John Brokett of Ippollitts/Offley Yeoman
In 1545 John Broket of Ippollitts was one of the four Broket heads of household recorded in mid 16th C Hertfordshire.1 In 1558 John Brokett of Offley wrote his Will. Taken alongside other records listed below there can be little doubt that the 1545 John was the same man as the 1558 one. Both parishes bordered Hitchin, where his contemporaries William and Edward Broket both held property. The parish of Offley was about 1 mile south of Hitchin, and the parish of Ippollitts was about 3 miles east of Offley. While Hitchin town was a relatively large settlement, estimated to contain 245 families in 1563,2 neighbouring Ippollitts and Offley were parishes of scattered small hamlets of a few families, each with one slightly larger hamlet around the parish church. The hamlet of Gosmore or Gosmer, for instance, was nearer Ippollitts church than the hamlet of Charlton which was actually nearer to Hitchin town centre than to Ippollitts church. The parish records of Ippollitts and Offley have not been preserved so well as Hitchin’s.
Paying only 3 pence tax in 1545 placed John further down the social scale than William and Edward, but his Will shows that he was part of their clan, in all likelihood William I of Hitchin’s brother. As such he would have been the grandson of Edward of Wheathampstead, the heir to the lands of Thomas, husband of Elizabeth Asshe. In 1450 Thomas held land in Great Offley.
Contents of this page:
In April 1544 John Broket esquire—who 2 years later was to become the first Sir John Brockett—made a plea against our “John Brokett late of Ipoletts” and his son John at the court of Common Pleas held at Westminster in the Hilary term in the 35th year of the reign of Henry VIII. They were two of eight defendants against the allegation that they forcibly broke into a close of John Broket esquire’s at Graveley and Ipoletts and cut down and carried off his trees and underwood to the value of 100s and had not come to defend themselves. The court ordered the Hertfordshire sheriff to take John and the others and bring them to court on 27 April 1544:3 Read more
John Broket esquire appeared by his attorney for a fourth day against John Brokett late of Ipoletts in the county aforesaid senior yeoman, John Brokett late of Ipoletts in the county aforesaid junior yeoman, Thomas Cawell late of Langley in the county aforesaid laborer, Robert Kyng late of Ipoletts in the county aforesaid laborer, John Cawell late of Willion in the county aforesaid laborer, William Gardyner late of Willion in the county aforesaid laborer, William Cranwell late of Willion in the county aforesaid laborer and Thomas Sarles late of Ipoletts in the county aforesaid laborer, in a plea wherefore by force of arms they broke into a close of the said John Broket esquire at Graveley and Poletts and cut down and carried off his trees and underwood lately growing there, to the value of 100s, and [inflicted] other enormities [upon him] &c. to grave damage &c. and against the peace &c. And [the defendants] have not come; and it had been ordered the sheriff to attach them &c.; and the sheriff now reports that [the defendants] have nothing [in his bailiwick in lands or chattels whereby they might be attached] &c. Therefore let them be taken, to be here on the quindene of Easter &c.
Points to consider:
1. John was described as a ‘late’, ie former, Yeoman of Ippollitts. This was in April 1544 yet the following year John was recorded paying tax on property in Ippollitts. The ‘late’ may have been a court inaccuracy, or less likely John may have sold property in Ippollitts before 1544 and then purchased again before 1545.
2. John is termed ‘senior’ and since we know of no other Brokets in Ippollitts at the time, John junior would presumably have been his son. John junior is not mentioned in John senior’s Will, so possibly died between 1544-58.
3. Prior to ordering them to be ‘taken’, the Court had ordered them to be ‘attached’. For the original system of ‘attachment’:Read more
All this system had largely become a fiction by Tudor times. When sheriffs say that someone has nothing in their bailiwick, it just means that the defendant was not gentry. When the sheriffs say that someone was not found, it means that the sheriffs have not looked for them. The mainpernors become fictitious, given names like John Doe and Richard Roe, or John Fenn and Richard Denn, &c. The whole process becomes a paper (or rather parchment) exercise, in which the defendants eventually make their peace with the plaintiffs outside the court, or go through a variety of ways of procrastinating the case (which can go on for years), or even actually come to trial. As is perhaps still the case today, there is a process of slow attrition, with attorneys’ expenses mounting up; but in Tudor times there was, over all, the real threat to the defendant of eventual outlawry, loss of all possessions and imprisonment.4
Written 8 Sep 1558, proved 4 Jan 1558/9.5
ffirst I and principallie I bequeithe my soull to allmyghtie god oure lady synt Mary and to all the holie company of heven And my body to be buryede in the church of Offley Item I geue to the churche of lincoln iiijd Item I geue to the highe aultere of Offleye for my tithes necligentlie forgotten xijd Item I geue to the iiij poure children in the town of Offleye vjs viijd Item I geue to the reparacons of Offley churche iijs iiijd Item I geue to grace broket my doughtere fourtie pounde with that the money that goodman Symons hathe in keping of the same xl li’ Item I geue to Rose Brokett my doughtere xl li’ also And that the seid Sumys to be paid at the days of maryag And yf it fortune either of them to departe before the day of maryage Then the other livynge to haue the hole lxxx li’ Item I will that Robert Wellis shall haue x li’ Item I geue to my ij doughters dwellinge at Stevynnage either of them ten sheipe Item I geue to grace and Rose my doughters either of them ten sheipe Item I geue to Richard brockett my sonne v sheipe Item I geue to my doughtere Starken v sheipe Item I geue to Richard boket and and [sic] to Thomas boket either of them v sheipe Item I geue to Richard Leypare Alice Meyare and to Katheryne Wellis and John Thresser euery one ij sheipe Item I do ordeyn Mr Edwarde Broket esquyir my ouereseare and he to haue for his good cownsell and paynes aboute this my testament iiij li’ out of the Sumes of money that – he doo owe me Item I do make Joone my wiff my onlie executrixe of this my last will to whom I do geue the reste of my goodis dettes and any thinge that is due to me or that here after shalbe due my dettes paid and legacies as is aforeseid Wittnesse herof John Turnare clarke vicare of Offleye Rogere Henly Thomas Felion Richarde Clark with other
His Will shows that:
- John’s wife was Joone, i.e. Joan—in all likelihood, the Johan Brokett whose Will was proved in 1570.
- John’s bequests to Alice Meyare and to Katheryne Wellis support the assumption that Johan his wife was the Johan Brokett whose Will was proved 1570. Johan appears to have been married to a Wells previously and her sister married a Meyger. Since Johan didn’t mention John’s children in her Will it looks as though they were from another marriage and that John as well as Johan had been married previously.
- John gave bequests to the following children: Grace, Rose, 2 daughters living in Stevenage, Richard, and a daughter married to Starken. A John Sterk… was assessed at 4d in Ippollitts in the 1545 subsidy.6 John’s daughter Grace was probably aged 10-15 in 1558. She had been left 20s in William I’s Will in 1556.
- John was a Yeoman of middling means. He had a flock of 70+ sheep and at least £84 8s in ready cash.
- John had the funds to lend money to a respected, senior kinsman, Edward of Letchworth Esq, whom he appointed his overseer. Edward was possibly his first cousin, at any rate the doyen of the family.
- That John left bequests to Richard and Thomas Boket was either a curious coincidence or a court copyist’s error. The surviving copy is a registered Will rather than an original. Since John had already mentioned an identical bequest—5 sheep—to “Richard Brockett my sonne”, another one to “Richard Boket” is unlikely to have been an error for his son, although there is also an ‘and-and’ dittography—“to Richard boket and and to Thomas boket”. It’s possible that the two may have been brothers of John—or just Thomas if Richard was a repeat—but no record of a Thomas, or other Richard, Broket have been found from the contemporary area. There were Bokets recorded in Colney and Kimpton and Hitchin in 17th and 18th C manor court books,7 but whether there were any in Offley earlier isn’t known.
The assumption is that Johan—i.e. Joan—was John’s wife. Support for the assumption:
- John’s wife was called Johan.
- The likelihood of there having been two widows called Johan Brokett in the tiny settlement of Offley within 12 years is next to nil. Only one contemporary Offley Brockett family is known—John’s.
- John left bequests to Robert Wells, Katheryne Wellis and to Alice Meyare. Johan left bequests to Robert Wells, other Wellses and Meygers.
Some points about Joan’s Will:
- Kookerhow is most likely modern-day Cockernhoe, a village 2½ miles SW of Great Offley, and in Johan’s time a hamlet of the parish.
- She didn’t say the date when she wrote the Will. It was proved 10 May 1570 in Baldock (Arch Hunts).
- Between her husband’s Will and hers their religion had changed.
- John willed to be buried in the church, Joan in the churchyard.
- The bequest to William Brokett of “one brasse pott with a hole in” is curious. It appears to be an expression of criticism or dislike. The William of nearby Hitchin at the time was not much more than 10 years old. The only other known William who had dealings in the area was William of Esyndon Gent, b 1521-6, d 1611, who was Clerk of the Peace for Hertfordshire 1570-1603. Perhaps there had been some altercation between Johan and him.
Richard d 1604
1598: Richard Brockett and Edward Papworthe were both assessed at 4s for 20s in land in Ippollitts.9 William Brockett was assessed in Hitchin at 10s 8d tax for £4 in goods.10 No Brokets were assessed in Pirton or Weston.
The Will of Richard Brockett Yeoman of Cosmer, Ippollitts written 18 Jan 1603/4, proved Hitchin 7 Aug 1604.11
the marke of the said Richard
Publyshed as his Last will and Testament in the presence of Iohn Skynner Robert Draper George Draper
His Will shows that:
- His wife was Johan, i.e. Joan. He left her his best milch cow, his best hog, his best ewe, and half of his household stuff.
- They had two daughters living, both married: Johan Auncell and Elizabeth Braye. It seems less likely that they had two daughters named Elizabeth than that she had married twice, once to Field, and currently to Braye.
- Elizabeth his daughter had two daughters alive of her own: Grace and Johan Field.
- John apparently had one son living—Nicholas, who was his sole Executor, therefore born before 1583. The residue went to him.
Inprimis his Apparel — xxs
Item in the hall at Table one Cubberd a Forme ij Chayres with other small ymplements — xxs
Item in the Kytchyn Fower Ketles ij Posnetts one Brasse Pott and a Chafyng dyshe — viijs iiijd
Item seaven peeces of Pewter — – vjs iiijd
Item one spytt A Drypping Pan a payre of Tongs & a Jack — js vjd
Item in the Chamber over the Hall iij Beddsteeds one Fetherbedd ij Bowlsters 3 Pyllowes iij Coverings and Fower Blankettes — xxxvjs 4d
Item vij payre of sheets ij Tableclothes & iij Napkyns — xls
Item Fyve Pyllowbeares — iijs iiijd
Item iij Coffers and ould hangings about the Chamber — xs
Item in an other Chamber one Bedd with the appurtenances therevnto belonginge & ould hangings in the Chamber — xs
Item iij Tubbs one Payle & a Bole — iijs iiijd
Item in the Stable Fower horsses with their harnesse — vli vjs xd
Item wheat in the barne to thrashe & some thrashed — iiijli xiijs iiijd
Item haye in the Barne — xiijs iiijd
Item in the yard one Cart and a Plowe and a payre of harrowes — xls
Item certeyne Tymber & other Wood in the Yard — xlvjs
Item ij Beastes & a wenlyinge Bullocke — iijli
Item a Sowe and Fowerr Stores — xxs
Item viiij sheep — xxxijs
Item Compasse in the Yard — xiijs iiijd
Item in the Fields & closes of wheat & Barley ix acres and iij rodes — xxiijli
Item vij acres & a half of Oates and lyntells. — iiijli xiijs iiijd
Summa totalis lijli iijs vjd [i.e. £51 3s 6d]
The inventory gives an insight into a Yeoman family’s way of life:
- His house had two bedrooms above the main downstairs area, the hall. There was also a kitchen.
- There was a stable and a barn.
- There were 4 Horses and various cattle, pigs and sheep.
- Wheat and barley were growing in about 10 acres of land, and oats and lentils in another 7½ acres.
- Thomas Bybsworthe of Ipollyttes, one of the appraisers was probably the son of John Bybsworth, one of the two executors of whose Will in 1549 had been Johne Brokette, probably Richard’s father.12
- The other appraiser was Robert Draper of Hytchyn, who was probably one of the witnesses to Richard’s Will.
Nicholas d 1645
Four records have so far been found:
1603/4: As executor of his father’s Will.
1636-7: Two passing mentions to Nicholas’ land in Maydencroft manor have been found in the Maydencroft manorial records, from 1636 and 37:13
“includes 7½ acres lying between land of John Wallen alias Poulter on the south and the land of Simon Lucas on the north, one head abutting on the land of William Giver gent on the east and on the land of Nich Brockett to the west.”14
Robert Papworth gentleman admitted in fee to 7 acres of land in Ridge Field lying next Maydencroft Lane the land of Nicholas Brockett on the south and west parts thereof surrendered by Francis and Anne Rogers. Rent 4s 1¾d. Fine £7.15
Maydencroft manor was in the Parish of St Ippolyts.
1645: Nicholas’ burial 24 Jul: “Nicolaus Brocket Sepultus erat 24o die Julij”.16
No details of any family are known. Since no further Brokets were recorded in the Ippollitts registers it looks as though the family died our, or perhaps moved elsewhere. It wouldn’t have been this Nicholas who had an interest in a ship which transported cargo to Virginia in the 1630s.
Page Last Updated: June 18, 2019