It is a known fact that the study of history is largely the study of men. Notable exceptions aside – Elizabeth I, Cleopatra, Boudicca to name but a few – women are generally underrepresented in history. This applies as much to the common woman as it does to the noblewoman and has particular relevance regarding the trial and execution of women for the crime of witchcraft. This practice peaked in England during the Civil War under the Puritans. It found a focal point in East Anglia where 26 year old William Hopkins, the self-appointed ‘Witchfinder General’ tried and executed nearly 300 women.
There are few primary accounts to cover this sad episode in history. Still fewer of them are from a female perspective, despite it revolving around women. Unfortunately what remains largely constitutes a long list of court documents of the woman, their trials, accusations and fates. These ‘witches’ tended to be widows, old women, ordinary girls accused out of spite and often women who practiced healing rituals and medicine. It was the most vulnerable in villages that were tried and the accusers often had the most to gain.
I have family connections to Suffolk and spent much of my early childhood in the medieval wool town of Lavenham. I thus decided to research and tell the untold story of Ann Randall, the only resident of Lavenham to be executed for being a witch.
In 1645, Ann Randall, an elderly widow 'living on the parish' alone apart from her two cats, Hangman and Jacob. Witchfinder John Stearne wrote about her trial in a document called ‘A Confirmation and Discovery of Witchcraft’ (1648) in which Ann apparently confessed to being angry at a Mr. Coppinger, her neighbor who had made fences using hedgerows that went into her land. She had dealt with this by sending an Imp to destroy the bushes. Two horses were killed over a dispute of firewood, a necessity for her to keep warm, and again she had sent her Imp to "kill them in such a temper." Randall also confessed to killing a hog belonging to a Stephen Humfries after he refused her request for alms and chided her; once again, this hog was killed by one of her Imps. Following the trial Randall was found guilty and executed. The "Imps" were none other than her kittens Jacob and Hangman, who would have met unfortunate demises after the trial. Not only was her death a result of her poor cats and people's spiteful accusations, it was also the manifestation of steadfast beliefs and stereotypes regardiwitches were presented.
To modern eyes the accusations seem ludicrous, fantastical, pure nonsense, but it is important to note that they would not have seemed so at the time. It is hard to understand the mindset of the age making it easy to brush off and laugh at the ridiculousness of it. Yet we can't properly understand this period without getting rid of our modern conception of reality. It made me realise what a superstitious time it was; the supernatural was widely and thoroughly believed in. People had just as much faith in spells as they did in religion.
As I was looking at the list of records from Bury St Edmunds and considering writing my essay on Ann Randall, I came across the trial of another woman from Lavenham accused of witchcraft, who unusually survived. Researching her I became increasingly bewildered at this woman's astonishing life, all that she accomplished and was known for. This is her story:
Elizabeth Scrope, Countess of Oxford, was born in 1468 into a wealthy family, the daughter Sir Richard Scrope of Boulton and Eleanor Washbourne. She was loyal to the Lancastrian cause which was the reason for her trial as a witch. She and seven knights (including both of her future husbands) disguised themselves as nuns and pilgrims and took the castle and island of St Michael's Mount. They held this position for sixth months against Edward IV’s entire west army. This was embarrassing for Edward given it was eight against 6000. An astonishing feat in of itself, even more so, considering she was the only woman in a castle under siege for six months and assisting in the fight. Her reward? To be tried for witchcraft by the Yorkists for disguising herself as a man by allegedly using spells. She reasonably pointed out at the trial, however, that it was her companions disguising themselves as nuns, not the other way round. She did admit to carrying weapons all the way up to the mount which was enough to place her under house arrest in Lavenham from 1473 to 1485, by which time she was 28.
Elizabeth's first husband was William Beaumont, a Viscount who was elderly and suffered from mental illness. Parliament therefore ruled that his land and estates were to be taken over by one of his friends, John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford. After Beaumont’s death in 1507, John de Vere became Elizabeth's second husband. This elevated Elizabth’s power, and she became the lady in waiting to none other than Katherine of Aragon as well as serving the previous queen consort. Her power was such that she stood up to Cardinal Wolsey, something even the most powerful of nobles wouldn't dare to do in his prime. After her husband died Wolsey wrote asking to use his men to take stone from Elizabeth's land. She wrote back simply stating ‘she cannot under good conscience allow his men to take stone from Harwich since what remains there cannot be removed. If the existing stone is removed, the cliff will wash away and destroy the town.’ This seems like a reasonable response, however, Wolsey was none too pleased and wrote back angrily, a letter we do not have, but we can tell from her response that she held her ground. Elizabeth was a woman, and a widow at that, who was brave enough to stand up to Wolsey and to deny his request. She would continue to influence English politics for the rest of her life. She was a companion to the young Princess Mary and an official mourner for Jane Seymour. She died in 1537 at 80, having been much loved at the Courts of both Henry VII and Henry VIII.
I had set out to tell a story from an unrepresented group of ordinary women in English history and had found something else entirely. An amazing untold story of a woman of noble birth, a leading figure at the court of Henry VII and Henry III, a key player at the very highest political level. Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford lived an extraordinary life; she shaped English history and was a major figure at court, and yet she does not even have a Wikipedia page.
I understand why the sad stories of Suffolk women accused of witchcraft are not well recorded, but in today's modern age, with a historians’ tool as useful and gender blind as Wikipedia, why is such an important figure missing? Why is there barely any information on her? Are modern historians as instinctively sexist as their predecessors? Is ‘women’s history’ even today, deemed a separate minor area of study?
On a final intriguing note, to return full circle to the witchcraft, when Elizabeth’s Book of Hours (a crucial and valuable religious tool) was opened at her death it was found to be full not only of prayers, but also spells. This was a religious woman, she was a close confidante of Catherine of Aragon, and yet she kept a spell book on her person at all times. The line between prayers and spells was very narrow indeed. Perhaps there was some truth in the Yorkists' accusations after all.
Comments