FLORE, Thomas (d.1483), of Oakham, Rutland.

Successful careerists often demonstrated a greater inclination to make generous provision for their younger sons than did the heads of longer-established families. The career of our MP illustrates how such provision could undermine the social position of families newly-arrived among those of local consequence. Even before his father drew up the will that was to divide the rewards of a successful career among a large brood, Thomas’s prospects had been damaged by the settlement Roger had made in favour of his second wife, Cecily. By a fine levied in 1412 the manors of Whitwell and Little Hambleton, purchased by Roger from Sir Thomas Burton*, were settled on the couple in tail male, with remainder to Roger’s heirs male. CP25(1)/192/8/11. Unfortunately for Thomas this union was to be blessed with male issue and he was thus threatened with the loss of two of his father’s most significant acquisitions. It was in this context that the terms of his father’s will of April 1424 with its codicil of October 1425 were so very unwelcome to him. Fifty Earliest English Wills (EETS, lxxxviii), 55-64. Roger’s two Lincolnshire manors at Stainby and Braceby were to remain in his widow’s hands for her life, and then only Stainby was to pass to Thomas. The manor of Braceby was reserved for Thomas’s half-brother, James, who was to hold it in tail rather than simply for life. During his mother’s life, James was to have an annuity of £5 from Roger’s purchased lands at Leesthorpe, Leics. The eldest half-brother, Robert, was to have some specified purchased land in Oakham and Martinsthorpe, although only for the life of his mother since on her death he would inherit the manors entailed to him by the fine of 1412. Thomas’s full brothers also benefited: Roger was to have lands in Bratoft in Lindsey and John lands in nearby Halton Holegate, both in tail. In 1431 John Flore had lands in Bratoft and Halton worth 106s. but by 1474 these lands were in Thomas’s hands: Feudal Aids, iii. 351; CCR, 1476-85, no. 435. Although it is difficult to quantify the extent of his father’s lands, it would be surprising if the lands settled away from Thomas did not amount to more than half of them.

Flore had cause to feel that he had been treated unfavourably or even unfairly. He may, therefore, have viewed with unamused irony the words of his father’s will: ‘no man merueil thogh I do well to him [Thomas], for when almyghty god list to take me oute of this wreched world to his mercy, than shall he be left faderles and moderles, grauntfaderles and grauntmoderles’. Fifty Earliest English Wills, 56-57. This statement appears immediately after a lengthy list of plate and household goods that were to pass to the heir, and it may be that the testator believed he was, at least in part, compensating Thomas for his loss of lands by bequeathing him a greater than customary share of his moveable wealth. More specutatively, it is possible that a widely-known breakdown of relations between father and heir lie behind this statement, and Roger is here explaining why he was prepared to leave the greater part of moveable goods to Thomas despite this breakdown.

Not surprisingly, the will’s complicated provisions led to litigation, especially because the testator made them provisional on his widow not remarrying. If she did so, she was to lose her life interest in the manor of Stainby, which was to pass instead to her eldest son, Robert, for her lifetime with remainder to Thomas. Her remarriage shortly after her husband’s death, to William Carvell, a Northamptonshire esquire, He was the widower of Elizabeth (d.1425), wid. of William, Lord Zouche (d.1415): CP, xii (2), 944. gave Thomas the opportunity to recoup some of his losses. He brought an action in Chancery against his father’s feoffees, headed by William Baxter, warden of the hospital of Oakham, for their alleged failure to make the settlements laid down in that document. He claimed that, as a result of his stepmother’s remarriage, those lands in Oakham and Martinsthorpe, which Robert was to have held for her lifetime if she remained single, should now be settled on him at once, for Robert would be compensated with an estate in the manor of Stainby. C1/7/108. The feoffees were in a difficult position for, at the same time, they were facing a counter-suit from Cecily and her new husband, who asserted that the feoffees, under the terms of the will, should have made estate of these lands, in tail, to William Flore, one of Roger’s son’s by Cecily and in her wardship. Her eldest son was one of the pledges for the prosecution of this petition: C1/7/109. This was a clear misrepresentation of the terms of the will’s codicil, which provided that William was to have estate in Oakham and Martinsthorpe only in the event of Robert becoming a priest. Not only had Robert not entered the Church but his mother’s remarriage had extinguished his interest in these lands. In these circumstances it is likely that the Chancery litigation resulted in the disputed property passing to Thomas.

Fortune was to favour Flore in another way. All three of his half-brothers, Robert, James and William, died without issue, and hence the bulk of his father’s lands were eventually reunited in his hands. On the other hand, Robert’s survival until the mid 1450s, Robert was named to a gaol delivery comm. in Feb. 1454 and does not appear in the records thereafter: C66/478, m. 14d. and that of Cecily beyond that date, kept him out of valuable property for a significant part of his career, and, even after their deaths, he had to wait to recover all. Indeed, Robert’s death led to a new dispute. He declared in his last will that his father’s feoffees should allow his wife, Elizabeth, to take the issues of the manor of Stainby for his mother’s life and dispose them in works of alms. According to a Chancery petition, presented by Elizabeth and her second husband, Henry Gymber‡, our MP sought to frustrate this wish. They claimed that he conspired with William Syward, Baxter’s successor as warden of Oakham hospital, who had the keeping of Roger’s charters, to keep from them knowledge of the feoffees’names. Nor was Stainby the only property from which his sister-in-law believed herself to have been wrongfully excluded: in Trinity term 1460 she recovered against Thomas in the court of common pleas her dower in the manor of Little Hambleton and lands in Whitwell. C1/16/124; CP40/798, rot. 149. The basis of this common-law action is unclear: since Cecily survived Robert and had a life interest in this property under the fine of 1412, the latter may never have had seisin.

Another drain on Flore’s resources was a lengthy dispute with a Leicestershire esquire, Thomas Astley* of Astley, over a manor in Leesthorpe, purchased by his father from John Burgeys of Melton Mowbray. In 1445 Astley, either asserting a claim as rival purchaser or on a more ancient title, demanded damages of £500 against Flore, whom he accused of fabricating false deeds in respect of the manor. He then sued an assize of novel disseisin, winning damages and costs of 160 marks at the Leicestershire assizes of February 1453, but it availed him little. Our MP immediately sued a writ of error and in Trinity term 1455 the verdict was overturned and the property was restored to him. CCR, 1422-9, pp. 47-48; VCH Leics. v. 278; KB27/742, rot. 123; 743, rot. 24; 773, rot. 23; 785, rot. 77. By then he was also defending his title to the manor against Burgeys’s heir, William Burgeys, but this challenge also appears to have been overcome. KB27/781, rot. 72; 783, rot. 35d.

The difficulties Flore faced in securing his inheritance did not prevent him playing a leading role in the administration of his native county. A period of nearly 30 years on the county bench (although, despite his legal training, he was not of the quorum), together with a remarkable six terms as sheriff, marked a level of local administrative service that few gentry could match. He was also assiduous in his attendance of the county’s parliamentary elections. C219/14/1, 4-5; 15/1, 4, 6; 16/1-2, 6; 17/1, 3. Yet, in other respects, his career was a disappointment. Despite his father’s record of service to the duchy of Lancaster, he never became the recipient of even the smallest crumb of royal patronage. Nor does he appear to have established any close links with the local nobility. Indeed, early in his career he seems to have been on uneasy terms with John Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, who sued him for hunting in his park at Cold Overton near Oakham in June 1431. CP40/684, rot. 322. More friendly were his relations with Ralph, Lord Cromwell,for whom he acted as a mainpernor in Chancery in March 1446 while sitting as an MP. Later, in February 1449, Richard, duke of York, appointed him as one of his attorneys to deliver seisin of the manor of Hambledon in Rutland to Cromwell’s feoffees, and it is likely that he was acting here as the purchaser’s agent. Yet there is nothing to suggest that his relationship with Cromwell was close. He was not, for example, among the many feoffees nominated by that lord in 1454. CFR, xviii. 25; KB27/752, rot.32d.

There is no indication that Flore played any part in the civil war of 1459-61 but later, for reasons about which we can only speculate, he supported the Readeption government. Along with other serving sheriffs, he was confirmed in office on 9 Oct. 1470, immediately after Edward IV had fled to the continent, and he may have remained sheriff long enough to conduct the Rutland election to the Parliament which met under the restored Henry VI. He was also appointed to the only commission of the peace issued for his native county during the brief restoration. None of this is inconsistent with mere passive support for the new regime, but the commission issued in July 1471, shortly after Edward IV’s victorious return, for his arrest to appear before the royal council, implies that his support had been active. CFR, xx. 269; CPR, 1467-77, p. 286. His omission from the first enrolled commission of the peace after the Yorkist restoration lends further weight to this view. He was, however, named to the array commission of March 1472 and it is probable that his lack of administrative action during the 1470s is to be explained as much by advanced age as continued disfavour.

Flore made his will on 22 Nov. 1482. In contrast with the remarkable will made by his father, it is a brief and uninstructive document. He wanted to be buried in the parish church of Oakham and left a series of charitable bequests, most notably a generous ten marks for distribution to the poor at his obit. His eldest son, Richard, was to have what was clearly a valued family possession, namely a maser called ‘le Yele’: it was to remain in the keeping of his widow until Richard came of age and then be delivered to him only on his promise to honour all the bequests made to her and his brothers. If he would not do so then the maser was to be held by his brother Roger for life and then to descend to his right heirs. Thomas named his wife as his executrix and John Morton, bishop of Ely, as supervisor. Northampton Archdeaconry, prob. reg. 1, f. 33v.

Flore’s death seems to have been long anticipated before it occurred. Several writs of diem clausit extremum in respect of his lands in Rutland, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire were issued between 31 Jan. and 28 Sept. 1483, but all were premature.

The antiquarian record of a now-lost brass to his memory in the church of Oakham dates his death to the following 8 Dec. CFR, xxi. 666-7, 719, 737, 743; J. Wright, Rutland, 100. A suit in the court of common pleas in Hilary term 1485 shows that his widow, Agnes, had by then married the wealthy serjeant-at-law, Thomas Kebell†. If she was the same Agnes to whom Flore was married in 1455, she was beyond child-bearing years and hence cannot have been, as has been claimed, the mother of Kebell’s heir. Leics. Village Notes ed. Farnham, iv. 335; E.W. Ives, Common Lawyers: Thomas Kebell, 368. The only evidence to identify Agnes as Walter Kebell’s mother is the inq. post mortem on the death of his father, which claims that he was ‘14 and more’in 1502, but he must have been older: CIPM Hen. VII, ii. 497. At least three of Flore’s male descendants sat in Parliament. HP Biogs. ed. Wedgwood and Holt, 339; The Commons 1558-1603, ii. 141-2.