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 1634 Visitation of Hertfordshire, as the head of the Whethamstead dynasty, he was called “John Brockett of Brockett Hall in com. Hertf.” Only the 2 sons who remained in Hertfordshire were featured in that Visitation, the ones who removed to Essex and Suffolk were featured in Visitations of those counties, in the 1561 Suffolk one of which John was again called “of Brockett Hall, co. Hertf., Esq”, see the separate page.
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.
Contained in a Common Pleas action in Hilary 1526, after the death of John, husband of Dorothy is their previous marriage settlement:+Read more
Cambridgeshire
John Brokette late of Whethampstede in county Hertford esquire otherwise called John Broket of Whethamstede in county Hertford senior esquire was summoned to answer Thomas Fitzhugh and Johanna his wife executrix of the testament of Nicholas Hughson (otherwise called Nicholas Hugson of Swofham Bulbek in county Cambridge gentilman) otherwise called Johanna late wife of the said Nicholas, otherwise called Johanna ‘my wife’, in a plea that he render them £50 that he unjustly withholds from them &c. And wherein the same Thomas and Johanna, by Baldwin Brenens their attorney, say that whereas the aforesaid John on the 13th day of September in the 3rd year of the reign of the lord now king, at Swofham Bulbek, by a certain writing obligatory of his granted himself to be held to the aforesaid Nicholas in his lifetime in the aforesaid £50, to be paid to the same Nicholas at Michaelmas then next following; however, the aforesaid John, although very often requested, has not rendered the aforesaid £50 to Nicholas in his lifetime, nor to the same executrix after the death of the said Nicholas while she was single, nor to the same Thomas and Johanna after the marriage celebrated between them, but had refused to render it to them, and still refuses to render it to the same Thomas and Johanna and unjustly withholds it, whereby they say that they are injured and have damage to the value of 100 marks; 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 Nicholas, by which it is plain enough to the court here that the said Johanna is executrix of the testament aforesaid and has administration thereof &c.
And the aforesaid John comes, by Richard Lyndsell his attorney, and defends the force and injury when &c. and craves hearing of the writing aforesaid; and it is read to him &c. He also craves hearing of the endorsement of the same writing, and it is read to him, in these words:
The condic’on of this obligac’on is suche that if the withinbounden’ Joh’n Broket kepe & pforme all Couenants & bargaynes on’ his pte to be pformed conteyned in a payr of indentures bytwen’ the seid Joh’n Broket of that oon’ pte and the withinnamed Nicholas on’ that other pte made The date whereof is the xijth day of Februarye the secund yere of the Reigne of or soureigne lord Kyng Henry the viijth That then’ this prsent obligac’on to be voide or ells it to stande and be in the hole strengh’t & effecte
Which having been read and heard, the same John says that the aforesaid Thomas and Johanna ought not have their action aforesaid against him, for he says that the indenture made at Whethamstede in the aforesaid county of Hertford between the said John Broket (by the name of John Broket senior esquire) of the one part and the aforesaid Nicholas (by the name of Nicholas Hughson gentilman) of the other part, of which the same John Broket produces here in court the other part sealed with the seal of the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson, the date of which is the same day and year, testifies that the same John agreed and granted that before All Saints then next following, John Broket son and heir apparent of the aforesaid John Broket senior by divine grace should marry and take to his wife Dorothy daughter and one of the heirs apparent of the aforesaid Nicholas (if the same John and Dorothy would consent to the same); and likewise the aforesaid Nicholas agreed and granted that the aforesaid Dorothy by divine grace should marry and take to her husband before the same feast the aforesaid John the son (if the same Dorothy and John would consent to the same); and that the costs of the banquets at the aforesaid wedding should be at the charges of the aforesaid Nicholas if they should be married where the aforesaid Nicholas would appoint, and the costs of the furnishing of the aforesaid John the son and of Dorothy to be at the charges of the aforesaid John the father, the aforesaid Nicholas rendering and paying to the aforesaid John the father at the same time £10 of lawful money of England for part of the costs of the furnishing aforesaid; and it is covenanted, bargained and agreed further between the parties aforesaid in form following, to wit: that the aforesaid John the father before the aforesaid feast of All Saints should make or cause to be made by a deed indentate a sufficient, sure and lawful estate to Thomas Puryent, Nicholas Baryngton, Richard Druell, Edward Broket, John Parys, William Mordaunt, Robert Frevyle and Thomas Hildersham and their heirs of lands and tenements in county Hertford to the annual value of 20 marks after all charges, to the use of the aforesaid John Broket the son and Dorothy and the heirs of the same John of his body upon the aforesaid Dorothy lawfully begotten; and also the aforesaid John the father before the aforesaid feast of All Saints should make or cause to be made sure and sufficient estate to the aforesaid Thomas Puryent, Nicholas Baryngton, Richard, Edward, John Parys, William, Robert and Thomas Hildersham and their heirs of lands and tenements to the value of 10 marks after all charges, from his own lands and tenements, to the use of the aforesaid John and Dorothy and the heirs of the body of the same Dorothy lawfully begotten; and for lack of such issue to the use of the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson and his heirs; provided always that it shall be well lawful to the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson to take to his own use all woods of the aforesaid lands and tenements without impediment or interruption from the aforesaid John Broket and Dorothy or from any other person in their right or name, so that it may be taken within two years after the making of the same indenture, and not otherwise, and after the aforesaid two years finished, the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson shall not have any more profits of the woods; and also the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson before the aforesaid feast of All Saints then next following shall make or cause to be made sufficient and lawful estate to the aforesaid Thomas, Nicholas Baryngton, Richard, Edward, John Parys, William, Robert and Thomas Hildersham and their heirs by a deed indentate of other lands and tenements to the annual value of 10 marks after all charges, from his own lands and tenements, to the use of the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson for term of his life without impeachment of waste; and after his decease to the use of the heirs of the body of Agnes (another daughter of the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson) lawfully begotten, and to the heirs of their bodies lawfully begotten, and for lack of such issue to the use of the aforesaid Dorothy and the heirs of the body of the same Dorothy lawfully begotten, and for lack of such issue to the use of the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson and of his heirs; and also the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson covenanted and granted that immediately after his death he promised to descend in fact or in use to the aforesaid Dorothy and to her coheirs heirs of Johanna late wife of the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson and mother of the aforesaid Dorothy all lands and tenements of the inheritance of the aforesaid Johanna which amount to an annual value of £13 6s 8d after all charges; and also it is covenanted and agreed between the parties aforesaid that the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson at his pleasure should give and dispose at his will for ever lands and tenements of an annual value 66s 8d after all charges, parcel of other his lands and tenements not above expressed; and also it is covenanted between the parties aforesaid that if it should happen that the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson at any time in future to marry and to take to wife any woman, that then it should be lawful for the same Nicholas Hughson to make or cause to be made an estate of all his lands and tenements and appurtenances that he then might have or any other person might have to his use, and of every parcel thereof not above recited, to have to him and to any such woman his wife and the heirs of his body upon any such his wife lawfully begotten at his liberty; and for lack of such issue to remain thence to the heirs of his body lawfully begotten upon the body of the aforesaid Johanna his late wife; and for lack of such issue to remain thence to the aforesaid Nicholas Hughson and to his heirs for ever; as by the indenture aforesaid more fully appears
And the same John Broket says that he has well and faithfully fulfilled, kept and observed all and singular the covenants, grants and agreements in the indenture aforesaid specified to be fulfilled, kept and observed on his part; to wit, the same John says that he, after the making of the indenture aforesaid and before the aforesaid feast of All Saints then next following, to wit, on the 3rd day of October in the abovesaid third year of the lord now king, at Hatfeld in the aforesaid county of Hertford, by a certain deed indentate, made sure, sufficient and lawful estate to the aforesaid Thomas Puryent, Nicholas Baryngton, Richard, Edward, John Parys, William, Robert and Thomas Hildersham and their heirs of and in a water mill, 100 acres of land and £6 rent with appurtenances, parcel of the manor of Symondeshide, with appurtenances, in the aforesaid county of Hertford, which said lands and tenements are of the annual value of 20 marks after all charges, to have to them and to their heirs to the use of the aforesaid John Broket the son and of Dorothy and of the heirs of the body of the said John the son lawfully begotten upon the aforesaid Dorothy; and, further, the same John the father says that he, after the making of the indenture aforesaid and before the aforesaid feast of All Saints then next following, namely, on the aforesaid 3rd day of October in the abovesaid 3rd year, at Hatfeld aforesaid, by another deed indentate of his made sure, sufficient and lawful estate to the aforesaid Thomas Puryent, Nicholas Baryngton, Richard, Edward, John Parys, William, Robert and Thomas Hildersham and to their heirs of 200 acres of (arable) land, 10 acres of meadow and 40 acres of pasture, the remainder of the aforesaid manor of Symondeshide, with appurtenances, to have to them and to their heirs to the use of the aforesaid John Broket the father for term of his life without impeachment of waste, and after his decease to the use of the aforesaid John Broket the son and of Dorothy and of the heirs of the body of the aforesaid Dorothy begotten according to the form and effect of the indenture aforesaid — which are all the covenants, grants and agreements specified in the indenture aforesaid to be fulfilled and kept on his behalf. And this he is ready to prove, wherefore he craves judgment whether the aforesaid Thomas Fitzhugh and Johanna should have their action aforesaid against him &c.
And the same John Broket says that he has well and faithfully fulfilled, kept and observed all and singular the covenants, grants and agreements in the indenture aforesaid specified to be fulfilled, kept and observed on his part; to wit, the same John says that he, after the making of the indenture aforesaid and before the aforesaid feast of All Saints then next following, to wit, on the 3rd day of October in the abovesaid third year of the lord now king, at Hatfeld in the aforesaid county of Hertford, by a certain deed indentate, made sure, sufficient and lawful estate to the aforesaid Thomas Puryent, Nicholas Baryngton, Richard, Edward, John Parys, William, Robert and Thomas Hildersham and their heirs of and in a water mill, 100 acres of land and £6 rent with appurtenances, parcel of the manor of Symondeshide, with appurtenances, in the aforesaid county of Hertford, which said lands and tenements are of the annual value of 20 marks after all charges, to have to them and to their heirs to the use of the aforesaid John Broket the son and of Dorothy and of the heirs of the body of the said John the son lawfully begotten upon the aforesaid Dorothy; and, further, the same John the father says that he, after the making of the indenture aforesaid and before the aforesaid feast of All Saints then next following, namely, on the aforesaid 3rd day of October in the abovesaid 3rd year, at Hatfeld aforesaid, by another deed indentate of his made sure, sufficient and lawful estate to the aforesaid Thomas Puryent, Nicholas Baryngton, Richard, Edward, John Parys, William, Robert and Thomas Hildersham and to their heirs of 200 acres of (arable) land, 10 acres of meadow and 40 acres of pasture, the remainder of the aforesaid manor of Symondeshide, with appurtenances, to have to them and to their heirs to the use of the aforesaid John Broket the father for term of his life without impeachment of waste, and after his decease to the use of the aforesaid John Broket the son and of Dorothy and of the heirs of the body of the aforesaid Dorothy begotten according to the form and effect of the indenture aforesaid — which are all the covenants, grants and agreements specified in the indenture aforesaid to be fulfilled and kept on his behalf. And this he is ready to prove, wherefore he craves judgment whether the aforesaid Thomas Fitzhugh and Johanna should have their action aforesaid against him &c.
And the aforesaid John the father, as above, says that he, after the making of the indenture aforesaid (produced here in court) and before the aforesaid feast of All Saints then next following, by his deed indentate made to the aforesaid Thomas Puryent, Nicholas Baryngton, Richard, Edward, John Parys, William, Robert and Thomas Hildersham and their heirs a sure, sufficient and lawful esate of the aforesaid water mill, 100 acres of land and £6 rent with appurtenances parcel of the aforesaid manor of Symondeshide, with appurtenances, to have to them and to their heirs to the use of the aforesaid John Broket the son and Dorothy and the heirs of the body of the said John the son upon the aforesaid Dorothy lawfully begotten, according to the form and effect of the indenture aforesaid, as he has alleged above; and of this he puts himself upon the country; and the aforesaid Thomas Fitzhugh and Johanna likewise.
Hertfordshire
Therefore it is ordered the sheriff of Hertfordshire to cause to come here on the octaves of Candlemas twelve &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 a month from Easter twelve &c. by whom &c. and who neither &c. to recognize in form aforesaid &c.
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, probably b 1511-14. Later Sir John I of Brockett Hall, Hertfordshire, Will proved 1558.
- Nicholas, 2nd son. Later of Mackery End Esq, Hertfordshire, Will proved 1585.
- Edward, b c 1518. Later of Wingaledoe Gent, Essex, Will proved 1584.
- Robert, probably b 1519-26—the 1561 Visitation of Suffolk recorded him as the 4th son. Later of Bramfield Gent, Suffolk, Will proved 1582.
- Thomas, possibly a 5th—and if so not necessarily youngest—son. Like all the children he would have been born before 1526, the death of his father. He didn’t appear in any of the 3 Visitation pedigrees of John and Dorothy’s family, and the only source that listed him was the contemporary Glover, who said he died without issue. If he existed, it’s possible that it was this Thomas whose attorney 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: Lee was presumably Lee Chapel, c 1 m W of Basildon. Since Swaffham Bulbeck is nearer Essex than Letchworth is, it’s possible that this was a record of this Thomas, possible son of John and Dorothy, rather than the only other known contemporary Thomas Broket, son of Edward of Broadfield and Letchworth. But that that Thomas wasn’t mentioned in the 1558 [i.e. 1615] Visitation of Essex is an argument against. The record of a 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 thing and remarried within 2 years. A Common Pleas action of 27 Jan 1528/9 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] coexecutor 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 coexecutor 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.
The History of Parliament entry for Thomas Rudston recorded him as a Cambridgeshire JP from 1530 till his death in 1556 and MP in 1542, who “married 1st by 1528, Dorothy, prob. da. of Nicholas Hughson (?Hewson or Huston) and 2nd Anne FOWLER, daughter of William MORDAUNT, widow of Humphrey TORRELL and of one FOWLER; 2 sons. 4 daughters. and added:
“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.”
The 1575 and 1619 Visitations of Cambridgeshire showed Thomas as son of William RUDSTON of the Isle of Ely, and father by his first wife [unanmed]—the daughter and coheir of Nic Hughston of Swaffham—of William Rudstone, and by his 2nd wife Anne d/o MORDAUNT of Hemsted Essex, of Thomas Rudston. This contradicts the History of Parliament account above, which said William was a son of his 2nd wife. Thomas was admitted to Gray’s Inn 1521, attorney by 1525, died Sep/Oct 1556. His Will dated 13 Sep 1556, proved 6 Nov 1556, left numerous legacies to friends and relatives, but no Brokets were mentioned. No PROB11 Will of his son William Rudston has been found.
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’ xiiijs iiijd 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 the vicar of Swaffham Bulbek parish church 6s 8d.
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: November 3, 2022
