John Broket of Swaffham Bulbeck Esq
c 1485-1526
John was born by June 1485 as shown by his mention in the Will of his grandfather John Pulter. He was the son and heir of John of Wheathampstead, the first Broket Sheriff of Hertfordshire, but died before his father. His childhood would probably have been spent at Brockett Hall near Wheathampstead and his education culminated in London at the Middle Temple, admitted 5 Feb 1509 by William Bensted. John’s heir was later to marry Margaret BENSTED, most likely William’s daughter.
Nevertheless it’s convenient to call John ‘of Swaffham Bulbeck’ in Cambridgeshire if only to distinguish him from his father and his son, both of whom were called John, and were based in Hertfordshire. John came into property in Swaffham Bulbeck through his marriage, but how long the couple lived there is unknown. In a 1528 Common Pleas case brought after his death by his co-executors he was referred to as ‘John Broket of Swaffham Bulbeke’, although in the follow up answer in 1529 he was called ‘John Broket of Swaffham Bulbek otherwise called John Broket of London gentleman’. Maybe they had country and town residences. In his Will, although his first bequest was to the Vicar of the Parish Church of Swaffham Bulbek, he just called himself plain ‘John Brockett’. And in the Visitations of Hertfordshire, as the head of the dynasty, he was called ‘John Brockett of Brockett Hall in com. Hertf.’
Contents of this page:
1. Wife and children
2. Other records
3. Testament and Will
Wife and children
As heir to the Hertfordshire estates, John was married to a wealthy heiress: Dorothy d/o Nicolas HUGHSON Gentleman of Swaffham Bulbeck, a hamlet near Cambridge. The Visitations of Hertfordshire placed the couple at the head of their pedigree of the Wheathampstead dynasty:
And this is a snip from the Tudor Dering pedigree showing “John Brokett marid with dorothe one of the ayres to husune and ham’ond” with her arms impaling Broket:
The marriage of their heir or heiresses was probably the most important strategic and political decision of the pre-modern landowner. Heirs usually did not have too much say in the choice; it was not normally a decision based on romance. As lord of the expanding Brockett estates, John’s father would for years have been on the lookout for a suitable alliance for his eldest son and heir, the dynasty’s future head. In the lesser gentry circles of the early 1500s, his heir was one of the most eligible bachelors of Hertfordshire. The match, negotiated by John and perhaps Lucy, indeed brought property to the dynasty, from the neighbouring county of Cambridgeshire, where Dorothy came from.
Dorothy’s father Nicolas Huson was educated and knew academics in Cambridge. In his Will he called himself ‘gentylmane’ and bequeathed properties in Cambridgeshire to Dorothy and John. However the case brought by Nicolas Hughson’s heirs against his widow Jane a few years later shows that he held manors in Kent and Surrey, and other lands in Cambridgeshire, one of them called Hamondes. Dorothy and her sisters’ 2 daughters were heiresses to substantial lands.
Over the years some scribes and copyists misspelt Dorothy’s surname as Huston or Hixon or the like. Perhaps because of these initial, minor variations, in some later pedigrees there is greater confusion. The Visitation of Essex—in its 1878 edition—gave her as ‘d. & heire to Hulse & Mamond’—Hulse looks like a corruption of Huson and Mamond of Hamondes, one of his landholdings:
Spains Hall manuscripts had ‘H.Hammond of Hoo & Malmains’, the ‘H.’ meaning ‘heir’.
John and Dorothy’s surviving children (daughters’ order of birth uncertain):
- John, later Sir John I, Will proved 1558.
- Nicholas of Mackery End Esq, Will proved 1585.
- Edward of Wingaledoe Gent, Will proved 1584.
- Robert of Bramfield Gent, Will proved 1582.
- Thomas, probably the youngest son, born before 1526 (death of father), died without issue (according to the contemporary Glover, who is the only source that lists him). It’s possible that it was this Thomas who made a plea in the Hilary term of 1548 at the court of Common Pleas at Westminster against John Trewelowe late of Lee, Essex, Husbandman, for a debt of 40s, which Thomas alleged he owed him. John did not come to defend himself and the court ordered the Essex sheriff to take him and bring him to court on 15 April 1548:+Read more
Essex
Thomas Brokett appeared by his attorney for a fourth day against John Trewelowe late of Lee in the county aforesaid husbandman, in a plea that he render him 40s that he owes him and unjustly withholds &c. And [the defendant] has not come; and it had been ordered the sheriff to summon him &c. And the sheriff now reports that [the defendant] has nothing [in his bailiwick in lands or chattels whereby he might be attached] &c. Therefore let him be taken, to be here on the quindene of Easter [15 April 1548] &c.
Lee was presumably Lee Chapel, c 1 m W of Basildon. Since Swaffham Bulbeck is nearer Essex than Letchworth is, this Thomas seems more likely to have been the plaintiff than the only other known contemporary Thomas Broket, son of Edward of Broadfield and Letchworth.
The record of Thomas Brokett as a legatee in a Dunstable Will of 1554 was doubtless a misspelling.
- Jane, married William COPWOOD of Totteridge. William was the eldest surviving son of John Copwoode Esq of Totteridge, Hertfordshire, and one of the executors of his father’s Will written 26 Mar 1542, proved 26 Jun 1542, of which Edward Broket Esq of Letchworth, Jane’s uncle, was Supervisor, see the separate page. John left his “lease of the Farme of the lordship of Taturrigge during the yeres yet to come” to son William, with other bequests to son Richard and two unnamed daughters. In his account of East Barnet Cass mentioned the Copwoods briefly, including: “William Copwood, who married Jane, daughter of John Brockett, was probably the father, in addition to William who died without issue, of George Copwood, concerning whom there is a singular notice at the beginning of the Totteridge register: 1546. George Coopwood was born on the twenty-fourth of June being Midsomer day one thousand five hundred fourty-sixe. Robert Sheffield esq. George Aymorer and Katherine – christened him, John Brocket did bishop him.” For the verb ‘to bishop’ NSOED has: “Administer the rite of confirmation to; confirm.” As of Oct 2020 images of the early Totteridge parish register weren’t available online. On the following page, Cass gave a small ‘Pedigree of Copwood of Totteridge’, and regarding Jane, had “Jane, dau. of John Brocket, of Brocket Hall, and sister of Sir John Brocket, knt, of the same.” As we see on this webpage, she was in fact daughter of John of Swaffham Bulbeck, between the two Johns that Cass mentions. The Will of Jane Copwood, Widow of Irnham, Lincs, was proved 1589. It mentioned her 2 daughters Margaret Poynter and Sophia Thimblelby, but no Brokets nor her only surviving son William who had predeceased her without issue in 1585.
- Lucy, married Thomas HOO of the Hoo in Kimpton, or of Paul’s Walden issue 2 sons, 4 daughters
- Filise or Alice, married … ASHBY
It is interesting to compare the Wills of the 4 sons: John, Nicholas, Edward and Robert.
John died 1526 in his early 40s, leaving his widow Dorothy to raise 8 or more children, the oldest of whom may only have been 13 or 14 at the time; she did the prudent things and remarried within 2 years. A Common Pleas action of 27 Jan 1528 shows that John’s widow Dorothy had married Thomas RUDSTON by then. Thomas Rudston and Dorothy his wife executrix of the testament of John Broket of Swaffham Bulbeke, and coexecutor John Brokett Esq of Wheathampstead, his father, were suing William Nevile late of London esquire and Elizabeth his wife for a debt of 200 marks:+Read more
Cambridgeshire
Thomas Rudston and Dorothy his wife executrix of the testament of John Broket of Swaffham Bulbeke, and John Brokett [Esq of Wheathampstead b bef 1460 d 1532] coexecutrix with the aforesaid Dorothy of the testament of the aforesaid John Brokett, otherwise called John Brokett of Whethamsted my father [in law] and Dorothy my wife, appeared in person for a fourth day against William Nevile late of London esquire and Elizabeth his wife late wife and executrix of the testament of Richard Wye late of New Temple, London, otherwise called Richard Wye of New Temple, London, gentilman, Giles Grivile late of Wyke in county Worcester knight otherwise called Giles Grevile late of Lassheborough in county Gloucester knight, and John Palmer late of Lemyngton in county Gloucester esquire coexecutrix with the aforesaid Elizabeth of the testament aforesaid, in a plea that they render them 200 marks that they unjustly withhold from them &c. And [the defendants] have not come &c.; and, as many times, it had been ordered the sheriff to take them if &c. and safe &c. so that he have their bodies here on this day, namely on the quindene of Hilary &c. And the sheriff now reports that they are not found &c. Therefore it is ordered the sheriff to cause them to be exacted from county [court] to county until &c. the aforesaid William Nevyle, Giles and John Palmer shall be outlawed and the aforesaid Elizabeth shall be waived [i.e. outlawed, especially of a woman] if they do not [appear] &c. and if [they appear] &c. then he shall take them and safe &c. so that he have their bodies here on the octaves of Midsummer; and whereof &c. And now here on this day, namely on the aforesaid quindene, here come the aforesaid plaintiffs by their attorney [and] appear for a fourth day against the aforesaid William Nevyle in the plea aforesaid &c. and [the defendants] have not come.
Northamptonshire
And thereupon the aforesaid plaintiffs say that the aforesaid William Nevyll and Elizabeth are staying and living at Northampton in county Northampton. Therefore, by the statute &c., it is ordered the sheriff of Northamptonshire to cause to be proclaimed in his full county [court] on three several days, whereof one of the proclamations aforesaid shall be at a general session to be held in the district of Northampton aforesaid, that the aforesaid William and Elizabeth surrender to the aforesaid sheriff of Cambridgeshire, so that the same sheriff have their bodies here at the octaves aforesaid to answer the aforesaid Thomas, Dorothy and John Brokett in the plea aforesaid. And be it known that the justices here on the 2nd day of February [6 days away] this same term delivered the writ thereon to John Thornton deputy sheriff of the county aforesaid, to execute in form of law &c.
Worcestershire
And also it is ordered the sheriff of Worcestershire to cause to be proclaimed in his full county [court] on three several days, whereof one of the proclamations aforesaid shall be at a general session to be held in the district of Wyke aforesaid, that the aforesaid Giles surrender to the aforesaid sheriff of Cambridgeshire, so that the same sheriff have his body here at the octaves aforesaid to answer the aforesaid Thomas, Dorothy and John Brokett in the plea aforesaid. And be it known that the justices here on the 2nd day of February this same term delivered the writ thereon to John Cocksey deputy sheriff of the county aforesaid, to execute in form of law &c.
Gloucestershire
And also it is ordered the sheriff of Gloucestershire to cause to be proclaimed in his full county [court] on three several days, whereof one of the proclamations aforesaid shall be at a general session to be held in the district of Lemyngton aforesaid, that the aforesaid John Palmer surrender to the aforesaid sheriff of Cambridgeshire, so that the same sheriff have his body here at the octaves aforesaid to answer the aforesaid Thomas, Dorothy and John Brokett in the plea aforesaid. And be it known that the justices here on the 2nd day of February this same term delivered the writ thereon to John Adams deputy sheriff of the county aforesaid, to execute in form of law &c.
Thomas Rudston was a Cambridgeshire JP from 1530 till his death in 1556 and MP in 1542.+Read more
“By a fine of 1540 Rudston had purchased land at Swaffham Bulbeck from his then or future brother-in-law Edmund Mordaunt (perhaps the contemporary at the Middle Temple of the Member of that name) and in 1549 he paid £100 to (Sir) John Brocket, probably also a kinsman, for a further 1,600 acres, the moiety of three manors and houses in Swaffham Bulbeck, Swaffham Prior and other villages in Cambridgeshire.” He married 2nd Anne FOWLER, daughter of William MORDAUNT, widow of Humphrey TORRELL and of one FOWLER; 2 sons. 4 daughters. The Visitation of Cambs shows him as son of William RUDSTON of the Isle of Ely and father by his first wife—the daughter and coheir of Nic Hughston of Swaffham—of William and by his 2nd wife d/o MORDAUNT of Hemsted Essex. Admitted to Gray’s Inn 1521, attorney by 1525, died Sep/Oct 1556.
Other records
1504-1515. A case brought by John Broket and Dorothy, his wife, and Dorothy and Jane Hildersham, daughters of Agnes Hildersham against Jane Hughson, late the wife of Nicholas Hughson, deceased, father of the said Dorothy Broket and Agnes.
Subject: Detention of deeds relating to the manors of Derbyes Court and Eversleys; two-thirds of the manor of Leatherhead: the manor of Burdons in the parishes of Borowe and Dullingham, and messuages and land in Swaffham Bulbeck, Bottisham, and elsewhere: Kent, Surrey, Cambridgeshire.
In 1511 John purchased land with his father, younger brother and others in Bishops Hatfield, Willian and Diggeswell from Richard and Elizabeth Fyssher.
1525 Hilary term. John Broket, Henry Barley, Thomas Grene, William Sulyard, George Hyde, John Bollys, William Pulter, Hugh Clerke and Humphrey Worthe recovered from Edward Broket (John’s brother) “6 messuages, 130 acres of (arable) land, 10 acres of meadow, 20 acres of pasture and 10s rent with appurtenances in Hytchyn, Dynnesley, Polettys and Offeley, as their right and inheritance”.
1529-32: In a follow up Common Pleas action to that of 1528 above Thomas and Dorothy Rudston and John Brokett Esq of Wheathampstead were again suing for the debt of 200 marks: Read more
Cambridgeshire
John Palmer late of Levnyngton in county Gloucester esquire executor of the testament of Richard Wye late of New Temple, London, otherwise called Richard Wye of New Temple, London, gentilman, was summoned to answer Thomas Rudston and Dorothy his wife executrix of the testament of John Broket of Swaffham Bulbek otherwise called John Broket of London gentleman, and John Broket coexecutor with the aforesaid Dorothy of the testament aforesaid John Broket, otherwise called ‘to John Broket of Wethamsted my father and to Dorothy my wife’, in a plea that he, together with William Neville late of London esquire and Elizabeth his wife, late wife and executrix of Richard Wye of New Temple otherwise called Richard Wye of New Temple gent’, render them 200 marks that they unjustly withhold from them &c. And wherein the same Thomas and Dorothy and John Broket the father, by William Dutton their attorney, say that whereas the aforesaid Richard Weye in his lifetime on the 6th day of November in the 8th year of the reign of the lord now king [1516], at Swoffham Bulbek, by a certain writing obligatory of his granted himself to be held to the aforesaid John Brokett the son in the aforesaid 200 marks, to be paid to the same John Brokett the son on Christmas Day then next following, however, the said Richard Wye in his lifetime, and the aforesaid John Palmer and Elizabeth after the death of the said Richard while the same Elizabeth was sole, and the aforesaid John Palmer, William and Elizabeth after the marriage celebrated between the said William and Elizabeth, have not yet rendered the aforesaid £200 [sic] to the aforesaid John Broket the son in his lifetime or to the same Dorothy and to John Broket the father after the death of the said John Broket the son while the same Dorothy was sole, or to the same Thomas and Dorothy and John Broket the father after the marriage celebrated between the same Thomas and Dorothy, but have so far refused to render it to them, and unjustly withhold it, whereby they say that they are injured and have damage to the value of £20; and therein bring their suit &c. And they produce here in court both the writing aforesaid, which testifies to the debt aforesaid in form aforesaid, the date of which is the day and year abovesaid, and also letters testamentary of the aforesaid John Broket the son, by which it is clear enough to the court here that the aforesaid Dorothy and John Broket the father are executors of the testament of the said John Broket the son &c. and have administration thereof &c.And the aforesaid John Palmer comes by William Cokesey his attorney, and defends the force and injury when &c.; and says that the aforesaid Thomas and Dorothy his wife and John Broket the father &c. should not have their action aforesaid against him, for he says that he has fully administered all the goods and chattels that were of the aforesaid Richard Wye at the time of his death, in his hands to be administered; and that he has no goods or chattels that were of the same Richard at the time of his death, in his hands to be administered; nor did he have on the day of the impetration of the original writ of the aforesaid Thomas and Dorothy his wife of John Broket the father &c., nor ever after. And this he is willing to prove, wherefore he craves judgment whether the aforesaid Thomas and Dorothy his wife and John Broket the father &c. should have their action aforesaid against him &c.’And the aforesaid Thomas and Dorothy his wife and John Broket the father &c. say that they should not be precluded from having their action aforesaid by anything alleged above; for they say that the aforesaid John Palmer on the day of the impetration of the original writ of the said Thomas and Dorothy and John Broket the father &c. namely on the 1st day of April in the 20th year of the reign of the lord now king [1528], had divers goods and chattels that were of the aforesaid Richard at the time of his death, in their hands to be administered, to the value of the debt aforesaid, wherewith he could have satisfied the same Thomas and Dorothy and John Broket the father for the debt aforesaid, to wit [blank]. And they crave that this be inquired into by the country; and the aforesaid John Palmer likewise. Therefore it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the quindene of Easter twelve [11 April 1529] &c. by whom &c. and who neither &c. to recognize &c. because both &c. On which day here come the parties &c. and the sheriff has not sent the writ &c. Therefore, as before, it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the octaves of Trinity [30 May 1529] twelve &c. to recognize in form aforesaid &c. On which day here come the parties &c. and the sheriff has not sent the writ &c. Therefore, as many times, it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the octaves of Michaelmas [6 October 1529] twelve &c. to recognize in form aforesaid &c. On which day here come the parties &c. and the sheriff has not sent the writ &c. Therefore, as many times, it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the octaves of Hilary [20 January 1530] twelve &c. to recognize in form aforesaid &c. On which day here come the parties &c. and the sheriff has not sent the writ &c. Therefore, as many times, it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the quindene of Easter [1 May 1530] twelve &c. to recognize in form aforesaid &c. On which day here come the parties &c. and the sheriff has not sent the writ &c. Therefore, as many times, it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the octaves of Trinity [19 June 1530] twelve &c. to recognize in form aforesaid &c. On which day here come the parties &c. and the sheriff has not sent the writ &c. Therefore, as many times, it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the octaves of Michaelmas [6 October 1530] twelve &c. to recognize in form aforesaid &c. On which day here come the parties &c. and the sheriff has not sent the writ &c. Therefore, as many times, it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the octaves of Hilary [20 January 1531] &c. to recognize in form aforesaid.
Hilary 23 Henry VIII [1532]
+++
Note: In this case the Sheriff did not send the writ despite many requests, so “may have been persuaded by the defendant to put the case on the back burner. The sheriffs were supposed to act when ordered, but the records as a whole display that action by the sheriff was often a fiction. Legal theory and actual practice were wildly divergent”.
John’s Testament and Will
Written 16 Feb 1524, proved PCC 21 Jul 1526: Read more
In dei nomine amen Sextodecimo die mensis Februarij Anno Domini Millesimo quingentesimo vicesimo quarto Anno regni Regis Henrici octaui quintodecimo. Ego Johannes Brockett compos mentis sane que memorie eger tamen corpore Condo testamentum ac vltimam voluntatem meam in hunc modum In primis do et lego animam meam deo omnipotenti beate marie omnibus sanctis eius Corpus que meum sepiliendum vbi altissimo Domino placebit Item lego nomine mortuarij vt mos est Item lego vicario ecclesie paroch’ de Swaffham Bulbek sex solid’ & octo denar’ Item’ it is my will that Dorothe my Wife haue fourty poundes in money and goodes Item’ it is my will that the said Dorothe my Wife haue all the stuffe within the house that is to say brasse pewter lynnen’ and hanginges Item I bequeth’ to humfrey Bagshawe my seruant vjs viijd Item I bequethe vnto John’ Rolff vjs viijd Item I bequeth’ to the prior of Angilsey vjs viijd Item I bequethe to the Nunrey or monastery of Deyne’ xiijs iijd Residuum vero omn’ bonorum meorum non legatorum post sepulturam meam et alias expensis inde fact’ do et lego pueris meis inter eos eque diuidend Et si aliquis illorum ante legittimam etatem moritur pars illius viuen’ distribuetur huius autem testamenti ac vltime voluntatis mee ordino facio et constituo Joannem Brocket de Whethamsted patrem meum et Dorotheam vxorem meam meos veros executores vt et ipsi ordinent faciant et disponant prout saluti anime mee ipsis melius poterit expediri Dat die & anno supradictis hijs testibus Edwardo Brocket generoso Willelmo Skathe Johanne Rolff et Arthuro Chadwick Capellano et alijs. f[inis]
Translation of the Latin and summary of the English:
In the name of God Amen the sixteenth day of the month of February the year of the Lord one thousand 500 twenty four in the fifteenth year of the reign of Henry the eighth. I John Brockett my mind being sound and my memory healthy but sick in body construct my testament and last Will in this wise Firstly I give and bequeath my soul to God Almighty to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to all the saints and my body to be buried where the Lord most high shall please I bequeath for my mortuary as is the custom.
To wife Dorothe £40 in money and goods, plus all the household stuff, i.e. brass, pewter, linen and hangings.
To Humfrey Bagshawe his servant 6s 8d.
To John Rolff 6s 8d.
To the Prior of Anglesey 6s 8d.
To the Nunnery or monastery of Deyne 13s 4d.
The rest however of all my goods unbequeathed after my burial and other expenses paid I give and bequeath to my children to be divided equally between them and if any should die before reaching their lawful age then their share to be distributed among those living. And of this my testament and last will I ordain make and constitute my father John Brocket of Whethamsted and my wife Dorothy my true executors so that they shall order acting and disposing for the health of my soul as shall seem best to them to be done. Dated the day and year of the Lord mentioned above. By these witnesses Edward Brocket Gent Wlliam Skathe John Rolff and Arthur Chadwick priest and others.
John’s
wife Dorothy and his father John Brocket of Wheathampstead were co-executors. Witness
Edward Brocket Gent was his younger brother, later
Edward of Letchworth. His servant Humfrey Bagshawe had been a witness to John’s father’s deed of feoffment of the manor of Thebridge in 1525.
The probate recorded that
Thomas Ridstone represented Dorothy at the court. She married him soon after.
John’s Will was brief, leaving legacies only to his wife and 5 non relatives. This could give the wrong first impression that he had no children nor indeed lands, but it was essentially a Testament rather than a Will, dealing only with his personal estate. See the similar Testament of John Brokett of Apylton, written 9 Apr 1472. “Theoretically land could not be bequeathed by a Will at that date, and such bequests fell foul of the laws of inheritance, which is why these early ‘wills’ were mostly charitable and personal bequests.” Also, although he was the heir to the extensive Broket lands, his father was still alive, so his Broket lands would still have been held by his father, and his lands held in right of his wife would have devolved back to her. This is probably also why no IPM exists for him. Unusually, the Will gave him no title like ‘Esq’.
Page Last Updated: October 21, 2020
