Discussion of
the Ghost of Lady Hoby
by David Nash
Ford
T H E G H O S T
O F
L A D Y H O B Y
Folklore or Fact?
The last Abbot of Bisham was
Abbot John Cordery. Actually, he was the only
Abbot of Bisham. Founded by the 1st Earl of
Salisbury as a Priory for Austin Canons,
the community at Bisham was dissolved along with
so many of England’s monastic houses in
1536. However, the unpredictable Henry VIII
promptly refounded and upgraded it as a
Benedictine Abbey. It only lasted six months. It
would be impossible to ever prove whether Abbot
Cordery did actually curse Bisham Abbey’s
future inhabitants. However, an examination of
these families show that misfortune has struck
them with alarming regularity. Could it be just
co-incidence?
Soon after the dissolution of
the monasteries, the Countess of Salisbury
managed to get back many of her family’s
lands in Bisham, including the Abbey. Both she
and many of her children lost their heads during
Tudor attempts to exterminate the last of the
Plantagenets. Her lands were confiscated and
later Bisham was given to the unfortunate Anne of
Cleves, Henry VIII’s fourth wife, who
swapped it, for Westhorpe in Suffolk, with Sir
Philip Hoby. Sir Philip had no children and
Bisham passed to his half-brother, Sir Thomas
Hoby, the husband of the infamous Lady Elizabeth.
Two (or three) of their children died young, but
their eldest son, Edward, lived to inherit the
estate. At this point the curse should have come
into effect to prevent a second direct
inheritance. Edward’s legal heir was his
brother, Thomas Posthumous Hoby, but he also had
an illegitimate son, Peregrine, who inherited
Bisham. Thomas did not object and so apparently
thwarted the Abbot’s intentions. Peregrine
outlived his own eldest son and the latter’s
children, so his second son, John, took
possession. He was followed by two direct
successions of Thomases, which were rather out of
place. The latter had no children and his brother
inherited, followed by a cousin on his
mother’s side.
Eventually the Abbey was bought
by George Vansittart whose family fared little
better. He was succeeded by his grandson and
namesake who, having no children, was in turn
succeeded by his cousin, Edward. Here was the
first direct succession when Sir Henry inherited
from his father. However, the latter’s son
died at Eton College at the tender age of
fourteen. The house was finally sold after the
death of Sir Henry’s daughter, Phyllis, in
1958. Both her heirs, her nephews, had been
killed in the Second World War, and the Sports
Council took on the estate as a memorial to them.
Romantic though the curse is, it may well have
been invented earlier this century to explain
actual events.
 Lady Hoby’s hauntings of Bisham are
a little more certain than the reasons for them.
The Abbey is known to be one of the most haunted
houses in Britain, certainly the most haunted in
Berkshire. Lady Hoby’s best known appearance
was to Admiral Edward W. Vansittart, when she
stepped down from her portrait to stand beside
him. She has appeared before other guests:
tearing curtains from beds, throwing things
around rooms, and threatening to strike them
bald! Usually, however, her appearances are more
sedate. Her Ladyship materialises in the
negative, with black face and white clothes. She
always washes her hands, yet her miraculous
fountain must be rather indistinct, for in recent
years people have claimed it to be a floating
basin of water. More often than not though, it is
merely her sobbing that is heard, or a light seen
in the empty Tower Room. She was once seen by
some young boys in a boat down by the river, and
some even believe she is responsible for the
mists which often envelope the Abbey, drawing the
most unwilling of passers-by into the depths of
the Thames.
Up until 1936, Lady Hoby had
apparently materialised at Bisham during every
coronation since at least that of Charles I.
However, latterly she appears to have missed her
regular appointment even though she still haunts
the building on other occasions. Perhaps she has
been put off by Edward VIII’s abdication.
Whatever the reason it seems she no longer
appears on Royal occasions to atone for the loss
of her son.
Which of Elizabeth Hoby’s
sons are we really talking about though? He is
usually named as William, Lady Hoby’s
youngest son. However, no William appears in
recognised genealogies. Elizabeth Hoby was the
daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke, one of four
sisters celebrated for their great learning, as
the story suggests. She married Thomas Hoby, the
English Ambassador to the French Court in 1557.
One of her sisters married Sir Nicholas Bacon,
the Lord Keeper, and another married Sir William
Cecil, Lord Burghley, the Lord High Treasurer. By
all accounts she was indeed proud and ambitious,
and keen for her children to have a good
education. She and Sir Thomas had three children
before the latter’s death in 1566, Edward,
Elizabeth and Anne, and one born very shortly
afterwards, known therefore as Thomas Posthumous;
but there was no William in the family. In 1574
the ambitious lady remarried to the Earl of
Bedford’s son, John, Lord Russell, and
though she had three further children, Elizabeth,
Anne & Francis, still there was no William.
Did he really exist, or is the story merely fable
as so many insist?
It is quite feasible to suppose
that little William did exist, even though no
definite record of him has been found. He does no
appear in the Bisham baptismal registers, but
both Hobys and Russells held other estates on
which a son could have been born and christened.
Not all records have survived from those far off
days not long after parish registers began
(1538), and many children’s entries were
missed from the register at that time anyway.
Dame Hoby would not even have had to have
instigated a cover up to hide her son’s very
existence as some have suggested. Though I’m
sure she could have done it. A small child buried
three hundred years ago would leave little behind
him. Only the memory of him passed down by
generations of Bisham folk.
"Proof" of
William’s existence is provided by a strange
event which took place at the Abbey in 1840. The
house had been let to a Mrs.East at the time.
This lady decided to have some builders in to
make some alterations to the shutters in the
Dining Room. The quoins on the windows were cut
down, causing the corner to give way. So the
workmen had to take up some of the floorboards in
order to rebuild it. Between the joists they
discovered large quantities of paper and other
rubbish, including copy books. Mrs.General
Vansittart was immediately sent for, and she
drove over with her sister-in-law to see them.
The books contained the writings of many members
of the Hoby family with corrections by the wicked
lady herself. One, Mrs.Vansittart later
remembered, had a blot on nearly every page and
bore, she believed, the name of William Hoby!
When leaving, Mrs.Vansittart had wanted to take
two or three of the books with her, but her
sister-in-law felt that they should wait until
Admiral Vansittart had examined the books before
removing any. On their return, however, the copy
books had disappeared. Apparently the workmen had
thought they might be worth something, and so had
taken the books away with them.
Convenient though the loss of
the copy books was, the fact that they existed is
beyond doubt, for the above events were recorded
in detail by Mrs.Vansittart shortly after they
happened. It is Mrs.Vansittart’s memory,
however, that we might question. After all she
only ever said that she thought the name
on the blotted books had been "William
Hoby". Early versions of the legend do not
mention a Christian name for the lad. It,
therefore, seems probable that the name William
stems from this discovery in the mid nineteenth
century. When given a surname the boy is always a
Hoby, yet the fact that William was said to be
Lady Hoby’s youngest son is totally
contradicts this. Her youngest son was a Russell
and her youngest Hoby son was most definitely
Thomas Posthumous, born after his father’s
death. It is possible that the boy’s surname
may have been transferred direct from his mother
who is always referred to as Lady Hoby rather
than Lady Russell. Though it was not unusual, her
actual youngest son, Francis Russell, did in fact
die at a young age in unknown circumstances.
Could he have been the so called
"William"?
Alternatively, the story may be
an exaggeration of Thomas Posthumous’ early
life. Dame Elizabeth is known to have written to
her brother-in-law, Lord Burghley, telling him of
trouble that she was having with Thomas over his
lessons. Lord Burghley’s response is
unknown. Perhaps he urged her to wield a heavy
ruler! Who can say?
The Story
What can be seen today?
|
