A HISTORY OF YORKSHIRE 



17. THE PRIORY OF THICKET 



The small nunnery of Thicket, in the parish 

 of VVheldrake near the River Derwent, was 

 founded in the reign of Richard I by Roger 

 Fitz Roger,^ whose gifts were confirmed by King 

 John in 1203-4. 



A commission issued 23 April 1301, to the 

 Prior of EUerton,'' to receive the profession of the 

 Lady Elizabeth de Lasceles, as a regular nun of 

 the house, in the presence of the prioress and con- 

 vent. On 5 February 1302-3 ' the archbishop 

 wrote to the prioress and convent respecting 

 Alice Darel, of Wheldrake, an apostate nun of 

 their house, directing that if she returned to them 

 in a contrite spirit they were to impose upon her 

 the penance provided by their rule, but if she did 

 not willingly undergo it, then they were to place 

 her in some secure chamber, under safe custody. 



On I February 1308-9'' Archbishop Green- 

 field issued injunctions to the prioress and con- 

 vent, as a result of a recent visitation of the 

 house, that the repairs to certain of the buildings 

 which had been found necessary at the last visi- 

 tation were to be immediately carried out. The 

 nuns, and especially the younger of them, were, 

 unless ill, to keep convent and be diligent in 

 attendance at divine services. The archbishop 

 enjoined that in future servants and other seculars 

 should in no wise be allowed to go into the 

 kitchen and sit, and take their meals there as they 

 chose, and so witness the private affairs (secreta) 

 of the nuns. The prioress was to keep convent 

 in church, refectory, dormitory and other due 

 places, unless lawfully hindered, and when she 

 had a meal in her chamber she was to have at 

 table with her one of the nuns, first one and then 

 another. 



Corrodies, annual pensions, long leases of 

 granges, were strictly forbidden, as was the recep- 

 tion of any person as nun, sister or conversus, 

 or the retention of girls over twelve or secular 

 women as boarders, without the archbishop's 

 special licence. 



Another visitation ° was held in 1 31 4, when 

 the archbishop again issued a long decretum con- 

 taining a series of injunctions almost wholly the 

 same as those just recited. The archbishop 

 further directed that no person admitted as a 

 sister was to be allowed to accept or wear the 

 nuns' black veil. 



Four years later,^ in 1 3 1 8, Archbishop Melton 

 visited Thicket and promulgated a decretum con- 

 cerning it, containing a series of injunctions 

 general rather than specific in character. The 



' Dugdale, Mon. Angl. iv, 384 ; Burton, Mon. Ebor. 

 280. 



' York Archiepis. Reg. Corbridge, fol. 24. This 

 is the only allusion hitherto met with in the York 

 Registers relating to the formal professing of a nun. 



' Ibid. fol. 373. * Ibid. Greenfield, i, fol. 94^. 



• Ibid, ii, fol. 1053. * Ibid. Melton, fol. 231. 



house was heavily in debt, and in consequence 

 the prioress and all the nuns were enjoined to use 

 all possible economy. The sick, so far as the 

 means of the house allowed, were to have lighter 

 food substituted for that which they were 

 receiving. 



I'^ 1335^ Elizabeth del Haye was elected 

 prioress, but on account of informality the arch- 

 bishop quashed the election. As, however, all 

 the nuns had voted for her, he appointed her, and 

 directed the rector of VVheldrake to proceed to 

 the priory and install her in office. 



On 26 January 1343-4* Archbishop Zouch 

 wrote to the prioress and convent concerning 

 Joan de Crakenholme, their sister nun, who was 

 coming to them absolved from her crimes of 

 apostasy in frequently leaving the house, laying 

 aside her habit, as well as other excesses which 

 are not stated. For her notorious sins the 

 archbishop had imposed the following, in addi- 

 tion to her private penance. She was not to 

 wear the black veil, or speak to any secular person 

 of either sex, or with her sister nuns, except by 

 leave of the prioress. She was not to go out of the 

 cloister into the church, but was to be confined in a 

 secure place near the church, in such a way, how- 

 ever, that she could be at matins and masses cele- 

 brated in the church, she was to do such things 

 as were burdensome and not of honour, attending 

 nevertheless divine service. She was not to dis- 

 patch any letter, or receive any sent to her. 

 Each Wednesday and Friday she was to have 

 bread, vegetables and light ale, and was to eat and 

 drink on the bare ground, and on each of those 

 days was to receive a discipline from the prioress 

 and each of the nuns in chapter. She was to 

 take the last place Tn quire, and not to enter 

 the chapter except to receive her discipline, and 

 was to retire immediately she had received it. 

 Two nuns were to be appointed by the prioress 

 as her guardians, to see to the execution of the 

 archbishop's orders, and the prioress was to have 

 all carried out as a terror to others. It is one of 

 the most severe punishments visited on any monk 

 or nun recorded in York Registers, but it was not 

 the only one which Archbishop Zouch had to 

 inflict on a nun of Thicket, for he wrote on 

 20 April 1352 'to the prioress, to punish Isabella 

 de Lyndesay, a nun whose faults had been 

 recently revealed at a visitation held by his com- 

 missaries, and the prioress was to report before 

 Pentecost how she had behaved during the per- 

 formance of her penance. 



Archbishop Rotherham issued on 16 October 

 1484 '"' a letter asking for help for the house of 

 the nuns of Thicket, whose fields and pasturage 

 had been inundated by floods, and who had 

 suffered much loss by the death of their cattle. 



'Ibid. fol. 323. 

 "Ibid. fol. 173. 

 "• Ibid. Rotherham, i, 208. 



' Ibid. Zouch, fol. 154^. 



124 



