Rogers family of Bryanston

This is a draft — it may contain errors or be unclear.

Since discovering a link between the Lovell family of Eling and Sir Henry Rogers of Bryanston, I've been trying to piece together the Roger / Rogers family of Bryanston in the 15th century.

Sir Henry Rogers and his parents

The will of Sir Henry Rogers, dated 14 Dec 1506 and proved at Lambeth the same old-style calendar year, mentions "Annes soule and all the soules of her progenie". It doesn't say who Anne was, but it must surely have been his mother. Bequeaths go to sons James "if he proved to be a doctore to help him at that art", Thomas, Richard, and John "myn eldest son". He is to be buried at Bryanston.

His mother Anne married John Touchet, 6th Lord Audley, and her will, dated 11 Nov 1497, mentions "the soules of John late Lord Audeley late my husband, James late Lord Audeley my sonne, and John Rogers late also my husbande." Bequeaths go to her son Henry Rogers and "my sonne John Audeley if he come to have the kinges grace". She is to buried in the Lady Chapel, under the tower of the monastery of St Saviours, Bermondsey. Bryanston is mentioned when its parish church is bequeathed a blue damask cope. Probate was granted at Lambeth on 4 June 1498 to Henry Rogers, who was her main beneficiary and executor. The close rolls for 1498 record "the manor and advowson of Debden, and of the manor of Merscourte by Stokbrigge" in Hampshire, and "the manors and advowsons of Sperkford and Kylve" in Somerset passing from "Anne Audeley widow, late wife of John Rogers esquire" to "Henry Rogers her son" upon Anne's death.

The marriage of John Roger to Anne Echyngham is documented in letters patent from 1451, which talks of "John Roger, son and heir of John Roger of Brianeston" and "the said John Roger of Brianeston and Anne his wife, daughter of Thomas Echyngham, knight". The letters grant the manors of Bryanston and Sutton Waldron to Anne, with remainder to the heirs of her and John. That the grant is only to Anne seems consistent with John being dead, even though it doesn't say so explicitly. This doesn't absolutely prove that the Anne who died in 1497–98 is the daughter of Sir Thomas Echingham. Just possibly there were John Rogers each of whom married a woman called Anne. But even though John and Anne were both common names, it hardly seems likely, and all the secondary sources I've consulted are in agreement that Anne Echyngham and Lady Anne Audley are the same person. Similarly, most sources agree that Anne's first husband, John Rogers died in 1450, and there's an inquisition post mortem from 1449–50 mentioning property in Somerset, Dorset and Hampshire. I've not seen the IPM itself, just the short description in the calendar. It seems likely to be him except that it the calendar describes him as "Joh'es Roger senior", an odd description for someone believed only to have a single son who was called Henry.

Anne Echyngham must have been born in the 1420s or early 1430s. Any later and she couldn't have had a child with John Rogers before his death in 1450. Much earlier and she would be too close in age to her father, Sir Thomas, who was born in 1400-1 and couldn't have married Margaret Knyvet until Margaret's second husband, Sir Thomas Marney, died in 1420–21. John couldn't have been born later than the early 1430s for the same reason as Anne, but we cannot eliminate the possibility that he was significantly older.

John Roger of Bridport

The 1451 letters patent name John Rogers's father (and therefore Sir Henry's grandfather) as John too, and it's hard not to identify him with the John Roger of Bryanston who died in 1441, and who had been member of Parliament for Bridport and later Dorset.

Leo van de Pas's Genealogics website identifies the wife of John FitzRoger (grandfather of Sir Henry) as Agnes, which is the name given in History of Parliament or John Roger's wife. This goes some way to confirming that the secondary sources are talking about the same individual.

Hist. Parl. says John Roger was constable of Bridport 1393-4, which suggest he wasn't born much after 1370. It also says that John Roger's daughter Alice married Thomas Lovell before 1410. That's also consistent with John being born no later than about 1370, and Alice no later than about 1390. Unfortunately, although I've looked up most of the sources quoted by Hist. Parl., I cannot locate a contemporary sources saying that Thomas Lovell's wife Alice is John Roger's son. A interesting paper by P. S. Lewis on a lawsuit between Thomas and Alice's daughters and Sir John Fastolf over a possible entail on the manor of Titchwell, Norfolk cites letters patent from 1410 as evidence that Alice was John's son. This is also one of the sources cited by Hist. Parl., however those letters patent do not explicitly say this to be the case. They are simply a record of John enfeoffing Thomas and Alice with the manor and advowson of Bryanston, Dorset.

There is contemporary evidence that John Roger of Bridport's eldest son was also named John. The close roll shows the eldest son being given property in or near Bridport, suggesting he was an adult in 1426/7 and therefore born before about 1410. However if Alice is John's sister and was born no later than about 1390, it's tempting to put his birth in the 1380s or 90s too. Further support for this comes from the Lewis's paper which talks of Sir John Fastolf in 1449 sending a friend to seek out "old John Roger" in Bryanston to enquire about the family of Alice's father-in-law, Sir Thomas Lovell . Although I have not managed to establish on what authority Lewis describes John Roger as old, presumably some source justifies it. It seems unlikely he would be called old unless he were at least aged 50. Lewis speculates that this John Roger might be Alice's brother, which seems plausible and would make him aged about 60.

However if this "old John Roger" was the same John Rogers who married Anne Echingham there is a big age difference between husband who was likely born in the 1380s or 90s, and wife who likely born in the 1420s. A 30 year age gap is not impossible, but if so it seems unlikely that Anne would have been his first wife. Perhaps he married in the 1420s perhaps to a woman with whom he was unable to have children, and only after she died in the 1440s was he able to marry Anne Echingham who was many years his junior. The other obvious possibility is that there is a generation missing and the John Rogers who married Anne was in fact the grandson of John Roger who sat in parliament, and that the "old John Roger" from the Fastolf case was the intervening generation.

Multiple John Rogers

Either hypothesis calls for another marriage of a John Roger, and an obvious candidate is found in a letter of attorney dated 26 Feb 7 Hen VI (1429) by "John Roger the younger, son of John Roger of Bryaneston, and by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of John Shotesbroke" concerning the manor of Benham Valence. However this John Roger of Benham seems to have still been living in 1467, and was succeeded by a son, Thomas, so clearly he wasn't the John Roger[s] who died in 1450. Nor does this fit the missing generation hypothesis. If John of Benham were the missing generation, we would need to explain how his putative son (the John who married Anne Echingham and died in 1450) ended up in possession of Bryanston during his father's lifetime, despite it being the main seat of the family.

As Hist. Parl. says John Roger the MP had two sons called John, this provides a more plausible explanation for John of Benham's identity. Probably he was the younger of these two sons, and that in catalogue entry for the letter of attorney, "John Roger the younger, son of John Roger of Bryaneston" should have been parsed as "John Roger, the younger son of John Roger of Bryaneston."

A deed dated 8 Dec 12 Hen VI (1433) refers to the grant of the manor of Benham Valance, Berks by "John Roger, of Benham co. Berks, and Elizabeth his wife" to a cestui que trust including a "John Roger of Mapuldurham" with remainder to remainder to "John Roger of Braneston [sic]". "Braneston" is clearly Bryanston as evidence by another deed dated 23 Dec 13 Henry VII (1497) when the last co-enfeofee died, and John of Bryanston is presumably the MP.

John of Mapledurham is probably the older brother of John of Benham Valence, and the elder son of John the MP. This is supported by the close rolls which show a grant to "John Rogger of Bryanston co. Dorset, John Rogger his elder son," and others of various properties in Hampshire including the manors of "Mapulderham, Henton Bourhounte, Henton Markaunt, Depeden Hangre and Depeden Polayn". This confirms that Mapledurham was in the hands of this family, and particularly associated with the oldest son; the 1433 deed indicates that John of Benham is a different person to John of Mapeldurham, and that John of Benham is a son of the MP. The obvious conclusion is that John of Mapledurham is the elder son and John of Benham the younger son. It may be that the MP's will contains something to confirm this. In particular, it would be helpful if it contained an unambiguous statement that the MP really did have two sons called John.