Section 2: For Businesses Only: Fill & Download for Free

I start with the medieval messenger and am grateful to Drs Margret Connolly and Rory Cox at St Andrews University for the descriptions belowPart One. Medieval messengers, nuncii and nuncio, carier, cursor and couriermessengers could be any of a fully privileged messenger, serving the king, a courier working on foot, a non-royal messenger, serving a prestigious lord, a common messenger working for a town or council, an agent on behalf of a religious house, or maybe an ad hoc messenger, paid to carry out a special taskbut whichever, in the medieval period they served two purposes:as a bearer of messages, either written or oral, andas an agent of certain people or institutions, carrying out a rage of special assignments that involved communication or travel, including conveying goods and chattelsBetween the reigns of Henry III and Henry VI, most documentation about messengers refers to the nuncii regis, or those messengers with a licence from the King, but in the literature of the time, and in some letters, we do see other messenger types (in terms of whom they served and social class), also referencedThe key difference between nuncii regis and heralds was in terms of both reponsibilities and status, and so I cover both of these below, also.Nuncii regis formed part of the King’s household, they were responsible at different times to the Master of the Horse or the Secretary of State (and by Tudor times formed part of the emerging spy network under Cecil then Buckingham). Most would supplement their income by doing ad hoc jobs, even tout for business from wealthy land owners and lordsMessengers are a separable section in the king's household as well as in his governance, likewise for wealthy noble families [Ancient Petitions (1300–1350), Parliament Rolls (1215–1460), Ordinances and regulations of the de Vere household (earls of Oxford) (1378–1513), the Red and the Black Books of the Exchequer, and the Paston letters]In a letter written on 7 August 1465, John Paston mentioned to his cousin Margaret Paston how letters were brought to him and sent away.'The berer of this lettir', he said, was a 'comon carier'. A few days before, this messenger was in Norwich, where a letter for John Paston was committed to himIn another letter, this time sent to his patron, John de Vere, earl of Oxford, he bids the earl send messages by “he can be trysted” and “hath been used afore” in the run up to Margaret of Anjou’s invasion. While John de Vere was held in prison in Hammes castle, we then have messages and letters sent to his wife,Margret, by “trysted carier”. These are among rare examples that show that the wealthy, at least, could commission messengers, in the days before a national postal service, and at a time when the minority were literateBy the fourteenth century, London had a number of common messengers in its service. Yet no record has ever specified the financial structure of their payments: it is not known if those common messengers were paid in part by the City of London Council, if the acted as part of a Guild, or if they were completely independent of any institution; a mixed economy of all three may also have been possible.In the main, they divided at this time between those employed by households and those commissioned ad hoc; the latter would visit the main Inns, and the larger households in London or Norwich, and probably other cities at the time, touting for workA letter issued in August 1315 reveals that certain people might come to larger households to volunteer themselves as ad hoc messengers, open to do any task as a paid agent, and augmenting any profits they made from being a professional or employed messenger [Norman Davis, ed., Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, 2 vols, EETS s.s. 20 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), I, pp. 139, 148.John Hare, 'Inns, innkeepers and the society of later medieval England, 1350–1600', Journal of Medieval History, 4 (2013), pp 477-97Hill, King's Messengers, p. 151]We thus see a distinction between messengers:employed as part of households, only the very wealthy and the King had such, and Henry VII would fine any noble whom placed their messengers in livery, as we see with the 13th earl of Oxford in 1487. It appears, that except for a brief period from 1450–1485, the King’s household maintained a monopoly over liveried messengers, something important when we come to look at heraldsthose whom worked as messengers as a profession and could be contracted for regular or ad hoc assignments, and or could be found as a member of an extended householdand those whom took on the occasional job to supplement income from other professions or sourcesWe also find evidence of messengers attached to Abbeys, Monasteries and to Guilds, but whether this was where they would go to seek work or in fact they were employed as part of the lay household of each is unclear. The fact they worked for Guilds disguises whether they operated a Guild themselves, again a difference when we come to look at heraldsBy writ in 1315, and as a reaction to the wealthy seeking to reduce the hawking at their households, which were becoming increasingly burdened by a congestion of the impoverished, petitioners, retainers and then others seeking or touting for work, we read:messengers and couriers were not allowed to enter the house 'unless they carry their lord's mail or bear a message to the lord of the house'. [Crown Rolls of 1313–1318, p305]That is to say, normal delivery could be carried out, but no one should actively seek to make a delivery or tout for the business of so doing.This meant that unless a lord or lady had a messenger or courier employed in their household, that they must either have a means of summonsing a messenger they had used before, or must find a courier. The latter involved them finding professional messengers at Inns and began the process of Inns becoming also “posting houses” ie places where a message or other mail could be commissioned to be sent.But it is clear from all the records, that Kings messengers had a near monopoly on postal services for most of the medieval period, and, as such, the King therefore had a firm control over communication, and could control potential sedition through this.Messengers then are found in the fifth, fourth and third estate of the royal household (note: by this we refer to Mary Hill’s definition of the status within the royal household from nobles and knights, to esquires and secretaries, to sergeants, yeomen and servants or garcon (grooms). Heralds are only found in the first estate, their their poursuivants often also being from that estate, while having the service of esquires from the second estate)Messengers were then further divided betweennuncius, on horse andcursor, on foot, the origin of courierIn 1360, we find a drawing in the Exchequer book of a nuncius and a cursor, both in livery, both with letter pouches, in France also known as nuncius and a poursuivant. The livery and pouch were provided out of the King’s exchequer, but the horse had to be provided by the messenger, hence many messengers went on foot until they could afford a horseA regular duty of king's messengers was to deliver king's writs to localities, bringing orders and instructions, also revisions in laws, to the hands of sheriffs, justices and bailiffs. Bishops and noblemen were also in frequent touch with the king via the King’s messengers, but prestigious lords and great households usually had their own private messengers in employ, such as the de Vere household that had six messengers permanently employed and liveried (1380–1487) until John de Vere was fined for so doing.Writ of summons to parliament were conveyed in person by King’s messengersOverseas delivery was also made. Sometimes, the messenger working abroad might be assigned a secret task of spying, and this became routine under Cecil then Buckingham. As messengers came to be regarded as spies, foreign dignitaries would bring their own trusted messengers; this also saw important and secret messages entrusted to “secretaries”, carriers of secrets, such as Overbury, usually knights of the realm, but also, as we reach the 15th C, we see this task begin to fall to heralds.King's messengers were usually selected from three sources and this differs from medieval heralds, whom bore arms in their own right and so were selected from the knight or noble class, as Rene d’Anjou then says in his Treatise of 1460, “for their knowledge of the conduct of war, the organisation of tourneys, and the scrutiny of licence to bear arms”.Professional messengers were granted office and thus appointed; ad hoc might have no grant or licence.The first and best way was to grant the office to an experienced messenger who had been working in another noble household or a prestigious religious establishment, where he had received the necessary training and demonstrated his capability and integrity for the post, and whom came with character references. The second way was to choose from the servants or serjeants (or their families), serving the royal household in other posts. The third way was to promote a courier or cursor, who was already serving the messenger system, but as a lesser messenger.As such we see three career paths evolving: from ad hoc for a noble or wealthy family to becoming employed, granted licence and liveried by them, to progress to a King messengers; also progress within the King’s household from a lesser role as sergeant or servant to messenger, and, depending on affordability, to either cursor or nuncius; finally, and as a messenger both demonstrates loyalty but also when he (or she) can afford a horse, progress by promotion from cursor to nunciusRichard Savage began to work as a messenger of the Exchequer in 1445, before that he had served the household as a groom or garcon, of the buttery. He was paid more and also of higher status, including being liveried as a messenger, moreover as a messenger he could now take on ad hoc assignments to increase his income further.William Brancepath, courier of the chamber (cursor), was appointed as messenger of the chamber (nuncius) by grant of office in April 1387It was not always a promotion: Papenham moved from Usher (unpaid but of high status) to Kings messenger (paid but of yeoman status), while Ferrour was promised an appointment as one of the “yeoman messengers”, indicating their status was that of yeomen, or considered such. Gower Thomas, messenger of Anne of Bohemia, was then further promoted to be purveyor of the Tower of London, yet Ferrour, also a purveyor, was offered the role of messenger as a promotion.It appears that the status of messenger, in relation to other roles in the household, such as garcon, purveyor and usher, was not entirely clear cut, and that whom you worked for had as much to do with status and standing, as your role eg Thomas’ was a promotion because he was moving from Anne of Bohemia’s household to the King of England’s.These are, again, very different from the progress or career path for heralds, not least the clear difference in status.Messengers, in general, appear to have been paid at between the rate of yeomen and sergeants in the royal household. This position is confused however in that they were also paid on a retainer basis that was then supplemented for specific tasks and expenses. The retainer for messengers was about the rate paid to squires of the royal household, but an assignment could attract 50x that rate and be equivalent to the pay of heralds, such as the write issued for the Good parliament, sent by three messengers, each paid £1We see this vary in different reigns. During Edward I’s reign, the daily rate paid rose from 1d to 3d, or from that of servants to that of yeomen, Edward III and Richard II paid 4 1/2 d per day (from 1347, 6d per day in time of war), also the rate for yeoman and squires. Edward IV changed the rate again: 3d per day as a retainer when at Court, but 5d per day (“as other yomen of household”) when away on the business of carrying a message. In addition, their allowance for their livery and pouch was 13s 8d per year and 4s 8d for shoes per year. In 1347, messengers received the same allowance for livery and shoes as yeomen, and so it is fair to pitch their status at that level, known also as the fourth estate. Heralds were exclusively drawn from the first and second estate of knights and nobili, having the right to bear arms.Although paid the same as esquires, and many sergeants, their status was clearly below that of most sergeants and esquires, but this could change if loyalty or reliability was shown, with a “trysted carier”, having higher status than sergeants and a few, rare, examples of them being knighted, or being promoted to secretaries.We then have various different spelling of or terms for messengers that confuses: 'messengers', 'messingers', 'messagers', 'messeagers’, ‘cursors’, ‘nuncii’, ‘nuncius’, ‘nuncio’, ‘cokili’, ‘carier’ , ‘poursuivant’ and ‘courier’ with the writs and ordinances, also the household accounts, tending only to refer to nuncius or messengers, rather than cursors or couriers. It is likely that a cursor had the status of a servant, or of the fifth estate, rather than a yeoman, with pay to match at between 1d and 2d per day, and generally at one half to two fifths of a nuncius’ pay.In Edward IV’s household we see evidence of the economic crisis we know occurred in his reign: his royal messengers are reduced from 12 to 4 (by reducing the volume of private messages, prieue seale, from his daughters!)The status of messengers also was determined by where they stood in the household, in terms of how intimate was their role with the royal presence. The cursores and nuncii of the chamber and Privy Council, being closest to the King and his secret council, held the highest status, and were rewarded accordingly. Those of the exchequer or chancery or attached to the counting houses or courts of law or working to the secretary of state were of a lower status, that is until the time of Burghley and Cecil saw the role of secretary of state assume huge status and influence.We do then see three examples of messengers appointed as “sergeant-messengers” or as the “King’s sergeant and yeoman messenger”: Rypton, Robert de Wyrksop and John de WatsonControl of the king’s messengers at court was key to controlling what information came across the King’s desk, and we see, as this became recognised, that the control of the King’s secrets became the means by which Cecil then Buckingham came into power, rewarding those messengers loyal to them with the title of secretaries and with knighthoods. Just one example of such withholding of such information was when Henry Howard, as secretary of state, withheld the message set to inform James I that the assassin of his son, Henry Prince of Wales, had been discovered. Howard supported Spain (and Prince Charles’ proposed marriage to the Spanish Infanta) and did not wish for Spain to be implicated in the death of the prince, so withheld the letter. Buckingham’s assumption of the role of secretary of state then gave him control of all information into and out of both James I’s court and the early part of Charles I’s reign, as well as control of Burghley’s, Cecil’s and Howard’s network of spies.Messengers could then be promoted to sergeant at arms and even to esquire, as with Brancepath, see above, or knights as with Overbury, and still act as messengersSergeant at arms, paid three times as much as messengers, sat in the second and third estate of the royal household, yet could also be used as messengers: Simon Blakebourne, serjeant-at-arms, was sent out on a journey in 1403 'as the king's messenger on certain business of the kingThe title king’s messengers was also used in the old records to denote those carrying an important embassy from the King, thus: in September 1346, a group of 'messages nostre dit seignur le roi' (i.e. kings messengers of Edward III) came to the Parliament from Calais to announce the king's actions and intentions. The messengers in this group, included Sir Bartholomew Burghersh, Sir John Darcy, king's chamberlain, and Master John Thoresby, Lord Privy SealIn 1360, 1372 and 1373, we see the King establish by writ a network of posting houses, where messengers could obtain fresh horses, such that, even in times of war or invasion, fresh horses were to be made available to the king’s messengers at all timesJohn Faukes journey from Dover to London in a single day in 1343, suggests that relays existed earlierEdward IV and Richard III then established a country wide network of messengers: in 1482 Edward IV appointed 'a single horseman (nuncius) for every twenty miles, by means of whom travelling with the utmost speed and not passing their respective limits', and therefore letters could be delivered 'from hand to hand 200 miles within two days'.This still did not compete with the mercantile system of nuncio in Italy nor that of the Monghul (jamchi and chidebeo). A network of kings messengers and postal services, 'comparable in efficiency and reliability with those of Italy or the Habsburg empire', had to wait until the reign of Henry VIII.We then see regulation and restriction of foreign messengers and their capture in the reigns of both Edward II and Edward IV, in all likelihood in all reigns of the period. Thus, the livery of and licence of grant of messengers became important, such that messengers could identify themselves as loyal to the king, or face capture in times of war and sedition. Edward II, for example, placed restrictions on all letters sent by his wife to and from France, when suspecting her of treachery. Edward Iv intercepted messages from Margaret of Anjou to the Neville family, in the aftermath of Tewkesbury, attempting a further uprising.Equally we see examples of letters carefully written, expecting capture or interception, such as Margeret of Oxfords coded letter to her husband, or several of John Pastons letters, written clearly knowing they would be intercepted.We then learn from several cases in the Court of Pleas or the Pleas Rolls for various counties, that payment was only made on delivery, and thus have cases where widows seek payment where their husbands have been slain in the course of making delivery, and the first establishment of the right for compensation to a widow for death in service, concerns a messenger, murdered on the way to deliver letters in 1228.In 1318, we have the first recorded example of different messengers being sent by different routes but carrying the same messageMessengers and couriers when appointed to serve the royal or the papal household took an oath to guarantee their fidelity, while the practice of sealing letters was also an effective way to confirm the integrity of letters. Nonetheless, messages were intercepted, and the forging of seals became commonplace, but was also a hang-able offence. Turberville, a French spy in the time of Edward I, was hung when his private messenger took a letter of his to the King, the messenger did not trust his master but also could not break open the seal, unless the King permitted. The letter confirmed Turberville’s treachery. In his trial, the messenger was commended by the Crown, although guilty of the breach of his oath, and his fiduciary duty to his employer. In other instances,we have the messenger meet the same fate as his master or mistress, if carrying a message that is seditious or treasonous. Thus, messengers had a duty of integrity and to maintain the confidentiality of their message but also not to carry a message that in any way denigrated or threatened the peace of the realm or the person of the monarch (without opening a message, they had somehow to understand its message)We then learn in the time of Chaucer, that messengers were often felt more reliable when carrying a verbal message than to commit a message on paper, in part due to the rules of admissability of evidence if the message were intercepted. We also see emblems or symbols sent, with a prearranged meaning, again to avoid a written message being intercepted.Messengers then were fined for the non delivery of a message. In 1329, a messenger was fined £4 for failing to deliver a message on time. The messenger further pledged a further £40 over his lifetime to the community. Stories of failed messengers are also found in chronicles. The Chronicon de Lanercost tells the story of a Welsh courier called Lewyn, who lost his money for travel in a tavern and decided to hand Edward I's letter over to the Scots. The traitor was hungHowever, from the reigns of Henry III to Henry VI we have only one record of failure by a king’s messenger; Robert le Messager of Newenton, record found in the Treasury Rolls of Edward II. In this case a private conversation with a neighbour about a message sent in the run up to Bannockburn was overheard, reported, and led to Robert’s trial in 1315 for breach of trust. He was saved fro punishment by the intervention of Queen Isabella, for whom he then acted as messenger from 1318.Most messengers saw the role as an appointment for life, but the granting of a licence of appointment for life was not formalised until the reign of Richard II eg Maynard’s appointment in 1382. By the 15th C, letters patent of appointment of nuncii regius were for lifeIn addition to being well-paid, copared to the household average or the average for the royal household, messengers could expect bonuses (one recorded being as much as £1) and also gifts for New Year, as most household servants did. New Year gifts were usually in the form of clothing or accessories, worth around 5s, and sometimes money of the same value. Hill mentions a rare example in the lesser royal household of Edward the Black Prince of John Dagonet, a favourite messenger, receiving: 'a grey sumpter horse' in 1349, and later in 1355 an ‘extravagant and exceptional gift of a silver-gilt box enamelled with the ribbon'Some messengers also received gifts of land, houses and forfeited properties, became the owners of posting houses and Inns, often naming them after the badge of their master. William de Ofton was made porter, gate keeper, of the caste in Newcastle then became custodian of its prison, following year, as a reward for being a king’s messenger (1336). Similar wards included: ‘keeping or guarding the king's parks, forests, castles, and lands of his lesser tenants-in-chief, as parkers, foresters, warreners, keepers of manors or bailiwicks, constables, porters and receivers'This was most common in the reigns of Henry III, Edward III and Richard II, extremely rare in the reigns of Edward I and II (just two cases, Stafford and Rideware in the reign of Edward II)Another form of reward was the forfeited goods from the capture of outlaws, Gower for example sharing £20 forfeited in the reign of Richard II)Walter Becles, a messenger of Queen Anne, received in 1391 ‘an escheat of a messuage in Farnham, worth 6s 8d per annum’ and then when the queen passed away, he was granted an annuity of 5 marks 'from the issues of the manor of Haveryng' for his past good service. Then, when he came to be a king's messenger system, he was appointed bailiff of West Smithfield in London.After Richard II, we see this change once more.Henry IV to VI, do not reward messengers with additional titles or responsibilities (sinecures) and even reduce their number from 12 to 4 then back to 6, while we have already seen that Edward IV was forced to economise on messengers, in part to cut out the chatter of the female members of his household. However Henry V and VI both did reward loyal messengers of their nobility such as Hatfield in 1432, granted a house in Sandwich and then made verger of Sandwich castle, with all ‘wages, fees and profits’ from house and castle.We then see three instances of messengers rewarded with the gift of a new horse, when bringing the news of a child successfully born to their master, suggesting that the bearers of good news would often be rewarded.Messengers then received sinecures or pensions, on retirement or when ‘enfeebled’ and so no longer active. The first was by grant from the King or their noble or wealthy master, the second drawn from the Exchequer or the Warderobe. Sheriffs and bailiffs also managed the pensions of common messengers, while Abbeys and Monasteries would grant alms to their lay servants. At the end of Henry III’s reign we see most pensions issued in arrears, so payment was not always punctual or maintained. Between Henry III and Edward III, the granting of alms, save by the Church, fell into abeyance and so messengers had to rely on their daily pension, of around 1d to 2d per day, although Pygott, an exception, received £10 annually in 1364 and Vilet (1347) was to receive a pension of £20 per year from the bastide of Miramont.Religious houses could then provide corodies or lifetime annuities, from charitable donations and church estate incomes, by permission of the King, and these supplemented the pensions of retired messengers, usually in the form of food, clothing, lodging, and other daily necessities, provided by a religious house, such as a monastery, an abbey, or a hospitalOver time, corodies, as with alms, began to be used not only as sustenance for those infirm or retired, but as rewards to those in service, to buy loyalty, and were no longer reserved to those in a local community but could be payments to a ‘non resident and not necessarily an aged man’Bracepath (see above) then shows that messengers could rise through the ranks: from cursor to nuncius to yeoman to sergeant at arms to esquire, then, finally, marrying a knight’s daughter and heiress, at which point he was entitled to bear his own arms. he also was granted custody of the manor of Kennington, then in 1393 granted an annuity for life of £10, before becoming constable of the castle at Limerick in 1394, then the keeping of the castle of Rockingham in 1396, worth £4 per annum, awarded forfeiture of the knight SaintClar in 1397, worth £50, then alms from the bailiffs of Northampton of £20 per year in 1399 and by 1403, received an annual income of ‘£10 from the issues and profits of Lincoln, £10 from those of Northampton, and 20 marks from the profits of a fee farm in Northampton’ plus he collected £10 every year from the Exchequer. The average knights income at this time was 7d per day or around £11 per year, whereas William earned nearer £53 per year.Kings Messengers also had rare privileges, the most important of which was their writ of relay, that allowed them to requisition any fresh horse they saw for its use to convey a message, and to demand boarding and lodging on the journey, at any house, dwelling or Inn. Only occasionally were the same privileges granted to noble and religious messengers, such as in 1429 to Tryst, messenger to cardinal BeaufortSometimes, especially if abroad, messengers were given a letter of protection: protecting their body and also their possessions from search, impoundment or harm, the forerunner of diplomatic immunity eg de Houeton in the reign of Henry III or de Heddesboeur in 1287, the latter was also protected from all pleas or complaints ie received immunity from arrest and prosecution, which became a standard clause from 1288, the volumus clause eg as found in De Ateles letter in 1328A rogamus clause was also added to the messenger’s protection in the case of many leper houses and the like, allowing them to levy a form of tax in order to fund their expenses, where their master organisation was poor or had no source of funds itself. The messengers were then also used for alms collection and so offered protection by letter when collecting alms, and so acting as a form of private bailiff.Two messengers are recorded as appointed, proctors, auditors, bailiffs and messengers by Queen Isabella, auditing her estates in IrelandMessengers, unlike other officers and members of the royal household, acting under letters of patent and protection, saw their protection extended to all parts of the kingdom and to all other countries, during the reign of Richard II.However, the quai profecturus or protection was time limited to the time given for completing the task of conveying a message, while a messenger would be fined for going over this time OR for abuse of powers beyond this time limit.In Part Two, I then look at heralds