"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message news:1194841825.574680.192310@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 7:57 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the
king himself was sitting on it?
--
John Briggs
John ~
Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John
Sparrowhawk was brought "before the king."
"Memorandum that on Thursday after the Quinzaine of Easter [13 April
1402] in the third year of the reign of king Henry, fourth after
Conquest, one John Sparrowhawk of Cardiff in Wales came before the
king at Westminster, brought by order of the king before the said king
by Sir Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland and constable of England,
and Thomas Pickworth, knight, the marshal, and there by authority and
command of the king the said John Sparrowhawk confessed as matter of
record before Thomas Cowley, the coroner of the king's bench, the
things given below in the following form." END OF QUOTE.
This quote indicates exactly the opposite of the wrong conclusion that Douglas Richardson has drawn from it: clearly the king was _not_ present on the occasion described, otherwise the coroner Thomas Cowley would not have been presiding in his court.
The King's Bench was properly called "coram ipso rege", literally "the court before the king himself". Every hearing of the court was said to be "before the king", who sat only in customary theory, not in current practice by the beginning of the 15th century.
Every order of the court was called an "order of the king", everything was done by the "authority and command" of the king, but not in his personal presence.
This matter of record heard by the coroner would not have been anywhere near important enough to be reported to the king. Hearsay about the rantings of a provincial tailor's wife did not rise to the level of royal business.