BOLEYN, Geoffrey (d.1463), of London and Blickling, Norf.

Originally a country family of little significance, the Boleyns would within less than a century of Geoffrey’s appearance in the Commons rise to the very pinnacle of English society, when the former MP’s great-grand-daughter Anne married King Henry VIII. Geoffrey’s father and namesake hailed from Salle in the north-east of Norfolk where members of the family had lived since the late thrteenth century, and where Thomas, Geoffrey’s putative grandfather, was buried in 1411. According to Leland, Boleyn himself was born at Thornage near Walsingham, as one of at least eight siblings. One of his brothers, another Thomas, rose to academic prominence, serving as master of Gonville Hall in Cambridge from 1454 until his death in 1472. W.L. Parsons, ‘Notes on Boleyn Fam.’, Norf. Archaeology, xxv. 386-408; J. Leland, Itin. ed. Toulmin Smith, ii. 10-11; N. Pevsner, Buildings of Eng.: NE Norf. and Norwich, 307-9; Alumni Cantabrigiensis ed. Venn and Venn, i. 174; C1/32/31, 272.

While several members of the Boleyn family sought their fortune in Norwich during the first half of the fifteenth century, Geoffrey came to London where, on 23 June 1428, he was admitted to the freedom. Blomefield’s suggestion that he did so with the assistance of Sir John Fastolf is not supported by any contemporary evidence, despite the close links which existed subsequently between the two men. F. Blomefield, Norf. vi. 386. In keeping with his modest origins, Boleyn joined the ranks of the city’s hatters, a relatively minor craft which in this period was perhaps best known for its frequent disputes with London’s cappers. His prospects for advancement in the city were therefore limited, and it may have been with this in mind that he soon came to establish close links with the Mercers’ Company, and in 1429 he appears to have been admitted as some sort of ‘honorary’ member. Over the next few years, while still officially a hatter, Boleyn seems to have been establishing himself as a dealer in mercery wares, for on 1 Feb. 1436 he came before the mayor and aldermen to argue that since he had ‘long used and was now using the art of mercery’ he should be permitted to translate his freedom to the Mercers. His petition was granted after he obtained the support of prominent members of the Mercers’ Company, including Robert Large* and John Sturgeon*, and his membership was confirmed when he paid £5 13s. 4d. in order to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a liveryman. Mercers’ Co. Biog. Index Cards; Sutton, 289; Cal. Letter Bk. London, I, 176-7; K, 201. Boleyn was now a member of one of the most important of the London livery companies, an essential precursor to success as a merchant and to becoming a prominent member of the city’s ruling elite. Over the course of his career in London Geoffrey served first as one of the wardens of the company, and a decade later as its master. It was while he was serving as warden that the administration of the almshouse founded by Richard Whittington† was taken over by the Company. A copy of the ordinances of the almshouse was drawn up, and a dedicatory verse was appended at the end:

Expliciunt Statuta Domus Elemosine

Go litel boke go litel tregedie

The lowly submitting to al correccion

Of theym beyng maistres now of the mercery

Olney Feldyng Boleyne and of Burton

Hertily theym besekyng with humble salutacion

The to accepte and this to take in gre

For ever to be a servant with In yeire cominalte. J. Imray, Charity of Richard Whittington, 121.

Despite this there is some evidence that Boleyn was not as active within the Company as some of his contemporaries; he was amerced on no fewer than seven occasions between 1437 and 1446 for failing to attend meetings of the Mercers’ court. Likewise, although he served both as warden and master a man of his undoubted standing in London might have been expected to have held office more frequently. Mercers’ Co. Biog. Index Cards. On the other hand it is clear that Boleyn maintained good relations with a number of his fellow mercers. In February 1443, for instance, he was among those who entered into a bond with the chamberlain in respect of the legacies of Robert Large. Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 279. In the meantime, however, Boleyn wasted no time in establishing his business, in which he was assisted by a large number of apprentices whom he enrolled from 1436 onwards. Indeed, in 1442-3 alone he took on seven apprentices. His business dealings were extensive, and he clearly amassed a good deal of wealth during his career. Few references to him survive in the customs accounts of the period, although those that do indicate that Boleyn was typical of members of his craft in the commodities he dealt in. Thus, he was active as an exporter of cloth: on 17 June 1438 two vessels left the port of London bound for the continent, each containing consignments of cloth shipped by Boleyn and fellow mercers Geoffrey Feldyng*, William Melreth* and Henry Frowyk I*. Using the proceeds of cloth sales in northern Europe Boleyn imported a range of mercery goods, including linen cloth and hemp which he brought into the port of Southampton. E122/77/3, mm. 10-10d; 209/1. Other evidence illustrates his dealings in luxury wares: in 1440 he purchased 36 Luccese cloths of gold and eight lengths of brocade from Bertuccio Contarini at a cost of £81 12s. 4d., as well as a share in seven barrels of green ginger at a price of £93 1s. and various quantities of paper from Carlo Contarini and other Venetians. The Italians in return bought from Boleyn and Stephen Brown* cloth for the huge sum of £981. H. Bradley, Views of Hosts of Alien Merchants, 38, 94, 95, 98. There are also indications that he was a merchant of the staple, although in contrast to the dealings in wool of some of his contemporaries, Boleyn may have preferred to allow his factors and agents to take the chief role in the export trade. His identification as a merchant of the staple is suggested in a Chancery suit: C1/26/272. What can be said is that in London he built up a network of business associates, most of them mercers. In December 1443, along with Feldyng, Sturgeon and John Harowe*, he was among the recipients of a ‘gift’ of goods and chattels made by another mercer, probably as security for goods supplied on credit or for a loan they had advanced to him. Over the next few years Boleyn was a recipient of a number of similar gifts, and it was in March 1447 that Thomas Burgoyne*, his trusted friend, feoffee and future executor, first acted alongside him in one such transaction. CCR, 1441-7, pp. 200, 476; 1454-61, pp. 199, 219; 1461-8, p. 79; Cal. P. and M. London, 1437-57, pp. 173, 175, 180; 1458-82, p. 158.

A partial explanation for Boleyn’s absence from the customs accounts may be a preference for using intermediaries to import and export goods on his behalf, and for buying goods in London from alien merchants. Thus, in January 1462 Boleyn came before the mayor and alderman to affirm a plaint of debt against a Genoese merchant, Marco Spinola, in respect of £700 which he had paid for goods that had not been delivered. Spinola refused to appear when summoned and at Boleyn’s request the door of his house was sealed so that 322 bales of woad stored there could be used, if necessary, to pay back part of the debt. The woad was estimated to be worth a total of just under £425. Cal. P. and M. London, 1458-82, p. 30. Boleyn’s earlier dealings with alien merchants had occurred at a time when the granting of credit to aliens had been outlawed by statute. Despite this, many merchants continued to do so, albeit more discreetly. In such a climate rumours abounded as to which merchants were guilty of this practice and in November 1445 Boleyn protested to the Crown that ‘divers persons daily publish of malice that English merchants sell merchandise to alien merchants without prompt payment in hand’. Having evidently suffered at the hands of such rumour-mongers, he was granted a royal pardon. CPR, 1441-46, p. 400. More than a decade later, however, in the summer of 1459 a particularly vigorous investigation into the granting of credit was launched by the Crown, possibly as part of efforts to intimidate some of London’s merchants into remaining loyal to the King. Boleyn was among a number of Londoners who were accused, and it was alleged in his case that on 30 July 1454 in the parish of St. Mary Wolnoth in London he had sold 22 bales of pepper weighing 15,000 lbs, and worth almost £900, to an alien merchant without requiring payment in hand. In the event he appears to have escaped sanction after pleading a pardon that he had obtained in February 1458. E159/235, recorda Trin. rot. 42; C67/42, m. 16; P. Nightingale, Med. Mercantile Community, 469. There seems little doubt that Boleyn, like his fellow accused, had infringed the statute on more than one occasion; indeed, it has been suggested that he used his substantial capital in the manner of a merchant banker. The difference was that prior to 1459 the Crown had not been particularly interested in enforcing it. Sutton, 233-4.

The nature of Boleyn’s own relationship with the Crown is difficult to assess. There is good evidence that he was regarded favourably in government circles. In March 1442 he obtained an exemption from holding offices and from service on juries, and three years later the King intervened on his behalf when he tried to persuade the common council in London to grant him a similar exemption. The matter was considered first on 20 Aug. but when it was heard again on 17 Sept. a decision could not be taken as so many councilmen were out of the city. His petition was finally discussed a week later, although the common council was in some doubt about whether it could be heard unless Boleyn agreed to abide by the judgement of three lawyers. Their quibbles were overcome, however, for the same day it was announced that, at the special instance of the King, Boleyn was discharged from holding office. CPR, 1441-6, pp. 65-66; Corp. London RO, jnl. 4, ff. 90v, 95, 97v; Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 308. Yet unlike some of his fellow Londoners, Boleyn only appears to have lent money to the Crown on one occasion: in February 1451, letters patent were issued authorizing the repayment of the sum of £1,246 13s. 4d. which had been advanced to the King by a consortium of London merchants of which he was a member. The loan was intended to fund a military expedition to Gascony led by Lord Rivers, and was to be repaid early the next year out of the revenues of a clerical tenth. CPR, 1446-52, pp. 472, 573.At some point during the 1450s, however, he seems to have forged a connexion with the duke of York and his circle, perhaps as a consequence of his activities in Norfolk. In August 1458 he was one of three Londoners who were appointed as feoffees of holdings in the city by William Oldhall*, York’s trusted retainer; and three years later, in the aftermath of the Lancastrians’ defeat at the battle of Towton Boleyn received yet another exemption from office-holding which specifically referred to his ‘good service’ to the new King Edward IV’s father. CPR, 1461-7, p. 42.

By this date Boleyn had expended considerable effort, as well as money, in building up his estates in Norfolk and elsewhere. Indeed, his principal occupation from the 1440s onwards appears to have been the acquisition of property, and by the time of his death those of his estates that were assessed for the purposes of his inquisitions post mortem were very conservatively said to be worth a total of £132 p.a., almost all of which came from holdings that he acquired during his lifetime. C140/10/21; E149/212/5, 236/3. His marriage to Anne, daughter and eventual coheir of Thomas Hoo, created Lord Hoo and Hastings in 1445, was of immense importance in establishing the Boleyn family as landowners of some consequence in their native Norfolk, and thereby paving the way for successful acquisitions elsewhere. The match took place at some date before 1448, although there is no particular reason to suppose that it occurred before 1445 when, following his second marriage, Hoo entailed the bulk of his family’s estates in the male line. It seems likely that the marriage of his only daughter by his first wife prompted him to try and compensate her and Boleyn for the apparent loss of the main Hoo estates. The solution, almost certainly worked out by Hoo’s half-brother, the lawyer Thomas II*, was to induce John Lewknor*, his younger kinsman, and his wife Joan, the heiress of Sir Hugh Halsham (d.1442), to transfer seisin in six manors in Norfolk (Holkham, Stiffkey, West Lexham, Little Carbrooke, Poswick and Filby) which she had inherited to a group of feoffees who were to hold them to the use of the Boleyns. This duly occurred in the summer of 1448 when the Lewknors conveyed the estates to a body which included Sir Ralph Butler, later Lord Sudeley, three of Lewknor’s brothers, and their kinsmen James Fiennes*, Lord Saye and Sele, Sir Roger Fiennes* and the Hoo half-brothers. Wilts. Feet of Fines (Wilts. Rec. Soc. xli), no. 587. Thus at a stroke Boleyn had acquired six Norfolk manors, holdings which were collectively worth at least the £42 p.a. suggested by the inquisition post mortem held in 1463. The first step towards settling the manors on Boleyn himself was taken in March 1455 when Butler and his fellows granted Stiffkey to his brother Thomas Boleyn, his sister Cecily, and other new trustees. It was not, however, until the spring of 1462 that Thomas Hoo II formally gave up his interest in the remaining manors, when he and the other surviving feoffees-to-uses conveyed them to Boleyn’s own trustees, a group which was headed by the chancellor George Neville, bishop of Exeter. CCR, 1461-8, pp. 207, 384; Blomefield, ii. 333; vii. 249-50; ix. 232; x. 1-3; C140/10/21; CPR, 1452-61, pp. 215-16.

Lord Hoo died in February 1455, leaving behind him substantial debts, and his death set in motion disputes over his inheritance which were to last for more than 30 years. Anne Boleyn was one of four daughters and coheirs, the others coming from Hoo’s second marriage, and it was not long before some of the Hoo estates finally came her way. The property to be acquired by the Boleyns was the manor of Codyng, as well as land at Bixley in Sussex, holdings which were conveyed to Geoffrey and his brother Thomas in April 1455 by Thomas Hoo II and his co-feoffees, although Boleyn seems to have disposed of them before his death. CAD, i. C240; ii. C2709. More permanent was the transfer of the Sussex manor of Pashley to Boleyn in early 1463. Once again, this had previously been held by John and Joan Lewknor, who shortly before had conveyed the manor to trustees. Following Boleyn’s death it was estimated to be worth £6 13s. 4d. p.a. A survey of the estates pertaining to William, Lord Hastings, in the rape of Hastings carried out in 1469 showed that it was then held by Boleyn’s son, Thomas, by the service of two knights’ fees. VCH Suss. ix. 255; SC11/658; C140/10/21; Suss. Feet of Fines (Suss. Rec. Soc. xxiii), 271. There are also indications that the Boleyns acquired an interest in the Hoo estates in Bedfordshire. A release of the manor of Hooberne near Luton made in 1475 referred to an earlier demise made by Boleyn, while it is likely that his wife Anne retained a share, along with her half-sisters, in the substantial manor of Luton Hoo. CCR, 1468-76, no. 1517; VCH Beds. ii. 355. Evidently relations between the Boleyns and Thomas Hoo deteriorated after Geoffrey’s death: the four coheiresses petitioned Chancery on several occasions in an attempt to gain possession of other manors in Sussex. For one of these petitions, submitted in the late 1460s, the pledges in Chancery were the two Thomas Boleyns. Procs. Chancery Eliz. ed. Caley and Bayley, ii. pp. li-liii.

The ties forged through Boleyn’s marriage were also a factor in his subsequent acquisition of property in Kent, mostly from William Fiennes, Lord Saye and Sele, a relative of the Hoos. The purchase of the manor of Kemsing and Sele, with other property there as well as the advowson of Kemsing church was completed in the autumn of 1460 when Fiennes acknowledged receipt of £66 13s. 4d. in full payment of the purchase price of 1,000 marks. CCR, 1461-8, p. 133. Early the next year Boleyn also purchased the manors of Hever Cobham and Hever Brokays, as well as lands and tenements in Hever and Chiddingtone, and these were conveyed to him and his usual feoffees in February. This meant that Hever castle was now in the hands of the Boleyn family, although it was Geoffrey’s younger son, and eventual heir, Sir William, who made the castle his main residence. Despite the importance of these estates they were only said to be worth some £10 p.a. in 1463, almost certainly a mere fraction of their true value. CAD, i. C137; ii. C1784.

For the time being, however, the Boleyns’ main residence outside London continued to be in Norfolk where, despite having acquired the former Halsham manors, Geoffrey was on the lookout for a more substantial property. In 1452 he purchased the manor of Blickling from Sir John Fastolf, the arrangements for which were reported to John Paston* by his mother Agnes:

Also, my Lady Hastynges told me that Heydon hath spoke to Geffrey Boleyn of London, and is a-greid wytht hym that he shuld bargeyn wyth Ser John Fastolff to bye the maner of Blyklyng as it were for hym-selff, and if Boleyn byet in trowght Heydon shal have it. Paston Letters, ed. Davis, i. 246-7.

The sale went ahead, although any understanding between Boleyn and John Heydon* appears to have come to nothing as the manor remained in the hands of the Boleyns for several generations. Nevertheless Heydon, as he had done in connexion with some of the Halsham manors, agreed to act as a feoffee, and the good relations between the two men led eventually to the marriage of Boleyn’s daughter, Anne, to the former’s son, Sir Henry. Blickling had been in Fastolf’s possession since 1431 when he bought it for the large sum of £1,674, but by the time of the sale to Boleyn it was worth some £300 less, principally because of depredations incurred during Fastolf’s disputes with John Heydon and Philip Wentworth*. Any thoughts of getting the manor cheaply were dashed, however, when Fastolf made it a condition of the sale that Boleyn should pay him an annuity of £60 p.a. for life, presumably in an attempt to claw back the lost value. At the time Fastolf was ill and it was perhaps understandable that Boleyn gambled that Fastolf would die well before the £300 could be recouped. In this he was to prove sadly mistaken, and shortly after Fastolf’s death he complained in a letter to Paston: ‘My Maister Fastolf, hoose sowle God asoyle, whan I bowth of hym the maner of Blyclyng, consyderyng the gret payment that I payed therfor, and the yerly annuyte duryng his lyfe after his entent, was to me gret charge.’ A.R. Smith, ‘Sir John Fastolf’ (Oxf. Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1982), 7, 32, 164-5; Paston Letters, ii. 224-5. His unhappiness was understandable, for although the manor itself yielded a substantial income of £65 p.a., this sum was almost wiped out by the annuity which he paid to Fastolf until the latter’s death in 1459. Smith, 32. Having acquired Blickling, however, Boleyn soon came to regard it as his principal residence. There, according to Leland, he built ‘a fair house of brike’ and enlarged the parish church with a new chapel, dedicated to St. Thomas, in which his sister Cecily and two of his daughters were subsequently buried. Leland, 10-11; Pevsner, 94-96; Blomefield, iv. 34.

It was also rumoured that Boleyn had bought the manor of Hellesdon from Fastolf: the supposed sale was reported in 1454 by Agnes Paston, her informant on this occasion being John Dam* who ‘told me as he herd seyn sere John Fastolf hath sold Heylesdon to Boleyn of London’. Paston Letters, i. 38-39. The rumour proved to be false, but there is no doubt that like several of his fellow Norfolk landowners Boleyn saw the death of the knight as an opportunity to increase his own holdings in the county. His letter to Paston in December 1460 also contained the claim that Fastolf ‘in his place at Southwerk by his othe made on his primer’ had promised him first refusal on the manor of Guton. The purpose of the letter was to ask Paston, as one of Fastolf’s executors, to ‘schew me your goode wyll and favour’ concerning the property, but in this he was to be disappointed. Ibid. ii. 224-5; C.F. Richmond, Paston Fam.: Fastolf’s Will, 28n. His plans to further his family’s interests in Norfolk may also have encouraged him to seek a marriage between one of his daughters and Thomas Fastolf†, whose disputed wardship was then in the hands of his kinsman, Sir John. In November 1454 it was reported to Paston that ‘Jeffrey Boleyn maketh gret labour for maryage of the seyd child to on of hese douterez’. Paston Letters, i. 106; Richmond, Paston Fam.: First Phase, 241. These efforts were in vain, although other dealings in the county were more successful. One of his acquisitions was the manor of Milberton which he held with his feoffees Thomas Boleyn, Burgoyne, John Wenlock*, Lord Wenlock, Ralph Verney* and others. This was worth some 20 marks p.a. at the time of his death. He also purchased the manor of ‘Hook Hall’ in Calthorp from two daughters and heirs of Roger Harsyk, while from September 1459 he and his brother enjoyed the income from the manor of Boroughalle at Holkham, the keeping of which was granted to them by the Crown. C140/10/21; Norf. RO, Norwich city recs., case 1/19B; CFR, xix. 251.

In London Boleyn’s holdings were centred on two parishes: in St. Mary Aldermary he held four messuages, while another seven messuages were located in Milk Street and Laddle Lane in St. Lawrence Jewry. In addition he also acquired a tenement with an entrance porch next to Guildhall yard which was known as Le Warehous, and which he and his feoffees were granted in January 1463 by John Pemberton* and others. His holdings in St. Mary’s parish, in particular, seem to have led to his involvement in disputes. In December 1451 an assize of nuisance was held to determine the ownership of a stone wall running north from Turbaston Lane to one of Boleyn’s properties, part of which was claimed by one Margaret Fitzrobert. He subsequently became embroiled in a dispute with a fellow mercer, William Redeknappe, whose demolition of a wall and a chimney caused him to take the matter to the court of aldermen. Elsewhere Boleyn also owned a shop in West Cheap next to Broad Seld, acquired from the executors of William Melreth in the late 1440s, and another in the parish of St. Michael Wood Street. These holdings were estimated, very conservatively, to be worth £20 p.a. in 1463, and to add to this revenue Boleyn had, at some point before 1462, been granted a rent of £16 p.a. from a large property belonging to Newark priory which lay on the corner of St. Lawrence’s Lane and Cheapside. C140/10/21; Historical Gazetteer Cheapside ed. Keene and Harding, nos. 23B (s), 35, 145/9B; Corp. London RO, hr 192/23; Cal. P. and M. London, 1437-57, p. 127; Cal. Letter Bk. London, L, 19.

As someone who relied heavily upon a close-knit group of trustees, Boleyn was himself frequently employed in London and elsewhere as a feoffee of holdings acquired by others. In the capital he acted for a variety of people, most of whom were moderately wealthy individuals who were looking to Boleyn and other prominent Londoners to safeguard their interests. London hr 171/5, 177/8, 17, 178/14, 180/21, 182/9, 184/5, 185/2, 187/3, 187/38, 188/2, 189/17, 192/11, 193/6. Outside London from the late 1440s onwards he and fellow Londoner Stephen Forster* acted on behalf of Richard Quatermayns* in connexion with manors in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. In Huntingdonshire he and Burgoyne appear to have acted for John Lok† in respect of the manor of Abbotsley, formerly held by William, Viscount Beaumont, who had been attainted in 1461. CCR, 1454-61, p. 268; 1461-8, p. 143; CPR, 1461-7, p. 94; VCH Hunts. ii. 246.

Boleyn’s career as a member of London’s government got underway comparatively late, a consequence apparently of the reluctance to become involved in affairs in the capital which had led him to obtain exemptions from office-holding from both the Crown and the city. As a result it was not until March 1445 that he served on one of the many committees that were appointed by the court of common council, with this particular one charged with levying a subsidy for the city’s defences. Jnl. 4, f. 63v. Despite this, and the exemption he secured later that year, he was persuaded in September 1446 to put himself forward as a candidate for the shrievalty and was duly elected by the common council. This taste of civic office did not immediately encourage him to seek to gain further experience, however, for little more is heard of him in a civic context until January 1449 when he was elected as an MP for the first and only time. His fellow Members included the lawyer Thomas Billing*, another of the men who periodically acted as one of his feoffees. Jnl. 5, f. 4v. His appearance at this assembly appears to have helped to overcome his notable reticence when it came to involving himself in affairs in London. Possibly this was also connected with the fact that the transfer of the estates of the Halsham heiress, Joan Lewknor, in Norfolk had recently been completed. With his income from land satisfactorily augmented, on 10 July 1450 Boleyn allowed his name to go forward for the vacant aldermanry of Lime Street. He was unsuccessful, but later that month was appointed by the city as one of the collectors of a loan which was to be raised for the King, and in the autumn he attested the election of the city’s MPs. Failure clearly did not sit well with Boleyn, however, for in the summer of 1451 he was a candidate for no fewer than three wards which elected their aldermen on 14 and 16 July. Once again he was rejected, with the aldermen voting by ten to four in favour of William Dere for Dowgate Ward. Ibid. ff. 40, 43, 60; Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 339.

Boleyn was finally elected as an alderman in July 1452, securing 11 votes from the aldermen compared with the five given to the other candidate for the ward of Castle Baynard. This naturally marked a dramatic change in the level of his involvement in London’s government as he was now required to attend meetings of the court of aldermen and was under far greater pressure to serve on committees. Between 1452 and 1455 he was appointed to several city committees, although his attendance record at the court of aldermen suggests that his outside interests may have continued to intrude. He was present at fewer than half of the mayoral elections held between 1452 and 1462, and of those he did attend one was his own election and the other was as the sitting mayor. Jnl. 5, ff. 78v, 86v, 87, 103v, 134v, 185v, 250v; Cal. Letter Bks. London, K, L, passim. He first attempted to become mayor himself in October 1455 when the grocer William Marowe* was the preferred candidate. In the autumn of 1457 Boleyn tried again and this time he was elected. His mayoralty was not without incident, for less than six weeks after his election he managed to transfer his aldermanry to the ward of Bassishaw, an unusual occurrence for a sitting mayor. The aim in his case may have been to secure an aldermanry closer to his residences in St. Lawrence Jewry and St. Mary Aldermary. It was also during his term in office that London saw the arrival of sizeable contingents of retainers belonging to the Yorkist lords and to their opponents in advance of Henry VI’s naïve attempt to bring the parties together at a meeting of the council. Strenuous efforts were made by Boleyn and his sheriffs to keep the forces apart: a round-the-clock watch was ordered on the city’s gates, and some 5,000 men were raised in order to patrol London’s streets. It may have been partly in connexion with this that Boleyn obtained a royal pardon on 20 Feb. 1458. Later that summer as mayor he headed a royal commission, later countermanded by the Lords, which was appointed to search the houses of Genoese merchants in the capital. Jnl. 6, f. 184v; R.A. Griffiths, Hen. VI, 805-6; C67/42, m. 16. On 25 Oct., shortly after relinquishing the mayoralty, both Boleyn and his wife Anne received another royal grant exempting them, as well as their servants, farmers and tenants, from serving on juries or from holding office. CPR, 1452-61, p. 468. He continued to attend meetings of the court of aldermen, however, and early in 1460 was a member of a deputation sent to the King at Northampton, probably to put the city’s case against raising an army to oppose the Yorkist earls whose invasion was imminent. After the Yorkist victory at Northampton in July he was one of those deputed to negotiate with members of the common council about a loan of 500 marks for the earl of Salisbury. Jnl. 6, ff. 196v, 227, 254.

Boleyn made his will on 14 June 1463 in which he asked for burial either in the chapel of St. John in St. Lawrence Jewry or else, if he were to die in Norfolk, in the chapel of St. Thomas at Blickling ‘which I in tyme passed did do make in the north side of the chauncell there’. He left bequests to both churches, including £100 for a new rood loft in St. Lawrence’s. A chantry priest was to celebrate for his soul for 20 years in either Norfolk or London, depending upon where he was buried, and was to be funded out of 200 marks set aside for that purpose. Boleyn was very specific about the calibre of priest who was to be appointed, and made it clear that he should be at least a master of arts and preferably a bachelor of scholastics or divinity. Allowance was also made for any teaching which the priest might undertake at Oxford or Cambridge, and when doing so he was only required to celebrate Mass quarterly as long as he also preached a sermon for Boleyn’s soul. The chantry was also to benefit the souls of Boleyn’s parents and his first wife. Following his funeral Boleyn specified that there should be no ‘grete feste made but a dyner to my wife and to my brother Maister Thomas and to myn executours and suche other frends and neghborghis’. When it came to his other cash bequests, which together amounted to more than £5,000, he left his widow Anne 2,000 marks, half of his plate and all her ornaments, clothes and jewelry, as well as household goods. All Geoffrey’s own personal ornaments and jewels were to be sold to buy clothing and bedding for the poor. To his two sons, Thomas and William, he left 400 marks each, while his three daughters, Anne, Isabel and Alice were left 1,000 marks each for their marriages. At the time of his death all Boleyn’s children were aged under 25, and their patrimonies were in the meantime to be committed to the custody of five of his servants and former apprentices. These men, as well as other employees, each received a cash bequest of their own. His charitable bequests were spread widely over London’s hospitals, prisons, leper hospitals and the mendicant orders, each institution receiving an annual payment of up to £3 for five years. Another £200 was allocated for the poor of the parishes of Blickling, Holkham, Stiffkey and Mulberton in Norfolk, and Kemsing and Sele in Kent. As his executors Boleyn appointed his old friends Burgoyne, Verney and Richard Needham*, as well as the Exchequer official Hugh atte Fenne*. His brother Thomas Boleyn was chosen to oversee the will. Each man was to receive the sum of £30. Boleyn died on 17 June and the will was proved on 2 July. PCC 1 Godyn (PROB11/5, ff. 3v-6).

Shortly afterwards writs were sent to the escheators in Kent, London, Norfolk and Sussex ordering inquisitions to be held into Boleyn’s lands in those counties. The returns, made in November that year, reported that Thomas Boleyn was his son and heir and was then aged at least 18. Over the next four years, in fulfillment of Boleyn’s will, bonds were entered into before the chamberlain of London in respect of each of the cash bequests which he had made to his children. C140/10/21; Cal. Letter Bk. London, L, 54, 62-63, 72. Thomas, however, died in 1471 leaving his younger brother William as Boleyn’s heir. At this stage the fortunes of the young Boleyn children continued to be the responsibility of Anne and her late husband’s executors, but in March 1473, having reached the age of 25, William came before the chamberlain and acknowledged satisfaction for his patrimony. In the meantime arrangements had been made for the marriages of Boleyn’s daughters, for on the same day John Fortescue† appeared to do the same in respect of the inheritance of Alice Boleyn, whom he had recently married. Cal. Letter Bk. London, L, 110. The other two daughters also married well: Anne to Sir Henry Heydon, and Isabel to William, son and heir of Sir John Cheyne II*. After his mother’s death in 1485 William Boleyn continued to press his claim as an heir to the Hoo estates, and manors in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire came his way the following year after the death of Thomas Hoo II. He also made further purchases in Norfolk including the impressive ‘Dragon House’ in King Street in Norwich. William subsequently married Margaret, daughter and coheiress of Thomas Butler, 7th earl of Ormond, was knighted in 1485, and died in 1505. His son and heir, Thomas, was created earl of Wiltshire by Henry VIII in the years before the King’s ill-fated marriage to Thomas’s daughter Anne in 1533. By this time the family’s main residence was at Hever castle in Kent, where the future queen spent her childhood. Parsons, 386-408; C141/6/23; Historical Gazetteer Cheapside, 145/9B; Genealogist, new ser. xxii. 185; CIPM Hen. VII, i. 322.