Adventures in Family History
I have recently obtained a copy of Ruth Hughey’s book John Harington of Stepney: Tudor Gentleman, published in 1971. How does it compare to my own research and does it contain any other useful information?
I have deliberately avoided reading Ruth’s account of the life of John up to now so that I wouldn’t be influenced while I was doing my own research – this being the only book ever published about the life of John Harington of Stepney, my 11x great grandfather.
Ruth includes a portrait of John, clearly in his later years. This is held by the Victoria Gallery in Bath and although it has not been authenticated as being John Harington of Stepney it came originally from the Harington family portrait collection.
Generally I think we agree about John and the key events in his life and much of the generally available information about him clearly comes from this book or from the same sources that Ruth identifies.
That John is often confused with his cousin, Sir John of Exton, is also mentioned and the source of some of the confusion is identified, but this doesn’t prevent incorrect information still being circulated today and the publication by his son, Sir John of Kelston, Nugae Antiquae, doesn’t help.
This book does show up some issues with my current Harington tree which I will need to sort out, in particular the relationship with the Exton branch of the family, but mostly it supports my current research.
One thing that Ruth did point out was that John, unlike other poets and writers of the period [who’s works John collected], was prominent through the lives of four different monarchs – Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and then Elizabeth.
But first of all who was John Harington, son of Alexander, and why was he living in poverty in Stepney only a few years after his family were the most prominent family in the north of England?
One of the family that was killed at the battle of Wakefield in 1460 was Sir John Harington of Hornby, the brother of Sir James of Brierley who later died at Bosworth in 1585 and to whom John Harington claimed kinship.
The Stanley family, despite desperate attempts by their Harington cousins, managed to gain the wardship of the two daughters [and heirs] of Sir John and married them into the Stanley family in an attempt to claim the Hornby estates.
But it was the defeat of Richard III at Bosworth – to whom the Haringtons had been loyal followers – that destroyed the family fortunes, with the remaining family members attainted and their properties forfeit, to the benefit of the Stanleys, who switched sides during the battle.
The Stanley family could be said to have created the Tudor dynasty by this single act of betrayal at Bosworth and at the same time destroyed their main rivals in the north and several of their allied families; they became one of the most powerful families in England and the Haringtons were reduced to poverty.
It is interesting, then, to see how John Harington of Stepney could have been so devoted to the Tudors that had destroyed his family, unless this was just an attempt to recover the lost family fortunes any way he could.
Despite being loyal to Elizabeth during the reign of her catholic sister, his involvement in the Lady Jane affair and his allegiance to Admiral Seymour, for which he ended up in the Tower of London several times, he managed to survive Tudor life and pass on a comfortable inheritance to his descendants – although perhaps not the inheritance he had hoped for.
John was perhaps born earlier than my previous estimate of 1525 as he seems to have been in the royal household in 1538. But, as a chorister my estimated age of 13 may not be too far from the truth, although Ruth suggests a year or two older.
In this year he was granted an annuity of twenty marks along with Avery Burnet, described as a “gentleman of the King’s Chapel”, although it seems this form of address did not apply to John himself.
An earlier birth date of 1517, suggested by the Dictionary of National Biography and repeated in the History of Parliament and Wikipedia, would mean he was about 21 at this point, and surely entitled to be called a gentleman?
John Harington (or Harrington) (c.1517-1582) was an English official working for Henry VIII. [wikipedia]
But this may be due to the assumption that John was older in order to hold the position of treasurer under Henry VIII. That position was actually held by his distant cousin, Sir John Harington of Exton, who was about 20 years older, and even if John had been 21 this is still too young to have held such a responsible position.
In some commentaries John is said to have been organist at the chapel royal in 1540 [which would again imply that he was older than 13] but this is incorrect and it was Thomas Tallis who became organist at this time and John studied music under him.
Whether John was actually the organist for the chapel at any point is not recorded but he was “much skilled at musicke which was pleasing to the king” according to the writings of his son.
John’s father, Alexander, is said to have died in 1539, however Ruth identifies another record from 1544 regarding the purchase of “The Red Lion” by one Alexander Harington so is the earlier death record incorrect, or was there another son, Alexander, who either died in 1539 or was the one purchasing the property?
Ruth also says that John had at least one other brother, Thomas, who is shown in records about this time, again in relation to property. Perhaps he had some sort of inheritance from their father, Alexander, if he had died 5 years earlier, although this disagrees with other accounts regarding the family’s poverty.
John was supposedly born in the prebend house in Stepney, which implies that his father, Alexander, may have been associated with the church.
Prebend: The portion of the revenues of a cathedral or collegiate church formerly granted to a canon or member of the chapter as his stipend.
Perhaps it was his father’s association with the church that helped John obtain his position in the Chapel Royal, rather than any family links with Sir John Harington of Exton or another [closer] cousin, James who was Clerk of the Bakehouse at court and who, in any case, had died by 1524?
It is possible the John only had access to this property later in life [or perhaps another close to St. Paul’s] and he may have lived elsewhere with his father, Alexander, and his mother in Stepney. There is some later mention of a garden and servants and of entertaining important and influential friends, which goes somewhat against the family’s claims of poverty.
Later in his life, John Harington and his son, Sir John of Kelston, spend much time and money trying to re-establish themselves as legitimate heirs to the Harington family ancestral lands of Brierley and Hornby but without success.
The granting of arms to John Harington of Stepney in 1568 is a bit vague about his pedigree saying only that he was descended from a younger son of the Brierley branch of the family.
John Harington of Kelston in the Countie of Somersett sonne of Alexander Harington descended of a younger brother of the Haringtons of Brierley in the Countie of Yorke …
This “younger brother” has been assumed to mean Sir James, Dean of York, but Ruth suggests that Alexander’s father may have been from a different branch of the family – or even a different family altogether, which is explored below.
Had the College of Arms been persuaded to grant these arms, against their better judgement, but would not go as far as identifying a direct pedigree? Or had they established a link to the family but had simply omitted some of the details, and if so then why would they do this?
The design of the arms granted had a checked border “for difference” around the Harington arms, which did not seem to please the family and both John and his son continued to force their claim and eventually were able to use the Brierley arms, although they never reclaimed the associated lands.
In 1635 the succeeding John Harington of Kelston surrendered to the king his interest in the manors of Brierley, co. York; Farleton in Lonsdale, co. Lans.; Farleton in Kendale, co. Westmorland; and in all other lands of Sir James Harington, attainted in 1485, which John Harington (of Stepney) had by grant from Queen Elizabeth in 1570.
The key to this mystery is the identity of John’s father, Alexander of Stepney, who is widely identified as the illegitimate son of Sir James Harington, Dean of York. But the identity of his mother could be equally as important.
The name Alexander is not used in the Harington family but is widely used in the Radcliffe family – who have close connections to the Haringtons – giving some weight to the theory, suggested to Ruth and repeated in her book, that Alexander may have been a member of the Radcliffe family and had changed his name.
As a natural son, Alexander would probably have taken his surname from his mother [perhaps Radcliffe], but it is possible for him to have been officially recognised by his father and then to have used the Harington name. However if his father was Sir James, Dean of York, he may not have wanted to acknowledge a illegitimate son or perhaps he simply died before this could be done?
James died on 1st December 1512, apparently naming his cousin James Harington, Clerk of the Bakehouse, as his sole heir in his will. According to Misc. Gen III. [and Ian Grimble in his book about the Harington family], this will was written on 2 Sep 1497 which would have been after the birth of any son – at least from my estimates. If he had intended to recognise a son and heir it would probably have been in his will.
But there are no references to this will elsewhere and Ruth states that he died intestate so perhaps this was based on information that came from James of the Bakehouse saying that he was the heir of James, Dean of York? Certainly he seemed to be the closest living member of the family who could make such a claim at the time.
To back up Ruth’s view there are records that it was the church that managed James’ estate and his debts after his death, and there seems to have been some provision made in the administration if an heir should appear about the next feast of St. Michael [29 September].
aliqui agnate consanguini seu affine ipsius Jacobi defuncti
I estimate that Alexander was born around 1595 when James would have still been a young man and he may have visited his father regularly at about this time of the year. He would have been about 21 when James died and he may then have used the Harington name whether entitled to do so or not.
Was Alexander his illegitimate son or did James take a young wife who died in childbirth? If so then the marriage is not recorded and I would go for the first theory, although neither could be the truth.
According to Ruth one pedigree shows James having two sons, James and Alexander, which would probably best fit into a scenario where he had actually married, rather than having two illegitimate sons, but this could be a simple mistake where the name of his son and his own name were confused.
If he had married then I don’t think there would have been any controversy about the pedigree of John of Stepney, and his claims for the Brierley estate may have been more successful – even if official records had been lost there would still have been family members and other officials who had some recollection of the event.
Also according to Ruth at least two pedigrees show that another John Harington, the natural son of Sir James of Brierley, had a daughter, Anne, who may be another key player in this whole mystery.
This John had been officially recognised by his father as heir and is then said to have been poisoned by the Stanleys after his father was killed at Bosworth, to prevent any further claims on the estates that the Stanley family had inherited.
In printed pedigrees the death of John of Brierley was in 1510, some time after the death of his father and it may be that he just died of natural causes and the Stanley’s involvement was a malicious rumour. The source of this rumour seems to have been a letter written by one of the two Harington daughters that were married into the Stanley family.
According to Ruth, Anne is shown in one pedigree as having married A. Radcliffe but also as having married James Harington, the son of Sir James, Dean of York.
Is it possible that Anne actually married Alexander Harington, the son of James, who would be a second cousin, and would also have been known as Alexander Radcliffe having taken his mother’s name due to his illegitimacy – assuming she was a Radcliffe?
If so then both pedigrees are correct and Anne Harington was the mother to John of Stepney thus bringing together two branches of the family and strengthening the later claims on the Brierley estates by John and his son.
Thomas = Elizabeth Dacre James of Brierley = Joan Neville John = ? Anne = Alexander Harington alias Radcliffe Robert = Isabella Balderston James, Dean of York = ? Radcliffe Alexander = Anne Harington
I think this is a good solution that fits in with most of the known facts and accounts for some of the differences – but could it be true?
Working back from the birth of John of Stepney in about 1521, I estimate that Anne was born about 1500 [assuming that her father died in 1510, as stated] and Alexander 5 or 10 years earlier when his father was still a young man and before he entered the church.
I do not have any evidence that Anne actually existed, other than the claims in Ruth’s book, but if she did [and was John of Stepney’s mother] it would help resolve several issues with regard to his claims on the Brierley estates.
And it would certainly go some way to explain the rather vague pedigree attached to the grant of arms, with neither parent being entirely legitimate or entitled to inherit.
Possibly Anne, daughter of John who died in 1510, may have been mixed up with Anne, daughter of Sir John, who was killed at Wakefield in 1460 and who was one of the two sisters married into the Stanley family.
Another possibility, suggested earlier, was that Alexander was never a Harington, but simply changed his name – but he must have had a very close relationship with the Harington family for any chance of the grant of arms to his son, John, to be successful.
If Alexander had married Anne Harington, daughter of the poisoned John, then there may have been a family effort to regain the estates and changing his name to that of his wife may have been a part of that process.
One possible candidate is Alexander, the second son of Sir Alexander Radcliffe of Ordsall (1476-1548) who’s grandmother was Agnes, daughter of Sir William Harington of Hornby. 
If correct then this Alexander was born about 1502 and that little is known about him makes sense if he changed his name. Personally I think he may not fit with other events, but it is chronologically possible for him to have married Anne, born about the same time, changed his name to Harington and had a son, John, by about 1521.
Another source, A Catalogue of Books Printed in the Fifteenth Century held in the Bodleian Library, shows Alexander, from this family, deceased in 1570, which indicates that he had not changed his name and cannot be the same Alexander who died in 1539, unless, of course, this record is incorrect.
But if not this Alexander then perhaps another member of the family – or perhaps not a Radcliffe at all!
Another possibility is yet another Alexander Radcliffe, the third son of Alexander Radcliffe and Agnes Harington [and uncle to the Alexander mentioned above].
Pedigrees show that he married Anne Travers and became the ancestor of a line of Radcliffes settled in the counties of Buckingham and Middlesex.
He would have been born about 1440 so is unlikely to have been the father of John Harington, but he could have had a son – or even a grandson – Alexander who could have married Anne Harington.
The fact that the family were associated with Middlesex and the close family associations with the Haringtons helps to place him into this story but I think the arguments for this are very weak.
Two descendants, Dorothy and Edward [shown above], married into the Gerard family of Harrow on the hill, a family with strong business connections to William Stubbes who married Hester Harington the son of John of Stepney and Awdrey Malte.
Sir James Harington, of Wolphege Manor, Brixworth [1443-1497] was another cousin from a relatively unremarkable branch of the family – so unremarkable that Ian Grimble, in this definitive work on the Harington Family, doesn’t mention them at all!
This Sir James, who was apparently knighted at the coronation of Henry VII, was a cousin to both Sir James, Dean of York and Sir James who died at Bosworth, the father of poisoned John and also of James Clerk of the Bakehouse [who’s son Stephen, was the last heir to the Harington estates with a documented pedigree, and who held the reversion of the Brierley estates].
Sir James married Isabella, the daughter of Alexander Radcliffe of Ordsall [and sister of Alexander, mentioned above] although Isabella is shown as Anne in the pedigree below, and this pedigree does not entirely agree with that in Ruth’s book or Ian Grimble’s history of the Haringtons.
The inquisition after his death shows that this James Harington left ten daughters – Agnes, Elizabeth, Alice [Alicia], Margaret, Isabella, Allianore, Joan [Johanna], Anne, Clemence and Katherine.
There was also a son, William, who drowned crossing the river Mersey at Northenden along with his wife “submersus cum uxore” on the day they were married in 1490.
Strangely this was also the fate of William Tatton, of Northenden, in 1616 who’s father Robert, is mentioned in several of my other writings, and it sounds as if both Williams may have drowned at exactly the same place, close to a weir owned by the Tatton family.
One of these daughters, Alice, was married to Ralph Standish and they had a son Alexander, possibly named after his maternal [Radcliffe] grandfather, but this was also a common name in the Standish family.
Alexander Standish was born about 1503, the son of Ralph and Alice, and died, [coincidentally?], on 17 June 1539, the same year as the death of John of Stepney’s father.
According to some pedigrees he married Anne, the daughter of William Molyneaux of Sefton and had several daughters, but could he also be the father of a son born about 1521?
This partial pedigree shows just how closely the Radcliffe, Standish and Harington families were related over several generations.
John Radcliffe = Clemence Standish
Alexander Radcliffe = Agnes Harington dau. William
James Harington = Isabella Radcliffe
Ralph Standish = Alice Harington
Alexander Standish = Anne Molyneux?
Some records show that Alexander and Anne Molyneux were married in 1518 but most show that Anne was born in 1509, so would have only been 9 years old when married and could not have had any children until about 1525, even if this date is correct.
Could John have been Alexander’s son, born before he married Anne, or perhaps even the son from a previous marriage?
If so then John’s mother could have been Anne, the daughter of the poisoned John Harington, mentioned above, which would also have strengthened his claims on the Brierley arms and estates.
And could the record of Alexander’s death therefore actually be correct, but the name of Standish forgotten – or ignored? Could he have actually have married Anne Harington and not Anne Molineaux?
The record of Alexander Harington alive in 1544, mentioned by Ruth, could be unrelated and where does the death record for John’s father in 1539 come from anyway? This date may have been assumed from a poem written by John for his mother in 1540, presumed to be about the death of his father.
But if John’s father was Alexander Standish then what about his brother, Thomas? Why would he take the Harington name just because his brother had done so, unless this is yet another assumed relationship and Thomas was not his brother at all?
Although the dates for Alexander Standish match [almost perfectly] to John’s father, his mother must have been a Harington otherwise there could be no claim on either the Brierley or Hornby estates.
The only other surviving branch of the family was that of another James, know as James Generosus who was Clerk of the Bakehouse in the royal household, and he held the reversion to the family estates which was passed to his son Stephen when he died in 1524.
At some point John Harington of Stepney acquired these rights from Stephen, perhaps in exchange for paying his debt, but the Brierley and Hornby estates were never recovered by his family, possibly because John [unlike Stephen] could not prove his direct lineage and therefore his entitlement.
Some ancestral trees show several children to Alexander Standish and Anne – although none of them are consistent – and Alexander is shown to have died in Standish, but again this may have been assumed.
The History of the County, Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster, Volume 4, through the ownership of the manor of Clifton, shows that Ann Molineux had actually married someone else.
Elizabeth Clifton the heir of Cuthbert Clifton, who died 1512, had married, as her second husband, Sir William Molineux of Sefton who died in 1548.
Ann Molineux, his daughter, heiress of her brother Thomas, who inhabited Clifton, conveyed the manor in marriage to Henry Halsall, of Halsall.
Perhaps this Anne was a previous generation or a cousin, but if Alexander Standish did not marry Ann Molineux then who did he marry?
In order to improve his chances of a claim on the Brierley estates it may have been necessary for John of Stepney to fabricate [or at least suggest] a male Harington ancestor and it is easy to see why Sir James, Dean of York would have been chosen for this subterfuge having never married, or had any known children, and who died without making a will.
Perhaps John was deliberately vague about his pedigree when he applied for a grant of arms in order to help create the impression that his father, Alexander, was the natural son of James with little knowledge of his father?
Later claims by Sir John Harington, that he was directly descended from Sir James of Brierley, may therefore be more accurate than previously thought if his mother was Anne, daughter of James’ son John.
In this case Alexander’s son, John of Stepney – who may have been named after his maternal grandfather – was descended from a younger son of the Brierley branch of the family, as mentioned in the grant of arms, but I doubt this helped his claim on the Brierley and Hornby estates not being a direct male descendant.
And this proved to be the case, so perhaps we are not too far from the real story here.
Awdrey Malte, John Harington’s first wife, had previously been engaged to an illegitimate son of Sir Richard Southwell, Richard Darcy [his mothers name], according to the history of parliament, probably based on the following extract from the will of her father and royal tailor, John Malte written in September 1546.
And all suche other manours landes tenement[es] and hereditament[es] as I have to her lymyted gyven assigned and appoynted in as full ample and large maner as is declared and comprised in a pair of indentures made betwene me and sir Richard Sothewell1 knyght and other concernyng the mariage of the said Audrey …
I think it unlikely that the King had already matched his darling daughter with John Harington at this point and her marriage was not arranged until after the king’s death in January 1547 and the rise of the Seymours during the reign of Edward VI. But it was certainly what was believed by later generations of the Harington and Markham families.Incidentally Sir Richard Southwell sat on the commission that finally released John Harington from the Tower in January 1555. John had spent £1000 to secure his release, according to his son, although the official amount on his release was £100 …
Bound for their good abearing, order and fine at Pleasure.
Does this show an element of exaggeration on the part of Sir John or did his father have to spend more money in order to get to the point of being considered for release, or just for the general cost of being confined?
This is another point that Ruth and I agree on; the unreliability of Sir John Harington of Kelston when it comes to information about his father and the earlier periods of his life, and in particular his first wife.
Ruth noted that it was not until 1597 that Sir John Harington was finally granted the right to use the arms of the Brierley branch of the family – the single fret design.
This is perhaps why the older arms of the Harington family are shown on the Codrington memorial in Bristol cathedral and had, until recently, been unidentified.
The marriage between Robert Codrington and Anne Stubbes was in 1595, just a few years before the final grant of the Brierley arms.
Anne Stubbes was the eldest daughter of Hester Harington, the daughter of John and Awdrey, who had married William Stubbes, an agent of Sir Francis Walsingham, when she was about twenty years old.
Clearly Anne was proud of both her Stubbes and Harington pedigrees as both designs were included on the memorial, which she had commissioned after the death of her husband, Robert Codrington, in February 1618 [1619].
The fretty design used on the memorial is also reflected in the dress worn by Mary Rogers, the wife of Sir John of Kelston, in a portrait which was painted in 1592 a few years before the final grant to use the Brierley arms, although these are represented by the single knot design that she is holding in her left hand.
There is some mention of Awdrey Malte in Ruth’s book, although little about her daughter Hester, but I think I have been able to fill in some of the gaps in my other writings.
… in 1568, Hester, Harington’s daughter by Ethelreda, who had probably just come of age, passed her rights to the manor of Watchyngfeld, and other lands there, to her father. This appears to be the last reference to Hester.
There is a mention of a portrait of Hester, but not of her mother as in other references. The description of the sitter differs from another comments but could still be the same little girl, just a different interpretation.
A portrait … is traditionally held to be a contemporary painting of Hester as a child of eight or nine. It shows a pathetic little girl with a sad expression, much beyond her years.
If Hester was born in late 1554 then she would certainly have been under 5 years of age when her mother died sometime before 1559 [probably by 1556], and perhaps this reflects her sad appearance several years later.
If there is a portrait of Awdrey then it cannot be contemporary with the one of her daughter described above.
John and Awdrey were married for about 7 years before the birth of Hester, but whether there had been any other children is not known – certainly Hester is the only one that survived.
Hester married William Stubbes, an agent and receiver of Sir Francis Walsingham, in 1573, had three daughters that survived [a son “Harington” and several other daughters did not] and died in 1639 at the age of 85 in Watchfield, Berkshire.
It seems as if Ruth had not seen a full transcription of the will of John Malte as she references only an extract in her book.
In particular she quotes later writings by Sir John Harington in regard to King Henry himself being involved in matching his daughter Etheldreda with John of Stepney.
However the will appears to show that Awdrey was engaged to a son of Sir Richard Southwell, and it was only after the Seymours came to power, following the death of Henry, that John and Awdrey were married.
John Harington was part of the household of Thomas Seymour, the younger of king Edward’s two uncles, and they had prominent positions at court during the early years of his reign.
And although John Harington had been well established in Henry’s court it is unlikely that he was personally known to the king other than through Henry appreciating his music, in particular his Black Sanctus, written while studying under Thomas Tallis.
At one point, in the writings of Sir John Harington, he refers to his father’s first wife as Hester instead of Awdrey or Ethelreda.
My father is wont to say, that Kynge Henry was used in pleasant mood to sing this verse; and my father, who had his good countenance, and a goodlie office in his Courte, and also his goodlie Esther to wife, did sometyme receive the honour of hearing his own songe … having been much skilled in musicke which was pleasing to the king, and which he learnt in the fellowship of good Maister Tallis, when a young man.
Personally, and based on other writings of Sir John regarding his father and his first wife, I think this is more likely to be a misremembrance, and perhaps shows that John Harington senior did not pass accurate information about his first wife to his later family.
Or perhaps Sir John was just a bit confused with what he had been told.
One thing that is not quite right in my previous writing is the relationship between the Exton and Brierley branches of the family.
John Harington of Stepney is often confused with his distant cousin John Harington, of Exton who was treasurer to Henry VIII and a generation older.
Like the two branches of the Codrington family, that descended from two of the sons of John Codrington, standard bearer to Henry V at Agincourt [a position also said to be held by Sir William Harington] , the Harington dynasty started with John, the first Baron who died in 1359.
According to Ruth the branch of the family that lived at Brierley, Farleton and Hornby started with Sir John, the second son of the first baron. And the Fleet [Lincolnshire] and Exton [Rutland] branch descended from a grandson of the first Baron, Sir Robert Harington, who was the younger brother of John the second Baron.
This sounds a bit confused but clearly there are quite a number of generations between John of Stepney and John of Exton, treasurer to Henry VIII and they were only very distant cousins.
I also now have a copy of The Harington Family, by Ian Grimble so perhaps this is a good time to make some sense of the pedigrees of the various branches of the Harington in this story.
1. The Haringtons of Brierley
John, first Baron Harington d.1347
Sir John of Farleton d.1359
Sir Nicholas of Farleton d.1403
Sir William of Hornby d.1440
Sir Thomas of Hornby d.1461 at Wakefield
Sir James of Brierley d.1485 at Bosworth
John d.1510 [poisoned?]
Anne = Alexander Radcliffe?
2. The Haringtons of Hornby
John, first Baron Harington d.1347
Sir John of Farleton d.1359
Sir Nicholas of Farleton d.1403
Sir William of Hornby d.1440
Sir Thomas of Hornby d.1461 at Wakefield
Sir Robert of Hornby d.1490?
Sir James, Dean of York d.1512
3. The Haringtons of Farleton
John, first Baron Harington d.1347
Sir John of Farleton d.1359
Sir Nicholas of Farleton d.1403
Sir James of Farleton d.1417
Sir Richard d.1467
Sir William d.1488
Nicholas of Westleigh d.1497
James, Generosus, Clerk of the Bakehouse d.1524
Stephen
The term Generosus – meaning of noble birth – is used by Ian Grimble in his book to identify James, who held the position of Clerk of the Bakehouse in the royal court.
4. The Haringtons of Wolphege (Brixworth)
John, first Baron Harington d.1347
Sir John of Farleton d.1359
Sir Nicholas of Farleton d.1403
Sir James of Farleton d.1417
Sir Richard d.1467
Sir William d.1488
Sir James of Brixworth d.1497
Alice = Ralph Standish
5. The Haringtons of Exton
John, first Baron Harington d.1347
Sir Robert of Aldingham d.1334?
Sir Robert of Fleet d.1399
John Harington of Fleet d.1401
Robert of Fleet d.1419
John of Fleet d.1460?
Robert of Exton d. 1501
Sir John of Exton d.1524
Sir John of Exton d.1553, Treasurer
Most of these are based on the pedigrees from The Harington Family, by Ian Grimble with additional informations from Ruth’s book and other published pedigrees available on-line.
Having read Ruth’s book I think that I now have a better understanding as to what may have been going on here.
She has opened up some new possibilities in the challenge to identify the pedigree of John Harington of Stepney – in particular the suggested connection with the Radcliffe family has proved extremely interesting.
The suggested links to the Standish family are my own although the death of Alexander Standish in 1539 was noted [and dismissed] in Ruth’s book.
It is possible that Alexander, the father of John of Stepney, was a member of the Radcliffe family who married Anne, the daughter of John Harington [who was poisoned by the Stanleys] and the grandson of Sir James of Brierley.
If this is the case then James, Dean of York was involved in this only as part of the subterfuge by John Harington in his attempt to try and recover the Brierley and Hornby estates, by suggesting a more direct male connection.
But this connection may also have been added later by further attempts to establish the Harington claims to the lost estates, or at least to establish their pedigree.
Alexander could have been the natural son of James, Dean of York, raised by a Radcliffe mother and changed his name to that of his father after he died. He may also have married Anne, daughter of John of Brierley, strengthening his claim to those estates.
Or perhaps he was the son of Ralph Standish and Alice Harington – illegitimate or not. But the claim to the Brierley estates would have been fairly weak unless he had also married [or had a child with] Anne Harington, daughter of poisoned John – if she actually existed.
Ruth did appear to be thinking along these lines, but it seems she did not want to commit herself to one particular version of events in her book.
In 12 July 1565 John Harington appointed his young nephew Thomas Harington – son of his brother Thomas – to the living of St. Mary the Virgin at Kelston [Misc. Gen. IV]. I think it is therefore unlikely that both brothers would have adopted the Harington name if their father, Alexander, was named either Radcliffe or Standish.
It is not unheard of for a son to take the name of his mother’s family in order to satisfy the conditions of an inheritance. But does this make it more likely that Alexander was the son of Sir James, Dean of York over any other theory?
I think that important evidence is missing from all of these suggestions, but whether any evidence actually exists is another matter. Some evidence to the existence of Anne as daughter of John Harington of Brierley would be useful to all of the theories.
The strange thing is that one of these options is probably close to the truth.
Nothing in the pedigree of John Harington of Stepney seems to be entirely genuine and he could have been the son of either Alexander Standish and Alice Harington or Alexander Radcliffe and Anne Harington.
But even if he was only descended from the female Harington line John may have felt that he had a genuine claim to at least some of the twenty five estates lost by his ancestors.
Whatever his plan – if, indeed there was a plan – John did manage to restore the family fortunes, but only through his loyalties to Henry VIII, Admiral Seymour and princess Elizabeth and, of course, his marriage to Awdrey Malte which gave him the foundations on which to build a new Harington dynasty.
Here are some of the incorrect facts that are commonly published about John Harington of Stepney. Most of them originated from the brief introduction to Nugae Antiquae, published by his son, Sir John Harington of Kelston.
1. He was treasurer to Henry VIII.
No, he was much too young and a member of the Chapel Royal, probably as a chorister, in Henry’s court. His distant cousin, another John Harington, from the Exton branch of the family, and a generation older, was treasurer. John of Stepney was known to the King, but only for his music and poetry.
2. The king arranged for John’s marriage to his darling daughter Etheldreda.
This is highly unlikely as Awdrey was engaged to be married to the son of Richard Southwell when the king died in January 1547, as shown in the will of Awdrey’s father, John Malte, who died only a few months before Henry.
Richard Southwell was close to the king and was left money in his will, so perhaps the grants of land were directed at Awdrey with the intention of them being passed to the Southwell family through marriage?
It was probably the Seymours who arranged the marriage of John and Awdrey during the early reign of Edward VI – John Harington was one of Thomas Seymour’s men. This arrangement was probably more about the estates that had been left to Awdrey by her father, rather than any romantic match-making.
John was probably about 25 years old when he married Awdrey, sometime in 1547, and she would have been fifteen having been shown as under this age in her father’s will dated September 1546. [She may have been born in June 1532 if named after St. Etheldreda].
3. John Harington paid £1000 to secure his release from the tower.
John was in the tower for about 11 months in 1554, and the fine he paid on his release was £100. This does not mean that it didn’t cost him £1000 in expenses during his confinement, or that he hadn’t paid out money in bribes to try and get released earlier, but if this was the case then it didn’t seem to have helped.
4. John was in the Tower of London with his wife, Isabella Markham.
There is documentary evidence that John was still married to his first wife, Awdrey, until at least 1555 although she is thought to have been ill, probably after the birth of daughter Hester, and may have died soon after at the age of just 23.
Isabella may have been in the tower as one of the attendants of princess Elizabeth, who was there for several months at the same time as John. But her father, Sir John Markham, was Lieutenant of the Tower at the time and it may have been seen as inappropriate for her to be there as an attendant to Elizabeth.
The comment that John made about his wife, whilst confined in the tower, was certainly about Awdrey and not Isabella Markham, who he married in June 1559.
My wife ys her servant, and dothe but rejoice in thys, our miserie, when we looke with whom we are holden in bondage.
I estimate that their daughter, Hester, was born in late 1554 and it is likely that she was therefore conceived in the tower when both her parents were there together earlier that year. This is based on Hester being fourteen [of legal age] in the autumn of 1568 when she and her father were involved in the recovery of the manor of Watchfield.
Perhaps the reason that Awdrey is not shown as Elizabeth’s attendant after she was released from the tower was because of her pregnancy and subsequent illness and she may have retired to St. Catherine’s court in Somerset and, perhaps, died there, probably about 1556.
I would like to think that John had some affection for his first wife and that he did not start pursuing Isabella until after her death, but the first poem written about Isabella dates from about 1549 only a few years after he married Awdrey and before the birth of their daughter.
This indicates more than anything that John married Awdrey for the benefits it brought him in restoring the family fortunes and not for any romantic notion of marrying the King’s daughter, although that may have appealed to his poetic nature.
If Awdrey was not the King’s daughter then it would be difficult to see why John would have had much interest in her at all and I would have thought that he had much bigger ambitions for his marriage than the daughter of a tailor and a servant – even a rich one.
In a previous post I have questioned why Awdrey held a position as an attendant to princess Elizabeth, and concluded that it could only be because she was the daughter of the king and the half-sister of Elizabeth.
But it may also have been through the influence of her husband, who was devoted to Elizabeth, having been imprisoned in the tower for carrying messages to her in the first place. Possibly she was there in place of Isabella Markham who does not appear to have been in the tower with Elizabeth in 1554.
Perhaps this does weaken the claim that Awdrey was the natural daughter of Henry VIII if she was an attendant to the princess simply because she the wife of John Harington and just filling in for someone else.
But I am still confident that Awdrey is more likely to be the daughter of Henry VIII than not, as it would be difficult to explain some of the other events in her life – in particular the grants of land [whoever they were intended for] – if she was just the natural daughter of John Malte and Joanne Dingley.
One thing that is cleared up in the book is the names of the two Gloucestershire manors – Bibury and Alrington – that John purchased in 1547 in exchange for his annuity from the lordship of Denbigh that he had been granted nine years earlier.
There is an interesting, if slightly damaged, document in the National archives concerning Robert Tatton and William Stubbes and some money supposedly owed by William to Robert.
This document is related to research into my family tree, in particular the pedigree of Anne Stubbes, who married Robert Codrington in 1595. For background information please read An Heiress and of a Norfolk Family otherwise things may seem a bit confusing.
The Tatton v Stubbes document is quite large and faded in places, with a significant chunk missing, but there is enough information in the remaining text to tell an interesting story about the relationships between Robert and William.
This is only the answer of the defendant, William Stubbes of Watchfield, so we don’t get to hear the actual complaint by Robert Tatton, but some of it is repeated in the answer giving us a flavour of what was said.
Thanks to Linda at Transcription Services for her efforts in extracting all of the information out of the document that could be read.
Once upon a time William Stubbes of Watchfield, Berkshire and his wife, Hester, had three daughters.
Anne, the eldest, married Robert Codrington of Gloucestershire in 1595; Theophilia, the youngest daughter, married Thomas Garrard of Inkpen, Berkshire and Susan Stubbes married Robert Tatton, from the Tatton family of Wythenshawe in Cheshire.
But this was not what was supposed to have happened.
Robert Tatton had “by various practises, intised & gotten away” with their daughter Susan and married her a few days before she was supposed to marry someone else.
… [without the] knowledge of this deffendant or of her mother this defendantes wife, even about a day or Two before that shee should have ben maryed, unto A gentleman of great worth & reputacion.
According to William, in his answer to the complaint, Robert’s father had disowned him after he married Susan and it was following this that Robert began borrowing money from William, his family and friends, which resulted in this court case.
This deffendant by the fayer and flatteringe speches of the complainant, 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.
And partly uppon the faithfull promises and earnest protestacions made by the said complainant to this deffendant f___ […] this Deffendandt […] did undertake the payment of diveres somes of mony so borrowed by the Complainant as is aforesaid.
I had associated the marriage of Susan Stubbes with Robert Tatton, the second son of Robert Tatton of Wythenshawe [1566-1623], according to the pedigree published in the Visitation of Cheshire.
Robert was born about 1586 and it was his elder brother, William, who inheriting the Wythenshawe estate and passed it to his young son, another Robert. [i]
William the elder (1544-1611) = Mary Fitton
Robert the elder (1566-1624) = Eleanor Warren
William the younger (1585-1616) = Katherine Leycester
Robert (1606-1669) = Anne Brereton
Robert the younger (b.1586) = Susan Stubbes
According to some sources Robert’s elder brother, William, was born in 1581, the same year his parents married, so Robert could have been born as early as 1582 and would be the same age as Susan.
Other sources, including the family pedigree in the visitation, say that William was born 1585 therefore Robert would have been about 5 years younger than his wife, which is unusual for the period.
[i] This Robert inherited Wythenshawe from his father, William, at the age of 10, his father having drowned crossing the Mersey, and is known for his spirited defence of Wythenshawe during the civil war.
But this may not be entirely correct – there is more useful information in the document!
And this Defendant [William Stubbes] further sha[ll] sayth that the said complainant [Robert Tatton] is so furr from makeing [provision] for his said wife & children, That of late (As this deffendant is credibly informed) the said complainant, & his sone and heir apparant by a former wife, have so handled the matter betwen them, that all the inheritance of the land sometymes in the father of the complainant is setled & stated in his said son, & noe provision made either for the Joynture of this Deffendantes daughter, nor any portions provided for her children, as this Deffendant hath credibly heard & doeth verily beleave yea & that which is more the said complainant doth threaten to turne [return] her his said wife to this Deffendant her father, & will not allowe her such […]ong as is fitting for a woman of her estate & calling.
The key part of this is that William accuses both Robert and his son and heir of contriving together to settle an inheritance from his father only on his eldest [unnamed] son, with no provision for Susan or their children.
His father, also Robert, died in January 1624 and was still alive at this time, so what was this inheritance?
The document is not dated so I have estimated, based on other dates mentioned, that it was between 1615 and 1620 – it was certainly before 1624 as Susan had died by then. William Stubbes mentions a date of 1608 when he and his wife went to visit Robert in Cheshire, so he would have been married to Susan by then.
There is also a reference to an event in 1615, so I would estimate that this document is about 1618 when a son of Robert the younger would have been “of age” at about 16 – assuming that Robert himself was married at the age of 16 in 1602, or was older.
But I can find no marriage records for Robert the younger – either to his first wife or to Susan – and no birth record for a son about the time he would have been married previously.
So perhaps there is another possibility? Perhaps Robert was not the second son of Robert Tatton of Wythenshawe, but Robert of Wythenshawe himself!
This actually seems possible – even likely – having investigated this in more detail, and there is certainly a better fit with the known facts than to his son Robert, who may not have made it past childhood.
Robert Tatton of Wythenshawe had a son and heir, William, from his previous marriage to Eleanor Warren who would have been old enough to have entered into a contrivance over inheritance – he would have been about 26.
Robert’s father, William Tatton the elder, died in 1611 so there would have been an inheritance during the period covered by this document – the same was not true if this was the younger Robert as his father died later.
Some other sources also mention that Robert the elder [for some reason] transferred the titles and inheritance of his father, William the elder, to his son William the younger.
This summary of a Cheshire record, relating to William, shows that this may have some merit.
They say that William Tatton, the younger, late son & heir apparent of the said Robert, had taken all the profits &c. from the time of the death of the said William Tatton esq. […]
The children of Robert the elder and Eleanor were born between 1585 and 1589, the youngest being George who died a year later in 1590. The pedigree of the Tatton family shows that two sons Robert and Philip were alive in 1611 – the date of the death of William Tatton the elder – so they may have been mentioned in the inquisition following his death [they are not mentioned in his will].
There is a record for another son, also named George, being born in Cheshire in 1612, which seems a little late for Eleanor to be the mother – she would be nearly 50 by this date. It has been suggested that she died giving birth, but this is more likely to be the child of Susan than Eleanor as they were married by then, or he is from another branch of the family.
Eleanor had probably died shortly after the birth of youngest son George in 1590, or perhaps even in childbirth – I have no record for her death so this is not certain. In the portrait of Robert Tatton he is shown with a wedding ring on a chain around his neck, so this is likely from his marriage to Eleanor – Susan was still alive, although she died the same year.
A commentary attached to the portrait of Robert, painted shortly before his death, indicates that the transfer of the Wythenshawe estates to his son William, may be due to the loss of his wife.
This loss may help to explain why Robert handed over the management and probably even formal ownership of his Wythenshawe estate to his own son William, who subsequently drowned accidentally in 1616.
But it does not appear that this was the case and probably had little to do with it.
The son and heir of Robert mentioned in the document would be William Tatton and the inheritance mentioned is from Robert’s father, William Tatton the elder, who died in 1611.
According to William Stubbes in the answer to Robert’s complaint, Robert’s father had disowned him and there are indications that the inheritance of his father was passed directly to his grandson, William Tatton the younger.
The said complainant […] cast off by his father
This has also been suggested by other sources but they do not know why this happened – this story may resolve that.
But perhaps there was no actual contrivance between Robert and his son William.
If he had fallen out with his father then Robert would have had little money to pass to Susan and her children. Perhaps it was his father, William, that did not want to convey any family interests to Robert’s new wife and children and instead passed the estate directly to his eldest grandson?
William Stubbes seems to have believed that there had been a reconciliation and Robert had been heir apparent at his father’s death, but the document is badly damaged at this point.
By that meanes & other […] ben A reconciliac[i]on betwen the complainant & his said father.
Robert is still shown, in some documents, as being son and heir when his father, William, died.
The said William Tatton died, seised of the aforesaid manors & lands, 19 May , [1611], at Withenshawe & Robert Tatton is his son & heir & is now aged 40 years & more.
If William Stubbes was correct, and there had been some sort of reconciliation between Robert and his father, then Robert passed the estate to his son soon after his father died. This is probably what William Stubbes saw as a deliberate attempt to avoid passing anything to his daughter, Susan, and her children.
Other records [Cheshire Inquisitions Post Mortem, 1603-1660] seem to tell a slightly different story; that Robert was overlooked by his father.
So being seised, the said William Tatton esq. died 19 May , 9 James 1st [1611] at Withenshawe, after whose death William Tatton gent., the younger, entered into the said manors & lands …
Robert did have some property as he passed land in Flintshire to his son Robert, but he ended his days in Southwark, London instead of the family estates in Cheshire.
His eldest son William who had inherited Wythenshawe, died a few years later, drowned trying to cross the river Mersey, with his son, Robert, who inherited at the age of 10, becoming a ward of the crown.
The will of William Tatton of Withenshaw, Robert’s father, was written 7th April 1606.
In the will he leaves just about everything to his grandchild, William and his wife Katherine Leycester. Robert, who was his son and heir in a document of 1592, is not mentioned, although another [probably illegitimate] son, John Tatton alias Manley is left £100.
And for all my temporall landes tenementes and hereditamentes, and my goodes Cattels, Chattles, and Debtes whatsoever and wheresoever they lye and be within the Kings Majesties Realme of England I give and bequeath unto William Tatton my Grandchilde.
No other grandsons or granddaughters are mentioned and it is curious that he uses grandchild in the will. This indicates that either there were no other children of Robert, or that they had also died before the will was written in 1606.
If there was a reconciliation between Robert and his father he did not update his will of 1606, and William died some years later in 1611 so there was time to do so.
For whatever reason, and under whatever circumstances, Robert had stolen Susan Stubbes away from her parents and her arranged marriage, probably about 1603 when Susan would have been 21. [more likely later, but before 1608]
Robert Tatton the elder would have been about 16 years older than Susan, so not as much of an age gap as you might expect, and this was not unusual at the time, for arranged marriages anyway.
Perhaps Susan did not want to marry the man that her parents had chosen for her [whoever that was] and was enticed away by the mature, and smooth-talking Robert?
But it hardly seems to have been a love match considering how poorly William Stubbes thinks that his daughter and her children appear to have been treated.
Or perhaps we are just seeing one side of the story?
Maybe it was the other way around and it was Susan who enticed Robert so that she did not have to marry whoever it was that her parents had chosen for her? After being disinherited he then resorted to borrowing money from his father-in-law William Stubbes, who had no love for Robert – having messed up his arrangements – but was devoted to his daughter, as shown in his will of 1628.
… that my body maye be buryed in a dece[nt] and orderly manner in the Chauncell of the parish Church of Shrevenham, neare to the place wheare my loveing daughter was lately buryed …
Of course as a devoted father, William would never have believed that his daughter could have had anything to do with the affair and blamed Robert entirely – perhaps, though, more to save his reputation?
Poor Robert may just have been vulnerable, middle-aged man who had a mad moment with a younger woman which he may have regretted for the rest of his life? Or maybe they were just in love?
There seems plenty of evidence that Susan married the elder Robert Tatton and that his son, Robert, may have died in childhood – or was alive, but was not the suitor of Susan.
Other than the pedigree showing him as second son, there do not seem to be any other records for his marriage or any children. His date of birth also makes it difficult for him to have been married [at the age of 16] and to have had a child before marrying Susan in 1603.
On the other hand Robert the elder would have been under forty years old when he married Susan, so he was not an old man and there is no reason for him not to remarry – however unwisely.
Robert sat for his portrait shortly before his death in Southwark, 10 Jan 1623/4, and Susan died later the same year.
In our portrait, Johnson has captured in great detail the essence of our care-worn sitter: very much in his crepuscular [twilight] years he appears rather uneasy and tousled with receding hair and a ruddy complexion.
Perhaps by hiding his left hand in the portrait he was trying to show his regret at marrying Susan, for whatever reason, perhaps just because it didn’t work out well for him.
There is a significant period after the marriage before the first known child of Susan and Robert was born, so perhaps there are other children – possibly born in Cheshire, or elsewhere – that were daughters, and not mentioned in the will of Susan’s mother, Hester Stubbes?
Perhaps Susan married later than I have suggested, but she and Robert were certainly married by 1608 as this date is mentioned in the document.
There is a record in the Tatton pedigree for Philip, also known to have been alive in 1611 [along with Robert] so perhaps this was another son of Robert and Eleanor, or an earlier son of Susan and Robert? Philip is not mentioned in the wills of either William or Hester, so if he was an older sibling of George and Thomas then he had died young.
Neither Philip or Robert, or any other grand children are mentioned in the will of grandfather William Tatton so they could both have been born after 1606.
Robert = Eleanor Warren (m. 1581)
William 1585-1616
Robert b.1586
Elizabeth b.1587
George 1589-1590
Robert = Susan Stubbes (m.1603?)
Philip ?
Robert d.1638
George 1612-1642
Thomas 1614-1646
Both George and Thomas Tatton were signatories to the will of William Stubbes in 1628, and it seems that Susan did eventually return to the family home in Watchfield, as she is buried in nearby Shrivenham church.
Robert, shown above as the son of Robert and Susan may actually be Robert Tatton from the previous marriage, and he could have been born later than suggested. If he was the second son of Robert Tatton and Eleanor then his birth would still have been before the birth of George in 1589.
Robert the younger would have been about 50 years old when he died and much older than Thomas and George, which is perhaps indicated by his relationship with the widow Ralph Beeling in his will. This would also explain why he wasn’t the heir of William Stubbes, as eldest grandson.
He died in 1638 and had some land that he had inherited from his father in Flintshire, which it seems he passed to his younger brother Thomas. George died in 1642 and Thomas, when he died a few years later, passed his inheritance – including the properties in Flintshire – to his nephews, the sons of brother George.
There is another document in the National Archives dated during the reign of James I [1603-1625] which mentions both Robert Tatton and his son Robert.
It also mentions Katherine [Leycester] who was the widow of Robert’s eldest son William – the heir of Wythenshawe – who drowned crossing the Mersey in 1616, which dates this document to some time after this event.
Robert Tatton the elder, Robert Tatton the younger and Katherine Tatton, widow
If Robert the younger was the son of Susan Stubbes then he would probably have been too young to have been mentioned in a legal document of 1616 or shortly afterwards, therefore he is much more likely to have been the second son from his first marriage to Eleanor Warren, as suspected.
Neither Thomas or Robert seem to have had any children. I am not sure why it was Thomas and his wife that inherited Watchfield instead of brother George, as Thomas seems to have been the youngest of the siblings.
The birth record for George in Cheshire, 1612 may belong to another George and perhaps he was born after Thomas, which would make more sense. Also if Robert was from the first marriage then it also makes sense for Thomas to have inherited Watchfield and not Robert.
The wills of both Thomas and Robert, and the relationship between all three brothers, are investigated elsewhere.
But who was the man that Susan was supposed to have married?
A gentleman of great worth & reputacion
I doubt if he was one of those who then lent money to Robert, but he may have lent money to William.
Richard Denham seems to be mentioned several times, usually in association with George Stubbes but also with John Stocker and, in several places, William as well.
… that this Deffendant, & the said Richard Denham subtilly and Craftely practeseing & intending the utter undoing of the complainant & to deceive him of the said 400li [£50,000] did combine themselves together for any such purport as in the said bill is alledged.
Both men would certainly have had reason to want to “undo” the complainant, if Richard was supposed to have married Susan. But this is just William repeating what Robert had said in the complaint and we may never know the identity of Susan’s intended intended!
Richard Denham is also mentioned in another document with Bartholomew Stubbes, so he is certainly a close associate of the Stubbes family.
This document unintentionally provides additional proof that Hester, the wife of William Stubbes, was the daughter of Awdrey Malte and John Harrington, something I have been trying to prove [beyond doubt] for a while now.
There is a long list of people involved in the financial affairs of William Stubbes and Robert Tatton, but one of them that is mentioned several times is Sir John Harington.
… this Deffendant & [the] said Sir John Harrington, this Deffendantes Brother in lawe, …
Sir John Harington was the eldest son of John Harington of Stepney with his second wife Isabella Markham and was therefore Hester’s half-brother and Williams’ brother-in-law.
I think this finally proves that Hester, who married William Stubbes, can only be the daughter of Awdrey Malte – supposed daughter of Henry VIII – and John Harrington, and proves that they did actually have a daughter and that Hester did not die in 1568, or simply disappear after that date.
If Hester was the daughter of John Harington and second wife Isabella then she could not have been born before 1560 [they married in 1559] and would have been too young to have been involved in a recovery as the owner of Watchfield at the age of just eight years.
If only similar proof could be found to confirm the identity of Awdrey’s father as King Henry VIII.
It is also likely that there are two paintings out there – somewhere in a private collection – showing Awdrey and her daughter Hester, that I would really like to have a look at.
Especially if the daughter has tudor-red hair, as suggested by Kate Emerson.
Several other people are mentioned in the document and some of them are related.
John Carrington
He appears to be a tenant of the Tatton family in Cheshire and acting as receiver for him.
The said Robert, the father, demised to John Carrington certain lands & the said William Tatton junior acquiesced therein & also permitted his father to occupy the lands …
It also appears that Robert needed the permission of his son to do this!
John Stocker (1560-1612)
John is related to both the Harington and Codrington families through the marriage of his grand-children and was also married to Margaret, the daughter of Anthony Scutt, the only child of John Scutt [Queen’s tailor] and Bridget Malte, sister to Awdrey.
John Scutt was much older than Bridget when they married and he died not long after – he was about the same age as her father, John Malte [King’s Tailor] who died in 1546.
Mary, daughter of Anthony Stocker and Margaret Cappell, married Benjamin Harington, nephew of Sir John Harington [although later than the period covered by this document]. Benjamin’s father, Francis was another half-brother of Hester.
Her sister, Katherine was married to John Codrington, the eldest son and heir of Robert Codrington and Anne Stubbes, eldest daughter of William and Hester. She was only 7 years old at the time of the arrangement in 1617 [shortly before the death of Robert Codrington in 1618] and their only child, Anne, was born in 1629 when Katherine probably died in childbirth.
The executors of John Stocker are also mentioned and further investigation indicates that he died about 1612 or 1615. The burial record for a John Stocker in 1647 is probably for his nephew.
Bartholomew Stubbes
Perhaps born 1580 in Congleton he is likely to be a cousin of William Stubbes although this is still being investigated.
George Stubbes
Relationship not known at the moment but possibly a brother or cousin of William.
Richard Denham
Seems to be a friend of George Stubbes, but also accused with William …
… that this Deffendant [William Stubbes], & the said Richard Denham subtilly and Craftely practeseing & intending the utter undoing of the complainant & to deceive him of the said 400li did combine themselves together for any such purport as in the said bill is alledged.
Perhaps this case is not all as one-sided as it seemed with William being the wronged party an there were deceptions on both sides of the bill?
Or perhaps Richard Denham was the one who was supposed to have married William’s daughter Susan?
He is also mentioned in another document with Bartholomew Stubbes of London.
Alice Owen
A bond of £100 between Alice and [possibly] Robert Tatton, William Stubbes and Richard Foxwell.
Richard Foxwell
This may be the father of Richard Foxwell, possibly a tailor, of Wandsworth London who emigrated to America in 1631 and died 1676 in Barnstaple, Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
Richard and daughter, Margaret [a minor], are mentioned in the will of John Gardener, Cutler of Wandsworthe in 1608.
He also appears in a Jury list from 1615
Richard Foxwell of St. Clement Danes.
William Rowden
Seems to have been involved as a receiver for one of the parties as had John Carrington (above). But he also sued William for £200 at one point.
Ferdinando Baude, William Beecher, George Ognel etc.
Possibly these were judges in a former case between Robert and William.
… since which tyme, that is to say the 25th day of August in the yeare of our lord god, 1615, the said complainant & this Deffendant, by ther mutuall consentes, did [submit] themsealves to the award of Ferdin[a]ndo Baude Will[ia]m Beecher & George Ognell ets[etera].
George Solme & Gilbert Dethick
William borrowed money from these gentlemen and this is where Sir John Harington got involved as surety for the loan. It also appears that this financial mess had put strains on their relationship:
… and freindship which formerly he had & receaved at the handes of Sir John & his freindes.
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
So just what is a recovery and why are there four people involved? And what has this got to do with Hester Harington and the Manor of Watchfield?
This document is related to research into my family tree, in particular the pedigree of Anne Stubbes, who married Robert Codrington in 1595. For background information please read An Heiress and of a Norfolk Family otherwise things may seem a bit confusing.
After much searching I have finally found an clear explanation – once I knew what I was looking for.
A Recovery or “Common Recovery” is simply a way of transferring property without having to go through a long and expensive court process – it is a fake legal document which allows restrictions on a property’s ownership to be broken.
Common recoveries were used to break entails (conditions stipulated in wills or settlements which limited the descent of freehold land to certain individuals) and transfer land.
[More information from the University of Nottingham]
How the procedure works
There are four players involved:
If I have understood correctly then this is how it works.
1. The owner conveys the property to the tenant.
2. The purchaser then sues the tenant claiming that he owns the property.
3. The tenant calls the owner to court to prove his entitlement.
4. The owner claims that he acquired the land from a third-party – the common vouchee.
5. The common vouchee appears in court but then leaves and the claim of the purchaser is upheld due to the contempt of court by the common vouchee.
Effectively the purchaser has “recovered” the property that he claimed was his originally.
Quite often the property was simply conveyed back to the original owner, but without the previous restrictions applied by entailment, thus making it easier to sell or pass to another person – or, perhaps more importantly if you are short of money, mortgaged.
I had been confused about Hester’s involvement with Watchfield, but it now seems clear she is not the recipient of the property in 1568 but the owner, and this means that she is much more likely to be the daughter of Awdrey Malte and John Harrington than I previously thought.
Recov. R. Mich. 10 & 11 Eliz. m. 656. Hester (Hesterus) Harrington is the vouchee in this recovery.
Many of the properties owned by John Malte, were left to his bastard daughter Awdrey and the “heirs of her body” so it seems clear why John Harrington would want to break these terms – he would inherit practically nothing from his marriage to Awdrey, and a recovery action was a simple way of achieving this.
So this is how it worked, after Hester had conveyed the manor to her father …
Thomas Markham and Nicholas Blimston claim against John Harrington the manor of Watchfield.
Thomas is likely to be related to John’s second wife Isabella and a trusted participant in this action.
John Harrington [the tenant] vouched to warrant Hester [the owner] and she vouched John Howell [the common vouchee] who failed to appear.
The property was transferred this way to avoid any problems with the ownership of the Manor due to the will of John Malte, but there were other consequences.
Therefore Judgment was given that Markham and Blimston should recover against John H., who should receive of the lands of Hester in recompense, and Hester should receive of the lands of Howell [the man of straw]. [1]
Hester would have originally conveyed Watchfield to her father [as the tenant] against the terms of her grandfather’s will, but this doesn’t seem to matter.
MISCELLANEA GENEALOGICA ET HERALDICA. New Edition Vol 4 1884
The important thing here is not so much the sale of Watchfield but the compensation given to John Harrington, as this allows the transfer of other properties that were tied to the will of John Malte and for the entailment on them to be removed.
What happens to the Manor after this is unclear, but it would almost certainly have been transferred back to Hester, having been used only as a means to transferring other property and removing the inheritance restrictions.
And it also means that the property could be transferred to her husband, William Stubbes, as part of a dowry.
In 1556, when she was perhaps quite ill, Awdrey had transferred most of her property to her husband “and his heirs” despite some properties being left specifically to Hester, her only child and heir.
Feet of Fines, Michaelmas, 2 and 3 Philip and Mary, [1555/6] Berkshire. Fine between Thomas Harryngton and Thomas Thurgood, Plaintiffs, and John Harryngton, Esq., and Etheldreda, his wife, Deforciants, touching the manor of Watchyngfelde alias Wachenfelde alias Watchfelde, and lands, messuages, etc., there. To hold to Etheldreda for one month, and after that to John Harryngton and his heirs, [Precisely similar to a Fine in Somerset of the same date, affecting the Somersetshire estates derived from Etheldreda.]
Perhaps John had to wait until Hester was old enough to sell her property in order to get his hands on the rest of the property he was expecting from the marriage.
Hester, although giving up the manor in the recovery, must have retained substantial property in Watchfield and may have regained the manor later.
I almost feel sorry for Watchfield having been used and abused this way.
In 1630 a case between Hester and Richard Tomlyns – regarding a missing document following the death of her husband, William Stubbes – identified her property as being worth £200 a year and the missing document related to her ownership of land in Watchfield.
[See More about Hester]
[1] A straw man is a figure not intended to have a genuine beneficial interest in a property, to whom such property is nevertheless conveyed in order to facilitate a transaction.
This new information – to me anyway – regarding Watchfield has meant me having to (once again) reassess my relationship with the Stubbes and Harrington family.
From the documents in Miscellanea it seems clear that Hester is the owner of Watchfield and must be the daughter of John and Awdrey – but whether Awdrey is also the daughter of Henry VIII is still conjecture.
Hester is said to have been alive in 1568 – because of the recovery document – but is generally thought to have died some time after because there are no further records of her.
But there are several documents regarding Hester Stubbes, including the one relating to the missing document, that says she inherited her property in Watchfield from her ancestors.
I don’t believe in coincidences and I am convinced that the same Hester Harrington who was involved in the recovery was the same Hester who married William Stubbes and lived happily ever after in Watchfield, Berkshire.
Chris Sidney 2015
The will of Hester Stubbes gives valuable information about her children but very little about herself. Was Hester really the daughter of John Harington and Awdrey Malte?
This document is related to research into my family tree, in particular the pedigree of Anne Stubbes, who married Robert Codrington in 1595. For background information please read An Heiress and of a Norfolk Family otherwise things may seem a bit confusing.
Awdrey [Etheldreda] was the illegitimate daughter of King Henry VIII and Joanne Dingley, a launderess, adopted by the King’s Tailor, John Malte, and the recipient of several grants of land by the king.
Awdrey married John Harington of Stepney and they had a daughter, Hester, who inherited the manor of Watchfield from her mother, married William Stubbes and lived at Watchfield until she died in 1639.
At least that is the story, but how much is actually true is unclear.
Some accounts say that Awdrey died childless and others that she died in labour.
Others that she lived to see Queen Elizabeth on the throne in 1559, but died soon afterwards, allowing her husband, John Harington, to marry Isabella Markham within a few months.
The pedigree of the Harrington family shows a daughter, Hester, alive in 1568 so it makes sense that the same Hester that owned the manor of Watchfield is the one who married William Stubbes a few years later.
But was the pedigree based on actual information from the family or on other records?
Only some of the lands granted to Awdrey and her father John Malte were directed specifically at Awdrey and the heirs of her bodie possibly as a dowry for her marriage.
St Katherines Court “Katerncourte” was one of those that was actually granted by the king to Awdrey and her father, but it is unlikely that she ever lived here as her father died a few weeks after the land was granted.
John Mault Taylor and to Ethelreda Mault also Dyngley bastarde daughter – and to the heirs of the body of Ethelreda.
Many other properties – including Uffington and Watchfield – appear to have been granted to Malte, who was quite a rich man in his own right.
Watchfield, in particular, was passed to Awdrey by her father in his will, just before her arranged marriage to Richard Southwell.
In 1541 it [Watchfield] was granted to John Malt, citizen and merchant of London, who settled it in 1546 upon his illegitimate daughter Awdrey, who by the contract then made between John Malt and Sir Richard Southwell was to marry Richard [Darcy] Southwell, bastard son of the latter.
The marriage never happened so perhaps Richard Southwell called off the marriage, after the death of the king, because she would not longer be as important or useful?
John Harington seems to have inherited most of the land from Awdrey and this has lead to the belief that his daughter Hester had died – or never existed – but perhaps it was simply that little of the land was actually given directly to Awdrey “and the heirs of her bodie” in the first place?
The Will of John Malte from 10 September 1546 shows that Awdrey was not yet 15 so she was probably born about 1532 and not as early as 1528 – or 10 Nov 1518 as shown in some family trees – and probably didn’t marry until 1547.
Also I will that my trustye and welbeloved frende sir Richard Sothewell knight shall from and after my deceas take p[er]ceyve receyve and Levye toward[es] the bringing upp of the said Awdrey Malte the yerely Rent[es] Revercions Issues and profit[es] of and in all the said Manors Londes Ten[emen]t[es] and other the premisses which I have by any meanes or con-veyannce appoynted and gevyn to the said Awdrey in forme aforsaid unto suche tyme as the said Awdrey shall com[m]e to the age of Fyvetene yeres
As John Malte died a few moths later he may not have been in good health and the age of Awdrey is likely to be fairly accurate if he was expecting to die soon.
Another suggestion is that Awdrey died childless and that Hester was a niece of John Harrington.
Hester married William Stubbes in 1574 and the record we have of Hester as “vouchee” in 1568 was a recovery action against the manor of Watchfield probably in preparation for her marriage, but more likely to enable other properties to be passed to her father.
This was the record that was used in the Harington pedigree as proof that Hester – as the daughter of John and Awdrey – was alive at this time, and this does appear to be the case.
Other investigations have now shown that Hester was the daughter of John and Awdrey and not a niece.
[See Signs of Recovery]
The Stubbes and Harington families both owned properties in Stepney, London so would have known each other, and there were also other connections through Sir Francis Walsingham.
William Stubbes of Ratcliffe – who appears to be a merchant – seems to be related to William Stubbes of Watchfield, if not his father then perhaps an uncle.
But I would have thought that John Harington – a social climber – would have gone for a much higher profile match for his daughter than William Stubbes.
[See The Fittleton Manor Mystery]
The probate record and inventory for Hester is held in Reading at the Berkshire records office.
I now have a transcription of her will and although it gives useful information about her children it reveals nothing about her pedigree.
She was still living at West Mill in Watchfield when she died but no longer owned the manor which was transferred to Thomas Tatton, her grandson, after the death of William in 1630, or possibly before.
She confirms her eldest daughter as Anne Marshe widow, which shows that Anne’s second husband Ralph Marshe was deceased by 1639 – her first husband was Robert Codrington, who died in 1618.
I give and bequethe unto my eldest daughter Anne Marshe widowe the som[m]e of twelve pence and to each of her Children twelve pence a peece.
Youngest daughter Theophilia first married Thomas Garrard of Inkpen, Berkshire and her children from that marriage are identified in the will – he died in 1617.
She remarried “Cowper” at some point – as she is named in the will – but I can find no record of the marriage or any further children.
I give & bequeathe unto my daughter Cowper one Fether bed, one payre of sheetes, one Rugg & my laste made gowne, and to her sonne Will[ia]m Garrard twelve pence, to her sonne Roger Garrard tenn powndes to her daughter Marye tenn powndes and to her sonne John five powndes, & I will that my daughter Cowper shall have all those garment[es] & Clothes w[hi]ch are in her owne truncke w[hi]ch standeth att my bed[es] feete.
Susan married Robert Tatton and had at least two sons, Thomas and George.
I give unto everye one of my daughter Tattons Children twelve pence a peece.
[See The Will of Thomas Tatton]
Initially I had Hester’s birth as about 1548 but I do not think this is correct having now seen the will and other evidence.
John Malte died in December 1546 shortly after writing his will, and there is no mention of Awdrey being married at this time. She was betrothed to Richard the illegitimate son of Richard Southwell, but this arrangement was formally broken sometime after December 1546 when John died.
Why John Harington married the daughter of a tailor and a laundress is still a bit a mystery, unless he was aware of who she really was – or how much property she was endowed with.
His branch of the Harington family had been impoverished after the wars of the roses and John was crawling his way back into favour – and had done a pretty good job so far under Henry and in the service of Sir Thomas Seymour. But he was a poet and a romantic – and quite often in trouble – and perhaps he was in love with Awdrey, at least for a while.
And after all she was an attendant to princess Elizabeth – a position for which she had no real credentials – and would be in good standing when Elizabeth became queen.
If Hester’s birth was as early as 1548 then she would then have been 20 years old when she is known to have been alive in 1568. This seems a little old to be sorting out property for a dowry and it is more likely that she was about 15 – as her mother had been when she was engaged – and therefore born after 1553.
This means she would have married at the much more reasonable age of 21 [and not 26].
In March 1554 Awdrey was in the Tower of London with Elizabeth and I think Hester was born sometime after this period. Her husband, John was also in the tower – in relation to the Lady Jane Grey affair – and wrote about his wife saying:
My wife is her servant, and doth but rejoice in this our misery, when we look with whom we are holden in bondage.
Hester is likely to have been born after Elizabeth was released from the tower – possibly as late as 1556 if she was only 18 when she married – but then she would have only been 12 during the recovery of Watchfield in 1568 – it doesn’t seem likely.
Awdrey does not seem to have been an attendant of Elizabeth’s before the Tower (or after) and it is suggested by Kate Emerson that she was placed there by her other half-sister, Mary but I doubt this would have been the case if she was pregnant or just given birth.
On the 19th May 1554, the future Elizabeth I was released from the Tower and escorted to Woodstock, where she was put under house-arrest so it is possible that Awdrey may also have been with Elizabeth as late as October 1554, during her period of house arrest.
John Harington, was held in the tower until January of the following year and if Awdrey was pregnant this would explain why she is not recorded as an attendant of the Queen after this period.
The portrait of Hester as a young child seems to have existed, but is now in a private collection and it is not possible to investigate if this is indeed genuine.
Some excellent detective work was done on a portrait thought to be of princess Elizabeth which was later proved to be Mary Rogers, the wife of John Harington’s son, Sir John (the writer) so we cannot take the identity of the sitter for granted.
http://www.somegreymatter.com/haringtonportrait.htm
Another piece of new evidence regarding Watchfield comes from a document of complaint between Hester Stubbes and Richard Tomelyns dated 1630.
This was shortly after the death of her husband William Stubbes, but refers to other documents dating from 1612 and 1617 – even mentioning Robert Codrington (Hester’s son in law) who died in 1618.
Hester is the complainant in this case and in response Richard replies:
… that he Conceiveth it to be true that the Complainent is Seased of some estate of inheritance to her owne use by discent from her anncestors of and in the said Manor of Watchfeild in the said bill of Complaint mencioned …
This is all about a missing document, but it does indicates that Hester inherited land in Watchfield from her ancestors rather than it being purchased or given to her.
Linda, from Transcription Services has kindly provided the following interpretation:
The bill of complaint seems to concern the conveyance document for property ‘of and in’ the manor of Watchfield, (valued at £200 per year, so a significant property), which was given amongst other papers to the safe keeping of Richard Tomlyns at some time in the past. Richard delivered back to Hester’s husband all the other paperwork, but later sent the conveyance to her son in law, Richard [Robert] Codringon, to be given to William. Hester would appear to not have this document, which would be necessary to prove her ownership of the manor property, and the dispute is whether Tomlyns/Codrington or William Stubbes had it in their possession.
Robert Codrington died early in 1618 so the documents may have been misplaced at this time.
The following is an extract from Neil Maw’s excellent Watchfield Chronicles and shows more about the ownership of the manor.
The first document in what I have called the ‘Luker Papers’ is dated 17 April, 1649. It is an indenture made between Sir Humphrey Forster, Baronet of Aldermaston, Berks, and William Weekes, a Yeoman of Watchfield. There are others mentioned within the document such as William Fairthorne, Thomas Joyner, Robert Weekes the elder and Robert Weekes the younger, concerning property and land within Watchfield. The document also includes an indemnity to the new occupiers against whatever Thomas Tatton or Mrs Hester Stubbs may have agreed to previously. So, we now know that Sir Humphrey Forster was holding the Manor in 1649. Two more documents from the Luker Papers show that he was still holding it in 1650.
From this extract it seems certain that both Thomas Tatton and Hester were previously owners of the Manor, despite not being mentioned in either of their wills and of Hester “losing” ownership in a Common Recovery action of 1568.
Hester may have transferred the manor to Thomas – her grandson – sometime after the death of her husband in 1630 – probably about 1635 or earlier. Because it was not mentioned in the will of William, nine years earlier, it is possible that Hester still owned the manor in her own right – or that the manor have been transferred before the death of her husband.
Maybe the missing document [mentioned above] was what she needed in order to convey the property and that was why it took so long after her husbands death for the property to be passed to Thomas.
Thomas Tatton wrote his will in 1653 and had already sold the manor to Humphrey Forster by then, possibly due to the death of his wife, Margaret.
There is little doubt that Joanne Dyngley was the mother of Awdrey Malte – and therefore my 12x great-grandmother – whoever was her father.
She has been identified as a laundress [or other servant] working in the Royal Household or possibly a minor noble down on her luck.
Some family trees assign a birth of 1472, based on a death record for a Joanne Dingley in 1567, but this cannot be correct as she would have died as Joanne Dobson, and would be far too old to have had a daughter in 1532 or to be attractive to the King (or John Malte) at the age of 60.
She could be the widow of James Dyngley (daughter of Sir John Moore) or the daughter of Sir Thomas Dyngley, but if this was the case then 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.
Of course if Awdrey was simply the daughter of John Malte then it may have been more convenient to both parties for John to take charge of their daughter. If Joanne was just a servant – which I suspect she was – then she would probably not have the time and resources to care for a bastard daughter. John, on the other hand, was a very rich man – and a very benevolent one.
In his will he leaves provision for a foundling boy left on his doorstep and many other good causes, such as poor prisoners, and repairing the roads, and perhaps it was this good nature that made the king look to him to care for his daughter?
Joanne was married off to someone named Dobson, possibly a minor palace official, but perhaps a better match than she could have otherwise expected as a laundress.
My personal observation, based on his will, is that John does not seem to have been the sort of person to have considered an affair with a servant, whereas the king’s habits in this area are quite well documented.
If John Malte was actually the father of Awdrey then I am quite proud of him even if he isn’t royalty.
I have recently found a document in the National Archives, Tatton v Stubbes . This document is quite badly damaged and feint but it is important as it confirms the identify of Hester.
The document is between William Stubbes, Hester’s husband and son in law Robert Tatton and a large part of it is legible. Most of it is regarding money loans but it also drags other family members into the document including Bartholomew and George Stubbes and, most importantly, the reference below:
this Deffendant & [the] said Sir John Harrington, this Deffendants Brother in lawe
William is the defendant in this case and this document proves that Hester is therefore the daughter of John Harington and Awdrey Malte, and the half-sister of Sir John Harington, his son by his second wife Isabella Markham.
She could also be the grand-daughter of King Henry VIII
18 June 2015
Chris Sidney 2015
What started as an afternoon of family research has turned into something with wider historical interest, involving royal bastards, the queen’s spy-master and the original inventor of the flushing toilet.
In the North Chancel Aisle of Bristol Cathedral there is an elaborate memorial to the memory of Robert Codrington, my 9x great-grandfather, who died 17 Feb 1618 [i]
He is shown praying with his wife, Anna, and below them, in a frieze of mourners, are their seventeen children.
The plaque at the base of the memorial identifies eight sons and nine daughters but I believe this to be possibly incorrect and I will discuss this elsewhere.
The pedigree of Robert is well documented and the memorial shows the arms of the Codrington family along with those of his grandparents and his grandson Robert, who married into the Samwell family, which were added later.
It also shows a shield with the arms of his wife, Anne Stubbs quartered with another unknown pedigree.
The identity of Anne Stubbes has long been a family mystery, but I believe that it is one I have now solved.
[i] His will is dated 11 Feb 1618 and proved 7 May 1619. The legal year changes on Lady day (25th March) so we would today use 1619 for both events. The plaque on the memorial says that he died 14 Feb 1618.
In his 1898 “Memoir of the Codrington family” Robert Henry Codrington [RHC] identified Anne only as an Heiress and of a Norfolk family, hence the title of this blog [2].
The Stubbes family of Norfolk were well known at the time, but how were they linked with the Codrington family of Gloucestershire?
The quartering of the shield should have identified Anne’s pedigree, but the Stubbs arms are used by families in several different parts of the country and the Norfolk connection could have been assumed.
The central shield on the base of the memorial shows the Codrington arms to the left and the Stubbes arms quartered with another on the right.
I.M. Roper in his “Effigies of Bristol” [4] identifies the unknown arms only by their armorial description – lozengy arg. and Sable – black diamonds on a silver background.
The only usage of this design was by the Croft family of Dalton in Lancashire, however their line had become dormant by about 1450 and the design does not seem to have been used specifically by any other family after this.
It can be seen from these images that the arms on the memorial – although described correctly – are different from the Croft arms [on the right] and are a generic lozengy design.
This may just simply be a mistake in the instructions given to the masons when the memorial was commissioned – it is not the only irregularity on the memorial – or it may have been repainted badly when restored by the Bethell-Codringtons in 1840.
In either case it has made the identification of Anne’s pedigree impossible from just this one source, and another piece of information was required.
One piece that I already had was details of the arrangements made for the marriage of Robert and Anne, by their fathers Simon Codrington and William Stubbes.
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, deforciants, as to one pasture called Inychins, one other pasture called the Worthye, one pasture called the Gaston, 2 meadows called Newe Tyninges, one meadow called Mickle meade and one meadow called little Mickle meade (parcel of the said manor of Codrington and Wapley), 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, for their lives; after their decease to the use of the heirs of the body of the said Robert lawfully begotten, with divers remainders, over, the remainder thereof in fee to be to the right heirs of Simon Codrington for ever. And as to the residue of the said manor of Codrington and Wapley and all other the premises, to the use of the said Simon and Agnes for their lives, after their decease to the use of the said Robert Codrington and his heirs, with remainder to the right heirs of the said Simon Codrington for ever.
This is a bit of a one-sided arrangement as Anne did not appear to bring anything to the marriage other than the promise of an inheritance and her pedigree.
The arrangement also indicates that Robert and Anne would only inherit the land on the death of Robert’s father Simon – as it turned out Robert died before both his father and Anne’s father William Stubbes.
Anne remarried Ralph Marsh in July 1627 before her father died and it is not clear what was inherited from her father William, if anything. [see notes below]
But this documents does not hold much in the way of clues, other than identifying the name of Anne’s father, William Stubbes.
In particular it does not tell us where the family comes from.
It has been assumed – understandably – that William Stubbes was one of the Stubbes of Gloucestershire, and several attempts have been made to link the two families.
The most common is a marriage between Robert and Anne Fysher, who was the step-daughter of William Stubbes (d.1580).
William was middle-aged when he married Anne Fysher, a widow [possibly of Thomas Fysher], in 1565, and they had two children together, Richard and Margaret, who both died young.
In his will William leaves his estate to “three of my brothers children and one of my wyffes, Anne Fysher being my wyves first husbands daughter”.
This cannot be the wife of Robert for several reasons.
1. Anne Fysher would have been born before 1565 when her mother married William Stubbes, and would be at least 8 years older than Robert – probably more.
2. The arrangements for the marriage of Robert and Anne were documented in 1593 and this William died in 1580.
3. The Stubbes pedigree could not have been used as Anne was not born into the family.
It is also not know if William had the pedigree to use the same arms as are displayed on the Codrington memorial.
The marriage of Robert and Anne took place in 1595 – two years after the marriage arrangements had been made.
Robert had studied at Magdalen College, Oxford from 1588 and was admitted to Grey’s Inn, London, to train as a lawyer in 1591, so it is likely that the marriage was arranged for the completion of his training.
The marriage was not, however in either London or Gloucestershire, but in Shrivenham in Berkshire [now Oxfordshire].
Shrivenham Marriages 1595
May 26 CODRINGTON Robert, gent
STUBBES Anne,
So if we want to identify Anne Stubbes we must first work out who her father William is, and what is the connection with Shrivenham.
Although I have yet to trace the pedigree of William Stubbes, it seems he was entitled to the arms of the Stubbes family.
These arms are used by several different branches of the family – Norfolk, London and Hertford – and are described below.
Sa. on a bend between three pheons or, as many buckles gu.
“The right to a given coat of arms is a species of property and its descent generation by generation must be proved in order to establish a claim.” Wagner, “Heraldry,” 541-42
This design is clearly identifiable on the shield at the base of the memorial.
William Stubbes and his wife Hester owned the manor of Watchfield in Berkshire, which was one of the manors of Shrivenham and this is shown by documents related to the ownership of the manor – an extract is shown below.
The manor of Watchfield was owned by Abingdon Abbey until the dissolution of the monasteries when it reverted to the crown.
This would explain why there is no manor house as the land was managed for the Abbey [probably from West Mill] and there was no lord of the manor. [5]
It is also recorded that the previous owners of the manor did not reside there – probably because there was no house – and William and Hester were the first owners to be recorded as living at West Mill in 1593.
So now we need to look at the list of previous owners of the manor before William Stubbes.
The manor remained with the abbey [Abingdon] until the Dissolution, passing to the king in 1538.
In 1541 it was granted to John Malt, citizen and merchant of London, who settled it in 1546 upon his illegitimate daughter Awdrey, who by the contract then made between John Malt and Sir Richard Southwell was to marry Richard Southwell, bastard son of the latter.
She seems to have been afterwards married to John Harrington, for he with his wife Awdrey was party to a fine of it in 1556.
John Harrington, together with a certain George Henage and Elizabeth his wife [half-sister to Richard Southwell], were dealing with it in 1567 and John and Hester Harrington in 1568.
In 1593 a William Stubbs was assessed to a subsidy under Shrivenham, and in 1631 Hester Stubbs, widow, was holding the property.
Five years later the estate was held by Thomas Tatton and Margaret his wife, who sold it to Sir Humphrey Forster, bart.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=62763
There is a lot of useful information here , and some of this has been the subject of much speculation – and several historical novels – but more of that later.
For now let us just look at the owners of the property in the 16th century after the dissolution.
Henry VIII granted the Manor of Watchfield, along with several others, including nearby Uffington, to his Tailor, John Malte and his illegitimate daughter Awdrey.
The manor of Watchfield was probably passed to Awdrey Malte, when she was about 18, in preparation for her marriage to Richard Southwell – which never happened – which puts her birth at about 1528-30
Awdrey married John Harrington [about 1546], who was a poet, publisher and Treasurer to King Henry VIII, and is well documented elsewhere – as is Awdrey herself.
They lived at another manor that was granted by the King, St Catherine’s, near Bath where they had a daughter, Hester born about 1548 [i].
It is recorded [in Wikipedia] that Awdrey was present at the coronation of Elizabeth I on 15 January 1559, but she died later the same month.
John remarried within two months, to Isabella Markham, another of the Queen’s attendants.
The daughter of Awdrey and John, Hester died in 1568.
[i] Many accounts say that the marriage was childless [in which case Hester could have been a niece of John] but she is shown in the Harrington pedigree of 1568 as their daughter, and I have no reason to doubt this at the moment.
As Hester is shown in the Harrington pedigree as simply being “alive in 1568” his was taken by some, incorrectly, to mean that she had died.
The last record of her was in 1568 and this was in relation to the manor of Watchfield – she would have been about 18 at the time.
Recov. R. Mich. 10 & 11 Eliz. m. 656. Hester (Hesterus) Harrington is the vouchee in this recovery.
William married Hester Heringtonn in St. Clement Danes church, in London on 17th January 1574/5, so there would be no more records using her Harrington name, even though she continued to own the manor.
Their daughter Anne Stubbes was baptised in the same church a year later on 9th January 1575/6.
Another child, a son “Harrington” was born two years later in 1578, confirming that this is the correct Hester – just the wrong spelling in the previous record.
It is not known what happened to Harrington Stubbes and only daughters are mentioned in the will of Hester Stubbes.
Hester appears to have lived in Watchfield until she died in 1639, several years after her husband, by which time the manor had been sold to Thomas Tatton, her grandson.
Her probate record from 1639 is held by the Berkshire records office in Reading.
[See More about Hester]
Another record dating to 1630, following the death of William (but relating to Hester), shows Robert Codrington as son-in-law, although he had died in 1618.
| Name: | William Stubbs |
| Spouse’s Name: | Hester Heringtonn |
| Event Date: | 17 Jan 1574 |
| Event Place: | SAINT CLEMENT DANES,WESTMINSTER,LONDON |
| Name: | Ann Stubbs |
| Gender: | Female |
| Christening Date: | 09 Jan 1575 |
| Christening Place: | SAINT CLEMENT DANES,WESTMINSTER,LONDON |
| Father’s Name: | Willm Stubbs |
| Name: | Harrington Stubbs |
| Gender: | Male |
| Christening Date: | 14 Jun 1578 |
| Christening Place: | SAINT CLEMENT DANES,WESTMINSTER,LONDON |
| Father’s Name: | William Stubbs |
So it seems possible that Anne Stubbs, daughter of William and Hester, was related to a well-connected family, the Harringtons.
But they do not have any obvious connection with Norfolk – they are from Lancashire – and the family arms are different from those on the memorial.
However it seems that these arms, which show the Harrington Knot, are not the original ones used by the family and were originally those of the Irish Harrington family.
When we find an older version of the Harrington arms and compare it to those of the croft family and the generic design, it appears that there are a lot of similarities.
It can easily be seen how the Harrington arms could have been added in the way that they were to the memorial – possibly just from a description.
There are also other errors on the memorial that would justify this – for example, the two squirrels on the arms of Samwell appear to be facing the wrong way when compared to other examples.
Taken along with all the other facts it now seems certain that the arms on the memorial are those of the Harrington family and that Anne Stubbs was the daughter of William Stubbes and Hester Harrington – who apparently did not died in 1568.
The request for a confirmation of the grant of arms to John Harrington in 1568 identifies his arms as “a fret” rather than “fretty”, meaning a single knot.
Sable a fret argent.
Therefore the design on the Codrington memorial, 50 years later, should have reflected the Harrington Knot design, and not something resembling the earlier version.
That is to say, the fielde Sable a frett humette argent; a bordure checque of the second and first. Upon the haulme on a torce argent and sable a lyon’s hedde golde langet guelues with a coller checque argent and sable mantelid guelues doubled argent.
There may be many reasons for this, but the important fact is that the arms have not been identified as belonging to another family altogether.
Sir John Harington, the son of John Harington of Stepney and his second wife Isabella Markham, did much to restore the Harington family fortunes, for a while at least.
He was married to Mary Rogers and there is a portrait of her in the Tate by Marcus Gheeraerts from 1592. It is thought that this was painted in preparation for the visit of Queen Elizabeth later the same year – Sir John Harington was her godson.
The design on her dress is thought to represent the Harington arms, but this is the older “fretty” design, the same as on the Codrington memorial. She also holds a string of pearls threaded into the shape of four knots which better resembles the arms granted to John Harington of Stepney in 1568, but it seems that the older design was still very much in use for some time.
John Harrington of Stepney – known as the Poet – was never knighted, unlike his son, John the writer and inventor of the first flushing toilet.
He named the invention “Ajax” and perhaps because of this, or because the Queen referred to him as “Little Jack”, the name Jakes is still associated with certain types of toilets, although – strangely – not the one he designed. Maybe just a coincidence?
John of Stepney also had a distant cousin, John Harrington, of Exton, and this had led to some confusion in his documented history with information from all three Johns being mixed up.
The confirmation of Arms in 1568 shows that John was unsure what arms he was entitled to use and although the resulting pedigree shows a connection to the Harrington family of Yorkshire it is a bit vague in an exact identification of his grandfather.
And Whereas John Harington of Kelston in the Countie of Somersett sonne of Alexander Harington descended of a younger brother of the Haringtons of Brierley in the Countie of Yorke, by right …
It is thought that John’s father, Alexander could be the son of James Harrington, Dean of York, before he took holy orders but both the mother and grandmother of John are unidentified.
Trying to work of the Harrington tree is still a work in progress.
So that leaves the question of who was William Stubbes?
Investigations are still on-going and will be the subject of a future blog, as will the children of Robert and Anne
But I think I have identified who he was – if not his pedigree.
William was probably born in London about 1550, trained as a law clerk and from 1579 he was employed by Sir Francis Walsingham, principal secretary, and spymaster, to Queen Elizabeth.
In 1587 William was employed to survey the manors of Wiltshire – and no doubt report any interesting news back to Walsingham – and his wife’s property in Watchfield would have been a good base for this work.
He may also have been MP for Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) in 1584 – possibly arranged by Walsingham for his own benefit – and in 1590 he was one of those who found the will of Sir Francis hidden in a secret cabinet at his home in London.
Although much of his life is uncertain, William appears to have been referred to as “of Watchfield” until he died in 1630.
Correspondence was sent to him in 1599 at the Tower of London concerning the purchase of a manor in Wiltshire, but he was possibly working for the Office of the Ordnance, that was based in the tower, and not detained there.
Other records suggest that he returned to Cheshire and was Mayor of Congleton but it is difficult to be sure if this is correct – I suspect this is another William who managed the port of Chester on behalf of Walsingham.
There are certainly some links to Cheshire, another pamphleteer and minor poet, Philip Stubbes, is likely to have been from Gawsworth near Congleton.
I suspect, however, that William Stubbes of Watchfield is not the same William Stubbes who was Mayor of Congleton, but that has yet to be proved either way.
Awdrey Malte – or Etheldreda – was the illegitimate daughter of John Malte, tailor to King Henry VIII
[Awdrey is the English version of the Latin name Etheldreda or Æthelthryth]
She is also rumoured to be the daughter of King Henry VIII by Joane Dingley, a laundress, and named for the day of her birth – St. Ethelreda’s day, June 23rd.
Joane Dingley was married off to a man named only as Dobson, and Awdrey lived with her father John and his first wife [name unknown].
In his will dated 19 Sep 1546, John leaves money to Joanna and to Awdrey:
“Awdrey, my bastard daughter, begotten on the body of Joan Dingley, now wife of one Dobson”.
Her birth was probably in 1532 the year before Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn – a period when he was, perhaps, bored with Catherine of Aragorn who he married in 1509.
I have used Awdrey rather than Etheldreda throughout this document, for consistency, other than in specific references. She would have been baptised as Etheldreda, the latin form of the name.
I found some more information about Audrey’s mother from the website of King Henry VIII himself. I am not convinced this is entirely accurate but it is probably a better guess at her parentage than mine, which is that Joan is the daughter of Sir Thomas Dingley.
“Her Mother was Joanna or Jane Dingley, daughter of a Sir John Moore and widow of James Dingley of Dunkelyn county Worchester [Worcestershire]. She was a lower noble and was in and around the Palaces when I first saw her in 1534. She was low enough in status to not be a political problem when she became pregnant with Audrey, only if the baby would have been a boy would it matter.”
http://www.henrytudor.co.uk/page18.htm [Q.556]
John Malte was not just a simple tailor, but a member of the influential Merchant Taylor’s guild of London and was probably quite a rich man in his own right.
He probably had no need for gifts from the King in order to bring up a bastard daughter – but it appears that the grants were specifically aimed at Awdrey herself and not John, adding to the rumours of her parentage.
The manor of Katerncourte, at least, was granted specifically to Awdrey and her heirs and not her father.
“John Mault Taylor and to Ethelreda Mault also Dyngley bastarde daughter — and to the heirs of the body of Ethelreda.”
Unlike nearby Kelston, this manor – previously owned by Bath Abbey – had a good sized property, St Catherine’s Court, which the family lived in while the new manor at Kelston was built. This was completed in 1567 and St Catherines was later sold, probably to cover the debts of Sir John Harington incurred by the visit of the Queen.
There was also a flock of 400 sheep included: “Yowe Flocke of Chermadon”. This probably refers to Charmy Down where the manor had grazing rights, rather than a breed of sheep.
John Harrington the writer appears to have believed the rumours about Awdrey’s pedigree, and it is propagated in the publication Nugae antiquae.
Why else would a member of such an ancient and respected family marry the illegitimate daughter of a tailor and a laundress?
As a publisher his father John Harrington may have known the pamphleteer John Stubbes, who was convicted of treason for writing “The Discoverie of a Gaping Gulf” against the Queen’s proposed marriage to the Duke of Alençon.
His punishment – and that of his publisher – was to have his right hand removed.
John was a member of the Norfolk Stubbes family, which may give a hint of a link between Hester and William through her father John Harrington.
The story of Awdrey Malte is well known and documented in various books and novels.
Whether she was – as rumoured – the natural daughter of King Henry VIII is still disputed, but maybe DNA will one day be able to resolve this.
[If this is true then Henry VIII is my 12 x great grandfather]
What happened to her daughter, Hester was also a mystery that has hopefully now been resolved.
Kathy [aka Kate Emerson] – who wrote Royal Inheritance about Awdrey, and is something of an authority on Tudor women – has been kind enough to review my notes and has updated her record entry for Hester and added one for her daughter, Anne Stubbes [Codrington].
The novelist and historian, Alison Weir in her book Mary Boleyn, argues that Awdrey is credible as the daughter of Henry VIII.
“… it is highly likely that she was the King’s child.”
She also mentions the granted of two estates in Berkshire [Watchfield and Uffington] and names others belonging to the dissolved nunnery at Shaftsbury, Kelston, Batheaton and St. Katherines, in Somerset.
Alison does say that the Somerset lands were actually granted by the King to Awdrey, as her dowry, rather than to her father John, which is rather generous of him.
So to summarize all the information – and I have left out a lot of evidence – Anne Stubbs is no longer a complete mystery.
She was the daughter of William Stubbes and Hester Harrington of Watchfield, Berkshire.
Anne’s mother, Hester, was probably the daughter of Awdrey Malte and the poet John Harrington, and Hester did not die in 1568, but some 60 years later.
In 1574 Hester married William Stubbs in London.
William is, somehow, related to William Stubbes of Ratcliffe who was a rope-maker by trade, but also owned waterfront property on the Thames – as did John Harrington [or at least his family did] – so this is probably the link between the two families.
If rumours are true then Anne – born in 1575 – was the great grand-daughter of King Henry VIII.
In a court case of 1628 Anne admitted to being forced to borrow money from “Daniell Chappell, Henry Cliffe, Francis Harrington and others” following the death of her husband Robert.
Francis Harrington was son of John Harrington, and therefore Anne’s uncle – I know nothing about the other names.
Benjamin, the son of Francis, had married into the Stocker family which means he was related to Anne’s eldest son, John Codrington, who married Katherine Stocker, daughter of Margaret Capell [1]
[1] Margaret married either Anthony or Thomas Stocker – or both – and then later married William Capell, probably a cousin, when she was left a widow with a young daughter.
Although we do not know exactly what, if anything, Anne inherited from her father, there is some mention of property in the arrangements of the marriage of eldest son John to Katherine Stocker.
Manors of Didmarton and Wapley and Codrington, and property in Tormarton, Shrivenham (Berks.) and Watchfield (Berks.)
Settlement before marriage of John Codrington of Codrington, gent., and Katherine Stocker, daughter of Margaret Capell of Chilcompton (Som.)
[RHC] Robert Henry Codrington.
Robert Henry Codrington wrote two extremely useful documents about the Codrington family.
These were published by the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society and are include in the references below.
Without these documents the Codrington side of the family would have been a complete mystery.
[1] Bristol Cathedral Heraldry
by F. Were
1902, Vol. 25, 102-132
http://www2.glos.ac.uk/bgas/tbgas/v025/bg025102.pdf
[2] Memoir of the Family of Codrington of Codrington, Didmarton,Frampton-On-Severn, and Dodington
by R. H. Codrington
1898, Vol. 21, 301-345
http://www2.glos.ac.uk/bgas/tbgas/v021/bg021301.pdf
[3] A Family Connection of the Codrington Family in the 17th Century
by H. R. Codrington [RH on inside cover]
1893-94, Vol. 18, 134-141
http://www2.glos.ac.uk/bgas/tbgas/v018/bg018134.pdf
by I. M. Roper
1903, Vol. 26, 215-287
http://www2.glos.ac.uk/bgas/tbgas/v026/bg026215.pdf
The work of Neil Maw has been important in identifying the owners and history of the Watchfield manor and his book about Watchfield is available at the address below.
http://www.neil-maw.co.uk/watchfield.chronicle
Anything shown in [square brackets], other than the numbered references above, is a comment or note by me rather than the original author.
Not all the references shown above are used in this document but will be used in others about the Codrington family and have been included so I can keep the reference numbers the same.
There is much more information that has not been included in this blog – the identification of William Stubbes has generated a lot of material and there was at least one other William Stubbes who was probably related.
I also had to recreate the Stubbes of Norfolk family tree from the ground up, in order to work out if William fits anywhere, which I will add in another post.
If William is closely related to the Norfolk family, then he would likely be the second generation from one of the younger sons of John Stubbes of Scottowe (1455-1490), either Edward or Robert, who I have been unable to attach elsewhere.
Some other leads in this area were proven incorrect, although I did manage to link John Stubbes (the pamphleteer) and Richard Stubbes (the lawyer) into the main tree.
There is another John Stubbes – possibly a brother or cousin of William – who married in St Clement Danes the year after William and Hester – he married Elizabeth Claxton, and there are existing links between the Norfolk Stubbes and the Suffolk Claxton families.
However a lot of the Stubbes family were either lawyers or members of the clergy and the church of St. Clement Danes is close to the London Inns of Court – Robert Codrington was at Lincoln’s Inn.
Christopher Stubbes is another character from about the same period.
He lived in Westminster and was accused of conducting Catholic mass at his home, something that was extremely dangerous to do at the time.
In the Pedigree of the Garrard family of Inkpen, Berkshire, Theophilia is recorded as the daughter of Bartholomew Stubbes of Watchfield, so perhaps he was her actual father and had died and his brother and cousin were securing the girls inheritance?
[This is an error in the pedigree and her father is William]
Chris Sidney 2014
Gene Surfing 
Recent Comments