514 Perrot v Perrocke

514 PERROT V PERROCKE

Thomas Perrot of the city of London, esq v Robert Perrocke of Moreton on Lugg, co. Hereford, gent, Herbert Perrocke of Gray's Inn, London, gent, and Francis Perrocke of All Hallows, London Wall, merchant

December 1639 - October 1640

Abstract

Perrot complained that he was the only issue male of Sir Owen Perrot, but that Robert, Herbert and Francis Perrocke had usurped his coat of arms and pretended that they were the next male heirs to Sir Owen Perrot. Francis Perrocke also said that he 'had better blood of the Perrots running in his veines then I Thomas had.' Perrot submitted his coat of arms with the libel, which were Gules three Peares Or on a chief Argent a demie Lyon rampant Sable armed and langued of the first upon a Helme On a wreath Argent and Gules A Parrot holding in her foote a Peare Or stalked and leaved Vert Mantled Gules doubled Argent. Perrot claimed to be the great grandson of Sir Owen Perrot, while the Perrockes based their claim on descent from John Perrot, an uncle or brother to Sir Owen, citing his coats of arms displayed on the family house in Moreton, Herefordshire. Herbert Perrocke also claimed to be a great grandson of Richard Bromwich, an esquire to Prince Arthur. Process was granted on 9 December 1639 and Perrot's witnesses were examined before a commission headed by John Blome, esq, on the 25 August 1640 in the town hall of Carmarthen. They included Henry Vaughan, esq, deputy lieutenant for Carmarthen, two elderly gentlemen and the widow of a knight, all of whom demonstrated a detailed knowledge of descents and relationships within the Perrot family. No indication of sentence survives.

Initial proceedings

2/86, Petition to Arundel

'Your petitioner is lineally descended from Sir Owen Perrot deceased, being sonne of Thomas Perrot of the Brooke in the county of Carmarthen, who was son to John Perrot the second sonne of Sir Owen Perrot. Your petitioner is the onely issue male now living of the house and family of Sir Owen Perrot. Robert Perrock, a clarke in the Exchequer, Harbert Perrocke, sonne of Robert and now a student in Graye's Inn, and Francis Perrocke, merchant of London, have assumed to themselves the name of Perrot and do give the coate of Sir Owen Perrot and his family without any distinction, and do everie where pretend themselves to be the next issue male of the bloud of Sir Owen Perrot and his family.'

Petitioned that the Perrockes be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process on 7 December 1639.

2/85, Plaintiff's bond

15 December 1639

Bound to appear 'in the Court in the painted Chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.

Signed by Thomas Perrott.

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

5/29, Defendant's bond of Herbert Perrocke

12 May 1640

Bound to 'appear in the suite within the painted chamber in the Palace of Westminster'

Signed Herbert Perrot.

Sealed signed and delivered in the presence of John Watson.

5/30, Defendant's bond of Francis Perrocke

12 May 1640

Bound to 'appear in the suite within the painted chamber in the Palace of Westminster'.

Signed Francis Perrot.

Sealed signed and delivered in the presence of John Watson.

Acta (5), fo. 81, Libel

1. Perrot's family had been gentry for up to 400 years.

2. Sir Owen Perrot of Haroldston, co. Pembroke, knt, had four sons, Robert, Thomas, Richard and John.

3. Robert Perrot, the eldest son of Sir Owen Perrot had no legitimate heirs.

4. Thomas Perrot, second son of Sir Owen Perrot, had a son, Sir John Perrot [rest faded]

5. Richard Perrot, third son of Sir Owen Perrot had an illegitimate son named Richard but no legitimate male heirs.

6. John Perrot, fourth son of Sir Owen Perrot, had a legitimate son, Thomas Perrot of Brooke, co. Carmarthen.

7. The plaintiff was the legitimate son of Thomas Perrot of Brooke, co. Carmarthen, gent, and so the male heir of Sir Owen Perrot.

8. Thomas Perrot's arms were 'Gules, three Peares Or, in chief Argent a demie lyon rampant sable armed and langued of the first upon our hohne [sic] On a wreath argent and Gules a Parrot proper holding in her foote a Peare Or, stalked and leaned vert [faded word] led Gules double argent .'

9. Robert Perrot, Herbert Perrot and Francis Perrot were not of the family of Sir Owen Perrot, but illegitimates.

10. Robert Perrot, Herbert Perrot and Francis Perrot had for up to 30 years last past in the cities of London and Westminster and elsewhere in the kingdom of England, falsely usurped the coat of arms of his family.

11. Robert Perrot, Herbert Perrot and Francis Perrot in the years 1635-40, in the cities of London and Westminster had wrongfully claimed to be of the family of Sir Owen Perrot.

12. Francis Perrocke had said that he 'had better blood of the Perrots running in his veines then I Thomas had'.

13. This was true, public and notorious.

No date, but 1640.

Signed by Arthur Duck and Richard Hart.

R.19, fo. 14r, Summary of libel

The defendants were charged with using the plaintiff's coat of arms, 'not being of the same family. He setts forth that Sir Owen Perrot of Haroldston, in com. Pembroke, *knight* had four sonnes onely, and soe setts forth his owne descent from them; and sayes that Robert, Herbert and Francis were not nor are descended of that family and c. vide, the Coate of Armes in proper colours annexed to the libel and the depositions of several witnesses and c.'

1640

No signature.

EM3167, Personal answer

1-7. There was nothing in these items in the libel 'saving that Sir Owen Perrott of Hardeston, Pembrokeshire menconed in the second proposition was discended of an antient and generose familie'; and that Robt there alsoe menconed was eldest sonne to Sir Owen and died without issue; and that Thomas Perrott menconed in the 2^nd proposition was second sonne to Sir Owen Perrott; and that Sir John Perrott mentioned in the 4^th was the son of Thos Perrott and Wm Perrot menconed in the 4^th, his naturall and lawfull sonnes, as was Sir John Perrott mentioned in the 4^th art; and that Sir Thomas Perrott died without issue male

8. No response, 'savinge they believe that the coate of armes in the proposition and schedule menconed and sett forth, soe blasoned as in the position did and doe belonge to Sir Owen Perrott in the proposition menconed and those of his familie'

10. No reply 'savinge that they believe that they and either of them have within the tyme and place in the proposition menconed often said and professed that the coate of armes menconed in the 8^th proposition doth belonge to them and their familie'

4 June 1640

Plaintiff's case

Acta (5), fo. 80, Letters commissory for the plaintiff

Addressed to commissioners John Blome, esq, William Nicholson, clerk, William Johns and William Hughes, clerks, and also, David Gwyn, gent, Thomas Davids, gent, Mark Kar, clerk and John Mathew, gent, from 25 to 27 August 1640 in the town hall of Carmarthen.

William Lewin assigned Evan Griffith as notary public.

Signed William Lewin.

Dated 3 July 1640.

Acta (5), fo. 78, Letters substitutional

Signed by Thomas Eden, the advocate for Herbert Perrott and Francis Perrott.

Dated 13 July 1640.

Acta (5), fo. 69, Defence interrogatories [damaged]

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. What was the witness's age, occupation and condition? Were did they live and where had they lived all their lives?

2. When and where were the words spoken? Specify upon what occasion and in what manner and who were present? What exact words passed before and after?

3. Did the witness know, believe or hear that Sir Owen Perrot had an uncle or brother whose name was John Perrot and whether that John Perrot was a predecessor in blood to Francis and Herbert Perrocke?

4. Did the witness know, believe or hear that the 'heires of diverse noble and generous families be lineally descended from John Perrott as namely the heires of the families of Letchett of Bylas, Hopwood of Milton, Berrington of Cowarne, Monington of Sarnesfield, Scudamore of Treworgan in Herefordshire [near Raglan, now Monmouthshire], the lord Temham [baron Teynham] of Kent, Southcott of Essex, Wells of Hampshire, Cassey of Cassey Compton [in the parish of Withington] in Gloucestershire, Wigmore of Lucton in Herefordshire'?

5. Did the witness know, believe or hear that a daughter of John Perrot was married to John Sebrond of Sutton in co. Hereford, esq, 'and that of the issue females of that marriadge all or some, et specificet which of the heires and now issue of the families in the next form Interr menconed be not lineally descended and soe commonly reputed'?

6. Did the witness know, believe or hear that John Perrot married one of the daughters and heirs of 'Thomas ap John, Lord of Winfarton brother sonne to Sir Rice ap Thomas of Newton in the County of Carmarthen one of the Knights of the Garter in the time of King Henry the seventh'?

7. Did the witness know a house in Morton co. Hereford where the arms of the crest in article 8 of the libel 'be deputed, wrought cutt or carved or painted upon the portall gate or Mantle tree windowes wenscott or some other eminent parte of the house? Have not the Armes, Crest or parte thereof been cutt or carved in such places or painted anciently or for very many years hath not the house been builded for the space of 200, 150, or more years? Had Richard Perrot, grandfather of Harbert lived there?

8. If the witness deposed to article 6 of the libel, they should be asked if they knew John Perrott, and for how long before his death? Where did John Perrot live, and in what years?What was his wife's name and whose daughter was she? When did John Perrot die and where was he buried'?

9. Did the witness know, believe or hear that Herbert Perrot '[hole in document] the possession of the manor of Harroldston and other lands and tenements in the com of Pembroke. Et Interr whether the said [hole in document] and tenements were formerly the manor lands and tenements of Sir James Perrott knight the sonne of Sir John Perrott named in [hole in document] Article of the libel'?

10. Whether Richard Perrot of Moreton upon Lug, co. Hereford, lived there 60, 50, 40 or 30 years? How many years did Richard Perrot live there before his death?

11. Had Richard Perrot married the daughter of Thomas Bromwich, esq, son to Richard Bromwich, an 'esquire of the body of Prince Arthur and descended of a very Ancient and generous family'? Were there many noble and gentry families descended from Ann Bromwich, sister to Thomas Bromwich, such as Christopher Crost Wigmore of Shobden, the Lord Scudamore of Homlacy Rudhall of Rudhall, Harley of Brampton in Herefordshire, Cornewall Barron of Burford, Nanfan of Worcestershire, Minors of Triago [Treago], Blunt of Eye, Berrington of Winsley, Barrow of Bullingham, Kyrle of Waford'?

12. Did he know Thomas Perrot named in article 6 of the libel? Did this Thomas live as a servant to one Doctor Jordan, Doctor of Physick or some other person in or near the city of Bristol?

13. When did this Thomas Perrot die and where was he buried? Was there a tomb escutcheon or arms set upon his grave in memorial to him?

14. '...that shall endevor to depose to the 7^th Article of the libel whether he the said witness doth know the producent Thomas Perrott to be the only or eldest sonne of the said Thomas Perrott of the Brooke in the said Article menconed and how doth he know the same.'

15. Did he know Robert Perrot of Moreton co. Hereford and for how long? Was this Robert Perrot 'knowne and commonly called and written by the name of Perott and by noe other surname and held and reputed to be a gentleman'?

16. Did this Robert Perrot 'live in the ranke and quality and fashion of a gentleman'?

17. 'Who was the mother of the partie agent, was she a gentlewoman, who was her father and of what profession was he, had shee not a former husband and of what profession was he'? Did the witness know Thomas Perrot the plaintiff, and for how long? Where and when was Thomas Perrot born? Where had he lived since, and in what estate, condition and profession?

18. 'What land of inheritance had Thomas Perrot deceased at Brooke or else where? What yearely value was the same reputed to be worth and in what yeare had Thomas deceased the said land'?

19. If the witness deposed on article 12 of the libel, they should be asked if Perrot had said that for what he knew Francis had as good blood in his veins as the plaintiff? Upon what occasion were these words uttered by Francis Perrot?At the time and place when Francis used any of the words in the libel did the witness Francis Perrot 'that Sir James Perrott was a bastard and that Francis Perrotts name was not Perrott'? Did the witness 'then and there give Francis some angry words and bid him go shite'?

20. Whether he was 'heretofore of Councell to Mr Francis Perrott his brother or his nephew and whether deed and writings hath been shewed him where Francis and his ancestors were written and termed by the name of Perrott and by noe other'?

21. Was the witness relative or indebted in any way obliged to the parties in this case and if so for what sum? To whom would they give the victory if it were within their power?

22. Speak the truth of what you know, believe or have heard.

No date.

No signatures.

Cur Mil 1631-1642, fos. 227v-229v, Plaintiff deposition

fos. 227v-229v (Witness 1), John Canon of Blackden [Blagdon or Blackdown], co. Somerset, gent, born at Haverfordwest, aged about 70

2 July 1640

To Perrot's libel:

1-2. He had known the plaintiff from his childhood 'and was intimately acquainted with Thomas Perrot', the plaintiff's father for 10 or 12 years before his death. The plaintiff's father was always reputed the natural and lawful son of John Perrot, reputedly the fourth son of Sir Owen Perrot, and he 'never heard the contrary'. He had heard credibly reported that Sir Owen had only four sons, Robert the eldest, Thomas the second, Richard the third and John the fourth. 'The family of the Perrots is reputed to be an ancient family of gentry'.

3. He never heard that Robert Perrot 'had ever any lawful issue of his body begotten.'

4. He knew well Sir John Perrot for 10 years before his death, during which time he 'was always reputed to be natural and lawful son of Thomas Perrot second son to Sir Owen.' He never heard that Sir John Perrot had a brother. Sir John's lawful sons were Sir Thomas Perrot, knt and William Perrot, while 'his reputed or bastard sons' were John Perrot and Sir James Perrot, knt. All died without male issue.

6. He well knew Thomas Perrot of the Brook, the only natural and lawful son of John Perrot, who was the fourth son of Sir Owen Perrot.

7. He had known the plaintiff from his childhood, who was reputed the only natural and lawful son of Thomas Perrot of the Brook and was the next heir male to Sir Owen Perrot 'and so reputed and taken by the family of the Perrotts and [Canon] for his parte hath never heard the contrarie'.

8. 'He hath seen the servants of Sir Thomas Perrot and Sir John Perrot we[a]re on their sleeves a parrat as the badge or crest of the armes belonging to Sir Thomas Perrot and Sir John Perrot.'

9. 'He never heard that Herbert Perrot, Robert Perrot or Francis Perrot or either of them were descended of the family of Sir Owen Perrot.'

Acta (5), fos. 72-76, Plaintiff's depositions

Taken before commissioners John Blome, esq, David Gwyn, gent, William Nicholson, clerk, Thomas Davids and John Mathew gents on the 25 August 1640 in the town hall of Carmarthen, with Evan Griffith as notary public.

fos. 72r-v (Witness 2), Thomas Palmer of Llansadurnell, co. Carmarthen, gent, aged 76

To Perrot's libel:

1. 'He verily believeth and hath credibly heard that Thomas Perrott... was and is descended of an ancient and generous family soe as his ancestors were.'

2-6. He had heard it reported by his father over 50 years ago that Sir Owen Perrott of Haroldston co. Pembroke, knt, had two legitimate sons, Thomas Perrott and John Perrott. He had heard that this John Perrrott lived at the Brook in the parish of Llansadurnell, co. Carmarthen, and that his legitimate son was Thomas Perrott of the Brook, and that his legitimate son was Thomas Perrott, the plaintiff, who 'was and is soe commonly reputed and taken to be and the nearest in kindred now living, descended lawfully out of the stocke and family of Sir Owen Perrott knt.'

Signed by Thomas Palmer and by the above five commissioners.

To the Perrockes' interrogatories:

1. He lived upon his own estate and was born at Llansadurnell 'where he hath from his infancy for the most parte lived and now liveth.'

8. He had credibly heard that John Perrott was the lawful son of Sir Owen Perrott and that this John Perrott lived sometimes at Brook, co. Carmarthen, where he died and was buried in the parish church of Llansadurnell.

9. Sir James Perrott 'was in his life time and at the time of his death possessed of the manor of Haroldston'.

14. He was very persuaded that Thomas Perrott 'was and is the sole lawful and onely sonne of Thomas Perrott, deceased, late of the Brook in the parish of Llansadurnell, co. Carmarthen, and soe accompted'.

15-17. He had known Thomas Perrot for about the last 20 years.

21. He 'beleeveth that he is of kindred a farr' of Thomas Perrot.

Signed by Thomas Palmer and by the above five commissioners.

fos. 73r-74v (Witness 3), Henry Vaughan of Oppido Burgo [The town], co. Carmarthen, esq, born at Bristol, aged 57

To Perrot's libel:

1. He had known Thomas Perrot for 37 years 'or thereabouts', and that Perrot was 'knowne, reputed and taken to be a gentleman descended of an ancient and generous family.'

2. He had credibly heard that Sir Owen Perrott of Haroldston, co. Pembroke, knt, had four legitimate sons. His belief in this was 'induced by the sight of ancient pedigrees.'

4. Sir Owen's son Thomas, fathered Sir John Perrot 'as is deposed by pedigrees', but he did not know if Thomas was Sir Owen's second son or not, even though he did inherit the lands. Sir James Perrot was the illegitimate son of Sir John Perrot 'and dyed without issue lawfully begotten as he verily believeth.'

6. Thomas Perrot of the Brook 'was and is (as it is commonly reputed and taken) the lawfull sonne of John Perrot lawfull sonne of Sir Owen Perrott knt deceased before named.'

7. He had known Thomas Perrot of the Brook for about 40 years, and that the Thomas Perrot involved in this cause 'was and is for these xxxvii years last past ever reputed and taken to be the lawfull sonne of Thomas Perrott now deceased', and that he was 'the sole and next of kindred of the masculine line now living, descended of the stocke and family of Sir Owen Perrot.'

9. He 'verily believeth that Robert Perrott, Herbert Perrott and Francis Perrott were not, nor are not, lawfully descended of the family or stocke of Sir Owen Perrott.'

Signed by Henry Vaughan and by the above five commissioners.

To the Perrockes' interrogatories:

1. He was the son of Walter Vaughan of Golden Grove co. Carmarthen, esq. He was one of the deputy lieutenants of the county living at Derwith [Derwydd]. He had lived there for about 32 years.

9. He had heard that the manor of Haroldston co. Pembroke 'lately possessed occupied and enjoyed by Sir James Perrott deceased' was now in the possession of Mr Herbert Perrott.

14. He had seen Thomas Perrott 'at divers and sundry times in the company of Thomas Perrott of the Brooke, deceased, his father'. This Thomas was acknowledged by his father 'to be his onely and sole sonne'. This Thomas Perrott 'was placed in the Innes of Court by Sir James Perrott'.

17. He was born at Bristol and he had known the party for about 37 years and sometimes the party lived in one of the Inns of Court, and since lived about London as a gentleman.

18. He had heard that Thomas Perrott of the Brook deceased possessed an estate valued at £20 per annum at the Brook and he knew of 'no other lands in the possession of the said deceased.'

Signed Henry Vaughan

Signed by Henry Vaughan and by the above five commissioners.

fos. 75r-76r (Witness 4), Dorothy Mansell of Llanfihangel Abercywyn, co. Carmarthen, aged about 50

To Perrot's libel:

1. She had heard that Thomas Perrott and his ancestors 'time out of mind were and are reputed accompted and commonly taken to be gentlemen discended of an ancient and generous family.'

2-6. She had credibly heard, and it was commonly reputed, that Thomas Perrott was the lawful son of Thomas Perrott of the Brook, co. Carmarthen in article 6. She had likewise heard that Thomas Perrott of the Brook, deceased, mentioned in article 4 'with Thoms Perrott last menconed was (as it is likewise commonly accompted) the lawfull sonne of Sir Owen Perrott of Haroldston in the county of Pembroke, kt deceased'. She said 'that by the common report of the countrey Thomas Perrott was and is the lawfull heire and next of kindred of the masculine line now living, lawfully descended out of the stocke and family of Sir Owen Perrott, deceased'. She 'being thereunto induced more particularly by the relation of her mother being the real and lawfull daughter of Jane Perrott the lawfull sister of Sir John Perrott of Haroldston, knight, deceased' as she had 'heard it likewise commonly accompted reputed and taken'. 'For such a one her kinsman, descended as is predeposed, her mother ever held, reputed and tooke Thomas Perrott to be... it was generally reported that he was the next of bloud to be the right and lawfull heire of Sir John Perrott, and that she very well remembreth the same to be true for that she hath known Thomas Perrott in his infancy at school in Haverfordwest with her brothers, and after he came to man's estate came to visit her after her intermarriage with her late husband deceased'. She had heard 'that the three peares and the Perrott for the crest were the coate of armes of Sir Owen Perrott deceased and of his heires lawfully descended.'

Signed by Dorothee Mansell and by commissioners Nicholson, Mathias, Davids and Blome.

To the Perrockes' interrogatories:

1. 'She was a lady, late wife of Sir Francis Mauncell of Mudleskoone [Muddlescwm, near Cydweli, co. Carmarthen], bart, and daughter of Alban Stepney, late of Prendergast, co. Pembroke, esq, deceased.'

8. She had heard that John Perrott mentioned in article 6 of the libel lived at the Brook.

14. It was commonly reported that Thomas Perrott was the eldest son of Thomas Perrott of the Brook. She believed that she was of kindred to the plaintiff.

Signed by Dorothee Mansell and by commissioners Nicholson, Mathias, Davids and Blome.

fo.76v (Witness 5), James Perrott of Moorton, co. Hereford, gent, aged 19

To Perrot's libel:

10. His father, Mr Robert Perrott, 'in his coate of armes as belonging properly unto him paynted, cutt a ingreaven three peares and half lyon and a parrot for the crest, but whether the same armes be the armes menconed in the 8^th article of the libel properly belonging unto Thomas Perrott or to his ancestors or family he knoweth not.'

Signed by James Perrott and by commissioners Blome, Nicholson and Davids.

Acta (5), fos. 70-71, Notary public's certificate

Certificate in Latin signed by Evan Griffith, notary public that the below examinations had been completed and were now being returned.

Dated 27 August 1640.

Notary's mark.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck and Dr Hart acted as counsel for Perrot, and Dr Eden and Dr Ryves for the Perrockes. On 10 October 1640 the court sent to the commissioners for the examinations of the plaintiff's witnesses.

Notes

G.D. Squibb (ed.), Reports of Heraldic Cases in the Court of Chivalry, 1623-1732 (London, 1956), pp. 44-6.

Robert Perrot of Moreton on Lugg, co. Hereford, married Fortun, daughter of Richard Tompkins of Monnington on Wye, co. Hereford, esq.

M. P. Siddons (ed.), The Visitation of Herefordshire, 1634 (Publications of the Harleian Society, news series, 15, 2002), p. 107.

Several of the Perrots appeared in the Visitation of London of 1633-5.

J. Jackson Howard (ed.), The Visitation of London, 1633, 1634 and, 1635, vol. II (Publications of the Harleian Society, 17, 1883), pp. 155-6.

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Petition to Arundel: 2/86 (7 Dec 1639)
  • Plaintiff's bond: 2/85 (15 Dec 1639)
  • Defendant's bond of Herbert Perrocke: 5/29 (12 May 1640)
  • Defendant's bond of Francis Perrocke: 5/30 (12 May 1640)
  • Libel: Acta (5), fo. 81 (1640)
  • Summary of libel: R.19, fo. 14r (1640)
  • Defence: EM3167 (4 Jun 1640)
• Plaintiff's case
  • Letters commissory for the plaintiff: Acta (5), fo. 80 (3 Jul 1640)
  • Letters substitutional: Acta (5), fo. 78 (13 Jul 1640)
  • Defence interrogatories: Acta (5), fo. 69 (no date)
  • Plaintiff deposition: Cur. Mil 1631-42, fos. 227-9 (3 Jul 1640)
  • Plaintiff depositions: Acta (5), fos. 72-76 (25 Aug 1640)
  • Notary public's certificate: Acta (5), fos. 70-71 (27 Aug 1640)
• Proceedings
  • Proceedings: 1/11, fos. 56r-64v (10 Oct 1640)

People mentioned in the case

• ap John, Thomas, Baron Winfarton
• ap Thomas, Rice, knight
• Barrow
• Berrington
• Blome, John, esq (also Bloome)
• Blunt
• Bromwich, Ann
• Bromwich, Richard, esq
• Canon, John, gent (also Cannon)
• Cassey, Mr
• Cornwall, Gilbert, knight and baron Burford
• Crost, Christopher
• Davids, Thomas, gent
• Duck, Arthur, lawyer
• Eden, Thomas, lawyer
• Griffith, Evan, notary public
• Gwyn, David, gent
• Harley
• Hart, Richard, lawyer
• Hopwood
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
• Hughes, William, clerk
• Johns, William, clerk
• Jordan, Dr, lawyer
• Kar, Mark, clerk
• Kyrle
• Letchett
• Lewin, William, lawyer
• Mansell, Dorothy (also Mauncell)
• Mansell, Francis, knight (also Mauncell)
• Matthew, John, gent
• Minors
• Monington
• Nanfan
• Nicholson, William, clerk
• Palmer, Thomas, gent
• Perrocke, Francis, merchant (also Perrock)
• Perrocke, Herbert, gent (also Perrock)
• Perrocke, Robert, gent (also Perrock)
• Perrot, James, gent (also Perrott)
• Perrot, James, knight (also Perrott)
• Perrot, Jane (also Perrott)
• Perrot, John, knight (also Perrott)
• Perrot, Richard (also Perrott)
• Perrot, Robert (also Perrott)
• Perrot, Thomas (also Perrott)
• Perrot, Owen, knight (also Perrott)
• Perrot, Thomas, esq (also Perrott)
• Ryves, Thomas, lawyer
• Scudamore
• Sebrand, John, esq
• Southcott
• Stepney, Alban, esq
• Stepney, Dorothy
• Tompkins, Fortun
• Tompkins, Richard, esq
• Tudor, Arthur, Prince of Wales
• Tudor, Henry VII, king
• Vaughan, Henry, esq
• Watson, John
• Wells
• Wigmore

Places mentioned in the case

• Carmarthenshire
  • Brook
  • Derwydd
  • Golden Grove
  • Llanfihangel Abercywyn
  • Llansadurnell
  • Muddlescwm (near Cydweli)
  • Newton
  • Oppido Burgo [The town]
• Essex
• Gloucestershire
  • Cassey Compton
  • Withington
• Herefordshire
  • Brampton Bryan
  • Eye
  • Holme Lacy
  • Little Cowarne
  • Lower Bullingham
  • Lucton
  • Monnington on Wye
  • Moreton on Lugg
  • Sarnesfield
  • Shobdon
  • Sutton St Nicholas
  • Treago
  • Winsley
• Kent
• London
  • All Hallows, London Wall
  • Gray's Inn
• Middlesex
  • Westminster
• Monmouthshire
  • Treworgan
• Pembrokeshire
  • Haroldston
  • Haverfordwest
  • Prendergast
• Somerset
  • Blackden (Blagdon or Blackdown)
• Wales
• Worcestershire

Topics of the case

• allegation of illegitimacy
• coat of arms
• comparison
• custom
• deputy lieutenant
• false claim to gentility
• inns of court
• office-holding
• physician
• scatological insult