in urban politics, but often on the national scene as well, and the rise of their individual careers took many of them to high places. [1]

John Vavasour ingratiated himself with the king during a royal visit to York in April 1486 and afterwards as the bearer of despatches regarding the complicity of John de la Pole in the Simnel rebellion.  Lambert Simnel was a pretender to the throne of England. In 1487, his claim to be Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick, threatened the newly established reign of Henry VII. Simnel became the figurehead of a Yorkist rebellion.  This rebellion was organised by John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln.   John was knighted following the rebellion and, on 10th April 1489, he was appointed to the commission enquiring into the insurrection.

In mid-July 1487, Henry VII headed north to York.  According to the York House Books, Henry arrived into the city around 4pm on Monday, 30th July 'accompanyed with many lordes and nobles of realme' and riding with his banner at the head of a vast retinue numbering around 10,000 men.  The king was ceremoniously greeted at Saint Thomas Hospitall without Micklegate Bar by the city authorities, including the recorder, John Vavasour, who made the following speech:

"Moste high and mighty Christen prince and our moost drad souverain liege lord, your true and faithfull subgiettes, the mayer, aldermen shereffes and common counsaill, with thool body of this your citie in ther moost humbly wise welcomes your moost noble grace unto the same, yeving due lovinges unto almighty God for the grete fortune, noble trihumpe and victory which it hath pleased his godhead to graunt unto your highnesse in subduying your rebelles and ennymes at this tyme, besuching almighty God to continewe your moost noble grace in the same." [2]

As Recorder of York, John Vavasour's name occurs many times in the York House Books.   According to letters written by him, he had frequent contact with the king and dealt with a huge diversity of issues.  These included, in his first year of office: the cost of maintaining fishgarths in York; disputes between York and St Mary's Abbey; payment of 10s. for services rendered by John's servant in London, Robert Amyas; delivering a letter from Sir John Aske defending John Harrington, who had been accused of being a Scot - in his defence, Sir John Aske claimed that Harrington had been born to a humble family in Eastrington; an affray between York Aldermen; appeals for funds for the repair of the York walls; and issues regarding the Common of Tang Hall. [3]

John served as Recorder of York for four years.  On 24th February 1490 he was promoted to become one of the King's Judges.  William Fairfax became the new Recorder.

On 14th August 1490, John was appointed puisne justice of the Common Pleas.  The Court of Common Pleas, or Common Bench, was a common law court in the English legal system that covered "common pleas" - ie: actions between subject and subject, which did not concern the king.  The Common Pleas sat in Westminster Hall and was staffed by one Chief Justice and a varying number of puisne justices, who were required to be Serjeants-at-Law.

John's will was dated 11th January 1493-4 which was, in fact, over ten years before his death.  Was this to make sure that his by now estranged wife had no claim on his wealth?  He certainly seems to make it clear in his will that she should not inherit any of his estate!  Also, his will appears to add credence to stories that circulated at the time that he was a miserly man.  One such story which seems to refer to John (the clue is in the name of his servant, who is named in his will) relates:

"A rude man who never loved to spend money went on a circuit in the North, having agreed that the sheriff should pay money for his expenses, so at every inn and lodging house that he stayed at he paid the charges himself.  At one lodging place, he instructed his servant, Turpin, to save any food that was left over and to carry it with him to serve at the next stop.  Turpin took the left-over bread, meat and everything else that was left and put it in his master’s cloth sack.  The wife of the house saw what he took, so she went and fetched the soup that was left in the pot and, when Turpin had turned his back, she poured the soup into the cloth sack.  It ran over his scarlet robe and other garments.  Turpin ran to his master and told him what she had done.  Vavasour called the woman and shouted at her, “What have you done?  Why have you poured soup in my cloth sack and ruined my clothes?”  The wife replied, “Oh sir, I know you are a judge of the realm and that you want to do what is right and to have all that is your own, to have everything that you have paid for.  As your servant took the meat and put it in your cloth sack, I have also put the soup that you left in there because you have well and truly paid for it.  If I should keep anything from you that you have paid for, you’d be bound to trouble me in the law another time.”!  

A further tale about John Vavasour occurs in the second of the Shakespeare Jest Books.  "Merry Tales and Quick Answers" was published around 1530, following the earlier "The Hundred Merry Tales" which was published in 1526.  The books contained 'humorous' anecdotes, often at the expense of 'stupid' clergymen, unfaithful wives, and Welshmen, all of whom were the butt of many jokes at the time.  Most of the stories are followed by a comment on what can be learned from the story.

The title of the series apparently comes from a reference in William Shakespeare's play 'Much Ado About Nothing' in which the character Beatrice has been accused 'that I had my good wit out of the 100 Merry Tales' (II.sc.1).  It has been suggested that Shakespeare may have used the books as the inspiration for some of his comedic characters and lines.

It seems fairly certain that the subject of the following story was, indeed, our Sir John Vavasour, especially as it again features John's 'trusty' servant Turpin:

"Of mayster Vavasour and Turpin his man.

Mayster Vauasour, sometyme a iudge of Englande, hadde a seruaunt with hym called Turpin, whiche had done hym seruyce many yeres; wherfore he came vnto his mayster on a tyme, and sayde to hym on this wyse: syr, I haue done you seruice longe; wherfore I pray you gyue me somwhat to helpe me in myn old age. Turpin, quod he, thou sayst trouthe, and hereon I haue thought many a tyme; I wyll tell the, what thou shalt do. Nowe shortly I must ride vp to London; and, if thou wilt beare my costis thether, I wyll surely gyue the suche a thing, that shall be worth to the an hundred pounde. I am contente, quod Turpin. So all the waye as he rode Turpin payd his costis, tyll they came to theyr last lodginge: and there after souper he cam to his mayster and sayde: sir, I haue born your costes hitherto, as ye badde me; nowe, I pray you let me se, what thynge hit is, that shulde be worthe an hundred pounde to me. Dyd I promise the suche a thynge, quod his mayster? ye, forsoth, quod Turpin. Shewe me thy wrytinge, quod maister Vauasour. I haue none, sayde Turpin. Than thou arte lyke to haue nothinge, sayde his maister. And lerne this at me.  Whan sa euer thou makest a bargayne with a man, loke that thou take sure wrytynge, and be well ware howe thou makest a writynge to any man. This poynte hath vayled me an hundred pounde in my dayes: and so hit may the. Whan Turpin sawe there was none other remedy, he helde him selfe contente. On the morowe Turpin taryed a lytelle behynde his mayster to reken with the hostes, where they laye, and of her he borowed so moche money on his maysters skarlet cloke, as drewe to all the costes that they spente by the waye. Mayster Vauasour had nat ryden past ii myle but that it began to rayne; wherfore he calledde for his cloke.—His other seruauntes saide, Turpin was behinde, and had hit with him. So they houedde vnder a tre, tylle Turpin ouer toke them. Whan he was come, Mayster Vauasour all angerly sayde: thou knaue, why comest thou nat aweye with my cloke? Syr, and please you, quod Turpin, I haue layde hit to gage for your costes al the waye. Why, knaue, quod his mayster, diddiste thou nat promyse to beare my charges to London? Dyd I, quod Turpin? ye, quod his mayster, that thou diddest. Let se, shew me your wriytinge therof, quod Turpin; wherto his mayster, I thinke, answered but lytell."  [4]

It does seem strange that a man who seems to have been so well thought of in high places - being granted so many valuable and high status promotions and referred to in various documents as 'the beloved and faithful Lord John Vavasour' - should have been considered a 'figure of fun' or even denigrated by other members of society.  It is impossible to know, 600 years on, whether this provides a true picture of his character.  Maybe such remarks were made by people envious of his status or wealth, or maybe this was a response to his change of alliance from the Yorkists to the Lancastrians?   Or maybe it was merely that he was being blamed personally because of the difficult decisions - made by others - that he had to report during his time as Recorder of York?  We shall never know.

At the beginning of his will John names a variety of places where he would be willing to be buried.  These all depended on the location of his death.  Maybe this was in an effort to save money or just a case of him being practical and trying to make life easier for his Executors?  In the event that he should die at Spaldington, then he wished to be buried at Ellerton Abbey.  At the very least, this confirms that he still visited Spaldington, despite presumably living most of the time in London.

His affinity with Spaldington is also demonstrated in the fact that he directed his executors to make, found and ordain one chantry at Spaldington, to be funded from his land at Newland.  They should put aside £200 for this purpose.  This is equivalent to £195,000 nowadays, which seems a huge amount to pay for a chantry which at most would involve building an extension to the chapel, at least installing a new altar.  As this amount would have paid for 6666 days of skilled labour at this time, this sum is somewhat surprising, even taking into account the annual wage of the chantry priest, which would have amounted to between £4 and £10 per annum, including providing supplies for the chantry.

In the 14th century Henry de Snayth founded a chantry at the altar of St James in the church at Snaith for the benefit of the souls of Edward III, his parents, himself and John de Goldale, a monk of Selby.  In his will (1380) he left £40 to pay for a house for the monks to live in and to cover all their expenses and all expenses of his chantry.  Admittedly, this was over 100 years before the date of John's will, but costs had not changed much over that time.  Incidentally, for comparison, at the time of the dissolution the chantry at Snaith was worth £60 per annum, whereas the value of the whole chapel at Spaldington in 1548 was £4. 13s. 4d, per annum.  So, what was the £200 spent on?  We know that the chantry was subsequently founded by John's nephew and heir, Sir Peter Vavasour - it was licensed in 1510.  Was all the £200 dedicated to this, or might some of it have been used for the building of the 'new' mansion house which was to become the home of the Vavasour family for the next 300 years?

John left £100 to the Prior of Ellerton.  However, he had previously given the Prior money for books and vestments - he directed that the cost of these should be deducted from this sum.  Furthermore, if John was not eventually buried at Ellerton, the Prior should only be given £60.

£200 was given for prayers for John's soul, this amount to be paid as soon as he was buried.  He also directed that a priest should sing for him for 30 years, in whichever place he was buried.  For this he should be paid 8 marks.

If his servant, John Turpin (remember him in the stories above?!) should still be with him at his death, he should be given 5 marks and another £20 should be shared amongst his servants.  This suggests John had at least six or seven other servants, in addition to Turpin.

Most interesting of all is the bequest to his estranged wife, Elizabeth.  John suggests that, if she makes any demands on his will, she should be given 40 marks worth of his lands.  But, if she doesn't make any demands, then she should get no part of his goods, nor of his lands.  He gives his reason as being that she already took £700 from him, presumably when she left the marital home.  It is interesting to compare the tone of Elizabeth's will, written in 1502 (see below).

John's ex-wife, Elizabeth Vavasour, nee Tailboys, died in 1509.  It seems that after John's death in 1506, Elizabeth married her second husband, Sir John Greystock, thus taking the title of Dame Elizabeth Greystock of York.

Elizabeth wrote her will on 14th May 1502 and it was proved on 16th July 1509.  In her will, alongside bequests to family members, she also left money to 'pouer prisoners oute of prison, relevinge of ympotent people, blynde and lame, and in other dedes of mercye and charitie'.   

Elizabeth was buried in her tomb at St Helen's Bishopsgate, London.

Sources:

1. https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/miles-metcalf-or-how-the-city-of-york-defied-henry-vii/

2. York House Books, pgs 587-588, cited in 'Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders' (2022), by Nathen Amin.  Also 'York Civic Records', Vol. II, YAS Record Series, Vol.103, pg.27.

3. YAS Record Series Vol. 98: York civic records, vol i (transcripts of house books) 1475-87.  Transcripts of other issues dealt with by John Vavasour in his role as Recorder of York may be found in:  YAS Record Series Vol. 112: York civic records, vol vi; YAS Record Series Vol. 110: York civic records, vol v; YAS Record Series Vol. 115: York civic records, vol vii; YAS Record Series Vol. 119: York civic records, vol viii; YAS Record Series Vol. 103: York civic records, vol ii  1478-1504

4. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29821/29821-h/29821-h.htm#Page_ii70