Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-16T06:16:10.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fortunes of the Greys, Earls of Kent, in the early Sixteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

G. W. Bernard
G. W. Bernard
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communications
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 1982 , pp. 671 - 685
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R. I. Jack, ‘The Lords Grey of Ruthin, 1325–1490: a study of the lesser baronage’, University of London Ph.D. thesis, 1961; ‘The Grey of Ruthin Valor’, Bedfordshire Historical Society, xlvi (1965); Public Record Office (hereafter P.R.O.) SC 12/18/53 (this valor is dated 23 Henry VII, not 23 Henry VIII).Google Scholar

2 Dugdale, W., The baronage of England (2 vols. 1675), 1, 718Google Scholar; Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry VII (2 vols. 19631955–), II, nos. 554, 575Google Scholar; Bedfordshire County Record Office, Lucas papers (hereafter B.R.O. L) 24/429. (I am grateful to Lady Lucas for permission to consult this collection.)

3 Cal. Close Rolls, II, no. 473; B.R.O. L 24/436.

4 Cal. Close Rolls, II, no. 776 (i); P.R.O. C 1/512/34; B.R.O. L 24/25.

5 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 750; P.R.O. C 1/512/34; B.R.O. L 24/25, 24/430, 24/439. These manors - except Bawdeswell and Sperham – were worth £238 14s. 11/2d. in the valor of 23 Henry VII (P.R.O. SC 12/18/53). At some point Kent and Somerset together sold the manor of Gooderston to Sir John Hussey for ‘grete somes of mony’ and for the marriage between Kent's sister Anne and Sir John Hussey. Hussey later sold it for £600 (its annual value was £42 4s. 21/2d.) to Sir William Capell. This did not deter Earl Richard from entering it and assigning an interest in it to William Bottry before returning it to the Capell family (B.R.O. L 24/14, 24/409). Simpson was also later in Hussey's possession (B.R.O. L 24/24).

6 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 554; B.R.O. L 24/429; PRO. SC 12/18/53.

7 Cal Close Rolls, 11, no. 702 (cf. no. 740); Northamptonshire County Record Office, I. H. Jeayes (ed.), typescript catalogue of the muniments of the Compton family preserved at Castle Ashby (5 vols. 1921), 11, 125 (Family document 235).

8 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 757.

9 Ibid. 11, no. 724; Jeayes, catalogue, Compton family, Castle Ashby, II, 127 (F.D. 239–40).

10 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, nos. 708, 763; B.R.O. L 24/455.

11 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 720 (v, ix, xiv); B.R.O. L 24/465.

12 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 720 (i, ii, iv, vii).

13 Ibid., II, no. 720 (viii); possibly also Sylyso and Pulloxhill (B.R.O. L 24/16).

14 Cal. Close Rolls, II, no. 720 (v); B.R.O. L 24/15, 24/411; P.R.O. SC 12/18/53.

15 Cal. Close Rolls, II, no. 720 (ix);J. S. Brewer, J. Gairdner and R. H. Brodie (eds.), Letters and papers, foreign and domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII (21 vols. in 36, 1862–1932) (hereafter L.P.) 11, i. 120.

16 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 56; Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry VII (2 vols. 1914–16), II, 512–13.

17 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 781 (i); Jeayes, catalogue, Compton family, Castle Ashby, 1, 15 (F.D. 31).

18 B.R.O. L 24/457–8. This was a standard feature of later claims by the Greys.

19 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 784; P.R.O. C 1/512/42.

20 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 795 (i); P.R.O. C 1/512/36 (B.R.O. L 24/17).

21 P.R.O. C 1/512/43 (B.R.O. L 24/469).

22 Cal. Close Rolls, II, no. 726; P.R.O. SC 12/18/53; C1/512/41.

23 B.R.O. L 24/439.

24 P.R.O. SP 1/34/fo. 176v.

25 B.R.O. L 24/440.

26 B.R.O. L 24/530 fo. 1; B.R.O. DD OR fos. 8–9.

27 Ibid.; Jack, thesis cit. p. 350.

28 Harrison, C. J., ‘The petition of Edmund Dudley’, English Historical Review, lxxxvii (1972), 88 item 40, 95 n. 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 482; B.R.O. L 24/427,24/442.

30 Cal. Close Rolls, II, no. 553; B.R.O. L 24/432–3.

31 Cal. Close Rolls, II, no. 765; B.R.O. L 24/11, 24/431.

32 Ibid.

33 P.R.O. E/368/290/rot. xlviii–1, cited by Jack, thesis cit. pp. 350–1.

34 Claendar of Ancient Deeds (6 vols. 1890–1915), v, 522–3: A. 13485; Cal. Close Rolls, 11, no. 956; B.R.O. L 24/445.

35 Cal. Close Rolls, II, no. 797.

36 Jack, thesis cit. p. 352.

37 J. R. Lander, ‘Bonds, coercion and fear: Henry VII and the peerage’ in Crown and nobility, 1450–1509 (1976), pp. 290–1; cf. description of Kent as ‘the most unfortunate of Henry VII's victims’…‘harsh treatment, which led to his impoverishment and the eventual bankruptcy of his house’: Rawcliffe, C., The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham 1394–1521 {Cambridge, 1978), p. 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also ‘earl Richard's lands were carved up amongst Henry and his councillors and he himself was placed in ignominious tutelage’: Condon, M. M., ‘Ruling elites in the reign of Henry VII’ in Ross, C., ed., Patronage, pedigree and power in later medieval England (Gloucester, 1979), p. 121.Google Scholar

38 B.R.O. L 24/440, 24/453.

39 B.R.O. L 24/454, 24/464, 24/468 and cf. 24/525.

40 A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley (eds.). The Great Chronicle of London (1938), pp. 344–7.

41 B.R.O. L 24/457—9. Cf. 24/528: Henry VII ‘vnderstandynge the vnthryftynes of Richard late earle of Kent & consyderynge that yf the said Richard Earle of Kent were not stayed from his vnthryftye sales & sett in suche case as he shoulder thyncke he myght sell no more that he woulde sell all the whole Earledome & vtterlye decaye his bloode’.

42 P.R.O. SP 1/34/fo. 176.

43 B.R.O. L 24/454. 24/530.

44 B.R.O. L 24/457–8, 24/530.

45 B.R.O. L 24/454.

46 Cal. Close Rolls, II, no. 724.

47 Jack, thesis cit. pp. 350–1 for the suggestion of an attempt to break an entail.

48 B.R.O. L 24/454, 24/464. 24/468, 24/525, 24/530, 24/553.

49 B.R.O. L 24/464.

50 P.R.O. KB 9/961/52. It is unnecessary to dismiss Earl Richard's remarks as ‘surely a little disingenuous’ (Condon, ‘Ruling elites’, p. 123). Capell was by this time a minor beneficiary of the spils of Kent's patrimony: see above p. 672 n. 5.

51 B.R.O. L 24/453.

52 B.R.O. L 24/525.

53 B.R.O. L 24/446–7.

54 B.R.O. L 24/448–50.

55 B.R.O. L 24/455, 24/475–8; P.R.O. SP 1/34/fo. 179v.

56 P.R.O. SP1/34/fo. 176.

57 B.R.O. L 24/17; P.R.O. SP 1/34/fo. 181 v.

58 P.R.O. SP 1/34/fo. 177; B.R.O. L 24/439, 24/466–7.

59 P.R.O. SP 1/34/fo. 175v (not £1000 – Jack, thesis cit. p. 325).

60 P.R.O. SP 1/34/fo. 179.

61 P.R.O. SP 1/34/fo. 181 v.

62 P.R.O. SP 1/34/fo. 181; Jeayes, catalogue, Compton family, Castle Ashby, 11, 153a-157 (F.D. 289–98).

63 P.R.O. STAC 2/10/fos. 142–142V. There are other references to the earl's letters in P.R.O. STAC 2/26/48 and STAC 2/16/fo. 302.

64 L.P. III, i. 1139.

65 L.P. III, i. 870 p. 310; i. 906.

66 Jack, thesis cit. p. 349, citing Historical Manuscripts Commission, various collections, II (1903), 231.

67 L.P. Addenda, 1, i. 369.

68 This may be deduced from P.R.O. STAC 2/16/fos. 295, 298. The year of Earl Richard's death suggested here is one year later than that recorded in standard biographical dictionaries.

69 B.R.O. L 24/525, 24/530 fo. 1 v; B.R.O. DD OR 1064 fo. 9.

70 B.R.O. L 24/15–16, 24/469.

71 B.R.O. L 24/462, 24/463 (i) (cf. 24/459, 24/479). L 24/452/2 (and see other testimony there and in P.R.O. SP 1/34/fos. 181 v and 182V by various servants).

72 B.R.O. L 24/457 8.

73 Was Earl George's will ever proved? Reynold Grey claimed not. A will of some kind was exhibited in Chancery in 1524. In his petition Edmund Dudley referred to the will of the second earl. Was there a nuncupative will for goods worth £200–£300? If there was, did it show that Earl George had made no other will, or was it forged and invented by Sir William Gascoigne, or did it prove that since Earl George cared for ‘tryfles’ he must have made a will for the greater part of his estate? If Earl George did indeed make a final will as the Greys claimed, was such a will expressed orally and heard by witnesses as valid in law as a will in writing? For these arguments see B.R.O. L 24/452/2, 24/457–8, 24/481.

74 The various grants, sales and covenants may be disentangled from B.R.O. L 24/454, 24/468, 24/525, 24/558.

75 B.R.O. L 24/185, 24/454, 24/479; PRO. STAC 2/16/fo. 298.

76 P.R.O. STAC 2/16/fos. 295–307V, STAC 2/26/48, STAC 2/26/260. For a fuller acc-ount, and for more on Sir William Compton, see my paper ‘The rise of Sir William Compton, early Tudor courtier’, English Historical Review, xcvi (1981), 754–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 P.R.O. STAC 2/26/260.

78 B.R.O. L 24/183–5, 24/464, 24/475, 24/479. 24/482–4.

79 B.R.O. L 24/185.

80 B.R.O. L 24/460, 24/462, 24/463 (2), L 28/1 (miscalendared 1520).

81 B.R.O. L 24/458; P.R.O. E 150/24/3; P.R.O. C 142/48/132.

82 B.R.O. L 24/183–4; 24/464, 24/482; P.R.O. E 150/24/3 (B.R.O. L 24/451 is a copy); P.R.O. C 142/48/132.

83 B.R.O. L 24/479.

84 B.R.O. L 24/457–8, 24/461–2, 24/463 (i); P.R.O. C 1/512/32–33.

85 P.R.O. C 1/512/34 (B.R.O. L 24/25 is a copy).

86 B.R.O. L 24/454.

87 P.R.O. C 1/512/34 (B.R.O. L 24/25) (Worcester); P.R.O. C 1/512/36 (B.R.O. L 24/17) (Bottry); P.R.O. C 1/512/38–39,50(B.R.O.L24/14) (Capell); P.R.O. C 1/512/43 (B.R.O. L 24/469) (Mordaunt); P.R.O. C 1/512/45 (B.R.O. L 24/24) (Piggott); B.R.O. L 24/15 (Wyatt); B.R.O. L 24/455 (Empson); B.R.O. L 24/465–6 (Gascoigne); B.R.O. L 24/467–8 (Lucas).

88 Cooper, J. P., ‘Patterns of inheritance and settlement by great landowners from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries’, in Goody, J., Thirskand, J.Thompson, E. P. (eds.), Family and Inheritance (Cambridge, 1976), p. 317 no. 19, citing PCC 13 Porche.Google Scholar

89 B.R.O. L 24/481.

90 B.R.O. L 24/16.

91 B.R.O. L 24/454; 24/458, 24/464–5, 24/481, 24/525, 24/528; P.R.O. SP 1/34/fos. 179–179V, 180v; P.R.O. E 315/250/fo. 43 (L.P. XVII, 258 fo. 43) but the MS is too damaged to be useful; P.R.O. E 323/2B/PT/1 fo. 31 (L.P. xviii, ii. 231 (1) (3)).

92 E.g. H. Miller, ‘The early Tudor peerage 1485–1547’, University of London M.A. thesis, 1950, pp. 15, 30, 146; James, M. E., ‘Obedience and dissent in Henrician England: the Lincolnshire rebellion 1536’, Past and Present, xlviii (1970), 53 n. 286.Google Scholar

93 B.R.O. L24/452/2, 24/458, 24/481.

94 B.R.O. L 24/452/2. It would be misleading to suggest that Grey ‘resigned’ his claim: Miller, thesis cit. pp. 30, 146.

95 P.R.O. SP 3/5/fo. 66 (L.P. xii, ii. 923).

96 B.R.O. L 26/454.I am most grateful to Miss Patricia Bell, county archivist, Bedfordshire County Record Office, for showing me a transcript of this document, for discussing its significance and, more generally, for the assistance that she and her staff gave me while I was consulting the Lucas papers. I should also wish to thank Mr C. S. L. Davies for reading an early draft of this paper.