Adventures in Family History
In a previous post I have argued that Robert Codrington, the writer and translator, was more likely to be the son of Richard Codrington of Dodington, than the second son of Robert Codrington of Didmarton.
But then a new piece of evidence comes along …
We will get to that in a minute, but first a bit of background. The record for Robert Codrington at Oxford identifies him as the second son of Robert Codrington of Didmarton, but I believe that this is a simple mistake and Robert was the son of Richard Codrington of Dodington.
There does not appear to be any evidence that there were two Robert Codringtons at Oxford, and I have concluded that one of them – Robert of Didmarton – never existed, died young or, at the very least, did not go to Oxford University, and the Oxford record is mistaken as to his pedigree.
Robert Henry Codrington, in his definitive work on the Codrington family, believed that Cotherington may have been the original spelling of the family name although pronounced as Cutherington.
So I have been slowly searching the internet using all the possible spellings of the name and coming up with some interesting results.
Codrington, Codringtonne, Codryngton, Codrinton, Codrintonne, Codrynton, Coddrington, Cotherington, Cotherinton, Cotheryngton, Coderyngton, Cudrington, Cuddrington, Cuderington, Cutherington, Goodryngton, Guderington, Gudderington, Cothrindton, Cowdrington, Cooaddoringtonn.
The possibility, of course, is that some of the alternate spellings of the Codrington name actually belong to other, unrelated families.
RHC may have dismissed some spellings such as Godrington as belonging elsewhere, however I have come across several members of the Codrington family with alternative spellings not mentioned in the list, so it is not a definitive reference.
One similar name that could fit this category is Codington [of Surrey] but this does not match the alternative spellings identified above.
All of these spellings have a “d” or “th” sound followed by an “r” or sometime “l” – and this is what really distinguishes the family name from others.
Having said that a record has turned up for Robert Cotherington of Norfolk that may indicate that there were two Roberts who both lived in Norfolk at about the same time.
Robert Codrington and his wife Hennigham Drury [of Norfolk] had a son named Robert who was baptised in London 1635.
This Robert was the one who moved to Barbados and had a daughter, Henningham [named after her grandmother], who married Paul Carrington.
The new record for Robert Cotherington of Norwich shows a son – also named Robert – who was born 1633 and this could be the son of Robert and Henningham, assuming that he was baptized some time later in London.
In this record, Robert is shown as a clergyman and the record itself is related to his son’s admission to the Merchant Taylor’s school in 1645, when Robert junior would have been 12.
But none of the accounts I have seen about Robert, the writer, indicate that he had any relationship with the church, other than being described as a puritan [and a parliamentarian] by Anthony Wood in Athenæ Oxonienses. p.699 
Wood was contemporary with Robert and his biographical work of Oxford [University] writers was published in 1691, only 25 years after Robert died, so if Robert had been a clergyman I guess Wood would have known this – unless it wasn’t that important to record what Robert did outside of his writing.
In the baptism record of his son, Robert is identified as a yeoman and he probably had land in Norfolk from his marriage, but he later moved to Middlesex, London.
The Merchant Taylor’s school was [and still is] located in London – the original site was destroyed in the great fire in 1666.
“The grammar school, founded in the Parish of St. Lawrence Pountney in London in the yere of our Lord God one thousand fyve hundred, sixty-one by this worshipfull company of the Marchaunt-Taylors of the Cytty of London, in the honor of Christ Jesu”
In 1645 the Headmaster of the school was William Dugard, the cousin of Sir James Harrington a parliamentarian and one of the commissioners at the trial of Charles I.
Whether the politics of the time influenced the choice of school can only be guessed at, but Robert was described as a parliamentarian by Wood based on one of his more significant publications:
The Life and Death of the Illustrious Robert Earle of Essex, & c. Containing at large the wars he managed, and the commands he had in Holland, the Palatinate, and in England, etc.
So just who was Robert Cotherington of Norwich?
There are several possibilities:
1. Robert was the son of Robert and Anne Codrington of Didmarton.
There is no mention of a son named Robert in the court proceedings of the Codrington family following the death of Robert in 1618 and the marriage of his widow, Anne, to Ralph Marsh.
If he had taken holy orders and moved to Norfolk then perhaps he had no further claims against his father’s estate, although all of the other children of Robert and Anne have been mentioned in one or other of the documents, even if they had died.
If this Robert was of Didmarton then it is likely that he also married Henningham Drury and his son, Robert, was the one who went to Barbados.
In this scenario Robert of Dodington may have still completed his degree [perhaps not at Oxford] and become the translator of Aesop’s fables, but did not necessarily have any connection to Norfolk.
2. Robert was the son of Richard and Joyce Codrington of Dodington.
Robert of Dodington may not have completed his Oxford degree – after the incident with the Brownes – and instead moved to Norfolk to become a clergyman.
If he did not complete his degree he may not have been recorded [officially] as having been at Oxford, but clearly he was there, based on the records of the court case with the Brownes.
It is also possible that he did complete his degree and still become a clergyman and also married Henningham Drury.
Perhaps the clergyman reference was a mistake by whoever made the original record?
Possibly he had sold the land in Norfolk when he moved to London and could no longer be called Yeoman, and perhaps he did have some sort of position as a clerk or within the church while he pursued his writing and translating.
Or possibly the record has been transcribed incorrectly and this should say gentleman – but I think this unlikely.
3. Robert was not related to either the Didmarton or Dodington Codrington families.
This seems possible, given that there are no other records for Cotherington [or Codrington] living in Norfolk.
But if he is not from either family then where does he come from?
Possibly he is related to an older branch of the Codrington family who have been unrecorded, or records have not yet been found.
Or perhaps a member of the Codington family who has been mis-recorded.
It is possible that Robert, the writer and translator, was a member of the clergy and that his son, Robert was born in Norfolk but baptised in London.
Most accounts about the life of Robert could fit with this time-line, despite no mention of any connection to the clergy.
Codrington, Robert, a miscellaneous writer and translator of the seventeenth century, was born of an ancient family in Gloucestershire, in 1602, and educated at Oxford, where he was elected demy of Magdalen college, in July 1619, and completed his degree of M. A. in 1626. He then travelled, and on his return settled as a private gentleman in Norfolk, where he married. He died of the plague in London, in 1665.
But was the son of Robert of Norwich the one who went to Barbados?
If he was from the Didmarton family then his uncle was Christopher Codrington, so there were certainly family connections he could take advantage of.
In this case he would also have had to be the one that married into the Drury family, simply because of the name of his daughter, Henningham.
But if he was the son of Robert Codrington of Didmarton, then I still do not understand why there was no mention of him in any of the court proceedings following his mother’s marriage to Ralph Marsh.
These proceedings were relevant to his inheritance as, in 1618 when his father Robert died, he would not yet have completed his studies at Oxford.
Of the two Codrington links the most likely is that Robert of Norwich was the son of Richard and Joyce Codrington of Dodington, which then enriches our knowledge of him and of his son Robert.
But as far as I know none of the biographies of Robert Codrington mention him being a member of the clergy and I cannot find any other records relating to him in Norfolk.
If Robert the writer was a clergyman in 1645, when his son attended Merchant Taylor’s school, then surely this would have been mentioned in his biography or in one of his letters or publications?
Having said that most biographies are based on what Anthony Wood had to say about Robert, most of which was a simply a list of his writings and translations rather than personal or family details.
If Robert of Norwich could be linked with the Didmarton family, it would clear up the missing son from the will of Robert Codrington in 1618.
But I do not think that this can be true for reasons already discussed.
If Robert of Norwich is not Robert the writer then this leaves us with the possibility of either an unknown member of the Codrington family, or a member of another family with a similar sounding name, such as Codington.
There are some references to the Codington family in Suffolk in the 16th century – in particular of Richard Codington who has a tomb in Ixworth church dated 1567 – and it is possible for a descendant of his to be living in Norfolk a century later.
In 1538, King Henry VIII granted it [Little Melton] to Richard Codington of Codington in Surrey, in exchange for the manor of Codington, along with the manor of Ixworth, &c.
There are also references to William Codington of Boston in Lincolnshire, the son of a Robert Codington who died 1615.
William was treasurer to the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1629 and went there with the first voyage in 1630. He was governor of Newport in 1640 and of Rhode Island in 1678, the same year he died.
William could have been a brother of Robert Codington born about 1600 and possibly related to Richard of Suffolk and this seems a reasonable explanation – a simple transcription or recording error from Codington to Cotherington.
But I can find no records to support Robert being from the Codington family either, so, for now at least, I am going to stick with my original assumptions about the other two Robert Codringtons as described elsewhere.
Until another piece of evidence turns up anyway.
This is the introduction page to a publication about the Coddington family of Woodbridge, New Jersey.
Strangely – having gone to the trouble to show the variations in spelling – there appears to be a reference here to the origins of the Codrington family name and not the Coddingtons at all.
This just proves how easy it is to get mixed up between the two families.
Chris Sidney 2015
Robert Tatton, the heir to the Wythenshawe estate in Cheshire, was disinherited by his father, William. But what had Robert done to deserve this?
For background information it is recommended that you read Tatton v Stubbes before reading this.
It seems to me a little harsh to disinherit your only son and pass your estate to your grandson instead, but this is what William Tatton of Wythenshawe did in his will of 1606. His only son, Robert – the father of William who inherited the estate – is not mentioned at all.
About 1605 Robert eloped with Susan Stubbes, the daughter of William Stubbes and Hester Harington – who was due to be married to another man a few days later – and married her against the wishes of her parents, as shown in Tatton v Stubbes, however it seems unlikely that this is the reason that he was disowned.
But this is not all that happened about this time.
There are two other documents dated 1603 in the National Archives relating to charges made against Robert Tatton that was heard before the star chamber and instigated by William Tatton, Robert’s father.
Rob[er]t Tatton of Marybone in the County of Midd[lesex] gent[leman] sworne &c
We have both the deposition of Robert, in answer to the charges, and the inquisition document itself, the title on its own making interesting reading:
Sale of tithes and mortgage in Bowdon, conspiracy to murder, land in The Poole, Lancashire.
Conspiracy to murder?
This is certainly a pretty good reason for being disinherited, but just what did Robert get involved in, and who was to be murdered?
I am still not quite sure whether Robert was a charming, but devious man, intent on getting his hands on his inheritance (and anything else he wanted), or was just sensitive and kind and ill-used by his friends and relations – and anyone else he met.
William Stubbes, his father-in-law, certainly held a poor opinion of Robert’s character due to the way that he believed his daughter, Susan, and her children were treated by Robert.
But this may be due to his disinheritance and the subsequent large amounts of money that Robert borrowed – mainly from William’s friends and family.
Apart from being disinherited, I do not think that there were any other consequences following these charges, unless you count the sad expression that he has in his portrait – painted just before he died in January 1624.
Interrogatories to be ministred unto Robert Tatton gentleman defendant upon the Informacion of Edward Coke Esquire Attorney general to our late soveraigne Ladye Queene Elizabeth deceased at & by the Relation of William Tatton Esquire as followeth:
The first items are related to the mortgage on the rectory of Bowdon taken out by William Tatton. The sums of £600 and £800 are mentioned as well as the names of Sir Edward Warren and his father John Warren, of Poynton who died in 1587.
It seems that Robert had obtained the statute for £800 that his father had taken out on his properties from John Warren, and were now held by his son Sir Edward Warren.
… and by that meanes to have gotten the possession from your father of & in his Capitall howses of Wythenshawe & Peele and his demeasne Landes & goodes there into your owen handes & to your owen use.
Robert – along with Edward – is accused of “practising to extend his fathers landes”, as well as the supply of “meate drinke and weapons” to those who would hold the landes of his father.
To this Robert replies that …
… he was pryvye that the said Sir Edward Warren dyd purpose and intende to extende the landes of this defendants said father & knoweth that parte therof was extended by the said Sir Edward.
Howbeit he this defendant dyd not by himself or by any others at any tyme perswade or practyce with the said Sir Edward to extende the same: but confesseth that he dyd trethe the said Sir Edward Warren – beinge his wyves brother & suche as were in the said Sir Edwards Company & before possession against his father – with meat dryncke and lodging.
And he thincketh that somme of them dyd to keepe the said possession taken somme wepons owt of this defendants howse.
Robert says also that he:
… bought the estate and interest of the said statute of £800 for the better securing [of himself] concerning certen articles of agreement formerly made betwixt this deffendants said father and [himself].
This earlier agreement – held by Manchester University – was made in October 1592 and concerns various properties in the possession of his father.
There is a note attached to the document that says that it was also exhibited in a suit dated 16 April 1605, two years after this inquisition.
Articles of Agreament Indented had made & Concluded upon betwene William Tatton of Wythinshawe within the Countie of Chester Esquier upon th’one partye And Roberte Tatton gentleman son & heire apparant of the saide William upon th’other partye by the mediacion of dyvers their good & loving [original damaged] frendes
One of these properties, the rectory at Bowden is also mentioned in this inquisition.
That the saide Roberte Tatton shall & maie proceade with George Bouthe of Dunham in the saide Countie of Chester Esquier for the Reobteyninge and Repurchasinge of the Rcorye [Rectory] and tythes of Bowdon in the saide Countie of Chester …
If anyone can provide a good definition of “extending lands” then I would be grateful. From the way the interrogations are worded it cannot be a good thing – at least not for Robert’s father.
Robert also denies another accusation that he attempted to have his father arrested.
Neyther dyd he come to his fathers said howse in Companye with the sheriffe of the sayd Countie uppon purpose to have entred and kepte possession there or to have mayneteyned and furthered the same against his father.
Neyther hathe he at any tyme layd plottes with Sheriffe Baylyeffe or with anye other to take arreste and attache his fathers boddye intendinge or myndinge to have him imprisoned as in this Interrogatory is supposed But the defendant dyd many tymes doe his best endevor to keepe his said father from beinge arrested or imprisoned.
It seems that it was after this that Robert was forced into an agreement to end the controversies and disagreements between him and his father, and that he was advised that if he did not stand by such agreement that his father would disinherit him.
… that there was an agreement made and sett downe in wrytinge by certen Knightes & gentlemen for the fynall endinge of all controversies and disagrements betwixt this defendants father & this defendant But this defendant doth not remember that anye boddy dyd advise him to stande to such said agreement least his father would disinherytt him or that hee this defendant dyd make anye suche undutifull & unrespective agrement as in this Interrogatory ys mencioned.
It seems that Robert’s father, William, was suffering from syphilis and being treated by a surgeon named Plante – William would have been nearly 70 years old and this was a serious condition.
Robert is accused of sending one Peter Warren to visit the surgeon Plante at his father’s house [Wythenshawe] to arrange a meeting with him in private, but without the knowledge of any of his father’s servants, leading to suspicions about the purpose of the meeting.
Robert does say that he did have a private conversation with Plante, but this was at his father’s house …
… in or neare a chamber at the said howse called the Gatehowse Chamber, the [purpose] of which speche was to understand what disease his said father had, & to desire the said Plante to take greate care to cure the same
This meeting was arranged through Sir George Leycester – whose daughter was to marry Robert’s eldest son – and who was travelling between Robert and his father in order to work a reconcilement between them.
Based on this conversation it is accused that Robert did …
… move or perswade hime the said Plant to use or laye somthinge to your fathers Sore or some other parte & place of his Bodye whereby to swell & Corrupte his said Bodye & take awaye his Liefe sayeinge further to the saide Plant that if your father did Amende & recover his healthe of that disease It would be to your undoeinge, for that yow sayde yow muste paye greate summes of money for hime.
Robert replies that that he …
… dyd not crave or perswade the sayd Plante to use or laye any thing to his fathers sore or anye other parte or place of his fathers boddy whereby to make the same to swell & to corrupte his boddy & to take awaye his lyef as is supposed neither dyd he this defendant utter suche speches to the said Plante as in this Interrogatory are mencioned or any speches to anye such effecte.
From the above accusation it seems that he owed a great amount of money, which, perhaps, he was hoping would be covered by the death of his father and his inheritance.
Plante does seem to have made the accusation himself about Robert who, of course, denies anything other than trying to obtain the best possible care for his father, and making sensible arrangements should he die.
To that end he is accused of asking Peter Warren to send him word when his father died, in the expectation that it would be soon.
Did yow tell the said Peter Warren that yow muste Comit truste unto hime touchinge matter wherein he muste use greate secresie tellinge hime that he was of your wyves fleshe & bloudde & that frendes muste holde together, and whether did yow tell the said Warren that yow did knowe your father colde not live fower dayes, and therefore desired hime that presently upon your fathers deathe he woulde come unto yow or send yow worde thereof.
Perhaps he was expecting this, considering the poor health and old age of his father, but it seems to have been taken to mean that he was expecting news of his father’s death because he had something to do with it, especially because of the conspiratorial nature of the conversation with Peter Warren.
Peter was probably a younger brother of his wife, but may also have been in the service of Robert’s father so was in a position to be able to get a message to Robert [presumably in London] quickly.
Robert is next questioned as to whether he had …
…. of late come to your fathers Howse havinge a dagge or Pystoll charged aboute yow and at the same tyme sent unto your father & desired to see hime, and whether did yow tell any person & whome, that yow weare Counselled or Intended to Kyll one John Bellers whoe (being deposed) was thoughte (as yow sayde) colde accuse yow of manye lewde undutifull & trecherous dealinges misdemeanors & Offences by yow Committed & doene or used againste the said William Tatton your Father.
John Bellers is likely to have been a trusted servant of his father.
What Robert was carrying might have been a Dagger Pistol, which was, as the name suggests, a combination of a dagger and a pistol, but is not really the sort of personal defence that a gentleman might carry. It is more likely he had a Dagg, or small single-shot pistol.
Robert replies to this charge …
… that hee dyd of late ryde from London allone to his fathers howse, having about him for his necessary defence a dagg or pistoll charged.
And when he came to the owter gate of the said howse he desired one of his fathers men to goe & tell his father that hee was come thither to crave his blessinge & with an intent in all dutifull manner to satisfye his said father concerning any matters that he should objecte against him if he this defendant might be admytted to his presenc.
But this defendant dyd not tell any boddy that he was councelled or intended to kill anie John Bellers in this Interrogatory mencioned for any cause whatsoever neyther dyd this defendant intende any such thing nor was councelled by any boddy to doe any suche thinge.
Robert says that he was informed about the accusations made by Plante by Mr Davenporte & John Makepeace who told him that:
… Plant had accused him this defendant unto them that he had practized with him to laye some plaster or other infectious thing to his fathers sore which might swell upp into his boddy & take away his lief.
The only reason that I can see for Plante making up this story is if William had died, and wanted to blame someone else, or Robert had refused to pay his fees – assuming it was his responsibility in the first place. As far as I can tell neither of these happened.
But Robert denies trying to persuade Plante to change his story saying that all he wanted was for Plante to tell the truth. He also says that he did not:
… gyve over in speches that this defendants said father had or was infected with the frenche pockes or with any other odious diseases but rather allwayes desired to conceale his said fathers infyrmities & diseases.
Roberts responses seem quite reasonable but his replies also seem to strengthen the opinion that William Stubbes had of him, as a skilled and believable orator.
… by the fayer and flatteringe speches of the complainant …
… uppon the faithfull promises and earnest protestacions made by the said complainant …
It is possible that Robert did not have any reason to want his father dead and this was all a terrible misunderstanding. But there seems overwhelming evidence that the opposite was true – certainly his father believed that Robert wanted him dead.
One other scenario is that William simply did not trust his son with the estate, and made up the accusations so that he could disown him and pass the estate to his grandson, William. He would have needed the support of the surgeon Plante and several other of the characters in this story and is not impossible that he did this, however I think it unlikely.
When William wrote his will in 1606 there is no mention of Robert at all and everything is passed to his grandson, William, Robert’s eldest son.
Some records attribute the portrait of Robert Tatton to his grandson, also named Robert (1606-1669), but this cannot be correct.
A copy of the portrait held in the Manchester City Art Galleries is signed by the artist – Cornelius Johnson – and dated 1625, the year after Robert died and when his grandson would have only been 19 years old.
But the most significant clue is the wedding ring on the chain around the sitter’s neck. The younger Robert died in 1669 a year before his wife, Anne Brereton, so this would have been inappropriate
On the other hand the elder Robert’s wife, Eleanor Warren, died about 1605, or perhaps before, and Robert remarried Susan Stubbes before 1608 – although this evidence for the second marriage is hidden by Robert’s left hand being in his pocket.
Having your portrait painted, yet alone to this standard, was not cheap and I am not sure who paid for this, given Robert’s history with money!
Poole, which is now in Cheshire, was owned by the Leycester family. Katherine Leycester married William Tatton, the eldest son of Robert, and heir to the Wythenshawe estates, who drowned crossing the Mersey in 1616. In 1602 George Leycester, of Toft, was High Sherriff of Cheshire and he was also involved in negotiating between Robert and his father.
The Elcock or Elcocke family held the manor of White-Poole, which included Poole Farm, from around 1600, and this is the site of the later Poole Hall. The Leycester family probably held another of the three manors. In 1601, Poole had a watermill at Poole Bridge.
Wythenshawe Hall was built by Robert Tatton, the grand-father of this Robert, in about 1540 and was in the same family until 1926, when it was sold to pay debts and death duties. The property was bought by Lord and Lady Simon and donated to the city of Manchester for the use of the public.
The hall has been used by the local council as an art gallery and is now being opened to the public by the Friends of Wythenshawe Hall.
In his deposition, dated 18th May 1603, Robert refers to his wife’s brother which indicates that his first wife, Eleanor Warren, may still have been alive or, at least, he had not yet married Susan Stubbes, which I suspect was around this time when she would have been 21 years old.
S[i]r Edward Warren – beinge his wyves brother
Perhaps Susan was older than 21 when she was due to be married? They were married before 1608 so perhaps 1605 is a more realistic estimate of Susan’s marriage at the age of 23 – especially if Robert’s first wife, Eleanor, was still alive in 1603.
Eleanor must, however, have died shortly after this – she would have been about 40 years old and possibly died in child birth – but there is no record of her death.
There is another document in the National Archives dated 1603-1625 which mentions both Robert Tatton and his son, another Robert.
Robert Tatton the elder, Robert Tatton the younger and Katherine Tatton, widow.
Katherine [Leycester] would have been the widow of Robert’s eldest son William (and heir of Wythenshawe) who drowned crossing the Mersey in 1616.
If Robert the younger was the son of his marriage to Susan Stubbes then he would probably have been too young to have been mentioned in a legal document of 1616, so he is much more likely to have been the second son from his first marriage to Eleanor Warren.
The same would also be true of Robert, the son of William and grandson of Robert who was born in 1606. This Robert would eventually inherit Wythenshaw from his deceased father, but was too young at the time and had been made a ward of court, so is unlikely to be the younger Robert mentioned.
In the articles of agreement document of 1593, Robert is said to have at least two sons – presumably William and Robert – and several daughters, although none are specifically named.
Chris Sidney 2015
John Codrington died on 9th October 1475. This date is engraved on his tomb in St. Peter’s church in Wapley, Gloucestershire along with his age – 111 years, 5 months and 13 days.
I have removed some parts of this article because it was getting much too long. My thoughts on the grant of arms to John Codrington and associated information can now be be found in The Codrington Arms although some references are included below where they are relevant to this article.
Eleventy One, as Bilbo Baggins said at his birthday party, is a great age and extremely unusual – even today – so could John Codrington really have beaten the odds and reach this grand age in the 15th century?
RHC in his “Memoirs of the Codrington family” [see below] calculated the birth of John Codrington as 23rd April 1364 from his age and the date that he died, which are both recorded on his tomb.
The age being recorded so precisely is quite unusual, suggesting that it was, indeed, exceptional. But one hundred and eleven?
One suggestion is that the stonemasons made an error with the Roman numerals – or the instructions they were given were incorrect – and the age on the tomb should be 91 XCI instead of 111 CXI, but even this age is noteworthy.
Of the six possible combinations of the roman numerals on the tomb, only three are valid: CXI = 111, CIX = 109, XCI = 91 and the most obvious error is to swap the first two characters.
If true then the date of his birth should be 26th April 1384.
RHC had himself seen the inscription in 1852 and was convinced that it had not been tampered with but he had no way of knowing if it was actually correct to begin with and took the age at face value.
Here lies Johannes Codry’ton knight, who died on the ninth day of the month of November in the year of our Lord 1475, having the age on the day that he died of 111 years, 5 months 13 days, may God bless his soul. Amen
If the lower age is correct then this would help to clarify some aspects of the life of John Codrington. For a start he would have been 20 years younger during Agincourt at the age of 30, and would have also married at a more sensible age.
But it opens up other issues, in particular about his father, Robert, who would have been quite an old man when John was born, and whether there are any missing generations.
This article is based largely on the definitive work on the Codrington family by Robert Henry Codrington [RHC] – the snappily titled “Memoir of the Family of Codrington of Codrington, Didmarton, Frampton-On-Severn and Dodington.” – which was itself based on notes made by the historian, Sir John Maclean.
Sir John had intended to follow up on his Memoirs of the Poyntz and Guise families – who are related to the Codringtons through various marriages – but illness prevented him from doing so.
In his document, Robert identifies John Codrington as A1; the head of the senior branch of the Codrington family and his brother Thomas as B2; the head of the junior branch.
Robert also says that:
John returned from France and married a young woman, survived his son, and died in extreme old age.
But I don’t think it is as simple as that.
John’s father was, according to all know pedigrees, Robert Codrington of Chipping Sodbury in Gloucestershire, who “was in good standing” during the reign of Henry IV.
He appears in several jury records around the end of the 14th century – with various spellings of his name. The last record we have for him is when he appeared on a jury list at Chipping Sodbury 20 May 1421.
Some have assumed that this date was when John inherited the Codrington property, but was it from Robert and was it some time later than 1421.
The first reference to John in relation to the property seems to be in 1429 when he and his wife made an application to the pope for a portable altar, so all we can say for sure was that he inherited the property, and married, before this date.
Why was Robert never described as being of Codrington and Wapley? Could it be that Robert was not, after all, the father of John?
John Codrington is remembered as the Standard Bearer for King Henry V at the battle of Agincourt as described elsewhere.
It should be noted that John Codrington was never knighted for his service and references to Sir John Codrington seem to have originated with a number of military figurines, as well as various books about Agincourt one of which has him pictured on the front cover and labelled inside as Sir John.
On his tomb he is referred to as Joh’es Codry’ton armiger, which only means that he has the right to bear arms. In a document of 1471 he is John Codrington Esquire and this is confirmed by the way the helmet is shown on the family crest, at an angle and not facing forward.
It is easy to see why you might assume that he was knighted, being standard bearer to the king, and I am as guilty as anyone of repeating this without checking if it is actually correct.
RHC does not make this mistake and he is referred to as either gentleman or esquire, although I am unsure at what point he was able to use this later address.
Possibly the title is related to when he became lord of the manor of Codrington, after purchasing it from the abbey of Stanleigh in 1455.
It is also possible that this was a title used when addressing him formally, simply because he was a knight, rather than having been knighted – we still sent letters these days starting “Dear Sir“.
It has been suggested that John Codrington may have been knighted on the battlefield, or by someone other than the king.
At Agincourt he was in the retinue of Sir William Bourchier. who was probably senior enough to have been able to do this.
Sir William Bourchier, was one of the foremost captains at the Battle of Agincourt, leading 102 men. In November 1415 he was made Constable of the Tower of London (replacing the Duke of York, who had died in the Battle), with special responsibility for the French prisoners. He returned to serve in France in 1417, and in 1419 was made Count of Eu in Normandy. His arms were those of Bourchier quartered with those of Louvaine (the arms of his mother, an heraldic heiress).
But if John was knighted for his services there is no evidence of the title ever being used.
In 1429 John is a layman of the diocese – in the request for a portable altar – and in 1441 an 1445 grants of arms he is a Gentleman. It is only in the 1471 Levy of Fines that he is referenced as Esquire, technically the rank below knight.
In the list of the retinue of William Bourchier John is well down the list of men at arms, showing that he was – at that time at least – not particularly important.
He is also shown in some accounts as John Codington so perhaps Symon Codington, in the retinue of Lord Camoys, was related?
There are two different wives suggested for John in “memoirs”, both named Alice.
She could have been Alice Young, daughter of Thomas Young, an influential Bristol merchant, or Alice Hawys the sister of Margaret, who was married to Sir Peter Bessiles.
The name of Hawys has been transcribed as Hannys orHauuys and also shown as Hewes and Hawes.
It has proved difficult to find connections to these families at about the right time. What we do know is that Alice survived her husband – and two of her sons – and so I have come to the conclusion that John probably had two wives, perhaps both named Alice.
Why wouldn’t he? Some men have two or three wives in a much shorter lifetime.
In some family records Margaret (Margerie) Hawes married Sir Peter Bessiles, of Bessiles Leigh, Berkshire in about 1389, so it would seem that John could have married her sister at about the same time – certainly before Agincourt.
The following is commonly used in other trees.
Peter DE BESSILES was born in 1364 in Bromland, Somersetshire, England. Parents: Thomas DE BESSILES and Katherine LEIGH.
Margery HANNYS and Peter DE BESSILES were married about 1389 in Besiles Leigh Berkshire England.
John Codrington and first wife Alice may have had a daughter, Margaret, who married Sir John le Veale, but the timings only work with a marriage some time before Agincourt.
JOHN (Johannes) VELE (Veal), son of Thomas and Hawise Veal, married MARGARET, and he died in 1430, the 9th year of the reign of Henry VI, leaving one son. [1]
[1] There may have been a son, John, born about 1405, as well as daughter Susan, born 1409.
Another possibility is that Margaret was a younger sister to John Codrington rather than a daughter, which could also work in this scenario.
A Codrington pedigree held by the College of Arms shows only Mar and Viel, which some have taken to refer to a son Morvail Codrington, but is more likely to be an abbreviation of Margaret or could simply be an abbreviation for Married, where the name of a daughter is not known, or not recorded, to someone named Veil.
But this scenario does not fit with some other records that show that Margery Hawys married Peter Bessiles a generation later.
More importantly she is mentioned in documents dating from 1470 as the widow of Peter so must have been much younger and probably married much later than 1389.
Her sister, Alice, is therefore unlikely to be the first wife of John Codrington I.
One other problem with this theory is that there is a record for one Alice Hawes married to Henry Bromley in 1390, with an estimated birth date for Alice about 1365.
This clashes with the estimated birth of John’s first wife who must have been born about the same time in order to have a daughter, Margaret, born about 1385.
Alice Hawys, who married John Codrington, was probably the niece of this Alice assuming they are both related to John Hawes of Solihull.
According to RHC the daughter of Margaret and John le Veale, Susan, married firstly James Berkeley of Bradley and, secondly, Richard Ivy of Kingston.
Margaret [Codrington] had died in 1409 after the birth of daughter, Susan.
John Codrington A1 (1364) = Alice I
.. Margaret Codrington (1390-1409) = John la Veele (1384-1430)
…. Susan le Veele (1409-)
There are some differences in the College of Arms pedigree as the name of husband James, is shown as Broseley, and it was an un-named sister of Susan that married [Richard] Ivey of Kingston.
Another pedigree – that of Samson Samuel Lloyd esq., who is descended from the Berkeley family – shows Susan as the widow of one Waddall adding even more confusion.
So perhaps it was a sister of Susan that married Richard Ivye? Richard is likely to have come from (Chipping) Sodbury in Gloucestershire and it was later generations of the family that lived at West Kingston in Wiltshire.
There are also suggestions, from other family trees, that Sir Peter Bessiles was born about 1390, and having looked into his pedigree the later date does fit better with other family records and with those of Margaret and Susan.
It is perhaps more likely that he simply married much later in life than estimated and it was his wife, Margery Hawys, that was from a later generation, with about 25 years difference between them.
In this scenario it seems as if John’s first wife was another Alice, possibly Alice Young – the daughter or [more likely] sister of Thomas Young – with whom he had a daughter, Margaret, who married John la Veale – assuming that this marriage is correct.
Thomas Young was about the same age as John Codrington and did have a sister [either Alice or Mary] who he could have married. If she was a daughter of Thomas then she would have been born a generation later which doesn’t work with a grand-daughter, Susan la Veele, born in 1409.
In this scenario John Codrington married again, after the death of his first wife, to Alice Hawys, the sister of Margery (widow of Sir Peter Bessiles), and had three sons; Humphrey, John and Thomas.
This makes it possible for Margery Hawys – born later than suggested above – to be mentioned in the Levy of Fines of 1470 [see below] without having been more than 100 years old.
I have wondered why there was such a gap after John returned from Agincourt before he married. The simply answer could be that he was already married, and at the age of 50 he probably had no plans to marry again – even when his wife died.
We do not know how long John was in the service to the king after Agincourt and he may have returned to France for the campaign that began in 1417, and may even have made it to Paris, where Henry V died five years later in 1422.
If he was 50 years old during Agincourt then I doubt he would have been able to sustain a prolonged campaign. However if he was 20 years younger then he could have been with the king for a significant period, and this is perhaps why he is not recorded back in Gloucestershire until some time later.
Certainly he was back home and living in Codrington by 1429 – when he applied for a portable altar – but that is really all we can tell for sure.
John could have been about 65 and perhaps either he, or his wife, were unable to attend their local church easily and wanted to perform mass at home.
But this may also have been, as suggested by RHC, to avoid paying fees at nearby Wapley for his household.
… to John Codrington, layman of the diocese of Worcester, and to his wife then being …
John, although he didn’t know it, had another 50 years to live, and it is possible that he started looking around for another wife.
Based on the death of second wife Alice II, in 1489, she was probably born about 1415 and married John Codrington about 1435 – shortly after the death of his first wife – and their three sons were then born between 1435 and 1440.
This is quite late for John to have fathered three sons – he would have been in his sixties – and although not impossible it is just one more thing that doesn’t sit right with me.
The period when the boys are likely to have been born can be calculated by working backwards from the birth of grandson and heir, Christopher, in 1467 and assuming that his father, John, was about 30 years old when he married, putting his birth at about 1437.
We are now 20 years after Agincourt and John Codrington was already an old man, but there is an alternative to this that allows it bit more flexibility with the dates.
John Codrington and first wife, Alice, could have had a son … also called John.
John II would have been born about 1390, a sister to Margaret, and may have been too young to accompany his father to Agincourt.
He could have been married to Alice II by 1425 and their sons born earlier than I have already estimated, which makes it easier to explain how two of them had died before their mother.
Grandson and heir Christopher Codrington would therefore have been born when his father, John III, was about 40.
John I may have transferred the Codrington estate to his son John II and his wife before 1471 even though he lived for some time afterwards, and any references to Alice and John regarding the property are for his son and his wife.
In the Levy of Fines from 1471 John is referred to as John Codrington Esquire, which is the correct address for John I, but could also be used for his eldest son as shown in the same document for eldest son Humphrey.
And afterwards the day after All Souls, 49 Henry VI [3 November 1471]. Parties: William Bolaker and Philip Parker, querents, and John Codrynton’, esquire, and Alice, his wife, deforciant.
John II would himself have been an old man of about 80 by his time and probably died before his father.
Humphrey, his eldest son, was Escheator for Gloucestershire in 1467, a position that demanded a certain amount of respect and probably not a position for a young man, but he could still have been born about 1435.
There were two grants of arms to John Codrington in 1441 and 1445 – the first being a confirmation of the arms used by John during his service to the king, as used by the senior branch of the family.
Whether these two grants were to the same John Codrington is discussed in The Codrington Arms, but there is some evidence that there may be another John Codrington in Gloucestershire at the time who could have been granted the second arms.
This John Codrington resided in Clyfe [Bishop’s Cleeve] near Tewkesbury, in the north of Gloucestershire and is recorded there in 1421 and of Tewkesbury in 1423.
Could John Codrington have lived in Tewkesbury after Agincourt but before inheriting Codrington and Wapley from his father, or is this another John?
One indication that this is a different John is that there was no mention – in the levy of fines of 1471 or the inquisition into the death of Alice Codrington – of any properties in the north of the county of Gloucestershire owned by the family.
There is an earlier record of a John Codrington from 1337, who was an attorney to the king and could be related to John Codrington of Clyfe and Tewkesbury.
See below for more information about him.
The earliest reference linking the Codrington property to the family is for Stephen of Codrington and Wapley, who made a donation to Stanleigh Abbey – who owned the Codrington and Wapley manor – in 1379.
2 Ric. 2. receit. et confirm. donationes: P. 869. cart. antiq. X. n. 6, fcil. 2 Ric 2. confirm. donationem R. fil. Stephani de Codinton et Wapalee.
Possibly Stephen had died without an heir and passed Codrington to brother Robert, or directly to nephew John?
Or possibly it was Stephen who was father to John I and Robert was his younger brother which is why he never inherited the Codrington and Wapley properties and is described only as being of Chipping Sodbury?
RHC says that the two arms granted to John Codrington have only been used quartered together so perhaps there was a marriage between the two branches of the family and the second grant of arms was requested prior to a marriage between the families?
It is therefore possible that one of the children of John II could have married a cousin, the daughter of John Codrington of Clyfe. This would explain the quartering of the two designs and why they were never used in their own right if this second John had no sons.
Perhaps this was the marriage of Humphrey, the eldest son? If he married a cousin Agnes Codrington about 1445 – after the second grant of arms – he could have been born around 1425, fitting better with John II being his father.
There is no evidence of this of course; certainly there are no properties or lands held by the Codrington family in the north of Gloucestershire, either inherited or passed through marriage.
The only use of both arms I have found was 300 years later, and this may have been in error on the assumption that they were for the same John Codrington.
Having not seen the text of the actual grants – only extracts from them in various forms – I am not really in a position to do anything other than speculate as to whether they are for the same John based on other interpretations of the grants.
In 1471 John and Alice levied a fine on their lands to their sons, Humphrey, John and Thomas and this could have been either, John II and his wife Alice Hawes as mentioned earlier, or John I and his second wife.
Also mentioned is Margery, late wife of Peter Bessiles, who was the sister of Alice II, with Peter Bessiles being born later than shown in some references – or at least marrying much later and Alice being much younger than he was.
William and Philip have granted to John and Alice the tenements and have rendered them to them in the court, to hold to John and Alice, without impeachment of waste, of the chief lords for the lives of John and Alice. And after the decease of John and Alice 2 messuages, 1 toft, 240 acres of land, 30 acres of meadow and 40 acres of pasture in the vills of Codrynton’ and Tormerton’ shall remain to Humphrey Codrynton’, esquire, son of John and Alice, and the heirs of his body, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders (1) to John Codrynton’, brother of the aforesaid Humphrey, and the heirs of his body, (2) to Thomas Codrynton’, brother of the same John, and the heirs of his body, (3) to the heirs of the bodies of the aforesaid John Codrynton’ and Alice, (4) to Margery Besiles, late the wife of Peter Besiles, knight, and the heirs of her body and (5) to the right heirs of Alice. And also after the decease of John Codrynton’ and Alice 5 messuages, 1 toft, 5 gardens, 60 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow and 40 acres of pasture in the vills of Oldesodbury, Chepyngsodbury, Lygrove and Dodyngton’ shall remain to the aforesaid John Codrynton’, son of John Codrynton’ and Alice, and the heirs of his body, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders (1) to the aforesaid Thomas, brother of the same John, and the heirs of his body, (2) to the aforesaid Humphrey, brother of the same Thomas, and the heirs of his body, (3) to the heirs of the bodies of the aforesaid John Codrynton’ and Alice, (4) to the aforesaid Margery Besiles and the heirs of her body and (5) to the right heirs of Alice. And besides after the decease of John Codryngton’ and Alice 6 messuages, 2 tofts, 1 garden, 1 dove-cot, 100 acres of land, 30 acres of meadow and 40 acres of pasture in the vills of Bristoll’, Leyghterton’, Haukesbury and Upton’ Hamell’ shall remain to the aforesaid Thomas, son of John Codrynton’ and Alice, and the heirs of his body, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders (1) to the aforesaid John Codrynton’, brother of the same Thomas, and the heirs of his body, (2) to the aforesaid Humphrey, brother of the same John, and the heirs of his body, (3) to the heirs of the bodies of the aforesaid John Codrynton’ and Alice, (4) to the aforesaid Margery Besiles and the heirs of her body and (5) to the right heirs of Alice.
According to RHC, Margaret Hawys, the widow of Peter Bessilles, Knight, died in 1483, making her a similar age to Alice who died a few years later. I have not found information anywhere else to confirm this date, but some pedigrees show Peter Bessilles being born in 1390 instead of 1364 making it much easier to estimate a later marriage. But even the earlier date does not mean he did not marry Margery – she would just have been much younger – a lot younger.
The inquisition into the death of Alice identifies Christopher Codrington as her heir.
“… aged 22 and more, is her cousin and heir, viz son of John, her son.”
Not quite sure why he isn’t just referred to as her grandson – the term cousin is usually used to indicate a close, but indirect, relationship.
Also mentioned in a deed dated 1490 are Thomas Codrington [assumed to be the youngest son], William Besylys, Christopher Twynyho, Clerk and William Twynyho, Esquire, which confirms that there were relationships between these families.
Christopher Codrington, heir of Alice, married into the Twynho family and William Bessiles was, no doubt, related to Alice and Margery.
I still think is a bit unusual to mention Margery Bessiles in the levy, unless she was actually a daughter of John and Alice and not the sister of Alice at all. But if she was the sister to Humphrey, John and Thomas she would have been born much to late to have been married to Peter Bessiles.
According to records for the manor of Leigh, Margery and Peter Bessiles did not have any children, but other pedigrees show a son, Thomas, so what is going on?
Sir Peter was noted for his deeds of charity and his gifts to religious houses, and by his will he directed that all his manors should be sold by his co-feoffees in alms for his soul. He died childless in 1424 …
The history of the manor during the next few years is involved, because Sir Peter’s will was not very honestly performed. Margery, his widow, and one of the executors of his will, had a life interest in Leigh, and her second husband William Warbleton held it in her right in 1428.
Margery married again – before 1428 – to William Warbleton and died in 1483, so she was still young at the time she was widowed. Some records show a son, Thomas, born in 1390, but this is much too early – even if Margery lived to be 100 years old!
The History of Parliament adds some additional information which makes it easier to understand what is going on, in particular that Margery was the second wife of Peter Bessiles and that she also had an illegitimate son.
He left no immediate heirs, and Thomas, the illegitimate son of his second wife Margery Haines (who afterwards called himself Thomas Bessels and claimed to be Sir Peter’s son and heir), received no more by the terms of the will than a life interest in a small estate at Longworth together with the expenses of his education. Margery was permitted to keep the manors of Bessels Leigh and Kingston for her lifetime, but these were then to be sold.
As Margery lived until 1483 she cannot have been born before about 1400 and must have been very young when she gave birth and married to Peter. It seems that the marriage was a formal arrangement and, based on that, I would think that Thomas probably was the son of Peter Bessiles, otherwise why would he have married a young woman with an illegitimate son?
Eventually Margery managed to get some of the property for her son and his heirs, although it sounds as if Thomas had already died.
By outliving Sir Peter by nearly 50 years, the widow successfully contrived to have Radcot and Grafton entailed to the advantage of the issue of her bastard son Thomas.
Thomas married Clemence de Noires and their son, William, married into the important Harcourt family of Stanton Harcourt in Oxfordshire, so illegitimacy hadn’t done him much harm.
In the Levy of Fines document of 1471 Margery is still shown as the widow of Peter Bessiles and not the widow of William Warbleton who died 1469, which is quite odd.
Also if Margery was Haines and not Hawys then the wife of John Codrington must also be Alice Haines and calls for some further investigation.
Margery’s legitimate heir was her nephew, John Haines of Salop.
Probably, however, this name was assumed from the name of her nephew, who may be the son of another sister who married into the Haines family.
Three generation later Dorothy Fettiplace, great grand-daughter of Thomas Bessiles, married John Codrington, the eldest son of Christopher Codrington (great-grandson of John of Agincourt) but he died in Appleton, Berkshire in 1518 and Dorothy ended her days in the Abbey of Syon along with two of her sisters.
Humphrey is a bit of an enigma. It appears – from some records – that he was significantly older than his brother John III, the father of Christopher [who inherited the Codrington property] and died without any children, although it is possible that he was married.
There are chancery records dated 1431-1443 for Humphrey meaning that he would have been born significantly earlier then 1435, especially as these dates relate to his position of escheator.
He could therefore have been a brother to John II or at least a son from the earlier marriage of John I and Alice Young. He was alive in 1471 but dead before 1483.
So perhaps all three sons were much older than suggested and the birth of Christopher in 1467 may simply mean that John III, the father of Christopher, had a family later in life?
But that also suggests that Alice, the mother of the three boys, would have been born about 1400 – or even earlier – and about 90 when she died, or that she married John I and did not have any children of her own.
One option is that Humphrey had, indeed, been born earlier to Alice I, but his two brothers were born to the second wife of John I – or these two were the sons of John II, making John II the brother of Humphrey, but this does not fit with the account in the levy.
Another possibility is that there were two Humphrey Codringtons, one a brother of John I and another his son. This would account for the earlier chancery records and for the younger Humphrey being escheator in 1467 some thirty years later.
Humphrey was alive until at least 14 May 1475 as shown by a record in the National Archives.
Debtor: Humphrey Codrington of Codrington in Glos., esquire, John Lypiat of Lasborugh in Glos., gentleman, and Thomas Payne, formerly of Gloucester, gentleman.
Humphrey may also have had a wife, Agnes, but I am not sure where this reference to Agnes comes from.
The name Humphrey may have come from the Poyntz family where it is not uncommon and this gives some weight to the idea that John’s mother was a member of the Poyntz family, and Humphrey was named after one of his grandmother’s relations.
Like Humphrey, Robert Poyntz, of Iron Acton, was escheator of Gloucestershire 1395-7, 1399-1400, 1402-1404 (as well as sheriff 1396-97) so perhaps there is some earlier connection between the families than previously recorded.
Another record, however, suggests that Humphrey may not be what he seems.
There is another village in Gloucestershire called Gotherington, near Tewkesbury, and there is a record dated 1477 of another Humphrey there:
Debtor: Humphrey Godryngton of Gotherington {Godryngton} in [Cleeve Hundred] Glos., esquire. Creditor: John Brugge, esquire. Amount: £80 of legal English money [£44,000].
In 1371 the manor of Gotherington appears to have been pretty run down and there seems to have been no connection to the Codryngton or even the Gotherington families.
No repairs have been done to the abbey church for three years past and more. The manor of Gotherynton lies waste.
It seems clear that one John Codryngton lived at nearby Clyfe [Bishop’s Cleeve] in 1421 and of Tewkesbury in 1423, but did he take his name from nearby Gotherington or was he part of the Codryngton family?
Gotherington itself seems to be a small village and if there was a family that took it’s name from the location there should be some record of them, and I can find none.
The village of Codrington is in the hundred of Grumbold’s Ash, some distance south of Tewkesbury, so there may have been some confusion between these two Humphreys, or at least how they have been identified in some records.
Possibly whoever wrote the document was mistaken and was familiar with the village of Gotherington but not with Codrington, and assumed the rest.
Or perhaps it was the creditor, John Brugge, that was from Gotherington and it was assumed that Humphrey was also from there having a similar sounding name.
The village of Codrington is also named Godrington in some references, and Gotherington, near Tewkesbury, was originally named Godrinton in the Domesday book, just to confuse things.
RHC identifies a long list of different spellings, all associated with the Codrington family, including Gooderington (but not Gotherington) but does this necessarily mean that all of these spellings should be taken as belonging to the same family?
Codrington, itself, is not in the doomsday book, so could the family have originally come from Gotherington near Tewkesbury? The Gotheringtons then acquired land near Wapley that took it’s name from the family?
This would account for links to Clyfe and Tewkesbury in some documents, but if the family owned any land in that area there is no reference to it in the levy of fines or the inquisition after Alice’s death.
This could indicate that the Codringtons recorded as being of Clyfe and Tewkesbury were not from the same branch of the Codrington family, or maybe not even not Codringtons at all but Gotheringtons, who’s name had been changed?
There is also a manor on Devon named Godryngton [usually Godryngton and Norton].
There is records in the National Archives that casts doubt over the dates in the earlier chancery records relating to Humphrey Codrington, as mentioned above.
The later dates shown below would fit much better with a later Humphrey in this case, presumably related to his position as Escheator for Gloucestershire:
Short title: Fouler v Codryngton.
Plaintiffs: Richard Fouler and John Sydenham, the younger.
Defendants: Humphrey Codryngton.
Subject: Wardship and marriage of Isabel de la Ryver, heiress of Maurice de la Ryver, esq., granted by the King to petitioners. Gloucestershire
Date: 1432-1443, possibly 1467-1470
If the earlier dates are incorrect then it makes it much easier to fit Humphrey as the eldest of three brothers born about 1425-1435 and for him to have been a respectable age as escheator of Gloucestershire.
Or perhaps there were two Humphreys – one the brother of John I and another his eldest son – who both held the position of escheator at different times?
RHC states that Alice Codrington, the widow of John Codrington, lived till 20th April 1489, six years after her sister Margery, widow of Peter Bessilles.
However the inquisition into her death taken on 20th September, 6 Henry VII [1490] says she died 16th July last so clearly something is not quite right – perhaps that was the date that the will was proved?
Because of the way that regnal dates are calculated – based on when the monarch acceded to the throne – 16th July 1490 would be 5 Henry VII although the precise date of her death is not specifically important at this point.
If John II was from the first marriage of John I then this explains why the first son from his second marriage was named Humphrey and not John, but doesn’t help explain where the name came from, unless there was another, older Humphrey – possibly a brother to John.
The name does appear again in the Codrington family – although several hundred years later – and may have come from the maternal line of a previous marriage.
If the elder son John II died about 1445 then John I and Alice II could have named their second son John. The timing would be tight, but the birth of John III could be as late as 1445 based on the birth of his son Christopher.
Perhaps all the sons were from the first marriage and John I simply remarried after his first wife died, but had no further children?
This would certainly explain why the two eldest sons had died before their step-mother, but is in no way conclusive. It could also explain why the heir of Alice, Christopher, is described as cousin and not grandson.
But, if this were the case, Christopher, the son of John III, would have been born significantly earlier. We know that he was born about 1467 because in the inquisition following Alice’s death in 1489 he was 22 years old.
John I was shown to be married in 1429 [in the request for an altar], so there is time for his first wife to have died and for him to remarry and to have been the father of the three boys if they were born about 1435.
If John had already remarried by 1429 then the boys could have been born earlier – possibly 10 years earlier – than proposed.
Working backwards from Christopher it is possible to have a guess at the marriage of his parents and the birth of his father – assuming John II existed.
John I 1364 = Alice I, married about 1390
.. John II 1395 = Alice II, married about 1425
…. John III 1437 = Alice? Poyntz [i], married about 1465
…… Christopher 1467 = Ankarette Twynyho
If there was no first wife then I cannot see why John I would have waited so long after Agincourt to get married. After all he would have been about 60 years old – even his son John II, from his first marriage [if he existed] would have been 40.
It is curious that the term “and his wife then being” is used in granting the permission for the altar in 1429, but perhaps I am reading too much into this.
[i] The wife of Sir John Poyntz was Alice Cox, and there are no other daughters in the family pedigree with this name so it is possible, even likely, that there would have been a daughter named Alice after her mother.
Perhaps the age on the tomb is wrong, as suggested earlier, and John actually died at 91 – still a remarkable age – so he then would have married at the age of about 35, after Agincourt.
This does mean that there was probably another John, his father, as suggested, but it was the younger John who was at Agincourt and not the elder and this fits with an older John marrying well before Agincourt and John II marrying Alice Hawys.
There is also another name mentioned as the first wife of John I, Margery Chalkley, and two sons John and Geoffrey, so perhaps there was only one wife named Alice? Or the second Alice was married to his son John?
This could fit well with John I being born earlier – perhaps about 1360 with father Robert being about 35 years old – and John II being born about 1385, along with sister Margaret who could have been named after her mother.
It also makes his later marriage much less unusual as it fits exactly with the average marrying age of Codrington men of 35. The earlier John could even be the one who was attorney to the king in 1337, as mentioned below, but I think this would be too early and John the attorney is more likely from a different branch of the family or an earlier generation.
Robert also seems to have lived a long life if he died after 1419, and it is therefore also likely that he was the younger brother of John I as he did not inherit the Codrington property and is only ever recorded as being of Chipping Sodbury.
I would guess that John I probably died before Agincourt, or was certainly too old to take part and this leaves the earlier Codrington tree looking a bit different …
Geoffrey 1300-
.. Robert I 1330-
…. Robert II 1360- 1419 of Chipping Sodbury
…. John I 1360-
…… John II 1384 – 1475 of Agincourt
If John was born in 1384 then Margaret, who married John la Veale could not have been his daughter or sister, but can only have been an aunt, if she married and had a son and daughter [and died] by 1409.
An earlier John, apprentice and attorney to the king in 1337 [see below], could have been the brother of the earlier Robert and have been the grand-father of John of Clyfe and Tewkesbury
He could even have been the one who was married to Margery Chalkley and the father of John and Geoffrey.
Geoffrey Codrington appears in a document about the Percy family of Great Chalfield, Wiltshire, where he is shown to have married the grand-daughter of Constance – cousin to the bishop of Salisbury – who married into the Percy family.
I have estimated that Geoffrey was born about 1370 based on his marriage to Isabel Beaushyn [and her estimated birth] and he was the father of Alice Codrington, born about 1400, who married Alexander Martin.
Isabel Beaushyn born about 1380, was the daughter of Thomas Beaushyn of Dorset and Joan Fitzwaryn, who was the daughter of Constance [who married a Percy] by her third husband, Sir Philip Fitzwaryn.
The same document about the Percy family also makes reference to Thomas Ivye of Sherston who married Agnes Tropenell and may have a connection to Susan le Veele mentioned earlier.
If the first marriage of John Codrington was to Margaret Chalkley and they had sons John and Geoffrey, then could these fit into the main Codrington tree?
Geoffrey probably married Isabel Beaushyn about 1400, putting his birth about 1370. If he was a younger brother to John of Agincourt, born in 1384 then this would be practically impossible.
Sir Philip Fitzwaryn and Constance, Isabel’s grand-parents, married about 1361 – Philip was the third wife of Constance. This means that their daughter Johan, could not have been of an age to marry much before 1380. Her daughter, Isabel, could have been born about this time and married before 1400 but not by much.
Perhaps Geoffrey was the elder brother of John but died shortly after his marriage to Isabel leaving one child – daughter Alice – and his brother John as the heir?
Isabel later remarried to William Haukesoke.
[More information shows that Geoffrey and Isabel were a generation later]
It is possible that Geoffrey married Isabel towards the end of the 14th century but then died before he inherited from his father. But he would have been quite a bit older than brother John for this to be possible.
John I (1335) = Margery Chalkeley
.. Margery (1365) = John le Veale
.. Geoffrey (1370) = Isabel Beaushyn
.. John II (1384) of Agincourt = Alice Hawys
It also squeezes Robert out as the father of John I as the marriage of John and Margery would have been much too early considering he was alive in 1419, but he could still be another brother of the elder John.
There is even time here for a third John Codrington [and another Alice] if John II was born about 1365, in which case Margery would have been his aunt and not his daughter.
John I (1335) = Margery Chalkeley
.. Margery (1365) = John le Veale
.. John II (1365) = Alice Young
…. John III (1384) of Agincourt = Alice Hawys
.. Geoffrey (1365) = Isabel Beaushyn
Robert Codrington of Chipping Sodbury could fit into this tree as the brother of John II and Geoffrey, but probably not the father of John III of Agincourt.
There is a link to the Chalkley family through Margery Hawys – the sister of John Codrington’s wife, Alice – and her second husband William Warbleton.
In 1460 he and his wife recovered £120 [£62000] damages from Thomas Chalkley of Clanfield, Oxfordshire.
I have not been able to find any more information about the Chalkely family.
William Warbleton was also at Agincourt in the retinue of the King himself.
So what, then, of Thomas, supposedly the brother of John Codrington of Agincourt and the head of the junior branch of the family?
His position in the tree is identified by the arms that were used by the family and were those originally used – and then modified – by John of Agincourt before 1441.
Both of these arms can be seen in the stained glass window of the Castle house in Calne, Wiltshire as described by RHC in his first work on the Codrington family.
The modified version of the arms was then used by the senior branch of the family and the original arms by the junior, as shown in The Codrington Arms.
The declaration in 1419 by Henry V seems to have been the point when the use of arms was formalised as being only by inheritance or by a grant from the crown, and before this date the use of arms may not have been so rigorously controlled.
It seems that Thomas, who heads the junior branch of the family, is unlikely to be Thomas, the son of John and Alice, as he would have used the arms of his father.
Seemingly to contradict this the arms I have used in this article, as those of John Codrington of Agincourt, are actually titled – in their original document – as the arms of Thomas Codrington in the 15th century.
The only Thomas around in the 15th century was Thomas the son of John who was known to be alive in 1489 when his mother died.
RHC identifies Thomas as B1, the head of the junior branch, and then assigns son Ambrose as B2 followed by William B3 and makes William the husband of Mary Teste, but this is based on Thomas having died in 1427 [6 Henry VI] and being the brother of John of Agincourt.
B1 Thomas (d.1427, 6 Henry VI)
.. B2 Ambrose (b.1425) [#1]
…. B3 William (Married to Mary Teste)
…… B4 Francis (b.1512) = Margaret Shipman
[#1] Because of the date for the death of his father, Ambrose must have been born before 1427.
Most pedigrees acknowledge Ambrose as being the husband of Mary Teste and if Thomas was born about 1435 [and the son of John] then Ambrose could have been married to Mary and William probably did not exist – or at least was a brother.
William B3 does not appear in the Codrington pedigree held by the College of Arms, and neither is he in the pedigree shown in “memoirs” despite being added to the line of inheritance later in the document.
If there was a simple transcription error for the death of Thomas, and it should be Henry VII instead of Henry VI, then his death would have been 1490, which fits with him being alive at the inquisition of Alice in 1489 and the birth of Ambrose would be around the same time as his cousin, Christopher, which we know was 1467.
The manor of Frampton on Severn was bequeathed by Giles Teste [who inherited from his father Lawrence] to his sister Mary, the wife of Ambrose Codrington, on his death in 1545.
If Ambrose was alive at this time – Mary is not shown as a widow – he would have been about 80 years old – but would certainly not have been alive if his father, Thomas had died in 1427.
Assuming Thomas is the son of John A1 and brother of John A2 things do fit much better and we can leave out William altogether.
B1 Thomas (d.1490, 6 Henry VII )
.. B2 Ambrose (b. about 1465) = Mary Teste
…. B4 Francis (b.1512) = Margaret Shipman
Some lands were granted specifically to Thomas, the son of John and Alice, in the 1471 Levy of Fines, so it would be interesting to see who actually inherited these properties.
And besides after the decease of John Codryngton’ and Alice 6 messuages, 2 tofts, 1 garden, 1 dove-cot, 100 acres of land, 30 acres of meadow and 40 acres of pasture in the vills of Bristoll’, Leyghterton’, Haukesbury and Upton’ Hamell’ shall remain to the aforesaid Thomas, son of John Codrynton’ and Alice, and the heirs of his body, to hold of the chief lords for ever.
Thomas was known to have be at Chipping Sodbury in 1474 – from documents relating to Alderton Manor – possibly in the property previously occupied by Robert.
The Overseers were Sir Richard Beuchamp of Bromham, Sir John Seyntlow of Tormarton and Thomas Codryngton of Chepynge Sodbury, signed at Lockyngton 1st March. These are the names on the indenture renting Alderton to the Pophams.
The only reference we have to his father, Ambrose, shows that he was living in Bristol 1501 where he was a trustee of the Fraternity of the Blessed Mary of Bellhouse, a chapel in the church of St Peter’s, but it is likely that he lived until at least 1545.
So was the junior branch actually descended from Thomas the son of John Codrington of Wapley and not his brother?
If so then why are all the arms of the junior branch in the window of Castle House at Calne shown as a different version of the arms and not those used by his father?
In the section of “memoirs” on the junior branch, RHC says that Thomas – as the head of the junior branch – was shown as the son of John of Codrington in a pedigree held by the Heralds College [possibly the one shown below], and married to Elizabeth the daughter of Robert Poyntz, but that some other pedigrees disagree.
As Robert Poyntz was a generation before Nicholas [mentioned above] it seems that a daughter Elizabeth would have been much to old to have married this Thomas, but could have married a brother of John of Agincourt.
The main reason for assuming that the head of the junior branch was a brother of John Codrington of Wapley are the use of the original arms – and not those of John himself, but the pedigree of the Poyntz family also seem to play a role in this.
If Thomas was the son of John of Agincourt then both he, and his brother John, appear to have married into the same generation of the Poyntz family.
I can find lots of issues with both of these scenarios. But perhaps there is another answer to this – perhaps the head of the junior branch is neither the brother of John, or his son?
One pedigree say that Thomas died in 1427 and RHC says that he belongs to an earlier generation than John Codrington A2 as does Ambrose, the son of Thomas, but this is based on his brother, John, having been born 1364.
If we assume that John was actually born 20 years later then originally thought – dying at the age of 91 – then Thomas could actually be an uncle to John and brother of Robert, his father. He could also have been the brother of John, born about 1385, and dying at the disappointing age of just 42.
But that still leaves the mysterious William having to fill in the missing generation in the early pedigree of the junior branch.
The 1623 visitation of Gloucestershire does show William Codrington as being married to Margaret Teste, the daughter of Lawrence.
Interestingly the arms of this William are shown as those of John Codrington A1 with the embattled fesse and not those used by other members of the junior branch.
There is also another Margaret shown in the tree and a reference to Mary, but the son of William is shown as Gyles missing out Francis [born in 1512] so this information may not be entirely accurate – especially as it is shown as part of the Clifford pedigree and not specifically the Codringtons.
The name used in the pedigree should be Ambrose and not William. But where did the name William come from?
I think that this was just a simple mistake:
The pedigree was taken from the visitation of Gloucestershire in 1623, but the Codrington family are included only as part of the Clifford family. It is likely, therefore, that the person giving evidence to the visitation was not actually a member of the Codrington family.
Francis Codrington, born about 1512 who married Margaret Shipman, is missing from this pedigree, so clearly there is a gap in the knowledge of the Codrington pedigree.
I think the name William came from the father-in-law of Francis, William Shipman.
If Ambrose had died relatively young – few records exist of him – then his name may not have been well-known to the Clifford family and William was a prominent merchant as well as being major of Bristol in 1533.
Francis and William were both in shipping, no doubt Francis was taken into the family business after his marriage to Margaret. Francis was made burgess of Bristol in 1532.
The missing generation is possibly why the names of both Mary and Margaret are shown as the wife of “William” in the pedigree.
Records show that Ambrose of Bristol, son and heir, married Mary (Maria) Teste and Francis married Margaret Shipman. The will of John Shipman confirms that Francis married Margaret and not Mary, making it more likely that Ambrose (William) married Mary.
So it appear to me that two generations of the Codrington family have simply been mis-remembered and mixed up in the Clifford tree.
RHC says that the wife of John Codrington A2 was a daughter of Nicholas Poyntz of Iron Acton, based on the work done by Sir John Maclean.
However this is incorrect as the pedigree actually shows that this was the daughter of John Poyntz [son of Nicholas] and Alice Cox, and RHC may have been simply mistaken.
John Poyntz was born about 1433 and had died by 1468, so a daughter is likely to have been born around 1450 and this could fit with a daughter – possibly named Alice after her mother – marrying John Codrington A2 with a son Christopher being born 1467.
Thomas Codrington is also shown to have married Elizabeth Poyntz and if he was the brother of John then Elizabeth must have been a sister, or cousin of whoever John married.
As can be seen from the pedigree above [from Sir John Maclean’s “Memoirs of the Poyntz family”], Elizabeth, the sister of Alice and daughter of John Poyntz, does not seem to have been married at all so it is not clear who this Elizabeth was.
The pedigree from the College of Arms says that she was the daughter of Sir R Poyntz.
Sir Robert Poyntz, of Iron Acton, was the brother to the daughter of John Poyntz said to have married John Codrington A2, and apart from the obvious date problems his daughter, Elizabeth, is shown to have married Nicholas Wykes of Doddington.
An earlier Robert Poyntz Esq. was born 1359 and was the father of Nicholas, and grandfather of Sir Robert but this would be much too early and there is no record of a daughter Elizabeth.
Perhaps John the younger actually married someone else – possibly Alice Young, as shown in the College of Arms pedigree – and it was his brother Thomas that married a daughter of John Poyntz and not Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert?
Alice could then have been the daughter of Thomas Young [who was born about 1420] as mentioned in the college of arms pedigree.
A1 John Codrington = Alice Hawes dau. John
.. A2 John Codrington = Alice Young dau. Thomas [born about 1450]
.. B1 Thomas Codrington = Elizabeth Poyntz dau. John
Perhaps both John and Thomas married daughters of John Poyntz, but only John seems to have been remembered [even if the name of his wife is not].
The visitation of Gloucestershire in 1623 shows Elizabeth as the daughter of John Poyntz and Alice Cox and married to an unknown son of an unknown Codrington.
This daughter is also shown as the wife of Robert Veale and it appears that Thomas could have married the widow of this Robert and John, perhaps, married the other unidentified daughter “Alice”.
In “memoirs of the Poyntz family” Elizabeth is shown only as being nurse to a son of Henry VIII in 1510, but she could have been the widow of both Robert Veale and Thomas if he had died in 1490.
Perhaps Sir John Maclean simply did not appreciate that Elizabeth and the unknown daughter who married a Codrington were one and the same?
The pedigree held by the College of Arms is quite interesting in that it shows Humphrey, John and Thomas as the three sons of Robert Codrington.
Based on other documents – such as the levy of fines and the inquisition into the death of Alice – this cannot be correct and the pedigree is missing several generations, but somewhere hidden in here – no doubt – is some truth.
John Codrington of Codrington and Wapley is not the earliest person recorded with that name and in 1337 one John Codrington was “apprentice to our lord the King [Edward III], and attorney”.
It seems he is recorded in history because he had been commanded to attend Sir John de Ros, at Orwell on 17th March 1337 and wasn’t too happy about it:
“…well and completely armed and apparelled as a man-at-arms, and that, upon pain of being hanged.”
John petitioned the king to be excused this service and seems to have earned a reprieve.
“Inasmuch as he is an attorney, let it be commanded to Sir J. de Ros, or his lieutenant, that they surcease from the demand which they make about him, and the distress which they do to him for this cause.”
The hundred year war with France started in this year so no doubt the command was related to the formation of armies for the campaign.
Whether this John lived in Gloucestershire is not recorded, but there are no other branches of the family known at the time in other parts of the country.
One Sir John Coderyngton appears in records relating to the seizing of the Chantries in 1547 during the first year of the reign of Edward VI.
He was the incumbent of Holy Trinity, Dursley, Gloucestershire and was paid to say prayers for the deceased, his income coming from endowments left for the saying of masses.
… of the age of 80 years, and having no other living than in the said service, which amounted to £6 13s. 4d.
This may be the same John Coderyngton who, 20 years earlier, was the prior of the rather unruly Malmesbury Abbey.
… Thomas Gloucester had often cast away his habit, had climbed over the walls and consorted with harlots, and had seized the possessions of others for his own use, and John London was nearly as bad, and had apostatized and offered violence, and Robert Ciscetur was frequently drunk. Other monks, continued the abbot, were little better: several had broken out at night, the prior, John Codryngton, was remiss and openly admitted it in light-hearted fashion …
The title Sir John Codryngton must have been an affectation as there are no records for a Sir John. He would have been born about 1467 but there is no obvious place in the senior Codrington tree for him.
Probably then he is from the junior branch of the family, a younger brother to William [Ambrose] Codrington, born 1462 of Frampton-on-Severn? It was often the younger sons that went into the church and his age fits with this scenario.
Stephen Codrington is mentioned in Notita Monastica in relation to Stanlegh Abbey in Wiltshire, 1379. He could easily be a cousin or even brother of John Codrington I and I think this must be the first reference to any of the Codrington family being of Codrington and Wapley.
2 Ric. 2. receit. et confirm. donationes: P. 869. cart. antiq. X. n. 6, fcil. 2 Ric 2. confirm. donationem R. fil. Stephani de Codinton et Wapalee.
This appears to be a record of a donation to the abbey and there are also references in the same book to the manor of Codrington with a much earlier date.
15 Ed 1 [1286]. quo war. rot. 7. d. pro libertat in maner de Codrington [for freedom in the manor of Codrington].
It was John Codrington [of Agincourt] who purchased the manor at Codrington from Stanlegh Abbey about 60 years after the record of the donation by Stephen, and this does show family connections with the Abbey. The abbey also had connections to St. Augustine’s in Bristol where Robert Codrington was later buried – St Augustine’s was also the parent church to St Peter’s in Wapley.
Pat. 33 Hen 6 [1454] p. 2. m.. de maner. de Codrington [Gloucestr.] concedendo Joanni Codrington: fin. div. com.
Could Stephen actually be the father of John Codrington I with John Codrington II being his son and the one who was at Agincourt?
What we can surmise from this record is the possible age of Stephen. In order to be in a position to make a donation to the abbey he must have been successful and probably not a young man. We could also say that he was of an age to “contemplate his own mortality” and was probably making a donation to the abbey in preparation for his after-life, possibly for prayers to be said for him, as done by John Codrington and Alice [see below].
Based on this I would estimate his age as about 50 years old and therefore born in 1329. This is not an exact science but does give us some idea of which generation he belongs to.
If John was born in 1384, and died aged 91, then it is unlikely that Stephen was his father and more likely an uncle. If this was the case then John, or more likely his father, was Stephen’s heir – somehow or other John inherited the property at Codrington and Wapley.
I am only exploring possibilities and my own ideas here – there are are lot of facts that just do not quite fit. A later birth date for John and shorter life of 91 would go some way to make this puzzle a little easier to understand, but there is no evidence that the age on the tomb is incorrect.
Whatever actually happened, and who is related to who, may never be known for sure – perhaps a combination of several of the above scenarios? There is time in the life of John for him to have married at least three times (or more) and to have had several families – even if he only lived until the age of 91.
Or maybe I am too doubting and it was simply as RHC surmised:
John returned from Agincourt, married a young woman, survived his son, and died in extreme old age.
Although I am not sure that he fully believed that this was correct.
I will be updating my family tree to take into account some of the ideas that I have discussed, to better fit with other pedigrees, and adding John II, based on very little evidence.
If the age on the tomb is correct then my best guess is that John Codrington had two wives, with his children all being born from his first marriage, which is why two had died before his second wife. After the death of Alice I he remarried but did not have any more children.
What confuses this slightly is the birth of grandson and heir Christopher, who’s father would have been quite old when he was born in 1467, but you can’t have everything.
If the age on the tomb is incorrect and he died aged ninety-one, then things become a little easier to understand with John at Agincourt aged 30 and married shortly afterwards.
Personally this scenario appeals to me as it is much neater and fits with most other facts and estimates, and I will be pursuing this further.
In this case Robert could be the younger brother of John I and therefore the uncle of John of Agincourt, which is why he was only ever of Chipping Sodbury and did not inherit Codrington and Wapley.
Both John I and Robert could also be the sons of Stephen who is shown to be of Codrington and Wapley in 1379 or possibly John Codrington who married Margery Chalkeley.
Stephen of Codrington and Wapley
.. John I
…. John II of Agincourt = Alice Hawys
…… Humphrey – Escheator of Gloucestershire
…… John III
…….. Christopher – Heir of Alice
…… Thomas
…. Robert of Chipping Sodbury
…. Thomas [junior branch]
I think there is also enough evidence to say that it is more than likely that Thomas B1 was the son, and not brother, of John A1.
This does mean, technically, that John III should be the head of the senior branch A1 and not John of Agincourt.
Some additional information about Geoffrey Codrington and Isabel Beaushyn has made me change a few things – in particular they are shown elsewhere to be a generation later than I have estimated – meaning that Geoffrey is probably the brother of both John of Agincourt.
This makes John and Margaret Chalkley the parents of John of Agincourt leaving Alice Young to be the wife of John’s son John [father of Christopher].
Margaret – who married John le Veale – must also be the sister to John II and Geoffrey II.
But this does mean that there is a generation missing between the earlier Geoffrey I [estimated as being born about 1300 by RHC] and John I. Possibly the earlier Geoffrey was a generation later and Geoffrey II was his son [and named after him]. He could also have been the eldest of the two brothers, but died without a son leaving John II as the heir.
As Peter of Codrington and Wapley was recorded making a donation to the Abbey of Stanleigh in 1379 he must have been about 50 and therefore could fit into the gap between Geoffrey I and John I. Robert of Chipping Sodbury then becomes the brother of John I and the uncle of John II of Agincourt. John I would have inherited the Codrington property from his father, Peter, and passed it to his son.
There is a reference to Richard Goderyngton, who was shown as Deacon in the records of Bishop William Ginsborough for 1304/5, and this is now the oldest record I have found, assuming Richard is a member of the same family.
Another John Codrington – attorney to the king in 1337 – is probably related to this Richard or his son Geoffrey. Other records show that there was a branch of the family based around Tewksbury and Gloucester. This, perhaps, shows a link between the Codrington family of Wapley and the village of Goderyngton although it is also possible that the two are not related.
Richard Goderyngton (1275)
.. Geoffrey (1300)
.. Ralph
.. Thomas
.. John (1325) Attorney to the King
…. John (1350)
…… John (1380) of Bishop’s Cleeve
…….. Anselm Codrington of Gloucester
From all the information available at the moment the early Codrington pedigree could be something like this:
Richard (1275)
.. Geoffrey (1300)
…. Peter of Codrington & Wapley (1330)
…… Robert of Chipping Sodbury
…… John I (1360) = Margery Chalkley
…….. Margery (1390) = John le Veale
…….. Geoffrey (1385) = Isabel Beaushyn
…….. John II A1 (1384) of Agincourt = Alice Hawys
………. Humphrey = ?Agnes?
………. John III A2 (1435) = Alice Young
………… Christopher A3(1467) = Ankarette Twynyho dau. William *
………….. John A4 (1490) = Dorothy Fettiplace
………… Edward A7(1469) = Elizabeth Tywnyho dau. John
………….. Thomas A8 (1515) = Mary Kellaway
……………. Simon A9 (1554) = Agnes Seacole
……………… Robert A11 (1574) = Anne Stubbes dau. Willliam
………. Thomas B1 (1435) = Elizabeth Poyntz
………… Ambrose B2 (1470) = Mary Teste
………….. Francis B4 (1515) = Margaret Shipman dau. William
……………. Gyles B5 (1535) = Isabella Porter
……………… Francis B6 (1559) = Margaret Bromwich *
……………… Richard B7 (1560) = Joyce Burlace
* Line passed to brother/heir.
The wife of John Codrington was Alice Hawys. This has also been transcribed as Hannys and Hauuys which is understandable. Alice’s sister Margery is also named as Hawes and Haines, in documents relating to the will of Peter Bessiles. I have stuck to the Hawys spelling for consistency as much as possible.
Another record, not mentioned by RHC, is that John and Alice Codrington paid for a chantry in the Dominican friary at Bristol.
John and Alice Codryngton of Gloucestershire established a perpetual chantry in 1469 in the Dominican house at Bristol where a daily Mass was to be celebrated for the benefit of their souls, those of their ancestors and all the faithful departed, with additional services for their anniversaries.
John Codrington I would have been over 100 years old at this time and even a younger John would have been 80.
Chris Sidney 2015
There 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
Henningham Codrington was born March 1674 in St Philips, Barbados, according to some sources, but there does not seem to be any evidence of exactly when or where.
She became the second wife of Dr Paul Carrington in 1706, although some of their children were born before this date, and she died on Barbados 28 Jan 1744 at the age of 69 so she was probably born about 1674.
Some transcriptions of her memorial say she died 1741 but her will is dated Feb 1744/5 and the later date is more likely.
Here lyeth
the body of
HENINGHAM CARRINGTON widow
of PAUL CARRIN(sic)TON who died
January the 28th day 1744
aged 69 years
Her father has been suggested as both Christopher and John Codrington of Barbados, but it seems much more likely that she was the grand-daughter of Henningham Drury who married Robert Codrington of London in about 1628.
The name Henningham (or Heveningham, after the village in Suffolk) also spelled Heuenyngham, is a family name so you would expect that either her mother or grand-mother was a member of this family and she was named after them.
But this does not seem to be the case.
Her parents are commonly identified as Robert Drury and Mary Radcliffe and the Heveningham name does not appear in their pedigree, although the families did live in the same part of the country and must have been known to each other.
The name Barbara is not found in the Codrington family and this was the name of the first child of Robert and Henningham in 1628, so may have come from Henningham’s family.
So, in theory either her mother or grand-mother should be Barbara Heveningham.
And she does exist – although some time later than fits with our theory.
… in consideration of marriage between Sir Wm. Heveningham and Barbara Villiers … Dame Barbara survived William Heveningham and Sir William Heveningham and died May 1681 leaving one daughter, Abigail
But this doesn’t help to understand where the name came from.
Robert Codrington was a writer, poet and translator, the son of Richard and Joyce Codrington of Dodington, Gloucestershire, born in about 1602.
See also I, Robert for more discussion on this subject.
His son, also Robert, was born in London, 1635 and it is assumed that he is the father of Henningham Codrington, naming his daughter after his mother.
In this entry the name is actually spelled as Haveningam.
The mother of Henningham Codrington II was Elizabeth but her pedigree is not known and Robert also had another wife named Mary who died in Barbados 1667.
Elizabeth may have been born in London or Barbados – I would guess at Barbados with Robert’s first wife, Mary probably born in London.
It is not known when the family left England – possibly after the death of Robert’s father in 1665, which is the same year that his older sister, Barbara, married Thomas Prewet.
There is a record of Robert with his wife Elizabeth and daughter Frances in 1678 travelling to Barbados [see notes], however this record may actually be a transcription of a baptism and not a travel record at all.
There is another separate record, from the same source, for Robert and Elizabeth and daughter Alice in the same year.
In some pedigrees Henningham Drury as shown as the youngest daughter (of Robert Drury and Mary Radcliffe) born about 1622, but this is far too late for her to be the mother of Barbara in 1628.
If she was 18 when she married then she must have been born before 1610, so perhaps she did not belong to the family of Robert and Mary and was the daughter of a less well documented branch of the family that did include a Heveningham.
But she could also have been named after a family friend or god-parent, or perhaps she was born in Heveningham – or conceived there?
As for the spelling, it appears that the name has been written down as it was pronounced which has changed the spelling of the family name over time, although the village name remains the same.
Heveningham, pronounced Henningum, is, of course, most famous for Heveningham Hall, the biggest, grandest, stately home in Suffolk.
http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/heveningham.htm
The elder Robert died in London 1665 of the plague, and it is possible that his wife, Henningham died at the same time – but there are no records of either death, which is hardly unexpected during, what was probably, the worst outbreak of the plague in London, promptly followed by the Great Fire.
This may have prompted Robert and his wife Mary to leave London – the West Indies was a dangerous place to go but it was, as recent events had shown, quite dangerous in London as well.
But we still don’t know for sure where or when Henningham was born, or who her parents were.
HOTTEN, JOHN CAMDEN, editor. The Original Lists of Persons of Quality; Emigrants; Religious Exiles; Political Rebels; Serving Men Sold for a Term of Years; Apprentices; Children Stolen; Maidens Pressed; and Others Who Went from Great Britain to the American Plantations, 1600-1700. With Their Ages, the Localities Where They Formerly Lived in the Mother Country, the Names of the Ships in Which They Embarked, and Other Interesting Particulars.
Ancestry note: Care should be taken when using Hotten
Chris Sidney 2015
It is usually accepted that there were two Robert Codringtons born in Gloucestershire in the early 17th century. But were there really two Roberts – or could they have been the same person?
The most commonly used biography of Robert Codrington is from Chalmers.
Codrington, Robert, a miscellaneous writer and translator of the seventeenth century, and probably an ancestor of the preceding [Christopher], was born of an ancient family in Gloucestershire, in 1602, and educated at Oxford, where he was elected demy of Magdalen college, in July 1619, and completed his degree of M. A. in 1626. He then travelled, and on his return settled as a private gentleman in Norfolk, where he married. Wood says he was always accounted a puritan. He died of the plague in London, in 1665.
Robert Henry Codrington, RHC who wrote the definitive guide to the Codrington family, assigns this Robert Codrington as A14, one of the sons of Robert Codrington A11 (my 9x great-grandfather) and Anne Stubbes, which would make him the brother of Christopher and not a descendant.
My original intention here was simply to confirm the identity of Robert A14 as the son of Robert and Anne, but I now believe Robert of Norfolk is probably the son of Richard Codrington B7 (1565-1613) – who was a cousin of Robert A11 and things have got a whole lot more complicated.
So if this is true what of Robert A14, son of Robert?
The number A14 represents a person in the line of inheritance in the document referenced as [2]
The A represents the senior branch of the family – descending from Sir John Codrington and B represents the Junior branch of the Codrington line, descended from his brother Thomas.
The fathers of the two Roberts who are the subject of this article are Robert A11 and Richard B7
As Robert (son of Richard) has no specific B number I will refer to him as Robert B as necessary.
Or rather the lack of evidence!
There is no record of a Robert Codrington in any of the chancery proceedings following the marriage of Anne Codrington – widow of Robert A11 – and Ralph Marsh in 1627. [5]
The other brothers John, Nicholas, Christopher, Thomas and Samuel are all named – and always in this order – and I can find no reason why Robert would not be included.
So if Robert A14 existed at all he probably died before 1628, when the first court case is dated, but after 1618 when Robert A11 made his will.
The will of Robert A11 identifies John, the eldest, and six younger sons but doesn’t name them.
If we assume that this number is correct then five of these sons are accounted for by these chancery proceedings [another son William was named in another court case], but Robert is not named as one of them.
If there was a Robert A14 – and it is possible that there wasn’t – he cannot be the Robert who married Hennigham Drury in 1629 and died of the plague in 1665, otherwise I’m sure he would have been named in at least one of the court cases.
If he was the Robert mentioned in the Oxford University records then he would have been 16 when his father died and still have been receiving an allowance until he finished his MA in 1626, the same year his mother married again.
The Great Plague (1665–66) was the last major epidemic of the bubonic plague to occur in England.
It killed an estimated 100,000 people, about 15% of London’s population.
There were also 30,000 deaths in 1603, 35,000 in 1625 and 10,000 in 1636 as well as numerous, minor outbreaks.
We know that Robert A14 probably died before 1628 so he could have been a victim during the 1625 outbreak.
It also seems that some of the Codrington family were in London after the death of Robert A11 – his widow, Anne is described as “of St Botolph, Aldersgate” when she remarried Ralph Marshe in 1626.
There are no death or burial records for either Robert.
I have no reason to disbelieve that it was Robert B that died from the plague in 1665, but if Robert A14 had died from the plague in 1625, and this death was then associated with Robert B, then the year of his death may have been assumed to coincide with the last major outbreak in 1665.
Or perhaps both died from the plague, at different times, giving one possible reason why they have been joined together as the same person?
There are a couple of Robert’s notebooks held by the Bodleian Library in Oxford.
Robert is shown in these references as “Codrington, Robert (d 1645) author” which could mean that the date of 1665 is incorrect and gives some weight to the theory of Robert A14 dying from the plague and 1665 being assumed for Robert B.
However other records held by the Royal Society show letters written by Robert between 1660 and 1664 (to Boyle) and this fits better with the theory that Robert A14 died in infancy and Robert B died from the plague in 1665.
This is the Oxford university record for Robert Codrington and is probably the source of much of the confusion.
This appears slightly contradictory in that it shows Robert as “demy” in 1619 but also as matriculating in 1621, aged 19, so it appears that there may be two Robert Codringtons at Magdalen, at about the same time who have been merged together.
At the time of its founding, Magdalen College established a demyship (or scholarship) for each of thirty scholars (the term demy, or demi, originally meaning half of the provisions granted to Fellows). On entering the college, Oscar Wilde received such a demyship – £95 per annum for up to five years.
If there were two Roberts at Magdalen then one was born 1602 and matriculated in 1621 at 19, but could not have gained a BA in just one year and probably never completed a degree.
The other was elected demy in 1619, possible at the age of 16 or so, completing a BA in 1622 and then an MA in 1626
The origin of these two trees from in the History of Antigua [5] is uncertain but they appear to have been created by the author from other evidence.
The tree of Robert A11 and Anne shows Robert A14 as their second son, of Oxford 1621 and dying of the plague in 1665 but not marrying Hennigham Drury, despite living in Norfolk.
Codrington of Bristol
John, the eldest son of Robert and Anne, was born in 1600 a year after Samuel, the eldest son of Richard and Joyce, so the birth dates of the boys from both families are going to be similar.
The tree of Richard B7 and Joyce of Dodington, shows Robert as their fourth son and the one who married Henningham Drury, so it is possible that he was born as early as 1602.
Henningham was from an ancient Norfolk family so it makes sense for the same Robert who married her to be the one who settled in Norfolk. [See rule#2]
Robert the poet mentions a wife and children in a letter of about 1640 to Sir Edward Dering concerning his imprisonment [resulting from one of his poems], so he certainly married.
Codrington of Dodington
The youngest son of Richard, Thomas, was born in 1612 and the oldest Samuel born in 1599.
Richard was older than Robert so he could have been born before 1602 [the date usually used for the birth of Robert] but one other possibility is that it is the records for the two brothers that have been confused.
This would mean Richard born 1602 and matriculating in 1621 at the age of 19, and Robert elected Demy in 1619 being about 16 – as they were at different colleges though I think this is unlikely.
Dodington was originally bought by Giles Codrington B5, father of Richard, in about 1570.
Christopher Codrington of Barbados, the great-grandson of Robert and Anne [of Codrington, Wapley and Didmarton], bought the Dodington estate from Samuel Codrington in about 1701, just a few years before he died, and it then remained in the same branch of the family for nearly 300 years.
Samuel B8 was their eldest son of Richard and his son – also Samuel – B9 married the daughter of John Codrington A13, but he had no male heir and it was his nephew, Samuel B12, who inherited the property and sold it on to Christopher, who had made his fortune from the sugar trade in the Caribbean. [i]
Robert, as the son of Richard was “of Dodington” and this may have been taken to mean – incorrectly – that he was closely related to Christopher Codrington who bought the property several generations later.
Confusion about which family owned Dodington – and more importantly when – goes some way to explaining why Robert is attributed to the family of Robert and Anne Codrington.
[i] RHC identifies Samuel B9 as the one who had sold Dodington but this cannot be correct.
Samuel B9 was the heir of Samuel B8, however he died in 1668 before his father and when he died the inheritance passed through his brother Richard B10.
Richard B10 was already dead – as was his son Richard B11 – so it was his grandson Samuel B12 who inherited.
Line of inheritance in the Junior Branch
Richard B7 (1560-1613)
.. Samuel B8 (1599-1676)
…. Samuel B9 (1628-1668)
.. Richard B10 (1602-1635)
…. Richard B11 (1624-1644)
…… Samuel B12 (1642-1708) Sold Dodington in 1701
The visitation of Gloucestershire in 1628 shows the Codrington family [of Dodington] as part of the Clifford pedigree.
The boys are numbered from 2 to 6 with Samuel, without a number, the eldest.
This differs slightly from the pedigree from the History of Antigua shown above.
This pedigree does not show Robert being married, which would be correct as he married a year later in 1629, and it only shows one brother John which changes the numbering – but this is the only difference.
The will of Richard B7, lists the younger boys in the order: Richard, Robert, William, John, Gyles, Thomas so this is likely to be the actual sequence and makes Robert 3rd son after Samuel and Richard.
However this does show how difficult it can be to identify individuals between two families with the names John, Robert, Thomas, William and Samuel used in both families, and within the same generation.
Joyce, the wife of Richard, was born in Little Marlow, the daughter of John Burlace, sheriff of Buckinghamshire.
These are a few baptism records from Little Marlow and I have assumed that these are the children of Richard and Joyce because there are no other Codringtons in the area at this time.
It was also common at this time for some of the first children to be born at the home of the couples parents.
William was baptised 17th July 1603, and as he was the next son after Robert this confirms the date of birth of the elder brothers – Robert could have therefore been born 1602 [matching the biography] which makes the birth of Richard about 1601.
But another record is for Richard on 18th Jan 1607 which does not fit at all.
Possibly it is a transcription error of 1601 to 1607, or the record is for Giles that has been transcribed as Richard [using the father’s name]?
An unknown son was also baptised 26 may 1606 and this could have been John – the youngest son Thomas was born in about 1612 as there is a record for him at Dodington.
The father of Richard and Robert, Richard B7 had died in 1613 and left money for the boys …
“ … maintenance and lyvliehood and educacion in Learninge, both at the Universities and elsewhere … “
Richard was at Pembroke college, probably from about 1620, as he had a bachelor degree in Civil Law (BCL) in 1626.
This is a postgraduate degree so he must have been at Oxford for about 6 years [?]
Robert B was probably only 16 in 1619 and born about 1603, and Richard a couple of years older but probably not older than 18 when he was in Oxford, unless my estimate of 6 years for a B.C.L is incorrect.
The Court proceedings of 1629 were between the two brothers, Richard and Robert Codrington and John Browne and his wife Mihill, who lived in Oxford by means of …
“the selling of tobacco and the keeping of a tippling house.”
They were accused of seducing the two brothers Robert and Richard, who also lodged with them, into “loose and inordinate courses causing them to spend and consume their whole portions” [of their £400 inheritance].
Robert was “utterly ruinated” and was imprisoned in the “Counter of London”, by Browne.
In these proceedings Joyce is named as the mother of these two, and Elizabeth as their sister so these are definitely the sons of Richard and not Robert.
Elizabeth – described as a gentlewoman – was involved by pledging bonds to get her brothers out of debt, in order that their mother did not get to know of the affair, but the Brownes also tried to get their hands on her inheritance as well.
Elizabeth had also been kidnapped in 1617 so she had led an interesting life, and her inheritance brought her nothing but trouble. [see notes below]
The question here is this:
How did Robert, who was “ruinated” and in prison, manage to complete a BA and MA?
Even if his education was reduced by his scholarship it still had to be paid for – maybe he wasn’t as ruined as he claimed?
This is part of the original transcription of the court case of Codrington v Browne.
It is a great shame that there is a corner of this document missing, as it appears that it could have confirmed Robert’s position at Oxford.
Robert is mentioned at Magdalen and Richard at Pembroke college, and then Robert is mentioned again in connection to Magdalen.
That is to say yor Or[ator Robert Codrington] … Magdalen and yor Orator Richard Codrington of Pembroke College, and after p’cured Robert Codrington to have the bene[fit] … at St. Magdalen aforesaid.
Could this be a reference to his scholarship? Or perhaps his MA?
And did his demy status mean that he had more money than Richard for the Brownes to embezzle?
The outcome of the court case is unclear.
I have a copy of part of the original visitors guide to Dodington House which says that the Codrington families of Gloucestershire supported the King during the English civil war.
John refused parliaments summons to raise troops against the King. He left Dodington and, as a Lieutenant-Colonel under Hopton, he played his part in the Cornish Rising.
Four years after leaving home, he was captured at Dartmouth and his estate sequestrated.
But this is almost totally incorrect as John A13, eldest son of Robert and Anne, and [possibly] Samuel B8, the eldest son of Richard and Joyce, were involved in raising militia for the defence of Gloucester and Bristol.
The Gloucestershire auxiliaries, were led by Sir John Seymour, of Bitton, Mr. John Codrington, of Codrington, Mr. Stevens, and Philip Langley, of Mangotsfield
And in any case John was “of Codrington, Wapley and Didmarton” and it was Samuel who lived at Dodington at this time.
John was also on the board of sequestration for Gloucestershire in 1643 and both he and Samuel on various committees later.
However this history was written for the descendants of Christopher Codrington and perhaps reflects his Royalist allegiance rather than John’s support for parliament.
Personally I think that both John and Samuel did whatever was necessary to try and protect their families, whoever was running the country.
The extract from the guide also says that ” John Codrington’s brother, Robert, was a Cromwell-man” and this is based on his work “The Life and Death of Robert [Devereaux], Earl of Essex” of which Wood [?] says;
“he shews himself a rank parliamenteir”
It also appears that Wood did not think that Robert was actively involved in the campaign:
It is a compilation of small value, in which whole sentences are occasionally stolen from contemporary pamphleteers ; the author seems to have had no acquaintance with Essex, and no personal knowledge of his campaigns.
However his work is still quoted today in books about the campaign, most recently in Gloucester and Newbury 1643 – so even as a collection of other writings it has some merit.
But whether he was the brother of John is another matter.
It is possible that either John A13 or Samuel B8 was the elder brother of this Robert, but if the visitor information was attempting to show dissension within the Codrington family the author was looking in the wrong place.
Apart from Christopher’s minor involvement with a Royalist rebellion in Barbados, it was Nicholas, the brother of John, who actively supported the Royalist cause and was captured in the siege of Dartmouth.
In The Sugar Barons by Matthew Parker we can see how Christopher was caught up in the Royalist rebellion in Barbados after the death of Charles I, along with his brother-in-law James Drax – a parliamentarian.
Many families name their eldest son after the father – and then carry this on for generations.
However there is little history of naming the first – or indeed, any – son in this way in the senior branch of the Codrington family – quite the opposite.
We have to go all the way back to Sir John Codrington before we find another eldest son named after his father.
John of Agincourt A1 – John, Thomas, Humphrey
John A2 – Christopher, Edward
Edward A7 – Simon, Thomas
Thomas A8 – Simon, John
Simon A9 – Robert, John, Giles
Robert A11- John, William, Nicholas, Christopher, Samuel, Thomas
This is quite unusual but it does not mean that Robert A11 did not have a son named after him – both his sons John and Christopher had sons named after them, so if this was a deliberate practise then it ended in this generation.
From the information available there are several possible scenarios that would fit with the known facts.
As I write this I am coming a conclusion that one of these is very unlikely – and this is the one that I was simply trying to confirm in the first place!
Robert was the son of Robert A11, born in 1602 and elected demy at the age of 17 in 1619.
He studied at Magdalen college, Oxford for a BA and then an MA in 1627 but died before 1628.
Robert, son of Richard, went to Oxford in 1621 but never completed his course because of the Browne affair.
He then travelled, settled in Norfolk, married and then resumed his studies dying in London perhaps from an outbreak of the plague.
Robert was the son of Richard B7 and he was elected demy in 1619 at the age of about 17.
He studied in Oxford with his brother Richard despite losing his inheritance to the Brownes.
After completing his MA in 1627 he travelled, settled in Norfolk and married Henningham Drury two years later in 1629.
He then moved to London and died there in 1665
Robert A14 went to Oxford in 1621 at the age of 19 but died before completing his degree, possibly in 1625 during an outbreak of plague in London.
Robert was the son of Richard B7 as described above.
Robert A14 died in infancy and is shown as the prone figure on the Codrington Memorial, or there was never a Robert.
There are some specific pieces of evidence available, but none that give us an absolute answer.
The first is the court case against the Brownes in 1629 by Robert and Richard during their time in Oxford which specifically identifies their sister, Elizabeth and mother Joyce and that Robert was at Magdalen college – but the torn corner may have held the vital piece of evidence.
The second is the lack of any reference to Robert A14 in the court cases following the death of his father Robert A11, so if there was a Robert A14 he died before December 1627 when William brought the first inheritance case against his mother and step-father.
But that doesn’t mean that he was not the Robert that was elected demy and completed an MA in 1627
Robert B did complete an MA, as shown on the cover of his works, but it is also possible that he did this later in life – in London – and not at Oxford.
The only evidence we have for the existence of Robert A14 is the reference to him as second son of Robert A11 in the Oxford records and the count of 6 younger sons in the will of Robert A11, with one son unaccounted for by later chancery proceedings.
RHC may have used the same pedigree information as shown in the History of Antigua, but it is unclear where these originated. [1]
If these are accurate and from the same period then it would make all the difference to this investigation. but I am still convinced that the same Robert that lived in Norfolk was the one who married into the Drury family.
[1] I believe that Vere Langford created these trees himself from the wills and other records that he had sourced and was mislead by the incorrect entry from Oxford into splitting the information about Robert between two different families.
The record from a court case, regarding inheritance in 1630, lists the sons of Robert A11 who were alive at the time he wrote his will.
And there are only five of them – including John.
William was not mentioned here – but we know he existed from another court case – so he would be one of the “other children”, along with the daughters, but this may also include Robert.
Unfortunately this does not prove anything as far as Robert is concerned, although it does indicate that both he and William were dead before 1630 or at least had no claims on the inheritance.
I can understand why William may not have been included, having already settled his case.
One interpretation of the will is that there were only 6 sons, including John, and if this is the case then the frieze on the memorial shows Robert, Anne and all their known children with Robert as the prone male figure [and one unidentified female].
The first reference to his children in the will is to Robert’s daughters and then “sixe younger sonnes“.
The second reference is to John (the eldest son and heir) paying £20 to the “said younger sonnes” on his inheritance, but not specifically a number.
Having looked at the memorial to Robert in greater depth [see The Children of Robert Codrington] it appears that this shows all the children of Robert and Anne and not just those that were alive when Robert died in 1618.
This means that at least one daughter shown in the frieze was dead (probably one of the twins) and possibly one of the boys as well.
If one of the Mourners is Robert’s wife Anne then all the girls are accounted for as well.
Showing the eldest son as a “clone” of the father seems to be quite common, at least in Bristol, and the two prone figures may have been those that died at birth.
From the evidence I’m not sure Robert, son of Robert, existed at all – or possibly died as an infant as in Robert III
Robert – Sheriff of Glocestershire
According to some references [including wikipedia], in 1638 one Robert Codrington was High Sheriff of Gloucestershire, following on from Robert Poyntz, of Iron Acton – the Poyntz family had links to both branches of the Codrington family.
The only Robert Codrington this could possibly be – barring a complete unknown – is Robert the poet, who was living in Norfolk or London, but this information does not appear in his biography, so seems unlikely.
There are other records showing that John Codrington was the sheriff at about this time – so this record is incorrect, perhaps copying the name “Robert” from the previous entry?
John Codrington, of Codrington and Didmarton, High Sheriff of Gloucestershire, 1638
In 1683 John Codrington is shown as Sheriff, however there was no John at this time who could have held this position and it seems that John and Robert were transcribed against the wrong dates – 1638 and 1683.
Robert Codrington (1650-1717) who was the son of John, probably was sheriff in 1683 and these names and dates have been transposed.
Probably a simple transcription error. [see rule # 4]
Stonehouse Manor
In the records of Stonehouse Manor, Gloucestershire [referenced in the National Archives] is a record relating to Robert Codrington.
P.C.C. [Prerogative Court of Canterbury] administration of estate of Jn. Codrington, London, granted to brother Robert Codrington.
This is dated 1628/29 so it is possible Robert A14 was alive but brother John certainly didn’t die until later.
If this was Robert B then his brother, John could have died about this date.
He was alive in 1613 – mentioned in the will of Richard B7 – but shown as deceased in the visitation of 1628.
And he is also described “of London” as was Robert, but what is the connection to Stonehouse Manor?
There are certainly family connections to this property – the Giffards and Berkeleys – but no reference of a direct ownership by the Codrington family. About this time the manor seems to have been owned by William Fowler and William Sandford, who were clothiers from the village and split the manor between them.
Elizabeth Codrington
Plaintiffs: Sir Henry Yelverton, Attorney General, at the relation of Joyce Codrington.
Defendants: John Rodman, son of Hugh Rodman of Alston, blacksmith, Richard Hayes, a ‘reputed minister’, William Bruton, Thomas Bushopp, William Cary and Thomas Gilman husbandman.
Subject: Kidnapping Elizabeth Codrington, daughter of Richard Codrington esq deceased, the said John Rodman’s master and attempt to marry her at Malmesbury church, Wiltshire.
Note: defendants were acquitted under the statute of 3 Henry VII [c. 2, Abduction of women]; see STAC 8/88/13.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5568571
So was she kidnapped for her inheritance or did she just run off with the blacksmith’s son?
The Norfolk Connection
The name Henningham appears later as the grand-daughter of Robert Codrington and Henningham Drury in Barbados.
This daughter, to Robert (son of Robert) and Elizabeth, was born in the Caribbean island of Barbados where Christopher (another son of Robert A11) was governor-general.
She married into the Carrington family.
There is no reason to assume that the two Codrington families, although separated by several generations, were not well known to each other – in fact after the civil war they were also related by the marriage of Samuel B9 and Jane, daughter of John A13.
But the Norfolk connection is still a mystery – especially if Robert son of Richard was the one who lived there.
[An heiress and a Norfolk family]
Robert Codrington – Lunatic.
According to record available in the National Archives, one Robert Codrington, of Middlesex, was investigated as a lunatic in 1679.
This Robert is possibly the son of Robert Codrington, the writer, who lived in London which means he is unlikely to be the Robert who emigrated to Barbados and had a daughter Hennigham.
This also means that his mother is also unlikely to have been Henningham Drury of Norfolk and therefore his father Robert may never have been to Norfolk, and Robert who went to Barbados may have been more closely related to Christopher Codrington of Barbados.
But it could also mean that Robert of London (who died in 1665 during the plague) may not have died during the plague but may have been “locked up” for a while.
However if this were true surely it would have been recorded?
Reference: C 211/5/C23
Description: Robert Codrington, esq of Middlesex: commission and inquisition of lunacy, into his state of mind and his property.
Date: 1679 Nov 27
Reference: C 142/735/74
Description: Codrington, Robert (lunatic): Middlesex
Date: 31 Charles II. (1679/80)
I am in the process of obtaining copies of these documents and will be updating this note accordingly.
The Bridgwater Connection
Robert Codrington, who moved to Barbados with his wife Elizabeth, was the son of Robert Codrington – the writer – who, according to this document is probably the son of Richard and Joyce Codrington of Dodington.
Towards the end of the 17th century the family moved away from Dodington in Gloucestershire to Bridgwater in Somerset, having sold Dodington Park to Christopher Codrington III of Antigua.
A connection between Robert of Barbados and some of the families of Somerset is proven by the will of John Bellamy – who’s family were from near Bridgwater – where Robert is a witness.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0595360971
If Robert Codrington (the writer) was associated with the Didmarton family (Robert and Anne) then his son Robert would probably not have had any links to the Somerset families in Barbados.
This record also shows that Robert was in Barbados earlier than 1678 and daughter Henningham is likely to have been born there rather then England, about 1673.
In 1678 he is shown arriving in Barbados with his wife Elizabeth and daughter Frances – but not older daughter Henningham.
His father, the writer Robert Codrington, had died in 1665 during an outbreak of the plague and this may have been the reason for Robert heading out of London.
The Sydney Connection.
The first husband of Eleanor Sydney, of Walsingham, was John Claxton, of Suffolk.
His daughter, by his first marriage to Mary Brown, married John Stubbes, who is probably related in some way to William Stubbes of Watchfield, father of Anne Stubbes who married Robert Codrington A11.
Eleanor’s second husband was Robert Drury (1578-1624) so she is also the grandmother of Henningham Drury, the wife of Robert Codrington [probably] son of Richard.
This does reinforce the connection between Anne Stubbes and Norfolk, yet this Robert appears to be related to another branch of the family with no connections to Norfolk and I have not found any evidence that William Stubbes, the father of Anne, was actually from Norfolk at all.
[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
[5] The history of the island of Antigua
Vere Langford Oliver
The author has collected together a number of records which have been extremely useful – wills, court cases and pedigrees – essentially about the Codringtons of Barbados, but also including some of the previous generations.
Chris Sidney 2014
Gene Surfing 
Recent Comments