RELIGIOUS HOUSES 



Cecilia, 1504'" resigned 1504'^ 



Joan Scott,'' confirmed 1504, resigned 



1532" 

 Anne Lutton,'* confirmed 1532 



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.' 

 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? 



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^ 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.* Edmund de Holand, Earl of 

 Kent, died seised (11 Henry IV) of two parts of 

 the advowson of Keldholme, then valued at j^2 

 yearly.' 



There is remarkably little known of the his- 

 tory 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.' 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 re- 



" Dugdale, Mon. Angl. iv, 74. 



" York Archiepis. Reg. Savage, fol. 63. 



bid. 



" Ibid, see fol. 38. 

 " Dugdale, Mon. Angl. iv, 74. 

 ' Dugdale, Mm. Angl. v, 664 ; Burton, Mon. Ebor. 

 380. 



' Burton, Mon. Ebor. 380 n. 

 ' Dugdale, Mon. Angl v, 665. 

 * G.E.C. Complete Peerage, viii, 35, note {b). 

 'Dugdale, Mon. Angl. v, 664. 

 ° York Archiepis. Reg. Romanus, fol. 51. 



admitted, but was to undergo the salutary 

 penance prescribed by the rules of the order.' 



On 15 July 1 30 1 Archbishop Corbridge 

 issued a mandate to the sub-prioress and convent 

 to elect a successor to Emma de Stapelton who 

 had resigned.' 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 Green- 

 field (18 April 1308)' 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.^" 



About the same time an order was sent to the 

 official of the Archdeacon of Cleveland '^ direct- 

 ing 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 monas- 

 tery 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.^^ 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.^' 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 Pyker- 

 ing" (a nun of Rosedale) who, from the tes- 

 timony 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 appoint- 

 ment of the new prioress, the archdeacon was 

 to proceed immediately to Keldholme, and give 

 her corporal possession, and at the same time 



' Ibid. sed. vac. fol. 29. 



^ Ibid. Corbridge, slip inserted between fol. 24 

 and 25. 



'Ibid. Greenfield, fol. 88/5. 



'» Ibid. fol. 89. " Ibid. 



" Ibid. fol. 92. " Ibid. " Ibid. 



167 



