A fact from Esquire of the Body appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 November 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This source
{{
cite web}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)Provides a list of EBs from 1660 until 1672. It should be possible for match the names against Wikpedia biographies and add them to the category:Esquires of the Body.
I am not sure what "Esquires of the Body in Ordinary Supernumerary" and "Esquires of the Body in Extraordinary" but I guess those if added should be added to sub categories. I suggest that when a matching biography is found it is added to the line as — name followed by a {{ tick}} when the category is added to the biography. -- PBS ( talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
gives full names in aliphatic order on surname. -- PBS ( talk) 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I have moved the following sentence here for further discussion
I am not sure this is true. From what I see on the net and AFAICT there is not a lot. A Knight of the Body was a body guard. As such a person in that position was closer to a modern day security guard, rather than a man servant and probably did not give the same level of interment access as an Esquire. I think it needs an inline citation for the statement even though it is in the lead because it is not mentioned in the body of the text. -- PBS ( talk) 20:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Further stew for the pot. According to one of the sources in this article by Tudor times Esquires of the body were usually knights and they usually had servants of their own to assist them:
I have also come across another source:
The most important innovation in the administration of the royal chamber in the sixteenth century was the creation of the post of the gentleman of the privy chamber on the French model (gentilhomme de la chambre). This post was created around 1518 by amalgamating the posts for the two earlier officers—the esquire of the household and the knight of the body. These gentlemen of the privy chamber of "gentlemen wayters" (later these gentlemen waiters would belong to the chamber) were require to "diligently attend upon...
Perhaps you would like to read it and give me your thoughts.
-- PBS ( talk) 21:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Aaaargh How on earth did I get here?
I was recently in Broadway, Worcestershire, at the church of St. Eadburgha. Hmm, I foolishly wiki-wondered (having little else to do), who was she? Yawn She was Eadburh of Winchester, kings's daughter, granddaughter of Alfred the Great, and sister to three other kings. TLDR She came to be Abbess of the Nun-a-minster in Winchester. Her remains were taken to Pershore Abbey in 972 where, by the Dissolution, the monks were "droncke as myss" at Matins: now the world knows that there are at least five churches dedicated to her in the area (the disappeared chapels and broken crosses are for the real experts). Wondered about the church bells in the abbey coz my mate used to live in Pershore and my sister used to do the campano-wotsit heave-ho thingy: thus the 'Bells' section.
Which led on to Rudhall of Gloucester, coz I was born in said shire. Rudhall's earliest bell is from 1684. The techniques of Jacob van Eyck and Pieter and François Hemony seem to be involved, Pieter died in 1680. I hadn't realised that Britain was still fighting the Dutch until June 1687, and the Glorious Revolution was in November 1688. I went to school in Reading, but we never about learnt about the Battle of Broad Street in history lessons.
Sooo, I foolishly decided to attempt to update the somewhat brief summary of the Rudhall article. There followed a frenzied hunt (on archive.org) for info on a memorial brass in a Gloucester church to an earlier 16th-century bellfounder. Many, many moons ago I made several brass rubbings myself in Fairford Church of John Tame and others: but Tame's son, Sir Edmund Tame, was reputed to be a Knight of the Body [Eh? Wot?], and his son (also Edmund) was said to be an Esquire of that ilk. But the bibliography needed some work... so, not only Esquire, but Esquire, extraordinary, says Holt on pp. 138-139 of...
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)(Holt is wildly dismissive of almost everything to do with the oft-repeated rural legends about John Tame and Fairford church & its stunning glass: he seems to say says that Tame was only a tenant of some land for his sheep in Fairford, and a mean old bugger to boot who disinherited his oldest son, and who mostly lived and made his money in Cirencester).
So I was just about to make some swift additions here about Knights of the Body: and thought "Hmm, best just have a wee peep at the talk page, coz I done this before, see?"—and here I am. Anyway...
Hi, @ Johnbod: In the work cited above by (I think) @ PBS:,
...at the foot of p. 36 above note 4 there is a ref to a work by Samuel Pegge. Having struggled though the higgledy-piggledy mess that is archive.org (ie let's misname everything, tip it all into a pit and run away), I finally arrived at this:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) (see also
Pts. IV & V)It was written some 80 years after the office died out and there was no-one to be examined viva voce, as the author says. He writes carefully–but with some authority–on a subject that seems to be have been somewhat vague even back then. On p. 14 he says this:
...and goes onto explain how two men of a given rank are worth one of the next highest: I imagine for appearance's sake, to maintain the Order of precedence or whatever flim-flammery royal acolytes and king-whisperers enjoy getting up to...
The whole thing is worth reading. I think that this a useful source, and throws some much-needed light on a suitably recondite subject. I have already formulated some thoughts: what d'you reckon? > MinorProphet ( talk) 02:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
See next section. > MinorProphet ( talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, for the last few days (being still at a loose end) I have been hunting down loads of sources and snippets of info about the Knights of the Body. Their function seems to have varied considerably over the centuries, and there seems to be no single work dealing with this topic at all. My own notes seem to have turned into an article in its own right, so...
NB I have all the refs for the following, but haven't included any here, they're just a bit of drudgery - yay, {{ sfn}} ! This is an attempt at a chronological account of the development of the Knights of the Body. Simon Pegge found a reference to a knight of the body to Richard I, although the term seems to have become more widespread from around the times of Edward III, Richard II or Henry IV.
As far as I can tell, although they shared a similar title to the Squires of the Body, the Knights of the Body were not part of the Royal Household at all and fulfilled an entirely different function. They barely figure in the ordinances or the accounts of the Household, although they did seem to have had their own place in the ceremonial Order of Precedence at state occasions.
Although many Squires of the Body became Knights of the Body, their roles were wholly separate: the Knights of the Body did not constitute part of the pecking order within the royal household - unlike the various levels of Yeomen, Valets, Grooms, Esquires in ordinary, Gentlemen Ushers, etc.
The knights of the body seem to have developed over the centuries from the military Household Knights in the time of kings Edward I-III, who actually went to war with the king and constituted the core of his army. From around 1360 (when Edward III stopped going personally into battle) the Household Knights were swiftly replaced by the King's Knights - there were nearly 150 during Richard II's reign. Many were of considerable local standing and helped to bolster the king's rule in the shires and localities. They were not part of the household: they were attached to the person of the king.
From around 1348 Edward III created a much smaller number of close personal advisors (twelve) called Knights of the Chamber. They were also not part of the royal household. They became more like councillors, special commissioners, or diplomats who facilitated the passing of foreign treaties etc. Richard II and Henry IV had a similar number of chamber knights.
A proper knight bachelor, (miles, pl. milites. lit. 'soldier') and knights banneret had two squires: one to carry the knight's shield (scutifer), and a more senior one to carry his lance (armiger). Unfortunately, the latter term also denotes a person entitled to use a heraldic achievement (i.e, to bear arms). I suspect that the term armigeri pro corpore regis has sometimes led to mis-identification of a certain number of people described as 'Knights of the Body' when they were actually squires.
The Squires of the Body, definitely part of the Household, were at first called scutiferii pro corpore regis in the time of Edward III, and later - I think - armigeri pro corpore regis: these were always and only the most personal servants of the king, actually dressing him in the morning, personally bringing his pottage at mealtimes and putting him to bed in the evening and guarding him during the night. Literally no-one else was allowed to lay hands on the king.
I am still not entirely clear, but it seems that during the 15th century (Henrys IV, V and VI), the Knights of the Chamber (milites camere regis) were superseded by the Knights of the Body (milites pro corpore regis). Like the earlier chamber knights, they were not part of the royal household under the Lord Chamberlain: they were attached to the person of the king, and had much the same functions of personal councillor or diplomat.
There were also Knights of the Shire, who were not necessarily actually knighted but seem to have been landed gentry with a courtesy title. By the time of Henry VII, however, the Knights of the Body were fulfilling much the same function, instilling loyalty to the Crown, and seeing the Crown as ultimate guarantor of justice in the shires: the king was offering a direct and personal connection to important local Gentlemen. The title of Knight of the Body seems to have been awarded along with some other position, eg keeper of a castle or a town (including Lieutenant of Calais until Mary's time...) Henry VIII created a large number of Knights of the Body for just this purpose, who had often been Squires of the Body under Henry VII.
Squire of the Body was not a permanent position, often only held for a few years on the way up the ladder of social and political power. Not every Squire of the Body who was knighted became a Knight of the Body; many were made Knights of the Body without ever having been Squires: and in at least one case Henry VIII appointed a young man aged 21 to be Knight of the Body before he was even created knight bachelor. Many Squires of the Body were knights bachelor in their own right.
The Knights seem to have fulfilled various public functions during state ceremonies of marriages and funerals: when Edward VI was christened, (1537) the font was kept by two Knights and four Esquires of the Body. (Pegge, p. 27)
During the time of Mary and Elizabeth, who necessarily had different personal needs and used other methods of asserting their power, the position of Knight of the Body seems to have fallen into disuse: the last reference I have found is to Sir James Boleyn (or Bullen), of Blickling, Norfolk, who died in 1561. The Knights of the Body seem partly to have transmogrified into the Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber: this is merely yet another courtesy title, since they were often viscounts and earls in their own right.
As I said, I have refs for all the above. Along with Noswall59's useful contributions above and in the current article, I think that Knight of the Body deserves its own article, since although they had a similar title to Esquires of the Body they had entirely different functions. > MinorProphet ( talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. Courtesy ping @ PBS, Johnbod, Lobsterthermidor, and Noswall59:
It's been a while since my last post, but in the intervening four years I have been slowly compiling Draft:Knights for the body. I feel I have discovered most of the reasons why their history is so unclear - it's mostly down to historians of all ages using imprecise terms to translate the original Latin names of the knights which appeared in the Calendars of the Patent Rolls etc. I think I have sorted out almost the entire history of the Knights of (or for) the Body, and who they weren't, and have attempted to distinguish between genuine usage of the term, and fanciful invention. I emailed the author of one of the books I cite, an academic at a UK university, who kindly wrote back with some suggestions, saying he couldn't see any obvious errors.
However, the draft has become more and more bloated and has grown to include a load of secondary material which could easily be transferred to other existing articles. Most of the remaining work to be done is to make proper cites and refs/sfns, and prune where necessary. It badly needs some pics, as well.
It's easy to become discouraged by the task which still remains of turning it into a proper article for mainspace, and I would be grateful if anyone with an hour or two to spare could have a look and make some comments/suggestions, either here or at Draft talk:Knights for the body. Cheers, MinorProphet ( talk) 14:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
A fact from Esquire of the Body appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 November 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This source
{{
cite web}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)Provides a list of EBs from 1660 until 1672. It should be possible for match the names against Wikpedia biographies and add them to the category:Esquires of the Body.
I am not sure what "Esquires of the Body in Ordinary Supernumerary" and "Esquires of the Body in Extraordinary" but I guess those if added should be added to sub categories. I suggest that when a matching biography is found it is added to the line as — name followed by a {{ tick}} when the category is added to the biography. -- PBS ( talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
gives full names in aliphatic order on surname. -- PBS ( talk) 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I have moved the following sentence here for further discussion
I am not sure this is true. From what I see on the net and AFAICT there is not a lot. A Knight of the Body was a body guard. As such a person in that position was closer to a modern day security guard, rather than a man servant and probably did not give the same level of interment access as an Esquire. I think it needs an inline citation for the statement even though it is in the lead because it is not mentioned in the body of the text. -- PBS ( talk) 20:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Further stew for the pot. According to one of the sources in this article by Tudor times Esquires of the body were usually knights and they usually had servants of their own to assist them:
I have also come across another source:
The most important innovation in the administration of the royal chamber in the sixteenth century was the creation of the post of the gentleman of the privy chamber on the French model (gentilhomme de la chambre). This post was created around 1518 by amalgamating the posts for the two earlier officers—the esquire of the household and the knight of the body. These gentlemen of the privy chamber of "gentlemen wayters" (later these gentlemen waiters would belong to the chamber) were require to "diligently attend upon...
Perhaps you would like to read it and give me your thoughts.
-- PBS ( talk) 21:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Aaaargh How on earth did I get here?
I was recently in Broadway, Worcestershire, at the church of St. Eadburgha. Hmm, I foolishly wiki-wondered (having little else to do), who was she? Yawn She was Eadburh of Winchester, kings's daughter, granddaughter of Alfred the Great, and sister to three other kings. TLDR She came to be Abbess of the Nun-a-minster in Winchester. Her remains were taken to Pershore Abbey in 972 where, by the Dissolution, the monks were "droncke as myss" at Matins: now the world knows that there are at least five churches dedicated to her in the area (the disappeared chapels and broken crosses are for the real experts). Wondered about the church bells in the abbey coz my mate used to live in Pershore and my sister used to do the campano-wotsit heave-ho thingy: thus the 'Bells' section.
Which led on to Rudhall of Gloucester, coz I was born in said shire. Rudhall's earliest bell is from 1684. The techniques of Jacob van Eyck and Pieter and François Hemony seem to be involved, Pieter died in 1680. I hadn't realised that Britain was still fighting the Dutch until June 1687, and the Glorious Revolution was in November 1688. I went to school in Reading, but we never about learnt about the Battle of Broad Street in history lessons.
Sooo, I foolishly decided to attempt to update the somewhat brief summary of the Rudhall article. There followed a frenzied hunt (on archive.org) for info on a memorial brass in a Gloucester church to an earlier 16th-century bellfounder. Many, many moons ago I made several brass rubbings myself in Fairford Church of John Tame and others: but Tame's son, Sir Edmund Tame, was reputed to be a Knight of the Body [Eh? Wot?], and his son (also Edmund) was said to be an Esquire of that ilk. But the bibliography needed some work... so, not only Esquire, but Esquire, extraordinary, says Holt on pp. 138-139 of...
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)(Holt is wildly dismissive of almost everything to do with the oft-repeated rural legends about John Tame and Fairford church & its stunning glass: he seems to say says that Tame was only a tenant of some land for his sheep in Fairford, and a mean old bugger to boot who disinherited his oldest son, and who mostly lived and made his money in Cirencester).
So I was just about to make some swift additions here about Knights of the Body: and thought "Hmm, best just have a wee peep at the talk page, coz I done this before, see?"—and here I am. Anyway...
Hi, @ Johnbod: In the work cited above by (I think) @ PBS:,
...at the foot of p. 36 above note 4 there is a ref to a work by Samuel Pegge. Having struggled though the higgledy-piggledy mess that is archive.org (ie let's misname everything, tip it all into a pit and run away), I finally arrived at this:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) (see also
Pts. IV & V)It was written some 80 years after the office died out and there was no-one to be examined viva voce, as the author says. He writes carefully–but with some authority–on a subject that seems to be have been somewhat vague even back then. On p. 14 he says this:
...and goes onto explain how two men of a given rank are worth one of the next highest: I imagine for appearance's sake, to maintain the Order of precedence or whatever flim-flammery royal acolytes and king-whisperers enjoy getting up to...
The whole thing is worth reading. I think that this a useful source, and throws some much-needed light on a suitably recondite subject. I have already formulated some thoughts: what d'you reckon? > MinorProphet ( talk) 02:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
See next section. > MinorProphet ( talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, for the last few days (being still at a loose end) I have been hunting down loads of sources and snippets of info about the Knights of the Body. Their function seems to have varied considerably over the centuries, and there seems to be no single work dealing with this topic at all. My own notes seem to have turned into an article in its own right, so...
NB I have all the refs for the following, but haven't included any here, they're just a bit of drudgery - yay, {{ sfn}} ! This is an attempt at a chronological account of the development of the Knights of the Body. Simon Pegge found a reference to a knight of the body to Richard I, although the term seems to have become more widespread from around the times of Edward III, Richard II or Henry IV.
As far as I can tell, although they shared a similar title to the Squires of the Body, the Knights of the Body were not part of the Royal Household at all and fulfilled an entirely different function. They barely figure in the ordinances or the accounts of the Household, although they did seem to have had their own place in the ceremonial Order of Precedence at state occasions.
Although many Squires of the Body became Knights of the Body, their roles were wholly separate: the Knights of the Body did not constitute part of the pecking order within the royal household - unlike the various levels of Yeomen, Valets, Grooms, Esquires in ordinary, Gentlemen Ushers, etc.
The knights of the body seem to have developed over the centuries from the military Household Knights in the time of kings Edward I-III, who actually went to war with the king and constituted the core of his army. From around 1360 (when Edward III stopped going personally into battle) the Household Knights were swiftly replaced by the King's Knights - there were nearly 150 during Richard II's reign. Many were of considerable local standing and helped to bolster the king's rule in the shires and localities. They were not part of the household: they were attached to the person of the king.
From around 1348 Edward III created a much smaller number of close personal advisors (twelve) called Knights of the Chamber. They were also not part of the royal household. They became more like councillors, special commissioners, or diplomats who facilitated the passing of foreign treaties etc. Richard II and Henry IV had a similar number of chamber knights.
A proper knight bachelor, (miles, pl. milites. lit. 'soldier') and knights banneret had two squires: one to carry the knight's shield (scutifer), and a more senior one to carry his lance (armiger). Unfortunately, the latter term also denotes a person entitled to use a heraldic achievement (i.e, to bear arms). I suspect that the term armigeri pro corpore regis has sometimes led to mis-identification of a certain number of people described as 'Knights of the Body' when they were actually squires.
The Squires of the Body, definitely part of the Household, were at first called scutiferii pro corpore regis in the time of Edward III, and later - I think - armigeri pro corpore regis: these were always and only the most personal servants of the king, actually dressing him in the morning, personally bringing his pottage at mealtimes and putting him to bed in the evening and guarding him during the night. Literally no-one else was allowed to lay hands on the king.
I am still not entirely clear, but it seems that during the 15th century (Henrys IV, V and VI), the Knights of the Chamber (milites camere regis) were superseded by the Knights of the Body (milites pro corpore regis). Like the earlier chamber knights, they were not part of the royal household under the Lord Chamberlain: they were attached to the person of the king, and had much the same functions of personal councillor or diplomat.
There were also Knights of the Shire, who were not necessarily actually knighted but seem to have been landed gentry with a courtesy title. By the time of Henry VII, however, the Knights of the Body were fulfilling much the same function, instilling loyalty to the Crown, and seeing the Crown as ultimate guarantor of justice in the shires: the king was offering a direct and personal connection to important local Gentlemen. The title of Knight of the Body seems to have been awarded along with some other position, eg keeper of a castle or a town (including Lieutenant of Calais until Mary's time...) Henry VIII created a large number of Knights of the Body for just this purpose, who had often been Squires of the Body under Henry VII.
Squire of the Body was not a permanent position, often only held for a few years on the way up the ladder of social and political power. Not every Squire of the Body who was knighted became a Knight of the Body; many were made Knights of the Body without ever having been Squires: and in at least one case Henry VIII appointed a young man aged 21 to be Knight of the Body before he was even created knight bachelor. Many Squires of the Body were knights bachelor in their own right.
The Knights seem to have fulfilled various public functions during state ceremonies of marriages and funerals: when Edward VI was christened, (1537) the font was kept by two Knights and four Esquires of the Body. (Pegge, p. 27)
During the time of Mary and Elizabeth, who necessarily had different personal needs and used other methods of asserting their power, the position of Knight of the Body seems to have fallen into disuse: the last reference I have found is to Sir James Boleyn (or Bullen), of Blickling, Norfolk, who died in 1561. The Knights of the Body seem partly to have transmogrified into the Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber: this is merely yet another courtesy title, since they were often viscounts and earls in their own right.
As I said, I have refs for all the above. Along with Noswall59's useful contributions above and in the current article, I think that Knight of the Body deserves its own article, since although they had a similar title to Esquires of the Body they had entirely different functions. > MinorProphet ( talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. Courtesy ping @ PBS, Johnbod, Lobsterthermidor, and Noswall59:
It's been a while since my last post, but in the intervening four years I have been slowly compiling Draft:Knights for the body. I feel I have discovered most of the reasons why their history is so unclear - it's mostly down to historians of all ages using imprecise terms to translate the original Latin names of the knights which appeared in the Calendars of the Patent Rolls etc. I think I have sorted out almost the entire history of the Knights of (or for) the Body, and who they weren't, and have attempted to distinguish between genuine usage of the term, and fanciful invention. I emailed the author of one of the books I cite, an academic at a UK university, who kindly wrote back with some suggestions, saying he couldn't see any obvious errors.
However, the draft has become more and more bloated and has grown to include a load of secondary material which could easily be transferred to other existing articles. Most of the remaining work to be done is to make proper cites and refs/sfns, and prune where necessary. It badly needs some pics, as well.
It's easy to become discouraged by the task which still remains of turning it into a proper article for mainspace, and I would be grateful if anyone with an hour or two to spare could have a look and make some comments/suggestions, either here or at Draft talk:Knights for the body. Cheers, MinorProphet ( talk) 14:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)