No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sir Thomas More's Connection with the Roper Family
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Extract
William Roper, son-in-law of Sir Thomas More, is one of those people who seem overshadowed by associates. He is usually mentioned as the son-in-law of the Lord Chancellor, or as the husband of More's brilliant daughter, Margaret. The origin of his connection with the More family is dismissed in the DNB by the statement: “His legal duties apparently brought him to the notice of Sir Thomas More, and about 1525 he married More's accomplished daughter, Margaret.” But in fact the Ropers were people of some financial and professional importance in their own right; and according to documents of the period, the Ropers and the Mores had legal and other business relations for many years before the intermarriage between the two families.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1932
References
1 For my original interest in the English humanists and for valuable stimulating advice I am indebted beyond acknowledgment to Professor C. R. Baskervill. In my search for documents I have also had generous and helpful suggestions from Professor Edith Rickert.
2 The date has been corrected by other writers on the period. The marriage license reads: “July 2, 1521. Wm. Roper of St. Andrew Holborn, and Margaret More of St. Stephen's Walbrook.” Harleian Soc. Publ. (London, 1887), xxv, 2.
3 Archaeol. Cant., xvi, 289 (Cf. 289–321 and xvii, 77–139, passim); Collins, Peerage, vii, 72–73.
4 Archaeol. Cant., xvi, 290, and passim.
5 F. A. Inderwick, Calender of the Inner Temple Records (1896), i, 464–466. In 1523, John Roper, king's attorney, had property valued at D li; in the same lists property of Thomas More's father was listed at CC li.
6 Roper, Life (Chiswick, 1817), p. 4, p. 6.
7 Records of Lincoln's Inn: The Black Books, i, 105.
8 Records of Lincoln's Inn: the Black Books, i, 188. Items between 1518 and 1565 mention William's call to the bar about 1525, indicate a period of inactivity from 1525 to 1534, and show renewed activity with frequent offices after 1534.
9 Ibid., 346. See pp. 398, 405, 409, 413, for religious scruples of Thomas and Anthony Roper and William Dawtrey. A marriage license for Wm. Dawtrey, “of Lincoln's Inn, Gentleman,” may not have been noted before: see Harleian Soc. Pull. (London, 1887), xxv, p. 20. See also Collins, Peerage, vii, 72–73; Hasted, Hist. of Kent, ed. Drake, p. 189.
10 Records of Lincoln's Inn: The Black Books, i, passim.
11 Life (Chiswick, 1817), p. 52.
12 Dugdale, Origines Juridiciales, (London, 1671) pp. 206–207. A reader took charge of the group, selected a statute, gave his divisions made upon the statute, put ten or twelve cases on his first division, and after one of his cases had been argued by others, closed the discussion by maintaining his own conclusions.
13 See H. B. Wheatley, London Past and Present (London, 1891), ii, 370, for statement about the parishes served by St. Lawrence, Jewry. See DNB about Thomas More's lectures at the same church.
14 Life (London, 1726), p. 6. Cf. also the “goodly hangying” of painted cloths, with “nyne pageauntes” which Thomas More, in his youth, devised for his father's house in London. See The Workes … in the Englysh tonge, 1557.
15 P. C. C., 24 Jankyn. The will has apparently not been published, but an abstract of it was procured through Miss Lilian J. Redstone.
16 Roper, Life (London, 1823), pp. 6–7; London Topog. Record (1909), vi, 5–8, and passim; E. L. Blackburn, An Architectural and Hist. Acct. of Crosby Place (1834), passim; Transac. of London and Middx. Arch. Society (1881), v, 360. This last source, in records of St. Stephen's Walbrook, has an item which seems not to have been noted before—a payment for singers at the marriage of “my laide mores mayde,” 1525–26. The Bucklersbury house must have been kept longer than writers about it have supposed.
17 See reference, supra.
18 Letters and Papers, iv, no. 1518; Statutes of Realm, iii, 310, for Roper's will; see O'Donoghue, Bridewell Hospital, Palace … pp. 28–30, for remarks and maps.
19 See Letters and Papers, iii, no. 1389, for appointment as attorney-general.
20 See Letters and Papers, iv, 3491; Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta (London, 1826), ii, 629; Archaeol. Cant., xxv, 265, for other John Ropers in Kent. Neither seems to have had connections with London.
21 Patent Rolls, 1494–1509, (London, 1916), pp. 67, 146, 149, etc. Letters and Papers, i, 725, 906, 3088, 3816; ii, 4183; ra, 571, 1081, 2637, and index.
22 Foss, Biog. Dict. of the Judges of Eng. (London, 1857), vol. v; Dugdale, Chronica Series (London, 1671), p. 77. For ability, expense, honors of a serjeant-at-law, see Dugdale, Origines Juridiciales (London, 1671), Chapters xxi-liv; Fortescue, A Learned Commendation of the Politique Lawes of Eng. … (London, 1573), pp. 116–121; Manly, Some New Light on Caucer, Chap. v.
23 Herts. Gen. and Antiq.: Feet of Fines, (1895), ed. Wm. Brigg, i, 8.
24 Foss, op. cit.; Dugdale, op. cit.
25 Ancient Deeds, iv, A. 6727, 6729.
26 Cal. Feet of Fines, London and Middlesex, i, 15, 22; Ancient Deeds, vi, C. 7300, Essex property; v, A. 12280, mentioning a John More, serjeant-at-law with Dean Colet; v, A. 13511, a John More, sergeant-at-law and justice of the common bench. There are also Kent property records for Sir Th. More.
27 See reference, supra. See also the description of him as knight and justice in the epitaph prepared for Chelsea church, London County Council: Survey of London (1921), vii, Pt. iii, 25–26.
28 Patent Rolls, 1495–1509, pp. 25, 612. Letters and Papers, i, no. 4253, deal with a Cambridge John More, a minor in 1495, and a captain in French wars, 1513. Devonshire commissions to a John More ceased about 1510, when a John More of Devon died. See Lists and Indexes, Inquis. p. m. 2 Hen. VIII.
29 Patent Rolls, Hen. VII, and Letters and Papers, passim. Items for Kent, not all indexed under both More and Roper, are as follows: Letters and Papers, i, 725, 906, 3428, 3605, 4663, 4847, 4927, 5506. Of items about a John More, ca. 1509–1530, not summarized here, a very few are doubtful, a number refer to commissions very similar to these, and a number rather definitely refer to Sir Thomas More's father.
30 Letters and Papers, i, 4701; ii, 4444.
31 Ibid., iv, v, index. Between 1524 and 1530 there are a number of references to a John More, servant of Lord Dacre, and some commissions in Cambridge. After 1530 there are some commissions in Oxford and Cambridge assigned to a John More, but none to Sir John More.
32 See Statutes of the Realm, iii, 309 ff. (Chap. 23) for the will in full and for the action of Parliament.
33 The gavelkind custom important for this paper is the equal division of property between male heirs, or if there were none, between female heirs. For fuller explanation, see Stat. of Realm, i (1810), “Consuetud. Cantiae”; Holdsworth, A Hist. of Eng. Law, iii (1909), 224; Chas. I. Elton, Tenures of Kent (1867), pp. 40–41; Robinson, The Common Law of Kent, or the Custom of Gavelkind (London, 1822), pp. 63–68, 93; Rastell, An Exposition of the Lawes (London, 1595), sub “gavelkind”; Wm. Somner, A Treatise of Gavelkind (London, 1726), p. 91. Somner is the only one of these, so far as my findings go, who mentions the “rateable” part for each son who has not been “otherwise advanced” by his father in the latter's life.
34 Strype, Eccles. Mem., i, Pt. ii, 47–50. Warham's letters of protest to Wolsey, with specific mention of the Roper will, are there dated February, March, 1525.
35 Letters and Papers, iv, no. 1518; see also 978, 1048, 1118, 1157.
36 Lit. Supp. London Times (March 27, 1930).
37 Stat. of the Realm, iii, 309 ff. Estimating at 300 marks, Parliament gave the widow 100, each of the other two sons 40, and William the remainder. William was to benefit if the others died without heirs.
38 Ibid., iii, 309.
39 See Letters and Papers, iv, 1673, 1939, 4931, 6012, 6085, 6395, 6469, and index to iv, v for his position as Lord Treasurer.
40 Hasted, Hist. of Kent, ed. Drake, p. 189 and passim; Notes and Queries, 10th. ser., vi (1906), 291–292.
41 Statutes of the Realm, ii, iii (1816, 1817), see index.
42 Bracton, Laws and Customs of England, i (1878), 149, 487; Holdsworth, op. cit., i, 393; Pollock and Maitland, The Hist. of Eng. Law, (1895) Bk. ii, Chap. vi, passim.
43 Rotuli Parl, v, 129–130 (25 Hen. VI, no. 11); iv, 321–322 (6 Hen. VI); vi, 139 (14 Edw. IV). See Stat. of Realm, ii, 619, for a typical case—a John Shaa, whose deeds to property left him by will were lost by “certain persons ill disposed to him.” Parliament was asked to confirm his title by statute, lest some one claim his property “against Right and Conscience.”
44 Orig. Jurid. (1671), p. 37a.
45 Holdsworth, A Hist. of Eng. Law, i (1903), 200. To understand the influence of Chancery, it is necessary to recall that the ecclesiastical courts had no control over wills of land, and that the doctrine of uses was the creation of the Chancellor. Also the question of debts by or to a testator and of who might sue or be sued belonged to the temporal courts. See Pollock and Maitland, Bk. ii, Chap. vi; Holdsworth, ii (1909), 505.
46 Holdsworth, iii (1909), 467.
47 Select Cases in Chancery: Seiden Soc., x (1896), Intro., xviii-xix.
48 Lists and Indexes: Early Chancery Proceedings (1912), v, vi, Bundle 550, no. 53; 582, 50, etc. For More, Bundle 613, no. 30; 616, 25; 627, 19; 654, 25, etc.
49 Ibid., Bundle 648, no. 29.
50 Stat. of Realm, iii, 309 ff.
51 This act is Chap. 5 and the Roper will Chap. 23, in the Parliament of 1529. I assume a time order but have not found positive proof.
52 Stat. of Realm, iii, 285 ff. (Cf. earlier complaints about fees, 31 Edw. III, stat. 1, no. 4, and 4 Hen. V, stat. 1, no. 8.)
53 Elton, Tenures of Kent (1867), p. 374. See also 365–371, and passim.
54 Stat. of Realm, ii, 617 (11 Hen. VII), iii, 280 (14, 15 Hen. VIII).
55 Holdsworth, op. cit., ii (1909), 488.
56 Robinson, op. cit., p. 99.