We know even less about Philippa Roet than we do of her sister Katheryn. Perhaps she was born in the mid-1340s. Perhaps she died in 1387. Perhaps she had a daughter Elizabeth and perhaps a son, Lewis. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
Philippa is noted in Gaunt's household accounts to have been an attendant upon his unloved second wife Constance of Castille, whom he married in 1371/2. Prior to this, she may have been in the employment of Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster, who also counted one Geoffrey Chaucer among her household. They are said to have been married 'by 1366' at the church of St. Mary de Castro in Leicestershire:
Probably, like Katheryn and Hugh, they were married by 1363/4 to account for the birth of daughter Elizabeth Chaucer, who was old enough to enter St. Helen's Priory in London in 1377 to prepare for taking the veil and becoming a nun at Barking Abbey in 1381, joining her cousin Margaret Swynford.
Despite Philippa's position as an attendant upon Constance, and despite Gaunt and Constance having spent the larger portion of the 1380s pursuing their Spanish interests in Spain and Portugal, Philippa is known to have been in Lincoln in 1386, joining nephews Thomas Swynford and John Beaufort at a ceremony inducting them all into the confraternity of Lincoln Cathedral. Within the year, her annuity is drawn for the last recorded time, and Philippa Roet Chaucer simply vanishes.
Professor Serrano believes that Philippa returned to Castille to join Constance, and that she there died of pestilence. Presently, there is no way to verify this theory; however, as he points out, quoting Chaucerian Derek Pearsal, the decimation from the pestillance in Spain was so great that 'there were not enough living to bury the dead.' Of course, burying the dead certainly would have been of greater importance than noting the death from it of individual members of Constance's household, therefore the absence of a notice of Philippa's death there isn't reason to reject Serrano's thesis out-of-hand.
However, if Philippa did indeed die in Spain, it would be odd to find her buried, as we do, at a small, 12th century church in East Hampshire. Indeed, the location of her burial remained unknown until the Victorian-era interest in 'repairing'medieval churches, at which time her stone coffin was found buried in the chancel of the church of St. Mary the Virgin in East Worldham:
Philippa's tomb was found buried beneath the floor of the church's chancel but was moved to a modern niche in the wall of the nave, as seen above. Identification of the tomb as hers is based solely upon the carving of a Roet wheel badge on the effigy's chest, as noted above, but which is all but impossible to see on available photographs. This makes the identification tenuous at best. Certainly, it was not identified as that of Philippa's during the Victorian restoration in which it was discovered. One Victorian source, in discussing the Church and its restoration, merely notes that:
In the south wall of the nave, under a modern arch, is an interesting semi-effigial slab of early fourteenth century date, with the bust of a lady in a wimple, and a cross paty below. This was disc overed under the nave floor during the late restoration.
Apparently, even the Victorian restorers did not notice the existence of the wheel badge on the effigy, or perhaps simply did not understand its significance. The latter may well be the case, for wheel emblems were not particularly commonly employed in later medieval Britain. In fact, it was almost exclusively used by Katheryn Swynford or her relatives (Roet wheels are found at the Ewelme tombs of Thomas Chaucer and his daughter Alice, Duchess of Suffolk and on the ceiling of a divinity school attended by Katheryn's son Henry Beaufort).
However, the nature of the tomb and the location itself in some ways provoke more questions than they provide any answers. As for the location, the traditional explanation is that Philippa's burial at East Worldham is due to her son Thomas Chaucer's being Lord of the Manor of East Worldham during the period of 1418 to 1434, but this does not sufficiently explain how she came to be buried there if she died, as seems likely, in 1387 or shortly thereafter. If she died in Spain, and if she was of sufficient importance to have her body shipped home for burial, it is surprising that it was to this relatively minor church. If she died in England, and spent her final months of life with her sister Katheryn at Kettlethorpe, one wonders why Katheryn didn't arrange for a Lincolnshire burial. What with Geoffrey outliving her a good dozen or more years, how is it that he ends up buried in Westminster Abbey whereas Philippa finds a final resting place in what has been described as a 'small Hampshire village'?
Above/left is a close-up view of Philippa's tomb. It appears to be a nice, if somewhat crudely executed, funeral effigy. Certainly it is not in the same class of carved stone effigies as Gaunt's vanished monument and those extant for Beaufort children Joan and Henry. More significantly, neither is it even remotely of the same quality as the tombs and effigies established by her son Thomas at Ewelme. Overall, the finding of Philippa at East Worldham is intriguing for a a few reasons:
Why isn't Philippa Buried at Ewelme?
The church at Ewelme seems all but a family mausoleum, containing the beautiful table tomb of Philippa's son Thomas Chaucer and his wife, Maud Burgheresh, as well as splendid effigy tomb of their daughter Alice, Duchess of Suffolk. In addition to the three family members entombed at Ewelme, numerous references are made to other family members who are not via the many coats of arms decorating the two tombs. All of this makes the absence of Philippa's tomb as striking as are the differences between the two churches and monuments themselves. While the Thomas monument appears to have had a brass rather than a carved effigy, the tomb itself is elaborate and highly decorated, as opposed to the more prestigious effigy-type tomb of his mother which appears to be considerably less elaborate and all but devoid of decoration. Among those arms prominantly displayed, on the tombs themselves and on wall sculptures, are shields bearing what have always been described as the Roet family arms (they appear to be gules, three wheels or):
The absence of Philippa and her tomb in this homage to family is all the more puzzling if Thomas was indeed responsible for Philippa's being buried in relative obscurity at East Worldham. In a perverse twist on traditional Chaucerian logic, it is as if Thomas Chaucer, instead of being mortified by his connection to the notorious Katheryn Swynford, instead choose to ignore his connection to his substantially less famous and influential mother. Note the detailed carving in the tracery, as well as the painting, carvings and marble tomb moulding. The difference in the detailing and quality of execution of Philippa's tomb is glaring .
Below are two exterior shots of the churches in question. The churches themselves appear to have catered to two very different social categories of parishioners, although part of this may be due to the ravages of Henry VIII's dissolution policies of neglect and/or Cromwell's policy of destruction: (The top is East Worldham, the bottom, Ewelme). East Worldham, while older, is smaller, less ornate had has been considerably 'Victorianised,' particularly its interior and perhaps the three closely-placed lancet windows seen below. Ewelme, which looks as though it has experienced some, shall we say, interesting additions of its own, still displays in its original parts a greater attention to detail and decoration, as well as higher-quality mouldings.
Below are two interior shots, the top is the interior of East Worldham and below it is the interior of Ewelme. Notice the level of intricate detail present at Ewelme but conspicuously absent at East Worldham (which, it should be noted, has experienced a considerable internal Victorian facelift), such as the delicate carving, moulding and painting present at Ewelme but absent from East Worldham.
What About Those Roet Arms?
Recall that the identification of Philippa's tomb is based upon finding a 'Roel Wheel' badge. Recall, too, the conspicuous display of what has always has been assumed to be the definitive Roet family arms at Ewelme and yet which are not the same as those borne by Philippa's effigy. The difference between the various 'Roet' arms has typically been glossed over as an unimportant detail, whereas simply finding any Roet arms on the tomb of Thomas Chaucer has been the subject of great controversy. Specifically, Thomas Krauss examined the copious display of Roet arms and came to be of the opinion that Thomas wished to alert the world that, not only was he likely a bastard (i.e., not the son of Geoffrey Chaucer, whose own arms are noticeably absent at Ewelme), but that his mother came from a family of high social status (hence Thomas abandoning his own paternal arms in favor of his purported maternal arms). Martin Ruud, previously, had looked at the same use of heraldry on Thomas's tomb and came up with a different conclusion, namely, summing up the matter up with the comment, he was a snob, not a bastard, (that is, by the mid-1400s, the Chaucers were nobodys whereas the Roets were somebodys). As we shall see shortly from examining the heraldry issue, Ruud was likely on the mark with his succinct and perceptive observation.
Who bore what?
Town/Area (modern) of Le Roeulx Lion passant holding a single wheel The Hainault Roets (de Rouelt, Roeulx dit Restau, ...) Gu., a trois roues d'arg Katheryn Roet Swynford Gu., three Catherine Wheels, or
Gu., three silver wheils
Philippa Roet Chaucer A single wheel Thomas Chaucer Gu., three wheels or
As you can see from the above, the main Lordship de Roeulx, whose arms have been preserved and now represent the town, bore a single wheel held aloft by a lion, overall having a coronet atop the shield . Other attributed arms show Hainault Roets (Rouelx dit Reseau)
aux 1 et 4 de sa. a un rateau d'or, en pal, les dents en haut (Resteau); aux 2 et 3 de gu. a trois roues d'arg. (Roeult).
However, these are not to be confused with the arms bore by the Counts of Roeux, who we may guess from above, bore the Lion with a single wheel. The patrimony of Roeux was, by 1530, in the possession of the Croy or de la Croy family, the arms of which show no wheels whatsoever. Hence, we may guess (and I do mean 'guess') that the Roets of Hainault, both the main as well as collateral branches, bore arms of either a single plain wheel -- an obvious nameplay -- or three plain silver wheels. Probably the single wheel usage is older; the usage of three wheels doubless owes to an enlarged family with numerous collateral branches needing to distinguish themselves from the royal Counts but wishing to maintain graphically their lineage.
Why pick three wheels? Probably either Christian numerology (the Trinity) or it may have been a choice of simple aesthetics -- the shape of the shield dictates that a number of objects in excess of one must be 3 for balance (the shield is wider at the top, narrower at the bottom. Two wheels makes the shield top-heavy; three make it balanced).
So, what did Payne Roet bear and transmit to his children? It is all but impossible to know. The finding of a single wheel badge on the Philippa tomb -- if it is indeed Philippa's -- would seem to indicate that a single wheel is the family arms of the Payne Roet family. However, Katheryn herself, in bequests to Lincoln Cathedral, left items of kateryn wheils of gold, as wel as iii wheils of sylver . Why the difference? One explanation is that the former were her own whereas the latter was for her father. Note that the two encompass two distinctions -- one uses silver wheels, the other gold, and one uses plain wheels (the silver ones) whereas the other uses St. Catherine wheels (the gold ones). Perhaps novelist Seton is correct in conjecturing that Katheryn Swynford's arms are a personalization of the generic Roet wheel badge made as a nameplay on not only her surname, but her given name as well (the Catherine wheel is spiked and is given as the traditional object of torture for St. Catherine of Alexandria). Again, three wheels instead of one is more balanced than using two or four wheels, does not conflict with arms of the princely Counts of Rouelx, and generally looks more aesthetically balanced when her personal arms are impaled with those of Gaunt (and, again, there seems to be no evidence of her using any arms of her own prior to her 1396 marriage to Gaunt).
What this means for the Philippa tomb and the Ewelme monuments is that, contrary to previously-held opinions, the arms on Thomas Chaucer's tomb are not those of his mother, but instead a variation on those of his famous aunt, whose descendents were on the political ascendancy during the time in which Thomas Chaucer's and his daughter Alice's tombs were constructed (post 1430s).
Why Did Thomas Ignore His Mother?
This question is troubling. It seems all but official Chaucer canon that
(a) Geoffrey's marriage was not a happy one.
(b) Geoffrey and Philippa, especially the latter from her connection with Gaunt's Duchess Constance, disapproved of Katheryn Swynford; and
(c) Philippa and Katheryn wer both co-heiresses to a landed patrimony in their presumed native Hainault.
The last point is mere supposition, based solely upon the fact that sometime after his mother's death, Katheryn's son Thomas Swynford obtained letters from Henry IV pronouncing his legitimacy to allow him to claim lands due him from his mother's inheritance. However, there is no evidence that he ever actually received anything. Moreover, neither did Thomas Chaucer, who reportedly never even tried. The idea of a Roet patrimony is further clouded unlikely due to Payne Roet and perhaps a cousin seeking their fortunes outside of Hainault as well as the finding of a son of Payne and brother of Philippa and Katheryn named Walter. If Thomas Chaucer had indeed been heir to Hainault lands and money, then leaving his mother to lie in obscurity while supposedly claiming her arms and fortunes does little to speak well of the man. If there were no lands to be had, there was no reason to use his connection with his mother as a grand social identification on his tomb.
With respect to the second point, it could be claimed that Thomas was ashamed of his mother if she was, indeed, the mistress of John of Gaunt either prior to or concurrently with her sister Katheryn, however this seems unlikely as the Church tended to burn people for what we would now merely consider 'the ick factor'. Even if Philippa was not, perhaps one could make the argument that, so tainted was her sister's reputation, Thomas wished to avoid the whole family connection. But why, then, would he conspicuously use a variation on Katheryn's arms?
Furthermore, there is the complicated ownership history of the manors of East and West Worldham themselves. East Worldham was approved for granting to the family of Burghersh (Thomas Chaucer's wife's grandfather) in 1336 but somehow by 1347 this had changed to granting to Sir John Burghersh for life only. His son and heir, another John Burghersh, was aged six at his father's death in ca. 1351; he, in 1374, conveyed the manor to the Crown. However, despite this conveyance of the manor, his daughers and co-heiresses (along with their respective husbands) continued to claim the manor, and they appear to have maintained some type of physical control or occupancy over/of it (in 1418, Maud's sister and second husband convey her share to Maud and Thomas Chaucer, who are still holding it at their respective deaths in 1437 and 1435). In 1442, their daughter, Alice, the Countess of Suffolk, and her husband both requested a new grant of the manor to perhaps clarify their legal ownership of it.
The above may indicate that the Burghersh family had a fondness for East Worldham, perhaps even occupying it when their legal claim to it was somewhat hazy. Certainly, the efforts to which they went to obtain it and keep it in the family indicate a special relationship. Perhaps this is the reason for burying Philippa there; it may be that , after her 1387 presumed death, and sometime after the 1395 marriage of her son Thomas to Maud Burgheresh, the latter's family in Hampshire arranged for her reburial concealed under the floor of the chancel of the local church until a more fitting monument could be constructed with clear legal authority.
But again, we are left with a series of perhapses. Maybe the the easiest answer to why we find Philippa buried where we do is that Philippa Roet Chaucer mattered little, both to her contemporaries and her descendents. By the 16th Century, Chaucerians were positively unable to discover even her first name, guessing her last via the Ewelme monuments. As for the Ewelme monuments themselves, heraldic evidence indicates that they could not have been completed prior to 1438 -- two years after Maud Burghersh's death and four years after Thomas Chaucer's. Therefore, Thomas Chaucer had no control and perhaps equally little influence over the tombs' construction. Perhaps he did issue request to have his mother reburied -- such requests do not guarantee execution; this certainly was the case for Katheryn Swynford's chantry at Lincoln Cathedral. The original order for its establishement was made by Gaunt but never carried out until his daughter, Joan Beaufort, saw to it that the chantry was established, likely in connection with her own will to be buried there alonside her mother.
The Chaucer tombs at Ewelme were likely constructed sometime after the 1440s and perhaps even finished around the same time as the construction of Alice Duchess of Suffolk's monument, by which point Philippa was long gone and, likely forgotten. Not forgotten, of course, was the family connection with the greatest familial power in the land outside the crown itself, namely, the Beauforts, who may have made effort to see their mother's memory honored and not forgotten (Joan at least made positive efforts in this direction; perhaps Henry Beaufort, too, for the arms of Roet are found at the Divinity School at Oxford, noted by Krauss, who himself also notes that he is unable to find a direct connection between Thomas Chaucer and the Divinity School).
But, perhaps the real burning question is, who is buried in Philippa's tomb?
All photos of Philippa's tomb and the interior and exterior of the church at East Worldham are reproduced with the kind permission of Allan Soedring (except the fuzzy distance shot of the effigy).
Unless otherwise indicated, text copyright Judy Perry June 2002.