Calendar of Papal Registers Relating To Great Britain and Ireland: Volume 12, 1458-1471. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1933.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
'Lateran Regesta 660: 1467-1468', in Calendar of Papal Registers Relating To Great Britain and Ireland: Volume 12, 1458-1471, (London, 1933) pp. 597-600. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-papal-registers/brit-ie/vol12/pp597-600 [accessed 24 April 2024]
In this section
Lateran Regesta. Vol. DCLX. (fn. 1)
4 Paul II.
De Prebendis Vacantibus.
| 1467. Prid. Id. Oct. (14 Oct.) St. Mark's, Rome. (f. 81.) |
To the prior of the monastery of St. Mary, Killagh (de Bello loco), in the diocese of Ardfert. Mandate to collate and assign to Robert Fytzmores, scholar, of the diocese of Ardfert, who alleges that he is in his ninth year and desires to be a clerk, if the prior find him fit, and after he has been made a clerk, a canonry of Ardfert and the prebend of Muiyhyr (fn. 2) therein, value not exceeding 2 marks sterling, void by the death of Edmund Stake without the Roman court. (fn. 3) Laudabilia dilecti filii. (Hug. and A. de Cortesiis. | Hug. xxv. Expedita Sexto Kal. Nov. Anno Quarto. Folani, prothon. Bisuntin.) [2 pp. +.] (fn. 4) |
|---|---|
| 1467[–8]. 8 Kal. March. (23 Feb.) St. Mark's, Rome. (f. 91.) |
To the abbot of the monastery de Petra, Kilmacduagh (Duacen.), and the official of Kilmacduagh. Mandate, as below. The pope has been informed by Dermit Omadguaych, canon of Kilmacduagh, that Emundus Oheyn, also a canon of Kilmacduagh, has incurred perjury, has put away the tonsure and clerical dress, and goes about continually in lay costume, frequents a band of perverse and evil men, has been present at a wilful murder by them, and has aided the perpetrators thereof by his presence. (fn. 5) The pope therefore hereby orders the above two, if the said Dermit (who was lately dispensed by papal authority on account of illegitimacy, as the son of a priest and an unmarried woman, to be promoted to all, even holy orders, and hold a benefice even with cure, and who holds a canonry of the said church, lately collated to him by papal authority), will accuse the said Emundus before the said two, to summon Emundus and others concerned, and if they find the foregoing to be true, to deprive and remove Emundus from the said canonry and his prebend of Kylhenayn alias Minarum, and in that event to collate and assign the said prebend, value, with its annexes, not exceeding 8 marks sterling, to the said Dermit. The pope hereby specially dispenses him to receive and retain it, notwithstanding the said defect, etc.Vite etc. (Hug. and N. de Castello. | Hug. xx. Folani, prothon. Bisuntin.) [3½ pp.] |
De Exhibitis.
| 1468. Id. April. (13 April.) St. Mark's, Rome. (f. 296.) |
To the abbot of St. Edmund's, Bury, the abbot of Windeham, and the prior of Yekkesworth, in the diocese of Norwich. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of Edmund Hippeworth, layman, of the diocese of Norwich, executor of the will of the late John Bernham, layman, of the same diocese, contained that although the said John appointed him as his executor, although the said will was proved and registered (insinuatum) by the official of Norwich, in accordance with the custom of the country, although the administration of all the goods left by the said John at the time of his death was committed to the said Edmund, and although he had duly and peacefully administered them for some time, nevertheless, upon William Bernham, layman, of the said diocese, falsely reporting to the said official that the said John had dissipated the said goods and maladministered them, the said official, without reasonable cause, etc., removed him from the said administration, and condemned him in a sum of money to be paid to the said William; that afterwards Thomas Wynterborn, LL.D., auditor of the court of the archbishop of Canterbury, falsely alleging that the said John had at the time of his death possessed goods in divers dioceses of the province of Canterbury, and that therefore the probate of the said will and the disposal of the said goods belonged to the said archbishop, etc., removed the said Edmund from the said administration, committed it to the said William, condemned Edmund in a sum of money to be paid to William, enjoined upon him a public penance, and compelled him by fear of prison and other pains to swear to perform it, subsequently excommunicating him, and causing him to be publicly proclaimed excommunicate. Furthermore, although the will of the late Catherine Bernham, wife of the said John and daughter of the said Edmund, was proved and registered (insinuatum) by the official of the archdeacon of Norwich, according to the custom of the country, nevertheless the said Thomas, falsely alleging that probate of her said will and the administration of her goods belonged to the said archbishop, publicly threatened, at the instance of the said William and of John Barbor, layman, of the same diocese, that he would annul and commit to another the administration of the said goods, which had been committed by the said archdeacon's official to the said Edmund, executor of the will of the said Catherine, wherefore Edmund has appealed to the apostolic see, etc. The pope therefore orders the above three to summon the said William and John Barbor and others concerned, conditionally absolve Edmund from the said sentence of excommunication, and, for the rest, to hear both sides, taking cognizance of the principal matter also, and decide what is just, without appeal, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure. Humilibus supplicum votis. (P. and A. de Cortesiis. | P. xvi. de Varris.) [22/3 pp.] |
|---|---|
| 12 Kal. May. (20 April.) St. Mark's, Rome. (f. 297.) |
To the bishop of Hereford. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of Fulk Sprenhux, (fn. 6) donsel, and Margaret Burley his wife, of the diocese of Hereford, contained that although they contracted marriage per verba legitime de presenti, solemnized it before the church, after the customary banns, and consummated it, living together for some years, Margaret Wynesbury, mulier, of the same diocese, falsely alleging that the said Fulk had previously contracted marriage with her per similia verba de presenti, brought him before Thomas Wynterborn, clerk, LL.D., auditor of the court of Canterbury, to whom the archbishop of Canterbury by his legative authority committed the cause; that after the said Thomas had proceeded, short of a conclusion, the said archbishop, calling up the cause to himself and proceeding in it, promulgated, an unjust definitive sentence in favour of the said Margaret, and against the said husband and wife; and that, although they appealed therefrom to the apostolic see, the said archbishop, on the ground that they did not obey his said sentence, which they were not bound to do, excommunicated them. Seeing that, although they obtained papal letters in the matter of the said appeal, addressed to the bishop of Lichfield, and although in virtue thereof they caused the said Margaret Wynesbury to be summoned in the appeal cause before John, bishop of Lichfield, that bishop has refused to grant them conditional absolution from the said sentence of excommunication, in accordance with the said letters, and, wrongfully proceeding in the cause, has by an unjust sentence declared the said appeal to have been and to be abandoned, (fn. 7) etc., they have appealed from the said bishop to the said see. The pope therefore orders the above bishop of Hereford to summon the said Margaret Wynesbury and others concerned, grant the said husband and wife conditional absolution from the said sentence of excommunication, and, for the rest, to hear both sides and decide what is canonical, without appeal, causing his decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure. Humilibus supplicum votis. (Hug. and M. Amici. | Hug. xvi. Folani, prothonot. Bisunt.) [1¾ pp. See above, p. 463.] |