Anglo-French Relations The Cloak of Secrecy A personal voyage of detection



King Richard the Third's Secretary of State: A son of Jean de Foix, Earl of Kendal?

The Dean and Chapter of St Pauls were also neighbours of Charlton in Edmonton. (I also noted that on 25.3.1520 – William West, Groom of the Privy Chamber, was granted the quitrent of tenements called “le Croune” in Westchepe, parish of St. Mary Colchurch, London, forfeited by Sir Richard Charleton, attainted; and of the Keepership of the Castle or Manor, and of the Park of Clipstone in Sherwood Forest, Notts., and the pond called Clipstone Damme – Eltham.)

All the properties were referred to at the time as ‘Charlton’s Lands’ held of the King in free burgage. They included a number of tenements and messuages in south Holborn, Bowlane and waste land in Cuffyn (Coffin) Lane. There was further property around Cheapside, Saynt Lauren Lane, Whytecrosstrete, Wodestrete, Mylkestrete, Bucklersbury, etc. It was noted that John Charlton and Thomas Kendall, Humphrey Grey, and one or two others took the profits from 1485 up until 1510. So neither Kendalls nor Charltons were starving. We now have a name for at least one Kendall son, presumably the eldest.

I have to think that, as soon as Henry VIII had assumed the throne in 1509, he reviewed his father’s commitments and the following year reneged on those that were not in his interest. In 1504 Henry VII had reversed the attainder on John Charlton, son of Sir Richard Charlton. I could not find a similar reversal for Thomas Kendall. Was this cessation of property rights related perhaps to the fact that Edmund de la Pole was now secure in the Tower? On the other hand Henry may have provided fair alternative value to those who appear to have lost out!

Apart from whatever financial resources they may have had, the son(s) of John Kendall would have had a good education, possibly legally trained, with good commercial connections in the City, and excellent connections in France. The last was also a potential danger for them as were their relations to the de la Poles. For those who might want it, this was also potentially and possibly uniquely useful.

Tracking a line of continuity from this point was difficult and mere glimpses of possibly relevant Kendalls were available.

 
 

Comments

  1. Since King Richard’s will is of such importance these days in the debate about where he intended to be interred, do you have a source for your statement that he changed his will to appoint his nephew John de la Pole as his successor? Some people argue that we cannot know Richard’s intention in that regard since he left no will, while others are of the opinion that Richard, like other medieval men going to battle, certainly left a will, but that it was probably destroyed by Tudor’s men after Bosworth.

    1. Thank you for this. I do not have a primary source but secondary sources are many eg:
      William Toone’s The Chronological Historian (1828) Vol 1 p.110
      James Anderson’s A genealogical History of the House of Yvery (1742) Vol.1 p294
      The Works of Francis Bacon (edition 1854) Vol 1 p.739
      King Richard’s appointment of John de la Pole as his successor is what gave rise to the claims of the ‘White Rose’ please see Desmond Seward’s book of that title.

Add comment



5 + = 13


Please note that your comment will be reviewed and may be edited before being published.