Hardegrave came from Stalbridge in Dorset, where members of his family had been living since at least the mid fourteenth century. Precisely when he inherited land there is not known, although in Edward IV’s reign he let out to farm some of his holdings in the locality, and he passed others on to his daughters.
Our MP’s friendship with John Roger I began before the spring of 1441 when he was enfeoffed of Roger’s manor of Freefolk and lands in Whitchurch, Hampshire, and four years later he assisted John in his acquisition of the manor of Church Speen in Berkshire. Such was their bond that on a later occasion he was himself called ‘of Church Speen’.
As a feoffee of the estates of John Roger the elder, who died in 1450, Hardegrave was formally associated with powerful figures about the royal court, such as the King’s chamberlain, Ralph, Lord Sudeley, his carver Sir William Beauchamp*, Lord St. Amand, and the up-and-coming James Butler, earl of Wiltshire,
Meanwhile, probably in the late 1450s, Hardegrave had married Christine, the daughter of Edmund Forster of Southampton, believing her to be Forster’s sole heir to the manor of Nursling and other properties in Hampshire. Yet he soon discovered that there was another claimant to these holdings; indeed, title to Forster’s estate was to remain in contention for over 50 years. In 1456 or 1457 a petition had been sent to the chancellor by Robert Marmyon of Thame in Oxfordshire, who claimed that back in 1434 an agreement had been made between Forster and the petitioner’s father Peter Marmyon that the latter should marry Forster’s only child, a daughter named Joan. Forster had enfeoffed John Roucle of the Isle of Wight of all his lands near Southampton (situated by the river Test at Nursling, Milbrook, Testwood and Totton), to the intent that Roucle would settle them on Forster for life with remainder to Joan and her issue. This was done, and the couple duly produced a son, the petitioner Robert, who was Joan’s heir when she died. But it was now rumoured that Forster, who had survived his daughter, had recently made alienations of the lands, effectively disinheriting his grandson. As Forster was ‘of gret age and vexed with gret sekenes’ (and thus unable to travel), Marmyon requested that a writ be directed to John William*, the mayor of Southampton, and others, to examine him and report their findings to the Chancery.
Yet Hardegrave’s tenure of his late father-in-law’s estate was by no means secure, and became even more vulnerable after Edward IV fled into exile and Henry VI regained his throne in the autumn of 1470. During the Readeption Peter Marmyon emerged as a person of some consequence in Oxfordshire and Berkshire, and taking advantage of Hardegrave’s absence (our MP may even have gone overseas in the royal entourage), he moved into the manor-house at Nursling. Depositions presented before the court of Star Chamber 20 years later held that on 11 May 1471 Hardegrave, fresh from the battle of Tewkesbury of a week earlier (where he had allegedly fought for King Edward), sent two of his servants to Nursling under orders to kill Marmyon, or at any event to extract from him his legal evidences relating to the property. Marmyon persuaded the servants to go away, but when the next morning Hardegrave arrived, intent on arresting him as a traitor, he fled, seeking sanctuary at Beaulieu abbey. Hardegrave, coming up with his men, took Marmyon back to the house, tied him up with a dog’s collar and chain and kept him prisoner in the hall. He sent a messenger to John Hammond†, the recorder of Winchester, who lived nearby, asking him to come to Nursling, where he found our MP threatening the captive with a drawn sword. Hardegrave informed Hammond that Marmyon was a traitor and had robbed him, and proclaimed that ‘were not for feare of God’ he would strike off his head. In desperation, Marmyon promised on oath to make a formal release to his captor of the manor together with all his lands in Hampshire. The release was sealed with the seal of the mayor of Winchester.
It may be that Hardegrave managed to retain peaceful possession of Nursling throughout the remainder of the 1470s. During that decade he continued to offer support to the family of his deceased friend John Roger I, and following the death of John’s son and heir Thomas Roger* he managed to obtain Exchequer leases of part of the inheritance of Thomas’s young son, the Dorset manors of Allington and Pymore, in order to protect the heir’s interests.
Hardegrave’s tenure of Nursling once more met with challenge in the early 1480s. On 20 Nov. 1481 the Marmyons, not regarding themselves as bound by the release made to Hardegrave under duress in 1471, registered an agreement in Chancery whereby Sir William Stonor† purchased Nursling and other properties from them in return for a number of annuities, amounting to £32 p.a. Stonor’s feoffees duly ‘recovered’ the manor and some 1,760 acres of land and £7 rent in the court of common pleas,
Hardegrave remained confident that he was in the right regarding ownership of Nursling, or at least managed to persuade a suitor for the hand of one of his three daughters, Joan, that his wife’s title was entirely sound. On making an agreement for Joan’s marriage to Thomas, son of Geoffrey Dormer of Thame and Kingsey, Oxfordshire, he promised the couple properties in the Hampshire parishes of Nursling, Eling and Milbrook, and more in Dorset, to the yearly value of 20 marks.
Hardegrave died at an unknown date before August 1491. It was then, according to Sir William Stonor, that Dormer, John Wallys of Oxfordshire (who had married another of Hardegrave’s daughters), and an armed gang some 60-strong had entered ‘his’ manors of Nursling and Beaufeo, evicted his tenant James Markes and stolen goods and crops. On being summoned to the Star Chamber to answer the charge, Dormer and the rest denied there was any truth in Stonor’s bill. Dormer protested that while Stonor was a man of ‘great might’, he himself was a poor man with no livelihood save the lands in question; he had earlier sued a bill before the King and Council against Stonor for his wife’s inheritance, and when the matter had been directed to the justices of the common pleas the latter had examined the evidences and found his title proven. He said he had allowed Markes to occupy his lands, but when he made distraint for rental arrears the tenant, aided by 140 of Stonor’s friends and servants, had assaulted him and put him in jeopardy of his life. The alleged trespass of August 1491 was merely his feoffees coming peaceably to discharge Markes from his tenancy. Stonor then brought proofs to court to demonstrate that the release made by Peter Marmyon to our MP in 1471 had been made under duress, and that Marmyon had been legally seised of the manor at the time of a recovery against him by Stonor and Berkeley. Witnesses to the events of 1471 supported Stonor’s case.
