PAYNELL, Geoffrey

Much more may be added to the earlier biography. The Commons 1386-1421, iv. 30-31.

Paynell was a younger son of a Lincolnshire family long-established at Boothby Pagnell near Grantham. Bodl. Dodsworth mss, 66, f. 71v. This ms is a series of notes taken in the 1630s by Robert Sanderson, rector of Boothby Pagnell and later bishop of Lincoln, from the Paynell family’s now-lost archives. One of Sanderson’s notes raises the possibility that the MP for Rutland in 1416, in other words, the younger son of Sir John, was the father of the Lincs. MP of 1432. He recorded that, in 5 Hen. VI (1426-7), Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey Paynell, made a payment to the abbot of Peterborough in respect of two knights’ fees in Osgodby, the jointure of his wife: ibid, f. 72. There are, however, considerable difficulties in discerning two careers here. Two inquisitions taken in 1437 and 1440 show, if they are to be taken at face value, that the Geoffrey who married the wife with a jointure interest in the manor of Osgodby was the same man who, shortly before 1403, had been granted the manor of Little Casterton in Rutland by Roger, Lord Scrope of Bolton: CIPM, xxiv. 627; xxv. 363. On this basis, there appears to have been only one Geoffrey, and this assumption has been followed here. In 1406 his parents settled upon him a remainder interest in the family’s manor of Sproxton in Leicestershire expectant on their deaths, and by 1417 he seems to have been in possession of the family’s manor of Ryehill in the East Riding. CP25(1)/126/71/19; Feudal Aids, iii. 118; Chichester- Constable mss, DDCC/81/11; CP40/629, rot. 100d. Yet, although his family made generous provision for him by the standards of a knightly family of modest wealth, he owed the highly successful career of service detailed in the earlier biography largely to his own efforts. His admission to the prestigious fraternity of the London tailors provides a further measure of his standing. Guildhall Lib. London. Merchant Taylors’ Co. accts. 34048/1, f. 108v. He added to his inheritance by purchasing in 1425 a manor in Pointon, a dozen or so miles from Boothby Pagnell, but it was not until near the end of his life that he acquired any extensive landholdings. CP25(1)/145/156/21; CP40/660, rot. 138d; KB27/658, rot. 18d.

In its second part Paynell’s career ran in parallel with a remarkable family quarrel. The Tudor antiquary, John Leland, gives a highly coloured account of its circumstances. He describes the Paynells as ‘welle conservid’ until about the time of Henry V when,

John Paynelle the farther and John his sunne, booth knighttes and great lechers, began to decline; for John the father began to selle, and John the sunne begot abhominably a doughter of his owne doughter: and John the father apon this sold al the lande, parte owt of hand and parte in reversion; and John the sunne dyid afore the father, and yong John’s daughter fled to other partes of England for shame, and at the last maried one Dines, a wever, by whom she had childern ... Olde Sir John Paynelle had a secunde sunne caullid Geffrey, the was servant to the Quene of England, and yn good estimation. Wherapon thinkking his broder doughter dede, he made so importune sute, that at the laste he founde meanes by the king, that the Duk of Bedford was content that Geffrey should by of hym al such landes as Sir John Paynelle the father had sold onto hym, the which was the beste peace of the lande. But aboute the tyme that Geffrey had payid for the lande cam Dyne’s wife, doughter to yong Sir John Panelle, and by color got possession of Baroby ... and so made clayme to the residew: so that at the last composition was made, that she should have of the landes that the Duke of Bedeford had the lordship of Baroby and Dunington; and the residew to remayne to Geffrey Paynelle. J. Leland, Itin. ed. Toulmin Smith, i. 24.

Since some of the less lurid details of this narrative can be independently verified, notably Geoffrey’s service to Queen Joan, and Leland’s informant was Geoffrey’s descendant, Richard Paynell of Boothby Pagnell, this improbable story, at least in some of its aspects, has to be treated seriously. Contemporary sources suggest that it is an inventive elaboration upon a curious hiatus in the family history. A case in the consistory court of Philip Repingdon, bishop of Lincoln, and notes taken from the lost family archive by a later bishop of Lincoln, Robert Sanderson, show that the difficulties to which Leland inaccurately refers arose out of Sir John’s second marriage, when over 70 years old, to one Christine Ashby. Sir John was born in 1345: CIPM, xii. 86. In Saunderson’s time, the tomb of Sir John’s first wife Elizabeth survived in the church of Boothby Pagnell, as had in Leland’s time that of Sir John himself: Dodsworth mss, 66, f. 71v; Leland, i. 25. This marriage was very unwelcome to his sons, and Geoffrey seems to have taken the lead in limiting the damage the match might inflict on the family’s fortunes. He attempted to bring about a divorce by accusing Christine of a prior sexual affair with another son of Sir John, Master William Paynell, rector of Warsop (Nottinghamshire), an allegation that may be the origin of Leland’s embellishment of an incestuous birth within the family. Whether Master William was a willing collaborator in this tactic does not appear, but, in any event, it failed. On 14 Jan. 1418 Bishop Repingdon issued a commission to receive Christine’s purgation on this charge of fornication. Reg. Repingdon (Linc. Rec. Soc. lxxiv), 403. For Master William’s clerical career: Biog. Reg. Univ. Cambridge to 1500 ed. Emden, ii. 446. This seemingly vindictive action in the ecclesiastical court may have been accompanied on Geoffrey’s part by a more violent one. On the previous 28 Oct. he had been required to find mainprise in Chancery to keep the peace to his father. CCR, 1413-19, p. 445.

The family’s obvious hostility to Sir John’s new wife is the explanation for conveyances made in the 1420s. Either because he had been manipulated by Christine or because he wished to defy his family, Sir John conveyed his entire estate to John, duke of Bedford, who had considerable landed interests in Lincolnshire, with the instructions that, after his death, the duke should settle a life interest in the lands on Christine. This conveyance and others cited below are recorded in Saunderson’s notes, but he did not assign them exact dates nor did he identify Bedford’s cofeoffees: Dodsworth mss, 66, f. 72. There can, however, be no doubt that the conveyances were made, for they are also cited in a contemporary source, the presentation of John Metham to the living at Boothby Pagnell in 1432: Lincs. AO, Reg. Gray, ff. 4v-5. Bedford’s interest in the lands is also apparent in contemporary litigation. Not only is it recorded in the two actions of formedon mentioned below, but in 1428 he sued two yeomen of Grantham for entering his free warren at Boothby Pagnell: CP40/669, rot. 266. On Sir John’s death in about 1424 his grandson and heir, another John, our MP’s nephew, set about overturning this settlement. The precise date of Sir John’s death is unknown. He last appears in the records on 14 June 1423 when he presented John Stake to the church of Boothby Pagnell: Reg. Fleming, i. (Canterbury and York Soc. lxxiii), 193. If he was succeeded by the lecherous son of Leland’s narrative, that son died very soon after him. He petitioned the duke’s council on the grounds that the settlement contravened the entail of the family lands made on Sir John and his first wife Elizabeth. A copy of this petition survived among the family archives in Saunderson’s time, but, unfortunately, he did not abstract it in detail: Dodsworth mss, 66, f. 72. This petition clearly failed, for in the fourth year of the reign of Henry VI (that is, between 1 Sept. 1425 and 31 Aug. 1426), Bedford and the other unnamed feoffees granted the disputed property to the widow for her life, and in the following year she reconveyed to the feoffees, no doubt realizing that she needed powerful support to defend her life interest. John now turned to the common law. In Hilary term 1427 he bought writs of formedon against her for the manors of Boothby Pagnell and Botolph Bridge (Huntingdonshire). Again, however, he met with failure: in Trinity term 1428 Christine prayed aid of the duke of Bedford as seised of the reversion expectant on her death. Ibid. f. 72; CP40/664, rot. 206d; 667, rot. 123; 670, rot. 130d.

Geoffrey no doubt viewed these developments unhappily, frustrated that the widow had the best of her dispute with his nephew, but he was soon to acquire an interest that gave him a different perspective. John died late in 1428 or early in 1429 to be succeeded by a son, Thomas, who died childless in about 1431. Thomas’s sister, Margaret, was now the common law heiress to the Paynell estates. Thomas had succeeded to the Paynell lands by Trin. term 1429 but was dead by Trin. term 1432: CP40/674, rot. 471; CP25(1)/145/157/28. By this date she was married to John Dene, who inaccurately appears in Leland’s narrative as ‘one Dines, a wever’. His precise identity is unknown, but it is likely that he came from a minor gentry family. In a lawsuit of 1433 he is described as ‘of Osgodby, gentleman’, and thus may ironically have owed his marriage to a Paynell to our MP as his neighbour: CP40/695, rot. 389. In 1437 he is described as ‘of Blatherwick’ in Northants.: Dodsworth mss, 66, f. 73. The lines of the dispute over the Paynell lands was now redrawn, for our MP, now the family’s heir male, saw an opportunity to secure the lands against his great-niece as heir general. The entail pleaded by his nephew now stood in the way of that claim just as it also threatened Christine’s life tenancy.

Geoffrey’s determination to assert his claim to the Paynell estate may have prompted him to seek election for Lincolnshire to the Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster on 12 May 1432. The return (of 31 Mar.) presents some interesting features. He was returned in company with another resident of the parts of Kesteven, John Pygot*, and this was the only occasion in Henry VI’s reign when both the MPs came from Kesteven. This gives a particular significance to the fact that as many as 55 of the 61 attestors to the election can be identified as coming from that part of the county, a striking statistic in the context of the infrequency with which Kesteven men appear in other indentures. S.J. Payling, ‘County Parlty. Elections’, Parlty. Hist. xviii. 253, 255. In short, it appears that Paynell went to particular pains to win election. Further, during the Parliament, a final concord was levied that had some bearing on the dispute over the Paynell lands. By this fine, the manor of Barrowby (on the west side of Grantham where Boothby Pagnell was to the east) was settled on Thomas Paynell’s widow, Mabel, and her new husband, Thomas Harleston, for her life at an annual rent of 20 marks payable to John Stake, parson of Boothby Pagnell; on her death the manor was to remain to Dene and Margaret and Margaret’s issue with a final remainder to our MP and his heirs. CP25(1)/145/157/28. For Harleston, one of the attestors to our MP’s election in 1432: Lincs. Archit. and Arch. Soc. iii. 266. This marked a victory of sorts for the latter, for he can have had no hereditary claim to the manor, which appears to have come into the family by the marriage of his elder brother.

Barrowby was not relevant to the main dispute over the ancient lands of the family, but here too Geoffrey won what should not have been his. In Hilary term 1434 Dene and Margaret sued a writ of formedon against Christine for the manor of Boothby Pagnell, which they claimed (as her father had done before them) had been entailed on Sir John’s issue by his first wife. This action was probably aimed at both Christine and our MP, for, if the entail could be proved, Margaret’s title as heir general would be afforced by that of heir in tail. Again, however, the action made no progress as the defendant again invoked the duke’s aid. Bedford’s death on 15 Sept. 1435 brought the action to an end. CP40/692, rot. 336d. Sanderson said they also sued for Botolph Bridge, but this plea has not yet been traced on the plea roll: Dodsworthmss, 66, f. 73. It was probably at this point that our MP took his opportunity. His earlier enmity to Christine gave way to co-operation. In the fourteenth year of Henry VI’s reign (1435-6) she surrendered her life interest in the Paynell estates to him to hold at an annual rent of 24 marks. Dodsworth mss, 66, f. 72v. The bargain was financially favourable to Geoffrey. In the Lincs. subsidy return of 1436, perhaps before her agreement took effect, she was assessed on an income of £30 p.a. on lands in Lincs., Hunts. and Yorks.: E179/136/198. This may have been part of an agreement he had already reached with the Denes, but more probably it was the basis of a settlement negotiated on terms unfavourable to them. Later evidence shows that the family inheritance was eventually divided: the Lincolnshire manors, those of Boothby Paynell and Walton, passing to Paynell’s heirs, and the rest, namely the manors of Botolph Bridge in Huntingdonshire and Lotherton in Yorkshire, passing to the Denes. The manor of Walton had been acquired by Sir John Paynell in 1407: CP25(1)/144/152/28. Geoffrey already had an interest, under settlements made by his father, in the manors of Sproxton and Ryehill. For his widow’s tenure of Ryehill: Chichester-Constable mss, DDCC/81/17.

It is likely that this agreement was negotiated in the last months of Geoffrey’s life, probably between Christine’s death in November 1436 and his own in the following February. CIPM, xxiv. 363; xxv. 10. Soon after his death the Denes conceded the manor and advowson of Boothby Pagnell to his widow to hold to her and heirs with remainder to Margaret in fee. Presumably Geoffrey had given his wife a life interest in the property, an interest which, as it transpired, was to be to the detriment of their son and heir, John. She married Thomas Meres*, who was prominent in local administration and had been serving as sheriff of Lincolnshire at the time of her husband’s death. Surviving him also, she was still living, as a nun in the Gilbertine priory of Sempringham, in 1472. Dodsworth mss, 66, f. 73v; CP40/823, rot. 58d; T. Blore, Rutland, 176.