THE LANDED ELITE, 1300-1500: NOTES
1.
For the later medieval English nobility and gentry, see C. Given Wilson, The
English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London,
1987), pp. 29-83, & G. Harriss, Shaping the Nation: England, 1360-1460
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2005), pp. 136-49.
2.
TNA PRO C47/1/4 m10.
3.
TNA PRO C47/1/9 m 11r.
4.
Such attempts by the first three Edwards each produced a mere handful of Kentish
landowners, but evasion was probably widespread: TNA PRO E198/1/9 (21
Edward I) – 9 individuals; C47/1/8 (9 Edward II), 7 individuals; C47/1/12 (19
Edward II) 5 individuals; C47/1/13 (8 Edward III), 5 individuals; C47/1/16 m 10r
(40 Edward III), 5 individuals. For the increased stratification of the gentry see
Given Wilson, English Nobility, pp. 69-72; T. B. Pugh, ‘The magnates, knights
and gentry’, in Fifteenth-Century England, 1399-1509: Studies in Politics and
Society, ed. S. B. Chrimes, C. D. Ross & R. A. Griffiths (Manchester University
Press, 1972), pp. 86-128.
5.
British Library, Harleian MS 6166/97; TNA: PRO, E198/4/16, 20-22, discussed
in P. Fleming, ‘The character and private concerns of the gentry of Kent, 14221509’ (University of Wales Ph.D. thesis, 1985) [henceforth, Fleming, ‘Gentry of
Kent’], pp. 14-5, 24-5.
6.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 40-42; Given Wilson, English Nobility, pp. 71-2.
7.
R. E. Glasscock, ed., The Lay Subsidy of 1334, British Academy Records of
Social and Economic History (Oxford University Press, London, 1975). The poll
tax returns for Kent do not give sufficient detail to be useful for calculating the
wealth of individuals: C. L. Fenwick, ed., The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381,
Part One: Bedfordshire to Leicestershire British Academy Records of Social and
Economic History (Oxford University Press, London, 1998).
8.
H. A. Hanley, B. A. & C. W. Chalklin, eds., ‘The Kent lay subsidy roll of
1334/5’, in Kent Records: Documents Illustrative of Medieval Kent Society, ed. F.
R. H. Du Boulay, Records Publication Committee, Kent Archaeological Society,
vol. 18 (1964), pp. 58-170; R. E. Glasscock, ‘The distribution of lay wealth in
Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, in the early fourteenth century’, Archaeologia Cantiana
[henceforth, AC], pp. 61-8.
9.
Inquisitions and Assessments Relating to Feudal Aids, with other Analogous
Documents, AD 1284-1431 [henceforth, FA], Vol. III, Kent to Norfolk (HMSO,
London, 1904), pp. 20-53.
10.
There is a surprisingly weak correlation between the two lists: only four knights
of the same name are found in both lists, and there are only six instances were
knights or ladies share the same family name between the two assessments.
Neither is there a clear correlation between the two assessments in terms of
relative wealth. While Sir William Septvans was the twelfth richest among the
1334/5 knights (assessed at £1 5s 4d), and the seventh richest individual in 1346/7
(£8), a reasonable degree of difference over the space of twelve years, Sir
Maurice de Bruyn, the fourteenth richest in 1334/5 (£1), was the sixtieth richest in
1346/7 (£2). Even more striking, Sir Otto de Graundison was assessed in 1334/5
at only 6s 8d, in other words as holding less than a quarter of a knight’s fee, but
he was the fourth richest individual assessed in 1346/7 (£9 6s 8d).
11.
A comparison between individuals’ wealth assessed in fifteenth-century 15th and
10th subsidies on moveables on the one hand with the 1431 and 1450 subsidies on
land on the other for those members of the Kentish gentry who were assessed in
both gave a ratio of one to three, which is not too far from the figure arrived at
here: Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 51-2.
12.
This would still be the case if the multiplier of three, derived from the fifteenthcentury comparison, was used.
13.
The following discussion of the 1412 subsidy is based on B Webster, ‘The
community of Kent in the reign of Richard II’, AC, 100 (1984), pp. 217-29, and
M. J. Barber, ‘A study of landowners and their estates in Essex, Kent, Surrey and
Sussex at the opening of the fifteenth century based on the land tax assessments of
1412’ (University of Oxford B.Litt. thesis, 1949), passim, both using material
derived from FA, Vol. VI, pp. 465-77.
14.
TNA: PRO, E179/124/218. The 1431 assessment has not been used since it
survives for only 16 of Kent’s 68 hundreds: FA, Vol. III, pp. 56-81. The 1436
assessment does not survive for Kent.
15.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, Appendix IV, pp. 475-6.
16.
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. XVIII, 1-6 Henry IV (1399-1405), Vol.
XIX, 7-14 Henry IV (1405-1413) (HMSO, London, 1987, 1992). The unvalued
assessments of the Gloucester holdings were probably substantial, and the likely
distortion caused by their omission should be borne in mind throughout the
following discussion.
17.
These findings also suggest the importance of widows as property holders: they
account for 18 of the 47 inquisitions, not counting the duchess of Gloucester and
her two daughters.
18.
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents, Henry
VII (3 vols, HMSO, London, 1898-1955), tabulated in Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’,
Appendix IV, p. 477.
19.
H. L. Gray, ‘Incomes from land in England in 1436’, EHR, 49 (1934), pp. 607-39;
T. B. Pugh & C. D. Ross, ‘The English baronage and the income tax of 1436’,
BIHR, 26 (1953), pp. 1-28; Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, p. 63.
20.
C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham, 13941521 (Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 8, 10, 191-2, 194; G. E. Cokayne,
The Complete Peerage… ed. V. Gibbs et al. [henceforth, GEC, Complete
Peerage], vol. 12, pt. 1, pp. 174-7.
21.
Based on the 1334 subsidy and the 1346/7 aid for knighting the Black Prince: see
above, nn. 8-9.
22.
Webster, ‘The community of Kent’, p. 219.
23.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, p. 91.
24.
K. Faulkner, ‘Leybourne, Sir Roger of (c.1215-1271); W. M. Ormrod,
‘Leybourne, Juliana, countess of Huntingdon (1303/4-1367); C. L. Kingsford
‘Northwood, John, First Lord (1254-1319’, rev. A. Ayton, Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004)
(http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article) [henceforth cited as ODNB].
25.
He was also assessed at £3 6s in moveable goods in 1334/5: see above, nn. 8-9.
26.
GEC, Complete Peerage, vol. 6, pp. 648-50; W M Ormrod, ‘Clinton, William,
earl of Huntingdon (d. 1354)’, ODNB.
27.
J. C. Stanford & M. Townsend, The Great Governing Families of England, vol. 1
(London, 1865), pp. 195-201; J. C. Wedgwood, History of Parliament:
Biographies of the Members of the Commons House, 1439-1509 (HMSO,
London, 1936) [henceforth, Wedgwood, History of Parliament], pp. 196, 322-4;
E. Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent (2nd edn.,
Wakefield, 1972) [henceforth, Hasted, Kent], vol. 5, p. 149; GEC, Complete
Peerage, vols. 3, p. 315, 11, pp. 478-9; British Library Additional MS 5485/47.
28.
GEC, Complete Peerage, vol. 3, pp. 338-55; P. Fleming, ‘Cobham Family (per.
C1250-c1530)’; R. Allen, ‘Cobham, John, third Baron Cobham of Cobham (c.
1320-1408)’, ODNB. N. Saul, Death, Art and Memory in Medieval England: The
Cobham Family and their Monuments, 1300-1500 (Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2001), Chapter 1.
29.
R. M. Jeffs, ‘The Poynings-Percy dispute: an example of the interplay of open
strife and legal action in the fifteenth century’, BIHR, 34 (1961), pp. 148-64; P.
Fleming, ‘Poynings, Michael, first Lord Poynings (c.1318-1369)’, ODNB.
30.
George seems to have been of a romantic disposition, since he later married his
mistress: T. B. Pugh, ‘Neville, Edward, first Baron Bergavenny (d. 1476)’; A.
Hawkyard, ‘Neville, George, third Baron Bergavenny (c.1469-1535)’, ODNB.
31.
For medieval local administration, see H. M. Jewell, English Local
Administration in the Middle Ages (Blandford, Newton Abbot, 1972); the gentry’s
role in county administration is summarised in P. Fleming, ‘Politics’, in R.
Radulescu & A. Truelove, eds., Gentry Culture in Late Medieval England
(Manchester University Press, 2005), pp. 5-62.
32.
B. Webster, ‘The county community of Kent in the reign of Richard II’, AC, 100
(1984), pp. 217-29.
33.
Sandford & Townsend, Great Governing Families of England, vol. 1, pp. 66-9; O.
Barron, ‘The Fanes’, The Ancestor, 12 (1905), pp. 4-17; Hasted, Kent, vol. 5, p.
75; S. T. Bindoff, The House of Commons, 1509 to 1558 (HMSO, London, 1982),
vol. 3, p. 513; CPR, 1494-1509, p. 589.
34.
R. Horrox, Richard III: A Study of Service (Cambridge University Press, 1989),
pp. 190-1; R. Horrox, ‘Brackenbury, Sir Robert (d. 1485), ODNB.
35.
List of Sheriffs for England and Wales, PRO Lists and Index Society, vol. 9
(London, 1898), pp. 12-13.
36.
Horrox, Richard III, pp. 188, 190-1; A. E. Conway, ‘The Maidstone sector of
Buckingham’s Rebellion, October 18 1483’, AC, 37 (1925), pp. 97-120, & see M.
Mercer ‘Kent and national politics, 1461-1509’, in this volume, p. ‘18’.
37.
List of Escheators for England and Wales, PRO Lists and Index Society, vol. 72
(London, 1971), pp. 66-8; Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 77-8.
38.
Members of Parliament (House of Commons, 1878), p. 303 f.; J. C.
Wedgwood, History of Parliament: Registers of the Ministers and of the Members
of Both Houses, 1439-1509 (HMSO, London, 1938), p. 650. This proportion
represents a slight increase in the number of knights compared to the period 13861421: J. S. Roskell et al., The History of Parliament: The House of Commons,
1386-1421 (Alan Sutton, Stroud, 1993) [henceforth, Roskell, History of
Parliament], vol. 1, p. 455.
39.
Rawcliffe, Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham, pp. 212, 235.
40.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 82-90. Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 1, pp.
455-7 generally confirms this view for the period 1386 to 1421, concluding that,
‘there is nothing to indicate that the government ever interfered in elections to
obtain a politically satisfactory outcome’ (p. 456), and ‘No hint of influence from
magnates, lay or ecclesiastical, is to be found in the electoral indentures’ (p. 457).
41.
For this paragraph, see Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 95-9.
42.
For a recent summary of the debate over the existence of ‘county community’ in
later medieval England, see Harriss, Shaping the Nation, pp. 187-95.
43.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 111-117, 148-54; summarised with additions in S
Pearson, The Medieval Houses of Kent: An Historical Analysis (RCHME,
London, 1994), pp. 16-7.
44.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 111-117; idem, ‘Culpeper family (per. C. 14001540)’; idem, ‘Haute family (per. C.1350-1530’; idem, ‘Scott family (per. c.1400c.1525)’, ODNB; Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 3, pp. 323-4.
45.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 113 122-7, Appendix III, Map A, pp. 465-6. In her
will of 1516 Amy, widow of William Brent esquire, left her properties in Devon
and Cornwall to her son John: CKS PRC 32/12/7. 46.
46.
CPR, 1461-67, p. 76; 1467-77, p. 42, and see M. Mercer, ‘Kent and
National Politics, 1461-1509’ in this volume, ‘p. 1’.
47.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 129-31.
48.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 3, p. 128, vol. 4, pp. 37, 306.
49.
TNA: PRO, E198/1/9, m 2; C47/1/4; Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 2, p.
557. 50.
50.
TNA: PRO, C47/1/8, 9, 12; F. W. T. Attree & J. H. L. Booker, ‘The Sussex
Colepepers’, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 47 (1904), pp. 47-81; 48 (1905),
pp. 65-98.
51.
TNA: PRO, C47/1/13, 16.
52.
W. Lambarde, A Perambulation of Kent, ed. R. Church (Bath, 1970), p. 6.
53.
A. Brown, ‘London and north-west Kent in the later middle ages: the
development of a land market’, AC, 92 (1976), pp. 145-55.
54.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, p. 112.
55.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 131-2.
56.
K. Muir, The Life and Letters of Sir Thomas Wyatt (Liverpool University Press,
1963), pp. 1-3; Hasted, Kent, vol. 4, p. 450; W. Martin-Conway, ‘Allington
Castle’, AC, 28 (1909), pp. 354-5; CCR, 1500-1509, nos. 819, 953.
57.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 4, pp. 306-10. This point is examined in
detail by D. Grummitt, ‘Kent and National Politics, 1400-1460’, and M. Mercer,
‘‘Kent and National Politics, 1461-1509’, in this volume.
58.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 2, pp. 607-8.
59.
TNA: PRO, C67/47, 55, C146/121, 125, 10117, 2792, 4466; CCR, 1485-1500,
nos. 368, 768.
60.
TNA: PRO, E179/124/218; E326/877, 879, 1119; C146/1334, 98880/3, 9929;
CPR, 1446-1452, p. 480.
61.
TNA: PRO, C67/50, C146/1157, 1160-1, 2219, 1334, 3941, E210/960, PROB
11/8 f. 18; J. H. Baker, ‘Rede, Sir Robert (d. 1519)’, ODNB.
62.
A. Tuck, ‘Rickhill, Sir William (d. 1407)’, ODNB; Roskell, History of
Parliament, vol. 4, pp. 210-11.
63.
J. L. Leland, ‘Bealknap, Sir Robert (d. 1401)’, ODNB.
64.
S. L. Thrupp, The Merchant Class of Medieval London (Chicago University
Press, 1948), pp. 373-4; Hasted, Kent, vol. 5, pp. 101, 227, 287, 318, vol. 9, p.
456; TNA: PRO, C146/353; Wedgwood, History of Parliament, pp. 450-1; CPR,
1485-1494, p. 271; W. Berry, County Genealogies: Kent (London, 1830), pp. 779.
65.
Hasted, Kent, vol. 6, pp. 86, 146, 273.
66.
P. W. Fleming, ‘The Lovelace dispute: concepts of property and inheritance in
fifteenth-century Kent’, Southern History, 11 (1991), pp. 1-18.
67.
TNA: PRO, C67/53, CP25 (i) 117a/345/12027, E210/10, PROB 11/8 f. 15, 22 f.
15; Thrupp, Merchant Class, p. 353; Wedgwood, History of Parliament, pp. 5301.
68.
Hasted, Kent, vol. 3, p. 38; TNA: PRO, C140/10; Calendar of Inquisitions Post
Mortem … Henry VII, vol. 3, no. 404; GEC, Complete Peerage, vol. 10, pp. 13740, vol. 12, p. 739; J. Hughes, ‘Boleyn, Thomas, earl of Wiltshire and earl of
Ormond (1476/7-1539)’, ODNB.
69.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 4, pp. 125-7.
70.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 4, pp. 32-3; R. L. Axworthy, ‘Pecche, John
(d. 1380)’, ODNB.
71.
P. Fleming, ‘Haute Family (per. c.1350-1530)’, ODNB.
72.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 4, pp. 32-3, vol. 2, pp. 364-5.
73.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 2, pp. 598-602.
74.
Wedgwood, History of Parliament, pp. 181, 194-5.
75.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 3, pp. 324-7.
76.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 3, pp. 764-5.
77.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 2, pp. 10-11.
78.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 3, pp. 637-8.
79.
J. S. Roskell, The Commons in the Parliament of 1422 (Manchester University
Press, 1954), pp. 201-3.
80.
J. A. Nigota, ‘Fiennes, James, first Baron Saye and Sele (c. 1390-1450), ODNB;
Rawcliffe, Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham, p. 24.
81.
CCR, 1447-54, p. 175; CFR, 1485-1509, p. 91; CPR, 1485-94, p. 172; F. Hull,
ed., A Calendar of the White and Black Books of the Cinque Ports, 1432-1955
(HMC, London, 1966), pp. 30, 117 ff.; Wedgwood, History of Parliament, p. 44951; Rawcliffe, Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham, pp. 72, 82,
212, 222; TNA: PRO, C146/3720. For William see below, p. 00.
82.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 4, p. 636.
83.
P. Fleming, ‘Culpeper family (per. C.1400-c.1540)’; J. L. Kirby, ‘Savage, Sir
Arnold (1358-1410)’, ODNB.
84.
Potyn had moved in high circles as an associate of Alice Perrers before 1377,
despite being no more than a citizen and draper of London at the time, and so
such a relationship between one of the middle-ranking Kentish gentry and a lord
is not necessarily unlikely: Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 4, pp. 125-7.
85.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 3, pp. 128-30.
86.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 4, pp. 151-2.
87.
See above, n. 81.
88.
M. A. Hicks, ‘The changing role of the Wydevilles in Yorkist politics to 1483’, in
Patronage, Pedigree and Power, ed. C. D. Ross (Alan Sutton, Gloucester, 1979),
pp. 61-3, and see M. Mercer, ‘Kent and National Politics, 1461-1509’, in this
volume, ‘pp. 5-6’.
89.
S. Cunningham, ‘Guildford, Sir Richard (c. 1450-1506)’, ODNB, and see M.
Mercer, ‘Kent and National Politics, 1461-1509’, in this volume, ‘p. 14 f.’.
90.
A. F. Pollard, ‘Waller, Richard (c.1395-c.1462)’, rev. E. L. O’Brien, ODNB.
91.
F. R. H. Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury: An Essay on Medieval Society
(London, 1966), pp. 269-70, 290-1, 395. For Darell and Brackenbury, see below,
pp. 00-00.
92.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 2, pp. 456-7, vol. 3, pp. 128-30.
93.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 3, pp. 323-4.
94.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 3, pp. 408-9.
95.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 2, p. 219.
96.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 4, pp. 264-5.
97.
Du Boulay, Lordship of Canterbury, p. 396; Rawcliffe, Staffords, Earls of
Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham, p. 212; Wedgwood, History of Parliament,
pp. 120-1; TNA: PRO, C67/39.
98.
Du Boulay, Lordship of Canterbury, pp. 154, 272-3, 307n, 339-400; TNA: PRO,
PROB 11/17 f. 8.
99.
TNA: PRO, C1/185/71, KB27/702 m 42v. See also the case of William Keen,
below, p. 00.
100.
U. V. Lambert, Bletchingley: A Parish History (London, 1921), p. 244.
101.
Fleming, ‘Lovelace dispute’.
102.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 3, pp. 95-7.
103.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 3, pp. 349-50.
104.
TNA: PRO, C1/185/69; CPR, 1494-1509, pp. 162-3; Wedgwood, History of
Parliament, pp. 183-4; E. F. Jacob, ed., The Register of Henry Chichele,
Archbishop of Canterbury, 1414-43, vol. 1 (Canterbury and York Society, 1938),
pp. xvi-lviii.
105.
Hasted, Kent, vol. 5, p. 455, vol. 7, p. 134 f.; Wedgwood, History of Parliament,
pp. 616-7; Bindoff, History of Parliament, vol. 2, pp. 642-4.
106.
Thrupp, Merchant Class, p. 279 f..
107.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 2, pp. 598-604.
108.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 2, pp. 752-5; W. A. Scott Robertson,
‘Pedigree of Darell of Scotney’, AC, 17 (1887), pp. 46-8; R. Griffin, ‘An
inscription in Little Chart Church’, AC, 36 (1923), pp. 131-42; British Library
Additional MS 33,920 f. 193.
109.
Roskell, The Commons in the Parliament of 1422, pp. 201-3.
110.
Roskell, History of Parliament, vol. 2, pp. 590-2.
111.
See M. Mercer, ‘Kent and National Politics, 1461-1509’, in this volume, pp. ’1821’.
112.
J. Greenstreet, ed., ‘List of the gentry of Kent in the time of Henry VII’, AC, 11
(1877), pp. 394-7; TNA: PRO, C67/53.
113.
A. R. Wagner, English Genealogy (2nd edn., Oxford University Press, 1972), pp.
141-5; idem, Heralds and Heraldry in the Middle Ages (2nd edn., Oxford
University Press, 1956), pp. 43-4; N. Saul, ‘The social status of Chaucer’s
Franklin: a reconsideration’, Medium Aevum, 52 (1983), pp. 10-26; CPR, 147685, p. 465; TNA: PRO, C1/124/27, CP40/850 m 92r.
114.
TNA: PRO, C67/47, CP25(i)/117A/345/145, 147; British Library Harleian
Charters 76/G/56, 76/H/8, 77/F/36; CKS U47/11/8; CPR, 1467-77, p. 301.
115.
TNA: PRO, C67/42.
116.
TNA: PRO, C67/44, 51, PROB 11/19 f. 10, 25 f. 14; Wedgwood, History of
Parliament, p. 5.
117.
Lambarde, Perambulation of Kent, pp. 7-8.
118.
M. Zell, ‘Landholding and the land market in early modern Kent’, in Early
Modern Kent, 1540-1640 (Boydell/Kent County Council, 2000), ed. Zell, pp. 3949.
119.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, p. 112.
120.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 120-1.
121.
Daniel King, The Vale-Royall of England, or, The County-Palatine of Chester
Illustrated (London, 1656), cited in P. Laslett, The World We Have Lost (2nd edn.,
London, 1971), p. 196.
122.
L. B. Larking, ‘Note on the birthplace of Caxton’, AC, 5 (1863), pp. 324-5; Jacob,
ed., Register of Henry Chichele, vol. 2, p. 641; British Library Harleian Charters
76/G/57, 77/F/15; TNA: PRO, C1/41/48; CKS U47/11/8; Roskell, History of
Parliament, vol. 2, p. 219.
123.
TNA: PRO, E210/838, 960; FA, vol. 3, p. 72; Hull, ed., White and Black Books,
p. 244; CKS PRC 32/11/23.
124.
CPR, 1467-77, p. 44, CPR, 1476-85, pp. 58, 119, 238, 287, 344; TNA: PRO,
C67/52; Wedgwood, History of Parliament, pp. 177-8. Other gentry families may
also have had their humble off-shoots. In 1445 William Finch, alias Doget, of
Maidstone, took out a pardon in which he described himself as a tailor: TNA:
PRO, C67/40. In 1450 a pardon was procured by Richard Guildford, a tailor of
Hawkhurst: CPR, 1446-52, p. 341. The will of Henry Scott of Halden, made in
1511, mentions his plough, oxen and workhorses: CKS PRC 32/11/29. The will of
Elizabeth Scott, made in 1497, indicates that she too was of non-gentle rank: CKS
PRC 32/16/1.
125.
For the Cobhams, see above, pp. 00.
126.
Thomas Culpeper esquire (d. 1515), of the Aylesford branch, was the husband of
Margaret, daughter of Thomas Culpeper of Bedgebury. The couple shared a
common ancestor in Sir John Culpeper, who died in 1413, but they were
separated by five degrees of kinship, one degree beyond the most distant
relationship: Hasted, Kent, vol. 4, pp. 436-7; Attree & Booker, ‘The Sussex
Colepepers’; E. Foss, A Biographical Dictionary of the Judges of England
(London, 1870), pp. 180-1; P. Fleming, ‘Culpeper family (per. c.1400-c.1540)’,
ODNB.
127.
Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, pp. 126-7.
128.
See M. Mate, ‘Economy’, in this volume.
129.
Based on Calendars of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vols 18 & 19.
130.
FA, vol. 3, pp. 56-81.
131.
For example, S. Cunningham, ‘Guildord, Sir Richard (c. 1450-1506)’, ODNB.