Randolph Kymaston and Mary his wife administratrix of Thomas Wicherley v. Thomas Rogers, court of king’s bench, 1607

This negotiation involved a commitment by the groom’s father not to the son or the couple, but to the natural father of the bride. The suit is brought by that father’s wife, his administrator, after she re-married. The most likely reason for the payment to the bride’s natural father was that he could thus that money to benefit his daughter during and/or after her marriage, but we do not know the social situation in such detail. If that purpose was behind the marriage negotiation, then the social problem would then follow: although the natural father might be able to be depended upon to make provision for his daughter, would the man who, after the father’s death, married his widow be similarly inclined? One might imagine that the groom’s father decided rather to keep the money and provide for the couple himself. Although only conjecture, the conjecture is consonant with the known facts and certainly must have occurred socially at times in similar circumstances. The marriage took place about three weeks after the negotiation.

[the case Randolph Kymaston and Mary his wife v. Thomas Rogers now continues]

Shropshire. Memorandum that formerly, scilt., in Easter term last past, before the lord king at Westminster came Randolph Kymaston gentleman and Mary his wife administratrix of all and singular the goods and chattels, rights and credits that were of Thomas Wicherley late her husband, deceased, who died intestate, by John Lloyd their attorney. And they proffered here in the court of the said lord king then there their certain bill against Thomas Rogers in the custody of the marshal etc., concerning a plea of trespass on the case, and there are pledges, scilt., John Doo and Richard Roo, which certain bill follows in these words:

[there was a communication between Thomas Wicherley and Thomas Rogers about a marriage between Thomas Wicherley heir apparent of Thomas and Elizabeth the natural daughter of Thomas Rogers]

Shropshire. Randolph Kynaston gentleman and Mary his wife administratrix of all and singular the goods and chattels, rights and credits that were of Thomas Wicherley late her husband, deceased, who died intestate complain concerning Thomas Rogeres in the custody of the marshal of the marshalsea of the lord king being before the king himself for this viz., that, whereas on July 1 in the forty-second year of the reign of the Lady Elizabeth late queen of England at the town of Oswestry in the abovesaid county a certain communication was had between the abovesaid Thomas Wicherley during his life and the aforementioned Thomas Rogers for and concerning a certain marriage to be had and solemnized between a certain Thomas Wicherley son and heir apparent of the said Thomas Wicherley deceased and a certain Elizabeth Rogers natural daughter of the abovesaid Thomas Rogers,

[Thomas Rogers in consideration of the marriage promised to pay Thomas Wicherley the father 100 pounds after the marriage]

the abovesaid Thomas Rogers afterwards, scilt., on July 10 in the forty-second year abovesaid at the town of Oswestry abovesaid in the abovesaid county, in consideration that the abovesaid Thomas Wicherley would take as wife the abovesaid Elizabeth Rogers natural daughter of the said Thomas Rogers and espouse that Elizabeth according to the ecclesiastical rites and laws of the realm of England, undertook on himself and faithfully promised then and there the aforementioned Thomas Wicherley father that he the same Thomas Rogers would want to pay and content 100 pounds of the lawful money of England to the aforementioned Thomas Wicherley father whenever Thomas Rogers would be asked after the espousals between the aforementioned Thomas Wicherley son and the said Elizabeth Rogers should have been had and celebrated,

[Thomas Wicherley son married Elizabeth Rogers about three weeks later]

and the same Randolph and Mary in fact say that the abovesaid Thomas Wicherley son in the life of Thomas Wicherley father afterwards, scilt., on August 1 in the forty-second year abovesaid at the town of Oswestry abovesaid in the abovesaid county took as wife the abovesaid Elizabeth Rogers the natural daughter of the said Thomas Rogers and espoused that Elizabeth according to the ecclesiastical rites and laws of the realm of England then and there,

[but Thomas Rogers defaulted to the father, then to Mary as his administrator, and then to Randolph and Mary after they had married]

nevertheless the abovesaid Thomas Rogers, not at all caring for his promise and undertaking abovesaid but scheming and fraudulently intending to deceive and defraud the abovesaid Thomas Wicherley father in his life and the abovesaid Mary after the death of that Thomas Wicherley father while she was single as well as the abovesaid Randolph Kymaston and Mary after the espousals celebrated between them in this part, did not yet pay nor content the abovesaid 100 pounds to the aforementioned Thomas Wicherley father or to the aforementioned Mary after the death of the same Thomas Wicherley father while she was single, to which certain Mary the administration of all and singular [the goods] and chattels, rights and credits that were of the abovesaid Thomas Wicherley father at the time of his death was committed by Zacharias Babington doctor of laws, commissary general of the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield lawfully supported by the reverend in Christ father and lord, lord William bishop of the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield then ordinary of that place by his letters of that commissary after the death of the said Thomas Wicherley father, scilt., on 27 May 1601, at the town of Shrewsbury in the abovesaid county, or to the same Randolph and Mary or either of them in any way for the same up to the present,

          [despite requests, Thomas Rogers continue to refuse to pay, whereby Randolph and Mary are worse off]

and although to this the abovesaid Thomas Rogers by the abovesaid Thomas Wicherley father during his life, scilt., on September 20 in the forty-second year abovesaid at Oswestry abovesaid in the abovesaid county was requested and although also that Thomas Rogers after the death of the said Thomas Wicherley father, scilt., on March 20 in the third year of the said lord king now at the town of Oswestry abovesaid in the county abovesaid by the abovesaid Randolph and Mary after the espousals celebrated between them was similarly requested, whereby the same Randolph and Mary have totally lost all the benefit and profit and advantage that they could have had and gained with the 100 pounds by buying, selling, and contracted lawfully in divers ways with divers of the faithful subjects of the said lord king now if the abovesaid Thomas Rogers had held to and performed faithfully his abovesaid promise and undertaking made to the aforementioned Thomas Wicherley father in his life, and in default of the performance of that promise and undertaking in many ways they are injured and worse off, wherefore they say that they are worse off and have damages to the value of 160 pounds, and thereof they produce suit etc., and the same Randolph and Mary proffer here in court letters of administration that attest the commission of the abovesaid administration in the abovesaid form etc.

[Thomas Rogers denies the undertaking as alleged; issue is joined; the jury is summoned; no verdict is recorded]

And now at this day, scilt., on Friday next after the morrow of Holy Trinity this same term, until which day the abovesaid Thomas Rogers had licence to emparl to the abovesaid bill and then to answer etc., before the lord king at Westminster come both the abovesaid Randolph and Mary by their attorneys abovesaid and the abovesaid Thomas Rogers by George Lawley his attorney, and that Thomas Rogers defends force and injury when etc., and says that he did not undertake on himself in mode and form as the abovesaid Randolph and Mary above against him have counted, and of this he puts himself on the countryside. And the abovesaid Randolph and Mary similarly etc. Therefore let come thereof a jury before the said king at Westminster on the Saturday next after the quindene of Holy Trinity and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. The same day is given to the abovesaid parties there etc.