Legal Rights of the Mentally Ill in Medieval England

Myths and Realities of Medieval Mental Health

One of the most enduring myths about mental health in the Middle Ages is that any hint of mental illness could see a person ostracized and that those known to suffer from mental ill-health were treated with disgust and excluded from social life.

Though there were cases during the Middle Ages where indeed it happened like that, the vast majority of cases in late medieval England were different. In fact, sometimes men and women considered to be suffering from mental illness still participated in normal social and religious life for years. In most cases, however, those so afflicted received some sort of treatment.

While there were different and, to the modern mind, often gruesome ways of treating and supposedly curing those so suffering, it is interesting to look at the intention of the treatments and the way those suffering were seen by those around them.

While it cannot be denied that there was cruelty and otherization, there was also an astonishing amount of goodwill, empathy, and a genuine desire to help. As paradoxical as it sounds, some of this can be seen in the way the legal system reacted to people considered to be unable to take care of their lands and possessions due to mental illness.

As for so many subjects, sadly, the evidence we have is slanted towards members of the nobility, those who were rich enough and important enough to be recorded. However, conclusions can be drawn from those cases, and they show an interesting glimpse of the late medieval understanding of how those with mental illness should be treated.

The Role of Parliament in Mental Health Cases

If there was concern that a nobleman or also a noblewoman in late medieval England could no longer take care of their possessions or lands due to mental illness, the matter was taken to Parliament. In some cases, such as that of 2nd Viscount Beaumont, this happened because the king himself, in that case, Henry VII, was aware of the noble`s fragile mental health and feared the consequences of him being allowed to continue taking care of his lands and his own person by himself. In other cases, the afflicted`s family and relatives would inform the king of the issue.

Legal Safeguards Against Exploitation

This could have opened up a possibility for exploitation, a chance for relatives to settle arguments or even use their brother, uncle, or aunt`s mental illness to see them stripped of their lands. However, it appears that such a possibility was foreseen by lawmakers in late medieval England. Though sadly, we no longer know any details, there are references to proof being demanded when a relative or spouse drew attention to a noble`s supposed inability to have control over their own lands and possessions. Though naturally, with long evidence as to what this proof would have amounted to, it is no longer known how difficult it would have been to procure it and if it would have been possible to fake it. It does show, however, that, however rudimentary, there were protections in place to see to it that those suffering from mental illness were not exploited and could be used for illicit gain by spouses or relatives.

In the cases of the king and Parliament finding that the noble in question was not able to take care of their possessions anymore, what usually happened was that wardship was created, meaning that someone else was to take care of the lands and possessions of the afflicted person in their interest. Naturally, this carried the same risks that wardships for minors did—that the guardian did not actually care for the lands and possessions in the best interest of the owner but instead used them to enrich themselves. However, there was a notable difference: in the cases of a wardship being created for a mentally ill person, the guardian was almost always someone who was related to or otherwise close to the afflicted.

Notable Cases of Noble Guardianship

An example of this is the case of 2nd Viscount Beaumont, mentioned above. After many years in exile, while the Yorkist kings were in power in England, he returned to his home in 1485. Considered a peaceful man, it seems that the realities of the Tudor victory and the last twenty years of Yorkist reign were difficult for him and eventually triggered his mental illness.

This would have been easy to exploit because William`s closest family members were a nephew rebelling against Henry VII and a niece who had been closely connected with Richard III, so nobody would have had the influence to speak for him. Despite this, William was treated with respect when Parliament decided that he, in their words, “does not have the gravity and discretion to rule and keep himself or his said livelihood.”. Rather than being left at the mercy of one of the king`s favourites with no consideration of his well-being or downright punishing him for, as the Parliamentary decision said, having “alienated, wasted, spoiled, and put away a great part of it most unwisely, to the disinheritance of him and his heirs,” his lands and possessions were given to John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who, in addition to being a supporter of Henry VII`s, was William`s friend of over a decade, perhaps the man closest to him in England, someone who could be trusted to have his interests at heart as the guardian of his possessions. This appears to have been the case; even though William`s mental illness became worse over time, so much so that he was considered to be unable to take care of himself as time progressed, there is no evidence whatsoever that he was ever treated with anything but respect or that Oxford ever did anything that went against his interests. Nor is there any evidence that him having William`s wardship was intended as anything but the proper and compassionate solution for everyone involved.

If this had been a solitary case, it would not say much about the general attitude towards those suffering from mental illness in late medieval England, but it is not. There are other such cases, such as that of George Neville, Lord Latimer. George appears to have developed a mental illness as an adult, a mental illness that gradually became so bad he was considered to be unable to properly manage his lands and possessions. This followed the exact same pattern as William`s case; going by what evidence they had, which has sadly been lost to history, Parliament decided that George needed a guardian for the management of his possessions, and someone close to him was chosen for the job—in his case, it was his brother, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury. In fact, the language of the parliamentary decision was explicit about why it was made, stating outright that “Richard, earl of Salisbury, brother of George Neville, lord of Latimer,” was to hold the decision “in consideration of the latter’s love of the former.”. This not only makes it clear it was done with George`s best interests in mind rather than any sort of punishment; it even suggests that George`s wishes were taken into account.

A System of Protection, Not Punishment

There are other similar cases that could be cited, all of which show a clear picture of how those suffering from mental health problems and mental illnesses were treated when their affliction became known to the Parliament and how legal consequences were handled. The picture it shows is one of astonishing compassion, rather than hatred and disgust.