Monthly Archives: October 2013

Alexander Wynch – Genealogy

This page draws from other posts to piece together the genealogy of Alexander Wynch, Governor of Madras in the second half of the eighteenth century.

Paternal Lineage

Wynch

From contemporary records (notably wills and apprenticeship bonds) it has been possible to trace Alexander’s most likely origins back to James Wynch of Bray (will dated 1589, proved 1590).

Set out below is the short-form descendancy from James Wynch to Alexander, and more information on the discoveries and background documents will, in due course, be brought forward in future posts.

1. JAMES WYNCH (211 211 211 111 11) of Bray, Berkshire (d.1590)

1590 James Wynch of Bray

James had issue including:

a. ROBERT WYNCH (211 211 211 111 1) of Bray, Berkshire (d.1618) who married firstly Joane LUTMAN the daughter of Roger Lutman of Cookham, Berkshire, Yeoman (whose will was dated Jan 30 1581/2);

1618 Robert Wynche of Bray

Robert and Joane had issue:

i) Symon Wynch (will dated 7th October 1643, proved [ ] 1646) who married Ellen or Eleanor Loggins, baptised 16th September 1571 at White Waltham, Berks (IGI), daughter and heir of Symon Loggins (who married Elizabeth Foord the daughter of Thomas Foord of White Waltham, Berks), the son of Robert Loggins and his wife Elianor Stafferton daughter and sole heir of Henry Stafferton (or Staverton) of Warfield, Berks; and had issue:

1646 Symon Winch

A. Richard Winch of Fyfield or Fifield in Bray, gentleman (d. 1658; will dated 3rd August 1657; proved 9th February 16589) who married Mary Mayot the daughter of Thomas Mayott of Culham, Oxfordshire and had issue:

1658 Richard Winch of Fifield

a) Simon Winch of Fifield who married Mary Byshop the daughter of Robert Bysshopp of Bray and had issue:

‘1. Simon Winch of Fifield, Bray, gentleman (will dated 4th November 1699; proved 10th April 1700) who married Ann Bishop (brother of George Bishop, gent., died before 6th January 1706) (will dated 6th January 1706, proved 10th November 1712) and had issue:

1700 Simon Winch of Fifield Bray
1712 Anne Winch of East Oakley Bray

‘a. Richard Winch (his father left him leases of lands at Didworth in the Parish of New Windsor, Fifield, East Oakely and Winkfield)

‘b. John Winch (his mother left him several parcels of land at Bray called Sparkbarrow, Long Close, Guelins and Askins – all late the lands of her brother George Bishop)

‘c. Elizabeth Winch who married William Davis

‘d. Mary Winch who married Edward Cotterell

‘e. Ann Winch who married Thomas King

‘f. Elinor Winch

‘2. Richard Winch

‘3. Robert Winch

‘4. Mary Winch

b) Mary Winch who married John Blake of Reading and had issue including:

‘1. Rev Charles Blake (1664-1730) b. Reading, Berkshire; Archdeacon of York; d. 22nd November 1730 at Wheldrake, East Riding of Yorkshire

c) Elianor Winch

B. Simon Winch who married Ann Montague of Winkfield

C. Elizabeth Winch who married William Powney of Bray, yeoman (will dated 27th November 1654; proved 18th December 1654) and had issue:

a) Ann Powney who married Noah Barnard and had issue:

‘1. Noah Barnard baptised 10th March 16701 Cookham, Berks (IGI) was apprenticed 7th November 1684 to Nathaniell Winch DISTILLERS COMPANY

C. Ellen or Elianor Winch who married Simon Beckley of Fifield in Bray

D. Jane Winch (will dated 23rd November 1676, proved 9th August 1680) who married John Page of Bray, gent (will dated 21st December 1654, proved 20th October 1657), the son of Randolph Page of Bray and his wife [ ? ] Eldridge of Middlesex and grandson of John Page Keeper of the Wardrobe to Henry VIII and his wife Mary Fowler (daughter of [ ? ] Fowler, Alderman of London), and had issue:

1680 Jane Page
1657 John Page

[a) Symon Page (referred to in his father’s will but not his mother’s)

b) John Page (referred to in his father’s will but not his mother’s)

c) Thomas Page of Bray, gent. (referred to in his mother’s will but not his father’s) who had issue:

‘1. Jane Page

‘2. Sarah Page

d) Cicely Page married [ ? ] Farmer (referred to in her father’s will but not her mother’s)

e) Elizabeth Page (referred to in her father’s will but not her mother’s)

f) Jane Page who married Capt. Abraham Spooner of Burnham, Bucks and had issue:

‘1. Jane Spooner

‘2.  John Spooner

g) Elinor Page who married Samuell Nelson and had issue:

‘1. Samuell Nelson (overseas at the time of his grandmother’s will)

‘2. Abraham Nelson

‘3. Jane Nelson]

E. Mary Winch who married John Periman of Farnham Royal in Buckinghamshire; they had issue:

a) Symon Perryman who married Frances Umfreville and had issue:

‘1. Mary Perryman

F. Ann Winch who married Henry Southen of Stanwell, Middlesex

ii) Richard Winche, Clothier of Reading, Berks (will dated 8th November 1629, proved 21st November 1633) bur. 6th August 1633 at St Mary’s Church Reading, “a Burgess of the town and a good man to the poor”; was made guardian of his father’s youngest son by his first marriage and all five children of his second marriage when, shortly after his father Robert’s death in 1618, his step-mother died in 1619 leaving six orphaned children. He married Judith Lydall (will dated 20th September 1637, proved 17th October 1637) bur. 28th September 1637 at St Mary’s Church Reading, “widow, a good woman to the poor and a good neighbour”, the daughter of Thomas Lydall of Reading, gent (will dated 6th March 16067, proved 10th December 1608) and his wife Margery (Drewe?); Richard and Judith had issue:

1633 Richard Winch of Reading
1637 Judith Wynch

A. Judith Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 7th November 1604; buried St Mary’s Church Reading 9th March 16045;

B. Ann Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 11th May 1606; married 4th May 1625 at St Mary’s Church Reading to Robert Mayot of St Nicholas Abingdon, gent (will dated 13th November Charles I 19; proved 13th August 1646 in which he refers to lands at Fifield, Bray and a house at Abingdon) and had issue:

1646 Robert Mayott

a) Alice Mayott;

b) John Mayott;

c) Elizabeth Mayott;

d) Ann Mayott;

e) Robert Mayott;

f) Thomas Mayott;

g) Richard Mayott;

C. Elizabeth Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 21st January 16078; married at St Mary’s Church Reading 9th April 1629 to William Gandye;

D. Mary Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 10th February 16089; buried at St Mary’s Church Reading 3rd March 16089;

E. Judith Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 15th April 1610; buried at St Mary’s Church Reading 15th November 1614;

F. Richard Winch Master of Arts and Fellow of Oriel College, oxford (will dated 16th January 16456; proved 6th January 16467) baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 25th August 1611;

G. Mary Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 5th October 1612; buried at St Mary’s Church Reading 8th March 16301;

H. Robert Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 15th May 1614; buried at St Mary’s Church Reading 22nd September 1635 “son of widow Winch”;

I. Jane Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 11th August 1615; buried at St Mary’s Church Reading 30th December 1617;

J. Thomas Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 15th September 1616; buried at St Mary’s Church Reading 7th April 1619;

K. Judith Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 18th November 1617; married 15th September 1634 at St Mary’s Church Reading to William Thorne (probably baptised 4th October 1609 at St Mary’s Church Reading the son of George Thorne);

L. Katherine Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 3rd February 16189; buried at St Mary’s Church Reading 10th January 16201;

M. Ellin Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 26th March 1620;

N. Thomas Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 6th May 1621; living January 16456;

O. John Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 12th November 1622; living January 16456;

P. Jane Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 4th January 16234;

Q. James Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 5th September 1625; Apprenticed to John Bunburie 8th November 1641 GROCERS; living January 16456;

R. Simon Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 5th September 1625; living January 16456;

iii) Robert Wynch

iv) James Winche, Clothier of Reading, Berks (will dated 9th August 1665; proved 28th September 1665) married firstly Ann who died 20th June 1639 and had issue:

1665 James Winch

A. Robert Winch baptised St Mary’s Church Reading 19th November 1614;

James married secondly 21st December 1643 at St Mary’s Church Reading as her second husband (she had issue by her first husband) Sara Fellow and had issue:

B. Sarah Winch;

v) Elizabeth Winch who married Thomas Grove

vi) Grace Winch who married William Lewyn

vii) Ann Winch who married Robert Groave

viii) Mary Winch who married William Groave

ix) William Winch (<21 in 1619; living 19th July 1676)  of Reading, Broadweaver – he was probably the last son by Robert’s first marriage rather than his first by his second wife; he had issue:

A. James Wynch, apprenticed 12th August 1645 to Peter Morris, FARRIERS

ROBERT WYNCH  (211 211 211 111 1)  married secondly Joane HATHORNE  (211 211 211 111 2) who was baptised 5th January 1572 at Binfield, Berkshire and died 18th February 16189, and who was the daughter of William HATHORNE (211 211 211 111 21) the elder of Bray, yeoman of Bray  (will dated 13th September 1620, proved 1st July 1626) and his wife (married on 25th June 1570) Ann PERKINS  (211 211 211 111 22)  who died in 1626. They had issue:

1618 Robert Wynche of Bray

i) Richard Wynch

ii) John WYNCH (211 211 211 111) ( -1675), Citizen and Haberdasher of London, married firstly in 1633 to Ann GIBBS (211 211 211 112) daughter of John GIBBS  (211 211 211 112) originally from Dunchideock, Devon but late of St Dunstan in the West, London (his will was dated October 23, 1622 and was proved November 2, 1622) and Anne his wife; they had issue[1]:

1675 John Wynch of London Haberdasher

A. John WINCH baptised December 11, 1640 at St Bride Fleet Street, London; buried 20th March 1644 at St Bride Fleet Street

B. Ann WYNCH married by licence[2] dated 29th October 1663 at St Olave Old Jewry, London to William WALTHAM; they had issue:

a)  John WALTHAM

b) Anne WALTHAM

c) Susan WALTHAM

d) Sarah WALTHAM

e) Mary WALTHAM

C. Judith WYNCH baptised 16th August 1646 at St Bride Fleet Street, London; she married by licence[3] on April 13, 1669 at St Katherine Creechurch, London to John BURT; they had issue:

a) John BURT
b) Susanna BURT, born January 31, 1671/2, baptised 5th February 1671/2 at St Vedast Foster Lane & St Michael le Quere, London, and married March 23, 1692 at St Mary Abchurch, London to Robert PEAD, Citizen and Apothecary of London; they had issue:

‘1. Robert PEAD, born 19th January 1693-4, baptised 19th January 1693-4 at St Olave’s Old Jewry, London, and died 21st September 1705.

‘2. Susanna PEADE, born 30th June 1695, baptised 1st July 1695 at St Olave, Old Jewry, London, and was buried 9th October 1695 at St Olave Jewry, London

Robert Pead, Citizen and Apothecary of London, widower, married secondly, and as her second husband, Hester Wynch (211 211 211 2), widow of John Wynch (211 211 211 1), and the daughter of William Rous (211 211 211 21).

D. Robert WYNCH (211 211 211 11) Citizen and Haberdasher of London, baptised 28th November 1647 at St Bride Fleet Street and was buried 25th July 1676 at St Bride’s Fleet Street:; he married (licence[4] dated 3rd August 1672) at St Bartholemew The Great, London 3rd August 1672  Susanna HENBURY (211 211 211 12), (the daughter of James HENBURY (211 211 211 121) and his wife Susanna JOHNSON (211 211 211 122)), who was born 19th July 1657 and was baptised 28th July 1657 at St Bride Fleet Street; Susanna, widow of Robert Wynch, married secondly to William Rous; they had issue:

1676 Robert Wynch Haberdasher
1654 James Henbury

a) John WYNCH (211 211 211 1), born 31st July 1673 and baptised 12th August 1673 at St Giles Cripplegate; hemarried Hester Rous (211 211 211 2) 22nd May 1694 at St Bartholemew the Great, London; they had issue:

‘1. William WYNCH who was baptised 14th September 1695 at St Michael, Highgate; he was buried 9th October 1695 at St Olave Jewry, London (on the same day and at the same church as Susanna Pead noted above NB: error in father’s name);

‘2. Hester WYNCH who died unmarried was baptised 15th June 1697 at St Michael, Highgate.

‘3. John WYNCH (211 211 211) was baptised 6th October 1698 at St Michael, Highgate; he married at All Hallows Staining on 25th February 1719/20 to Mary KENTON (211 211 212), daughter of Captain Alexander Kenton, Mariner, of Bermondsey and his wife Margaret Peters, the daughter of Peter Peters, Surgeon, of Dover; they had issue:

1719 Alexander Kenton

‘a. Alexander WYNCH (211 211 21), (Governor of Madras) who was baptised on 2nd January 1720/1 at St Gregory by St Paul, London

‘4. Reverend Robert WYNCH, Chaplain of Fort St. George, Madras from 1731, born 5th December 1699  and baptised 8th December 1699 at St Olave’s Old Jewry, London (“the son of John Winch, gentleman and Hester his wife” Parish Records). He was the second husband of Margaret MANSELL (who married firstly Francis ROUS, brother of Sir William ROUS – according to Penny, head of the Suffolk family but this does not seem to be borne out by research –  by whom she had four daughters).  He died 28th December 1748 at Madras.

‘5. William WYNCH, born 27th February 1701-2  and baptised 1st March 1701-2 at St Olave’s Old Jewry, London; he married (as her second husband Mary [GUNTER]

E. Susanna WYNCH married 24th December 1669 to Charles HARPER; they had issue (before 1675):

a) Susan HARPER baptised 19th January 1672 at St Dunstan in the West, Fleet Street

b) Elizabeth HARPER baptised 13th February 1675/6 at St Dunstan in the West, Fleet Street

John Wynch, Haberdasher, married secondly (by licence[5] dated 27th September 1666) to Susanna MARKLAND (widow of William Markland of St Michael Wood Street London, Freeman of the Company of Innholders –  will dated 2nd May 1664; proved 19th January 1664/5) on 2nd October 1666 at St Mary, Stoke Newington, and previously widow of James Henbury, daughter of George JOHNSON by his wife Katherine HASTINGS); hedied in 1675 and was buried at St Bride, Fleet Street on 1st November 1675.

1675 John Wynch of London Haberdasher
1664 William Markland
1654 James Henbury
1641 George Johnson Dyer
1673 Katherine Johnson

iii) Joane WINCH married on 20th December 1625 at St Martin in the Fields, Westminster, London to William MATTINGLY (son, by the first marriage to William Mattingly (will dated 17th February 1614/5; proved 14th November 1615; challenged 16th February 1619/20), and Ann LOGGINS who married secondly to Nathaniel HATHORNE (brother of Joane HATHORNE see above; will dated 27th September 1652; proved 29th July 1654 – in which he refers to “my nephew John Winche and his wife Anne Winche” and “my kinsman John Winche of London, Haberdasher”), whose second wife Martha WHISTLER (will dated 24th September 1666; proved 9th November 1666) referred to John Winch of the Parish of St Giles without Cripplegate (“my kinsman”)

1615 William Mattingley
1654 Nathaniell Hathorne
1666 Martha Hathorne

iv) Judith WINCH (will dated 8th April 1684; proved 19th August 1684) who married on or shortly after 6th August 1650 William EDRIDGE or Etheridge of Aspiden, Herts (will dated 5th August 1678; proved 17th November 1678 in which he refers to a “deed made by me and sealed before my intermarriage with the said Judith unto John Winch and William Mattingly”;

1684 Judith Edridge
1680 William Edridge

v) George Wynch

b. RICHARD WYNCH the elder of Bray, Berkshire, yeoman (d.1618) who possibly married Joane POWNEY (referred to as Joane Winche in the will of Jone Hawthorn of East Ockley, Bray, widow – dated June 28 1577 – in which she also refers to her sons William Hawthorne and Richard Powney and son-in-law Richard Winche); they had issue:

i) James Winch who married and had issue (before 1618):

A. Elizabeth Winch

B. Jane Winch

ii) Ann Winch who married [ ? ] Smyth

c. William Wynch (presumably died before his father’s will was written in 1589) who had issue:

i) James Wynch

d. Thomas Wynch (presumably died before his father’s will was written in 1589) who had issue:

i) Thomas Wynch

ii) Elizabeth Wynch

e. Catherine Wynch who married firstly Thomas Foord and had issue; she married secondly William Slye and had issue.

[1] It is thought (from IGI evidence) John married first to Ann, with whom he had issue and subsequently married Susanna (hence Robert Wynch’s reference in his will to Susanna as ‘My Mother in Law’

[2] From London Marriage Licences 1521-1869: Waltham, William of Cliffords Inn, gent, bachelor, about 26 and Anne Winch of St Giles Cripplegate, spinster, about 23, consent of father John Winch, leatherseller – at St Mary Colechurch or St Olave Old Jury 12th November 1663

[3] Marriage Licence from the Vicar-General of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Harleian Society 1669 to 1679 vol. 34): 10th April 1669 John Burt of St Clement Danes, Middx, Goldsmith, Bachelor, about 34 and Judith Wynch of St Giles Cripplegate, London, Spinster, about 22, at her own disposal, at St James, Duke’s Place or St Katherine’s Creechurch, London

[4] From London Marriage Licences 1521-1869: Winch, Robert of St Giles Cripplegate, gent, bachelor about 24, and Susan Henbury of same, spinster, about 24 – at Great St Bartholemew, London 3rd August 1672

[5] From London Marriage Licences 1521-1869: Winch, John (Wynch) of Bowe, Middlesex, widower, about 50 and Suzanne Markland of same, widow, about 40 – at Newington or Bromley, Middx 27th September 1666

Comments or questions are welcome.

* indicates required field

Rous of Topsham

The origins of William Rous, Apothecary and Citizen of London are by no means easy to discern.

His desire to be buried near the vault under the tomb of Sir John Frederick (whose wife was Mary Rous) sent me on a search mission that led through Huguenot families but was ultimately fruitless.

I had wondered whether a reference to his father being Thomas Rous “of Topsham” was born more out of a desire to find a connection rather than as a genealogical fact.

I looked out the apprentice records at the Society of Apothecaries and found the following:

Apothecary1

William Rous (211 211 211 21), Apothecary, was apprenticed to Alderman John Lorrimer (also Lorymer, Lorrymer and Lorimer)[2] on 9th April 1657 for nine years (see below) and became free in 1664 (two years earlier than the indenture provided) and became Junior/Senior Warden of Apothecaries in 1702 and Master of the Society of Apothecaries in 1705.

From the marriage licence of his first marriage to Anne Regnier we see he was born circa 1640 – entry in the Marriage Allegations in the Registry of the Vicar-General of the Archbishop of Canterbury as follows:

July 3rd 1669: William Rous of St. Olave’s Old Jury London, Cit. & Apothecary, Bachelor abt 29 & Anne Regnier of St. Leonard’s Shoreditch Middx. Spr abt 20 with consent of her father; at St. Bartholomew the Great or St. Botolph Aldersgate, Lond. or St Mary Newington or Clerkenwell Middx.

On 5th July 1669 (as shown below) at St Bartholemew the Great in London William Rous married Ann Regnier

Apothecary3

Extract from the Parish Register of St Bartholemew the Great held at the Metropolitan Archives, London, accessed via www.ancestry.co.uk

William married second, by licence from the Vicar-General (dated 1679/80)[1] to Susanna WYNCH (211 211 211 12), the widow of Robert Wynch of London, haberdasher, on 24th February 1679/80 at St Bartholemew the Great, London:

23rd February 1679-80: William Rous of St Olave Old Jury, London (aged about 39) licence to marry Susanna Wynch of St Giles, Cripplegate, London (aged about 34) at St Bartholemew the Great or Less, or St Sepulchre, London). (Marriage Allegations in the Registry of the Vicar-General of the Archbishop of Canterbury)

His subsequent marriage to Susannah Wynch (widow), therefore, puts him at aged about 39 on 23rd February 1679-80.

The combined dates from his Marriage Licences suggest that William may have been born between 6th July 1639 and 22nd February 1639/40.

This does not match any entry in the Trees excellently deduced in his book by Professor John C. Street (A Genealogy of the Rouses of Devon; Madison, Wisconsin, 2002).

Three further interesting coincidences, however, seem to give credence to the concept that William was an unrecorded youngest son of Thomas Rous of Topsham:

  1. William’s mother would have been Hester Martyn – he then giving his surviving daughter the name Hester;
  2.  Luke Justice, son of Luke Justice of Knighton, Staffs, gent. was apprenticed to William Rouse on Jul 3 1677; and
  3. John Rouse, son of Robert Rouse of Farringdon, Devon, gent. was apprenticed to William Rouse on May 6 1690;

Luke Justice, Apothecary of London, married Catherine Rous (Thomas’s granddaughter) and John Rous, apothecary of Topsham and Farringdon, was Thomas’s grandson.

It seems appropriate, therefore, in the absence of firm evidence of lineage, to consider in greater detail the Rous family from Professor Street’s gleanings.

First of all, here is an outline of the Family descent from the thirteenth Century in Cornwall (to see the various branches and detailed genealogy, it is necessary to search out a copy of the book (I read it at the Society of Genealogists in London) – to this (in red) I have annotated information deduced from www.stirnet.com:

1. Ralph LE RUFUS (211 211 211 211 111 111 111 111 11) of “Little Modbury” (alive between 1234-1250) (26 generations back from our daughter)
possibly married daughter of Asceline de Yvery ;

2. William LE ROUS (211 211 211 211 111 111 111 111 1) Sheriff of Devonshire (living 1175!?)

3. Ralph LE ROUS (211 211 211 211 111 111 111 111) of “Little Modbury” died circa 1290,
..and his wife Alice (211 211 211 211 111 111 111 112)

4. John LE ROUS (211 211 211 211 111 111 111 11) 
…note there is some doubt as to whether this was a separate generation;

5. William LE ROUS kt (211 211 211 211 111 111 111 1) of “Little Modbury” (living 1291-1309)
and his wife Joan SPECCOT
(211 211 211 211 111 111 111 2), daughter of Richard SPECCOT kt 
(211 211 211 211 111 111 111 21) of “Speccot” at Merton, Devon by his wife Matilda de BELSTON (211 211 211 211 111 111 111 22), herself the daughter of Baldwin de BELSTON (211 211 211 211 111 111 111 221) who died circa 1240 and his wife Agnes
(211 211 211 211 111 111 111 222);

6. Ralph LE ROUS (211 211 211 211 111 111 111) and his wife Joan GODNESFORD (211 211 211 211 111 111 112), daughter of Robert GODNESFORD
(211 211 211 211 111 111 112 1)

7. Robert LE ROUS kt
(211 211 211 211 111 111 11) Governor of Cherbourg (living 1376), [Knight Banneret under the Black Prince]

8. William LE ROUS (211 211 211 211 111 111 1) who, probably in 1376, married Alice EDMERSTON (211 211 211 211 111 111 2), the daughter and heiress of Thomas EDMERSTON (211 211 211 211 111 111 21) and Rosa AUNTE daughter of William AUNTE 

9. William ROUS (211 211 211 211 111 111) of “Edmerston”  the son of William LE ROUS (211 211 211 211 111 111 1) married Margery LOWER (211 211 211 211 111 112), daughter of William LOWER
(211 211 211 211 111 112 1) of Cornwall

10. John ROUS (211 211 211 211 111 11) who married before 1464 to Isabel WORTH (or possibly DREWE) (211 211 211 211 111 111 12)

11. William ROUS (211 211 211 211 111 1) of “Edmerston” born before 1450 who married Sybil FOWELL (211 211 211 211 111 2), daughter of William FOWELL (211 211 211 211 111 21) and Eleanor of Fowlescombe at Ugborough

12. Roger ROUS (211 211 211 211 111) of “Edmerston” (living 1515-1544) who married Juliana HILL (211 211 211 211 112), daughter of William HILL (211 211 211 211 112 1) and Mabel of “Penguit” and “Fleet”

13. Richard ROUS (211 211 211 211 11) of Rogate, Sussex (1516-1587) who married Eleanor MERVYN (211 211 211 211 12), daughter of Sir Edmund MERVYN (211 211 211 211 121) of Fonthill Gifford, Wilts and his wife Eleanor WELLS
(211 211 211 211 122)

14. Edmund ROUS (211 211 211 211 1) of Rogate, Sussex died 1633; he marrried at Rogate Jan 18 1572/3 to Jane LEGG of Chalton, Hants who died 1632

15. Thomas ROUS (211 211 211 211), eventually ‘of Topsham’ (1589-1657) who married Hester MARTYN (211 211 211 212), daughter of Robert MARTYN (211 211 211 212 1) of Burford, Oxford

16. William ROUS, Apothecary and Citizen of London (211 211 211 21)

And so, taking the most recent two generations:

Apothecary25-HesterRous

1. THOMAS ROUS (1589-1657)  (211 211 211 211) Gentleman, “eventually of Topsham”, was baptised at Rogate, Sussex July 28 1589 and buried at Topsham Feb 2 1657/8, and married HESTER MARTYN  (d. 1670) 
(211 211 211 212), the daughter of ROBERT MARTYN of ‘Upton’, Burford, Oxfordshire; she was buried at St Saviour Denmark Park, Southwark on 10th October 1670.

They had issue:

a. Anthony Rous (d. 1663), Gentleman, was buried at st Saviour Denmark Park, Southwark on May 8 1663, “Attorney in the Quire”; he married Lettice Warcupp, the daughter of Samuel Warcupp (probably of London); they had issue:

i) Robert Rous who was christened October 14 1654 at St Saviour Denmark Park, Southwark

b. Robert Rous (d. 1691) Attorney of Farringdon, Devon; he married Katherine Bartholemew (d. 1700), the daughter of Reverend Wiliam Bartholemew and his wife, Catherine Harvey; they had issue:

Apothecary24-KatherineJustice

i) Catherine Rous (1665-1686) was buried on April 4 1686 at St Olave Old Jewry, London; she married by licence dated May 19 1685 (she was a spinster aged 20, marrying with the consent of her father, Robert Rous of Exon, Co. Devon, Attorney, and he was a bachelor aged 23) to Luke Justice (1659-1686/7), Apothecary of London (having been apprenticed on Jul 3 1677 to William Rous), son of Luke Justice of Adbaston, Knighton, Staffordshire, gent, and his wife Mary. Luke was buried on January 25 1686/7 at St Olave Old Jewry, having made a will on January 17 1686/7 in which he refers to his uncle William Rous, Citizen and Apothecary of London and William’s wife Susanna Rous, his cousins Hester Rous and John Wynch; he also refers to another uncle Thomas Rous of Hatton Garden, London, Gentleman and his wife Elizabeth Rous among others – his will was proved October 16 1690:

Apothecary23-LukeJustice

they had issue:

A. Hester Justice

ii) Elizabeth Rous (1667- ) who married Richard Beavis and had issue;

iii) William Rous (1668-1742) Attorney of Exeter and Farringdon

iv) Anthony Rous apprenticed for seven years on October 28 1685 to John Daston, Citizen and Musician of London, (living in 1698);

v) Thomas Rous who had issue;

vi) Mary Rous

vii) Robert Rous (1673-1742) of Offwell, Devon, who married Elizabeth Satt who died before 1741.

viii) John Rous (1675-1763) Apothecary of Topsham and Farringdon (Apprentice on May 6, 1690 to William Rous); he married Judith Bishop (died 1745) and they had issue;

ix) Bartholemew Rous (died 1682)

x) Joseph Rous (died 1751)

xi) Hester Rous (1679- ) who married (1708) William Tross of Farringdon (1678- ); they had issue;

xii) Richard Rous (1681-1760) of Farringdon

xiii) Bartholemew Rous (1683-1749)

xiv) Martha Rous (1689- )

c. Lawrence Rous (1628- )

d. John Rous (1629- )

e. Hester Rous (1630- ); she married (1658) Thomas Skinnet

f. Edmund Rous (1631- )

g. Rebecca Rous (1633- )

h. Frances Rous who married (1657) Thomas Boomer; she is referred to as ‘My Aunt Mrs Frances Boomer’ by Luke Justice in his will (see above);

i. Thomas Rous (1635- ) who married Elizabeth and they had issue, a daughter, Elizabeth mentioned in Luke Justice’s will

j. Anne Rous (1637- )

k. WILLIAM ROUS (c1639-1719) Citizen and Apothecary of London 
(211 211 211 21)

The clear link between Luke Justice and William Rous and the family of Thomas Rous of Topsham seem to indicate that William Rous, Citizen and Apothecary of London, is indeed, therefore, an undocumented son of Thomas Rous “eventually of Topsham”. 

[catlist name=”rous” orderby=title numberposts=5000 order=asc]

Cogs and Cogware

The origins of the name Coghill have been a mystery.  One supposition by Willliam Wheater (1907) is that the origin is from Cogs, which he described as coarse cloths, which may have been died and set out to dry on a hill, hence Cog Hill, and furthermore, that the first Coghill may have simply been [John] of Cog Hill some time in the fourteenth or fifteenth century.

Here are some background pieces on Cogware:

Wiktionary has the following definition of COGWARE as at 4th October 2013:

cogware

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
cogware (usually uncountable, plural cogwares)
  1. a coarse cloth of the fourteenth century
    • 1964, L.F. Salzman, English Industries of the Middle Ages, p. 207:
      The better quality was used for ordinary cloths, and the worst was made up into coarse cloth known as cogware and Kendal cloth, three quarters of a yard broad, and worth from 40d. to 5s. the piece. The term cogware seems to have sprung from its being sold to cogmen, the crews of the ships called cogs; but whether for their own use, or for export is not quite clear.

KENDAL COTTONS.

A coarse woollen cloth made from the worst wool and used for clothing the very poor of London and other towns.

The fabric is mentioned in a Statute of 13 Richard II (1390) as not being subject to the Statute of 1328 which fixed a minimum length and breadth of each piece woven (to be measured by the King’s Aulnegar (fn. 1) and if found short forfeited for the Royal benefit as follows:—“Item, although it be ordained by divers statutes, that all manner of Cloths of Ray and Colour shall be of a certain Length and Breadth comprised in the same Statutes; nevertheless, for as much as it hath been a common custom to make certain cloths in divers Counties of England, called Cogware and Kendal Cloth, of the breadth of three-quarters of a yard, whereof some be of the Price of 40d. and some 5s., and sold to Cogmen out of the Realm and also to poor and mean People (fn. 2) within the Realm, of the which Cloth a great Part is made of the worst Wool within the Realm that cannot well serve for any other Cloths; It is accoran to make such manner of Cloths of the Length and Breadth aded and assented that from henceforth it shall be lawful to every ms it hath been used before this Time, notwithstanding any Statute made to the contrary; Provided always, that the Makers and Workers of such Cloths shall not make them of any better Wool than they were wont to do.”

In the Parliament of 5 Henry IV (1403/4) the Commons prayed the king “that as of your special grace there was granted to all liege subjects within the realm of England, in the Parliament held at Westminster in the first year of your reign, that of no cloths called Kendale-cloth, nor any other cloth whereof the dozen shall not exceed the value of 13s. 4d., even if it has not been sealed with any seal great or little nor any subsidy should be taken of it for three years ensuing, the which are now passed; And now those who are the Auneours within your aforesaid Realm constrain the poor Commons to pay for the seal of each dozen 1¼d. for those of which the dozen does not exceed the value of 4 or 5 shillings. May it please your very abundant grace to grant in the present Parliament in relief of all the lieges within your aforesaid Realm, that no cloth from this day forward called Kendale-cloth, nor any other cloth, narrow or wide, the dozen of which does not exceed the value of 13s. 4d. within your aforesaid realm should be sealed with any seal little or great and that no subsidy should be taken upon it, and that no forfeiture should fall upon it considering that the first imposition of the aforesaid subsidies from the aforesaid cloths, the sealing of the same, commenced in the time when Waltham was Treasurer of England.” Response:—Let the matter be committed to the Council to do with it what seems best to them by authority of Parliament. Rolls of Parliament, m. 4, n. 70; printed Rot. Parl. iii, 541.

By the Statute of 9 Henry IV, c. 2 (1407) it is ordained and established that no cloth called Kendale Kersey, Frieze of Coventry, Cogware, nor any narrow cloth, nor remnant of cloth of England or cloth of Wales, of which the dozen does not exceed the value of 13s. 4d. should be sealed with any of the king’s seals nor aulnage great nor little to be paid for the same. And that the owners might freely sell the said cloths unsealed without forfeiting anything to the king for the same, notwithstanding any statute or ordinance made to the contrary Rolls of Parliament, m. 6, nos. 34, 35; printed Rot. Parl. iii, 614.

In the Parliament of II Henry IV (1410) the Commons informing “our very excellent Lord the King” that as in the case of cloths of colour there is a custom or tax called Cocket, (fn. 3) and that the Auneours who bear the seals to seal cloth exact the cocket and payment for the seals from the poor lieges of the Lord King upon cloths called Kendales, Kerseis, Narrow backs, Cogware, Coventry ware, Friezes of Ireland and Wales of which the dozen does not exceed the value of 13s. 4d., which cloths were never wont to be sealed nor to pay any such custom called Cocket in the times of your very noble progenitors formerly Kings of England whom God ‘assoile.’ May it please the King to consider the great poverty of his poor lieges and the unbearable charges and losses which they bear from one day to another insomuch that they cannot longer endure them; and to grant in the present Parliament by Statute to be made that none of the poor lieges of our Lord the King from this day forward shall pay any custom nor pay for the seal little or great on such cloths called Kendales, Kerseys, Narrow backs, Cogware, Coventry ware, cloths of Ireland and of Wales, nor for any remnant of two, three or four verges, (fn. 4) if the dozen of such cloths does not exceed the value of 10s. Response:—May it be the custom as in the past. (Rolls of Parliament, m. 3, n. 64; printed Rot. Parl. iii, 643).

In 1579 the Aldermen and Burgesses of the Burgh of Kirkbie Kendall “Ordeyned that none of the head burgesses or of the xxiiij Assistants (beinge no shearmen) shall for one year nexte make any woolen clothes but suche as they shall sell rowe (raw-cloth) excepte it be for ther owen wearinge Karseys (course stuff woven from long wool) white or blak cottons or Kelters (kilt, course woollen stuff) save Cnapmen Salters or comon dryvers of clothes w[hi]ch may make so muche as they can sell in ther ordynary walks and not otherwise and save to Mr. ffox (an Alderman) libertie to sell suche ffrece and cottons as he shall make in his howse when he will . . . . . And that every Inhabitannt (not beinge a shearman) makinge clothe shall dight all ther flrece by some freman shearmen at his shopp or howse and not otherwise vpon payn to lose vis. viijd. wheroff to the Chamber iijs. iiijd. and to the company (of Shearmen) iiis. Iiijd”. K. Boke of Recorde, 118.

By the Statute of 7 James 1, c. 16, “for the encouraging of many poore people in Cumberland and Westmerland, and in the townes and parishes of Carptmeale, Hawkeshead and Broughton, to continue their trade of making Cogware, (fn. 5) Kendals, Carptmeales and course cottons, whereas by the Statute of 9 Henry IV it was enacted (as above). Sithence the making of which statute the sayd Kendals and other course things of like nature and made of the like course wooll and differing in name onely, called Cogware, course cottons and Carptmeales, have been made in such sort as the parties which made the same were able, and as best might please the buyer, without being limited to any certain weight, or to any assyze of length or breadth, and were never searched nor sealed with any seale nor subject to any penaltie for the not sealing thereof nor any subsidie nor aulnage payed for the same, until of late that certaine evill disposed persons, contrary to the true meaning of the said law, have by colour of a late statute made in the 39 yere of the Reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, intituled an Act against the deceiptfull stretching and taintering of Northerne cloth, endevoured to make the said Cogware, Kendals, Carptmeales and course cottons subject to search and have demanded for the same divers severall summes of money for the seale of the collector of the subsidie and aulnage, to the great vexation and trouble of the sayd poore people. Be it therefore enacted by the King’s most excellent Majestie etc., that from henceforth all Cogware, Kendals, course cottons and Carptmeales, which are, or hereafter shall be made within the sayd Countyes of Cumberland and Westmerland, or within the sayd townes and parishes of Carptmeale, Hawkeshead and Broughton, whereof the dossen shall not exceed the rate and price of 13s. 4d., shall be made in such sort, as may best please the buyer; and shall not be searched nor sealed with any of the King’s seales nor with any other seale nor any subsidie or aulnage great or little paid for the same. But that the owners of such Cogware, Kendals, course cottons, and Carptmeales may freely sell the same, not sealed, as they have been accustomed, without forfeiting anything to the King for the same, any lawe or statute or any branch or clause of any lawe or statute heretofore made to contrary notwithstanding.”

Cornelius Nicholson in his Annals of Kendal says that the plant genista tinctoria or Dyer’s Broom was brought in large quantities to Kendal from the neighbouring commons and marshes. This plant, after being dried, was boiled for the yellow colouring matter it contained. The cloth was first boiled in alum water, for the mordant, and then immersed in the yellow dye. It was then dried and submerged in a blue liquor extracted from woad, which combined with the yellow, produced the solid green so much celebrated.

Among other allusions to Kendal cloth in English Literature (fn. 6) are the following:—

Lydgate. 1425. “On his head he had a threadbare Kendal hood.”

Barclay. 1524. “His costly clothing was threadbare Kendal green.”

Sir Thomas Moore. 1532. Confutation of Tyndale. “Tyl he doe of his gray garments and cloth himself cumley in gaye Kendal greene.”

Discipline of Commonwealth. 1550 “A serving man is content to goe in a Kendall cote in summer.”

Shakespeare, Henry IV. 1598. “Three misbegotten knaves in Kendal green.”

Coryat’s Crudities. 1611. Panegyric to the Mayor of Hartlepool. “Put on’s considering cap and Kendal gowne.”

Scott, Rokeby. 1813. “A seemly gown of Kendal green.”

1                       Anne or ell-wand to measure fabrics.

2                       “But as the devil would have it, three misbegotten Knaves in Kendal green came at my back and let drive at me.” Shakespeare

3                       Cocket is a seal belonging to the King’s Custom house, or rather a scroll of parchment sealed and delivered by the officers of the Custom house to merchants as a warrant that their goods are customed.

4                       Measurement by a stick or rod; a verger carries a wand.

5                       The name Cogware must surely come from Cog. a broadly built cargo-ship, and the ware such as was largely exported to the North American markets

From: ‘Records of Kendale: Further records’, Records relating to the Barony of Kendale: volume 3 (1926), pp. 56-79. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=49343&amp;strquery=cogware Date accessed: 04 October 2013.

 

 

Devant le grant conseil.                                                               Before the great council.

Pur draps appellez cogware.                                                     For cloths called cogware.

 

142. IIII XX III.

A nostre seignur le roi et a son bon conseil; monstrent les communes de les contees d’Essex et de Suff’: qe par la ou en l’estatut fait l’an .xlvij. me du regne nostre seignur le roi q’ore est, ordeigne fust qe touz draps de colour qe serront faitz en Engleterre vendables serroient de la longeure de .xxvi. aulnes mesurez par le dos, et de laieure de .v. quarters au meins; et demy drap de longeure et de laieure solonc l’afferant, sur forfaiture de mesmes les draps. (fn. 92) 142. IIII XX III.


To our lord the king and his good council; the commonalties of the counties of Essex and Suffolk declare: that whereas, in the statute made in the forty-seventh year of the reign of our present lord the king [1373], it was ordained that all coloured cloths made for sale in England would be 26 ells in length measured by the back, and at least 5 quarters in width; and half cloth of the length and width according to the rate, on forfeiture of the same cloths. (fn. 92)

 

Plese a nostre seignur le roi et a sa tresnoble conseil granter a voz dites communes voz graciouses lettres patentes, et par ycelles declarer en ce present parlement, qe les draps appellez cogware et kerseyes faitz es ditz contes, et autres tieux estroites draps y faites et en autres paiis auxint, q’eles ne soient compris en dit estatut, en aide et relief del dite commune.


May it please our lord the king and his noblest council to grant to your said communities your gracious letters patent and to declare by the same in this present parliament that the cloths called cogware and kersey made in the said counties, and other such narrow cloths made there and in other regions also, should not be included in the said statute, in aid and relief of the said commonalty.

 

[editorial note: Responsio.]                                                       [editorial note: Answer.]

 

< Le roi voet q’ils eient tielles lettres par les quelles soit declarree, qe les estreites draps appellez cogware et kerseyes, acustumes d’estre faites es dites contees, ne doivent mye estre entenduz pur estre compris en dit estatut, ne souz la paine d’ycelle. (fn. 93) >


The king wills that they should have such letters in which it should be declared that the narrow cloths called cogware and kersey, usually made in the said counties, are not intended to be included in the said statute or under the penalty of the same. (fn. 93)


92                      SR , I.395 (c. i)

93                      See Appendix no. 20

 

From: ‘Edward III: April 1376’, Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=116474&amp;strquery=cogware Date accessed: 04 October 2013.

 

April 15 1297
Plympton.
To Thomas de Snyterton and Thomas de Seggeford. Order to restore to brother James called ‘Copyn’ of the order of the Hospital, the envoy of the king of Denmark, all the money [arrested] by Nicholas de Holm and Robert de la Roche, keepers of the port of Holm and Hunstanston, co. Norfolk, in the hands of the said James in a cog (coga) of Denmark, which lately arrived in the said port of Holm on account of stress of weather (per maris intemperiem), which sum was delivered to Thomas and Thomas by the said keepers.

To Nicholas de Holm and Robert de la Roche, keepers of the ports of Holm and Hunstanston, co. Norfolk. Order to restore to the said James and to certain merchants of Flanders and Almain all the goods and wares lately arrested by them in the aforesaid cog in the hands of James, the envoy of the king of Denmark and of certain merchants of Flanders and Almain, and to restore to them also the cog.

To the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. Order to cause Hugh de Mortuo Mari to have respite until the coming parliament at Lincoln for the 347l. 7s. 2d. due to the king at the exchequer from him for the debts of his ancestors, as the king has granted him this respite in order that there may then be done what he shall then cause to be considered by his council. By K.

To the bailiffs of Ravenesere. Order to restore to Dodinus, citizen and merchant of John, count of Holland, the king’s son, of Staveren (Stauria), his ship called ‘Cog Godyer,’ which lately came to Scarborough together with certain other ships and was afterwards taken to the port of Ravenesere by the king’s licence, and to restore all its tackle. The king makes this order at the count’s request. By K

 

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward I: April 1297’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: volume 4: 1296-1302 (1906), pp. 24-28. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=96724&amp;strquery=cog Date accessed: 04 October 2013.

 

 

Jan. 30 1384
Westminster.
To the sheriffs of London and Robert Forde their searcher or serjeant. Order not to trouble the commons of Essex and Suffolk or any of them contrary to the late king’s will and declaration made at their suit in the parliament holden in 50 Edward III, and to give up any strait cloths of theirs arrested contrary to the same; as by petition presented in that parliament, shewing that in a former statute it was ordered that all coloured cloths thenceforward made in England for sale ought under pain of forfeiture thereof to be 26 ells in length measured by the back, and five quarters at least in breadth, and the half cloth in proportion, and for their relief praying a declaration that all cloths called ‘cogware‘ and ‘kereseys’ and other strait cloths there and elsewhere made are not included in that statute, which declaration the late king there made, and by letters patent of 14 December 50 Edward III exemplified their said petition and the endorsement thereof.

 

From: ‘Close Rolls, Richard II: February 1384’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II: volume 2: 1381-1385 (1920), pp. 353-363. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=99517&amp;strquery=cogware   Date accessed: 04 October 2013.

 

April 1 1393
Westminster.
To the sheriff of Kent. Order upon sight etc. to cause proclamation to be made in the county [court] and in cities, boroughs, market towns, fairs, markets etc., that all who henceforward will make for sale any rayed or coloured cloths shall under pain of forfeiting the same make rayed cloths of 28 ells measure by the list in length and five quarters in breadth, and coloured cloths of 26 ells measure by the fold and six quarters in breadth at least, and half cloths of proportionate length and of the same breadth, and shall cause them to be sealed with the alnager’s seal before they be exposed for sale, according to divers statutes published in time of the late king and of the king, whereby it is ordered and agreed that such cloths made in England shall be of the measure aforesaid, that any cloth or half cloth exposed for sale which is not of that measure shall be forfeit to the king, and all exposed for sale before being so sealed shall likewise be forfeit; but it is not the king’s intent that cloths made by people for their own use and for their household, or cloths made for sale by poor men be forfeit, though they be not of that measure, or cloths of ‘cogware,’ and ‘Kendalecloth,’ provided these be made of the worst and weakest wool of the realm, and exceed not the value of 40d. or 5s.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Richard II: March 1393’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II: volume 5: 1392-1396 (1925), pp. 128-135. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=102161&amp;strquery=cogware Date accessed: 04 October 2013.

C14 Close Rolls

The earliest mention I have found of Coghill or Coghull in Yorkshire is in the 1344 Close Rolls, although this does not suggest the family name:

April 22 1344
Westminster
To the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. Order not to intermeddle until further order with the manor of Brustwyk in Holdernesse, with the manors of Rymeswell, Elwarby, Beghun and its other members in cos. York and Lincoln; the castle of Caresbrok with the manors of Bouecombe, Wroxhale, Neuton, Whitefeld, Penne and Thorueye and the rents, ferms, pleas and perquisites of Neuport, Breredyng and Ermuth in the isle of Wight, and the bailiwick of the hundreds of Estmedeine and Westmedeine and the custody of the forest of that Island; the manor of Cosham, co. Wilts, the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members and other appurtenances in co. Westmorland; the manor of Mourholm with Kerneford and Lyndeheved; a moiety of the manor of Waresdale; a moiety of the town of Ulvereston, co. Lancaster; a certain parcel of land in Thornton in Lonesdale called ‘Coghull,’ with appurtenances in co. York; the castle of Radenore with its members and other appurtenances; lands of Wartrenon, Penbregge, Prestemede, Kyyghton, Norton, Knokelas, Pulhid with la Whiteleye in Monelith and with lands in Kery and Beytir in the lordship of Dolveryn in Wales with the appurtenances, which belonged to Ed[mund] de Mortuo Mari, the manor of Brompton with appurtenances in co. Somerset; the manor of Stoktristre with appurtenances in the same county; the manor of Brok with appurtenances in the isle of Wight; the manor of Yeshampsted with appurtenances in co. Berks, and all the lands, fees and advowsons which belonged to John de Molyns in England and the ferms of the priories of Burstall in Holdernesse, of Caresbrok, Appeldercombe, St. Helen’s and St. Cross in the isle of Wight and of the rectory of Wyppyngham in that island, which priories and rectory are in the hands of aliens by the king’s commission, or with the keepers, fermors or others who intermeddle with the same, or with the escheators in Holdernesse and the isle of Wight or with the receivers of victuals in Caresbrok castle, from the 9th year of the reign, as the king has reserved the said castles, etc. to his chamber. By letter of the secret seal called ‘Griffoun.’

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: April 1344’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 7: 1343-1346 (1904), pp. 298-311. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=100873&amp;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

October 20 1347
Westminster
To the collectors of the custom of wool, hides and wool-fells in the port of London. Order to pay to John de Coupland 95l. 2s. 8d. of 190l. 5s. 3¾d. for Michaelmas term last, as in consideration of John’s services and his vigour in the battle at Durham, where God granted victory to the king’s lieges in the North against the Scots, where he took prisoner David de Bruys, who styled himself King of Scotland, and freely delivered him to the king, and wishing to reward him for such faithful service, the king placed him in the estate of a banneret, and to maintain him therein granted that he should receive 500l. yearly, to wit: 400l. of the issues of the customs in the port of London, and 100l. of the issues of the customs in the port of Berwick upon Tweed, until the king should provide him with 500l. of land or rent yearly, in a suitable place; and the king granted to John the manor of Coghull, co. York, a moiety of the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members and other appurtenances in cos. Westmorland and Cumberland, and a moiety of the manor of Ulreston, co. Lancaster, which belonged to William de Coucy, and which escheated to the king by his death, to the value of 231l. 8s. 9¼d. yearly, at which they are extended, in part satisfaction of the 500l. of land and rent, saving to the king the separable park and wood upon le Bradewode, a wood in the island of Wynandermere, a moiety of a wood called ‘Richemerfeld,’ the wood of Crosthwayt called ‘Brendewode’ and wood of Aynerholm, and the knights’ fees and advowsons which pertain to the said manors, until further order; and the king also granted to John the manors of Morholm, Warton, Carneford and Lyndeheved, co. Lancaster, which belonged to the said William, and which escheated to the king at his death, to hold at will, at ferm, to the value of 18l. 5s. 11d. yearly, in part satisfaction of the said 500l., which the king wishes to be allowed to him yearly, until further order, and the king wishes John to be satisfied for the remaining 190l. 5s. 3¾d. and has granted that he shall receive that sum of the issues of the customs in the port of London.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: October 1347’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 8: 1346-1349 (1905), pp. 324-334. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=101228&amp;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

April 24 1348
Westminster
To the collectors of the custom of wool, hides and wool-fells in the port of London. Order to pay to John de Coupeland 95l. 2s. 7¾d. for Easter term last, as in consideration of his service in taking David de Bruys, styling himself king of Scotland, in the battle of Durham, and delivering him to the king, he created John a banneret, and granted to him 500l. to be received yearly, to wit, 400l. of the issues of the customs in that port and 100l. of the issues of the customs of the port of Berwick upon Tweed, until he should provide him with 500l. a year of land or rent, and the king granted to John the manor of Coghull, co. York, a moiety of the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members and other appurtenances in cos. Westmorland and Cumberland, and a moiety of the manor of Ulreston, co. Lancaster, which belonged to William de Coucy, and escheated to the king after his death, to the value of 231l. 8s. 9¼d. yearly, at which they are extended, in part satisfaction of the 500l., saving to the king the park and separable wood above le Bradewode, the wood below the island of Wynandermere, a moiety of the wood called ‘Richemerfeld,’ the wood of Crosthwayt called ‘Brendewod’ and the wood of Aynerholm, and the knights’ fees and advowsons pertaining to the said manor and moieties, until further order, and the king also granted to John the manors of Morholm, Warton, Carneford and Lyndeheved, co. Lancaster, which belonged to the said William and escheated to the king, to hold at will, at ferm, to the value of 78l. 5s. 11d. yearly, which the king wishes to be allowed to him yearly in part satisfaction of the 500l. until further order, and wishing to satisfy John for the remaining 190l. 5s. 3¾d. the king granted that he should receive that sum of the issues of the customs in the port of London.
To the collectors of customs in the port of Newcastle upon Tyne. Order to pay to John de Coupeland or to his attorney 50l. for Easter term last, in accordance with the king’s grant to him of 100l. for his good service with twenty men at arms, of 100l. to be received yearly for life of the issues of the customs in that port.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: April 1348’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 8: 1346-1349 (1905), pp. 441-454. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=101254&amp;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

July 26 1348
Westminster
To the collectors in co. York of the aid of 40s. for making the king’s son a knight. Order to supersede until the quinzaine of Martinmas next the demand made upon John de Coupeland by reason of the manor of Coghull in that county, so that after deliberation thereupon the king may cause justice to be done, as on 10 August last the king granted the said manor to John with certain other lands in cos. Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancaster, which belonged to William de Coucy and escheated to the king at his death, to the value of 231l. 8s. 9¼d. at which they were extended, in part satisfaction of 500l. of land and rent granted to him by the king, and John has besought the king to order the demand made upon him for the aid by reason of the said lands to be superseded, as they were in the king’s hand at the time when the aid was granted, and the king wishes to be more fully informed upon the premises. By C.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: August 1348’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 8: 1346-1349 (1905), pp. 552-556. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=101268&amp;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Further mention of the Manor of Coghull in 1350:

April 15 1350
Westminster
To the fermors of the customs and subsidies due in all the ports of England, or to their mainpernors or their attorneys in the port of London. Order to pay to John de Coupeland 295l. 7s. 11d. for Easter, Michaelmas and Easter terms last, as in consideration of his service in war and of his vigorous action in the battle at Durham, where he took David de Bruys, self styled king of Scotland, and freely delivered him to the king, the king created John a banneret and to maintain that estate granted to him 500l. to be received yearly, to wit, 400l. of the issues of the customs in that port and 100l. of the issues of the customs in the port of Berwick upon Tweed; and the king granted to him the manor of Coghull, co. York and a moiety of the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members and other appurtenances in cos. Westmorland and Cumberland, and a moiety of the manor of Ulreston, co. Lancaster, which belonged to William de Coucy and came into the king’s hand as escheats after his death, to the yearly value of 231l. 8s. 9¼d. at which they are extended, in part satisfaction of the said 500l., saving to the king the park and separable wood upon le Bradewode, the wood in the island of Wynandermere, a moiety of the wood called ‘Richemerfeld,’ of the wood of Crosthwayt called ‘Brondewode,’ and of the wood of Aynerholm, and the knights’ fees and advowsons pertaining to the said manor and moieties; and the king also granted to John the manors of Morholm, Warton, Carneford and Lyndeheved with appurtenances, in co. Lancaster, which belonged to the said William and escheated to the king, to hold at ferm at the king’s will, to the value of 78l. 5s. 11d. yearly, in part satisfaction of the 500l., and the king wishing John to be satisfied for the remaining 190l. 5s. 3¾d., granted that he should receive that sum yearly of the issues of the customs in the port of London, until the king should provide him with 190l. 5s. 3¾d. of land and rent yearly, in full satisfaction of the 500l.
To the fermors of the customs and subsidies in all the ports of England or to their mainpernors or to their attorneys in the port of Newcastle upon Tyne. Order to pay to John de Coupeland 150l. for Easter, Michaelmas and Easter terms last, in accordance with the king’s grant to him on 20 January in the 20th year of the reign, for his good service and for his stay with the king with twenty men at arms, of 100l. to be received yearly for life of the issues of the customs in that port.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: May 1350’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 9: 1349-1354 (1906), pp. 175-183. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=101351&amp;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Further mention of the Manor of Coghull in 1352:

June 28 1352
Westminster
To William Basset, Thomas de Fencotes, Thomas de Seton and Roger de Blaykeston, justices of assize in the county of York. John de Malghum has besought the king to provide a remedy, as he lately arramed an assize of novel disseisin before the said William, Roger and Thomas de Fencotes, then justices of assize in that county, against William de Coucy and William de Wasshyngton and others contained in the original writ, concerning tenements in Thorneton in Lonesdale, complaining that he had been disseised of 16 messuages, a mill, 8 bovates and 60 acres of land, 80 acres of meadow and 12d. rent with appurtenances, which assize was discontinued by the death of William de Coucy; and John afterwards arramed another assize against John de Coupeland and the said William de Wasshyngton concerning those tenements, which remains to be taken before the said justices; and John de Coupeland as tenant of those tenements, pleading in that assize, alleged that the tenements were the manor of Coghull, and the king had granted that manor to him by charter, together with certain other lands which belonged to William de Coucy, and asserting that he ought not to answer John de Malghum thereupon without the king, upon which pretext the justices have hitherto delayed to take the said assize; the king therefore orders the justices, if such process has been taken and that John de Malghum arramed the first assize as aforesaid, then to proceed to take the assize now pending before them concerning the said tenements, notwithstanding the said allegation, so that they do not proceed to judgment without consulting the king. By p.s

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: July 1352’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 9: 1349-1354 (1906), pp. 432-438. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=101449&amp;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Further mention of the Manor of Coghill in 1354:

April 20 1354
Westminster
To the collectors of the custom of wool, hides and wool-fells in the port of London. Order to pay to John de Coupeland or to Robert Wendout his attorney 95l. 2s. 7½d. for Easter term last, as in consideration of his action at the battle of Durham, where he took David de Bruys, self-styled king of Scotland, and delivered him to the king, he created John a banneret and granted him and his heirs 500l. to be received yearly to maintain that estate, to wit, 400l. of the issues of the customs in that port and 100l. of the issues of the customs in the port of Berwick-upon-Tweed, until the king should provide him with 500l. of land or rent yearly, and to give effect to that grant the king gave him the manor of Coghull co. York, a moiety of the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members and appurtenances in Westmorland and Cumberland, and a moiety of the manor of Ulreston co. Lancaster, which belonged to William de Coucy, and escheated to the king after his death, to the yearly value of 231l. 8s. 9¼d. in part satisfaction of the 500l. of land and rent, saving to the king the park and several wood upon le Bradewode, the wood in the island of Wynandermere, a moiety of the wood called Richemerfeld, of the wood of Crosthwayt called Brendewode, and of the wood of Aynerholm, and the knights’ fees and advowsons pertaining to the said manor and moieties, until further order, and the king granted to John the manors of Morholm, Warton, Carneford and Lyndeheved co. Lancaster, which belonged to the said William and escheated to the king after his death, to hold at will, at ferm, to the value of 78l. 5s. 11d. yearly, in part satisfaction of the 500l. of land and rent, and the king has granted that John shall receive the remaining 190l. 5s. 3¾d. of the issues of the customs in the port of London.
To the collectors of customs in the port of Newcastle upon Tyne. Order to pay to John de Coupeland 50l. for Easter term last, in accordance with the king’s grant to him on 20 January in the 20th year of the reign for his stay with the king with twenty men at arms, of 100l. to be received yearly for life of the issues of the customs in that port.
To the sheriff of York. Order to pay to Walter Whithors, the king’s yeoman, what is in arrear to him from 15 May in the 17th year of the reign of such wages as Hugh Treganoun deceased used to receive for the custody of the water of Fosse, and to pay him such wages henceforth, as on the said day the king granted that custody to Walter to hold for life, in the same manner as Hugh held it, receiving the like wages.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: May-July 1354’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 10: 1354-1360 (1908), pp. 15-29. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=105571&amp;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Further mention of the Manor of Coghill in 1364:

April 12 1364.
Westminster.
To William de Reygate escheator in Yorkshire. Order not to meddle further [with] certain tenements in Thornton in Lonesdale, taken into the king’s hand by the death of Mariota daughter of Robert son of Gregory de Burton, and by reason of the fees which were of William de Coucy in Yorkshire and are in the king’s hand, delivering up any issues thereof taken; as the king has learned by inquisition, taken by the escheator, that Mariota, who died on 3 December in the 36th year of the reign, at her death held the premises to herself and her heirs as of the manor of Coghill as of the fees aforesaid by knight service and by the service of 12d. a year, and that William de Burton her cousin is her next heir and of full age; and on 21 May in the 29th year of the reign the king granted the said manor to John de Coupland (now deceased) and Joan his wife (yet living) for the life of either of them, together with the knights’ fees thereto belonging.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: April 1364’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 12: 1364-1369 (1910), pp. 6-11. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=103173&amp;strquery=coghill Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

Followed in May the same year by:

May 9th 1364
Indenture made between Sir Ingelram lord of Coucy and Joan who was wife of John de Coupeland whereby, in presence of William de Wykeham keeper of the privy seal and others of the council, acknowledging her estate to be for term of her life in the manor of Coghull co. York, a moiety of the manor of Kirkeby in Kendale with its members in Westmorland and Cumberland, a moiety of the manor of Ulreston, the manors of Mourholm, Warton, Kerneford and Lyndheved co. Lancaster to her granted by charter of the king with the fees, advowsons etc. thereto pertaining, and power for her, her assigns and tenants, to take of the parks and woods thereof for building, burning, making and enclosing parks and hays, ‘housebote and hayebote’ and other needs without impeachment of waste, provided only that they may not give or sell the same or any parcel thereof or trees growing therein, and acknowledging likewise her estate to be for life in all the lands which were of Sir Robert de Coucy in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Westmorland, the fees and advowsons excepted, and which she holds by another charter of the king, rendering to him 100 marks a year at Easter and Michaelmas by even portions, which yearly sum, fees and advowsons the king has by charter granted to Sir Ingelram and his heirs for ever, and by the same charter has granted to him and his heirs the reversion of the manors, moieties and lands with the appurtenances aforesaid after her death, the said Joan attorns tenant to Sir Ingelram for the manors, moieties and lands aforesaid, as heretofore to the king, and has done fealty, saving always her estate aforesaid; and for this attornment Sir Ingelram confirms the premises to her for life with warranty thereof, to hold of him and his heirs, rendering to them 100 marks a year, and grants that she and her heirs shall not be impeached for waste but only for gift or sale as aforesaid, the said Joan promising to sue to the profit of Sir Ingelram any others who shall make waste in the said parks, saving to her reasonable costs in such suit. One part remaining with the king sealed by both parties, another with Sir Ingelram sealed by Joan, the third remaining with Joan sealed by Sir Ingelram. Dated London, Monday before Whitsuntide 38 Edward III. French.
Memorandum of acknowledgment by the parties, 9 May, in the chancery at the Whitefriars (apud mansum fratrum ordinis beate Marie de Monte Carmeli).
Indenture whereby Sir Ingelram lord of Coucy grants that, whereas Joan who was wife of John de Coupeland, by charter of the king made to her said husband and to her, holds for life all the lands that were of Sir Robert de Coucy in Lancashire, Westmorland and Yorkshire, rendering 100 marks a year at Easter and Michaelmas by even portions, which yearly sum with the reversion of the premises has by charter of the king been granted to Sir Ingelram and his heirs for ever, the said terms shall be postponed and changed to Whitsuntide and Martinmas, and Joan or her assigns shall not during her life be compelled nor distrained to pay the same but only at the terms last mentioned; and Joan binds herself to pay the said sum every year at London at Whitsuntide and Martinmas by even portions, provided she or her assigns be not compelled nor distrained to pay at the other terms aforesaid, with power to Sir Ingelram and his heirs to distrain if the same be in arrear at any time. Dated London, Wednesday before Whitsuntide 38 Edward III. French.
Memorandum of acknowledgment by the parties, 9 May (as the last).

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: June 1364’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 12: 1364-1369 (1910), pp. 57-68. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=103189&amp;strquery=coghull Date accessed: 02 October 2013.
————————————————————————–

Further reference to the Manor of Coggill was made in the Court Rolls of 20th July 1375:

30th July 1375
Westminster
To John de Sayville escheator in Yorkshire and Westmorland. Order to deliver to Ingelram de Coucy earl of Bedford and Isabel his wife the king’s daughter the manors and moiety hereinafter mentioned, with the knights’ fees, advowsons of churches and other appurtenances, taken into the king’s hand by the death of Joan who was wife of John de Coupland, together with the issues thereof taken since her death; as lately of his favour the king by letters patent granted to the said earl and Isabel and to the heirs of their bodies the remainder of all the manors and lands held for life by the said Joan with remainder to the king, and the knights’ fees, advowsons of churches, hospitals, religious houses, vicarages and chapels, the parks, forests, chaces, woods, warrens, fisheries, moors, marshes, turbaries, meadows, feedings, pastures, services of tenants free and neif, liberties, escheats, wards, marriages, reliefs, commodities, profits etc. thereto belonging, which by virtue of the said earl’s charter ought to have remained to the king; and now it is found by inquisition, taken by the escheator at the king’s command, that the said Joan held for life the manors of Thornton, Coggill and Midleton co. York, the manor of Wynandermer with the members and appurtenances, namely the hamlets of Lageden, Loghrygge, Grysmer, Hamelsate, Troutebek, Appilthwayt, Crosthwayt, Strikelandkell and Hoton, the manor of Castirton and a moiety of the manor of Kyrkeby Kendale co. Westmorland, with remainder as aforesaid, and that the manors of Wynandermer and Castirton and the said moiety with the members are held in chief by the service of the moiety of one fee of barony (unius feodi Baronie (fn. 1) ), the other manors of others than the king; and the king has of his favour respited the homage and fealty of the said earl, who is dwelling over sea with the king’s licence, until his return to England. By K.

From: ‘Close Rolls, Edward III: July 1375’, Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 14: 1374-1377 (1913), pp. 141-154. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=106390&amp;strquery=coggill Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

————————————————————————–

John Coghill began the Irish Coghill line when he became Lord Chief Justice of Ireland in 1699.  he had been educated at Magdalen Hall, oxford:

Coghill, John gent. Magdalen Hall, matric. 10 March, 1656-7, bar.-at-law, Gray’s Inn, 1661, as of Coghill Hall, Yorks, gent.

See Foster’s Judges and Barristers. From: ‘Chocke-Colepeper’, Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714 (1891), pp. 274-303. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=117052&amp;strquery=&quot;coghill hall&quot; Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

————————————————————————–

The Coghill family are since the mid Eighteenth Century really Cramer (Parliamentary Rolls of 1756-7):

Cramer, Leave for a Bill to take the Name of Coghill:
Upon reading the Petition of Oliver Cramer Esquire, praying Leave to bring in a Bill to enable him and the Heirs of his Body to take and use the Surname of Coghill, and to bear the Family Arms of Coghill:
It is Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Bill, according to the Prayer of the said Petition.
Bill read.
Accordingly, the Lord Willoughby of Parham presented to the House a Bill, intituled, “An Act to enable Oliver Cramer Esquire and the Heirs of his Body to take and use the Surname of Coghill, pursuant to the Will of Marmaduke Coghill Esquire, deceased; and to bear the Family Arms of Coghill.”

From: ‘House of Lords Journal Volume 29: December 1756, 11-20’, Journal of the House of Lords volume 29: 1756-1760 (1767-1830), pp. 12-20. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=114416&amp;strquery=coghill Date accessed: 02 October 2013.

————————————————————————–