Adventures in Family History
Elizabeth Codrington was the elder daughter of Richard Codrington of Dodington in Gloucestershire and had – shall we say – an interesting life.
Richard was a member of the junior branch of the Codrington family, descended from Thomas, the youngest son of John Codrington of Agincourt. He married Joyce, the daughter of John Borlase, Sheriff of Buckinghamshire, of Little Marlow, and several of their children were born there. The family home, however, was in Dodington in Gloucestershire and this is where Elizabeth was born about 1595.
There are many similarities between the two branches of the Codrington family at the time. Richard was born in 1560 and died in 1613, leaving a large family. Robert Codrington was a distant cousin from the senior branch, about the same age and his family lived at nearby Didmarton. With his wife Anne Stubbes they also had a large family – many of them having the same names as the family of Richard and Joyce.
This has partly contributed to the confusion between the families, especially as Christopher Codrington, the great grand-son of Robert, purchased Dodington from Samuel Codrington of the junior branch of the family in about 1700 with the profits from his sugar plantations. 
Robert died in 1618, just a few years after his cousin Richard, and both of them left a significant amount of money in their wills to their sons, for their education, and to their daughters for their marriages.
Richard, justice of the peace for Gloucestershire, left about £400 [about £50,000] to each of his sons for the …
“ … maintenance and lyvliehood and educacion in Learninge, both at the Universities and elsewhere … “
And it is this legacy that seems to have been the cause of some problems for both his sons and daughters.
After Samuel the two eldest sons of Richard and Joyce, were Richard and Robert and both attended Oxford university. It was Robert from this family that has been incorrectly attributed to the Didmarton family of Robert and Anne, and this is discussed elsewhere in more detail.
The change of ownership of the Dodington property between the two branches of the family and an incorrect entry in the Oxford records [suggesting the parentage of Robert] have lead to this confusion, but I have little doubt that it was this Robert who attended Oxford, moved to Norfolk and became a writer, translator and poet.
Richard attended Pembroke College and Robert was at Magdalen but both may have lodged with John Browne and his wife Mihill, who lived in Oxford by means of …
“the selling of tobacco and the keeping of a tippling house.”
In a court case, brought by the brothers, the Brownes are accused of seducing the two boys into:
“loose and inordinate courses causing them to spend and consume their whole portions [of their inheritance].”
Robert was “utterly ruinated” and was, at one point, imprisoned in the “Counter of London”, by Browne.
In these proceedings Joyce is named as the mother of these two, and Elizabeth Codrington as their sister.
Elizabeth – described as a gentlewoman – was involved by pledging bonds to get her brothers out of debt, in order that their mother did not get to know of the affair, but the Brownes also tried to get their hands on her inheritance as well.
A few years before this, however, it was Elizabeth who’s inheritance – due on her marriage – got her into trouble.
Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of Richard and Joyce, had been “appoynted a porcion to a great value” following the death of her father [in 1613].
This was £500, the equivalent of about £70,000 today.
There are several documents in the National Archives relating to Elizabeth:
Subject: Kidnapping Elizabeth Codrington, daughter of Richard Codrington esq. deceased, the said John Rodman’s master and attempt to marry her at Malmesbury church.
These charges were made by Elizabeth’s mother, Joyce [through Sir Henry Yelverton, the Attorney General], against John Rodman on Tuesday, 21 October 1617 in the star chamber.
There are several defendants in this case:
John Rodman, son of Hugh Rodman of Alston, blacksmith, Richard Hayes, a ‘reputed minister’, William Bruton, Thomas Bushopp, William Cary, Thomas Gilman, husbandman.
The Bill of Complaint starts with a VERY long sentence describing John Rodman and the events that occurred, from the point of view of Joyce.
I have tried to break this down into manageable chunks:
John Rodman is identified as a serving man, the son of Hugh Rodman of Alliston [probably Alveston] in Gloucestershire, a blacksmith and a very poore man.
For three of four years John had served Richard Codrington at Dodington as a horse-keeper and coachman and following the death of Richard continued to be employed by his widow, Joyce;
“havinge an especiall opinion confidence and trust in the honesty & fidelity of the said John Rodman”.
After about three years, however, John was dismissed for “incontinent discources” regarding love-potions and in particular:
“how farre a man might prevaile in getting of woemens good wills to yield to unlawful affections thereby and that he could make any woman, by such means, to come after him.”
This sounds simply like a bit of male bravado – but things went further than this.
At the beginning of February 1617 the said John Rodman was planning how he might get the said Elizabeth Codrington into his possession and so at his pleasure intermarry with her.
He and William Bruton of Titherington gathered a motley cast of characters in order to execute his plans.
Richard Hayes a reputed minister.
“one which hath used to marry sundry evill and disordered persons together without any licence or Bannes in such behalfe and is a Common agent in Clandestyne marriage”
William Cary the son in Law of the said Richard Hayes
Thomas Gylman of Malmsbury.
“who hath bene often in prison for suspicion of Felonies supposed to be done by him”
Phillip Hyott the wife[?] of Francis Hyott and one Elizabeth Hopkins
“beinge all persons of base quality and lewd life and diverse other persons yet unknowne”.
The conclusion of their conspiracy was that:
… the said Elizabeth should be somtyme at night trayned forth of her mothers howse at Dodington afore said by some devise or other and beinge soe trayned and by sleight gott abroade, they the said John Rodman Will[ia]m Bruton and Thomas Bushopp should in the night when theire practisse could not be discovered, take and Carry awaye the said Elizabeth Codrington from Dodington aforesaid unto Malmsbury aforesaid and there cause the said John Rodman and Elizabeth to be marryed together.
The plan was carried out on 4th February at about 9 o’clock at night.
Joyce accuses unknown conspirators, by “false and cunning pretences”, of taking Elizabeth from the house without her “hatte maske or gloves safegard or any other thing fit for riding.”
The said John Rodman and Will[ia]m Bruton lyinge there ready p[re]pared for the purpose rushed both out of a grove in Dodington aforesaid called the Alders and laid handes upon her the said Elizabeth Codrington and by Force and stronge hand contrary to the intent and much entreaty of the said Elizabeth Codrington did one by one arme and the other by the other arme take and leade awaye the said Elizabeth Codrington over the Feilde.
They met up with Thomas Bishopp who was waiting with horses and Elizabeth was lifted onto a horse behind John Rodman and taken to Malmsbury ten miles from Dodington.
Joyce says that Elizabeth did not cry out as she feared she would be murdered or evily used by the conspirators.
The group gained entry to the church at Malmesbury by “ryott and disorder” in the middle of the night and there – by great threats and menaces – endeavour to constrain Elizabeth and marry her to John Rodman.
Fearing that they had been discovered they left Malmsbury and carried Elizabeth to Cricklade in Wiltshire about eight miles away
But a warrant had been issued and the conspirators were captured and brought before Sir John Hungerford, Justice of the Peace for Wiltshire and, upon the entreaty of Elizabeth she was delivered from the conspirators and admitted to go home to her mother.
On discovering her daughter was missing Joyce caused the groves and fields to be searched and when Elizabeth could not be found had fallen into “extasyes and expressions of sorrow and grief and had been much impaired in her health since”.
John Rodman William Bruton and Thomas Bishopp were indicted for:
Felonious takinge awaye the said Elizabeth Codrington against her will unlawfully contrary to a Statute in that behalf made in the third yere of the Raigne of Kinge Henry the Seaventh late Kinge of England [1488]
But they were found not guilty and this court proceeding is actually an appeal against that decision.
John Rodman William Bruton and Thomas Bushopp then and there by due and lawful Course of proceeding were found by the Jury not guilty of the said Felony …
Joyce seems to have been concerned about reputations and keeping servants in their place.
But never the less for as much as all the said Conspiracies, combinations, practises and misdemeanours were all committed, perpetrated and done since your Highness’ most gracious general & free pardon and every other pardon which pardons …
… such haughty and lewd practises are much against the peace, quiet & good government of this, your highness’ realm, and was in the said John Rodman contrary to the fidelity of an ancient servant and doe tend as well to the utter heaviness, disparagement and disgrace of the kindred and friends of the said Elizabeth Codrington, they being of great worship and of very ancient descent of gentry, as also to the very evil example and emboldening of servants and others of base quality to attempt the like upon their Masters children and the children of others of great dignity and worth if punishment be not inflicted upon the said malefactors.
The defendants were acquitted under the statute of 3 Henry VII [c. 2, Abduction of women]
But there are two sides to every story and that of John Rodman is, as you would expect, contrary to what Joyce has indicated.
It is true that he this defendant was a servant in the house to Richard Codrington, late of Doddington in the County of Gloucester esquire, whilst he lived, and that the said Richard about two years since died leaving behind him – amongst divers other children – a daughter called Elizabeth then of the age of nineteen or twenty years, and left unto her a portion [inheritance] of five hundred pounds or thereabouts.
Richard’s widow, Joyce, continued to employ John and during this period he became familiar with Elizabeth, aged about twenty, and that their long familiarity was such that she was enforced to require his care and she desired him to carry her away and marry her.
Joyce found out about this and dismissed John but Elizabeth continued to write letters to him entreating him to fetch her away and arranged to meet with John so they could be married.
William Bruton and Thomas Bishopp say that the defendant Rodman acquainted them that he was to ryde to fetche home a wief & intreated them to accompany him tellinge them that she was a woeman of yeares and discretion and appointed him that night to Fetche her And they accompanied him to or near the place appointed wheare they met.
They then went to Malmsbury church in Wiltshire where Rodman and Elizabeth were married together.
After this the defendants were pursued to Cricklade by the means of the said Joyce and were taken before Sir John Hungerford, justice of the peace for Wiltshire, where Elizabeth acknowledged her own desires in regard to John Rodman.
Despite this admission by Elizabeth, John Rodman was imprisoned for six months before being found not guilty at his trial.
So what is the truth of the matter?
If Elizabeth had planned to run away and marry John Rodman, then surely she would have dressed for February weather?
This indicates that she may well have been taken from the house (by persons unknown) as suggested by Joyce and did not have any part in the plan – or had decided not to take part but John went ahead anyway.
On the other hand Elizabeth did indicate that she was part of the plan to marry John Rodman before Sir John Hungerford and there is no evidence of anyone else involved in actually taking her from the house.
However unwisely perhaps she did want to marry John Rodman – or at least thought that she did? Maybe John was not simply trying get his hands on her inheritance, although that would have been a bonus.
The evidence from the defendants indicate that the marriage did actually happen, but perhaps it was declared invalid?
I am not sure what happened to Elizabeth. According to the History of Antigua one Elizabeth married William Bucke in 1636 when she would have been 40 but perhaps this is to another Elizabeth?
There is also a record of a marriage between Elizabeth and Samuel Stokes but this record should be for her younger sister Isabella.
If Elizabeth had been officially married to John Rodman then any further marriage record would reflected this and I cannot find a record of Elizabeth Rodman.
There is a record of a will dated 1688 for Elizabeth Codrington 93.
I had attributed this to another Elizabeth who died in 1687 but perhaps this was for this Elizabeth as the 93 matches with her age?
In this case she lead a long, but perhaps not so happy, life at Dodington.
Chris Sidney 2015
In a previous post I have argued that Robert Codrington, the writer and translator, was more likely to be the son of Richard Codrington of Dodington, than the second son of Robert Codrington of Didmarton.
But then a new piece of evidence comes along …
We will get to that in a minute, but first a bit of background. The record for Robert Codrington at Oxford identifies him as the second son of Robert Codrington of Didmarton, but I believe that this is a simple mistake and Robert was the son of Richard Codrington of Dodington.
There does not appear to be any evidence that there were two Robert Codringtons at Oxford, and I have concluded that one of them – Robert of Didmarton – never existed, died young or, at the very least, did not go to Oxford University, and the Oxford record is mistaken as to his pedigree.
Robert Henry Codrington, in his definitive work on the Codrington family, believed that Cotherington may have been the original spelling of the family name although pronounced as Cutherington.
So I have been slowly searching the internet using all the possible spellings of the name and coming up with some interesting results.
Codrington, Codringtonne, Codryngton, Codrinton, Codrintonne, Codrynton, Coddrington, Cotherington, Cotherinton, Cotheryngton, Coderyngton, Cudrington, Cuddrington, Cuderington, Cutherington, Goodryngton, Guderington, Gudderington, Cothrindton, Cowdrington, Cooaddoringtonn.
The possibility, of course, is that some of the alternate spellings of the Codrington name actually belong to other, unrelated families.
RHC may have dismissed some spellings such as Godrington as belonging elsewhere, however I have come across several members of the Codrington family with alternative spellings not mentioned in the list, so it is not a definitive reference.
One similar name that could fit this category is Codington [of Surrey] but this does not match the alternative spellings identified above.
All of these spellings have a “d” or “th” sound followed by an “r” or sometime “l” – and this is what really distinguishes the family name from others.
Having said that a record has turned up for Robert Cotherington of Norfolk that may indicate that there were two Roberts who both lived in Norfolk at about the same time.
Robert Codrington and his wife Hennigham Drury [of Norfolk] had a son named Robert who was baptised in London 1635.
This Robert was the one who moved to Barbados and had a daughter, Henningham [named after her grandmother], who married Paul Carrington.
The new record for Robert Cotherington of Norwich shows a son – also named Robert – who was born 1633 and this could be the son of Robert and Henningham, assuming that he was baptized some time later in London.
In this record, Robert is shown as a clergyman and the record itself is related to his son’s admission to the Merchant Taylor’s school in 1645, when Robert junior would have been 12.
But none of the accounts I have seen about Robert, the writer, indicate that he had any relationship with the church, other than being described as a puritan [and a parliamentarian] by Anthony Wood in Athenæ Oxonienses. p.699
Wood was contemporary with Robert and his biographical work of Oxford [University] writers was published in 1691, only 25 years after Robert died, so if Robert had been a clergyman I guess Wood would have known this – unless it wasn’t that important to record what Robert did outside of his writing.
In the baptism record of his son, Robert is identified as a yeoman and he probably had land in Norfolk from his marriage, but he later moved to Middlesex, London.
The Merchant Taylor’s school was [and still is] located in London – the original site was destroyed in the great fire in 1666.
“The grammar school, founded in the Parish of St. Lawrence Pountney in London in the yere of our Lord God one thousand fyve hundred, sixty-one by this worshipfull company of the Marchaunt-Taylors of the Cytty of London, in the honor of Christ Jesu”
In 1645 the Headmaster of the school was William Dugard, the cousin of Sir James Harrington a parliamentarian and one of the commissioners at the trial of Charles I.
Whether the politics of the time influenced the choice of school can only be guessed at, but Robert was described as a parliamentarian by Wood based on one of his more significant publications:
The Life and Death of the Illustrious Robert Earle of Essex, & c. Containing at large the wars he managed, and the commands he had in Holland, the Palatinate, and in England, etc.
So just who was Robert Cotherington of Norwich?
There are several possibilities:
1. Robert was the son of Robert and Anne Codrington of Didmarton.
There is no mention of a son named Robert in the court proceedings of the Codrington family following the death of Robert in 1618 and the marriage of his widow, Anne, to Ralph Marsh.
If he had taken holy orders and moved to Norfolk then perhaps he had no further claims against his father’s estate, although all of the other children of Robert and Anne have been mentioned in one or other of the documents, even if they had died.
If this Robert was of Didmarton then it is likely that he also married Henningham Drury and his son, Robert, was the one who went to Barbados.
In this scenario Robert of Dodington may have still completed his degree [perhaps not at Oxford] and become the translator of Aesop’s fables, but did not necessarily have any connection to Norfolk.
2. Robert was the son of Richard and Joyce Codrington of Dodington.
Robert of Dodington may not have completed his Oxford degree – after the incident with the Brownes – and instead moved to Norfolk to become a clergyman.
If he did not complete his degree he may not have been recorded [officially] as having been at Oxford, but clearly he was there, based on the records of the court case with the Brownes.
It is also possible that he did complete his degree and still become a clergyman and also married Henningham Drury.
Perhaps the clergyman reference was a mistake by whoever made the original record?
Possibly he had sold the land in Norfolk when he moved to London and could no longer be called Yeoman, and perhaps he did have some sort of position as a clerk or within the church while he pursued his writing and translating.
Or possibly the record has been transcribed incorrectly and this should say gentleman – but I think this unlikely.
3. Robert was not related to either the Didmarton or Dodington Codrington families.
This seems possible, given that there are no other records for Cotherington [or Codrington] living in Norfolk.
But if he is not from either family then where does he come from?
Possibly he is related to an older branch of the Codrington family who have been unrecorded, or records have not yet been found.
Or perhaps a member of the Codington family who has been mis-recorded.
It is possible that Robert, the writer and translator, was a member of the clergy and that his son, Robert was born in Norfolk but baptised in London.
Most accounts about the life of Robert could fit with this time-line, despite no mention of any connection to the clergy.
Codrington, Robert, a miscellaneous writer and translator of the seventeenth century, was born of an ancient family in Gloucestershire, in 1602, and educated at Oxford, where he was elected demy of Magdalen college, in July 1619, and completed his degree of M. A. in 1626. He then travelled, and on his return settled as a private gentleman in Norfolk, where he married. He died of the plague in London, in 1665.
But was the son of Robert of Norwich the one who went to Barbados?
If he was from the Didmarton family then his uncle was Christopher Codrington, so there were certainly family connections he could take advantage of.
In this case he would also have had to be the one that married into the Drury family, simply because of the name of his daughter, Henningham.
But if he was the son of Robert Codrington of Didmarton, then I still do not understand why there was no mention of him in any of the court proceedings following his mother’s marriage to Ralph Marsh.
These proceedings were relevant to his inheritance as, in 1618 when his father Robert died, he would not yet have completed his studies at Oxford.
Of the two Codrington links the most likely is that Robert of Norwich was the son of Richard and Joyce Codrington of Dodington, which then enriches our knowledge of him and of his son Robert.
But as far as I know none of the biographies of Robert Codrington mention him being a member of the clergy and I cannot find any other records relating to him in Norfolk.
If Robert the writer was a clergyman in 1645, when his son attended Merchant Taylor’s school, then surely this would have been mentioned in his biography or in one of his letters or publications?
Having said that most biographies are based on what Anthony Wood had to say about Robert, most of which was a simply a list of his writings and translations rather than personal or family details.
If Robert of Norwich could be linked with the Didmarton family, it would clear up the missing son from the will of Robert Codrington in 1618.
But I do not think that this can be true for reasons already discussed.
If Robert of Norwich is not Robert the writer then this leaves us with the possibility of either an unknown member of the Codrington family, or a member of another family with a similar sounding name, such as Codington.
There are some references to the Codington family in Suffolk in the 16th century – in particular of Richard Codington who has a tomb in Ixworth church dated 1567 – and it is possible for a descendant of his to be living in Norfolk a century later.
In 1538, King Henry VIII granted it [Little Melton] to Richard Codington of Codington in Surrey, in exchange for the manor of Codington, along with the manor of Ixworth, &c.
There are also references to William Codington of Boston in Lincolnshire, the son of a Robert Codington who died 1615.
William was treasurer to the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1629 and went there with the first voyage in 1630. He was governor of Newport in 1640 and of Rhode Island in 1678, the same year he died.
William could have been a brother of Robert Codington born about 1600 and possibly related to Richard of Suffolk and this seems a reasonable explanation – a simple transcription or recording error from Codington to Cotherington.
But I can find no records to support Robert being from the Codington family either, so, for now at least, I am going to stick with my original assumptions about the other two Robert Codringtons as described elsewhere.
Until another piece of evidence turns up anyway.
This is the introduction page to a publication about the Coddington family of Woodbridge, New Jersey.
Strangely – having gone to the trouble to show the variations in spelling – there appears to be a reference here to the origins of the Codrington family name and not the Coddingtons at all.
This just proves how easy it is to get mixed up between the two families.
Chris Sidney 2015
John Codrington died on 9th October 1475. This date is engraved on his tomb in St. Peter’s church in Wapley, Gloucestershire along with his age – 111 years, 5 months and 13 days.
I have removed some parts of this article because it was getting much too long. My thoughts on the grant of arms to John Codrington and associated information can now be be found in The Codrington Arms although some references are included below where they are relevant to this article.
Eleventy One, as Bilbo Baggins said at his birthday party, is a great age and extremely unusual – even today – so could John Codrington really have beaten the odds and reach this grand age in the 15th century?
RHC in his “Memoirs of the Codrington family” [see below] calculated the birth of John Codrington as 23rd April 1364 from his age and the date that he died, which are both recorded on his tomb.
The age being recorded so precisely is quite unusual, suggesting that it was, indeed, exceptional. But one hundred and eleven?
One suggestion is that the stonemasons made an error with the Roman numerals – or the instructions they were given were incorrect – and the age on the tomb should be 91 XCI instead of 111 CXI, but even this age is noteworthy.
Of the six possible combinations of the roman numerals on the tomb, only three are valid: CXI = 111, CIX = 109, XCI = 91 and the most obvious error is to swap the first two characters.
If true then the date of his birth should be 26th April 1384.
RHC had himself seen the inscription in 1852 and was convinced that it had not been tampered with but he had no way of knowing if it was actually correct to begin with and took the age at face value.
Here lies Johannes Codry’ton knight, who died on the ninth day of the month of November in the year of our Lord 1475, having the age on the day that he died of 111 years, 5 months 13 days, may God bless his soul. Amen
If the lower age is correct then this would help to clarify some aspects of the life of John Codrington. For a start he would have been 20 years younger during Agincourt at the age of 30, and would have also married at a more sensible age.
But it opens up other issues, in particular about his father, Robert, who would have been quite an old man when John was born, and whether there are any missing generations.
This article is based largely on the definitive work on the Codrington family by Robert Henry Codrington [RHC] – the snappily titled “Memoir of the Family of Codrington of Codrington, Didmarton, Frampton-On-Severn and Dodington.” – which was itself based on notes made by the historian, Sir John Maclean.
Sir John had intended to follow up on his Memoirs of the Poyntz and Guise families – who are related to the Codringtons through various marriages – but illness prevented him from doing so.
In his document, Robert identifies John Codrington as A1; the head of the senior branch of the Codrington family and his brother Thomas as B2; the head of the junior branch.
Robert also says that:
John returned from France and married a young woman, survived his son, and died in extreme old age.
But I don’t think it is as simple as that.
John’s father was, according to all know pedigrees, Robert Codrington of Chipping Sodbury in Gloucestershire, who “was in good standing” during the reign of Henry IV.
He appears in several jury records around the end of the 14th century – with various spellings of his name. The last record we have for him is when he appeared on a jury list at Chipping Sodbury 20 May 1421.
Some have assumed that this date was when John inherited the Codrington property, but was it from Robert and was it some time later than 1421.
The first reference to John in relation to the property seems to be in 1429 when he and his wife made an application to the pope for a portable altar, so all we can say for sure was that he inherited the property, and married, before this date.
Why was Robert never described as being of Codrington and Wapley? Could it be that Robert was not, after all, the father of John?
John Codrington is remembered as the Standard Bearer for King Henry V at the battle of Agincourt as described elsewhere.
It should be noted that John Codrington was never knighted for his service and references to Sir John Codrington seem to have originated with a number of military figurines, as well as various books about Agincourt one of which has him pictured on the front cover and labelled inside as Sir John.
On his tomb he is referred to as Joh’es Codry’ton armiger, which only means that he has the right to bear arms. In a document of 1471 he is John Codrington Esquire and this is confirmed by the way the helmet is shown on the family crest, at an angle and not facing forward.
It is easy to see why you might assume that he was knighted, being standard bearer to the king, and I am as guilty as anyone of repeating this without checking if it is actually correct.
RHC does not make this mistake and he is referred to as either gentleman or esquire, although I am unsure at what point he was able to use this later address.
Possibly the title is related to when he became lord of the manor of Codrington, after purchasing it from the abbey of Stanleigh in 1455.
It is also possible that this was a title used when addressing him formally, simply because he was a knight, rather than having been knighted – we still sent letters these days starting “Dear Sir“.
It has been suggested that John Codrington may have been knighted on the battlefield, or by someone other than the king.
At Agincourt he was in the retinue of Sir William Bourchier. who was probably senior enough to have been able to do this.
Sir William Bourchier, was one of the foremost captains at the Battle of Agincourt, leading 102 men. In November 1415 he was made Constable of the Tower of London (replacing the Duke of York, who had died in the Battle), with special responsibility for the French prisoners. He returned to serve in France in 1417, and in 1419 was made Count of Eu in Normandy. His arms were those of Bourchier quartered with those of Louvaine (the arms of his mother, an heraldic heiress).
But if John was knighted for his services there is no evidence of the title ever being used.
In 1429 John is a layman of the diocese – in the request for a portable altar – and in 1441 an 1445 grants of arms he is a Gentleman. It is only in the 1471 Levy of Fines that he is referenced as Esquire, technically the rank below knight.
In the list of the retinue of William Bourchier John is well down the list of men at arms, showing that he was – at that time at least – not particularly important.
He is also shown in some accounts as John Codington so perhaps Symon Codington, in the retinue of Lord Camoys, was related?
There are two different wives suggested for John in “memoirs”, both named Alice.
She could have been Alice Young, daughter of Thomas Young, an influential Bristol merchant, or Alice Hawys the sister of Margaret, who was married to Sir Peter Bessiles.
The name of Hawys has been transcribed as Hannys orHauuys and also shown as Hewes and Hawes.
It has proved difficult to find connections to these families at about the right time. What we do know is that Alice survived her husband – and two of her sons – and so I have come to the conclusion that John probably had two wives, perhaps both named Alice.
Why wouldn’t he? Some men have two or three wives in a much shorter lifetime.
In some family records Margaret (Margerie) Hawes married Sir Peter Bessiles, of Bessiles Leigh, Berkshire in about 1389, so it would seem that John could have married her sister at about the same time – certainly before Agincourt.
The following is commonly used in other trees.
Peter DE BESSILES was born in 1364 in Bromland, Somersetshire, England. Parents: Thomas DE BESSILES and Katherine LEIGH.
Margery HANNYS and Peter DE BESSILES were married about 1389 in Besiles Leigh Berkshire England.
John Codrington and first wife Alice may have had a daughter, Margaret, who married Sir John le Veale, but the timings only work with a marriage some time before Agincourt.
JOHN (Johannes) VELE (Veal), son of Thomas and Hawise Veal, married MARGARET, and he died in 1430, the 9th year of the reign of Henry VI, leaving one son. [1]
[1] There may have been a son, John, born about 1405, as well as daughter Susan, born 1409.
Another possibility is that Margaret was a younger sister to John Codrington rather than a daughter, which could also work in this scenario.
A Codrington pedigree held by the College of Arms shows only Mar and Viel, which some have taken to refer to a son Morvail Codrington, but is more likely to be an abbreviation of Margaret or could simply be an abbreviation for Married, where the name of a daughter is not known, or not recorded, to someone named Veil.
But this scenario does not fit with some other records that show that Margery Hawys married Peter Bessiles a generation later.
More importantly she is mentioned in documents dating from 1470 as the widow of Peter so must have been much younger and probably married much later than 1389.
Her sister, Alice, is therefore unlikely to be the first wife of John Codrington I.
One other problem with this theory is that there is a record for one Alice Hawes married to Henry Bromley in 1390, with an estimated birth date for Alice about 1365.
This clashes with the estimated birth of John’s first wife who must have been born about the same time in order to have a daughter, Margaret, born about 1385.
Alice Hawys, who married John Codrington, was probably the niece of this Alice assuming they are both related to John Hawes of Solihull.
According to RHC the daughter of Margaret and John le Veale, Susan, married firstly James Berkeley of Bradley and, secondly, Richard Ivy of Kingston.
Margaret [Codrington] had died in 1409 after the birth of daughter, Susan.
John Codrington A1 (1364) = Alice I
.. Margaret Codrington (1390-1409) = John la Veele (1384-1430)
…. Susan le Veele (1409-)
There are some differences in the College of Arms pedigree as the name of husband James, is shown as Broseley, and it was an un-named sister of Susan that married [Richard] Ivey of Kingston.
Another pedigree – that of Samson Samuel Lloyd esq., who is descended from the Berkeley family – shows Susan as the widow of one Waddall adding even more confusion.
So perhaps it was a sister of Susan that married Richard Ivye? Richard is likely to have come from (Chipping) Sodbury in Gloucestershire and it was later generations of the family that lived at West Kingston in Wiltshire.
There are also suggestions, from other family trees, that Sir Peter Bessiles was born about 1390, and having looked into his pedigree the later date does fit better with other family records and with those of Margaret and Susan.
It is perhaps more likely that he simply married much later in life than estimated and it was his wife, Margery Hawys, that was from a later generation, with about 25 years difference between them.
In this scenario it seems as if John’s first wife was another Alice, possibly Alice Young – the daughter or [more likely] sister of Thomas Young – with whom he had a daughter, Margaret, who married John la Veale – assuming that this marriage is correct.
Thomas Young was about the same age as John Codrington and did have a sister [either Alice or Mary] who he could have married. If she was a daughter of Thomas then she would have been born a generation later which doesn’t work with a grand-daughter, Susan la Veele, born in 1409.
In this scenario John Codrington married again, after the death of his first wife, to Alice Hawys, the sister of Margery (widow of Sir Peter Bessiles), and had three sons; Humphrey, John and Thomas.
This makes it possible for Margery Hawys – born later than suggested above – to be mentioned in the Levy of Fines of 1470 [see below] without having been more than 100 years old.
I have wondered why there was such a gap after John returned from Agincourt before he married. The simply answer could be that he was already married, and at the age of 50 he probably had no plans to marry again – even when his wife died.
We do not know how long John was in the service to the king after Agincourt and he may have returned to France for the campaign that began in 1417, and may even have made it to Paris, where Henry V died five years later in 1422.
If he was 50 years old during Agincourt then I doubt he would have been able to sustain a prolonged campaign. However if he was 20 years younger then he could have been with the king for a significant period, and this is perhaps why he is not recorded back in Gloucestershire until some time later.
Certainly he was back home and living in Codrington by 1429 – when he applied for a portable altar – but that is really all we can tell for sure.
John could have been about 65 and perhaps either he, or his wife, were unable to attend their local church easily and wanted to perform mass at home.
But this may also have been, as suggested by RHC, to avoid paying fees at nearby Wapley for his household.
… to John Codrington, layman of the diocese of Worcester, and to his wife then being …
John, although he didn’t know it, had another 50 years to live, and it is possible that he started looking around for another wife.
Based on the death of second wife Alice II, in 1489, she was probably born about 1415 and married John Codrington about 1435 – shortly after the death of his first wife – and their three sons were then born between 1435 and 1440.
This is quite late for John to have fathered three sons – he would have been in his sixties – and although not impossible it is just one more thing that doesn’t sit right with me.
The period when the boys are likely to have been born can be calculated by working backwards from the birth of grandson and heir, Christopher, in 1467 and assuming that his father, John, was about 30 years old when he married, putting his birth at about 1437.
We are now 20 years after Agincourt and John Codrington was already an old man, but there is an alternative to this that allows it bit more flexibility with the dates.
John Codrington and first wife, Alice, could have had a son … also called John.
John II would have been born about 1390, a sister to Margaret, and may have been too young to accompany his father to Agincourt.
He could have been married to Alice II by 1425 and their sons born earlier than I have already estimated, which makes it easier to explain how two of them had died before their mother.
Grandson and heir Christopher Codrington would therefore have been born when his father, John III, was about 40.
John I may have transferred the Codrington estate to his son John II and his wife before 1471 even though he lived for some time afterwards, and any references to Alice and John regarding the property are for his son and his wife.
In the Levy of Fines from 1471 John is referred to as John Codrington Esquire, which is the correct address for John I, but could also be used for his eldest son as shown in the same document for eldest son Humphrey.
And afterwards the day after All Souls, 49 Henry VI [3 November 1471]. Parties: William Bolaker and Philip Parker, querents, and John Codrynton’, esquire, and Alice, his wife, deforciant.
John II would himself have been an old man of about 80 by his time and probably died before his father.
Humphrey, his eldest son, was Escheator for Gloucestershire in 1467, a position that demanded a certain amount of respect and probably not a position for a young man, but he could still have been born about 1435.
There were two grants of arms to John Codrington in 1441 and 1445 – the first being a confirmation of the arms used by John during his service to the king, as used by the senior branch of the family.
Whether these two grants were to the same John Codrington is discussed in The Codrington Arms, but there is some evidence that there may be another John Codrington in Gloucestershire at the time who could have been granted the second arms.
This John Codrington resided in Clyfe [Bishop’s Cleeve] near Tewkesbury, in the north of Gloucestershire and is recorded there in 1421 and of Tewkesbury in 1423.
Could John Codrington have lived in Tewkesbury after Agincourt but before inheriting Codrington and Wapley from his father, or is this another John?
One indication that this is a different John is that there was no mention – in the levy of fines of 1471 or the inquisition into the death of Alice Codrington – of any properties in the north of the county of Gloucestershire owned by the family.
There is an earlier record of a John Codrington from 1337, who was an attorney to the king and could be related to John Codrington of Clyfe and Tewkesbury.
See below for more information about him.
The earliest reference linking the Codrington property to the family is for Stephen of Codrington and Wapley, who made a donation to Stanleigh Abbey – who owned the Codrington and Wapley manor – in 1379.
2 Ric. 2. receit. et confirm. donationes: P. 869. cart. antiq. X. n. 6, fcil. 2 Ric 2. confirm. donationem R. fil. Stephani de Codinton et Wapalee.
Possibly Stephen had died without an heir and passed Codrington to brother Robert, or directly to nephew John?
Or possibly it was Stephen who was father to John I and Robert was his younger brother which is why he never inherited the Codrington and Wapley properties and is described only as being of Chipping Sodbury?
RHC says that the two arms granted to John Codrington have only been used quartered together so perhaps there was a marriage between the two branches of the family and the second grant of arms was requested prior to a marriage between the families?
It is therefore possible that one of the children of John II could have married a cousin, the daughter of John Codrington of Clyfe. This would explain the quartering of the two designs and why they were never used in their own right if this second John had no sons.
Perhaps this was the marriage of Humphrey, the eldest son? If he married a cousin Agnes Codrington about 1445 – after the second grant of arms – he could have been born around 1425, fitting better with John II being his father.
There is no evidence of this of course; certainly there are no properties or lands held by the Codrington family in the north of Gloucestershire, either inherited or passed through marriage.
The only use of both arms I have found was 300 years later, and this may have been in error on the assumption that they were for the same John Codrington.
Having not seen the text of the actual grants – only extracts from them in various forms – I am not really in a position to do anything other than speculate as to whether they are for the same John based on other interpretations of the grants.
In 1471 John and Alice levied a fine on their lands to their sons, Humphrey, John and Thomas and this could have been either, John II and his wife Alice Hawes as mentioned earlier, or John I and his second wife.
Also mentioned is Margery, late wife of Peter Bessiles, who was the sister of Alice II, with Peter Bessiles being born later than shown in some references – or at least marrying much later and Alice being much younger than he was.
William and Philip have granted to John and Alice the tenements and have rendered them to them in the court, to hold to John and Alice, without impeachment of waste, of the chief lords for the lives of John and Alice. And after the decease of John and Alice 2 messuages, 1 toft, 240 acres of land, 30 acres of meadow and 40 acres of pasture in the vills of Codrynton’ and Tormerton’ shall remain to Humphrey Codrynton’, esquire, son of John and Alice, and the heirs of his body, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders (1) to John Codrynton’, brother of the aforesaid Humphrey, and the heirs of his body, (2) to Thomas Codrynton’, brother of the same John, and the heirs of his body, (3) to the heirs of the bodies of the aforesaid John Codrynton’ and Alice, (4) to Margery Besiles, late the wife of Peter Besiles, knight, and the heirs of her body and (5) to the right heirs of Alice. And also after the decease of John Codrynton’ and Alice 5 messuages, 1 toft, 5 gardens, 60 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow and 40 acres of pasture in the vills of Oldesodbury, Chepyngsodbury, Lygrove and Dodyngton’ shall remain to the aforesaid John Codrynton’, son of John Codrynton’ and Alice, and the heirs of his body, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders (1) to the aforesaid Thomas, brother of the same John, and the heirs of his body, (2) to the aforesaid Humphrey, brother of the same Thomas, and the heirs of his body, (3) to the heirs of the bodies of the aforesaid John Codrynton’ and Alice, (4) to the aforesaid Margery Besiles and the heirs of her body and (5) to the right heirs of Alice. And besides after the decease of John Codryngton’ and Alice 6 messuages, 2 tofts, 1 garden, 1 dove-cot, 100 acres of land, 30 acres of meadow and 40 acres of pasture in the vills of Bristoll’, Leyghterton’, Haukesbury and Upton’ Hamell’ shall remain to the aforesaid Thomas, son of John Codrynton’ and Alice, and the heirs of his body, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders (1) to the aforesaid John Codrynton’, brother of the same Thomas, and the heirs of his body, (2) to the aforesaid Humphrey, brother of the same John, and the heirs of his body, (3) to the heirs of the bodies of the aforesaid John Codrynton’ and Alice, (4) to the aforesaid Margery Besiles and the heirs of her body and (5) to the right heirs of Alice.
According to RHC, Margaret Hawys, the widow of Peter Bessilles, Knight, died in 1483, making her a similar age to Alice who died a few years later. I have not found information anywhere else to confirm this date, but some pedigrees show Peter Bessilles being born in 1390 instead of 1364 making it much easier to estimate a later marriage. But even the earlier date does not mean he did not marry Margery – she would just have been much younger – a lot younger.
The inquisition into the death of Alice identifies Christopher Codrington as her heir.
“… aged 22 and more, is her cousin and heir, viz son of John, her son.”
Not quite sure why he isn’t just referred to as her grandson – the term cousin is usually used to indicate a close, but indirect, relationship.
Also mentioned in a deed dated 1490 are Thomas Codrington [assumed to be the youngest son], William Besylys, Christopher Twynyho, Clerk and William Twynyho, Esquire, which confirms that there were relationships between these families.
Christopher Codrington, heir of Alice, married into the Twynho family and William Bessiles was, no doubt, related to Alice and Margery.
I still think is a bit unusual to mention Margery Bessiles in the levy, unless she was actually a daughter of John and Alice and not the sister of Alice at all. But if she was the sister to Humphrey, John and Thomas she would have been born much to late to have been married to Peter Bessiles.
According to records for the manor of Leigh, Margery and Peter Bessiles did not have any children, but other pedigrees show a son, Thomas, so what is going on?
Sir Peter was noted for his deeds of charity and his gifts to religious houses, and by his will he directed that all his manors should be sold by his co-feoffees in alms for his soul. He died childless in 1424 …
The history of the manor during the next few years is involved, because Sir Peter’s will was not very honestly performed. Margery, his widow, and one of the executors of his will, had a life interest in Leigh, and her second husband William Warbleton held it in her right in 1428.
Margery married again – before 1428 – to William Warbleton and died in 1483, so she was still young at the time she was widowed. Some records show a son, Thomas, born in 1390, but this is much too early – even if Margery lived to be 100 years old!
The History of Parliament adds some additional information which makes it easier to understand what is going on, in particular that Margery was the second wife of Peter Bessiles and that she also had an illegitimate son.
He left no immediate heirs, and Thomas, the illegitimate son of his second wife Margery Haines (who afterwards called himself Thomas Bessels and claimed to be Sir Peter’s son and heir), received no more by the terms of the will than a life interest in a small estate at Longworth together with the expenses of his education. Margery was permitted to keep the manors of Bessels Leigh and Kingston for her lifetime, but these were then to be sold.
As Margery lived until 1483 she cannot have been born before about 1400 and must have been very young when she gave birth and married to Peter. It seems that the marriage was a formal arrangement and, based on that, I would think that Thomas probably was the son of Peter Bessiles, otherwise why would he have married a young woman with an illegitimate son?
Eventually Margery managed to get some of the property for her son and his heirs, although it sounds as if Thomas had already died.
By outliving Sir Peter by nearly 50 years, the widow successfully contrived to have Radcot and Grafton entailed to the advantage of the issue of her bastard son Thomas.
Thomas married Clemence de Noires and their son, William, married into the important Harcourt family of Stanton Harcourt in Oxfordshire, so illegitimacy hadn’t done him much harm.
In the Levy of Fines document of 1471 Margery is still shown as the widow of Peter Bessiles and not the widow of William Warbleton who died 1469, which is quite odd.
Also if Margery was Haines and not Hawys then the wife of John Codrington must also be Alice Haines and calls for some further investigation.
Margery’s legitimate heir was her nephew, John Haines of Salop.
Probably, however, this name was assumed from the name of her nephew, who may be the son of another sister who married into the Haines family.
Three generation later Dorothy Fettiplace, great grand-daughter of Thomas Bessiles, married John Codrington, the eldest son of Christopher Codrington (great-grandson of John of Agincourt) but he died in Appleton, Berkshire in 1518 and Dorothy ended her days in the Abbey of Syon along with two of her sisters.
Humphrey is a bit of an enigma. It appears – from some records – that he was significantly older than his brother John III, the father of Christopher [who inherited the Codrington property] and died without any children, although it is possible that he was married.
There are chancery records dated 1431-1443 for Humphrey meaning that he would have been born significantly earlier then 1435, especially as these dates relate to his position of escheator.
He could therefore have been a brother to John II or at least a son from the earlier marriage of John I and Alice Young. He was alive in 1471 but dead before 1483.
So perhaps all three sons were much older than suggested and the birth of Christopher in 1467 may simply mean that John III, the father of Christopher, had a family later in life?
But that also suggests that Alice, the mother of the three boys, would have been born about 1400 – or even earlier – and about 90 when she died, or that she married John I and did not have any children of her own.
One option is that Humphrey had, indeed, been born earlier to Alice I, but his two brothers were born to the second wife of John I – or these two were the sons of John II, making John II the brother of Humphrey, but this does not fit with the account in the levy.
Another possibility is that there were two Humphrey Codringtons, one a brother of John I and another his son. This would account for the earlier chancery records and for the younger Humphrey being escheator in 1467 some thirty years later.
Humphrey was alive until at least 14 May 1475 as shown by a record in the National Archives.
Debtor: Humphrey Codrington of Codrington in Glos., esquire, John Lypiat of Lasborugh in Glos., gentleman, and Thomas Payne, formerly of Gloucester, gentleman.
Humphrey may also have had a wife, Agnes, but I am not sure where this reference to Agnes comes from.
The name Humphrey may have come from the Poyntz family where it is not uncommon and this gives some weight to the idea that John’s mother was a member of the Poyntz family, and Humphrey was named after one of his grandmother’s relations.
Like Humphrey, Robert Poyntz, of Iron Acton, was escheator of Gloucestershire 1395-7, 1399-1400, 1402-1404 (as well as sheriff 1396-97) so perhaps there is some earlier connection between the families than previously recorded.
Another record, however, suggests that Humphrey may not be what he seems.
There is another village in Gloucestershire called Gotherington, near Tewkesbury, and there is a record dated 1477 of another Humphrey there:
Debtor: Humphrey Godryngton of Gotherington {Godryngton} in [Cleeve Hundred] Glos., esquire. Creditor: John Brugge, esquire. Amount: £80 of legal English money [£44,000].
In 1371 the manor of Gotherington appears to have been pretty run down and there seems to have been no connection to the Codryngton or even the Gotherington families.
No repairs have been done to the abbey church for three years past and more. The manor of Gotherynton lies waste.
It seems clear that one John Codryngton lived at nearby Clyfe [Bishop’s Cleeve] in 1421 and of Tewkesbury in 1423, but did he take his name from nearby Gotherington or was he part of the Codryngton family?
Gotherington itself seems to be a small village and if there was a family that took it’s name from the location there should be some record of them, and I can find none.
The village of Codrington is in the hundred of Grumbold’s Ash, some distance south of Tewkesbury, so there may have been some confusion between these two Humphreys, or at least how they have been identified in some records.
Possibly whoever wrote the document was mistaken and was familiar with the village of Gotherington but not with Codrington, and assumed the rest.
Or perhaps it was the creditor, John Brugge, that was from Gotherington and it was assumed that Humphrey was also from there having a similar sounding name.
The village of Codrington is also named Godrington in some references, and Gotherington, near Tewkesbury, was originally named Godrinton in the Domesday book, just to confuse things.
RHC identifies a long list of different spellings, all associated with the Codrington family, including Gooderington (but not Gotherington) but does this necessarily mean that all of these spellings should be taken as belonging to the same family?
Codrington, itself, is not in the doomsday book, so could the family have originally come from Gotherington near Tewkesbury? The Gotheringtons then acquired land near Wapley that took it’s name from the family?
This would account for links to Clyfe and Tewkesbury in some documents, but if the family owned any land in that area there is no reference to it in the levy of fines or the inquisition after Alice’s death.
This could indicate that the Codringtons recorded as being of Clyfe and Tewkesbury were not from the same branch of the Codrington family, or maybe not even not Codringtons at all but Gotheringtons, who’s name had been changed?
There is also a manor on Devon named Godryngton [usually Godryngton and Norton].
There is records in the National Archives that casts doubt over the dates in the earlier chancery records relating to Humphrey Codrington, as mentioned above.
The later dates shown below would fit much better with a later Humphrey in this case, presumably related to his position as Escheator for Gloucestershire:
Short title: Fouler v Codryngton.
Plaintiffs: Richard Fouler and John Sydenham, the younger.
Defendants: Humphrey Codryngton.
Subject: Wardship and marriage of Isabel de la Ryver, heiress of Maurice de la Ryver, esq., granted by the King to petitioners. Gloucestershire
Date: 1432-1443, possibly 1467-1470
If the earlier dates are incorrect then it makes it much easier to fit Humphrey as the eldest of three brothers born about 1425-1435 and for him to have been a respectable age as escheator of Gloucestershire.
Or perhaps there were two Humphreys – one the brother of John I and another his eldest son – who both held the position of escheator at different times?
RHC states that Alice Codrington, the widow of John Codrington, lived till 20th April 1489, six years after her sister Margery, widow of Peter Bessilles.
However the inquisition into her death taken on 20th September, 6 Henry VII [1490] says she died 16th July last so clearly something is not quite right – perhaps that was the date that the will was proved?
Because of the way that regnal dates are calculated – based on when the monarch acceded to the throne – 16th July 1490 would be 5 Henry VII although the precise date of her death is not specifically important at this point.
If John II was from the first marriage of John I then this explains why the first son from his second marriage was named Humphrey and not John, but doesn’t help explain where the name came from, unless there was another, older Humphrey – possibly a brother to John.
The name does appear again in the Codrington family – although several hundred years later – and may have come from the maternal line of a previous marriage.
If the elder son John II died about 1445 then John I and Alice II could have named their second son John. The timing would be tight, but the birth of John III could be as late as 1445 based on the birth of his son Christopher.
Perhaps all the sons were from the first marriage and John I simply remarried after his first wife died, but had no further children?
This would certainly explain why the two eldest sons had died before their step-mother, but is in no way conclusive. It could also explain why the heir of Alice, Christopher, is described as cousin and not grandson.
But, if this were the case, Christopher, the son of John III, would have been born significantly earlier. We know that he was born about 1467 because in the inquisition following Alice’s death in 1489 he was 22 years old.
John I was shown to be married in 1429 [in the request for an altar], so there is time for his first wife to have died and for him to remarry and to have been the father of the three boys if they were born about 1435.
If John had already remarried by 1429 then the boys could have been born earlier – possibly 10 years earlier – than proposed.
Working backwards from Christopher it is possible to have a guess at the marriage of his parents and the birth of his father – assuming John II existed.
John I 1364 = Alice I, married about 1390
.. John II 1395 = Alice II, married about 1425
…. John III 1437 = Alice? Poyntz [i], married about 1465
…… Christopher 1467 = Ankarette Twynyho
If there was no first wife then I cannot see why John I would have waited so long after Agincourt to get married. After all he would have been about 60 years old – even his son John II, from his first marriage [if he existed] would have been 40.
It is curious that the term “and his wife then being” is used in granting the permission for the altar in 1429, but perhaps I am reading too much into this.
[i] The wife of Sir John Poyntz was Alice Cox, and there are no other daughters in the family pedigree with this name so it is possible, even likely, that there would have been a daughter named Alice after her mother.
Perhaps the age on the tomb is wrong, as suggested earlier, and John actually died at 91 – still a remarkable age – so he then would have married at the age of about 35, after Agincourt.
This does mean that there was probably another John, his father, as suggested, but it was the younger John who was at Agincourt and not the elder and this fits with an older John marrying well before Agincourt and John II marrying Alice Hawys.
There is also another name mentioned as the first wife of John I, Margery Chalkley, and two sons John and Geoffrey, so perhaps there was only one wife named Alice? Or the second Alice was married to his son John?
This could fit well with John I being born earlier – perhaps about 1360 with father Robert being about 35 years old – and John II being born about 1385, along with sister Margaret who could have been named after her mother.
It also makes his later marriage much less unusual as it fits exactly with the average marrying age of Codrington men of 35. The earlier John could even be the one who was attorney to the king in 1337, as mentioned below, but I think this would be too early and John the attorney is more likely from a different branch of the family or an earlier generation.
Robert also seems to have lived a long life if he died after 1419, and it is therefore also likely that he was the younger brother of John I as he did not inherit the Codrington property and is only ever recorded as being of Chipping Sodbury.
I would guess that John I probably died before Agincourt, or was certainly too old to take part and this leaves the earlier Codrington tree looking a bit different …
Geoffrey 1300-
.. Robert I 1330-
…. Robert II 1360- 1419 of Chipping Sodbury
…. John I 1360-
…… John II 1384 – 1475 of Agincourt
If John was born in 1384 then Margaret, who married John la Veale could not have been his daughter or sister, but can only have been an aunt, if she married and had a son and daughter [and died] by 1409.
An earlier John, apprentice and attorney to the king in 1337 [see below], could have been the brother of the earlier Robert and have been the grand-father of John of Clyfe and Tewkesbury
He could even have been the one who was married to Margery Chalkley and the father of John and Geoffrey.
Geoffrey Codrington appears in a document about the Percy family of Great Chalfield, Wiltshire, where he is shown to have married the grand-daughter of Constance – cousin to the bishop of Salisbury – who married into the Percy family.
I have estimated that Geoffrey was born about 1370 based on his marriage to Isabel Beaushyn [and her estimated birth] and he was the father of Alice Codrington, born about 1400, who married Alexander Martin.
Isabel Beaushyn born about 1380, was the daughter of Thomas Beaushyn of Dorset and Joan Fitzwaryn, who was the daughter of Constance [who married a Percy] by her third husband, Sir Philip Fitzwaryn.
The same document about the Percy family also makes reference to Thomas Ivye of Sherston who married Agnes Tropenell and may have a connection to Susan le Veele mentioned earlier.
If the first marriage of John Codrington was to Margaret Chalkley and they had sons John and Geoffrey, then could these fit into the main Codrington tree?
Geoffrey probably married Isabel Beaushyn about 1400, putting his birth about 1370. If he was a younger brother to John of Agincourt, born in 1384 then this would be practically impossible.
Sir Philip Fitzwaryn and Constance, Isabel’s grand-parents, married about 1361 – Philip was the third wife of Constance. This means that their daughter Johan, could not have been of an age to marry much before 1380. Her daughter, Isabel, could have been born about this time and married before 1400 but not by much.
Perhaps Geoffrey was the elder brother of John but died shortly after his marriage to Isabel leaving one child – daughter Alice – and his brother John as the heir?
Isabel later remarried to William Haukesoke.
[More information shows that Geoffrey and Isabel were a generation later]
It is possible that Geoffrey married Isabel towards the end of the 14th century but then died before he inherited from his father. But he would have been quite a bit older than brother John for this to be possible.
John I (1335) = Margery Chalkeley
.. Margery (1365) = John le Veale
.. Geoffrey (1370) = Isabel Beaushyn
.. John II (1384) of Agincourt = Alice Hawys
It also squeezes Robert out as the father of John I as the marriage of John and Margery would have been much too early considering he was alive in 1419, but he could still be another brother of the elder John.
There is even time here for a third John Codrington [and another Alice] if John II was born about 1365, in which case Margery would have been his aunt and not his daughter.
John I (1335) = Margery Chalkeley
.. Margery (1365) = John le Veale
.. John II (1365) = Alice Young
…. John III (1384) of Agincourt = Alice Hawys
.. Geoffrey (1365) = Isabel Beaushyn
Robert Codrington of Chipping Sodbury could fit into this tree as the brother of John II and Geoffrey, but probably not the father of John III of Agincourt.
There is a link to the Chalkley family through Margery Hawys – the sister of John Codrington’s wife, Alice – and her second husband William Warbleton.
In 1460 he and his wife recovered £120 [£62000] damages from Thomas Chalkley of Clanfield, Oxfordshire.
I have not been able to find any more information about the Chalkely family.
William Warbleton was also at Agincourt in the retinue of the King himself.
So what, then, of Thomas, supposedly the brother of John Codrington of Agincourt and the head of the junior branch of the family?
His position in the tree is identified by the arms that were used by the family and were those originally used – and then modified – by John of Agincourt before 1441.
Both of these arms can be seen in the stained glass window of the Castle house in Calne, Wiltshire as described by RHC in his first work on the Codrington family.
The modified version of the arms was then used by the senior branch of the family and the original arms by the junior, as shown in The Codrington Arms.
The declaration in 1419 by Henry V seems to have been the point when the use of arms was formalised as being only by inheritance or by a grant from the crown, and before this date the use of arms may not have been so rigorously controlled.
It seems that Thomas, who heads the junior branch of the family, is unlikely to be Thomas, the son of John and Alice, as he would have used the arms of his father.
Seemingly to contradict this the arms I have used in this article, as those of John Codrington of Agincourt, are actually titled – in their original document – as the arms of Thomas Codrington in the 15th century.
The only Thomas around in the 15th century was Thomas the son of John who was known to be alive in 1489 when his mother died.
RHC identifies Thomas as B1, the head of the junior branch, and then assigns son Ambrose as B2 followed by William B3 and makes William the husband of Mary Teste, but this is based on Thomas having died in 1427 [6 Henry VI] and being the brother of John of Agincourt.
B1 Thomas (d.1427, 6 Henry VI)
.. B2 Ambrose (b.1425) [#1]
…. B3 William (Married to Mary Teste)
…… B4 Francis (b.1512) = Margaret Shipman
[#1] Because of the date for the death of his father, Ambrose must have been born before 1427.
Most pedigrees acknowledge Ambrose as being the husband of Mary Teste and if Thomas was born about 1435 [and the son of John] then Ambrose could have been married to Mary and William probably did not exist – or at least was a brother.
William B3 does not appear in the Codrington pedigree held by the College of Arms, and neither is he in the pedigree shown in “memoirs” despite being added to the line of inheritance later in the document.
If there was a simple transcription error for the death of Thomas, and it should be Henry VII instead of Henry VI, then his death would have been 1490, which fits with him being alive at the inquisition of Alice in 1489 and the birth of Ambrose would be around the same time as his cousin, Christopher, which we know was 1467.
The manor of Frampton on Severn was bequeathed by Giles Teste [who inherited from his father Lawrence] to his sister Mary, the wife of Ambrose Codrington, on his death in 1545.
If Ambrose was alive at this time – Mary is not shown as a widow – he would have been about 80 years old – but would certainly not have been alive if his father, Thomas had died in 1427.
Assuming Thomas is the son of John A1 and brother of John A2 things do fit much better and we can leave out William altogether.
B1 Thomas (d.1490, 6 Henry VII )
.. B2 Ambrose (b. about 1465) = Mary Teste
…. B4 Francis (b.1512) = Margaret Shipman
Some lands were granted specifically to Thomas, the son of John and Alice, in the 1471 Levy of Fines, so it would be interesting to see who actually inherited these properties.
And besides after the decease of John Codryngton’ and Alice 6 messuages, 2 tofts, 1 garden, 1 dove-cot, 100 acres of land, 30 acres of meadow and 40 acres of pasture in the vills of Bristoll’, Leyghterton’, Haukesbury and Upton’ Hamell’ shall remain to the aforesaid Thomas, son of John Codrynton’ and Alice, and the heirs of his body, to hold of the chief lords for ever.
Thomas was known to have be at Chipping Sodbury in 1474 – from documents relating to Alderton Manor – possibly in the property previously occupied by Robert.
The Overseers were Sir Richard Beuchamp of Bromham, Sir John Seyntlow of Tormarton and Thomas Codryngton of Chepynge Sodbury, signed at Lockyngton 1st March. These are the names on the indenture renting Alderton to the Pophams.
The only reference we have to his father, Ambrose, shows that he was living in Bristol 1501 where he was a trustee of the Fraternity of the Blessed Mary of Bellhouse, a chapel in the church of St Peter’s, but it is likely that he lived until at least 1545.
So was the junior branch actually descended from Thomas the son of John Codrington of Wapley and not his brother?
If so then why are all the arms of the junior branch in the window of Castle House at Calne shown as a different version of the arms and not those used by his father?
In the section of “memoirs” on the junior branch, RHC says that Thomas – as the head of the junior branch – was shown as the son of John of Codrington in a pedigree held by the Heralds College [possibly the one shown below], and married to Elizabeth the daughter of Robert Poyntz, but that some other pedigrees disagree.
As Robert Poyntz was a generation before Nicholas [mentioned above] it seems that a daughter Elizabeth would have been much to old to have married this Thomas, but could have married a brother of John of Agincourt.
The main reason for assuming that the head of the junior branch was a brother of John Codrington of Wapley are the use of the original arms – and not those of John himself, but the pedigree of the Poyntz family also seem to play a role in this.
If Thomas was the son of John of Agincourt then both he, and his brother John, appear to have married into the same generation of the Poyntz family.
I can find lots of issues with both of these scenarios. But perhaps there is another answer to this – perhaps the head of the junior branch is neither the brother of John, or his son?
One pedigree say that Thomas died in 1427 and RHC says that he belongs to an earlier generation than John Codrington A2 as does Ambrose, the son of Thomas, but this is based on his brother, John, having been born 1364.
If we assume that John was actually born 20 years later then originally thought – dying at the age of 91 – then Thomas could actually be an uncle to John and brother of Robert, his father. He could also have been the brother of John, born about 1385, and dying at the disappointing age of just 42.
But that still leaves the mysterious William having to fill in the missing generation in the early pedigree of the junior branch.
The 1623 visitation of Gloucestershire does show William Codrington as being married to Margaret Teste, the daughter of Lawrence.
Interestingly the arms of this William are shown as those of John Codrington A1 with the embattled fesse and not those used by other members of the junior branch.
There is also another Margaret shown in the tree and a reference to Mary, but the son of William is shown as Gyles missing out Francis [born in 1512] so this information may not be entirely accurate – especially as it is shown as part of the Clifford pedigree and not specifically the Codringtons.
The name used in the pedigree should be Ambrose and not William. But where did the name William come from?
I think that this was just a simple mistake:
The pedigree was taken from the visitation of Gloucestershire in 1623, but the Codrington family are included only as part of the Clifford family. It is likely, therefore, that the person giving evidence to the visitation was not actually a member of the Codrington family.
Francis Codrington, born about 1512 who married Margaret Shipman, is missing from this pedigree, so clearly there is a gap in the knowledge of the Codrington pedigree.
I think the name William came from the father-in-law of Francis, William Shipman.
If Ambrose had died relatively young – few records exist of him – then his name may not have been well-known to the Clifford family and William was a prominent merchant as well as being major of Bristol in 1533.
Francis and William were both in shipping, no doubt Francis was taken into the family business after his marriage to Margaret. Francis was made burgess of Bristol in 1532.
The missing generation is possibly why the names of both Mary and Margaret are shown as the wife of “William” in the pedigree.
Records show that Ambrose of Bristol, son and heir, married Mary (Maria) Teste and Francis married Margaret Shipman. The will of John Shipman confirms that Francis married Margaret and not Mary, making it more likely that Ambrose (William) married Mary.
So it appear to me that two generations of the Codrington family have simply been mis-remembered and mixed up in the Clifford tree.
RHC says that the wife of John Codrington A2 was a daughter of Nicholas Poyntz of Iron Acton, based on the work done by Sir John Maclean.
However this is incorrect as the pedigree actually shows that this was the daughter of John Poyntz [son of Nicholas] and Alice Cox, and RHC may have been simply mistaken.
John Poyntz was born about 1433 and had died by 1468, so a daughter is likely to have been born around 1450 and this could fit with a daughter – possibly named Alice after her mother – marrying John Codrington A2 with a son Christopher being born 1467.
Thomas Codrington is also shown to have married Elizabeth Poyntz and if he was the brother of John then Elizabeth must have been a sister, or cousin of whoever John married.
As can be seen from the pedigree above [from Sir John Maclean’s “Memoirs of the Poyntz family”], Elizabeth, the sister of Alice and daughter of John Poyntz, does not seem to have been married at all so it is not clear who this Elizabeth was.
The pedigree from the College of Arms says that she was the daughter of Sir R Poyntz.
Sir Robert Poyntz, of Iron Acton, was the brother to the daughter of John Poyntz said to have married John Codrington A2, and apart from the obvious date problems his daughter, Elizabeth, is shown to have married Nicholas Wykes of Doddington.
An earlier Robert Poyntz Esq. was born 1359 and was the father of Nicholas, and grandfather of Sir Robert but this would be much too early and there is no record of a daughter Elizabeth.
Perhaps John the younger actually married someone else – possibly Alice Young, as shown in the College of Arms pedigree – and it was his brother Thomas that married a daughter of John Poyntz and not Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert?
Alice could then have been the daughter of Thomas Young [who was born about 1420] as mentioned in the college of arms pedigree.
A1 John Codrington = Alice Hawes dau. John
.. A2 John Codrington = Alice Young dau. Thomas [born about 1450]
.. B1 Thomas Codrington = Elizabeth Poyntz dau. John
Perhaps both John and Thomas married daughters of John Poyntz, but only John seems to have been remembered [even if the name of his wife is not].
The visitation of Gloucestershire in 1623 shows Elizabeth as the daughter of John Poyntz and Alice Cox and married to an unknown son of an unknown Codrington.
This daughter is also shown as the wife of Robert Veale and it appears that Thomas could have married the widow of this Robert and John, perhaps, married the other unidentified daughter “Alice”.
In “memoirs of the Poyntz family” Elizabeth is shown only as being nurse to a son of Henry VIII in 1510, but she could have been the widow of both Robert Veale and Thomas if he had died in 1490.
Perhaps Sir John Maclean simply did not appreciate that Elizabeth and the unknown daughter who married a Codrington were one and the same?
The pedigree held by the College of Arms is quite interesting in that it shows Humphrey, John and Thomas as the three sons of Robert Codrington.
Based on other documents – such as the levy of fines and the inquisition into the death of Alice – this cannot be correct and the pedigree is missing several generations, but somewhere hidden in here – no doubt – is some truth.
John Codrington of Codrington and Wapley is not the earliest person recorded with that name and in 1337 one John Codrington was “apprentice to our lord the King [Edward III], and attorney”.
It seems he is recorded in history because he had been commanded to attend Sir John de Ros, at Orwell on 17th March 1337 and wasn’t too happy about it:
“…well and completely armed and apparelled as a man-at-arms, and that, upon pain of being hanged.”
John petitioned the king to be excused this service and seems to have earned a reprieve.
“Inasmuch as he is an attorney, let it be commanded to Sir J. de Ros, or his lieutenant, that they surcease from the demand which they make about him, and the distress which they do to him for this cause.”
The hundred year war with France started in this year so no doubt the command was related to the formation of armies for the campaign.
Whether this John lived in Gloucestershire is not recorded, but there are no other branches of the family known at the time in other parts of the country.
One Sir John Coderyngton appears in records relating to the seizing of the Chantries in 1547 during the first year of the reign of Edward VI.
He was the incumbent of Holy Trinity, Dursley, Gloucestershire and was paid to say prayers for the deceased, his income coming from endowments left for the saying of masses.
… of the age of 80 years, and having no other living than in the said service, which amounted to £6 13s. 4d.
This may be the same John Coderyngton who, 20 years earlier, was the prior of the rather unruly Malmesbury Abbey.
… Thomas Gloucester had often cast away his habit, had climbed over the walls and consorted with harlots, and had seized the possessions of others for his own use, and John London was nearly as bad, and had apostatized and offered violence, and Robert Ciscetur was frequently drunk. Other monks, continued the abbot, were little better: several had broken out at night, the prior, John Codryngton, was remiss and openly admitted it in light-hearted fashion …
The title Sir John Codryngton must have been an affectation as there are no records for a Sir John. He would have been born about 1467 but there is no obvious place in the senior Codrington tree for him.
Probably then he is from the junior branch of the family, a younger brother to William [Ambrose] Codrington, born 1462 of Frampton-on-Severn? It was often the younger sons that went into the church and his age fits with this scenario.
Stephen Codrington is mentioned in Notita Monastica in relation to Stanlegh Abbey in Wiltshire, 1379. He could easily be a cousin or even brother of John Codrington I and I think this must be the first reference to any of the Codrington family being of Codrington and Wapley.
2 Ric. 2. receit. et confirm. donationes: P. 869. cart. antiq. X. n. 6, fcil. 2 Ric 2. confirm. donationem R. fil. Stephani de Codinton et Wapalee.
This appears to be a record of a donation to the abbey and there are also references in the same book to the manor of Codrington with a much earlier date.
15 Ed 1 [1286]. quo war. rot. 7. d. pro libertat in maner de Codrington [for freedom in the manor of Codrington].
It was John Codrington [of Agincourt] who purchased the manor at Codrington from Stanlegh Abbey about 60 years after the record of the donation by Stephen, and this does show family connections with the Abbey. The abbey also had connections to St. Augustine’s in Bristol where Robert Codrington was later buried – St Augustine’s was also the parent church to St Peter’s in Wapley.
Pat. 33 Hen 6 [1454] p. 2. m.. de maner. de Codrington [Gloucestr.] concedendo Joanni Codrington: fin. div. com.
Could Stephen actually be the father of John Codrington I with John Codrington II being his son and the one who was at Agincourt?
What we can surmise from this record is the possible age of Stephen. In order to be in a position to make a donation to the abbey he must have been successful and probably not a young man. We could also say that he was of an age to “contemplate his own mortality” and was probably making a donation to the abbey in preparation for his after-life, possibly for prayers to be said for him, as done by John Codrington and Alice [see below].
Based on this I would estimate his age as about 50 years old and therefore born in 1329. This is not an exact science but does give us some idea of which generation he belongs to.
If John was born in 1384, and died aged 91, then it is unlikely that Stephen was his father and more likely an uncle. If this was the case then John, or more likely his father, was Stephen’s heir – somehow or other John inherited the property at Codrington and Wapley.
I am only exploring possibilities and my own ideas here – there are are lot of facts that just do not quite fit. A later birth date for John and shorter life of 91 would go some way to make this puzzle a little easier to understand, but there is no evidence that the age on the tomb is incorrect.
Whatever actually happened, and who is related to who, may never be known for sure – perhaps a combination of several of the above scenarios? There is time in the life of John for him to have married at least three times (or more) and to have had several families – even if he only lived until the age of 91.
Or maybe I am too doubting and it was simply as RHC surmised:
John returned from Agincourt, married a young woman, survived his son, and died in extreme old age.
Although I am not sure that he fully believed that this was correct.
I will be updating my family tree to take into account some of the ideas that I have discussed, to better fit with other pedigrees, and adding John II, based on very little evidence.
If the age on the tomb is correct then my best guess is that John Codrington had two wives, with his children all being born from his first marriage, which is why two had died before his second wife. After the death of Alice I he remarried but did not have any more children.
What confuses this slightly is the birth of grandson and heir Christopher, who’s father would have been quite old when he was born in 1467, but you can’t have everything.
If the age on the tomb is incorrect and he died aged ninety-one, then things become a little easier to understand with John at Agincourt aged 30 and married shortly afterwards.
Personally this scenario appeals to me as it is much neater and fits with most other facts and estimates, and I will be pursuing this further.
In this case Robert could be the younger brother of John I and therefore the uncle of John of Agincourt, which is why he was only ever of Chipping Sodbury and did not inherit Codrington and Wapley.
Both John I and Robert could also be the sons of Stephen who is shown to be of Codrington and Wapley in 1379 or possibly John Codrington who married Margery Chalkeley.
Stephen of Codrington and Wapley
.. John I
…. John II of Agincourt = Alice Hawys
…… Humphrey – Escheator of Gloucestershire
…… John III
…….. Christopher – Heir of Alice
…… Thomas
…. Robert of Chipping Sodbury
…. Thomas [junior branch]
I think there is also enough evidence to say that it is more than likely that Thomas B1 was the son, and not brother, of John A1.
This does mean, technically, that John III should be the head of the senior branch A1 and not John of Agincourt.
Some additional information about Geoffrey Codrington and Isabel Beaushyn has made me change a few things – in particular they are shown elsewhere to be a generation later than I have estimated – meaning that Geoffrey is probably the brother of both John of Agincourt.
This makes John and Margaret Chalkley the parents of John of Agincourt leaving Alice Young to be the wife of John’s son John [father of Christopher].
Margaret – who married John le Veale – must also be the sister to John II and Geoffrey II.
But this does mean that there is a generation missing between the earlier Geoffrey I [estimated as being born about 1300 by RHC] and John I. Possibly the earlier Geoffrey was a generation later and Geoffrey II was his son [and named after him]. He could also have been the eldest of the two brothers, but died without a son leaving John II as the heir.
As Peter of Codrington and Wapley was recorded making a donation to the Abbey of Stanleigh in 1379 he must have been about 50 and therefore could fit into the gap between Geoffrey I and John I. Robert of Chipping Sodbury then becomes the brother of John I and the uncle of John II of Agincourt. John I would have inherited the Codrington property from his father, Peter, and passed it to his son.
There is a reference to Richard Goderyngton, who was shown as Deacon in the records of Bishop William Ginsborough for 1304/5, and this is now the oldest record I have found, assuming Richard is a member of the same family.
Another John Codrington – attorney to the king in 1337 – is probably related to this Richard or his son Geoffrey. Other records show that there was a branch of the family based around Tewksbury and Gloucester. This, perhaps, shows a link between the Codrington family of Wapley and the village of Goderyngton although it is also possible that the two are not related.
Richard Goderyngton (1275)
.. Geoffrey (1300)
.. Ralph
.. Thomas
.. John (1325) Attorney to the King
…. John (1350)
…… John (1380) of Bishop’s Cleeve
…….. Anselm Codrington of Gloucester
From all the information available at the moment the early Codrington pedigree could be something like this:
Richard (1275)
.. Geoffrey (1300)
…. Peter of Codrington & Wapley (1330)
…… Robert of Chipping Sodbury
…… John I (1360) = Margery Chalkley
…….. Margery (1390) = John le Veale
…….. Geoffrey (1385) = Isabel Beaushyn
…….. John II A1 (1384) of Agincourt = Alice Hawys
………. Humphrey = ?Agnes?
………. John III A2 (1435) = Alice Young
………… Christopher A3(1467) = Ankarette Twynyho dau. William *
………….. John A4 (1490) = Dorothy Fettiplace
………… Edward A7(1469) = Elizabeth Tywnyho dau. John
………….. Thomas A8 (1515) = Mary Kellaway
……………. Simon A9 (1554) = Agnes Seacole
……………… Robert A11 (1574) = Anne Stubbes dau. Willliam
………. Thomas B1 (1435) = Elizabeth Poyntz
………… Ambrose B2 (1470) = Mary Teste
………….. Francis B4 (1515) = Margaret Shipman dau. William
……………. Gyles B5 (1535) = Isabella Porter
……………… Francis B6 (1559) = Margaret Bromwich *
……………… Richard B7 (1560) = Joyce Burlace
* Line passed to brother/heir.
The wife of John Codrington was Alice Hawys. This has also been transcribed as Hannys and Hauuys which is understandable. Alice’s sister Margery is also named as Hawes and Haines, in documents relating to the will of Peter Bessiles. I have stuck to the Hawys spelling for consistency as much as possible.
Another record, not mentioned by RHC, is that John and Alice Codrington paid for a chantry in the Dominican friary at Bristol.
John and Alice Codryngton of Gloucestershire established a perpetual chantry in 1469 in the Dominican house at Bristol where a daily Mass was to be celebrated for the benefit of their souls, those of their ancestors and all the faithful departed, with additional services for their anniversaries.
John Codrington I would have been over 100 years old at this time and even a younger John would have been 80.
Chris Sidney 2015
There are several different coats of arms used by the Codrington family, two of which were granted to John Codrington of Gloucestershire in the 15th century. Can these arms help us to identify the origins of the Codrington family?
According to most sources these are the first known arms used by the Codrington family.
of silver a fesse sable between three lions passant gules.
An enhanced version of these arms are used by the senior branch of the Codrington family – those descended from John Codrington, Standard-bearer for Henry V at Agincourt.
The original arms continue to be used by the junior branch of the family who descended from Thomas, the brother of John, indicating that these arms were in use by the Codrington family before Agincourt.
According to RHC these are similar to those granted to Sir John de la Hoese of Berkshire, in the reign of Edward III, so is it possible that the Codrington family itself descended from a member of this family who took the Codrington surname?
RHC was confused by the requests for the confirmation of arms by John Codrington in 1441 and the additional grant in 1445, but it is the first of these that is used by the senior branch of the family to this day.
of silver a veece [fesse] of Sable Batale counter batale Frett with Gowles [gules], between three Lyons passants of the same.
The second grant of arms, which has no similarities to the first, have never been used, other than quartered with the first.
of Synoble iii Roses of goules in a Bende of Silver; A Right Hand of the Bende in the left Quarter.
I doubt that John I would have applied for – but then never used – a second grant of arms, but it is possible. One suggestion is that it was to show his support for the house of Lancaster, but there is no hint of this in the wording of the grant.
Of sinople, sinopre, synoble
(a) A red ocher used in making a vermilion coloring material; also, the color vermilion, red;
(b) her[aldry]. The tincture vert, green [the change in meaning from red to green prob. does not antedate the 15th cent. in England]
The colour synoble in this case probably references a green (vert) background.
The description associated with the second grant also seems much less formal than the first, which clearly identifies a military relationship with the King.
“… John Codrington hath been armed in the present armes in the service of our Sovereign Lord King Henry the Fifth in Battle Watch and Ward, under the said our Sovereign Lord’s Banner …”
The second grant is to John Codrington, gentleman of the shire of Gloucester.
“… for the good service he has done, and shall do to our Sovereign Lord, and the worship of Knighthood … “
The hand represents sincerity and justice, perhaps suggesting that the owner was involved in the law rather than a military hero and I am not entirely convinced that this is a second grant to the same John.
Both grants are to John Codrington, gentleman.
The hand is also said to represent John’s commitment of service to the king alone – possibly as his right hand – but perhaps on pain of having his hand removed.
The only place I have seen the second arms used is on a copper engraving from 1709 by Johannes Kip of the Didmarton estate in Gloucestershire.
Didmarton the Seat of Robert Codrington Esq.
As this is nearly 300 years after the original grant it cannot be said for certain if the design is correct, although it does show that the second grant was associated with the family, or, at least, that is what the artist believed at the time.
Robert Codrington – at the time of the engraving – was the husband of Agnes Samwell and John Codrington I was his 4x great grandfather. The Didmarton manor house was passed to the Codrington family by the marriage of his great-grandfather Simon who married Agnes Seacole in 1571.
The engraving was originally printed in Britannia Illustrata, or Views of Several of the Queens Palaces also of the Principal Seats of the Nobility and Gentry of Great Britain published in 1724, and was not commissioned by the family.
The book was not published until several years after the death of Robert in 1717 and the Manor was sold by 1750.
A tinted version of the same image adds colours to the coats of arms showing the green [synoble] on the second arms.
The motto on the engraving “IMMERSABILIS EST VERA VIRTUS” translates [approximately] as “True power is unsinkable” and is also identified in the The General Armoury [see later].
So if the second grant of arms was not to John Codrington of Wapley then who was it for?
There is a record for another John of Coderyngton, student and attorney to the king, in 1337, and a descendant of his could have requested the arms, perhaps to distinguish his family from that of John Codrington of Agincourt.
The arms could also show their support for the Lancastrian dynasty who the family may have been serving as attorneys for several generations.
In a record for the court of common pleas in 1421 is one John Codrington, gentleman of Clyfe Gloucestershire. In this case Clyfe is Bishop’s Cleeve near Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire, which is later connected to Humphrey – the eldest son of John Codrington of Wapley – just to confuse things further.
In this record John Codrington of Clyfe, along with several other gentlemen, is standing as surety for the defendant, John Malle, a butcher of Northleach so he is likely to have some standing in the area.
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/641, rot. 363
Term: Easter 1421
John Codryngton. Gentleman of ‘Clyfe’ Gloucestershire, England. Surety for defendant.
There is also a license dated 1423 for John Codrington of Tewkesbury to export wheat through Bristol.
Could John Codrington have lived in Tewkesbury after Agincourt but before inheriting the properties at Codrington and Wapley from his father, or is this a different John?
See John Codrington II for more information about this subject.
Another document “Grantees of arms named in docquets and patents to the end of the seventeenth century” identifies the two grants as being to the same John Codrington.
Possibly the author assumed this, but there may be more information in the actual grant to identify that both were the same person, that I have not seen.
In this document John Codrington is specifically identified as John Codrington of Codrington co. Glouc. and some of the dates differ slightly.
The second grant is also clearly identified as an “alteration” to the first, and the first arms [with the embattlements] are identified as having been used during his service with Henry V.
In 1419 Henry V issued a proclamation forbidding all persons who had not borne arms at Agincourt to assume them, except by virtue of inheritance, or of a grant from the crown.
From this is does not seem clear to me why John would have needed to confirm his arms that were used by him in the service of the king?
And why was this done over twenty years after the original proclamation?
As he was part of the retinue of Sir William Burchier then perhaps he did not wear his own arms – or at least not the enhanced version – and assumed them afterwards in which case he may have wanted to confirm the later design.
In his document “Memoirs” RHC quotes from the confirmation but does not identify John as being specifically of Codrington as mentioned above.
Neither does he mention that John was of Gloucester as mentioned above (and in the second grant), but it is clear from the description that this first grant is to John, who was in the military service of the king.
Perhaps the record above is a combination of the two grants, under the assumption that they were both for the same person and some details have been combined?
Every comment on the two grants that I have seen so far, seems to extract certain bits of information from both grants rather than just publishing them in full. This makes me wonder if some pieces that do not fit the scenario of both grants being for John Codrington of Wapley have been ignored.
That may well be my suspicious nature and, of course, both could well be for John Codrington, hero of Agincourt, but why he requested [or was given] the second grant of arms remains a mystery.
RHC mentions the arms of Sir John de la Hoese (Hussey), of Berkshire, being similar to the original Codrington arms so maybe there is a family connection?
Argent, une fese Sable ent. iii lioncells Goulis
The differences between the arms are that the Codrington lions are passant [not rampant] and in the grant of 1441 the fesse has “battlements” top and bottom, also there is a fret pattern on the fesse.
Geoffrey is a name that appears in the de la Hoese (Huse, Hussey) family – so perhaps Geoffrey de Codrington was a member of this important family and took his name from where he lived?
The de la Hoese family held lands in Somerset after the Norman conquest – Hubert de Hoese was probably with William during the Conquest in 1066.
The early de la Hoese family history following 1066, is documented on-line under the Battle Abbey Roll.
The Husseys came from a place a mile North of Rouen, which is now called ‘le Houssel.’ La Houssaie is still a common name in Normandy.”—Lower’s Sussex. They certainly date from the time of the Conquest in this country. Gautier Heuse is on the Dives Roll, and was either the same “Walterius Hosatus” who witnessed a charter of John Bishop of Bath in 1106, or his father. In Domesday, William Hosed or Hosatus held Charlcomb, in Somersetshire, of Bath Abbey, as well as other manors in the county: and the first lords of Bath-Eaton were of this family. They had afterwards estates in Wiltshire and in Sussex, where Harting appears to have been their principal residence; though “one of these lords built much at Shockerwicke, in Somersetshire, and the manor from thence was in succeeding times called the manor of Husei’s Court.”—Collinson’s Somerset.
There are a number of family names derived from the original family – Hussey being the main one. If other branches of the family had already Anglicised their names then Geoffrey [or one of his ancestors] may have done the same.
In 1296 one Nicolas de Hoese was summoned from Wiltshire to perform military service against the Scots.
In 1301 and again in 1304 he was summoned from Gloucester – again to fight the Scots – where he held lands worth £40 and more, showing that the family did own lands in Gloucestershire.
Geoffrey Codrington [Galfridus de Coldrintone] held half a knight’s fee under Pagan de Mandubel, an old Norman family, at the time of Henry II (1154-1189) [1]
If he is the earliest recorded Codrington – and contemporary with Pagen (1123-1170) – then there are a lot of missing generations between him and Robert.
The descendants of Ibert Payne Mundabiel, [who may have been with William the Conquerer in 1066] were the Chaworth family of Shropshire.
His daughter, Wilburga, married Patrick de Chaworth but their son, also Payne, took his maternal grandfather’s surname – probably to settle an inheritance – however the name changed back to Chaworth with Payne’s son Patrick.
In 1297 Maud de Chaworth married Henry, Earl of Lancaster. Her mother Isabel Beauchamp (1252-1306) had married Patrick de Chaworth – a descendant of Pagan Mundabiel – but, after he died in 1283, she remarried to Ralph de la Hoese.
If Geoffrey was from the de la Hoese family, and born earlier than suggested by RHC, then he may have been a brother to Ralph, and if he was the son of Ralph and Isabel Beauchamp he could have been born about 1300.
Possibly the family held land in Gloucestershire which he may have inherited, along with the name.
There is no specific evidence of a change of name from de la Hoese to Codryngton but it was not uncommon to Anglicise French names at this time – Hussey being the most common change from de la Hoese. If Geoffrey chose to change his name using the place where he lived then nothing much would have been thought of it.
However the dates attributed to Geoffrey as being contemporary with Henry II, indicate a much earlier ancestor using the Codringtone name than 1300, the date usually assigned to Geoffrey.
I am not sure, based on these dates, why it is assumed that Geoffrey was born about 1300.
[1] This reference to Galfridus de Codringtone comes from the Black Book of the Exchequer as referenced in “memoirs”.
The similarity between the Codrington and de la Hoese arms, and the possible link between the families, is based on the assumption that the arms – with the simple, black fesse – were older than those used by John Codrington at Agincourt.
As these arms now appear not to have been used until the 16th century, and the junior branch is most likely descended from Thomas, the son of John – who used his father’s arms – then the link made by RHC is probably incorrect.
That is not to say that there isn’t a link between the families, but perhaps later than first thought.
There seems to have been a connection between the families several generations later in relation to property in Wiltshire:
Final concord from Easter into one month, 20 Henry VIII (May, 1529), between Bartholomew Husey and Christopher Codrynton, querents, and Edward Codrynton and Elizabeth his wife and William Southe, deforciants, of the manor of Swaloclyff.
The Twynyho family are also mentioned in this article regarding the South family and the inheritance of properties in Wiltshire.
One of these properties, Swallowcliffe, ended up with the Codrington family for a while.
RHC, in his first publication on the Codrington family, lists the fourteen arms depicted in a stained glass window at Castle House, Calne, Wiltshire.
These shields, which relate to marriages within the extended Codrington family, contain the arms of both the junior and the senior branches of the family but not the second arms granted to John Codrington in 1445.
It is not know what the connection is between the property and the Codringtons. Possibly these were originally in the Bristol home of Robert Codrington [as mentioned in Memoirs] and relocated at some point by a member of the Ernle family, who lived in Calne and also married into the Codrington family.
RHC suggests another link with the manor house at Berwick Bassett and the Goddard family who married into the junior branch of the Codrington family.
The Castle House property was purchased by the local council at some point and left to ruin until recently renovated as flats and holiday accommodation. It is not known if the stained glass survives.
The illustration is from the History of Calne by A.E.W Marsh from 1903
I have recently come across several cases where the junior branch of the family have used the arms of the senior branch, giving some weight to the idea that Thomas, the head of the junior branch, was the son – and not brother – of John of Agincourt.
In the 1623 visitation of Gloucestershire for the Clifford family, the senior arms are identified as belonging to Ambrose [shown as William] Codrington who married Margaret Teste.
There is a slight difference in this description in that the fesse, although embattled, has no fretting and several generations later it appears that the embattlement has also been removed.
The arms that I have used for the senior branch were shown – in the original document – to have been associated with Thomas Codrington in the 15th century who can only be the son of John Codrington.
So perhaps it was several generations later that the arms were changed – or they just evolved – and Thomas was, indeed, the son of John Codrington of Agincourt.
In which case these may not be the original arms at all and are a variation [simplification] of those used by John Codrington and used by both branches of the family.
This brings into question any connection to the de la Hoese family, but there is nothing to say that these were not the original arms re-adopted several generations later.
Many images and miniatures of John Codrington show the original family arms with a red fesse, but I have not come across this in any written description – perhaps there is some reference I have not found yet?
It is possible that the version of the arms used by the junior branch may have been a modification of the original arms, with a black fesse replacing an earlier red one?
This may have been done where the original arms were associated too closely with another member of the family – in this case John, hero of Agincourt – even though he later changed the design as well.
During the battle of Trafalgar in 1805 Captain Edward Codrington, of the Orion, used arms that had reversed colours to the arms usually used by the senior branch of the family.
Making a small but significant change, particularly with the colours, is common amongst members of the same family and this is often combined with an additional item on the shield “for difference” – in this case a goblet.
The lions are shown in black and the embattled fesse in red without any fretting.
RHC says that the original arms, with the black fesse, are mentioned in Atkyns’ Ancient and Present State of Gloucestershire published in 1712, and also shown in the stained glass at Calne – but it appears they were not actually used before the 16th century.
If we ignore the assumption that they were used before Agincourt – based largely on Thomas being the brother of John, which is probably incorrect – then why could the fesse not have been red originally?
RHC also comments on alternative designs in his “memoirs” document of 1898, so clearly this is not just a recent idea.
The red fess and black lions, which by some mistake are in some cases given, are evidently wrong.
Possibly he is referring to the arms of Edward Codrington, as shown above, however I do not think these are supposed to represent the original arms or those of the senior branch.
Several members of the Codrington family are buried in St. Lawrence’s church at Didmarton, where the family owned the manor, including the still-born sons and three daughters of John Codrington and his third wife Frances Guise.
At the top of the memorial plaque are the arms of the two families.
What is interesting is that underneath the black, embattled and fretted fesse of the Codrington arms is a red embattled fesse. This may simply be because it was easier to show the red fretting on the black fesse by painting the red underneath.
But it also seems that the fretting [basketwork] design is not actually showing as red and the base colour is showing through. Perhaps the red was a mistake that was over-painted, although the description of the fretting is definitely red (gules).
Another possibility is that the shield was simply re-painted [badly] at some point as had the memorial to Robert Codrington in Bristol Cathedral, although this paintwork does seem to be older.
I think a red fesse is a real possibility. In particular I believe that the red fretting, in the grant of 1441, could be a hint to the original colour underneath the black, embattled black one used by John Codrington at Agincourt.
There are a number of records for the Codrington family in The General Armoury.
One shows a completely different coat of arms altogether.
Gu. a cross lozengy Az. and Or.
These are shown elsewhere as the arms of the Codinton family [of Surrey] as well as Codrington, so probably another simple mistake.
The Coddington family originated in Coddington, Cheshire and are sometimes mistaken for members of the Codrington family.
There are also several versions of the “Coddington” arms – available to buy online – that actually show the Codrington arms instead! The problem is that once these things are on the internet they are difficult to correct or remove.
In some references to the battle of Agincourt John Codrington is shown as Codinton along with Symon Codington, who is probably not related.
Two of the descriptions are of interest:
Codrington (Wroughton Co. Wilts)
Ar. a fess embattled counter-embattled sa. fretty gu. between three lions pass. of the second.
Codrington (Bridgwater, Somerset)
Ar. a fess sa. betw. three lions pass. gu.
The first arms are those of the senior branch, and the second from the junior branch – those that moved out of Dodington when it was bought by Christopher Codrington III with the proceeds from his sugar plantations.
The interesting thing is that, although from separate branches, they both have the same motto:
Immersabillis est Vera Virtus and Vera Virtus Immersabilis.
Both translate [approximately] as True power is unsinkable.
It seems as if the arms used by the junior branch were changed several generations after John Codrington of Agincourt. Both his son Thomas and grandson Ambrose [William in the pedigree] continued to use the same arms that he was granted in 1441.
This puts the assumption, by RHC and others, that these were the earliest arms used by the Codrington family into some doubt, as well as the connection to the de la Hoese family.
It seems that the first recorded use of the simpler arms – without the embattled fesse – was Samuel, the son of Richard Codrington of Dodington, who married Elizabeth Stephens in the 16th century, as shown in the stained-glass window at Calne mentioned above.
This is much later than I was expecting, unless there are other records that put this date earlier.
The arms of the Codringtons of Codrington, Gloucester[shire] are shown as:
Ar, a fesse embattled sa. betw. three lions pass. gu.
Despite being directly descended from John Codrington A1 there is no fretting mentioned.
The arms of the Bethell-Codringtons – those descending from Christopher Codrington of Barbados and Antigua, and who bought Dodington from the junior branch – are the same, but with the fretting intact.
Most illustrations and miniatures of Sir John Codrington show him carrying the Royal Standard of Henry V, but there is also a second standard associated with Henry V and Agincourt as shown in this figurine.
The design adorning the horse is based on the arms confirmed to John Codrington in 1441, and he could have used these at Agincourt, or at least assumed them while still in the service of the king.
Other models usually show the older arms and I think it more likely that these were used by John at Agincourt, but that soon afterwards they were modified to reflect his recent military service and important position as standard bearer.
The standard shown here usually includes the Bohun swan in honour of his mother, Mary de Bohun, but this version appears to show a different design – perhaps a griffin?
I do not know if either version was used during the campaign, but if so it opens the possibility that there were two standard-bearers at Agincourt – John Codrington and Sir William Harrington as discussed elsewhere.
These are the arms of Sir Geoffrey Ronald Codrington, a descendant of John of Agincourt and Christopher Codrington of Barbados and Antigua, and shows the arms confirmed to John Codrington in 1441.
Note that the helmet on the achievement above the shield is facing forward, indicating a knight rather then an esquire, as shown on the arms of John Codrington of Agincourt.
The motto translates as In the face of the enemy.
Sir Geoffrey Ronald Codrington KVCO DSO
Birth: May 13, 1888, England
Death: Jun. 18, 1973, England
Chris Sidney 2015
It would be strange if there was no family connection between the Estcourt and Codrington families given the number of documents that show the names of both families.
All that can be found, however, is a reference in the will of Thomas Estcourt, dated 1599, to his sister Codrington and it seems there are no other records for this marriage between the two families.
Thomas Estcourt (1547-1599) was party to several legal documents concerning the Codrington family, including the arrangements for the marriage of Robert Codrington and Anne Stubbes dated 1593.
The said Simon Codrington being so seised a fine was levied in Michaelmas term 36 Elizabeth between William Stubbes and Thomas Estcourte, esquires, plaintiffs, and the said Simon and Agnes his wife, […] to the use of the said Simon for his life, and after his death to the use of Robert Codrington, gent., then son and heir of the said Simon and of Anne Stubbes, afterwards his wife […]
The Estcourt family lived at Shipton Moyne in Gloucestershire, close to Didmarton where the senior branch of the Codrington family were based at this time.
Simon Codrington (1554-1631) seems to have been associated with this older Thomas and his son, Thomas, a friend of Simon’s son Robert – both having been at Grey’s Inn at about the same time. Thomas Estcourt was one of the overseers of Robert’s will.
But there do not seem to be any male Codrington family members in the pedigree that could be the husband of an Estcourt daughter, and RHC did not know about this otherwise I’m sure it would have been mentioned in his Memoirs of the Codrington family.
I have therefore tried to match an un-named sister of Thomas Estcourt the elder, to an unknown son of Thomas Codrington and Mary Kellaway.
There are only two sons mentioned in the Codrington pedigree – Simon Codrington the eldest son who married Agnes Seacole, and John Codrington, who married Ann Howper of Meriot, Somerset.
Both Simon and John were alive until at least 1630 – outliving Simon’s son and heir, Robert who died in 1618. Agnes Seacole was known to be alive until 1618 but not much is known of Ann Howper.
Dates for this branch of the family are a bit vague but I think it is possible for John to have remarried after his two known sons, Thomas and Edward, were born about 1590/95 – assuming his wife Ann had died.
It is not known if another Codrington brother was alive in 1599, when Thomas Estcourt wrote his will, but he is not mentioned as a brother in law and, if he had died then his wife had not remarried.
There are four sisters mentioned in the will of Thomas Estcourt in 1599: Edith Iles, sister Pateshall, sister Codrington and sister Sperte, as well as several brothers-in-law who are husbands of sisters or, in some cases, fathers of daughters-in-law.
Matching these up leaves only sister Codrington and sister Spert unaccounted for – supposedly their husbands may both have been dead by 1599.
This means that John Codrington cannot to be the husband of sister Codrington as he lived until 1633 – and Simon was still married to Agnes.
It is also possible that the husbands were simply not listed as brothers-in-law in the will, but I can see no reason why they should have been excluded unless they were dead.
Additional information is available in the will of Anne Estcourt, (who did not marry), one of the daughters of Edmund and Praxeda, and older sister of Thomas.
However she only mentions one sister, Edith Iles, several brothers and lots of god-children, nieces and nephews and seems to have had a lot of money to distribute between them.
Anne Estcourt died in 1581, some time before her brother Thomas, so it is possible that sister Codrington was not married at the time, and is simply not named for some reason – perhaps she was married but had no children or was just a younger sister?
Anne seems to have been about 10 years older than Thomas and closer in age to sister Edith, so if Thomas was the eldest son there could have been a lot of sisters born earlier.
If Anne was born in 1538 [her father was born 1525 so one of these dates appears wrong] then a sister born about the same time could almost have married a Codrington from an earlier generation, but still be alive in 1599, probably as a widow.
I think this is unlikely though, and I still favour an additional Codrington son, Thomas, as the most likely option.
The sister of Agnes Seacole, who married Simon Codrington, had also married into the Spert family.
Griselle Seacole = Richard Spert.
Richard was the son of Sir Thomas Spert, founder of Trinity House and Master of the Mary Rose and the Henri Grace a Dieu. Sir Thomas had also married into the Seacole family but had no children from that marriage, possibly his wife, Anne, had died in childbirth?
Robert Spert, who married another unknown Estcourt daughter, is unlikely to be his brother, but is probably a relative of some sort.
William Soper the M.P. for Southampton – who may have been related to the John Soper that married Alice Codrington – was also involved in the navy of Henry V and the building of the Gracedieu that was started in Southampton in 1416.
Soper played a notable part in the greatest naval enterprise of the time, the scheme to build a ship of 1,400 tons’ estimated capacity—the Gracedieu.
THOMAS ESTCOURT, of Shipton Moyne, co. Glouc. Will dated – 1 June 19, 1599, proved Nov. 13, 1599. [88 Kidd.]
To be buried in my Chapel at Shipton Moyne.
My brothers in law William Savage & Walter Hungerford, esq, & Richard Patsall.
My sister Pateshall.
My son Edmund Estcourt.
My son in law John Hungerford.
My sister Edith Iles, wife of Richd Iles.
My daughter Mary [Savage], wife of my son Thomas Estcourt.
My brothers George & Richard Estcourt.
Books in my Study in Gray’s Inn, London, to my son Edmund Estcourt.
To my daughter Anne Estcourt, £1,000 to her marriage.
Lands, &c., to Edmund my son, if Thomas dies without issue.
My cousin Sir Willm. Eyer, of Chalfield, Wilts.
My wife Emma.
My father Edmund Estcourt, decd.
My son Richard Estcourt, 200 marks towards the making of his stock in trade.
My sister Codrington.
My sister Sperte.
ANNE Estcourt of Shipton Moyne. Will dated 7 Nov 1580, Probate 26 Sep 1581
Brother Thomas, sister in law Emma
Brother George, children Edmund, John, Emma, Mary
Brother Gyles
Brother Richard, children Anne, Edmund, Thomas, Cicilie, Mazie
Sister Edith Iles, children Thomas Anne, Praxeda
One possible solution to this is that the death of Thomas Codrington as 1594 is incorrect, and this date applies to a previously unrecorded son, also called Thomas.
Some research into the inheritance of property in Wiltshire and Shaftsbury, Dorset has shown that it was passed to Thomas South, his nephew, about 1565, which also may be when Thomas Codrington died.
The properties in question appear to have come from Joan, Thomas’ grandmother.
Edward Codrington and Elizabeth his wife were seised in her right, of the manor of Swallowcliffe, with remainder to William South, her son and heir by a previous husband, and that the purport of the fine was, with William’s consent, to postpone his estate, whether in tail or in fee, to a life estate thereby created in favour of Thomas Codrington, his half-brother ex parte materna.
Thomas South was the son of Thomas’s half-brother, William South. Their mother, Elizabeth, was first married to Giles South before marrying Edward Codrington in about 1495. Thomas Codrington was born about 1520 and his death in about 1565 in not inconsistent with the birth dates of his children – and perhaps the reason he did not have more.
This pedigree from Wiltshire notes and queries (volume 7) shows Thomas Codrington born about 1500, which I think too early, but if true gives more weight to him dying about 1565, being of a good age, and the 1594 date would therefore have to apply to a son.
Upon these entries one would conclude that, by purchase or as heir, Thomas South, of 1574 [son of William South], succeeded Thomas Codrington, of 1552, and transmitted the messuage in Shaftesbury to his son, Thomas South, of 1606. And it may be stated that Thomas Codrington was certainly dead in 1565. The succession then may have been upon death; but it is quite certain that Thomas South was not Thomas Codrington’s heir.
The death of the younger Thomas in 1594 fits perfectly with him marrying into the Estcourt family about 1590, but then leaving a widow who is mentioned in her brother’s will of 1599 as Sister Codrington.
Thomas Codrington died intestate in 1594, which would be understandable if this was the will of the younger Thomas, but an older Thomas – aged about 80, [assuming he was born 1515] would surely have written a will?
Thomas is described as “while he lived of Swallowcliffe ” and RHC says that administration of his estate was granted to his son, Simon, in 1594. But these facts do not fit with other records that say that the estate was in the possession of Thomas South in 1567, perhaps the biggest indication that Thomas had died early.
Land which a member of the South family, possibly Giles South, acquired in Swallowcliffe before 1528 may have been part of the Mandevilles’ Swallowcliffe estate. The land, reputed a manor, was in 1528 settled on Elizabeth Codrington, perhaps Giles’s relict, her husband Edward Codrington, and her son Thomas Codrington for their lives with remainder to William South, possibly Elizabeth’s son by Giles South. Thomas Codrington was apparently in possession in 1545. William’s son Thomas South held the estate in 1567. It passed to Thomas’s son Thomas, who died holding it in 1606. The land presumably passed to that Thomas’s son Edward South, the lord of Swallowcliffe manor.
RHC may have been mistaken and the estate of Thomas, in 1594, may have been granted to his brother Simon. This leaves the family looking like this:
Thomas I (1515-1565) = Mary Kellaway (1525-1589)
Mary? (-) = Hugh Hervey
Alice (1550-1629) = Thomas Hyett
Simon (1550-1631) = Agnes Seacole
John (1555-1633) = Anne Howper
Thomas II (1560-1594) = ?? Estcourt
Birth dates are approximate based on probably marriage dates etc.
Then there is the date mentioned above: Thomas Codrington of 1552. What does this date refer to? I doubt if this is when he died, but could be the date that he married Mary Kellaway – or possibly the birth for a younger Thomas? Most likely this is when the survey of lands was carried out.
And what of the date associated with Thomas South of 1574? It seems he was already in possession of the Swallowcliffe property by then and that this is when he died. The estate was then passed to his son, another Thomas who died in 1606.
The elder Thomas Codrington was not the heir to the Codrington estate. This had been passed by his uncle, Christopher Codrington, and his wife Ankarette Twynyho, to their daughter, Alice, who married John Soper.
The pedigree of John Soper, probably of Somerset, is not clear, however his arms are shown in the chapel of Codrington Court where he died.
arg. on a fess gules between three phials or bottles, three mullets or.
These arms are impaled with those of the elder Codrington family, but they are different to other Soper arms, so perhaps he was the last of his family to use these.
The couple only had one daughter, Alice, who was the heir of the Codrington estate when she married Walter Dennys of Dyrham in Gloucestershire as his second wife .
But the couple did not have any children and when Alice Dennys died the Codrington and Wapley properties were passed to her second cousin Simon Codrington, the eldest son of Thomas Codrington and Mary Kellaway.
Unfortunately we do not know exactly when Alice Dennys died. If she died before 1594 – when she would have been 75 years old – then the lands could have gone to Thomas Codrington and not his son Simon.
However it was in February 1570 that Simon was named as “Consanguineus et haeres apparens” [Cousin and heir apparent] to Alice and Walter Dennys, so it is possible that the elder Thomas had died a few years earlier, otherwise I would have thought he would have been made heir, but this is not certain. Thomas would have been about the same age as Alice.
This also means that another Simon Codrington Esq. – who married Walter’s daughter, Anne, (Alice’s step daughter) from his first marriage in 1543 – must also have died by this time.
This Simon and Anne had no children so it is likely that he also died young. In the lives of the Berkeleys it says:
And the said Anne the last of the sisters of the said Richard Denis was maryed to Simon Codrington Esq. who is dead without issue.
Elizabeth, the wife of Edward and mother of Simon and Thomas Codrington, first married Giles South and had a son, William who was half-brother to Simon and Thomas.
The documents referenced in Wiltshire Notes and Queries indicate that the properties mentioned in Dorset came from Elizabeth’s mother, Joan, from her first marriage, but the name of her first husband is unknown. She is known to have remarried to James Brown or Broune.
?? = Joan ? = James Broune
Elizabeth ? = Giles South = Edward Codrington
There is a possibility that Joan’s first husband was John Twynyho based simply on the disputed identity of the second husband of his widow, Joanne.
John Twynyho = Joanne Corbet = ??
There are indications that Joanne’s second husband was Thomas Cressett, but the suggested birth dates for his children seem much too early, and it is more likely that Thomas Cressett married a sister of Joanne, possibly named Eleanor, or that he was the son of a marriage between the two families a generation earlier.
It’s quite possible that Thomas Cressett’s wife was Elizabeth’s youngest daughter with Sir Roger Corbet, born in the 1460s, and not married until the latter years of Edward IV’s reign.
Either way I have discounted a marriage between Thomas Cressett and Joanne, for now.
John Twynyho died in 1485 leaving Joanne as a widow and they could have had a daughter, Elizabeth [born about 1470] of an age to marry Giles South and to have a son, William, about 1490.
There is no record for an daughter Elizabeth but that does not mean that she didn’t exist, and if so, she could have been named after her grandmother Elizabeth Corbett. This means that Joan may have been Joanne Corbett and her daughter, Elizabeth Twynyho.
The uncle of Thomas Codrington, Christopher, had married Ankarette Twynyho – named after her grandmother Ankarette Hawkstone – and would have been cousin to Elizabeth. So this is what the relationship could have been …
John Twynho = Joan Corbett = James Broune
Elizabeth Twynyho = Giles South = Edward Codrington
William South, Thomas Codrington
The British History Online record says that the Wiltshire land was originally owned by the South family and granted to Elizabeth – and not Joanne – on her marriage to Giles South. It was then passed through second husband, Edward Codrington, then his son Thomas and then back to the South family, as agreed prior to the marriage.
The agreement regarding Swallowcliffe was for the life of Thomas, so in 1567, when Thomas South held the estate, Thomas Codrington, the son of Edward and Elizabeth, must have been dead, leaving a younger son, Thomas, who married an Estcourt daughter but died intestate in 1594.
And there is more to support this.
As well as Swallowcliffe there are also properties in Shaftsbury, Dorset that were passed to Thomas South from Thomas Codrington in the same way, and these records also contain the name of Twynyho.
In the Octave of St. Martin 2 Richard III [1484] James Broune and Joan his wife, levied a fine to William Twyneo of a messuage and garden in Shaftesbury, which William Twyneo thereby granted to the said James and Joan for the term of their lives, with remainder to Giles South and Elizabeth his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, with remainder in default to the, heirs of the body of Elizabeth, with remainder in default to the right heirs of Joan.
This William Twynyho was likely the father-in-law of Christopher Codrington, but at this time there were no family connections between the South and the Codrington families – the daughter of Joan, Elizabeth, married Edward Codrington after the death of Giles, mentioned above.
So the most likely connection is through Joan, who would have been his sister in law, the widow of his brother John. The marriage between Elizabeth, the widow of Giles South, and Edward Codrington was perhaps arranged through the Twynyho family that had connections to both the Codrington and South families.
The ownership of the properties in both Wiltshire and Dorset shows that it is highly likely that there were two Thomas Codringtons – father and son – and that it was the younger who married into the Estcourt family but died in 1594 leaving a widow, sister Codrington, as mentioned in the will of Thomas Estcourt in 1599.
The identification of Elizabeth, who married Edward Codrington, as the likely daughter of John Twynyho and Joanne Corbett is an unexpected bonus.
Thomas South the younger, who took possession of Swallowcliffe from Thomas Codrington, died in 1606 leaving three sons – Edward, Thomas and Richard.
His grand-daughter Mary [probably the daughter of eldest son Edward] was married to Philip Poore at Swallowcliffe in 1639. Their son, also Philip, married Elizabeth Codrington, the youngest daughter of John Codrington and his second wife Ann Still, the grand-daughter of the bishop of Bath and Wells.
Chris Sidney 2015
If you are lucky enough to have a gateway ancestor in your family tree, then you can probably trace a connection back to William the Conqueror and beyond.
A gateway ancestor opens up connections to the noble, rich – and well documented – families of England and calculations have shown that just about everyone alive today can probably claim a connection to King John, over 20 generations ago.
But how many can claim to be related to King Henry VIII?
Having spend a lot of time investigating this possibility, I think that it is now likely that my family can make that claim, having proved a link back to one of his, supposed, illegitimate children – Awdrey or Etheldreda Malte.
In my family that gateway ancestor is my grandmother, Emily Codrington, who was the daughter of Robert William Codrington a butcher and owner of the Lamb Inn at Iron Acton in Gloucestershire. Robert was a direct male descendant of John Codrington , standard-bearer to King Henry V at the battle of Agincourt in 1415, and a member of the senior branch of the Codrington family.
The definitive guide to The Codrington family was written in 1898 by Robert Henry Codrington (RHC), an Anglican priest and anthropologist who died in 1922. His work is based on notes made by the historian Sir John Maclean who had intended to follow his Memoirs of the Poyntz and Guise family with one about the Codringtons, but passed his notes to Robert following an illness.
There are two main branches of the family descended from two of the sons of Sir John Codrington; John and his brother Thomas who married into the Poyntz family. The senior branch lived at Codrington and Didmarton in Gloucestershire and the junior branch of Frampton-on-Severn and later Dodington before selling this property to Christopher Codrington from the senior branch in 1700 – Christopher had made a fortune from the sugar trade in the West Indies.
From marriages made into other families by the senior branch, I can trace my genes back to royal families in England, Scotland, Wales and other European countries – as can most people who have a gateway ancestor. Mathematically everyone who is alive today is probably related to someone in the Plantagenet dynasty – if only they could find the link.
King John seems to be a key figure in my pedigree and I am related to him through at least three of his children as either 21st or 22nd great-grandfather.
In Bristol Cathedral there is a memorial to Robert Codrington, who died in 1618, that shows the arms of some of the most significant marriages within the main branch of the family.
Thomas Codrington & Mary Kellaway (m.1535)
Robert Codrington & Anne Stubbes (m.1595)
Robert Codrington & Agnes Samwell (m.1674)
The arms of the Samwell family were added some time after the memorial was erected, as were those of the Bethell-Codrington family – descendants of Christopher Codrington – who restored the memorial in 1840. The pedigree of both the Samwell and Kellaway families are well documented, but the Stubbes family is a bit of a mystery and I have concentrated my research in this area, with some success.
In his 1898 Memoir of the Family of Codrington of Codrington, Didmarton, Frampton-on-Severn and Dodington Robert Henry Codrington identified Anne Stubbes, wife of Robert, only as an Heiress and of a Norfolk family.
Records exist of the arrangement for Robert’s marriage to Anne Stubbes and the quartering of the Stubbes family Sa. on a bend between three pheons or, as many buckles gu. are clearly visible on the memorial. From this design it is likely that the Norfolk connection is assumed – the arms are used by other branches of the family – but on the memorial these are quartered with another, unidentified design.
I.M. Roper in his 1903 Effigies of Bristol identifies the unknown arms only by their armorial description – lozengy arg. and Sable – black diamonds on a silver background, and Robert Henry does not offer any further insight.
After much research it appears that the design on the memorial itself is incorrect – either it was added that way or repainted badly when the memorial was restored – and is that of the Harington family.
The arms shown on the memorial represent a fretty design, which was used by an older branch of the Harington family. But they should have been a fret – a single stylised knot which may have been tricky to incorporate into the quartering, as granted to John Harington of Stepney forty years earlier.
Why such a significant marriage should have been forgotten to Codrington family history is very strange, whatever the pedigree.
Anne Stubbes and Robert Codrington married in Shrivenham, Berkshire in May 1595; arrangements having been made several years earlier between their fathers Simon Codrington and William Stubbes. Nothing in this document identifies who William Stubbes was or where he came from and there has been much speculation about the pedigree of his daughter Anne, many showing her to be from the Gloucestershire branch of the family.
The location of the marriage is significant as William Stubbes and his wife Hester lived in the smaller, nearby manor of Watchfield which did not have it’s own church. As well as Anne and Robert’s marriage, two daughters – Francis and Susan – were baptised in Shrivenham, as was customary at the time, but I cannot find a baptism for the eldest daughter Anne.
Records show that William and Hester, were living at West Mill, Watchfield from about 1593, just before the marriage of Robert and Anne. Inventories of their property are attached to their wills from 1630 and 1639 and these match the layout of that property as it was at the time [the property has been altered but still exists]. The manor of Watchfield did not have a traditional manor house, having been owned by the nearby Abbey of Abingdon until the dissolution, so was probably managed from West Mill farm.
After they married in 1574 William and Hester lived in Westminster, London – which indicates that William may have been lawyer, as was Robert Codrington – and later lived in Stepney, where William Stubbes of Ratcliffe – perhaps a relation – had a business near the river. Possibly William was working with William of Ratcliffe for a while until he moved his business interests to Boston in Lincolnshire where he is recorded in 1594 – at about the same time William and Hester moved to Watchfield. There are also connections to Cheshire.
Eldest daughter Anne was born a year after they married and there were two other surviving daughters – Susan and Theophilia – who had good marriages into the Tatton and Garrard families. A son “Harrington” born in 1578 seems to have died in infancy and two other daughters, Hester and Francis had also died and are not mentioned in the will of Hester. William only mentions his daughter [Susan] who had died a few years before he wrote his will but doesn’t name her specifically, or any members of his immediate family.
Watchfield was a property inherited by William’s wife, Hester Harington and passed to William on their marriage. In 1568 Hester is recorded with her father, John Harington, in a Common Recovery against Watchfield manor, so that the property could be used as a dowry – a restriction placed on the property meant that it could only be passed to Hester.
In this recovery Hester is shown as the owner or Vouchee of the property having inherited it from her mother. A recovery was a legal way of removing entailments (restrictions imposed by conditions of inheritance) on a property, and was in use for several hundred years. In this case the entailment was imposed on Watchfield by her grand-father John Malte, when he passed the property to his daughter, Awdrey, in his will.
As both the Harington and Stubbes families had connections to Stepney it is likely that they knew each other and the marriage was arranged several years before Hester and William actually married in 1573. This is similar to the arrangement of their daughter Anne when she married Robert Codrington. Robert was a lawyer and his marriage to Anne Stubbes seems to have been fitted around the end of his legal training.
All accounts of Hester that I have found say that she died in 1568 or some time after – or had never existed. The pedigree of the family shows she was last know to be alive in 1568, which would have been when she was involved in the recovery of Watchfield with her father. I’m not sure anyone really looked too hard for her as she was clearly still alive – although married – and owned, or lived in the manor until her death in 1639.
The will of William written in 1628, does not mention Watchfield, but he was too ill even two years before he died to sign his name and it is likely he had already transferred the manor to his grandson Thomas Tatton, son of Robert Tatton and daughter Susan. This fits with records showing Thomas and his wife Margaret were the owners about this time.
The husband of William’s eldest daughter Anne – Robert Codrington – had died in 1618, but it is not clear why his son John did not inherit the manor. There were however some properties mentioned in Shrivenham and Watchfield in the agreement for his first marriage to Katherine Stocker, probably given by William or his parents at the time of his marriage in 1617.
William’s daughter Susan Tatton and his son-in-laws Robert Tatton and Thomas Garrard had already died by 1628 so the Witnesses to his will were his grandsons William Garrard, George and Thomas Tatton and [his servant] Johane Jay .
Recent information regarding Robert Tatton makes it unlikely that William passed Watchfield to Robert and would have passed it directly to grand-son Thomas.
Robert had enticed William’s daughter Susan and married her just a few days before she was to marry another [unnamed] gentleman of great worth and reputation. Robert already had an heir from a previous marriage and William believes that Robert was not treated Susan and the children from their marriage as well as he could.
Robert then borrowed “and embezzled” money from William, his friends and family eventually ending up in court where some of the story is told by William in his answer to the complaint.
This is essentially a case bought by Robert about money that was due to him, or promised by William that was not received, but it does give William a chance to present his own side of the story.
This deffendant [William Stubbes] by the fayer and flatteringe speches of the complainant, [Robert Tatton] and partly in hope that the Complainant would have Delt the better with this deffendantes daughter the Complainant’s Promise […] to bee made […] portions of money to [be sat__] [hole in document] setled uppon such children, as he had or should have by his said wife [Susan].
By mentioning other family members in the case, this document has also unintentionally proved that Hester Harington, William’s wife really was the daughter of John Harington and Awdrey Malte, by confirming the relationship between Hester and her [half] brother Sir John Harington of Kelson.
… this Deffendant & [the] said Sir John Harrington, this Deffendantes Brother in lawe
This seems to be the final proof that Hester is the daughter of John Harington of Stepney and Awdrey Malte.
John Malte was Royal tailor to King Henry VIII and a member of the Company of Merchant Tailors, so was probably quite a rich man. It seems that he received several grants of property from the king, one of these properties being the manor of Watchfield in 1541, but more significantly some of the grants were given specifically to him and his bastard daughter Awdrey.
This has led to speculation that Awdrey is more likely to be the illegitimate daughter of the king and Joanne Dingley a royal laundress, than John Malte, and that some arrangement was made between them for John to adopt Awdrey. In his will John leaves money to several good causes – including poor prisoners, maidens and road repairs – and to a foundling child left on his doorstep, so it seems unlikely that, due to his good nature, he would have refused such a request.
For the same reason I think he is unlikely to have been the father of a bastard child – despite leaving money to Awdrey’s mother, Joanne Dingley in his will. The King, however, was well known for his activities in this area.
If my estimation of the birth of Awdrey as 23 June 1532 is correct, then John could have been her father. He was appointed as King’s Tailor in October 1531 and this is about the time that Awdrey would have been conceived – but perhaps this was just one of the reasons why he was involved in this deception.
John Malte. Grant of the office of King’s tailor, with fees of 12d. a day, as enjoyed by Stephen Jasper, John Apparys, and William Hylton. Greenwich, 18 Oct. 23 Hen. VIII. [1531]
John Malte wrote his will while the king was still alive so it is thought that the wording and conditions in his will were there more to satisfy the king than anything else.
“my bastard daughter begotten upon the body of Johane Dyngley”
Awdrey is specifically left the manors of Watchfield in Berkshire and Nylands in Somerset in the will of John Malte, as well as others defined in an agreement between John Malte and Sir Richard Southwell.
The manors of Kelston and St Catherine’s in Somerset – which were the only grants in which Awdrey is specifically named – were not granted until after the will was written. According to a report written about the property, the Llewellyns – the King’s tenants of St Catherine – had their lease taken away and the land granted instead to Malte.
But it is through the ownership of Watchfield manor that I have been able to confirm that Hester Harrington, who married William Stubbes, was the daughter of John Harington and Awdrey Malte.
John Malte died in December 1546 just a month before the King and was quickly replaced as royal tailor, but his will was not proved until some time later on 7 June the following year.
John Brydgys, the King’s servant. To be the King’s tailor, vice John Malte, dec, with 12d. a day, payable from Michaelmas last. Westm., 23 Dec. 38 Hen. VIII.
Details of his burial were probably lost during the great fire in 1666 that destroyed St Augustine’s church and his actual death and burial was probably several days before the date in the court records.
It appears that John also held a second position as tailor in the Great Wardrobe. This would have brought him more business that just being the King’s tailor alone – and another 6d a day.
John Malte. To be yeoman tailor in the Great Wardrobe, vice Richard Gybson, deceased; with 6d. a day and livery. Westm., 12 Nov. 26 Hen.VIII. [1534]
On 23rd September 1546 the King granted to John Malte, and his bastard daughter, lands in Somerset perhaps as a reward for following the king’s wishes and confirming that he was Awdrey’s father in his will written two weeks earlier.
The description of Awdrey in the grant is very similar to John’s will, so could have been agreed between them so as to leave little doubt. It is very unusual for a daughter to be mentioned in a grant, especially as she also had two other sisters who are not named.
Maybe Henry suspected that he didn’t have long to live and wanted to protect his daughter from the chaos of succession following his death, so chose to disown her? His only son Edward was not a healthy child and his other – slightly more legitimate – daughters had no love for each other.
Perhaps this was prophetic considering the fate of Lady Jane Grey?
Or maybe he suspected Sir Richard Southwell of not having the best intentions for Awdrey once she was married to his illegitimate son, Richard Darcy. No doubt Henry had agreed to the marriage of Richard’s son, Richard Darcy, but perhaps he was now having second thoughts?
For whatever reason the lands were granted to John and his daughter, using the more formal version of her name Etheldreda.
John Malte, tailor, and Etheldreda Malte alias Dyngley, bastard daughter of the said John by Joan Dyngley alias Dobson. Grant, for 1,311l. 2d., of the lordship and manor of Kevelston, Soms., […]; the lordship and manor of Eston and Kateryn, Soms., the chief messuage called Katernscourte […] 400 ewes called “le yowe flocke of Charmerdon, […]. To hold to the said John Malte and Etheldreda and the heirs of the body of the said Etheldreda, with remainder to the right heirs of the said John. Del. Westm., 23 Sept. 38 Hen. VIII. [1546]
This grants the manor of Kelveston [Kelston] and the Manor of Eston and Kateryn with it’s manor house Katenscourte [St. Catherines Court] and flock of sheep for the sum of £1,311 2d [about £318,000].
Previously in 1544 several other Manors had been granted to Malte as a gratuity for his failtful service – Doulting, Middleton and Nyland [Andersey] in Somerset. The Malte and Harington family were also associated with the manor of Batcombe.
John Malte, the King’s servant. Grant, in fee, for 1,824l. 16s. 8d., of the manor of Andresey alias Nylonde, Soms., which belonged to Glastonbury abbey, and all appurtenances in Batcombe beside Andresey, and all possessions of Glastonbury there; the rectory of Andresey alias Nylond, which belonged to Glastonbury mon.; all lands in Westbury, Soms., which belonged to Brewton mon.; the manor of Myddelton alias Mylton Pydymore alias Podymore Mylton, Soms., and the advowson of the rectory there, the manor of Doaltyng, Soms., and lands leased with it to Benedict Kyllygrew, now dec., by pat. 28 July 32 Hen. VIII., the rectory of Doulting, and the hamlet of Stoke, Soms., all which belonged to Glastonbury mon.; with all possessions of that mon. in Andresey alias Nylond, Batcomb juxta Andresey, Myddelton alias Mylton Pydymore alias Podymore Mylton, Doulting, Fermecombe, Boddon, Prestley, Waterlipp, Charleton, Chevelynche, Estbraddon, Heydon, Dychefurlong, and Stoke, Som. Also the advowsons of the vicarages of Andreysey alias Nylond and Doultynge, and a grove of wood within the common of Stoke, which belonged to Glastonbury. Del. Westm., 14 July 36 Hen. VIII. [1544] —S.B. (injured, signed by Westminster, Petre, Bakere, Sir Robt. Southwell, North, Moyle, Wriothesley, St. John, Ryche, Sir Ric. Southwell, Stamford and Bacon). Pat. p. 15, m. 1.
Middleton [Milton Pudimore] and Doulton were passed to his daughter Muriel [who died shortly after her father] and her husband John Horner. Nyland [Andersey] was passed to Awdrey along with Watchfield and other manors specifically given to her and her father mentioned above.
The last entry for John in royal documents is on 17 Jan 1546/7 Lands sold by the Crown which follows on from the grant by the king the previous year.
John Malte, tailor, and Awdrye his base daughter 1,312l. 12d.
Watchfield [Wachenfelde], Uffington [Offyngton] and other properties in Berkshire were granted earlier than this on 18 May 1541
John Malt. Grant, in fee, of the reversion and rent reserved upon a 21 years’ Crown lease to Alex. Umpton, 12 March 29 Hen. VIII., of tithes of the rectory of Offyngton, Berks, which belonged to A bendon mon. Also the lordships and manors of Offyngton and Wacchenfeld, Berks, with appurtenances in Offyngton, Wacchenfelde, Blakynge alias Balkynge and Wolston, Berks, the rectory and church of Offyngton, Berks, and the rectory of the church or chapel of Wolston and the chapel of Blakynge or Balkynge; and all tithes in Offyngton, Wolston, and Blakinge, and in the manor of Hardewell, Berks, which belonged to the said monastery; the advowsons of the vicarage of Offyngton, the parish church of Wolston and the chapels of Wolston and Blakynge alias Balkinge; all which belonged to Abendon.
Also a messuage in Wacchenfelde, Berks, which belonged to Cirencester mon., and another which belonged to Braddenstok mon. Rent of 10l. 16s. 9d., with liberty to the grantee to convert to his own uses the said rectories, churches, and chapels. Subject to certain reprises. Greenwich, 9 May 33 Hen. VIII. [1541]
Uffington was passed to his daughter Bridget [Scutt] and Watchfield to Awdrey and other properties to Muriel and grandson John Horner.
John Malte to John Horner, jun. All his lands in Westbury, Soms., which belonged to Bruton abbey. (20th.) P. 15, m. 18.
John seems to have done well under the king and probably made a lot of money from his position as Royal Tailor, which he seems to have invested in land and property. One of his bills is for a rather large sum of money!
John Malte for 1,824l. 16s. 4d. [£443,000]… Provided that these bills are first signed by three of the commissioners named in the said commission of 1 March 35 Hen. VIII. [1543/4]
Calculate at a rate of £1 in 1550 = £243 today
It has been speculated that Joanne, the mother of Awdrey, was a minor noble down on her luck and she could have been the widow of James Dyngley – and therefore the daughter of Sir John Moore – or the daughter of Sir Thomas Dyngley. But if this was the case I would have expected her to have been married off to another minor noble, and there would be no need for Awdrey to be adopted.
Although there is no specific evidence of her being a laundress [apparently there are laundry lists] she is likely to have been a domestic servant of some sort who did not have the resources to bring up the bastard child of the king. She was married off to someone named Dobson, possibly a minor palace official, but perhaps a better match than she could have otherwise expected.
It is not know how long Awdrey lived with her mother. Possibly she made the birth known to royal officials and she was married off so that she could look after the child? It may have been several years before Awdrey was “adopted” by John Malte – but likely to have been some time before he wrote his will claiming her as his child.
There was no way for the king to have passed any lands to Awdrey through her mother, Joanne, without raising suspicion so having her adopted by Malte was a good plan – he was a rich man and could afford to buy the properties made available by the king and targeted at Awdrey. This also made it possible for Awdrey to have a much better marriage than she could have otherwise had as the daughter of a servant.
Joanne is left £20 [about £5000] in the will of John Malte, maybe as some sort of compensation from the King, but I doubt very much that John had ever met Joanne Dingley.
Awdrey was probably born on St. Etheldreda’s day, 23 June – Etheldreda being the Latin version of her name. In the will of John Malte in September 1546 she was not yet 15 years old so was most likely born in 1532, a period when King Henry had tired of his first wife and was courting Anne Boleyn.
If this is the correct date then she was conceived about September 1531 – where was the king at this time? Wherever he was this is likely to be where Joanne Dingley worked and Awdrey was born. This could have been Greenwich or Windsor or any other of the royal households.
And where was John Malte? He was appointed King’s Tailor in October of 1531, so it is not impossible that he is Awdrey’s father based on her estimated birth, but the timing would be tight.
There is no evidence that Awdrey had distinctive red [Tudor] hair or resembled her younger half-sister Elizabeth, but if she was the daughter of Henry VIII then this is a possibility – why not? There is supposedly a portrait of her [and one of daughter Hester] held by the Harington family for several generations, but now in a private collection, that would have proved this theory. [isn’t there always?]
In 1546 – when John Malte wrote his will – Awdrey was betrothed to Richard Darcy, the illegitimate son of Sir Richard Southwell , but this arrangement was broken sometime after her father’s death later that year.
In the will his trustye and welbeloved frende sir Richard Sothewell was charged by Malte to look after Awdrey’s financial affairs until she was fifteen. Maybe this is the reason that the will was not proven until June of 1547 – 6 months after John died – as this meant that Sir Richard Southwell never got a chance to be involved in Awdreys financial affairs and perhaps, for this reason he broke off the engagement between Awdrey and his son Richard.
But more likely this was because the was King now dead and had publicly declared – through John Malte’s will and the grant of lands – that Awdrey was not his daughter. Richard Southwell had been privy to the large land grants awarded to John Malte so he may have guessed that things were not quite what they seemed and had other plans for Awdrey.
Both documents are very clearly worded as to the pedigree of Awdrey and this was probably devised by some trusted court official and agreed between John and the King, with a sum of money being paid to Joanne by John Malte in his will – a payment directly from the King may have given the wrong impression.
Etheldreda Malte alias Dyngley, bastard daughter of the said John by Joan Dyngley alias Dobson
Audrey Malte my bastard daughter begotten upon the body of Johane Dyngley and now wife of one Dobson
Some additional properties were granted two weeks after the will was written, and only Awdrey could inherit them. These are probably the best of the manors – Kelston and St Katherine’s Court near Bath in Somerset – where Awdrey and John Harington and their descendants actually lived – and possibly where Awdrey died.
But were these properties intended for the Southwell family? Were they part of an unofficial marriage agreement and the reason why they were specifically aimed at Awdrey after the will had been written?
Some sources say that Henry had declared Awdrey as his daughter – or at least had not denied it – and the agreement between Henry and John Malte was a very public way of correcting that mistake, assuming that he had good reasons for not wanting it to be known that Awdrey was his daughter.
Alison Weir in her book Anne Boleyn:the Great and Infamous Whore talks about Awdrey and the rumours and quotes the following:
In 1656 Jonathon lesley, Deputy Clerk, wrote to a descendant of [John] Harington describing how “the great King Henry the VIIIth matched his darling daughter to John Harington, and though a bastard, dowered her with the rich lands of Bath Priory” he added that his information came from Sir Andrew Markham, a descendant of Harington’s second wife.
This cannot be true as, at the time of his death, King Henry would have been aware that Awdrey was due to marry the son of his friend Sir Richard Southwell. Perhaps the lands he had granted to Awdrey and her father were intended for the Southwell family and not John Harington, who she married instead?
John Malte died in December of 1546 and Henry VIII early the following year leaving Awdrey without a father – one way or another. She probably lived with her mother or elder sister Bridget and husband John Scutt – who were the executors of the will – until she married.
John Harington was born in Stepney, the son of Alexander, in about 1525 [some say 1517] but little is known of his immediate family.
The Tudor Place website has a birth date of either 1525 or 1529 and a christening date of 21st April in either of those years – I think the earlier is more likely. However this website also associates John of Stepney much too closely with his cousin Sir John Harington of Exton, the term cousin not being quite as precise as we use it today.
In 1568 John of Stepney applied for a confirmation of arms which was granted, but this only confirms that he is descended from a younger son of the Harington’s of Brierley – possibly James before he took holy orders. This confirmation led to later attempts to regain property and titles by John’s son, Sir John Harington , that ultimately failed.
Why – and under what circumstances – social climber John Harington married the daughter of a tailor and a servant is still unclear but he would have certainly seen the benefits of the match as far as her dowry was concerned. His branch of the Harington family had been impoverished after the wars of the roses and John was crawling his way back into royal favour.
John had studied music composition under Thomas Tallis and his work “Black Sanctus” probably brought him to the attention of the king, although none of his work survives. In her novel Royal Inheritance, about the life of Awdrey, author Kate Emerson casts John as her music teacher.
John was a poet and musician and was, for a period, in the Chapel Royal where he was organist. Later he became servant to Sir Thomas Seymour which put him in the heart of royal politics at the time of Lady Jane Grey, and he was imprisoned in the Tower of London for his supposed involvement. He was devoted to princess Elizabeth and when she became Queen he was back in favour – Elizabeth becoming godmother to his son John from his second wife Isabella Markham.
Awdrey and John Harington probably married late in 1547 but it is not known exactly where or when this happened. Awdrey’s local church was St Awstyn’s besides Powles gate where her father was buried, but all records were lost in the great fire of London in 1666. [i]
[i] Leading out of St. Paul’s Churchyard at the south-east corner to Watling Street, St Augustine’s besides St Paul’s gate burnt down in the Fire and was not rebuilt, although for many years after the entrance into the churchyard at this point was still known by this name.
John Harington of Stepney is known as The Poet or Treasurer. However it appears that this second soubriquet is incorrect and he was never treasurer to the king’s camps and buildings – that post was filled by his distant cousin Sir John Harington of Exton, with whom he is often confused.
John of Stepney would have been too young to have held such a position under Henry VIII and he had no background in the skills required of a treasurer. On the other hand John Bradford was a skilled auditor and much has been written about him as a reformer and martyr, but in all the accounts I have seen he is employed by Sir John Harington of Exton, treasurer to the king’s camps and buildings – even Wikipedia says this, but then incorrectly links to John Harington of Stepney!
This position is confirmed in official court papers, although the job title varies.
Sir John Haryngton, treasurer of the wars, that Counsell should deliver him 6,000l. towards payments by Hertford’s warrant [11 April 1546]
His grandson and great-grandson were also named John – first and second Barons Exton – and they all share a common ancestor with John Harington of Stepney:
Robert Harington of Badsworth (1458-1497).
Robert was the grandfather of Sir John of Exton and the great-grandfather of John Harington of Stepney.
John Harington of Stepney, The Poet (1525?-1582)
Sir John Harington of Kelston, The Writer (1561-1612)
Sir John Harington of Exton, (Treasurer) (1503-1589)
Sir John Harington of Kelston was the son of John of Stepney, author of nugae antiquae and inventer of the first flushing toilet.
King Henry VIII died on 28 January 1547 and was succeeded by his sickly nine year old son, Edward VI who was the son of Henry and his third wife Jane Seymour. Two of Edward’s uncles, Thomas and Edward Seymour, were on the council of regency, although it was Edward, duke of Somerset who was made protector of the young king, much to the annoyance of his younger brother.
Thomas, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley married the King’s widow, Catherine Parr, in April or May of 1547 – just a few months after Henry had died. This made him an extremely rich man – even more so after the death of his wife in child-birth a few years later.
Arrangements had been made for Richard Darcy, the illegitimate son of Richard Southwell, to marry Awdrey Malte and this was probably arranged between the King and Richard, who was close to the king [he was left £200 in his will] and an ambitious man. He may even have been privy to who she was – officially or unofficially – having been at several meeting where land was granted to her father, John Malte.
After the death of Henry, the Southwell fortunes changed as the Seymour family took charge of the young King Edward – it seems there was little love lost between the families. If the Seymours were aware that Awdrey was the daughter of Henry then they may have wanted to keep their options open and marry her to someone of their choosing. Or at least remove Awdrey, and her property, from the Southwell’s influence – maybe out of spite if nothing else.
The delay in publishing John Malte’s will may have been to ensure that Richard Southwell had no claims on Awdrey’s finances – as detailed in the will – and to find an alternative suitor. Thomas Seymour may have suggested his young servant John Harington perhaps as a reward for his loyal service [he would gain a lot of property from the arrangement] but also because Thomas trusted him. It is possible that John and Awdrey had never met at this point, but once the Southwells were out of the picture things could be put in motion.
The will was proved in June 1547 when either Awdrey was fifteen or the Southwells had pulled out of the marriage arrangement. John Harington bought two manors in Gloucestershire in exchange for an annuity [possibly these were Thornbury Park and Oldebury, but these have been associated with James Harington, of Rutland] in September so he would not come to the marriage totally empty handed and it is likely they married later the same year.
It was about this time that John Harington first appeared in parliament representing Pembroke, which, it appears, he never visited. The History of Parliament is in little doubt that this appointment was due to his links with the Seymours.
It is possible that as joint chancellor of North Wales the earl had obtained for him his annuity out of the lordship of Denbigh: as the Protector Somerset [Edward Seymour] the earl favoured his purchase of two Gloucestershire manors. This connexion with Seymour and the Protector doubtless explains Harington’s first known appearance in Parliament, at the beginning of Edward VI’s reign.
The marriage was probably more of a political arrangement than a love match and several years later John began writing poems to Isabella Markham, another of princess Elizabeth’s attendants, who would later become his second wife. John and Awdrey did have one daughter, Hester but Awdrey became ill afterwards and there were no more children. She may have died in early 1559 having first witnessed the coronation of Queen Elizabeth but it may have been earlier – even in childbirth – possibly in St Catherine’s Court in Somerset or the couple’s property in London.
Both John and Awdrey were in the Tower of London in 1554 – John for his part in the Lady Jane Grey affair [or the Wyatt rebellion] and Awdrey as an attendant to Queen Elizabeth during her confinement there by her sister Mary.
I do not think that Hester was born until after her parents were released from the tower, but she could have been conceived there. I estimate Hester to have been born late 1554 based on her being about 21 when she married and being 14 when she was involved in the recovery of Watchfield, and this fits with the period when either one or both of her parents were in the tower of London.
Her birth could have been as late as 1556 is she married at 18, but then she would only have been 12 during the recovery of Watchfield and could not have been presented as the owner [Vouchee] of the property – fourteen being the age of adulthood at that time.
The date of the recovery is Michaelmas 10-11 Eliz [1568] so would have been some time between September and December of that year. If Hester was conceived early in 1554, then she would have been born by the end of that year and therefore could legally be the owner of Watchfield during the Michaelmas period of 1568.
It has been speculated that Awdrey was placed as an attendant to princess Elizabeth, by their half-sister Mary, when Elizabeth was imprisoned in the Tower in March 1554 but I have not yet found any evidence of this.
As the bastard daughter of a tailor and a servant there is no reason at all for Awdrey to have been included in Elizabeth’s retinue – a position usually given to those of noble birth. This is perhaps a equally compelling reason to believe that Awdrey was the daughter of Henry VIII along with the grants of property that were aimed at her through her father.
There is plenty of evidence to show that Hester is the daughter of John Harington and Awdrey Malte through documents and wills relating to the inheritance of the manor of Watchfield, and whether Awdrey was the daughter of King Henry VIII may one day be proved either way using DNA. There is certainly some evidence to support this theory and several historians believe it to be more likely than not.
If this is true then members of the Codrington, Tatton and Garrard families can claim to be descended from the Tudor dynasty and Henry would be my 12th great grandfather. There also seems little doubt that we are also related to Joanne Dingley – whoever she was.
Having investigated the pedigree of Hester for some time now, I am now fairly convinced that her mother, Awdrey Malte, is the daughter of Henry VIII.
John Malte was appointed King’s Tailor in October of 1531 and, if Awdrey was born in June the following year, he could possibly be her father. Perhaps this is one of the reasons – other than his good nature – that he was involved in this deception – if he could be proved to be somewhere else it would not be believable?
I think it unlikely that the first thing he did after taking up his new post was to go looking for a young laundress! I also think that if he was the father of Awdrey he would simply have called her his daughter and not mentioned her being a bastard, and probably no need to mention her mother or her change of name.
The similarities of the wording in John’s will and the grant of lands are too obvious to ignore. The inclusion of the “disclaimer” in both documents seems to be more indicative of a hidden truth than anything else.
It is also interesting that Awdrey is specifically granted property [jointly with her father] in the first place. But this does seem like a good way of declaring the details of her parentage in official court documents without actually making a specific declaration.
It would be even more difficult – in my option – to explain some of these events if she was proved not to be the daughter of King Henry VIII.
King Henry VIII (1491-1547) = Joanne Dingley = John Malte (d.1546)
Awdrey “Etheldreda” Malte (1532-1559) = John Harington (1525-1582)
Hester Harington (1554-1639) = William Stubbes (1550-1630)
Anne Stubbes (1574-1650) = Robert Codrington (1574-1618)
Susan Stubbes (1582-1624) = Robert Tatton (1586-1636)
Theophilia Stubbes (1584-1643) = Thomas Garrard (1575-1617)
Robert Tatton was related to the Tatton family of Wythenshaw in Cheshire and Thomas Garrard was of Inkpen in Berkshire, descended from the Garrard family of Lambourn, Berkshire.
Why did the King choose John Malte to adopt his illegitimate daughter?
To start with John was married with several daughters and step-daughters in his household, so another one would not be too out of place.
He was appointed to his position as Royal tailor at just about the right time to potentially be Awdrey’s father.
He was probably quite close to the King, even counted as a friend, and would probably have had ample opportunity to discuss the arrangements in private.
The king would have know of John’s good nature – as shown in his will where he leaves money to several good causes and a foundling child – and may have taken advantage of this.
He was quite a rich man in his own right – certainly after being Royal tailor – and the grant of lands would not be too out of place, although the number of grants may have raised a few eyebrows.
All things considered he was the perfect candidate.
But there are also questions.
Why was there so much effort to deny that Awdrey was Henry’s daughter, or at least for John Malte to claim her as his?
There was no real need to add the statement about Awdrey’s illegitimacy or the name of her mother in either the will or the later grant of land?
The King had claimed at least one other bastard child – although this was a boy, the daughter of Elizabeth Blount – so what was so different about Awdrey?
Considering that both Mary and Elizabeth were, at one time or other, declared illegitimate, why would Awdrey not also be in line to the throne? Well probably because she was genuinely a bastard and not declared so legally for the convenience of others. And perhaps simply because she was the daughter of a servant and not from a noble family like the Boleyns.
The Harington and Stubbes family were both from Stepney so the marriage of Awdrey’s daughter, Hester to William Stubbes was likely to have been a simple arrangement between two local families. But the Stubbes family also had connections to Sir Francis Walsingham , Queen Elizabeth’s principal secretary and spymaster, and maybe the marriage was arranged between William and Hester in order for Walsingham to maintain control of a potential heir to the throne, the grand-daughter of King Henry – especially as Elizabeth appeared unwilling to marry.
Walsingham became principal secretary in December 1573 and William and Hester married a year later, but of course this is probably just a coincidence.
This document is a summary of my investigation into a small part of my family tree and is likely to change as more information becomes available. I am still awaiting documents from the National archives but for now the pedigree of William Stubbes of Watchfield continues to be a mystery – if anything I have too much information!
As the arms on the memorial to Robert Codrington were used by the Stubbes families of both London and Norfolk it is likely that there is a connection to the Norfolk family somewhere, but so far I have not found one despite rebuilding the Stubbes of Norfolk family tree. At the moment it is looking more likely that William’s father [William of Congleton, I think] was from Cheshire although he also lived in Berkshire.
Most of the information in this document can be found in more detail in other posts.
I have used the modern spelling of Harington – with one R – as much as possible, however many of the original documents or transcriptions I have referenced use Harrington.
Chris Sidney 2015
Gene Surfing 
Recent Comments