34. THE PRIORY OF KELDHOLME
The small nunnery of St. Mary of Keldholme
in the parish of Kirkby Moorside was founded
by Robert de Stuteville in the reign of Henry I. (fn. 1)
The founder gave the site on which the house
was built, and the adjacent land, which is almost
entirely surrounded by a curve of the River
Dove, so the nuns are in some of the earlier
deeds spoken of as moniales de Duva instead of
de Keldholm. (fn. 2)
The foundation charter is not extant, but
there are two charters of confirmation, granted
by King John in the second year of his reign,
printed in the Monasticon, (fn. 3) which describe the
foundation gifts with some minuteness of detail.
The nuns of Keldholme never obtained the
grant of any church, their possessions were
always small, and possibly on this account the
priory is omitted from the Taxation of Pope
Nicholas in 1291.
The patronage of the house passed from the
Stutevilles to the Wakes, lords of Liddell, by the
marriage in the early part of the 13th century
of Joan, heiress of Nicholas de Stuteville, to
Hugh Wake. (fn. 4) Edmund de Holand, Earl of
Kent, died seised (11 Henry IV) of two parts of
the advowson of Keldholme, then valued at £2
yearly. (fn. 5)
There is remarkably little known of the history of the house, and almost all that is recorded
of it relates to violent disputes and internal
disorders in the 14th century, which called for
the intervention of the archbishop. A letter
(9 December 1287) from Archbishop Romanus
to the nuns directed them to receive back one
of their members, Maud de Tiverington, who
had apostatized. (fn. 6) On 30 December 1299, the
see being vacant, the Chapter of York addressed
a letter to the prioress and convent on behalf of
another nun, Cristiania de Styvelington, who
instigante diabolo had also apostatized, but having
appeared before the chapter had manifested
repentance, and desired to be allowed to return.
The chapter directed that she was to be readmitted, but was to undergo the salutary
penance prescribed by the rules of the order. (fn. 7)
On 15 July 1301 Archbishop Corbridge
issued a mandate to the sub-prioress and convent
to elect a successor to Emma de Stapelton who
had resigned. (fn. 8) There is no mention of the
election which must then have taken place, but
the prioress then chosen, whose name is not
known, must have died, for Archbishop Greenfield (18 April 1308) (fn. 9) issued a commission to
inquire about the vacancy. If this had been
caused, by a resignation the archbishop would
have known of it, as the resignation had to be
placed in the hands of the archbishop, and accepted
by him. The commissioner was directed to
inquire when the vacancy had occurred, and
how long Keldholme had been without a prioress,
and whether the vacancy had extended for six
months and thus the appointment lapsed to the
archbishop. This was followed on 21 April by
a letter from the archbishop to John de Newerk,
relating that as the election had lapsed, and as
Emma de Ebor', one of the nuns, was reported
to be the most fit for the post of prioress, he
appointed her to that office. (fn. 10)
About the same time an order was sent to the
official of the Archdeacon of Cleveland (fn. 11) directing him to proceed, according to the tenor of a
previous mandate, the contents of which do not
appear, against Beatrix de Roston, Anabilla de
Lokton, and certain other women of the monastery of Keldholme, concerning whom it had
anew come to the archbishop's ears that they,
together with Orphania de Nueton, Isabella
de Langetoft, Mary de Holm, and Joan de
Roseles, nuns of the house, contrary to their
duty, refused obedience to their prioress. (fn. 12) As
six nuns refused obedience and were probably at
least half of the whole convent, it is not a matter
for surprise to learn that Emma de Ebor' resigned
the office of prioress, to which she had only just
been promoted by the archbishop. (fn. 13) On 5
August the archbishop addressed a letter to the
Archdeacon of Cleveland, stating that he had
accepted the cession of Emma de Ebor', and that
as he found no one in the house capable of
assuming rule therein, he had carefully considered
the matter, and had appointed Joan de Pykering (fn. 14) (a nun of Rosedale) who, from the testimony of trustworthy persons, was deemed
competent, to be Prioress of Keldholme. As a
number of persons, whom the archbishop named,
had openly and publicly obstructed the appointment of the new prioress, the archdeacon was
to proceed immediately to Keldholme, and give
her corporal possession, and at the same time
was to admonish the dissentient nuns named,
that they and all others must accept Joan de
Pykering as prioress from the date of her nomination, and reverently obey her. The lay folk
were to cease their opposition, under pain of the
greater excommunication. One of the latter,
who is not mentioned in the letter, Nicholas de
Rippinghall, was dealt with a little later by the
archbishop, who imposed the following penance.
On the second Sunday in Lent he was to go
bareheaded to the cathedral church of York,
clad in a tunic only, holding a taper of a pound
weight and after the procession was to go before
the high altar, and humbly offer the lighted taper
and receive a discipline there from the archbishop's penitentiary. The following Sunday
he was to do the same in Kirkby Moorside
Church and, after the Gospel, offer the taper and
receive a discipline there from the vicar or parish
clerk, and on the next two Sundays he was to
do much the same in the conventual church of
Keldholme. (fn. 15)
On 3 September the archbishop issued a
mandate to the official of Cleveland, stating that
at the visitation of Keldholme he had found the
four nuns, Isabella de Langetoft, Mary de Holm,
Joan de Roseles and Anabilla de Lokton, incorrigible rebels. Within eight days Isabella
was to be sent to Handale, Mary within fifteen
days to Swine, Joan within three weeks to
Nun Appleton, and Anabilla within a month to
Wallingwells, there to perform the penances
imposed upon them. (fn. 16) The stern action of the
archbishop had, however, little effect, and on
1 February following, the archbishop addressed
a letter to the sub-prioress and convent, commanding them that they one and all, without
delay, should direct a letter under their common seal, to the lady Joan Wake, lady of
Liddell, stating that they had admitted Joan
de Pykering unanimously as their prioress, and
intended to obey her in all things as such, and
asking the lady Joan Wake to direct that the
said prioress should have possession of the temporalities and free administration in the same. (fn. 17)
On 5 February the archbishop issued another
commission to correct the crimes and excesses
revealed at a visitation of Keldholme and
described in an annexed schedule, which schedule
has not been copied into the Register. (fn. 18) Very
shortly afterwards (17 February) he directed the
same commissioners to inquire whether Joan
de Pykering desired, for a good reason, of her
own free will to resign, and if they found that
she did, they were to enjoin the sub-prioress and
convent to proceed to the canonical election of
a new prioress. (fn. 19) This was followed by the
election, on 7 March, of Emma de Stapelton as
prioress for the second time, (fn. 20) and on the same
date an order was sent to Keldholme, forbidding
the sale of corrodies, or granting leases of the
convent's property for long periods, and directing,
that each year the accounts of the house were
to be made up within the octave of All Saints. (fn. 21)
On 6 March the archbishop wrote to Esholt, (fn. 22)
ordering the prioress and convent of that house
to receive Emma de Newcastle, nun professed at
Keldholme, who had been found guilty, at the
recent visitation, of conduct contrary to the
honesty of her rule. She was to go to Esholt
for a time, and there perform the penance
assigned her. She was to be last in quire, cloister, refectory and dormitory. A similar letter
was sent at the same time to Nunkeeling (fn. 23)
respecting Maud Bigot, another nun of Keldholme, who was temporarily transferred to that
house, under like conditions.
After this, if silence in the Registers may be
accepted as a sign of improvement, the troubles
which had distracted the little nunnery for a
time, at least, came to an end. On 7 April 1310
the archbishop committed the custody of the
temporalities of the nuns of Keldholme to
Richard del Clay, vicar of Lastingham. (fn. 24) On
Monday after the feast of St. Margaret 1314 the
nunnery was again visited, and the archbishop
issued a number of injunctions to the nuns. (fn. 25) Many
of them are the ordinary exhortations to the due
observance of the rule, which almost assume
a common form in these decrees, but a few had
special reference to the condition of the house.
The necessary repairs were to be carried out,
specially as regarded the roofs, as soon as could
be. Secular finery and singularity of dress was
to be avoided by the nuns, nor were they to
wear anything but such as befitted religion.
No nun or other person belonging to the house
was to take away books, ornaments or other
things belonging to the church, without the
express consent of the prioress and convent.
The prioress was strictly enjoined that puppies
(caniculos) were excluded from entering quire,
cloister, and other places, and nuns who offended
in regard to this were to be punished.
Trouble again manifested itself, and on
27 October 1315 (fn. 26) the archbishop directed
Richard del Clay, the custos of the monastery,
to proceed at once to Keldholme, and summon
before him in chapter Emma de Ebor' (who it
will be remembered had been prioress for a short
time in 1308) and Mary de Holm, who, like
daughters of perdition, were disobedient and
rebels against their prioress. Having read the
archbishop's letter in the mother tongue in
chapter, he was to admonish the two nuns for
the first, second, and third times, that they must
humbly obey their prioress in all lawful and
canonical injunctions, monitions, and commands.
They were not to meddle with any internal or
external business of the house in any way, nor
were they to go outside of the inclosure of the
monastery, or to say anything against their prioress, under pain of expulsion and of the greater
excommunication.
Archbishop Greenfield died on 5 December 1315, (fn. 27) and on 13 February following the
dean and chapter directed the nuns to elect a
new prioress in place of Emma de Stapelton,
who had resigned, oppressed by age. (fn. 28) It is a
curious comment on the vigorous action of the
archbishop only a short time before, to find that
one of the two nuns whom he had so severely
censured was elected as the new prioress. Emma
de Ebor' was now confirmed in office for the
second time on 7 March 1315. (fn. 29) Mary de
Holm, who had been reproved as a disobedient
nun, transgressed more seriously, and on 6 June
1318 (fn. 30) Archbishop Melton wrote to the prioress
and convent directing them to compel Mary de
Holm to undergo the penance enjoined her for
the vice of incontinence committed by her with
Sir William Lyly, chaplain. The new archbishop had previously visited the house, and on
4 May 1317 (fn. 31) had addressed a number of injunctions to the nuns, but they are all couched
in general terms and do not reveal anything in
particular relating to Keldholme.
After this the Registers (fn. 32) tell very little about
Keldholme, arid nothing is known as to its
external history. One of the elections, that of
20 August 1467, (fn. 33) is described rather fully.
There were then eight nuns in the house, viz.
Katherine Anlaby (the late prioress), Elizabeth
Browne, Alice Norton, Agnes Wright, Christiana
Redesdale, Joan Fleshewer, and Margaret
Talbot. They met in chapter, and having sung
Veni Creator Spiritus, delegated the election for
fifteen days to Archbishop Rotherham, who
appointed Elizabeth Davell, at that time Prioress
of Basedale.
The royal commissioners visited Keldholme on
8 June 1535, and the house was suppressed on
5 or 7 August following. (fn. 34) There were then
five nuns besides the prioress, Sir John Potter (fn. 35)
the chaplain, and twelve servants and boys. In the
account of Leonard Beckwith, from Michaelmas
1535 to Michaelmas 1536, a parcel-gilt chalice
and paten weighing together 6 ounces, and
two bells valued at 10s. are accounted for. (fn. 36)
Under 'Surperstitio' Drs. Legh and Layton
reported that there was a piece of the true cross
at Keldholme, and a finger of St. Stephen which
was wont to be offered ' parturientibus.' (fn. 37)
There are no Ministers' Accounts of the
house, and all that is known as to its revenues
about this time is obtained from the Valor
Ecclesiasticus, (fn. 38) where they are set down at
£29 6s. 1d.
Prioresses of Keldholme
Sibil, occurs temp. Henry I (fn. 39)
K—— occurs 1208-9 (fn. 40)
Basilia, occurs November 1208 (fn. 41)
Ellen, c. 1260 (?) (fn. 41a)
Beatrice de Crendale, resigned 1293-4 (fn. 42)
Emma de Stapelton, confirmed 1293-4, (fn. 43)
resigned 1301 (fn. 44)
(Name unknown, elected 1301, (fn. 45) died 1307)
Emma de Ebor, appointed April 1308, (fn. 46) resigned August 1308 (fn. 47)
Joan de Pykering, appointed August 1308, (fn. 48)
resigned March 1308-9 (fn. 49)
Emma de Stapelton (second time), confirmed
1308-9, (fn. 50) resigned 1315-16 (fn. 51)
Emma de Ebor (second time), confirmed
1315-16 (fn. 52)
Margaret de Aslaby, resigned 1406 (fn. 53)
Alice Sandeforth, elected 1406 (fn. 54)
Agnes Wandesforth, died 1461 (fn. 55)
Ellen Wandesforth, (fn. 56) died 1464 (fn. 57)
Katherine Anlaby, resigned 1497 (fn. 58)
Elizabeth Davell, appointed 1497, (fn. 59) died
1534 (fn. 60)
Elizabeth Lyon, elected 1534 (fn. 61) (last prioress)