The Kentish Origins and Connections of Sir George Brown (c. 1438 - 1483)

THE KENTISH ORIGINS AND CONNECTIONS OF

SIR GEORGE BROWN (c.1438-1483)

j. t. driver

A prominent member of the Kent and Surrey gentry in the reign of King Edward IV and a leader of the rising in Kent against Richard III in 1483. From a staunch Lancastrian family in the reign of Henry VI, George Brown accommodated himself to the government of the first Yorkist king. Having fought on the victorious side at Tewkesbury in 1471, he served as a royal commissioner, Justice of the Peace and Sheriff of Kent, and was elected three times to the Commons. Brown enjoyed wide social and political connections, in particular with the well-known Pastons of Norfolk and Poynings of Sussex. Important too, was his link with Sir Thomas Vaughan, one of Edward IV’s closest supporters, who became his step-father, a relationship which was not always cordial. Despite his service to Edward IV, Sir George survived the early ‘purges’ of Richard III but was soon involved in opposition to the new regime and took a major role in the rising in Kent in 1483, for which he lost his life.

Born around 1438, probably at Tonford (near Canterbury), George Brown was the eldest of the seven sons of Sir Thomas Brown and his wife, Eleanor, daughter of Sir Thomas Arundel of Betchworth (Surrey). Since the last was the younger brother of John, Lord Mautravers, de jure Earl of Arundel, the Brown family acquired linkage to the noble family of Fitzalan, which provided the family with land in Surrey to add to their estates in Kent.¹ However, there is good evidence to show that the fortunes of the family originated in trade, for the grandfather of George Brown, Thomas (‘the elder’), had belonged to the Company of Grocers from 1408 and had prospered sufficiently to have invested in real estate in Hertfordshire and in property in the parish of St Giles, Cripplegate, before his death in 1430.²

From early in his career Thomas ‘the younger’ became closely associated with leading figures in the Lancastrian government of Henry VI, essentially through service in the Exchequer, where he was already established in 1426. At this time the treasurer was Walter, Lord Hungerford, who was to assist Brown in obtaining the manors of Eythorne, near Dover, and other lands in Kent. Soon he was to become one of the main landholders in the county, where his chief residence was the manor of Tonford (in Thanington, Chartham and Harbledown parishes) for which he had a licence to crenellate in 1449.³ Here then was a good example of a London trader establishing himself as a country squire.⁴

Important, too, was the association which Thomas the younger enjoyed with Cardinal Henry Beaufort and Queen Margaret of Anjou, whose one-time steward he was for the manors of Dartford and Wilmington, Marden and Milton.⁵ He was twice elected to the Commons: in 1439-40 for Dover and in 1445-6 as one of the parliamentary knights for Kent.⁶ By July 1447 he had become under-treasurer of the Exchequer, a post he held until September 1449; and by 1453 he had obtained a knighthood.⁷

As an exchequer official he had dealings with Richard, Duke of York, but the relationship soon broke down as political tension increasingly developed between York and court. When it came to a head in 1459-1460, Sir Thomas Brown remained loyal to the king. In October 1459 he was ordered to confiscate the possessions of York and his supporters in Kent, and in June 1460 he and his son, George, gathered a group of men together to enter the Tower of London to defend it against Yorkist forces. However, within a fortnight of the battle of Northampton (10 July) the fortress fell, the Lancastrian leader, Lord Scales, captured and slain, and other members of the garrison taken and sent for trial at the Guildhall. Sir Thomas and others were found guilty of treason and hanged at Tyburn on 29 July. Five days earlier he had been declared attainted and his estates forfeited.⁸ George Brown was presumably imprisoned.

Some eighteen months before these events George Brown himself first appears in the records when, on 20 February 1459, he was granted a seven-year lease of lands in Ash, Preston and Wingham, and a salt pit in Stourmouth, at an annual rent to the Exchequer of £2 1s. 0d. The grant was backdated to the previous Michaelmas.⁹ This evidence of his adulthood suggests that he had been born about 1438.

It is most likely that, in an effort to protect some of his late father’s estate, George Brown took out a pardon in September 1460 to cover all offences made before 24 August and any resultant forfeitures.¹⁰ However, as will soon be seen, his success was limited.

Two men in particular were to benefit from the attainder and subsequent loss of estate suffered by Sir Thomas Brown: John Fogge of Ashford and Thomas Vaughan. Both had served the Lancastrian government of Henry VI (Fogge, for instance, had helped to suppress Cade’s rebellion in 1450) and they would have known both Sir Thomas and George Brown well. However, in 1459-60 they changed their allegiance to Richard, Duke of York. Both were to prosper under Edward IV, who gave them knighthoods.

As a result of the distribution of Sir Thomas Brown’s estate, Fogge temporarily obtained the Kentish manors of Tonford and Dane and (presumably) other lands in Thanington, Chartham and Harbledown in fee in October 1460. As a result of the sudden improvement in Fogge’s fortunes, political leadership in Kent now passed to him and another associate and defector to the Yorkist regime, Sir John Scott.¹¹ Fogge based his claim on the grounds that Tonford and the other properties had belonged to his family in the 1430s and that it had been illegally deprived of them. This assertion was made in spite of the fact that in 1435 he had quitclaimed (i.e. released any claim to) Tonford and other lands and had followed that up by a recognizance of £1,000 to Thomas Brown to abide by the arrangements. In the event Fogge obtained a pardon to nullify any action against him should he break his recognizance.¹²

The involvement of Thomas Vaughan in the matter of Sir Thomas Brown’s forfeited estates was of a different order to that of Sir John Fogge. Some-time in October/November 1460 the widowed Eleanor Brown married this rising Yorkist squire.¹³ Very shortly afterwards Thomas Vaughan (thus now the step-father of George Brown) and his wife Eleanor unsuccess-fully challenged Fogge’s claim to Tonford and Dane (in 1471 Fogge receiving the manors in fee, i.e. as his estate proper).¹⁴ Already Master of the Ordnance and keeper of the Great Wardrobe, Vaughan was to become one of the leading figures in the reign of Edward IV – treasurer of the chamber, Justice of the Peace in Kent, Surrey and Sussex from 1466-7, and a parliamentary knight for Cornwall in 1478.¹⁵

On 18 October 1460, in return for an offer of £1,000 to the government, Eleanor and Vaughan were to be allowed to take over the goods, chattels, monies and debts forfeited by Sir Thomas Brown. This was followed on 9 November, again in return for a like sum of money, for Vaughan and Eleanor (in that order) to be enfoeffed with the estates and property of Sir Thomas, with the ultimate safeguarding through a panel of feoffees of the rights of George Brown and his brothers. However, on 16 August 1465 another enfeoffment was issued whereby the property would have ultimately passed to the ‘the heirs of the bodies’ of Thomas Vaughan and Eleanor, and by yet another enfeoffment of 2 January 1467 the estates were granted to Thomas Vaughan ‘esquire of the body’, his wife, Eleanor, and their assigns.¹⁶

In addition Vaughan’s control over the Brown estates was made more secure by exemptions from Acts of Resumption first when he and Eleanor were given the privilege in 1464, and then when he alone was named as exempt in the Act of 1467-8.¹⁷ By these various arrangements the inheritance of George Brown and his siblings was jeopardized, a situation which led to serious friction between George Brown and Thomas Vaughan. Indeed what was at stake was a large estate and properties. Except for the manors of Tonford and Dane (which had gone to Sir John Fogge) and Swanscombe and Erith (which had belonged to Richard, Duke of York), the Brown inheritance included the manor of West Betchworth in Surrey, other properties in Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire, together with thirteen messuages (houses), two wharfs and other buildings in Billingsgate, Lime Street and the Vintry, London; and two windmills, one in Barfreston, the other in Whitstable, together with the interesting holding of the ‘aldermanship’ of Westgate in Canterbury.¹⁸

Initially the enfeoffments obtained by Vaughan and Eleanor suggest a ‘protective’ side on the part of Vaughan to secure the rights of his step-sons, though ultimately his objectives look less altruistic. Indeed, his actions, including his marriage to Eleanor, smack of some political calculation.¹⁹ In view of what was now to come the latter conclusion would appear to have been more likely, and the credit of the beneficent influence of Vaughan upon George Brown’s career – certainly in its early stages – more questionable.²⁰

It was not long before the tension caused by Vaughan’s manoeuverings over West Betchworth and other properties came out into the open. In Trinity term 1467 a case was brought before John Wode and two other Justices of the Peace and twelve jurymen at Guildford to hear an accusation that, just before Easter, George Brown gentleman, late of Southwark, and one Henry Carpenter of Dorking yeoman together with a group of armed men from Southwark, Deptford and Ruxley, had attacked the manor of West Betchworth, expelled Vaughan, and done damage to the value of £100. The case was held over and Brown and some others sought to pay a fine.²¹ Particularly interesting is that in the same term Brown, charged with several trespasses, contempts and entries of property, had placed himself in the king’s grace, and pledges for his behaviour had been made by Sir John Paston, senior, of Caister, Norfolk, and his brother, John Paston the younger, esquire, also of Caistor, to both of whom Brown had recently become related by marriage.²² On the fourth day of the next term (Michaelmas) George Brown, now entitled ‘esquire’, late of Southwark, together with Henry Carpenter, yeoman, and others (all below the rank of yeoman) failed to appear to answer charges brought by Thomas Vaughan, sheriff of Surrey. Orders were made for their arrest and production in court.²³ Brown and Carpenter hit back in Hilary term 1468 when, appearing by attorney, they claimed that they had not even entered Vaughan’s property at West Betchworth.²⁴ In Easter term Vaughan appeared by attorney to repeat the charge of trespass against Brown, Carpenter and other men linked with them. Again, the defendants failed to materialize and so the case was held over until Trinity term.²⁵ At this point the case between Vaughan and Brown seems to have petered out. Interestingly, however, in Michaelmas term 1470 and Hilary 1471 Carpenter appeared as a plaintiff against Thomas Vaughan esquire and a group of followers, gentlemen and yeomen, in a case of trespass. On this occasion it was Vaughan and his associates who failed to turn up to answer the charge.²⁶ In the meantime (though possibly without any connection to Vaughan) George Brown was pursuing a case of trespass in Michaelmas term 1469 against one Thomas Staffe of Crawley.²⁷

Ultimately, however, Brown successfully petitioned the king in the Parliament of 1472-5 (in which he was sitting as burgess for Guildford) for the judgements against his father to be declared ‘utterly voide and of no one effecte’ and, furthermore, that all patents issued by Henry VI and Edward IV concerning his father’s estate should be cancelled. The depth of feeling held by George Brown against Fogge and Vaughan was revealed by his contention that his father’s downfall had been brought about ‘by grete and inordynet labours and of grete malice of dyvers his ennemyes and evell willers’.²⁸

While much of his energies had been occupied with defending his rights against his step-father, Brown does not appear to have held any public office, such as that of a government commissioner. Nevertheless, his position must have been strengthened politically, socially and financ-ially at a stroke as a result of his marriage in 1466 to Elizabeth Paston.²⁹ Not only was she the sister of John Paston I and his brother William II, and aunt to Sir John Paston II and his brother John III, she was also the widow of Robert Poynings who had been killed on the Lancastrian side at St Albans in 1461.³⁰ Furthermore, by this association with the Sussex Poynings, Brown became the step-father-in-law of Edward who later achieved fame as deputy in Ireland under Henry VII. Possibly, too, the Poynings connection brought him into association with the Delamere family in Wiltshire.³¹

Brown’s marriage into the Pastons was, perhaps, of even more sig-nificance and interest. This Norfolk family was politically active during the reign of Edward IV, for at least one member sat in the parliaments of 1472-5, 1478 and 1483, to which George Brown was also elected.³² Moreover, there is evidence to indicate that George was on good terms with his in-laws for, in a letter of November 1479 from John Paston III to his mother (Margaret Mauteby), he referred to having used his ‘aqueyntance’ with his uncle (i.e. George) and Sir James Radcliffe in an effort to enter royal service and support him in a quarrel.³³

It was about 1468 that Brown became attached to the service of George, Duke of Clarence, when he became steward of the ducal manors of Dartford, Wilmington, Milton and Marden (all in Kent) and of Worples-don, Surrey.³⁴ By the late 1460s political friction had developed between Edward IV on the one hand, and his brother Clarence and cousin Richard, Earl of Warwick, on the other.³⁵ In March 1470 there was trouble in Lincolnshire, and incidents elsewhere against the king.

Some gentry had ties with Clarence, others with Warwick; some held die-hard Lancastrian sympathies, whereas others possibly harboured latent resentments – in Brown’s case at the execution of his father. It is not known whether George Brown was actively involved in any incidents, but significantly perhaps his name was included among those to be arrested and their properties seized in an order issued in April.³⁶

Later that year there took place the dramatic bouleversement of fortune when Warwick and Clarence forced Edward into exile and restored Henry VI as a puppet ruler. As matters evolved the ‘Readeption’ government, as it came to be known, had little support in the South-East. However, Brown was one of the exceptions, though the leadership was in the hands of others such as Sir Richard Frogenhall (a man with Beaufort links) and Sir John Guildford.³⁷ In spite of his backing George Brown was not apparently elected to the ‘Readeption Parliament’ which met at Westminster on 15 October 1470. Nevertheless, he obtained a pardon in November, which would have nullified the earlier action issued against him in April.³⁸

An interesting aspect of his career from about this time was his connection with the city of Canterbury itself. On 19/20 November 1470, as ‘George Brown of Tonford, armiger’ he was admitted to the freedom of Canterbury in the Guildhall, upon payment of 40s., before the mayor, Nicholas Faunt, five aldermen, two chamberlains and ‘a greater part of the 12 and 36’.³⁹ After the induction there was a ceremonial breakfast. Certainly Brown was a man to be ‘cultivated’ by such a city as Canterbury in its dealings with government – the sort of thing that happened elsewhere.⁴⁰ Nevertheless, Brown had direct interest in the city inasmuch as that between 1470-1 and 1482-3 he rented property in Westgate. Several payments of 3s. 4d. were recorded during these years in the Chamberlains’ Accounts, generally giving his title. For example, in 1470-1, he was called ‘armiger’ (esquire), whereas in 1472-3 and subsequently he was ‘miles’ (knight), and sometimes ‘miles and aldermanus’.⁴¹

Once again the situation changed in the early months of 1471, when Edward IV returned from exile in the Low Countries on 23 March. For various reasons Clarence now decided to ditch his alliance with Warwick in favour of Edward. On 14 April the earl was killed at Barnet and three weeks later the Lancastrians were finally defeated at Tewkesbury. Clarence took part in the battle as did George Brown. Indeed Brown was among the three men knighted on the field by the king himself.⁴²

It is worth considering why George Brown should have fought at Tewkesbury on the king’s side, when only recently he had been involved, even if not deeply so, in the Readeption regime. One obvious possibility was that he simply ‘followed his lord’ (Clarence), whereas another could have been that, like many Lancastrian sympathizers in the area, he saw no future in supporting the failing regime set up by Warwick in late 1470; and a third that, in remaining loyal to Edward, he would have safeguarded his rights to West Betchworth and the other family estates.

After Tewkesbury there was little alternative for the Lancastrians but to accept the situation.⁴³ Again, the completeness of Edward’s success no doubt gave him sufficient confidence to be generous to his erstwhile opponents. Many of Clarence’s men, including Brown, were rewarded. Possibly, too (anticipating Machiavelli), he decided to ‘to keep his friends close and his enemies closer’.⁴⁴

In spite of the crushing defeat at Tewkesbury, there was a final spluttering of the embers of Lancastrian fire in Kent with the rising led by Thomas Neville, Lord Fauconberg in May. Although it gained little support from the leading gentry of Kent, it did have the backing of Nicholas Faunt, a former mayor of Canterbury and a county member for Kent in the Readeption Parliament. The rebellion collapsed quickly, Fauconberg abandoned Faunt, who was arrested at Blackheath by Sir George Brown, who was by now back in Kent, and executed on 29 May in the Buttermarket in Canterbury.⁴⁵ A list of citizens who had backed Fauconberg had been found on Faunt. However, this information was suppressed by Brown who returned the document to the city.⁴⁶ Exactly what Brown’s motives were are unclear, though it is possible that they could have been linked to the desire to protect the interests of the city or even personal friends.

With the decisive Yorkist victory at Tewkesbury Edward could rely on widespread loyalty from the gentry. As has already been pointed out, even before the battle wholehearted Lancastrian support had virtually evaporated which meant that those prominent Lancastrians who survived ‘were therefore able to transfer smoothly into Yorkist service’.⁴⁷ One such was Sir George Brown who, although with perhaps conflicting loyalties, now began to follow the usual cursum honorum of a county gentleman for the remainder of the reign.

On 5 February 1472 he took the useful precaution of obtaining a pardon, in which he was described as ‘of West Beckworth [Betchworth], Surrey, late of Southwark, late of Rokesse alias Roksleigh [Ruxley] Kent, late of London’.⁴⁸ This could suggest that his base was now mainly in Surrey. A month later, on 7 March, he was appointed a commissioner of array in Kent and Surrey.⁴⁹ On 30 September he headed the list of parliamentary electors for Surrey and on the same day he was elected, in first place, as burgess for Guildford with Nicholas Gaynesford esquire as his ‘junior colleague’ to serve in the parliament which began on 6 October 1472 and which was to continue, with prorogations, until March 1475. Interestingly enough Gaynesford’s name had immediately followed Brown’s in the list of Surrey electors. Almost certainly Brown’s election had owed much to the fact that he was still a retainer of the Duke of Clarence. In fact this parliament contained a substantial number of Clarence’s retainers or servants.⁵⁰

For a decade or more after Tewkesbury a period of fairly stable govern-ment ensued. A feature of government was the employment of many of the king’s household servants in local affairs whereby he was able to reach out to the communities of the shires.⁵¹ Of this aspect Sir George Brown was a good example. From 14 July 1474 until 26 June 1483 he was a JP (for Surrey), an office which was coming to be of increasing importance and prestige.⁵² Furthermore Brown was often listed as a feoffee with prominent supporters of the king. He was, for instance, sometime before 26 January 1478, a fellow trustee with John, Lord Dinham, an influential courtier, and John Catesby, serjeant-at-law, in a marriage settlement on behalf of Roger Lewkenor for lands in Hertfordshire and Sussex; and in February 1478 he was associated with Sir William Stonor of Oxfordshire and others in an enfeoffment for one, John Chacombe, in lands in Kent and Essex.⁵³ Three months later, his name was similarly used with those of Sir Thomas Bourchier and of John Catesby in a deed dated 6 May, which confirmed to one John Colyns, gentleman, land called ‘La Rose’, together with a cottage and garden in the parish of St Margaret, Southwark.⁵⁴

That Sir George Brown was by now fully established in county society of the South-East was underlined by his return, in first place, as knight of the shire for Surrey on 16 December 1477 to sit in the Parliament called for 16 January 1478, the principal business of which was to condemn George, Duke of Clarence.⁵⁵ Sitting also in the same assembly were his step-father, Sir Thomas Vaughan, one of the Parliamentary knights for Cornwall, and Sir William Stonor, who had been returned for Oxfordshire.⁵⁶ It was, no doubt, a mark of Brown’s acceptability to the king that in March and April, after the death of Clarence, he was appointed to commissions headed by Sir Thomas Bourchier and which included Sir Thomas St Leger (a man of substance in Surrey and Edward IV’s brother-in-law), Nicholas Gaynesford and John Wode, to enquire into lands held by the fallen duke in Middlesex and Surrey.⁵⁷ It would seem that by this point, indeed from about 1473, Brown and some others of Clarence’s ‘clients’ had moved over to become firm servants of the king.⁵⁸ About the same time, on 19 March, he was made steward of the manors of Witley and Worplesdon in Surrey and of Milton and Marden in Kent, an office previously held by his father.⁵⁹ These were quite lucrative posts for, in addition to the usual fees, he was to receive 10 marks (£6 13s. 4d.) a year from the issues of the estates, sums he was still receiving by the end of the reign.⁶⁰ In November 1479 he exercised his right as patron of Burleigh in Charing parish, to nominate one, Mark Hussey, as chaplain.⁶¹

Certainly by 1479 Sir George Brown was one of a tight group of members of the royal household who enjoyed intimate contact with Edward and who ‘would most wait upon the king and lie nightly in his chamber’.⁶²

In July 1480 Brown was a co-feoffee in the manor of Groveheath, Surrey, with Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset (son of Queen Elizabeth Woodville by her first husband), Nicholas Gaynesford and Thomas Stidolf, a lawyer and one-time surveyor-general to the queen – evidence which further underlines his connection with the court and powerful Woodvilles.⁶³ Later in the year, on 10 October, Brown was appointed a commissioner of array in Surrey.⁶⁴

About this time his support, with that of the important courtier, Sir Thomas St Leger, was sought by the city of Canterbury in its dispute with the monastery of St Augustine’s. With two other ‘friends’ they stayed at The Swan and were given two capons ‘for their goodwill and diligent labour to the king for the liberties and franchises of the city’.⁶⁵ As steward of some of the estates of the late duke of Clarence, he paid £7 11s. 0d. to Ralph Darell for lands in Dartford and Wilmington, and for the repair of a messuage in London.⁶⁶ In January 1481, most likely in his capacity as steward of Milton, he exercised the right of presentation of a priest at the church of St Margaret (possibly Lower Halstow?); and on 20 November 1482, the receivers of Milton and Marden were ordered to pay Brown all arrears owed to him since his appointment on 19 March 1479 as stewards of those manors held by Clarence.⁶⁷

Although by the later fifteenth century the office of JP was increasing in prestige and authority, that of sheriff was still de rigueur an essential achievement for the country gentleman.⁶⁸ In some respects, therefore, Brown reached the height of his career with his appointment as Sheriff of Kent on 5 November 1480.⁶⁹ During his term of office he was recorded as having paid £13 6s. 8d. into the Receipt of the Exchequer on Friday 18 May 1481, and a like sum on Monday 10 October from the issues of his bailiwick. On both occasions he was entitled ‘miles’.⁷⁰

What was to turn out to be the last Parliament of Edward’s reign was summoned to meet at Westminster on 20 January 1483. It sat for only a few weeks and closed on 18 February. Unfortunately most of the names of those returned to the Commons have been lost. However, from the records of Canterbury we do know those of its two parliamentary representatives: Sir George Brown and Roger Brent, a local lawyer. Particularly interesting is that Sir George offered to represent the city without the usual 2s. a day expenses ‘on account of the peculiar affection and love he had and hopes to have for the city … and because of the many gracious words and deeds shown to him by his fellow citizens on many occasions’.⁷¹ Behind these apparently generous sentiments there probably lay a keen desire on the part of Brown to find a parliamentary seat, even if it involved sitting as a citizen or burgess when he had previously held the prestigious place as a knight of the shire. Should that have been the case, then it would have been a good example of the increasing competition among the gentry for a parliamentary seat evident by the late fifteenth century and which was to continue. Those eager for a place would sometimes be willing to represent a borough without expenses, an arrangement which could be of mutual advantage, especially if the member had influence in high places or legal expertise to offer.⁷²

Within two months of the dissolution of the parliament of 1483 Edward IV died unexpectedly on 9 April. As a member of the royal household Brown played an honourable role in the king’s funeral on 17 April, when he carried the third banner, that of St George, at one corner of the canopy in the procession in Westminster Abbey.⁷³ Events which were to culminate in the seizure of the throne by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and the removal from the scene of the young king Edward V now moved quickly. The details of the coup do not belong here. However, suffice it to recall that Gloucester, with his associate Henry, second duke of Bucking-ham, and William, Lord Hastings, carried out a pre-emptive strike against their Woodville opponents by arresting Anthony, Earl Rivers (the queen’s brother) at Northampton early in the morning of 30 April, before moving on to Stony Stratford where they took charge of the young king, and arrested Sir Thomas Vaughan, Richard Grey (the king’s half-brother, being the queen’s second son by her first marriage) and Sir Richard Haute (the queen’s cousin). Later Rivers, Sir Thomas Vaughan and Grey were executed at Pontefract on 25 June.⁷⁴

Although no immediate action seems to have been taken against Sir George Brown his removal from the Surrey bench of justices on 26 June suggests that Richard felt a certain unease about him as the step-son of Vaughan.⁷⁵ By contrast, however, Sir John Fogge, despite his strong Woodville connections, was made a JP in Kent.⁷⁶ Nevertheless, even con-sidering his dislike of Richard, Sir George attended the coronation on 6 July 1483, in company with several other intimates and household men of Edward, including Sir Thomas St Leger and Nicholas Gaynesford.⁷⁷

From the very beginning of his reign Richard’s hold on the throne was tenuous. In October risings generally, if not quite accurately, known as ‘Buckingham’s Rebellion’ occurred across the south of England.⁷⁸ In the event there was little coordination between the various groups and the whole affair quickly collapsed. In the South-East Brown played a major, if unsuccessful, part.

On 10 October the duke of Norfolk wrote to his client Sir John Paston that Kentishmen were ready ‘to come out and rob the city [London]’.⁷⁹ The rising in Kent probably began prematurely, some ten days too soon, with trouble in the Weald. The leaders included, apart from Sir George, Sir John Fogge, Nicholas Gaynesford and some of the Hautes of Ightham. Brown himself was first mentioned as one of the leaders in the Great Chronicle of London, and has been described by one recent historian as one of Kent’s most able captains.⁸⁰ These and other leaders were often household men of the late king – knights and men of worship – who, as justices and commissioners had controlled affairs in their shires and had sometimes represented them in parliament.

It seems clear that the reasons which motivated men to join the rebellion against Richard III were many and complex. For example, during the summer of 1483 several southern gentry, including Brown, had met first with the object of restoring the sons of Edward IV and later to free his daughters out of sanctuary. Some were appalled by Richard’s behaviour.⁸¹ Strong ties to the Woodvilles brought in many Kentish gentry, including Sir John Fogge.⁸² Yet an additional factor which could have brought in other rebels was a long-standing connection to the Beauforts. Such a link could well have influenced Sir George Brown since his father had been an associate of Cardinal Henry Beaufort.⁸³ Potent influence, too, was that in a county where the gentry formed a close-knit society (and one where there was no dominant lord), with many intermarriages and ties of kinship, rebellions such as that of 1483 tended to draw in the support of groupings of families and friends.⁸⁴ Thus Sir George was joined by his brother Anthony and his step-son Edward Poynings.⁸⁵ Another factor which possibly influenced Brown’s actions in 1483 was the dispute between the Poynings family and Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, an ally of the king.⁸⁶

By 18 October some of the Kentish rebels had concentrated in the Maidstone area. However, as the insurgency began to disintegrate the opposition fled in different directions. On 23 October orders were issued for the arrest of Sir George Brown, Sir Thomas Bourchier of Barnes (a relation of the archbishop) and others.⁸⁷ It would appear that, before his arrest Brown had been sheltered by a friend, William Robard of Maid-stone.⁸⁸ Anthony Brown was caught when taking refuge with his sister-in-law, Elizabeth, at West Betchworth, whereas Edward Poynings eventually fled abroad to join Henry of Richmond and was attainted in absentia.⁸⁹ In the event few rebels were executed, but notable of those in the South-East was Sir George Brown, who had held out stubbornly against the king.⁹⁰ Tried in Westminster Hall, Brown was condemned, drawn to Tower Hill, where he was beheaded on 3/4 December.⁹¹ His estates were subsequently declared forfeit by an Act of Attainder in January 1484.⁹²

Widespread confiscations of lands and redistribution of offices of many of the rebels were carried out. The beneficiaries were overwhelmingly northern gentry loyal to Richard.⁹³ The treatment of the estates of Sir George Brown well illustrates the pattern. In February and March 1484 Sir Ralph Assheton and William Mauleverer, northern associates of the king, were involved in enquiring into the details of Brown’s holdings in Kent.⁹⁴

Not surprisingly Mauleverer was among those who acquired forfeited lands and properties of the attainted Sir George Brown. On 17 August he was granted ‘for good service against the rebels’ lands and a windmill in Hartanger (Barfreston), together with other lands in Wingham and Goodnestone; and on 20 June 1485 rents in Gravesend, Milton, Wilmington and elsewhere were granted to John Kendale, a yeoman of the crown.⁹⁵ Sir Ralph Assheton received the manors of Milton near Canterbury, valued at 20 marks (£13 6s. 8d.), Kingsnorth valued at £20, and Iffin at £3 6s. 8d.⁹⁶ The notorious William Catesby, too, shared in the spoils, being granted six London messuages belonging to Brown.⁹⁷ However, as early as 20 May 1475, Brown had protected his estates in the South-East by enfeoffments, with the consequence that on 20 March 1485 the escheators in Kent and Surrey were ordered to remove the king’s lands from the manor of Milton ( by Canterbury), and from Capel, Dorking and Shere in Surrey.⁹⁸ These grants had, however, been made irregularly and were reversed in the first parliament of Henry VII, whereupon his estates his estates passed to Sir George’s son, Matthew.⁹⁹ The latter was knighted in 1489 and was returned as knight of the shire for Surrey in 1495.¹⁰⁰ Earlier, in 1484, Elizabeth Brown obtained a pardon and was allowed to regain her lands held in jointure in Kent and Surrey.¹⁰¹

Elizabeth died in February 1488.¹⁰² In her will, drawn up on 18 May 1487 she mentioned her sons by each husband, and a daughter, Mary, by Sir George.¹⁰³ From her will the evidence points to a lady of means, education, cultured taste and at least a conventional religious outlook. Among her bequests were 20s. for annual prayers to be said in Dorking Church for Sir George, herself and their parents. She left plate and jewels, including diamonds, emeralds and sapphires, together with ‘a great bed of estate’ and tapestry work, five furred gowns and six ‘brode girdills of silk and damask’, which she passed to her daughter. Particularly interesting was that she owned ‘a piece of the Holy Crosse, crosswise made bordered with silver aboute’ and musical instruments.¹⁰⁴ That the Browns lived in some style is reinforced by Elizabeth’s bequest of ceremonial towels which were associated with the holding of formal banquets.¹⁰⁵ As a member of the Paston family she would have been accustomed to a developing style of cultural life. Yet George Brown was also heir to an increasingly genteel way of life, for his father lined his hall at Tonford with red brick and employed a group of minstrels.¹⁰⁶

The interest and significance of Sir George’s career had several facets. In common with many of his fellow gentry he, too, went through the usual cursus honorum of holding and carrying out local office and a spell of service in the Commons for both Kent and Surrey constituencies. He was, moreover, no social and political parvenu, inasmuch as his father had been a man of some standing, linked to the noble family of Fitzalan. Furthermore Brown’s marriage to Elizabeth Paston must certainly have strengthened his social and political networking.

Important, too, were the attachments he enjoyed to the Crown and nobility, for he served in the household of Edward IV, was sometime a retainer of the duke of Clarence and was the stepson of one of that king’s staunchest servants, Sir Thomas Vaughan (though to what extent he was responsible for advancing Brown’s career is uncertain). However, it is perhaps significant that, in spite of his connections and of his being reconciled to the Yorkist regime, he never seems to have risen above the second rank of courtier. Nevertheless, through his association with such highly-placed men at the centre of affairs such as Vaughan, St Leger and Fogge, he would have been well aware of the personal rivalries and tensions which became a feature of Edward’s court, and which were to break surface with momentous consequences for the Yorkist dynasty after the unexpected early death of the king in April 1483.

Political involvements in the case of Sir George and his father both culminated in their execution. It was indeed a curious turn of fate that Sir Thomas lost his life for remaining loyal to the failing Lancastrian dynasty, whereas his son forfeited his for rebelling against Richard III who had deprived his nephew of his right to the throne.

acknowledgements

The author would like to express his appreciation to the Hon. Editor for his help and advice in seeing this article through to publication, and to the Society’s referee for directing his attention to an alternative interpretation of the early relationships between Sir George Brown and his step-father, Sir Thomas Vaughan, and for suggesting that more consideration should be given to his place within the context of late fifteenth-century Kentish society. Professor Christopher Allmand has been very generous in offering constructive help and criticism of earlier drafts, as has the author’s wife in carrying out secretarial work: his sincere thanks to both.

endnotes

(Unless otherwise stated, the place of publication is London)

¹ J.C. Wedgwood and A.D. Holt, 1936, History of Parliament: Biographies of Members of the Commons House, 1439-1509 [hereafter Wedgwood, Biogs], HMSO, p. 122; The Visitations of Kent, 1619-21, Harleian Society, xlii (1898), p. 217; The Visitations of Surrey, 1530, 1572 and 1623, idem (1899), p. 9.

² For these and other details about Thomas Brown ‘the elder’ and his son, also Thomas, the author is indebted to the History of Parliament Trust, London, for permission to cite from the unpublished article by Dr Linda S. Clark on ‘Brown, Thomas, II (exec. 1460) of Eyhorne and Tonford, Kent, and Betchworth, Surrey’, for the 1422-1504 section.

³ G.L. Harriss, 2005, Shaping the Nation: England 1360-1461, Oxford, p. 153; Clark, ‘Thomas Brown’, 4; P.W. Fleming, ‘The Character and Private Concerns of the Gentry of Kent 1422-1509’, unpubl. ph.d thesis, Univ. of Wales (1985) [hereafter Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’), 174, says that Tonford was built to impress ‘by a man who enjoyed the fruits of a successful career in royal service’. The author would like to thank Dr Fleming for kindly allowing him to cite from his work. At the same time Brown was allowed to crenellate Eythorne and West Betchworth (Calendar of the Patent Rolls [hereafter CPR] 1446-52, pp. 44, 84, 269). Most likely Thomas had taken up residence at Tonford by 1435 in which case George was probably born there (Clark, ‘Thomas Brown’, 9).

⁴ Most of the ‘new gentry’ in Kent probably came from London: Brown was one of those who moved into Kent from London (‘Gentry of Kent’, 132, 139).

⁵ G.L. Harriss, 1988, Cardinal Beaufort: a Study of Lancastrian Ascendancy and Decline, Oxford, p. 243; Malcolm Mercer, 1999, ‘Lancastrian Loyalism in Kent during the Wars of the Roses’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxix, 223, 228-9.

⁶ Wedgwood, Biogs, p. 122.

⁷ R.A. Griffiths, 1980, The Reign of King Henry VI: the Exercise of Royal Authority 1422-1461, pp. 286, 290, 293; P.A. Johnson, 1980, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460, Oxford, p. 60 and n. 62.

⁸ G.L. Harriss and M.A. Harriss (eds), 1972, John Benet’s Chronicle for the years 1460-1462, Camden Miscellany, xxiv, p. 227; Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 863; M. Hicks, 1998, 2002, Warwick the Kingmaker, p. 180.

⁹ Calendar of the Fine Rolls [hereafter CFR], HMSO, various dates, 1452-61, p. 228; B.P. Wolfe, 1971, The Royal Demesne in English History: the Crown Estate in the Governance of the Realm from the Conquest to 1509, p. 262. The suggested date for George Brown’s birth would accord with Dr Clark’s opinion that his parents had been married in 1436 (‘Thomas Brown’, pp. 9-10).

¹⁰ CPR, 1452-61, p. 628.

¹¹ Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 324; CPR, 1452-61, p. 626. For the strength of Fogge’s position in Kent, see Mercer, ‘Lancastrian Loyalism’, 229. Fogge was related to the Hautes and Woodvilles, and his rise to influence in Kent was at the expense of the Beauforts (Mercer, ibidem). For Fogge’s career, see S. Bolton, 1980, ‘Sir John Fogge of Ashford’, The Ricardian, v, pt 69, June 1980, 202-8.

¹² Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 324; CPR 1452-61, p. 626; Bolton, ‘Fogge’, 206. As a result of his involvement in the ‘Buckingham rising’ in 1483 Fogge was attainted on 23 January 1484, but was pardoned in February 1485 when some of his estates were restored. However, for his support at Bosworth in 1485 Henry VII granted him a complete return of his estates.

¹³ Fleming points out that Vaughan and Eleanor were first mentioned as man and wife on 28 Nov 1460 (‘Gentry of Kent’, 373, citing The Calendar of Close Rolls [hereafter CCR], HMSO, various dates, 1454-61, 480).

¹⁴ Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 325; CPR 1467-77, p. 297.

¹⁵ Wedgwood, Biogs, p. 902; A.R. Myers (ed.), 1959, The Household of Edward IV: the Black Book of Ordinances of 1478, Manchester, pp. 244, 291; C.D. Ross, 1974, Edward IV, p. 310, described Vaughan as one ‘of the core of Edward’s personal establishment’.

¹⁶ CPR, 1452-61, pp. 626, 629, 631; 1461-7, pp. 464-5; 547-9; CCR, 1468-76, no. 947.

¹⁷ Rotuli Parliamentorum, ed. J. Strachey et al., 6 vols (1783, Index, 1832), V, 534, 582.

¹⁸ Clark, ‘Thomas Brown’, 24-5; Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 324. The ‘aldermanship’ of Westgate which was held by both Thomas and George Brown could possibly explain why they have sometimes been described as ‘hereditary aldermen’.

¹⁹ See R.A. Griffiths in his article on Vaughan in New Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Cf. also Fleming (‘Gentry of Kent’, 324) who suggests that the enfeoffments ‘may signify an attempt by Thomas Vaughan to disinherit his step-sons in favour of his progeny’. Fleming also points out that the various changes ‘may have been a reflection of Edward IV’s policy of using piecemeal restoration as a means of controlling politically dubious individuals (citing J.R. Lander, 1976, Crown and Nobility 1450-1509, p. 132).

²⁰ Cf. C.D. Ross who commented that George Brown entered Yorkist service soon after his father’s death ‘probably under the influence of his new step-father, Sir Thomas Vaughan’ (Richard III, 1981, p. 106).

²¹ TNA: Coram Rege Rolls, KB27/825d. Possibly Carpenter and the other men were tenants of Brown.

²² Ibid.

²³ Ibid., 27/826, mm.8r and 129d.

²⁴ Ibid., 27/827, m.84d.

²⁵ Ibid., 27/828, m.34r.

²⁶ Ibid., 27/838, m.42d; /839, m.41r.

²⁷ Ibid., 27/834, m.17d.

²⁸ For much of this discussion the author has drawn on Dr L. Clark’s ‘Thomas Brown’ and S. Bolton’s ‘Sir John Fogge’, passim. For Brown’s petition, see Rot. Parl., VI, 19-20.

²⁹ Visitations of Kent, 1619-1621, xlii, p. 217. R.M. Jeffs, 1961 (‘The Poynings-Percy dispute: an example of the interplay of open strife and legal action in the fifteenth century’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, xxxiv, 159, n.3), argues for 1466 as opposed to 1471 as the date of Brown’s marriage to Elizabeth Paston. She was born c.1429 and so was roughly nine years older than George (R. Virgoe, 1989, ed., Illustrated Letters of the Paston Family, p. 47; Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 245, 297).

³⁰ L. Gill, 1999, Richard III and Buckingham’s Rebellion, Gloucester, p. 26.

³¹ Ibid.

³² In 1472 when Brown was MP for Guildford, his brother-in-law William Paston II sat for Newcastle-under-Lyme, while his nephew Sir John Paston was returned for another but unknown borough; in 1478 when Brown sat for Surrey, William was elected for Bedwin (Wilts.) and Sir John for Norfolk; and in 1483, when Brown was returned for Canterbury, John Paston III (another nephew by marriage) was elected for Norwich. For biographies of these men, see Wedgwood, Biogs, sub. nom.

³³ N. Davis (ed.), 1971, 1976, Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, 2 pts (Oxford), pt i, p. 617. On 6 November 1479, shortly before his death, Sir John Paston wrote to his brother John III to ask him to use his good offices with Brown to obtain the wardship of Clippesby manor (Norfolk) for their brother Edmund. Brown was referred to as ‘myn oncle’ and was said to be a clerk of the hanaper (Paston Letters, pt i, pp. 615-16); C. Richmond, 2000, The Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century, Manchester, pp. 32-3.

³⁴ M.A. Hicks, 1980, False, Fleeting, Perjur’d Clarence: George, Duke of Clarence, 1449-78, Gloucester, p. 218, citing TNA, SC6/1123/6, m.7. Brown’s position as steward of Marden was continued by Edward IV and he was still in post in 1483 (R. Horrox and P.W. Hammond (eds), 1979-83, British Library Harleian Manuscript, 433, 4 vols, iii, p. 195 [fol. 313]. The Milton in question is Milton Regis by Sittingbourne (Hasted (1972) vol. 6, p. 175), The author is grateful to Dr Sheila Sweetinburgh for clarifying this.

³⁵ For recent discussion of the breakdown in relations between Edward, Clarence and Warwick, and the events from 1467-71, see M. Hicks, 2002, Warwick the Kingmaker, pp. 263ff.

³⁶ CPR, 1467-77, p. 218.

³⁷ Such lack of support is not surprising when control of affairs in Kent in the late 1460s was much in the hands of such as Sir John Fogge, Sir John Scott and Sir Richard Haute (Mercer, ‘Lancastrian Loyalism’, 229-31). According to J.R. Lander, Warwick ‘detested’ Fogge (1980, Government and Community in England, 1450-1509, p. 44). Fogge and Scott probably joined Edward IV in exile during the Readeption (Bolton, ‘Fogge’, 205; Mercer, 2002, ‘A forgotten Kentish Rebellion, September-October 1470’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxii, 146).

³⁸ Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 325, n. 93, citing TNA C67/47.

³⁹ Canterbury Cathedral Archives: Chamberlains’ Accounts for the City of Canterbury, CC-F/A/2, fol. 37r; F/A/5, fol. 145r. See also Historical Manuscripts Commission, 9th Report (1883), App, pt i, p. 141.

⁴⁰ On the question of urban patronage and parliamentary representation, see R. Horrox, ‘Urban Patronage and Patrons in the Fifteenth Century’, in R.A. Griffiths (ed.), 1981, Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces in Later Medieval England, esp. pp. 158-60.

⁴¹ Chamberlains’ Accounts, CC-F/A/5, fol. 104r; fol. 136v; F/A/6 fol. 2r, 29r, 40v.

⁴² W.C. Metcalfe, 1885, A Book of Knights Banneret, Knights of the Bath and Knights Bachelor made between the fourth year of King Henry VI and the Restoration of King Charles II, p. 3; W.A. Shaw, 1906, reprint 1971, Knights of England, 2 vols, ii, p. 15; Davies (ed.), Paston Letters, ii, p. 594.

⁴³ Cf. Mercer (‘Lancastrian Loyalism’, 232): ‘In the aftermath of the battle, gentry from all quarters rushed to demonstrate their loyalty to Edward IV’.

⁴⁴ Gill, Buckingham’s Rebellion, p. 43.

⁴⁵ Ross, Edward IV, pp. 173-4, 181. For a further account of the rising, see C.F. Richmond, 1970, ‘Fauconberg’s Kentish Rising of May 1471’, English Historical Review, lxxxv, 673-90. The lukewarm attitude of the Kentish gentry is discussed by Mercer, ‘Lancastrian Loyalism’, 232.

⁴⁶ C.L. Scofield, 1923, The Life and Times of Edward the Fourth, 2 vols, ii, p. 1; HMC, 9th Report, App., pt i, p. 142.

⁴⁷ M. Mercer, 2007, ‘The Strength of Lancastrian Loyalism during the Readeption: Gentry Participation at the Battle of Tewkesbury’, Journ. Med. Mil. History, v, 98.

⁴⁸ Wedgwood, Biogs, p. 122.

⁴⁹ CPR, 1467-77, pp. 351, 352.

⁵⁰ TNA, C219/17/2, pt 2, nos 109, 110; Hicks, Clarence, p. 218.

⁵¹ On this point, see Ross, Edward IV, pp. 323ff.

⁵² CPR, 1467-77, p. 632; 1476-85, p. 574.

⁵³ CCR, 1476-85, nos 474, 311. Stonor, as many similar gentry, had interests beyond his own county. In Kent his main holding was Horton (Kirby, or Monks Horton?: C. Carpenter, 1995, ‘The Stonor Circle in the Fifteenth Century’, in R.E. Archer and P.W. Hammond (eds), Rulers and Ruled in late Medieval England; Essays presented to Gerald Harriss, p. 193.

⁵⁴ TNA, Ancient Deeds, E326/2153.

⁵⁵ TNA, C219/17/3/118: Official Return of Members of Parliament (The Blue Book) (Parliamentary Papers, 1878), Pt 1, 1213-1874, p. 365. For discussion of the work of this assembly, see Ross, Edward IV, pp. 241-3.

⁵⁶ C. Carpenter (ed.), 1996, Kingsford’s Stonor Letters and Papers 1290-1483, Cambridge, pp. 58, 59.

⁵⁷ CPR, 1476-85, pp. 109, 111.

⁵⁸ Gill, Buckingham’s Rebellion, p. 46 and n. 25. Other gentry of the area who also defected from the duke were the Gaynesfords of Kent.

⁵⁹ CPR, 1476-85, p. 92.

⁶⁰ Horrox and Hammond, Harl.MS 433, iii, p. 195 [fol. 313].

⁶¹ F.R.H. Du Boulay (trans. and ed.), 1957, Registrum Thome Bourgchier Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi A.D. 1454-86, Canterbury and York Society, liv, Oxford, p. 340.

⁶² Davis (ed.), Paston Letters, ii, no. 383. See also D.A.L. Morgan, 1987/92, ‘The house of politics: the political role of the late Plantagenet household 1422-1485’, in D. Starkey (ed.), The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to the English Civil War, pp. 57-8.

⁶³ CCR, 1476-85, no. 719.

⁶⁴ CPR, 1476-85, p. 244.

⁶⁵ HMC, 9th Report, App., pt i, pp. 134, 137.

⁶⁶ M.A. Hicks, 1974, ‘The career of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, 1449-78’, Oxford d.phil. thesis, 329 and sources cited. The author would like to thank Prof. Hicks for permission to refer to this point.

⁶⁷ Du Boulay, Reg. Bourgchier, p. 347; CCR, 1476-85, no. 876.

⁶⁸ On this point, see Harriss, Shaping the Nation, pp. 163-5. The importance of local standing for the gentry is stressed by Carpenter, ‘Stonor Circle’, pp. 192-3.

⁶⁹ CFR, 1471-85, no. 602; TNA, 1873, List of Sheriffs for England and Wales: Lists and Indexes, ix, p. 68.

⁷⁰ TNA, Receipt of the Exchequer, E 401/942, m.6; 943, m.1.

⁷¹ HMC, 9th Report, App., pt i, p. 145; M. McKisack, 1932, reprinted 1962, The Parliamentary Representation of the English Boroughs during the Middle Ages, Oxford, pp. 93-4, and 94n.

⁷² Cf. Horrox, ‘Urban Patronage’, esp. pp. 158-60. On the ‘invasion’ of boroughs by outside gentry/lawyers seeking election, see J.S. Roskell, 1954, The Commons in the Parliament of 1422, Manchester, esp. pp. 125-44; and Harriss, Shaping the Nation, p. 286. It is worth noting that Sir John Fogge had earlier (1467) offered to sit for Canterbury, taking reduced expenses, and that during the period 1422-1509 Fogge and Brown were the only knights returned by Canterbury (McKisack, Parliamentary Representation, p. 93; Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 84.

⁷³ R.R. Tighe and J.E. Davis, 1858, Annals of Windsor, 2 vols, i, p. 392, citing Archaeologia (Society of Antiquaries, 1770), i, p. 348. See also J. Gairdner (ed.), 1861-3, Letters and Papers of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII, 2 vols, i, p. 5.

⁷⁴ C.D. Ross, 1981, Richard III, esp. pp. 69-73, 87-8; A. Crawford, 2007, The Yorkists: the History of a Dynasty, pp. 126, 132. In the account of the arrests, the Crowland Chronicles described Vaughan as ‘an aged knight, the king’s chamberlain’ , N. Pronay and J. Cox (eds), 1986, The Crowland Chronicle Continuations: 1459-1486 (Richard III and Yorkist History Trust), p. 157.

⁷⁵ CPR, 1476-85, p. 574.

⁷⁶ Bolton, ‘Fogge’, 205; R. Horrox, 1989, Richard III: a Study in Service, Cambridge, p. 142. Horrox argues that Richard ‘was making efforts to conciliate Fogge’. If that had been the reason, for Fogge had held important offices under Edward, Brown’s removal could have been because he was considered ‘expendable’.

⁷⁷ BL Harl Ms. 2115, fol. 124; S. Bentley (ed.), 1831, Excerpta Historica, p. 384; A.F. Sutton and P.W. Hammond (eds), 1983, The Coronation of Richard III: the Extant Documents, Stroud, p. 271. Brown’s dislike of Richard was pointed out by Sutton and Hammond, referring to Davis, Paston Letters, ii, p. 483 in a note from Brown to John Paston esquire which also mentioned Brown’s motto: Loyalte Ayme Hyt schal newyr cum howte for me.

⁷⁸ For the rebellion, see Ross, Richard III, pp. 145ff.

⁷⁹ Davis (ed.), Paston Letters, ii, no. 799. For the rising in Kent, see A.E. Conway, 1925, ‘The Maidstone Sector of Buckingham’s Rebellion, October 18 1483’, Archaeologia Cantiana, xxxvii.

⁸⁰ Ross, Richard III, p. 106; A.H. Thomas and I.D. Thornley (eds), 1938, The Great Chronicle of London, p. 234; Gill, Buckingham’s Rebellion, pp. 10, 78.

⁸¹ Ross, Richard III, p. 112; M.J. Bennett, 2000, The Battle of Bosworth, Gloucester, pp. 41-2; Gill, Buckingham’s Rebellion, p. 92.

⁸² Bolton, ‘Fogge’, 205; Mercer, ‘Lancastrian Loyalism’, 233.

⁸³ Harriss, Beaufort, p. 243 and n. 47. Although the Beaufort influence was to wane after 1460 an ‘underlying loyalty’ remained, and when Richard carried out his coup and so divided Yorkist supporters, Margaret Beaufort threw in her lot with the conspirators of 1483 (Mercer, ‘Lancastrian Loyalism’, 223, 233).

⁸⁴ Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 90, 120-4, discusses the compact nature of the Kentish gentry and the importance of the absence of a single dominant magnate. He suggests that the rebellions of 1471 and 1483 were evidence of strong cohesion among the gentry (p. 108).

⁸⁵ It is worth noting, however, that among the Kentish gentry who remained loyal to Richard in 1483 was Sir John Scott, who had married his daughter to Edward Poynings, Brown’s step-son (P.W. Fleming, 2004, ‘Sir John Scott’, NODNB, 49, p. 336).

⁸⁶ Horrox, Richard III, pp. 160, 171; Jeffs, ‘The Poynings-Percy dispute’, 161-2.

⁸⁷ CPR, 1476-85, p. 371.

⁸⁸ Gill, Buckingham’s Rebellion, p. 86.

⁸⁹ Ibid. p. 84, citing TNA, C67/51/1114. See also, Jeffs, ‘Poynings-Percy dispute’, 162.

⁹⁰ One of the few leaders to suffer execution was Sir Thomas St Leger, brother-in-law of Edward IV and Richard III and knight of the shire for Surrey in 1467-8 and 1472-5, who played a large part in the risings in the South West, and with whom Brown was well acquainted. For St Leger, see J.T. Driver, 2008, ‘Sir Thomas St Leger, c.1439-83, the rise and fall of a royal servant during the reigns of Edward IV and Richard III’, Surrey Arch. Collections, 94, 209-23.

⁹¹ Conway, ‘Maidstone Sector’, 105-6. According to an inquisition held at Dartford before William Mauleverer on 28 Feb 1484, Brown’s execution took place on 3 December, whereas two London sources give 4 Dec.

⁹² Rot. Parl., VI, p. 245.

⁹³ Ross, Richard III, pp. 118-24; Horrox, Richard III, pp. 188-98. Ross described the intrusion of northern gentry as ‘nothing less than a veritable invasion of northerners into landed society and administration of the southern shires’ (op. cit., p. 119). The point was made very clearly in the Crowland Chronicle, pp. 170-1.

⁹⁴ CPR, 1476-85, p. 401. Mauleverer had been appointed escheator in Kent in Nov. 1483 (Ross, Richard III, p. 120).

⁹⁵ CPR, 1476-85, pp. 406, 515, 525; Horrox and Hammond, Harl. MS 433, i, pp. 135, 152, 207; ii, p. 77.

⁹⁶ Harl. MS 433, ii, pp. 56, 57. Iffin is a sub-manor in Thanington parish (see T. Tatton Brown, Archaeologia Cantiana, xcix, 120).

⁹⁷ Harl. MS 433, ii, p. 137.

⁹⁸ Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry VII, 3 vols (1898-1955), i, nos 322, 434, 436, 437; CCR, 1476-85, no. 301.

⁹⁹ Ross, Richard III, p. 119; Wolffe, Royal Demesne, pp. 192-3; Rot. Parl. VI, pp. 245, 249-50, 258, 275.

100 Wedgwood, Biogs, p. 122.

¹⁰¹ Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 326 and n. 97 citing TNA C67/51 (pardon) and CCR, 1476-85, no. 1301 (jointure).

¹⁰² Cal. IPM, Henry VII, i, nos. 322, 434.

¹⁰³ Davis (ed.), Paston Letters, pt. i, pp. 210-14.

¹⁰⁴ Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 187, 189, 274-5, 278; Davis (ed.), Paston Letters, i, pp.123, 211; Prerogative Court of Canterbury: Wills: 12 Milles; C. Richmond, ‘Religion and the Fifteenth Century English Gentleman’, in B. Dobson (ed.), 1984, The Church, Politics and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century, p. 197. B.J. Harris, 2002, English Aristocratic Women 1450-1550, Oxford, p. 133, cites Elizabeth as an example ‘of many aristocratic women who grew rich through their marriages’.

¹⁰⁵ Fleming, ‘Gentry of Kent’, 187, and refs cited.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., 263.

Fig. 1 Tonford Manor from an early nineteenth-century engraving (1817). It shows a somewhat dilapidated building which had been altered over the years. However, many late medieval features can be discerned which must have resulted from the licence to crenellate in 1449, granted to Sir Thomas Brown (exec. 1460). In particular there are four towers, unfortunately now without crenellations, but which show such military characteristics as arrow slits and banding to strengthen the structures. The hall itself would seem to be situated between the two towers in the foreground. Note the fenestration on the ground and first floors with some hood moulding typical of the late fifteenth century and early Tudor periods and which denoted a property of some quality. (From the KAS Library collection.)