On 04/08/17 21:46, Kay Allen wrote:
> Robert the Adventurer, her brother held land in Hampshire which
> might be worthwhile tracing its holding history.
What is your evidence for that? I've re-read his will pretty carefully
and I can see very little mention of any land holdings, and unless I've
misread a name, the only places mentioned outside the immediate environs
of the City of London are Poole in Dorset and Sarum (i.e. Salisbury) in
Wiltshire: nothing in Hampshire that I can see.
Suppose we do find land in Hampshire held by Robert "the Adventurer"
that was formerly held by the Rogers family of Bryanston: this wouldn't
prove that Robert "the Adventurer" was the son of Sir John Rogers of
Bryanston.
If, as I believe to be the case, Robert "the Adventurer" was the son of
Robert of Poole, then Robert of Poole's will tells us that his son
Robert was left to "the custodie of my brother John Rogers". As I'll
discuss later in this post, it's possible that this brother is Sir John
Rogers II of Bryanston, and if it turns out that Robert "the Adventurer"
ended up holding Rogers family land in Hampshire, this could well have
been from his uncle and guardian, rather than indicating his father was
Sir John Rogers.
But at the moment I see no evidence that any land did pass from the
Bryanston family to Robert "the Adventurer". On the other hand, land
did pass from the Rogers family of Bryanston to the Webbe family. We
know this from the 1553/54 will of William Webbe II, who I'm certain is
the maternal grandfather of Robert Rogers "the Adventurer":
"I give to the saide William [his son, William Webbe III] all that my
mannor of Stockbridge, Houghton, Broughton and Somborne withe all and
singuler the landes, tenementes, rentes, revercons and pr'mices
thereunto belonging or in any wise apperteyning whatsoever they be. And
more one yard lande lyinging Porton to the yerely value of twentie fowre
poundes three shillinges and foure pence accompting t'hole which landes
was purchased of Sr John Rogers knight as by the dedes of the same may
appeare."
The only plausible Sir John Rogers this could refer to are Sir John I
and Sir John II of Bryanston, who were father and son. John I died in
about 1535, the year he made his will, and his son was granted livery to
his father's estate the following year [L&P Hen VIII, vol 10, no 392,
item 28] implying that John I was by then dead, though for some reason
probate seems not to have been granted until 1546. The /Victoria County
History/ for Hampshire [vol 4, sub Dibden and Kings Sombourne] says the
purchase was in 1544 and therefore from John II. It cites "Com. Pleas
D. Enr. Trin. 17 Eliz. m. 36; Feet of F. Hants, Hil. 36 Eliz." which I
think must mean CP40/1326 and CP25/2/211/36ELIZIHIL in the National
Archives. I've not consulted either, and I don't think either are
currently online (CP40/1326 is a gap in AALT's coverage); but I see no
reason to doubt this date. The fact that the VCH refers to it as a sale
and makes no mention of a marriage or other family relationship suggests
that neither source mentions such a connection.
It seems quite possible that this transaction in 1544 was part of an
arrangement between the Rogers family of Bryanston and Webbe family for
the marriage of Robert Rogers to Elizabeth Webbe. It's a plausible date
of the marriage, though I would have guessed a few years earlier. I
think Robert Rogers must have from the gentry given his good marriage,
the fact that he was Mayor of Poole in 1550 (according to Hutchins'
Dorset, 3rd ed, vol 1, p 34), and that he left legacies well in excess
of £1000 in his will. The nearest plausible family of Rogers gentry
were the Rogers family of Bryanston, and chronologically Robert would
probably be the same generation as Sir John Rogers II. If so, John II,
who by 1544 was head of the family, may well have made provision for his
marriage.
But this is just speculation on my part. The 1544 sale may have been
between unrelated parties, and Rogers is a common enough surname that
it's quite feasible that William Webbe purchased property from one
Rogers man, and at a similar time his daughter married an unrelated
Rogers man. There was certainly a prominent but seemingly unrelated
Rogers family in Bradford-on-Avon at the time, and perhaps Robert was a
scion of that family, even though it's 50 miles away. John II seems to
have been perennially short of money which would provide sufficient
motive for selling part of his estate to Webbe.
I'm told that the 1952 edition of Burkes Landed Gentry [sub Webb of
Odstock] refers to Robert Rogers of Poole as "Robert, son of Sir John
Rogers, Kt., Lord of the Manors of Stockbridge and Houghton, Hants."
These were two of the manors transferred by Sir John Rogers II to
William Webbe in 1544, but were not the most important of John's manors
and its surprising to see him described in this way unless BLG's source
is somehow connected to the 1544 sale. But BLG isn't particularly
reliable and its source may well be just Webbe's will coupled with an
argument similar to the one I give above and a good dose of wishful
thinking.
Although BLG doesn't state which Sir John Rogers it believes is Robert's
father, it must be John I, insofar as the BLG editor understood the
Rogers family. John II's eldest son and heir Richard seems to have been
born in about 1527 based on him being 38 and upwards for his father's
IPM in 1566; his HoP article accepts that as his approximate year of
birth. Robert can't have married much later than 1544 because he had
had eight children by 1555 (I accidentally omitted Katherine from my
post on 4 Aug), so it's hard to believe he could have been younger than
Richard as he must have been were he John II's son. That means if he
was the son of either Sir John Rogers, he must have been a younger son
of John I.
This poses a problem as we have John I's will, dated 1535, and it makes
no mention of a son named Robert. He mentions only John, his eldest
son and heir, another son named James, and a daughter Jane Sowche
[Zouche] who was married to Richard Sowche. There's no mention of
another son. Of course it could be that provision had already been made
for Robert, and the will makes no small personal bequests where one
might still expect to find other sons listed; but if we believe Robert
only married in 1544, it would seem surprising that there was no
provision for him in the will.
None of the published visitations cover the Rogers family of Bryanston
in any detail for this period, but there is a pedigree drawn up in 1853
by George Harrison, the then Windsor Herald, printed in Misc. Gen. &
Her., vol 1 (1868), pp 258-65. It claims to be "faithfully extracted
from the Records of the College of Arms", though precisely which records
is unspecified. In addition to John, James and Jane, it lists several
more children for Sir John Rogers I, including William "2d son, s.p."
and "Margaret, married to Sir Thomas Essex, Knt".
Sir Thomas Essex's wife was named Margaret, and she was connected to the
Rogers family, but not as stated. The Visitation of Berkshire (as
printed) shows Sir Thomas Essex being married to "Margarett 2d da. to
Sr. Wm. Lord Sandes Lord Chamberlaine to Kg Henry 8". This is borne out
by Thomas and Margaret's tomb in Lambourn church, Berks, which has a
coat of arms with a cross ragulée; the Sandys arms were /argent, a cross
ragulée sable/. However in 1536, when John Rogers II gained livery of
his father's lands, Margaret was described as, "now wife of Thos. Essex
and late wife of Will. Rogers, elder brother of the said John [II]" [L&P
Hen VIII, vol 10, no 392, item 28].
This means there's at least two error in the Harrison pedigree: first
William was John II's older brother not younger, and secondly Margaret
was John I's daughter-in-law not daughter. This casts doubt on the
other details in the pedigree which includes two further children:
"Anthony Rogers, 4th son" and "Joan, marrd to Sir William Gifford, Knt,
of the County of Hants". I have found no other mention of Anthony, but
with no other information given, perhaps he pre-deceased his father,
childless and unmarried.
Sir William Gifford quite possibly did marry as Harrison says. The
Visitation of Hampshire (as printed) gives William two wives, one being
"Joane, d. of Sr John Rogers knt", and William's will (dated 1549)
refers to "Johane my wiffe". This is an important point: if we believe
Sir John Rogers I was Sir William Gifford's father-in-law, then his
daughter Joan was still living when John wrote his will in 1535, yet she
is not mentioned. If a known child is not mentioned in the will, it
makes it more likely that other children may be omitted too, increasing
the likelihood that Robert Rogers of Poole may be another child; but I'd
rather have more a more reliable source for Joan being the daughter of
Sir John Rogers before making that inference.
(I did consider the possibility that Jane, wife of Richard Zouche, might
be same person as Joan, wife of William Gifford, and that she married
first Zouche then Gifford, but it seems not. Richard Zouche later
became the 9th Baron Zouche, and according to CP [2nd ed., vol 12B, p
949], he died on 22 July 1552, which is consistent with the date of his
will, Jane had predeceased him and he had remarried. That means she
cannot be the wife of Sir William Gifford in 1549.)
So to summarise a fairly long post, there's circumstantial evidence that
Sir John Rogers I might be the father of Robert of Poole, and the
grandfather of Robert "the Adventurer". I've already discussed why I
think it's vanishingly unlikely that Sir John Rogers II is the father of
Robert "the Adventurer" and won't reiterate that.
Richard