ancestry – My Family History Notes

Mary Blechynden Bache 1703-1777

Today’s post pulls together some threads about Mary Blechynden who was born in London, married William Bache in the early 1700s and died in 1777. It was meant to be a short post but there is actually quite a lot to cover. Mary is worth a mention because of her children who emigrate to America, are involved in the emergence of America as an independent nation and closely connected by marriage to the “Founding Father” Benjamin Franklin, who also corresponds and visits with Mary whilst living in England.

It would seem that the house that Mary, and certainly some of her daughters, lived in, in Preston, is no longer there but an inaccurately phrased blue plaque marks the spot where Benjamin Franklin visited with Mary (Blechynden) Bache – the site which is now a Cafe Nero! I’m not sure it is true to say that he “lived briefly” in a house on that site but perhaps a Benjamin Franklin expert can demonstrate otherwise.

Mary’s Parents?

It isn’t immediately clear who Mary’s parents are but I believe them to be Theophylact Blechynden and Elizabeth Garland who were married in 1700 (date of their marriage license is 31 December 1700). I have seen one suggestion that she may have been the daughter of Samuel Blechynden of Chester, the collector of salt duties at Middlewich, but I can’t see any suggestion that Samuel married or had children either in the parish records, in his will or the wills of his nearest family and the epitaph for him at St Michael and All Angels in Middlewich, Cheshire, makes no mention of any wife or children.

We do, however, have information on the children of Theophylact and Elizabeth who were baptised at St Andrew’s in Holborn, London including Thomas in 1702 (20 May), Mary in 1703 (30 June), Richard in 1704 (29 August) and Theophilact in 1705 (11 November). The extract from Mary’s baptism record below shows that Theophylact and Elizabeth were living at Hatton Garden in central London at the time – an upcoming and fashionable part of London and now famed as the epicentre of London’s jewellery trade.

One of the reasons why I have concluded that this Mary is the daughter of Theophylact Blechynden and Elizabeth Garland is because Mary’s son, also Theophylact, names his eldest daughter Elizabeth Garland Bache and it wasn’t unusual to have a mother’s or grandmother’s maiden name passed down the family line in some way. It may be that he names his daughter after another Elizabeth Garland, that I will mention later in this post, but that still suggests to me a family relationship.

Mary’s marriage to William Bache

The marriage record for Mary (Blotchynden) and William (Bach) states they married on the 28 January 1720 in, surprisingly, Worcestershire. As the daughter of Theophylact and Elizabeth, Mary can only have been, at most, 17 years old at this time. I don’t imagine there were many (any) other Mary Blechynden and William Bache marriages in the early 1700’s so this is highly likely to be the right one.

It has been hard to trace William and Mary and their children in part because they seem to move around quite a lot which is unusual – they are married in Worcestershire (the parish records are not specific about where), daughter Lydia’s baptism in 1731 suggests they lived in the City of London, other baptisms show they moved to Giggleswick near Settle in North Yorkshire and the family then moved to Preston in Lancashire, some 35 miles from Settle in Yorkshire where at least one child – Anna Maria Bache – was born and baptised. Perhaps William’s job as a Collector of Excise required him to move for work? We know from what I shall call the “Franklin letters” that Mary and four of her daughters remained in Preston and that she remained there until her death in 1777.

I have found another reference to William and Mary where they were the defendents in a legal case involving Mary’s mother Elizabeth and an Anne Walker of Sittingbourne in Kent but no other evidence to suggest that William and Mary lived in Kent after their marriage.

It has also been difficult to trace William and Mary and their children because of the Bache surname which is, I understand, pronounced Baitch or Beech, and this has led to many different versions of the name across the records. Even in Mary’s burial record she is “Mrs Mary Beech” and William’s burial record is “William Beach Esq Collector of Excise”.

William and Mary Bache’s Children

William Bache died in 1746, 26 years after their marriage and was buried on 14 September 1746 at the Church of St John, Preston, in Lancashire. This left Mary to bring up their children and it has been suggested that they had up to 20 children which I have been unable to verify. For example I have found one suggestion here http://famousamericans.net/theophylactbache/ that son Richard was “the eighteenth child” which would be quite something given William and Mary weren’t married until 1720 and Richard was born in 1737. I also haven’t found yet, with any certainty, children born before 1731 which you would expect to see. I do wonder if the alleged large number of children is because Mary was a second wife and the 18 or 20 children include children from William’s first marriage (but more on this later…). A list of the children/step-children that I have been able to identify is further down in this post.

I have found references to William and Mary’s children across baptism records, various wills and in the “Franklin letters” at Founders Online. As well as the letters from Mary there are letters from sons Richard and Theophylact and the letters mention her daughters Martha, Lydia and Anna Maria, the youngest child. Anna Maria (also known as “Nancy”), is mentioned in a letter from James Theobald to Benjamin Franklin which passes on the news of Mary (Blechynden) Bache’s death on 27 October 1777. James Theobald is the husband of Jane Harriet Blechynden, Mary Bache’s neice through Mary’s brother Thomas Blechynden.

The editors of Founders Online state that, in 1772, Richard Bache had four sisters living: Martha, Lydia and Anna Maria but have been unable to trace the fourth. However, I think the fourth sister is another Mary Bache as evidenced in Lydia’s will, dated 1803, where she refers to her “three dear sisters Mary Bache, Martha Bache and Anna Maria Bache” to whom she leaves her personal items and makes joint executers. No other family members are mentioned. It is possible that this Mary Bache is a step daughter rather than a natural daughter of Mary which might explain why she is not mentioned in the 1765 will of Florence Poyntz or in the 1773 will of Elizabeth Richard. It is also possible that this Mary is perhaps a daughter-in-law but given the references in the Franklin letters to four sisters living with their mother Mary (Blechynden) Bache I am lean towards this Mary being a daughter or step-daughter.

It also looks as if Mary had another daughter, Elizabeth, as, in the 1765 will of Florence Blechynden (Fulton/Poyntz) she bequeathes “One Hundred and Forty Pounds current money of Jamaica each” to “my Sister in Law Mary Beach of Lancashire in the Kingdom of Great Britain widow and to her daughter Elizabeth of the same place spinster“. Florence Poyntz (nee Fulton) married Theophylact Blechynden, the younger brother of Mary, in Jamaica in 1731. It seems likely that “Flowrence Bache” who was born in 1739 in Giggleswick is named after Florence Blechynden (Fulton/Poyntz) as it isn’t a family name and the reference to Mary in Florence’s will suggests they were close. The lack of any further references to Elizabeth Bache in the letters, or in the surviving wills, makes me conclude that she probably died some time between 1765 and 1771, but I have not found an obvious death record.

Mary’s sons: Theophylact and richard

William and Mary’s two sons Theophylact and Richard both move to America at a pivotal point in that country’s history. I have set out a little on each of them below but information is available online for those who want to dig a little deeper.

Theophylact, named after his grandfather, is born in 1734/35 in Giggleswick in North Yorkshire but in 1751, at the age of just 16, he left home and moved to New York to try his hand at business. He arrived in New York on 17 September 1751 and took charge of the business of Paul Richard who was a successful merchant and who had been the 37th Mayor of New York between 1735-39.

Working for Paul Richard was, in effect, entering a family business as Paul Richard’s wife was a relative of Mary and in some documents referred to as Theophylact’s aunt. Mrs Paul Richard was also an Elizabeth Garland, the same name as Theophylact’s grandmother! In her will dated 3 March 1773, she refers to Mary as her “cousin”:

To cousin, Mary Bache, of Preston, County of Lancashire, England (widow of William Bache, dec’d), £500. In case she predeceases testatrix, £400 of the £500 as follows: Lydia Bache, Martha Bache and Anna Maria Bache (daughters of said Mary Bache) each £100; remainder to residue.
Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New Jersey, Calendar of New Jersey Wills, Volume VIII: 1791-1795, By Elmer T. Hutchinson

A portrait of this Elizabeth Garland, i.e. Mrs Elizabeth Richard (1700-1774) can be found here: https://emuseum.mfah.org/objects/4957/portrait-of-mrs-paul-richard-elizabeth-garland-17001774 .

When Elizabeth Richard died she left this portrait of herself to her “dearly beloved kinsman” and executer, Theophylact who also inherited the bulk of her estate. After Paul Richard died in 1756 Theophylact became the owner of merchant vessels, and engaged in privateering i.e. legalized piracy to permit merchant vessels to disrupt and take possession of goods from other vessels. Theophylact was clearly successful in this and other endeavours and in 1777 he was chosen as the fifth president of the New York Chambers of Commerce.

In 1760 Theophylact married Ann Dorothy Barclay, daughter of Andrew and Helen (Roosevelt) Barclay. They had 14 children, ten of whom survived infancy.

Richard, like his brother Theophylact, was born in Giggleswick in North Yorkshire and moved to America to try his hand in business but with varying degrees of success. He met and married Sarah “Sally” Franklin, the only daughter of Benjamin Franklin. Initially concerned that Richard was only marrying Sarah for her money, over time and with the arrival of grand children, Benjamin Franklin accepted the marriage and his new in-laws.

The first time Richard met with his father-in-law was at Preston where they both stayed with Mary for two days before travelling down to London together. In 1775, Benjamin Franklin became the first Postmaster General of what is now the United States Postal Service and was succeeded in that role by his son-in-law Richard in 1776. Richard and Sarah were the main beneficiaries of Benjamin Franklin’s will, they had eight children together and any decendents of Benjamin Franklin today are through this marriage.

a previous marriage?

I suggested earlier that Mary was, perhaps, William Bache’s second wife given the allegedly large number of children that they had in their 26 years together. One piece of evidence for this is the marriage of Humphrey Bache who, when he marries Ann (“Nancy”) Cowburn in 1750/01, is described as being aged 33 years and upwards which would mean he was born in c 1717. There is a baptism record for a Humphrey Bache, son of William and Elizabeth Bache, baptised 26 February 1717 in Saint Helen’s Worcester.

Humphrey is a Supervisor of Excise, like his father William, and one of the witnesses to the marriage bond is Lydia Bache and when he dies is 1768, after his wife Ann, it is Mary Bache (“Spinster” so probably his sister and the same Mary I mentioned above) who is made joint administrator of Humphrey’s children: William, Charles and Lucretia who are all minors at the time. Lucretia marries James Hodgson and when their daughter Cordelia Jane Hodgson dies at the age of 78 her obituary refers back to the family connection to Benjamin Franklin:

His father married Miss Lucreatia Bache, the daughter of Mr. Humphrey Bache, supervisor of Excise, and of Nancy, his wife, daughter of General Cowburn, at one time Governor of Edinburgh Castle. Miss Hodgson’s grandmother was related to Dr. Franklin, who lived with her during the latterpart of 1771, on the occasion of his first visit to Preston. ‘Franklin’s only daughter was married to Mr. R. Bache whose children lived in Philadelphia in 1825. During this visit, or the subsequent one of 1775, when he appeared in the character of refugee, Dr. Franklin made an ingenious musical toy for Miss Lucretia Bache, the origin of the harmonica, which, after passing into the possession of the late Mr. Taylor, of Moss Cottage, Preston, was lost at a bazaar for which it was borrowed.

All of the above indicates to me that William was married before he married Mary to someone called Elizabeth. They had at least one child together, Humphrey, who was born in Worcester, where, following his wife’s death, William remarried to Mary Blechynden who we know he married in 1720 somewhere in Worcestershire. It is probable then that Mary, as well as having her own children with William, also became a step-mother at the age of just 17 to Humphrey and perhaps other infants as well.

Details of William and Mary’s children/step-children found to date include:

Humphrey Bache, supervisor of excise, marries Ann Cowburn of Preston 1750/01. Lydia Bache is a witness to the marriage bond (although marriage bond suggests he may have been born in 1717).
Mary Bache, mentioned in Lydia’s will dated 1803 and Anna Maria’s of 1810. Also joint administrator of Humphrey’s children who were minors when he died in 1768. Perhaps a daughter of William and his first wife Elizabeth.
Lydia Bache born 19 March 1731 and baptised 16 April 1731, St Mary Woolnoth, London, England; parents William and Mary Bache. Also referenced in a letter from Richard Bache dated 16 May 1772. Named in the will of Elizabeth Richard dated 1773.
Martha Bache, born c 1732, buried 3 November 1819 St John, Preston, Lancashire aged 87. Also mentioned in a letter from her mother to Benjamin Franklin dated 5 February 1772, in Elizabeth Richard’s will dated 1773; in Lydia’s will dated 1803 and Anna Maria’s will dated 1810.
Theophylact Bache baptised 3 February 1734, Giggleswick, North Yorkshire, England; father Jno. Bache. Moved to Philadelphia and married Ann Dorothea Barclay (a daughter of Andrew Barclay and Helena (née Roosevelt) Barclay).
Richard Bache baptised 3 October 1737, Giggleswick, North Yorkshire, England; father “Beache”. Married Sarah Franklin the only daughter of Benjamin Franklin in 1767. He served as Postmaster-General of the American Post Office.
Flowrance Bache baptised 29 June 1739, Giggleswick, North Yorkshire, England; father Bache. Possibly the “Jane Florence Bache” buried at St John, Preston, Lancashire on 10 Aug 1763.
Elizabeth Bache mentioned in the will of Florence Blechynden, Mary’s sister-in-law, dated 27 April 1765.
Anna-Maria Bache, born 16 December 1744, baptised 18 Jan 1744/5 St John, Preston, Lancs. died 1810 and left a will. Parents William and Mary Bache, father’s occupation “collector”. Buried 24 April 1810 St John, Preston, Lancashire, aged 64. She is named in Elizabeth Richard’s will dated 1773; also mentioned in a letter from James Theobald to Benjamin Franklin dated 27 October 1777 and in Lydia’s will dated 1803.

A couple of points on the above. Giggleswick is a small village in North Yorkshire about one mile north of Settle where we know Theophylact and Richard spent their childhood so the baptism records match what we know about them and also indicates that Flowrance is a sister despite lack of any further information on her. Secondly, it is puzzling that the baptism record for Theophylact states his parent as “Jno.” and not “Wm.” Given other records refer to his parents as William and Mary I am assuming, for now, that this is a transcription error.

the benjamin Franklin connection

As mentioned already we know from correspondence that has survived that Mary (Blechynden) Bache corresponded with Benjamin Franklin and that he visited with her and four of her daughters, in Preston, in November 1771. It seems to be generally understood that he visited Preston again in 1775 before he returned to America although I have not found surviving correspondence which supports this later date.

Mary refers to Benjamin Franklin as “my dear brother” and this is because Mary’s son Richard Bache married Benjamin Franklin’s only daughter Sarah (Sally) Franklin on 29 October 1767. The excellent Founders Online website https://founders.archives.gov/ has correspondence with the Bache family including three letters from Mary herself as well as numerous letters from Richard. It’s quite exciting to read an actual letter from a member of the Blechynden family and to hear things said in her own “voice”. The following extract is from Mary to Benjamin Franklin after his first visit to Preston in 1771 where she states that she hopes he will visit again:

We are Much please’d at the hopes you give us of injoying your good and agreeable Company again at my house, you likewise Make us happy by Nameing a Longer Stay. I hope Nothing will intervene to prevent us that Much Wish’d for happyness.

I can assure my Dear Brother I am no little happy in having it in my power to style my self your affectionate Sister and humble Servant

Mary Bache
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-18-02-0166

Dr Franklin quickly followed up his visit to the Bache family by sending them a present – a likeness of himself! Perhaps it was something like the following which was painted by Joseph Siffred Duplessis in 1779. Mary wrote to thank him for the gift:

I receiv’d your kind, and agreeable preasant, which gave us all great pleasure it is so like the original. You cannot imagine with what pleasure we look at it, as we can perceive in it, the likeness of my Son, as well as your Self. My daughter Marther told Mr. Atherton that Doctor Franklin was come, the Next Morning he came down, and ask’t wather the Doctor was up, and when you was produced, it made us all very Merry. You are sume times in the dineinroom, and other times in the parlor, ware we vew it with pleasure. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-19-02-0042

The following extract is from a letter from Mary’s son Richard Bache to his father-in-law Benjamin Franklin after his first visit to Mary and her daughters. Richard calls his mother Mary “a good Old Woman” and note the very specific reference to “four daughters”:

Dear and Honoured Sir

Since my last I am favored with yours of the 4th [?] 14 and 16 July by the Captain’s Osborne All and Sparks, the first dated at Preston, where I find you have been making happy by your Presence a good Old Woman and her four Daughters.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-19-02-0211

There is a further letter from Mary to Benjamin Franklin dated 14 June 1772 where she thanks him for his letter informing her of her son Richard’s safe arrival in Philadelphia and to entreat her “Dear Brother” to visit again in his latest trip north as he was due to be in Leeds at the end of the month:

I heartyly wish you a pleasant Journey, and hope you wont disapoint us, but let us have the happyness of your agreeable Company for Sume time, ware [where] we will do our best indavour to amuse you, and I have a good bed at your Sarvis, and a hearty wellcome to our poor climate [?] the prospects are now delightfull, and I hope you will injoy them. From Dear Brother Your affectionate Sister and humble Servant

Mary Bache
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-19-02-0121

There is a final letter which speaks to the affection with which Mary was held and it is one from James Theobald to Benjamin Franklin passing on the news of the death of the “very best of Mothers” in 1777:

Dear Sir.

I take the Liberty of acquainting You….That on the 27 past I Recieved a Letter from Miss Lydia B. of Preston Acquainting Us That on the 24 past She and her afflicted Sisters had the Misfortune to loose the very best of Mothers. She begged I would acquaint you if possible with this melancholy Event and to intreat you would break it to our Worthy and Esteemed Freind R. B. We have broke it to Her Dear Sister Anna Maria B in the tenderest manner we Could, she is at present inconsolable, but We hope Her Good Sence, and Time will alleviate her present Distress.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-25-02-0094

Memorial

The Blechynden name continued briefly in the Bache family when, in 1808, a grandchild of Richard Bache and Sally Franklin was named Mary Blechynden Bache, no doubt for the great grandmother she sadly never knew.

This Mary Blechynden Bache would continue the family’s connections with the political class in America by marrying Robert John Walker a lawyer who would serve in the United States Senate, was appointed Secretary of the Treasury and briefly served as Governor of Kansas. A memorial for Mary Blechynden Bache and Robert John Walker can be found here: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/48208203/mary-blechynden-walker but sadly I have found no actual memorial for Mary Bache or her husband William.

But we do have her letters and from those of her family which, although they are not many, still speak to her character and the high regard in which she was held as the “very best of Mothers”. And we know where she lived in Preston – even if the site is now a coffee shop. I think she would approve.

William Blechynden of Mersham, d 1510

Those of us who are researching the Blechynden family, often seem to start with William Blechynden. There are records which can reliably date him and his family and which refer to his ownership of Simnells, in Aldington in Kent, by virtue of his marriage to Agnes Godfrey and, before that, the family property of Quarrington, a small moated manor, in Mersham also in Kent:

[Quarrington] came into the possession of Nicholas Blechenden, who resided here at the latter end of that reign, whose grandson William Blechenden being the earliest possessor of this manor that is mentioned in the deeds of it, was owner of it in the reign of king Richard II. He married Agnes, daughter and coheir of Godfrey, of Simnells, in Aldington, of which becoming possessed in her right, he left this place and removed thither, though his descendants seem to have continued proprietors of it till the latter end of the reign of queen Elizabeth…
Edward Hasted, ‘Parishes: Mersham’, in The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent: Volume 7 (Canterbury, 1798), pp. 592-602. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol7/pp592-602 [accessed 25 March 2023].

William and Agnes Godfrey

We can roughly date William’s birth year by looking at the date of his father-in-law’s death and will which is dated 8 October 1490. By the time of Thomas Godfrey’s death in c1490 William and Agnes had had at least five children named in Thomas’ will, according to Henry Vernon Hall, [John C Hall Ancestry, published 1970, Salt Lake City Utah, see www.familysearch.org]. Assuming a birth every two years and that all the children survived (which would have been unusual) William and Agnes would have been married for at least 10 years (no later than c1480) so we can assume William was born some time between 1450-1460. William is allegedly the grandson of a Nicholas Blechenden who was the owner of Quarrington in the reign of Richard II (who reigned between June 1377 – September 1399) and this is quite possible with William’s father perhaps being born between 1410-1430.

William’s wife, Agnes Godfrey, had two brothers, Thomas and Humphrey who both died without issue, leaving Agnes and her sister Rabege, joint heirs to their father’s estate. Thomas and Humphrey are both alive in 1490 and are the executers to their father’s will with William Blechynden and Thomas Godfrey’s other son-in-law, John Clerke, acting as supervisors. The extract below from the 1619 Visitation of Kent shows that William and Agnes inherited the manor of Ruffins Hill whilst John and Rabege inherited Hurst (i.e. Cophurst). Cophurst eventually passes to Dr Thomas White, as recorded by Edward Hasted and mentioned in Thomas White’s will: The Last Will of Dr Thomas White, Bishop of Peterborough, proved 1698.

It seems to be generally accepted that Agnes and William had at least 10 children together, both sons and daughters, and the earlier Visitation of Kent from 1574 (see below) names two of them, John and James, presumably the eldest two sons, although curiously the tree follows only the line of James and not John even though he married into the prominent Crispe family – I have written about John Blechynden and Margaret Crispe here: Tudor Crispes, Crayfords and Blechendens as well as William’s grandson and namesake here: William Blechenden, Captain of Walmer Castle (Updated).

The visitations of Kent, taken in the years 1530-1 by Thomas Benolte, and 1574 by Robert Cooke; v. 74 – Part 1

However, I have recently been reviewing a transcribed copy of William’s will (now on my pages at Last Wills and Testaments), and that, together with another version of the family tree, has thrown some new and unexpected information my way. I haven’t seen other family trees record this information so I will set it out below.

A new family tree?

Within the book about the Crisp family (Collections relating to the family of Crispe : further and final extracts relating to the name from the records of the College of arms, new series, vol. 1 available at http://www.familysearch.org) there is a family tree of the Blechynden family which is also allegedly from the 1619 Visitation of Kent. I cannot verify this and have not been able to find this tree in any of the Visitations of Kent that I have reviewed. However, from my research into this family I can confirm that the tree looks accurate. Some children/grandchildren are omitted which is not unusual and, as per the 1574 tree above, it sets out only two sons of William, that is John and James, and none of the other children. However, this time, it sets out that James is the son and heir of William and Agnes and that John is the second son (“Sedus” which I assume to be an abbreviation of secundus) but not of William and Agnes but of William and his second wife! She is the daughter of “Fox” and William’s “uxor Secunda” (second wife).

It certainly wasn’t unusual for men to take a second wife given the high mortality rates of women at that time especially in childbirth (and indeed for women to take a second husband) but if this is true here who is the mother of the other children? Did Agnes die early and are the majority of William’s children from his second marriage? The will of Thomas Godfrey would seem to suggest otherwise given that at least five of their children were mentioned in it and that Agnes and Raberge became joint heirs of Thomas Godfrey’s properties after the death of their brothers (both of whom were still living in 1490).

William Blechynden’s will

The second piece of information I have reviewed recently is a transcribed copy of William’s will which suggests probate was in 1514. The Canterbury Probate Records Database has a record of a William Blechynden of Mersham making his will in 1510 and with probate in the same year. I have assumed for now that the date on the database is the correct one but added the transcribed copy to my pages here Last Wills and Testaments. This will does indeed indicate that William married again as he refers to his wife as “Margaret”. There is no mention of her being the daughter of “Fox” as suggested in the above 1619 Visitation of Kent and there is no mention of a former wife, i.e. Agnes.

William mentions his children in his will and makes provision for the education of his sons. Education was the luxury of the wealthy at this time so the fact that he is looking to educate all his sons demonstrates his position in society and also that his children, at least those from his second marriage, were still quite young when he died. Provision for James’ education is not mentioned and this is presumably because, as the eldest son from William’s first marriage, he had finished his schooling:

and the money yerely comyng therof for that time to be reaysed by Margarett his wyf as long as she kepe her sole unmaried to use and pyng Scule of his sonnes, Humphrey, John, Edward and Christover;

William also makes provision for the marriage of his daughters. There is no reference to his daughter Alice, who is mentioned in Thomas Godfrey’s will, perhaps this is because she was married at this point and had had her portion:

Anne Johanne Sibell and Myldred his daughters to their maryages to ev’y of them XX pounds of good and lawfull money;

The first part of William’s will relates to his wife Margaret to whom he leaves his land, tenaments and premises, but on the basis that she keeps herself unmarried for 12 years and pays towards his sons’ education (i.e. Humphrey, John, Edward and Christover) and towards the marriage of his daughters (i.e. Anne, Johanne, Sibell and Myldred). Perhaps the 12 years clause was to ensure the security of his children until they were all of age.

In his will, William makes reference to various lands and properties that he leaves to his five sons. They speak to his influence, to his wealth and business acumen. But given the length of this post I will set them out in a separate post to follow.

Sir William Scott and his son John Scott play an important role in the will. Margaret is expected to follow their advice and council and moreover, if she marries in the 12 year period stated, all the rents and other income coming from William’s lands go instead to Sir William and John Scott to fund his sons’ education, his daughters’ marriages and the governing of them. If that wasn’t enough, the will states that Margaret, if she marries, would have to “delyv’r and pay…all thyssue and esetts …duryng the hole time of the foresayd XII Yeres...”. I think this means she would have to back pay any income from the land, properties etc to Sir William and John Scott should she decide to marry at any point in the 12 year period after William’s death:

the sayd Margaret his wiff shall delyv’r and pay to the fore sayd Sir William Scott knight and John Scott squier for the mariage of his forsayd daughters and that then the sayd Sir William Scott knight and John Scott squier shall resayve all thyssue and esetts of all the beforesayd lands and ten’ts duryng the hole time of the foresayd XII Yeres kepyng all repacions his sonnes to soole and role and governing of all his foresaid children sonnes and daughters durynge the time aforesayd.

Not only does Margaret have to follow the rule, advice and council of Sir William and John Scott for 12 years but she also cannot follow the rule of Robert Harlakenden without everything going to the Scott family:

and if that it happe his wyf refuse the rule and adwyse and councill of the foresaid Sir William Scott knyght and John Scott squyer and folow the rule of Robert Harlaseynden that then the foresaid William will that the foresaid Sir William Scott knyght and John Scott squyer shalhave and take the rents of hys lands and of his children duryng the foresaid terme of XII yeres.

This raises the interesting question of who was Robert Harlakynden, what was his relationship to Margaret and why did William feel the need to include this in his will?

Who is Margaret, William’s uxor secunda?

Henry Vernon Hall posits that Margaret is the sister of Sir William Scott which would explain why he makes it a condition of the will that Margaret follow their advice and counsel. Sir William did indeed have a sister Margaret but she married Sir Edmund Bedingfield and, given that her will is dated 1513, she cannot be the wife of William Blechynden.

The 1612 Visitation mentioned above suggests that William married the daughter of “Fox” and so perhaps Margaret is Margaret Fox? I initially explored the possibility that “Fox” is a phonetic spelling of “Fogge”. This would make sense given the very close family ties between the Scotts and the Fogges, both of whom had benefitted from supporting the Yorkist cause during the Wars of the Roses. The Scotts and the Fogges are related by marriage: Sir William Scott’s son Edward marries Alice Fogge and John Scott’s son William marries Anne Fogge. Alice and Anne Fogge are sisters and the co-heirs of Thomas Fogge Esq, Serjeant Porter of Calais to both Henry VII and Henry VIII, obit 1512.

Although we see no direct marriages between the Blechyndens and either the Scotts or the Fogges we can summise that they knew each other from other related marriages. In particular William Blechynden’s two sons, John and James, both marry into families that are connected to them: John marries Margaret Crisp sister to Sir Henry Crisp who marries Catherine Scott; and James marries Ursula Whetenhall the aunt of Mary Whetenhall who marries Richard Scott. John Blechynden was also a witness to the last will of Reignold Scott (brother to Catherine and Richard Scott) and perhaps it is for him that John names one of his sons Reignold. Interestingly Reignold Scott, in his will dated 4 September 1554, gives “Isabell Blachenden, my servante, to her mariage tenne pounds“. I haven’t identified Isabell but she must be a member of the family and £10 was a very generous sum (and worth about £4,000 today).

Despite all of the above I haven’t managed to find a Margaret Fogge who might fit the bill and be our Margaret Fox. However, William’s will does mention a William Fox when he leaves various lands etc to his son John “being in the pish of Mersham and Brabourn the wyche were somtyme William Fox“. I have found a number of references to William Fox of Mersham across different records and am setting these out below.

Firstly, Manchester University Library holds a number of records relating to the parish of Willesborough in Kent and one of these mentions the “Power of attorney given by William Fox of Mersham, to Thomas Carter of Willesborough, to give seisine of lands.”

Also, in Memorials of the family of Scott, of Scot’s-hall, in the county of Kent, there are a handful of references to a William Fox some of which make him a witness to land transfers which include as parties “William Harlokynden, John Scott, John Fogg, John Dygges and William Fynche...”. Given the names, dates and locations mentioned in the documents it seems very probable to me that this William Fox is the same person mentioned in William Blechynden’s will (and would also therefore counter any suggestion that Fogge and Fox are the same person/family). One entry is particularly persuasive as it refers to the grant of land to, amongst others, William Fox and Thomas Godfrey (i.e. William Blechynden’s father-in-law), to 24 acres of land in the parish of Smeeth. This shows that William Fox was a landowner and with land in the parish of Smeeth it’s not surprising that he would also have held land in the contiguous parishes of Mersham and Brabourne.

Grant in perpetuity from Stephen Bettenham, of the parish of Cranebroke, Gentleman, and John Badmynton, of Appildare, to Thomas Godfrey, George Knoldane, Thomas Elvene, William Fox, and William Knetchebole, of fifteen pieces of land, meadow, and pasture called Wythonys, containing twenty-four acres of land lying together in the parish of Smethe and in the holding of the courts at Aldyngton and Thefgate, towards the lane called le Melbroklane, leading from Thefgate unto Stonestede towards the west, towards the said lane and the land of Thomas Laurens towards the north, towards the lands of John Passhele, Esq., called Thefgate Park and Thefgate Mead, towards the east and south, heretofore granted to them by Margery Raynold, alias Chaloner, with other lands and tenements. To hold the same of the chief Lords of the Fee by the services therefore due and of right accustomed. 7 Edward IV., August 4, 1468.
Memorials of the family of Scott, of Scot’s-hall, in the county of Kent by James Renat Scott, pub 1876

The final reference to William Fox in the Scott Memorials is in 1474 when Thomas Kempe, the Bishop of London, grants in perpetuity Coombe manor, and other lands, to his kinsman Sir John Scott. William Fox, amongst others, is appointed as attorney “to deliver up possession and seisin thereof“. So it would seem that William Fox of Mersham was of the legal profession as well as holding lands in Brabourne, Smeeth and Mersham. He was probably of a similar social standing to William Blechynden who is also mentioned in the Scott Memorials in 1503/4 when he a witness to a land transfer, although, unlike his counterparts, he is given the title, Gentleman:

– Memorials of the family of Scott, of Scot’s-hall, in the county of Kent by James Renat Scott, pub 1876

Finally, Canterbury Cathedral Archives and Library have a record from 1484 in which we have both William Fox and William Blechyden acting as witnesses to a robbery in Bockhanger Wood, which lay to the south of Quarrington Manor. The manor was moated and this is still visible in the 1816 Ordnance Survey map shown below.

The Canterbury Probate Records Database provides two possible candidates for this William Fox – one William Fox of Mersham whose will is dated 1488 and one William Foxe of Mersham whose will is proved in 1509 and perhaps the first is Margaret Fox’s father and the second her brother? Although I have found nothing which ties William Fox, mention in William Blechynden’s will, directly to Margaret this seems likely to me given that the two Williams knew each other (as evidenced by the witness statement above) as well as knowing the Godfrey family and the Scotts. I will have to try and confirm this family relationship in time when I can access the wills at Canterbury.

Who is Robert Harlakynden?

But why did William impose the requirement that Margaret could not folow the rule of Robert Harlaseynden? The Harlakyndens were a prominent family and we see a couple of female Blechynden marriages into the family in later generations but it is difficult to see probable candidates for Robert given the surviving information. We know that there was a Robert Harlakynden of Bridge, son of Roger, who died in 1557 but he was born in 1510. There was also a Robert Harlakynden, son of Thomas Harlakynden of Woodchurch but information on him is sketchy at best.

I have seen some suggestions that Roger Harlakynden, the “warm asserter of Edward IV” is also known as Robert. Roger Harlakynden is a colourful character. In July 1493 he was charged with corresponding with Perkin Warbeck, pretender to the crown, and had allegedly agreed to support the invasion with a force of eight hundred men. Although he was acquitted the justices refused to release him and his case was sent to King’s Bench on 1 June 1495. “Roger Harlakynden of Wodechurch, Kent, London, and Erthyngleygh, Suss., g.” also appears in Henry VIII’s pardon roll of 1509-1510 although it is unclear what he is being pardoned for – the list of names is extensive and is a general pardon – but perhaps questions about his loyalty still lingered. To note, I think Erthyngleygh is the place we would know today as Ardingly in West Sussex. Roger’s second wife is Alice Colepeper, daughter of Richard Colepeper of Wakehurst, the estate of which is less than a mile from the centre of the village of Ardingly and best known today for the botanical gardens, run by Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

There is also a reference to Roger Harlakyden in Archbishop Warham’s register, following his Visitation of the county in 1511, which refers to him as “…a common oppressor of his neighbours, whom none loveth….that he is meddling of many matters, and will check the parsons and the priests that they cannot be [at] rest for him.“(see The Topographer and Genealogist, Vol. 1, edited by John Gough Nichols, 1846.)

So, it is tempting to reach the conclusion that Roger Harlakynden is the Robert in William’s will as, given the less than glowing references above, we can understand why William might not want his wife or children to be under the influence of someone who is a “common oppressor…whom none loveth“. Even if Roger isn’t Robert perhaps William was acting with an abundance of caution given that, in all likelihood, Robert would be a close relative of Roger Harlakynden. Overall, I get the impression that, despite how harsh it seems to me with my modern sensibilities to deny Margaret of the opportunity for another marriage for 12 years, I also understand that William was protecting his children’s inheritance and his daughters’ potential for marriage, by placing them, by proxy, within the protection of Sir William Scott and Squire John Scott.

Conclusion and Disclaimer

Given the additional information provided by the new family tree, the information in the (transcribed) last will and testament and the various other documents, some of which are mentioned above, I think I am satisfied that William Blechynden was married twice with son James being the son of Agnes Godfrey and perhaps most of the daughters as well being those of Agnes. But his second wife was likely Margaret Fox, daughter of William Fox, their eldest son being John but with younger brothers Humphrey, Edward and Christopher. I think the family tree therefore looks something like this:

But on to my disclaimer. Records are patchy for the 1400’s and early 1500’s. Therefore, whilst I have been able to glean infomation from some records that survive it is still possible that I have drawn incorrect assumptions. I can’t be 100% positive that the William who married Agnes is also the William that married Margaret. There are no references in William’s will to Quarrington Manor, or to Symnels or Ruffyns Hill – the latter two properties came to the Blechynden family through William’s marriage to Agnes. Perhaps ownership of them was transferred to oldest son James on the death of Agnes?

I have also made assumptions, based on the available evidence, about the birth dates of William’s younger sons but these could be wrong, as could that of Agnes’ death. When looking this far back in time it is hard to be definitive and I’m sure I’ll need to revisit these dates and “assumptions” at some point soon.