Published in Windlesora 29 (2013)
© WLHG
In 1352, Edward III established a charity for 26 Alms Knights, or Poor Knights, at Windsor Castle for retired military officers who had fallen on hard times. In return for a pension and lodgings at Windsor Castle, they had to promise to pray daily for the Sovereign and the Knights Companions of the Garter at St George’s Chapel. Henry VIII reduced their number to 13 and William IV re-named them Military Knights and gave them their present uniform. The candidates were to be of exemplary character and good behaviour, but as human nature is unpredictable, this was not always so. In the Windsor Chapter Acts, we can read about the misdemeanours of some of these knights.
John Norton, for example, was first mentioned in 1596 after he was admonished for speaking contemptuously about the statutes for the government of the Poor Knights. He cursed the Canons with the words: ‘Turde in all your teethe, a fart for you all, you are a sorte of peysantlye priests.’
In 1602 John Norton was again reproached for using ‘unseemly and lewd words’ and striking Mr Hooke, a fellow Poor Knight. He said that he would strike him again as he ‘was a roage and a base Companion, and no gent nor soldier’.
As a result, Norton was suspended from attending Chapel; his pay was stopped until he apologized a month later, however, Norton seems to have been a hothead. In 1609, now a senior Poor Knight, he was in trouble once more for using ‘verie reprochefull and outrageous speeches against Mr Massingberd his governor’ in Chapel. He then went into town without permission. He was again suspended from receiving any wages until he publicly acknowledged his misdemeanour.
Mathew Green, Clerk of the Kings Free Chappell of Windsor, who was associated with the Poor Knights, confessed in 1668 that he ‘did hastily and irreverently goe out of the Chappell in tyme of Divine service and gave Dr Child uncivill and rude language while he was doeing his duty in playing upon the Organ, and after the ending of the said Divine service did trip up his heeles, and when down, did unhumanly beat him, and when the business was heard by the Dean & Chapter did rashly and unjustly call them unjust Judges.’
He asked forgiveness for his ‘insolent behaviours’, and promised to ‘carry my selfe humbly and peaceably’. In case he broke his promise he would ‘relinquish my place without the further clayme of any profit interest or favour from this Church.’
One of the most eccentric of the Poor Knights was Sir John Dineley Bart. After he had squandered the large fortune he had inherited from his brother, he lived for a time ‘in a state bordering on destitution.’ In 1798 during the reign of George III, he procured, with the help of friends, the pension and free lodgings of a Poor Knight. His outlandish dress and behaviour set him apart from his fellow Knights. He soon became well-known around Windsor.
According to the Penny Magazine, he wore a costume of the days of George II — the embroidered coat, the silk flowered waistcoat, the nether garment of faded velvet carefully meeting the dirty silk stocking, which terminated in the half-polished shoe surmounted by the dingy silver buckle. The old wig, on great occasions, was newly powdered, and the best-cocked hat was brought forth, with a tarnished lace edging.
However, his desperate search for a wife made him a laughing stock. He approached women and, ‘with the air of one bred in courts he made his most profound bow’, withdrew a piece of paper from his pocket on which he had printed a proposal of marriage and reverently presented it to the lady. It was said that more than once he paid court to some lad dressed up as a fine lady.
But Sir John was looking for a wealthy wife, thus his proposals had conditions attached to them. She had to be of independent means. If she was under 21 she needed only to have a fortune of £300, if she was between 21 and 30 she had to have £500 and a lady between 30 and 40 must be in possession of £600 annually. Occasionally he advertised in The Times always with the words: How happy will a Lady be, to have a little Baronet to dandle on her Knee. Sir John died in 1809, unwed, and was buried at St George’s Chapel on 21 October.
Some Poor Knight applicants were not accepted at all because of their reputation. Edmund Henry Lenon VC may have seemed the perfect candidate. He had been awarded a Victoria Cross for ‘Acts of Bravery performed in China, on the occasion of the assault and capture of the North Taku Fort on 21 August 1860,’ while serving as a Lieutenant with the 67th Regiment. He had a long and distinguished career in the Army, retiring as honorary Colonel, but saw no further action.
It was his behaviour after he left the Army that ruined his reputation. He lost a large fortune in shady financial dealings and was charged with fraud, although the prosecution failed to prove their case. He pawned his VC and China medal in 1886 for ten shillings, at a time when a VC was traded at Sotheby’s for between £10 and £23. Lenon was also having adulterous affairs with several women, which resulted in the breakdown of his marriage. Sometime during 1892 he applied to be accepted as a Military Knight, but was refused. As a Military Knight he would have had to wear his medals on parade and Lenon had never re-claimed his pawned VC. This together with his reputation as an adulterer would not have recommended him as a person of good character.
The last naughty Knight is Major Charles Henry Strutt. He had served with the Royal (late Bombay) Regiment of Artillery in India, and was admitted in October 1901. In 1903 he was involved in the ’Great Planchette Case,’ which was a huge sensation. A young man of fortune called Henry Sheppard Hart Cavendish, brought an action against Major Strutt, his wife and a solicitor, who had taken control of his estate. Cavendish claimed they had used ‘undue influence.’ Mrs Strutt, who dabbled in the occult, had used the spirit world, especially the planchette (a type of Ouija Board) with messages purporting to come from his deceased mother, to cloud his judgement. Cavendish won his case. Major Strutt received particular criticism from the judge, which was so serious that the Counsel’s opinion was sought as to whether Strutt could be dismissed; but alas, he had not offended against the Elizabethan Statutes. The result was that in 1905 the Statutes were amended so that Military Knights could be dismissed at the Sovereign’s pleasure.
Brigitte Mitchell
References
Windsor Chapter Acts.
The Military Knights of Windsor 1348 to 2011 was compiled by Richard and Jennifer Moore.
The Times January 31 2011 [reprint].
Derek Hunt for information on Edmund Henry Lenon VC.
Windsor Local History Group 