211 Fleetwood v Tynckler

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '211 Fleetwood v Tynckler', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/211-fleetwood-tynckler [accessed 29 November 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '211 Fleetwood v Tynckler', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed November 29, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/211-fleetwood-tynckler.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "211 Fleetwood v Tynckler". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 29 November 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/211-fleetwood-tynckler.

In this section

211 FLEETWOOD V TYNCKLER

Edmund Fleetwood of Rossall, co. Lancaster, gent v James Tynckler of Thornton, co. Lancaster, yeoman

July 1640

Abstract

Fleetwood complained thatbefore several people,Tynckler called him 'a base fellow, an idle fellow, a base conditioned fellow, and a base gentleman thereby as much as in him lay provoking your petitioner to duell.' Robert Bamber of Preston entered bond to prosecute the cause on behalf of Fleetwood on 2 July 1640; but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

5/114, Petition

'Your petitioner is son and heir apparent to Sir Paul Fleetwood, knt; and that about three months since one James Tinckler of Thornton in the county of Lancaster, yeoman, before divers good and sufficient witnesses uttered many reproachfull and scandalous words to the great disgrace and disparagement of your petitioner, telling him he was a base fellow, an idle fellow, a base conditioned fellow and a base gentleman thereby as much as in him lay provoking your petitioner to duell.'

Petitioned that Tinckler be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process, no date.

5/113, Plaintiff's bond

2 July 1640

That he was to 'appear in the Court military in the Painted Chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.

Robert Bamber of Preston, co. Lancaster, yeoman, was acting on behalf of Edward Fleetwood.

Signed by Robert Bamber.

Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of John Dynham.

Notes

Edmund Fleetwood of Rossall, co. Lancaster (d. c.1644), was the eldest son of Sir Paul Fleetwood of Rossall, co. Lancaster, knt (d.1657) and Jane, daughter of Richard Argall of co. Kent. Edmund married Everill, daughter of Thomas Heber of Marton, co. York, but they had no male issue.

F. R. Raines (ed.), The Visitation of the County Palatine of Lancaster made in the year 1664-5 (Chetham Society, 85, 1872), p. 111.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition: 5/114 (no date)
    • Plaintiff's bond: 5/113 (2 Jul 1640)

People mentioned in the case

  • Argall, Jane
  • Argall, Richard
  • Bamber, Robert, yeoman
  • Dynham, John
  • Fleetwood, Edmund, gent
  • Fleetwood, Jane
  • Fleetwood, Paul, knight
  • Heber, Everill
  • Heber, Thomas, esq
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Tynckler, James, yeoman (also Tinckler)

Places mentioned in the case

  • Lancashire
    • Preston
    • Rossall
    • Thornton
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • York, West Riding
    • Marton

Topics of the case

  • denial of gentility
  • provocative of a duel
PreviousTable of contentsNext