Abstract

The Tudor bodyguard known as the Yeomen of the Guard has been viewed generally as a ceremonial body used to add splendour to the royal court. This thesis shows that, while the Guard's ceremonial role was of special importance, the corps was of greater significance than this function would suggest. The corps was a true bodyguard, in constant attendance upon the sovereign throughout the two reigns described. One of Henry VII's first acts as king was to institute a personal bodyguard which also provided him with an impressive retinue, arrayed in richly embellished jackets of his livery and forming part of the royal affinity. Like other members of the affinity, the yeomen were appointed to crown offices in the provinces, safeguarding the king's interests, collecting his revenues and upholding the law. They reported on local situations and brought news of events at court to the provinces, thus supplying a means of communication between central and local government. The origins, foundation and constitution of the Guard are traced, as far as the absence of any foundation documents will allow. Methods of recruitment are described, together with the remuneration, rewards and other benefits received by the yeomen. The Guard's complement did not remain static and by using evidence contained in royal accounts its size has been indicated more accurately than previously known. The duties and functions of the Guard were more varied than has been supposed, both within and outside the court, and included military and naval service, at home and abroad. Some of the yeomen also formed part of a peace-keeping force in the garrison at Toumai in 1513-19. The thesis ends with a description of individuals in the Guard, showing their family and social background, private occupations and offices held, as well as their geographical spread throughout the country.

Preface

The preparation of this thesis has been a long and arduous task, since it was necessarily undertaken on a part-time basis, and it is entirely my own work. It would not have been started without the initial assistance of Miss Margaret Dixon, who allowed me space in her home in London for several years, enabling me to get the research under way The choice of topic originated from an incident many years previously, when my father handed to me a copy of Sir Reginald Hennell's book which had belonged to his father, G. J. F. Hewerdine. This thesis may be seen as a form of tribute to the grandfather I never knew, a member of the illustrious royal bodyguard whose origins I set out to discover. Many people have shown an interest in my research, and I gratefully acknowledge in the text the references to documents and publications which they provided. Thanks are due to Dr. David Starkey, who supervised my work throughout, and to Professor John Gillingham, who gave practical advice in the later stages. It is a pleasure to record my thanks, for comments on papers read in early form, to members of the Tudor and Stuart seminar at the Institute of Historical Research, and to members of the Late Medieval and Early Modem Students' Group Methodology and Theory Seminar at the London School of Economics. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Shelagh Mitchell, a member of both these seminar groups, for her friendly help and support over the past seven years. My special thanks go to Dr. Andrew Thrush for his interest, advice and practical help. The encouragement of Mrs. Jean Tsushima and Miss Frances Devereux has also sustained me over the years. I gladly acknowledge the assistance given by the staff at the various institutions I have visited, especially the librarians at the Institute of Historical Research. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Ian van Breda for producing the final copy of my thesis on his Macintosh computer, and am grateful to Mr. R. H. Tucker for processing my Amstrad discs to make the transition possible. Finally, I thank my twin sister, Celia Hewerdine, for her support in various ways during the long years of my endeavours.

Ant. Rep.                     The Antiquarian Repertory 
Bacon             J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis and D. D. Heath, eds., The Literary and Professional Works of Francis Bacon

BIHR                            Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research
BL                                British Library
CA                               College of Arms
CCR                            Calendar of the Close Rolls
CIPM                           Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem
CPR                             Calendar of the Patent Rolls
CPR Yorkist                 Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III 1476-1485

DKR                             Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records
DNB                             Dictionary of National Biography
ed.                                Editor
EETS                           Early English Text Society
EHR                             English Historical Review
HMC                             Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts
HO                                A Collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the Government of the Royal Household Made in Divers Reigns from King Edward III to King William and Queen Mary

LP                                 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, 1509-1547

Ms.                                Manuscript
NS                                 New series
PCC                              Prerogative Court of Canterbury
PPE Henry VIII              Privy Purse Expences of Henry VIII
PRO                              Public Record Office
Rot. Pari.                       Rotuli Parliamentorum
RS                                 The Royal Society
transl.                            Translator 
VCH                               Victoria History of the Counties of England
WAM                             Westminster Abbey Muniments 
WC                                 Westminster City Archives

Manuscripts cited without location are in the Public Record Office, and those prefixed BL are in the British Library. In transcriptions from manuscripts the spelling has been modernized, abbreviations have been expanded, and modem punctuation and capitalization adopted throughout. Names of individuals and places have also been modernized as far as possible. The figures following citations of LP refer, unless otherwise stated, to numbers of documents. Where the original document cited in LP has been used, the reference to the manuscript is given first, followed by the LP reference. Unless otherwise stated, the place of publication of printed sources was London. Full references to printed works will be found in the Bibliography.  Archives visited in connection with the research:

Public Record Office
British Library
College of Arms
Guildhall Library
East Sussex Record Office
Sussex Archaeological Society
Westminster City Archives
Westminster Abbey Muniments
The Royal Society
Yeomen of the Guard Headquarters, St. James's Palace

Introduction

From ancient times kings and other rulers used bodyguards to protect them from their enemies, particularly in wartime. In England, succeeding monarchs took what measures they considered necessary for their own security, and the duty of guarding the king was often attached to more than one group of royal servants. Although all members of the royal household had an obligation to ensure die safety of the sovereign, and to serve in the royal army when required, by the thirteenth century three groups of royal servants shared the specific duty of guarding the monarch:- the sergeants at arms, the king's foot archers and the esquires of the household (1) Royal protection was raised to an unprecedented level towards the end of the fourteenth century, when Richard II added substantially to the forces guarding him, recruiting an extra bodyguard of over 300 archers from Cheshire, with a further reserve of another 300 archers (2) But these did not endure beyond the reign.

By the late fifteenth century the esquires of the household had diminished (3) so that the duty of guarding the king was shared by the sergeants at arms and the king's foot archers, both groups being based permanently at court. A household ordinance of 1318 had stated that the number of sergeants at arms should not exceed 30, of whom four were to sleep outside the king's chamber at night while the rest were to sleep in the hall, and when the king travelled all of them were to ride before him.4 In Edward Hi's time the number varied between 16 and 22 (5).  According to Edward IV's household ordinances of about 1471, known as the Black Book, the complement of sergeants at arms was set at four, of whom two were always to attend upon the king's person and his Chamber (6) The 1318 ordinance shows a complement of 24 foot archers, but in practice this varied in number from 16 to 44 (7) and in the Black Book the successors to the king's foot archers are shown as the 24 yeomen of the crown, who were to be girded with their swords or other weapons when they were on watch at night (8) The numbers specified for both the sergeants at arms and the yeomen of the crown were known also to have been exceeded in

1. C. Given-Wilson, The Royal Household and the King's Affinity. Service, Politics and Finance in England 1360-1413 (New Haven and London, 1986), p.22.
2. Ibid., pp. 54 and 223.
3. A. R. Myers, The Household of Edward IV. The Black Book and the Ordinance of 1478 (Manchester, 1959), p.127.
4. Given-Wilson, p.54 and pp.21-2, citing M. C. Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance under Edward I (1972), p.48, and T. F. Tout, The Place of the Reign of Edward II in English History (second edition by H. Johnstone, 1936), pp .253-4.
5. Ibid., p.22.
6. Myers, p.131.
7. Given-Wilson, p.22.
8. Myers, p.11.

                                                          8 demilances  @   9d.    a day

157 yeomen       @ 12d.       " "
    4 yeomen       @   8d.       " "

101 archers        @   6d       ." "

40          archers on horseback @ 12d. a day

11   [10] light horsemen            @ 12d. a day

       187 [194] yeomen on foot           @  8d. a day

Vinteners                     Constables

    Robert Leighton               John Prince

    Henry Birde                      William Bentall

    Gerard Osbome               Richard Forster

    Clement Frere                  Robert Mitchell

    Hugh Bennett                   John Erdeley

    Griffith Rede                     Thomas Gray

    Roger Griffith                    Thomas Stribithill

    Richard Heyboume           William Harford

    John Allen                         Richard Dobell

    John Turner                       Evan Bodmer

 John Brodger

Thomas Wallett

Richard Stone
Robert Axe

                                        1545/6                                                                                                 1546
              Assessment on wages                 Amount due                                     Assessment on                   Amount due
                                           £                                                                                                        £
Thomas Boyse et al      18             36s.                    wages          18        30s.

              Assessment on land

Thomas Timewell               31                         62s.                                        wages & land       30               50s.
Thomas Medgate               20                         40s.                                        wages & land       18               30s.
Hugh Proffett                      30.  6s. 8d.           60s. 8d.                                  wages & land       30               50s.
John Northcott                    21 42s.                                                               wages & fees        21               35s.
Richard Wilson                   28 36s.                                                                wages & land       28               46s. 8d.
Richard Jacke                    20 40s.                                                                wages                  18                30s.
Robert David                      22 44s.                                                                wages                  18                30s.
Chris. Lonsdale                  23 46s.                                                                wages & land       30                50s.

              Assessment on goods

John Lane                          60 80s.                                                                goods                   60               50s.
Richard Williams                30 40s.                                                                wages                  18               30s.
John Bostock                     30 40s.                                                                wages                  18               30s.

Sources: 1545/6: E179/69/50; 1546: E179/69/56

Despite the lower figures which were evidently adopted, some yeomen appear to have had difficulty in paying all of their instalments by the required time. Of those assessed on wages and lands, Hugh Proffett owed 10s. of the 50s. due and John Baugh owed 7s. of the 35s. due, while of those assessed on wages only, Edward Lawes (one of the newest recruits to the Guard) owed the whole amount of 30s. and Thomas Snow, William Winchester and John Glynne each owed 5s.(2)

1. E179/69/50.
2. E179/69/45.

The Family Backgrounds of the Yeomen
The families of several yeomen can be found among the published collections of county pedigrees based on heralds' visitations, and some of these families were armigerous. Among the latter were the families of John Amadas (arms described as azure, a chevron ermine between three oaken slips acomed, proper),(1) Lawrence Eglisfeld (arms described as or, three eagles displayed gules),(2) Thomas Greenway (arms described as gules a fess and a chief or with three martlets vert in the chief),(3) and Thomas Noke (on a fess sable between three leopards' heads, a bow between two coronets, 'over them a helmet with a crest of a lion's paw erased and erected, encircled by a coronet and grasping an arrow').(4) Other yeomen who feature in known pedigrees include Henry Birde,(5) David Cecil,(6) Thomas Cocke,(7) John and Bartholomew Flamank or Flammoke,(8) and Roger Temple.(9) Relationships through marriage may also be seen in similar sources. Lewis ap Watkin married Isabel, one of the three daughters and coheiresses of Sir Edmund Tame;(10) John Flamank's wife was Joyce, daughter of Sir Richard Nanfan;(11) and Roger Becke was married to Mabel, second daughter of Sir Lawrence Warren of Pointon, baron of Stockport, by his wife Margaret, daughter of Sir Piers Legh of Lyme, Cheshire.(12) Through a marriage two generations previously, the Warren family was related to the Stanley family.(13)

In several other cases the name of a yeoman's father is recorded. Among these are Thomas Boys of Calais and Walmer, who was the third son of John Boys of Kent,(14) and Roger

1. J. L. Vivian, ed., The Visitations of the County of Devon. Heralds' Visitations of 1531,1564 and 1620 (1895), p.12; F. T. Colby, ed., The Visitation of the County of Devon in the year 1564: with additions from the Earlier Visitation of 1531 (Exeter, 1881), p.2; F. T. Colby, ed., The Visitation of the County of Devon in the year 1620, Harl. Soc., 6 (1872), p.186; Drake, p.xxii. 2. C. B. Norcliffe, ed., Visitation of Yorkshire 1563 and 1564 by William Flower, Harl. Soc., 16 (1881), p.107.
3. VCH Buckinghamshire, ii (1969), p.280.
4. H. T. Morley, Monumental Brasses of Berkshire (14th to 17th Century) (Reading, 1924), p.181.
5. Drake, p.230.
6. O. Barron, ed., VCH Northamptonshire Families. Genealogical Volume (1906), pp.21-2; T. Blore, The History and Antiquities of the County of Rutland (Stamford, 1811), pp.75-6 and 80; F. W. Weaver, ed., The Visitation of Herefordshire made by Robert Cooke, Clarencieux, in 1569 (Exeter, 1886), p.18; J. Duncumb, Collections towards the History and Antiquities of the County of Hereford, ii, pt. 1 (Hereford, 1812), p.303; J. Simmons, ed., J. Wright's 1684 publication The History and Antiquities of the County of Rutland, Classical County Histories (Wakefield, Yorkshire, 1973 edition), p.63.
7. King, Little Stambridge, p.201.
8. Bindoff, ii, p.146.
9. BL Additional Ms. 5524, f.l61v.
10. LP XXL i, 1166 (67).
11. Bindoff, ii, p. 146.
12. Visitation of Cheshire 1580, Harleian Society, 18 (1882), p.243; J. P. Earwaker, East Cheshire: Past and Present, ii (1880), p.287; G. Ormerod, The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester, iii, pt. 2 (1882), p.686.
13. I. Arthurson, The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy 1491-1499 (Gloucester, 1994), p.95.
14. Bindoff, i,p.479.

Porter of Wallespole in Powesland, North Wales, and Westminster, son of Hugh Porter.(1)  William Morice's father, James Morice of Roydon, Essex, served as master of the works to Henry VIPs mother, Margaret, countess of Richmond and Derby, before becoming a gentleman usher in the royal household.(2) 

Many of the yeomen showed benevolence towards poor people, particularly in their wills, where this was a customary gesture for good Christians to make, for the good of their souls. Cornelius van Dun was wealthy enough to show this benevolence during his lifetime, as well as after, founding almshouses at the west end of Petty France and at St. Ermin's Hill, Westminster.(3) The latter may have been the 20 houses which he had built in Westminster at his own cost for poor widows.(4) Thomas Cocke, by his will of 21 July 1544, provided for three bushels of wheat to be baked and made into penny loaves and for a bullock to be killed and distributed to poor people annually at Christmas eve.(5) Robert Delwood directed in his will of 12 September 1538, proved in June 1540, that £10 be distributed among his poor neighbours living in Abingdon at the time of his burial, and £6 both at his 'month's mind' and at the anniversary of his death.(6)

Public Service and the Importance of Status
Since a number of the yeomen of the Guard were of some substance, their standing in the community, enhanced by royal service, led to their election as mayors and Members of Parliament. John Stanshaw represented Reading in Parliament in 1497 (7). Henry Strete sat for Plymouth in 1510,(8) and John Flamank was elected as member for Bodmin in 1512 and 1515 (9).   David Cecil served as mayor of Stamford (though the traditional title there was alderman) in 1504-5,1515-16 and 1526-7, and as Member of Parliament for Stamford in 1504,1510,1512,1515 and 1523.(10) Richard Berkeley was MP for Winchelsea in 1495 and 1497-8, and mayor there in 1497-9; he represented Rye in Parliament in 1504 and 1510, becoming mayor there in 1503-4 (11). These elections to Parliament did not create a precedent, since yeomen of the crown in former

1. LP I i, 438 (4), m.18.
2. Bindoff, ii, p.631.
3. A. M. Burke, ed., Memorials of St. Margaret's Church, Westminster (1914), p.433; Westminster City Archives, Wills Register Elsam, fos.143-5; J. Strype, ed., Stow's Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster (1720), Book 6, p.65.
4. Ibid., p.56.
5. King, Ancient Wills, p.192; King, Little Stambridge, p.201.
6. PROB 11 /28 (7 Alenger).
7. J. C. Wedgwood, Biographies of the Members of the Commons House 1439-1509 (1936), p.802.
8. Bindoff, iii, p.399.
9. Ibid., p.146.
10. Bindoff, i, p.602.
11. Ibid., p.419.

reigns served in the same way. Nicholas Buckley was MP for Bodmin in 1449 and for Lostwithiel in 1453-4,(1) and John Boston represented Bedford in 1467-8 and 1472-5.(2)

The importance an individual attached to his standing in his community is illustrated by an incident concerning the election of a new abbot at Muchelney abbey in 1532. Henry Thornton (by that time a sergeant at arms) was a fairly wealthy and influential man in Somerset, having represented Bridgwater in Parliament in 1529, and he enlisted Thomas Cromwell's support to secure the election of his nominee for the post, to which there had been strong local opposition.)(3) Thornton's letters to Cromwell clearly indicate his fear that his status in the county was threatened. Although Thornton's nominee was eventually successful, the new abbot had to pay a large sum of money for his position.(4) David Cecil (also a sergeant at arms), towards the end of his life, had occasion to complain to Cromwell about a suit which one Merynge brought against him regarding an obligation at Nottingham which was fictitious. Although the sum involved was only 20 marks, his defence had cost him £20. His letter to Cromwell of 8 April 1534 referred to his long service to two kings, and continued 'I desire you somewhat to ponder my truth and poor honesty, for it was never disdained in the king's father's days, when I was some time put in trust, nor yet in this king's time till now.'(5)

Personal Petitions and Lawsuits
There are many instances where the yeomen petitioned the king on various personal matters, from seeking the payment of overdue wages, to appealing to him as their 'good lord' for assistance in lawsuits, whether concerning property or financial matters, coercion by magnates or in cases of murder. Richard Pigot petitioned Henry VII in March 1486 for his wages of 4d. a day as keeper of Portnall park, within the precincts of Windsor castle. He was unable to obtain payment from the Exchequer because 'the office was not ancient' according to the limitation of a statute of Edward III and Richard II.(6) Humphrey Acton's petition relates that, on the king's commandment, he had returned to court on 1 July 1518, after duty in the garrison at Toumai, but remained unpaid a year later, because his correct name was not presented in the bill for certain of his company to receive 4d. a day.(7)

1. Ibid., p.129.
2. Ibid., p.94.
3. Bindoff, iii, pp.446-7.
4. Ibid.
5. BL Cotton Ms. Vespasian F.XHI, 159; LP VII, 451.
6. Campbell, i, pp.358-9.
7. E101/418/17, m.21.

Petitions for lawsuits were usually addressed to the king or his chancellor. Bills of complaint have survived in greater number than the subsequent answers and further proceedings of many such cases, so that the final outcome is often unknown.(1) At an unknown date between 1504 and 1515, when William Warham was chancellor of England, John Sandford and his wife Maud sought the good lordship of the chancellor in granting a writ of subpoena on one Thomas A Warton, commanding him to appear before the king in Chancery regarding a debt, for which no remedy could be found by the common law. The debt concerned a sum of £4 owing to Maud's former husband, Richard Warkop, deceased, which was due to Maud as his executrix. At the request of Thomas A Warton, Warkop had agreed to board two married women, who were in his keeping for a quarter of a year. Although A Warton had promised to guarantee the costs involved, it had not been possible to recover these from him.(2) During the same period, when Warham was chancellor, Baldwin Heath pleaded for assistance on a property matter. Although he had lawfully bought and paid for two dwellings and land in Castle Bromwich, Warwickshire, the vendor, Thomas Bradwall alias Watson, had detained the deeds.(3) In 1536 John Catcot of Batcombe, Somerset, petitioned the king in Star Chamber, seeking a remedy for damage to his hedges and dykes caused by a riotous group of twenty people during the night of 24 February that year, on the three acres of enclosed land in Batcombe which Catcot had held by copyhold for 12 years of the earl of Arundel's manor of Spargrove. Catcot complained that he was unable to get possession of the land to carry out repairs.(4) This may have been one of the cases typical of the time, where the allegation of a riotous act was requisite for a case to be brought before the Star Chamber, as a matter of form rather than of fact.(5)

Complaints were sometimes made to the king by members of the Guard who had suffered at the hands of their local magnates. Two examples show the very different outcome which resulted in such instances. Griffith Mores reported the behaviour of Sir William Griffith, chamberlain of North Wales, who had sent a subpoena for Mores to appear at the exchequer in Carnarvon on a certain day.(6) Mores duly arrived, to find the exchequer was closed,

1. J. A. Guy, The Court of Star Chamber and its records to the reign of Elizabeth I, Public Record Office Handbooks No. 21 (1985) [hereafter Guy, Star Chamber], p.24.
2. Cl 358/78. I am grateful to Miss K. Lacey for this reference.
3. Cl 323/30.
4. G. Bradford, ed., Proceedings in the Court of the Star Chamber in the Reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII, Somerset Record Society, 27 (1911), pp.186-7.
5. G. R. Elton, The Practice of History (1967), p.78; Guy, Star Chamber, p.26.
6. STAC 2/28/76. I am grateful to Dr. S. J. Gunn for this reference; see his article The Regime of Charles, Duke of Suffolk, in North Wales and the Reform of Welsh Government, 1509-25 in The Welsh History Review, xii,4 (December 1985), pp.473-5.

whereupon he went to see the chamberlain's deputy to learn the nature of any charge against him. The deputy commanded him not to depart from Carnarvon, on forfeit of £40, so Mores stayed there at some expense for nearly three weeks before the chamberlain arrived. Mores complained that Sir William reviled and rebuked him shamefully, before letting him go without charge. He requested that, since Sir William was then in London, he should be sent for to appear before the king's council to answer for his behaviour and to show what just cause he had against Mores. The bill of complaint mentions the great extortions and oppressions for which the chamberlain was notorious in the three shires of North Wales, resulting in great impoverishment of the king's subjects there. A further point was made concerning the retainers which Sir William had appointed, numbering 500 and more, whereby the inhabitants had no remedy of the law, since in any disputes some of the retainers were impanelled, following 'only the mind of the said Sir William and not the truth of the matter'.(1)

There was evidently some long-standing enmity between the chamberlain and Mores, which was revealed when Sir William was called upon to explain charges of high-handedness. He pointed out that the great difficulty of governing North Wales needed firm control, and alleged that the charges against him were contrived by Mores. The chamberlain explained his refusal to grant a particular farm to Mores, though pressed 'at the desire of other of the king's grace most honorable Guard his fellows', because he wanted to prevent the yeoman's brother- in-law from using it as a base for his gang of eighteen outlaws. Sir William's enemies, on the other hand, claimed that he victimised Mores because he had 'bare witness with Doctor Glynne [archdeacon of Bangor] against the chamberlain about a benefice'. Despite strong evidence against him regarding not only his abuse of power but his illegal retinue, the council which met on 6 June 1519, recognising that the chamberlain's powerful control was indispensable, merely placed restraints on Sir William. The unfortunate Griffith Mores, as chief plaintiff against him, was committed to the Fleet, for falsely accusing the chamberlain.(2)

A similar case was brought to the Court of Requests by Elis Decka, who lamented the extortion and great power of Sir John Shilston, under-steward of the lordship of Bromfield in the marches of Wales.(3) During Decka's absence in Ireland when he was serving the king in the earl of Surrey's retinue, both his sister and her husband, David ap Griffith ap Robert, had died, leaving two young sons, who were heirs to their father's lands. According to the law and

1. Ibid.
2. Ibid.
3. REQ 2/12/154. I am grateful to Dr. Gunn also for this reference; and see his above-mentioned article, pp .484-5.

custom of the lordship, in such cases the nearest in blood who was not an inheritor of the land should have the custody of the heirs and the lands until the heirs reached full age. Shilston had ordered that the lands should be in the hands of certain of the children's uncles, but that Decka's mother should be responsible for the expense of looking after the children, without any revenue from the lands. Decka had complained about the matter to the king's commissioners in Shrewsbury, and it had been decreed that Decka, as the nearest in blood, should have the custody of the children and lands until the heir came to full age.(1) The commissioners had informed Shilston that Decka should be recompensed for the time when the other uncles wrongfully received the revenue, but there seemed to be difficulty in enforcing this ruling. Decka was fortunate, however, as he was able to see the king at Hertford, and this resulted in a directive signed by Henry VIH which Shilston could not ignore. Nevertheless, further prompting was necessary, through the influence of Sir Thomas More, before Decka succeeded in his suit.(2)

Although die outcome of some cases cannot be traced, a number of instances are known where yeomen were pardoned for murder. These were probably cases where fatal injury was deemed to have been inflicted in self-defence, as happened to Edmund Stoner, who had been committed to the Marshalsea prison.(3) Sir Walter Stoner explained the circumstances in a letter to Cromwell dated 9 September 1535, begging him to be 'favourable to his brother Edmund', who had evidently been attacked by one of Sir Walter's servants and had struck him on the head in trying to defend himself. The servant had died from his injury eleven days later.(4) The pardon for murder was received in due course, in July 1536.(5) Two other instances may be cited: Anthony Saunders of Southwick, Hampshire, alias of London, was pardoned for murder in 1523 (6) and John Sandford of Appleby, Westmorland, received a pardon in August 1529 for the slaughter of Henry Salkeld.(7) The latter case indicates that a long-standing feud between the Sandford and Salkeld families still continued.(8)

As already shown, the yeomen were not always exonerated from punitive measures for offences. Perhaps the most serious and unpardonable crime was the shedding of blood within the court. Early in 1512, during the session of Parliament, a yeoman of the Guard named

1. Ibid.
2. Ibid.
3. LP XI, 202 (25).
4. LP DC, 317.
5. LP XI, 202 (25).
6. LP in ii, 2994 (28).
7. LP IV iii, 5906 (4).
8. Rev. F. W. Ragg, Helton Flechan, Askham and Sandford of Askham, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, NS, 21 (1921), 174-233, p.191.

Richard Newbold (or Newbolt) wilfully killed one of Lord Willoughby's servants in Westminster palace. Hall records that, although in the king's great favour and a special archer, Newbold was hanged, in the palace, where his body was left for two days as an example to others.(1)

It was perhaps inevitable that among several hundred men over the two reigns, a few of the yeomen were involved in scandals of some sort. On 9 January 1500 Peter Lloyd entered into a bond in £100 with Sir Giles Daubeney and Sir Charles Somerset. The condition was stated that 'if Peter pay Margery Floyde [sic] alias Foster at the White Hart Inn, Southwark, 46s. 8d each year, i.e. 26s. 8d. at the Annunciation and 20s. at Easter, until he shall have obtained a lawful divorce from her by the church, this recognizance shall be voided'.(2) Two years later they were apparently still legally married, since on 25 January 1502 Thomas Benne of London, sherman, and Elizabeth his wife acknowledged receipt from William Warham, bishop of London, of 10 marks delivered to the bishop by Elizabeth's mother, Margery Lloyd, wife of Peter Lloyd, yeoman of the crown, for her marriage portion.(3)

In a case brought before Henry VII's council by Geoffrey Ellis, vicar of Thatcham, Berkshire, John Stanshaw was accused of attacking the vicar in his church on Sunday, 5 February 1503.(4) An unusually full account of the case can be constructed from the evidence recorded at the time, probably because of the status of the accused. The cause of the scene arose from the fact that Stanshaw had left his wife and had lived in adultery for some years with a woman known as Joan Stanshaw. The bishop of Salisbury heard of this and ordered them to appear before him at his manor of Ramsbury. The vicar of Thatcham read the citation at the morning service in the presence of Joan Stanshaw, who threatened that the priests would repent the matter before night came. That afternoon Stanshaw entered the church accompanied by 16 riotous persons, armed with weapons, while evensong was taking place. Stanshaw with his son and a servant went into the chancel while the rest of his followers remained in the nave. The vicar was alarmed by his threatening demeanour and asked him what he meant. Stanshaw's reply was to ask whether the priest was not content that he was there, as he threw off his cloak and took his sword and buckler from his servant. His other servants then came into the chancel and would apparently have murdered the vicar if the latter's own servants had not rescued him. In his defence, Stanshaw declared that he had gone

1. Hall, p.526; Great Chronicle, p.379.
2. CCR Henry VII, i, 1214.
3. Ibid., ii, 180.
4. C. G. Bayne and W. H. Dunham, eds., Select Cases in the Council of Henry VII, Selden Society, 75 (1958), p.cxliii.

to church peaceably for evensong and that after sitting in his seat in the chancel the vicar shut the chancel door and called a number of servants, intending to attack him, so that his own servants then pressed in to protect him. It is clear from the evidence, however, that Stanshaw was the aggressor. He rarely attended evensong and had earlier in the day announced his intention of going to the church and making a 'fray'.(1) The outcome of the case has not been found.

The Guard As Seen By Others
The Guard was evidently perceived as a significant part of the royal affinity, not only by those in authority or of a high rank, but by people seeking the king's patronage. Sir Richard Empson was accused of using some members of the Guard in 'an unwarranted act of force' against Sir Robert Plumpton in 1501.(2) This concerned a property dispute in which Empson used a jury with vested interests in an attempt (initially successful) to eject Plumpton from his patrimonial inheritance in Yorkshire. Among the 200 persons Empson assembled at the York assizes were 'divers of the Guard of our sovereign lord the king arrayed in the most honourable livery of his said Guard'.(3) As already indicated, the duke of Buckingham's generosity towards members of the Guard rebounded on him. At his indictment in May 1521 at the Guildhall, London, it was alleged that he tried to win the favour of the king's Guard by giving them presents of silks and cloth of gold and silver, as well as appointing them to offices in his lands for the purpose of retaining men.(4) The confession and deposition of the duke's chancellor, Robert Gilbert, included the statement that the duke had 'always endeavoured to gain the favour of the king's Guard and has often rejoiced to think of himself sure of it.'(5)  Further, the deposition referred to officers recently appointed on the duke's lands for purposes of retaining, allegedly to assist the duke in his treasons. In the accounts of the officers of the duke's lands, made by the king's commissioners in July to November 1523, Ralph Warbleton, described as yeoman of the crown, is shown as keeper of the North Park in Holdemess, and Nicholas Clerke, similarly described, appears as bailiff of Fobbing, Essex.(6)

Dr. John London reported to Cromwell on 8 July 1538 on the actions taken according to the king's commission 'at all the places of the friars in Oxford'.(7) He stated that 'it is rumoured

1. Ibid., pp .cxliii-cxliv.
2. T. Stapleton, ed., Plumpton Correspondence, Camden Society, 4 (1839), p.cix.
3. Ibid., p.cvii.
4. LP Dli, 1284/ii, p.491 and 1284/2 (6), p.493. BL Harley Ms. 283, f.72; HMC, Third Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, App. 2,230-1.
5. LP mi, 1284/3 (4), p.494.
6. LP m ii, 3695, pp.1531-2.
7. LP Xin i, 1342.

that divers of the Guard intend to beg these houses of the king, and this moves me to petition you for my neighbours. We have, in Oxford, the king's servants Mr. Banaster and Mr. Pye, who have nothing but 4d. a day of the king/ Both men had served as mayor of Oxford, and Dr. London suggested that it would be charitable to obtain the site and profits of the White Friars for Banaster and the site and profits of the fair of the Austin Friars for Pye.(1)

On 11 August 1538 Henry Broke wrote to Cromwell informing him that the prior and convent of the friar's house of Newcastle-under-Lyne had freely surrendered it to the king's commissioner, the bishop of Dover.(2) Broke mentioned that he had land adjoining and had taken three leases of the prior and convent a few months earlier, which he hoped would be confirmed. As the bishop had told him he had no power to confirm these leases, he asked for Cromwell's help, promising him £30 if he could get the king's gift of it and all the goods now left, including the lead upon the high chancel and part of the cloister, two bells, glass, stone and iron. Broke concluded his letter with the statement that he 'hears that one Bothe, of London, and John Smith of the Guard will make suit for it'.(3) The bishop of Dover also sent a communication to Cromwell, dated 27 August 1538, saying that since departing from him he had received to the king's use twenty-eight monasteries. He continued that several of the king's servants had begged him to write for them and offered 20 nobles or more, but that he would take none, concluding with the information that John Turner of the Guard, of Ludlow, was one of them.(4)

These references to the Guard seem to indicate that at least some contemporaries feared that the yeomen would be unduly favoured by the king. Apart from the great number of grants received by the yeomen following the dissolution of the monasteries, already referred to, perhaps the most significant indication of the reality of this view lies in the draft of Henry Vm's will. The draft provided for a legacy of £20 to each yeoman of the Guard upon the king's death. This legacy clause was one of several cancelled later, but probably not by the king himself, as he never actually signed the will.(5) According to the few personal servants around him during the final days of his life, Henry VIII gave certain oral directions regarding the contents of his will, when alterations were made on his behalf and the dry stamp of the king's

1. Ibid.
2. LP XIII ii, 75.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 200.
5. LP XXI ii, 634 (10).

signature was affixed.(1) The fact that the clause was originally included in the king's draft will, however, suggests that he held the Guard in special favour.

Geographical Distribution of the Yeomen
As far as the geographical distribution of the yeomen throughout the country is concerned, they came from most of the counties in England and from Wales, but there was a strong concentration in the south, which was the stronghold of the Tudors.(2) It is emphasized that the figures shown represent the minimum number in each county, based on surviving information. The figure of 18 for Wales is striking, in view of the distance from the capital. While some of the yeomen retained their homes in the provinces, some moved either temporarily or permanently to places nearer London and the court, and this undoubtedly accounts for the high figures for Kent and Surrey. John Gittons' will, made in his chamber at the Tower of London on 26 November 1500, shows that he resided at Northampton.(3) John Forde was described early in Henry VIII's reign as being of Donyatt, Somerset; Richmond, Surrey; Greenwich, Kent; and London.(4) His will of 1523 shows him as John Forde of Ilminster, which is about two miles from Donyatt.(5) In March 1540 Geoffrey Bromefeld was described as being of Westminster, and in May 1546, after his return home to Denbigh, he was referred to as Geoffrey Bromefeld of Wales.(6) It is possible that Henry VII was aware of the advice given to Henry IV by his Privy Council in 1400, to recruit retainers and the members of his bodyguard from each county.(7) This practice avoided the resentment caused by recruiting heavily from a particular county, as Richard II had done in the later part of his reign, when he concentrated on Cheshire men.(8) As shown in chapter 1, Edward IV's Black Book, which had its origins in the household ordinances of Edward in, also made the point that yeomen of the crown should be chosen from every lord's

1. D. R. Starkey, The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics (1985), pp.159-65; H. Miller, Henry VIII's Unwritten Will: Grants of Lands and Honours in 1547', in E. W. Ives, R. J. Knecht and J. J. Scarisbrick, eds., Wealth and Power in Tudor England, Essays presented to S. T. Bindoff (1978), pp.87-105.
2. D. R. Starkey, 'The Political Structure of Early Tudor England', in M. Falkus and J. Gillingham, Historical Atlas of Britain (1981), pt. 1, p.85.
3. PROB11 /12 (20 Moone).
4. LPI i, 438 (3), m.l.
5. PROB 11 /21 (8 Bodfelde).
6. LP XV, 1032, Books of the Court of Augmentations, p.566, citing Augm. Book 212, f.ll4b; LP XXI i, 963 (128).
7. Given-Wilson, p.219.
8. Ibid., pp.37,57 and 215.

house in England,(1) indicating a wide geographical spread. The first two Tudor monarchs certainly appear to have followed this practice to some extent.

Memorials to Individual Yeomen
Several yeomen were commemorated by a memorial in their local church, usually a brass. In Higham church, Kent, a brass to Robert Hilton, who died in 1523, records that he was 'late yeoman of the Guard with the high and mighty prince of most famous memory Henry the VlII.(2) Thomas Lynde was depicted at St. Neot's church, Huntingdonshire, in 1527 wearing the apparel of a yeoman of the Guard, 'with his pole axe, a rose on his breast and a crown on his left breast or shoulder', together with his wives Alice and Joan.(3) Thomas Noke is commemorated in the church of St. John Baptist, Shottesbrook , Berkshire, with his three wives. He is shown in a long gown lined with fur, and bears a crown badge on the left shoulder.(4) The inscription shows that he died on 21 August 1567, in his eighty-seventh year, and includes the information that 'for his great age and virtuous life he was reverenced of all men and commonly called Father Noke', and that he was 'of stature high and comely and for his excellency in artillery made yeoman of the crown'.(5) Below his memorial another plate shows an epitaph in Latin on the death of Thomas Noke by the Lady Elizabeth Hoby , translated thus by Ashmole:

Thou good old Man, and venerably Sage
Whole antient Probity, and hoary Age;
Thee justly still a Father and a Friend,
Steady to love, and Faithful to defend:
Accept my last Adieu; Like him may I,
Great Heav'n, thus pious live and peaceful die.(6)  

 
Brasses are also recorded in Lee church, Kent, to Henry Birde, who died in 1545,(7) to Thomas Broke and his wife Anne at Ewelme, Oxfordshire, dating from 1518,8 and to Thomas Greenway and his wife Elizabeth, in the church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Dinton,

1. Myers, p.116.
2. M. Stephenson, A List of Monumental Brasses in the British Isles (1926), p.236; W. D. Belcher, Kentish Brasses, 2 vols. (1905), ii, 215. I am grateful to Dr. Maria Dowling for this last reference.
3. Stephenson, p.203, citing Visitation of Huntingdonshire, 24 July 1684, K.7, f.18, in College of Arms, quoted in G. C. Gorham's History and Antiquities ofEynesbury and St Neots, 1.160.
4. Morley, pp.178 and 181; Stephenson, p.26; VCH Berkshire, iii (1923), p.169. See also H. Druitt, Costume in Brasses (1906), p.286; Rev. C. Boutell, Monumental Brasses and Slabs (1847), p.136, and A Manual for the Study of Monumental Brasses tvith a Descriptive Catalogue of Four Hundred and Fifty 'Rubbings' in the possession of the Oxford Architectural Society, Topographical and Heraldic Indices, etc. (Oxford, 1848) [hereafter A Manual], No. 358.
5. Morley, p.181; VCH Berkshire, iii, p.169.
6. Morley, p.181.
7. Drake, p.229.
8. Druitt, p.192; Stephenson, p.405; M. W. Norris, Monumental Brasses. The Portfolio Plates of the Monumental Brass Society 1894-1984 (1988), No. 293; A Manual, p.218.

Buckinghamshire.(1) Although Greenway died in 1538, and his wife the following year, the memorial was not erected until 1551, upon the death of their son Richard, a gentleman usher of the Chamber, who is commemorated on a separate brass.(2) In the chapel of St. George at Windsor, on the wall near the south door, a brass plate commemorated George Brooke, who served in the Guard from Henry VIII's reign to Elizabeth I's. He died in 1593, and an epitaph records that:

He lived content with mean Estate,
And long ago prepared to die,
The Idle Person he did hate,
Poor People's Wants he did supply (3).  

 
The most imposing memorial to a yeoman of the Guard of Henry VIII's time is probably the effigy of Cornelius van Dun, shown in his ceremonial dress, in St. Margaret's church, Westminster. The inscription records that he was bom at Breda in Brabant, and served with Henry VIII at Toumai. His concern and care for the poor is also recorded on the monument. He continued in the Guard during the reigns of Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I, dying in 1577 at the age of 93.(4)

Conclusion
Although the yeomen who feature in county pedigrees and memorials may be a small proportion of the hundreds whose names are known, they do provide evidence that a notable number were from families who were fairly wealthy and/or land-owners. This is confirmed by their wills and other legal documents. There were many others, however, who had little beyond their wages and whatever extra fees they could obtain through royal service. The names of those who received no grants and were not involved in legal cases are known chiefly from payments shown in the various royal accounts, from wardrobe warrants, or from lists of royal servants. But for these valuable records, their names would have remained unknown.

1. Stephenson, p.39; An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Buckinghamshire, i, Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) (1912), p.124; VCH Buckinghamshire, ii, p.280.
2. Ibid.
3. J. Pote, The History and Antiquities of Windsor Castle, and the Royal College, and Chapel of St. George (Eton, 1749), pp 406-7.
4. A. M. Burke, p.433.