510 Pember v Phillippes

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

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

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '510 Pember v Phillippes', 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/510-pember-phillippes [accessed 27 November 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '510 Pember v Phillippes', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed November 27, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/510-pember-phillippes.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "510 Pember v Phillippes". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 27 November 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/510-pember-phillippes.

In this section

510 PEMBER V PHILLIPPES

Thomas Pember of Lyonshall, co. Hereford, gent v Francis Phillippes and John Ansell, both of Ludlow, co. Salop

November 1639

Abstract

Pember complained that Phillipps called him a 'base beggarly rascally knave' in the presence of several persons in Ludlow on 11 September 1639. Ansell then claimed he was as good a man as Pember, and that Pember's 'coate of armes came downe by the last carrier'. Pember entered bond to prosecute the cause on 19 November 1639, but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

2/145, Petition to Arundel

'The petitioner hath been much abused by one Francis Phillipps of Ludlowe in the county of Sallopp who, in the presence of divers persons, did about the 11th of September last at Ludlowe call the petitioner Base, beggarly, rascally knave and gave him many other provoking and abusive speeches. Also one John Ansell (partakeing with Phillips) did at the time and place give out many disparadgeing words against your petitioner, saying that Ansell was as good a man or better then your petitioner, and that the petitioner's coate of armes came downe by the last carrier, by all which the petitioner (being a gent) hath much suffered in his reputacon.'

Petitioned that Phillippes be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process on 19 November 1639.

2/127, Plaintiff's bond

19 November 1639

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

Signed by Thomas Pember.

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

Notes

For another report on the case, see G. D. Squibb, Reports of Heraldic Cases in the Court of Chivalry, 1623-1732 (London, 1956), p. 43.

A Francis Philips of Wistanstow was obliged to disclaim at the 1623 Visitation of Shropshire, while a Francis Philips was entered as the son of Philip Philips and Margery, daughter of John Ayleworth of co. Worcester.

G. Grazebrook and J. P. Rylands (eds.), The Visitation of Shropshire taken in the year 1623, vol. I (Publications of the Harleian Society, 28, 1889), p. 5; G. Grazebrook and J. P. Rylands (eds.), The Visitation of Shropshire taken in the year 1623, vol. I (Publications of the Harleian Society, 29, 1889), p. 398.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition: 2/145 (19 Nov 1639)
    • Plaintiff's bond: 2/127 (19 Nov 1639)

People mentioned in the case

  • Ansell, John
  • Ayleworth, John
  • Ayleworth, Margery
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Pember, Thomas, gent
  • Philips, Philip
  • Phillippes, Francis (also Philips)
  • Watson, John

Places mentioned in the case

  • Herefordshire
    • Lyonshall
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • Salop / Shropshire
    • Ludlow
    • Wistanstow
  • Worcestershire

Topics of the case

  • coat of arms
  • comparison
  • denial of gentility
PreviousTable of contentsNext