As with the surname Braket, Briket is orally distinct from the surname Broket. If your surname is Brickett you wouldn’t get called Brockett as a simple variant. According to surname authorities the name Brickett is a variant of Birkett.1 Read More
So on the rare occasion that a Broket was recorded as Briket you can be almost certain that a misspelling or mistranscription occurred, as for instance in the 1841 census with the family of Edward Brockett of Shoreditch, and in the IGI transcription of the 1881 census for Thomas Brockett of Lambeth, and probably in 1546 with Margaret of Hitchin below.
Conversely there have been instances of Brikets being misspelt as Brokets, as with Margarett of London in 1540 and Thomas of Dunstable in 1544 below. In addition to these examples, this page also lists various early instances of Brikets to illustrate the distinction between them and Brokets.
The main focus of this page is the 16th C. A good, wider overview of the name was provided by Dr Penelope Christensen of BC Canada for her Brickett One-Name Study, registered with the Guild of One-Name Studies. You can download a Word version here.
Contents of this page:
Margarett of London 1540
Margaret of Hitchin 1546
Thomas of Dunstable 1544-73
William of Northamptonshire 1535-62
Other Bedfordshire Brikets
Other Hertfordshire Brikets
Other Common Pleas cases
Kings Bench cases
This was an instance of Briket being wrongly catalogued as Broket.
The UK National Archives holds a document which their catalogue describes as a certiorari writ,2 in which Christopher Bryghttyff brought a complaint against Martin Bowez and [William] Lackeston, sheriffs of London concerning an action of debt by Margaret Broket, London. It notes that these sheriffs held office in 1540. The document is faded and mutilated in places but a close-up of the only occurrence of Margarett’s surname under u/v light shows it to have been Briket not Broket:3
This was probably an instance of Brockett being wrongly written up from field notes as Brickett.
The Exchequer Survey of the possessions of the former Carmelite Friary in Hitchin of 11 Apr 1546 stated; “Margaret Brickett Wydowe holdethe at the Wille of the lorde one tenement with a Garden therunto belonginge lying in Bullestrete payeing by the yere viijs”.4 Bull Street was another name for part of Bridge Street, which was where William Brockett’s Die House was situated. Indeed William’s house was mentioned in the preceding entry in the Survey at the foot of the page before: “John Munner occupies a tenement with a garden in Bridge Street between the tenement of William Brockett on the west and the tenement of Thomas Eldrington on the east paying 13s 4d a year.” Here are the scribe’s spellings of the two names:5
This juxtaposition of a Broket and a Briket is a big coincidence, especially when no other Brikets have been found in Hitchin records from the 16th and 17th C. The scribe made various mistakes on the first page, so it is possible he made another one when writing up Margaret’s surname from the field notes that he presumably used, and that she was actually Margaret Brockett. There was a widow Margeret Broket living in Hitchin in 1524. Of course it could be that she was a lone Briket who came to Hitchin as a widow and happened to live near William Broket. But it seems unliklely.
The Exchequer Survey was no doubt the source for the section of a large grant by the king three months later in July 1546 of various priories and large properties to Edward Watson, of Rockyngham, Northhants, and Henry Herdson, Skinner of London, including “the site and chief mansion of the late priory of Friars Carmelites of Hychen, Herts, with buildings … and messuages …” The spelling of some of the names was slightly different—Myners for Munner, Brokett for Brockett and Bryket for Brickett—but otherwise the wording of the grant was clearly a slightly abbreviated version of the Survey.6
</aMargaret BRICKETT is again mentioned amongst the Delme-Radcliffe papers,7 which mentioned a messuage in Bull Street in the occupation of Margaret Brickett. This document is undated but Ralph Radcliffe bought Hitchin Priory in 1553, so the document was probably drawn up shortly after. Again, it is probable that the 1546 Exchequer Survey was the source document from which the details—like Margaret Brickett’s name—were copied.
5 records have so far been found of Thomas. The 1544 one with little doubt was an instance of Brikett being misspelt in a Will as Brokett.
1. 1544: He was bequeathed a featherbed in the Will of John Geffray of Dunstable, made 2 Jun, pr 16 Jun 1544.8 The Will was a simple one, bequests comprising:
The only known Thomas Broketts alive at this time were not from Bedfordshire, but from the Hertfordshire clan, younger sons of Edward of Broadfield and Letchworth Esq and John of Swaffham Bulbeck Esq. That either of them was ever of Dunstable would be an unlikely coincidence.
2. 1547: At this time Thomas was married to Margaret, as shown by a Common Pleas action in which Thomas Brykett and Margaret his wife sold a messuage in Dunstaple to George Ackeworth Esq, paying 6s 8d to the Exchequer as the fine for the licence.9
3. 1563: At this time Thomas was occupying a tenement on the north boundary of Dunstaple called the White Harte, as shown by a Deed Poll of Henry Beacham, son and heir of William Beacham of Dunstaple, mercer, which beginsRead More
4. 1573: Thomas had died by 7 Oct this year as shown by probate on this date of the Will of Thomas Brickett of Dunstaple, written 29 Jan 1572, proved 7 Oct 1573.11Read More
The residue to wife Vnyfred, sole executrix. Overseers: Richard Ames, Robert Ameryoke, John Carter the elder, Thomas Foster the elder. 6s 8d each for their labours and pains.
His [presumably 2nd] wife was Winifred. His daughters and son ‘in law’ probably meant what we call step daughters and son, children of Winifred by a previous marriage. His brother was Roland.
5. 1573: On 22 October Thomas, bailiff of Dunstable, was declared an outlaw in Hertfordshire for non-payment of a debt, as shown by the following Kings Bench case.Read More
Outlawry of Thomas Brickett, Bailiff of Dunstable: “Hertfordshire. Thomas Brickett bailiff of Dunstable in the county aforesaid outlawed the 22nd day of October in the 15th year abovesaid, in a plea of debt (as) appears by the (queen’s) writs abovesaid.”12
The defendant was outlawed because he failed to appear, successively, in court, despite several proclamations. The court may not have known that he was dead. The choice of the county to the sheriffs of which orders were sent to enforce an action lay in the hands of the plaintiff.13
Six or more records concerning debts—either owing or owed—have so far been found for this William Bryket/Byrket Yeoman.14 The interest in him was that he was a contemporary of William Brokett Yeoman of Hitchin who died 1556, and to be sure that misspellings of the Broket surname hadn’t occurred somewhere along the line, it was necessary to investigate the known records of any 16th C William Brikets. In particular, the 1536 record concerning a debt he was chasing from a Butcher in Hitchin, when looked at in isolation seemed like a potential misspelling of Broket. If in some records he could be recorded as William Byrket, rather than Bryket, then maybe a William Brokett could have been recorded as William Brykett? However, looking at the records as a group gave no reason to suspect that any of them individually concerned William Broket, the 1536 one included. In half the six cases he was dubbed ‘of Thorpe Waterfeld, Northamptonshire’. Thorpe Waterfeld (Thorpe Waterville) is a village some 15 m W of Huntingdon and 35 m NNW of Hitchin. As for the county headings to the cases: Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire or wherever, their purpose was to sort out which sheriff would be responsible for carrying out any orders. They said nothing definite about the plaintiff, and often were not the county of the defendant’s address.15 So that the 1536 case was to be sent to the Hertfordshire sheriff was not significant. The livestock mentioned in two of the cases—a thousand ewes in 1546 and 120 in 1562—suggest he might have been a a livestock dealer, which could possibly link him to the later the William Brickett, Butcher, of 1590. If so it would have been natural to do business in an important market town like Hitchin. Fleck and Poole published late 19th C photographs of the large sheep market there.16 In sum, it is unnecessary speculation to suspect that any records found so far of this William Briket concerned William Broket, and that 1536 one in particular.
1535: Hilary. Huntingdonshire. Richard Robers was suing William Brykkett of Thorpe Waterfeld, Northamptonshire, Yeoman for a debt of £13 6s 8d.17 Note that his name was spelt Byrkkett rather than Brykkett.Read More
Richard Robers appeared by his attorney for a fourth day against William Byrkkett late of Thorpe Waterfeld in county Northampton yoman, in a plea that he render him £13 6s 8d 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 by which he might be attached) &c. Therefore let (the defendant) be taken, to be here on the octaves of Candlemas [9 Feb 1535] &c. On which day here comes the aforesaid Richard, by his attorney aforesaid, and appears for a fourth day against the aforesaid William in the plea aforesaid. And (the defendant) has not come; and it had been ordered the sheriff to take him &c. And the sheriff now reports that (the defendant) is not found &c. Therefore, as before, let (the defendant) be taken, to be here on the quindene of Easter [11 Apr1535] &c.
1536: Hertfordshire. William Brykett was suing William Smyth, Butcher, formerly of Hitchin, for a debt of 107s 6d.18 It didn’t say where William Brykett was from, but there is no good reason to suspect that his name had been misspelt and he was William Brokett of Hitchin.Read More
William Brykett appeared by his attorney for a fourth day against William Smyth late of Hychyn, butcher, in a plea that he render him 107s 6d; which he owes him and unjustly withholds from him &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) Therefore, let him be taken, to be here on the quindene of Easter [30 April 1536] &c.
The jury between Edward Nikeson plaintiff and William Brykett late of Thorpe Waterfeld in the county aforesaid yoman otherwise called William Brykett of Thorpe in county Northampton yoman, in a plea of debt, is respited hence to the quindene of Easter [5 May 1538] (unless the justices of the lord king appointed to hold assizes in the county aforesaid by form of statute &c. come first to the castle of Northampton in the county aforesaid on Wednesday next after the feast of St David the bishop [6 Mar 1538]) for lack of jurors, as none came.20 Therefore the sheriff shall have their bodies &c.
William Byrket late of Thorpe Waterfeld in county Northampton yoman otherwise called William Byrket of Thorpe Waterfyld in county Northampton yoman had been summoned to answer Thomas Wymberley otherwise called Thomas Wymberley [sic], in a plea that he render him £40 that he owes him and unjustly withholds &c. And wherein the same Thomas, by George Forster his attorney, says that whereas the aforesaid William on the 9th day of October in the 27th year year of the reign of the lord now king [9 Oct 1535], at Burn, by a writing obligatory of his granted himself to be bound to the same Thomas in the aforesaid £40, to be paid to the same Thomas on the feast of the apostles Simon and Jude then next following [28 Oct 1535]; however, the aforesaid William, although very often requested, has not yet rendered the aforesaid £40 to the same Thomas, but has so far refused to render it to him, and still refuses: whereby he says that he is injured and has damage to the value of 20 marks: and therein brings his suit &c. And he produces here in court the writing aforesaid, which testifies to the debt aforesaid in form aforesaid, the date of which is the day and year abovesaid &c.
And the aforesaid William comes, by Clement Gyles his attorney, and defends the force and injury when &c. and craves a hearing of the writing aforesaid: and it is read to him. He also craves a 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 with’in bounden’ Willam Byrket his heirs executors or assignes do well & trulye contente & pay to the with’in named Thomas Wymbley hys executors or assygnes xixli’ xs’ of laufull money of Englond in this forme folowyng that is to sey Fyve pounds tenne shyllyngs the xxij day of this prsent moneth’e of Octobr’ nowe next immedyatly folowyng the date hereof Fyve pounds the xvij day of Decembr’ then’ next after folowyng Fyve pounds in the in the [sic] fest of the Purificac’on of our blessed lady then’ next after folowyng [2 Feb 1536] & Foure pounds in the fest of the Apostylls Philip & Jacobe then next folowyng [1 May 1536] withoute any further delay then’ this obligac’on be void & of non’ effecte And if the said Willam Byrkett do fayll of any the payment aboue seid in manr & forme aboue rehersyd that then’ this obligac’on to stond in full strength & vrtue
Which having been read and heard, the same William says that the aforesaid Thomas should not have his action aforesaid against him: for he says that after the making of the writing aforesaid, namely on the 22nd day of October in the 27th year aforesaid he paid the aforesaid Thomas £5 10s; and on the aforesaid 17th day of December then next following £5; and at Candlemas aforesaid then next following, another £5; and on Mayday then next following £4, according to the form and effect of the endorsement aforesaid, to wit, at Burn aforesaid in the aforesaid county of Lincoln. And this he is ready to prove: wherefore he craves judgment whether the aforesaid Thomas should have his action aforesaid against him &c.
And the aforesaid Thomas says that he should not be precluded by anything alleged above from having his action, protesting that the aforesaid William did not pay the same Thomas any sum of the moneys specified above in the endorsement aforesaid as the aforesaid William has alleged above: for he says that the aforesaid William did not pay the same Thomas on Mayday aforesaid the aforesaid £4 that was due to him on the same feast, according to the form and effect of the endorsement aforesaid, as the aforesaid William has alleged above. And this he is ready to prove; wherefore he craves judgment, and his debt aforesaid, together with his damages by occasion of the withholding of that debt, to be adjudged to him &c.
And the aforesaid William, as before, says that he paid the aforesaid Thomas on the Mayday aforesaid the aforesaid £4 that he was due to pay to him on that feast according to the form and effect of the endorsement aforesaid, as he has alleged above. And of this he puts himself upon the country; and the aforesaid Thomas likewise. Therefore it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the octaves of Candlemas [9 Feb 1538] twelve &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. Therefore, as before, it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the quindene of Easter [5 May 1538] twelve &c.
On which day here come the parties &c.; and the sheriff has not sent the writ.22 Therefore, as many times, it is ordered the sheriff to cause to come here on the quindene of Midsummer [8 Jul 1538] twelve &c. to recognize in form aforesaid.
William Brykett appeared by his attorney for a fourth day against Johanna Bryckett late of Thorpe Waterfeld in the county aforesaid widow, in a plea that she render him £40 that she owes him and unjustly withholds &c. And she has not come; and it had been ordered the sheriff to summon her &c. And the sheriff now reports that she has nothing (in his bailiwick in lands or chattels by which she might be attached) &c. Therefore let her be taken, to be here on the quindene of Easter [9 May 1546] &c.
William Bryckett appeared by his attorney for a fourth day against William Loftys late of Owndell in the county aforesaid talowchaundler, in a plea that he render him a thousand ewes worth £40 that he unjustly withholds from him &c.25 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 by which he might be attached) &c. Therefore let (the defendant) be taken, to be here on the quindene of Easter [9 May 1546] &c.
Be it remembered that previously, namely in Hilary term last past, before the lady queen at Westminster came William Bryckett, by [blank] Kyme, his attorney, and produced here in the court of the said lady queen then and there a bill of his against John Alcock, in the custody of the marshal &c., in a plea of trespass upon the case. And there are pledges of prosecution, namely John Doo and Richard Roo.27 Which said bill follows, in these words:
William Bryckett complains of John Alcock, being in the custody of the marshal of the Marshalsea of the lady queen before the queen herself, in that, to wit, whereas the aforesaid John on the 3rd day of March in the 7th year of the reign of lord Edward VI late king of England [3 Mar 1553], in the county aforesaid, bought and had to the own proper use of the same John, from the aforesaid William, 120 ewes, for £28 of lawful money of England afterwards to be paid to the same William by the same John; the aforesaid John then and there in consideration aforesaid, and for 12d of lawful money of England paid in hand to the same John by the same William, undertook and faithfully promised to the aforesaid William, that he the same John would well and faithfully pay and content the aforesaid £28 to the aforesaid William whenever asked to do so by the same William; but of part of which £28 the aforesaid John, not considering his undertaking and promise aforesaid, but scheming to craftily and deceitfully deceive and defraud the aforesaid of £20 the remainder of the aforesaid £28, has not yet paid the same £20 remainder, nor has in any way so far contented the same William for the same, although afterwards, namely on the 20th day of June in the 2nd year of the reign of the now lady queen [20 Jun 1560], at Wytteryng aforesaid, requested to do so by the aforesaid William: whereby the same William has not only totally lost the various moneys and profits that he might have had and profited in buying, selling and lawfully bargaining with the aforesaid £20, but in fact has been in many ways harmed and injured in his credit with John Byrcheley and Thomas Hart, to whom the same William had been indebted in a like sum of £20, and which same £20 he had promised to pay them at a certain time now past on his hope of the performance, undertaking and promise aforesaid: to the damage of the said William of 40 marks: and therein bring his suit &c.
And now on this day, namely Friday after the octaves of Hilary this same term, to which day the aforesaid John Alcock had licence of interlocution upon the bill aforesaid and then to answer &c. before the lady queen at Westminster came both the aforesaid William Bryckett by his attorney aforesaid and the aforesaid John Alcock by [blank] Cobbe his attorney. And the same John Alcock defends the force and injury when &c. and says that he did not make an undertaking in the manner and form as the aforesaid William Bryckett has complained against him above: and of this he puts himself upon the country. And the aforesaid William likewise &c. Therefore let a jury thereon come before the lady queen at Westminster on Monday after the morrow of Candlemas [9 Feb 1562]; and who neither &c. to recognize &c. because both &c. The same date is given to the parties aforesaid there &c
1590: 7 Oct. The Certificate of residence showing William Brickett, Butcher, to be liable for taxation in Essex, Hundred of Barnstaple, residing in the parish of Great Bursted.28 is unlikely to have been for the same man as the cases above. He was assessed for 10s on £10 in goods.
1556: Will of Roger Lody of parish of Luton, husbandman, written 3 Mar 1556, proved 5 Oct. 1556 “To daughter Helen Brickett 2 quarter of barley, and to her two children Thomas and Agnes a sheep each.”29
1667: 11 March. Constables’ presentments for the Hundred of Manshead included one for Dunstable, in which John Bricket, Amos Clarke, Michael Shrowsbury presented Edwife Chester, Thos Hawkins, Richard Snoxell, Wm Chambers and Richard Couley for not going to church for 1 month.30 John Bricket being a constable for Dunstable suggests he might have been related to Thomas of Dunstable, d 1572, above.
1671: John Brickett paid for 3 hearths in 2 houses in the 1671 Hearth Tax for Dunstable. He was presumably the same John who was Constable in 1667.
There was a Briket family in Albury (c 19 m E of Hitchin) in the 16th C, apparently unrelated to the Brokets. Will of Robert Brickett, Gentleman of Barley, 10 July 1566.31 Will of Grace Brickett, Gentlewoman and Widow of Barley, 6 March 1593.32
Other Common Pleas cases33
1559: Robert Bryckett/Brykkett acted as attorney for Thomas Martyn Esq at Westminster in 1559 in a suit of trespass against Thomas Harryson late of Cotnam, Cambridgeshire, Gent, but the defendant appeared in person when the case was finally tried at Cambridge in 1561.34
1559: Trinity. Robert Bryckett acted as attorney in two cases at Westminster, one for Robert Newporte and the other for Sir Robert Chester. The latter has “Bedds” in the margin, but this only indicated which sheriff would be dealing with the court’s orders.35
1538: Essex. Trespass in a close. Richard Bonyng, Elizabeth his wife, Thomas Wylborowe, Joan his wife, Robert Proo, Margaret his wife, and Alice Brykett widow , were all suing Richard Luntley of Ramsey, Husbandman.37
Kings Bench cases38
1559 Trinity. Middlesex: Walter Bryckett v Hugh Sheldon.40
1560 Michaelmas. Waivery of Juliana Bryckett widow: “Juliana Bryckett of the parish of St Leonard in Shordyche in the county aforesaid widow waived the day and year abovesaid for certain trespasses and contempts contrary to the form of the statute enacted concerning good behaviour, whereof they are indicted as appears by the writs abovesaid (Queen’s writs of Michaelmas term in the 2nd year of the reign of lady Elizabeth now queen of England).41 Assuming that Juliana was the same widow mentioned in the case brought against her husband Robert Spycer in Easter 1559 above, that she was still referred to by the name Brickett in Michaelmas 1560 is explainable by the lengthy process leading up to outlawry. She would have been described exactly as in the writ that started the proceedings against her, which presumably predated her marriage to Robert Spycer.42
1562: Northants. William Bryckett v John Alcock in Marshalsea. See above.
1573: 22 October. Outlawry of Thomas Brickett, Bailiff of Dunstable.
1587-90 Michaelmas. Outlawry of Margaret Brickett of Westminster spinster.43 Following spinster are the two words “seruus eius”, presumably as the servant of the lady Vawce wife of the said lord Vauce on the previous line; all recusants.44
Christopher Brickett archer in Bermondsey.45
Arthur Brickett in Woking.46
Page Last Updated: October 4, 2018