KEMYS, John

Of obscure origin but apparently a Welshman, Kemys owed his standing to his extremely advantageous marriage to Margaret Russell, the daughter of a substantial landowner in south-west and southern England. By virtue of a 14th-century entail, she and her younger sister Isabel, then respectively the wives of Sir Gilbert Denys and Sir John Drayton†, had inherited the Gloucestershire manors of Dyrham, Haresfield and Hinton, which had been partitioned between them after the death of their father Sir Maurice Russell in 1416. Denys died in March 1422, and on the following 12 Dec. the Crown granted Margaret a licence to marry Kemys, who no doubt became her husband before the year was out.4 Ibid. ii. 771-2, 794-7; iv. 251-3; CIPM, xx. 488 (misdated 4 Feb. 1416); CPR, 1422-9, p. 19.

Probably another Welshman, Denys had owed his connexion with Gloucestershire to his earlier marriage to another Margaret, the sister and heir of William Corbet. This Margaret’s inheritance comprised the manors of Siston, Alveston and Earthcott and the hundred of Langley in that county, along with the hamlet of Hope in Shropshire. Although she had not borne Denys any children, arrangements made during her lifetime had enabled him not only to retain them for the rest of his life but also to pass them on to his second wife and his children by her. As a result, Margaret Russell, already in possession of a share of her late father’s holdings in Gloucestershire, was to retain for life the manor of Siston, where Kemys took up residence with her, and to enjoy dower rights in the other Corbet estates in the county.5 The Commons 1386-1421, ii. 771-2; Glos. Archs., Dorney fam. deeds, D3365/21/1-2; CP25(1)/79/91/107. Maurice Denys, her son by Sir Gilbert, attained his majority at the end of the 1420s, although it was not until September 1431 that he proved his age before the escheator in Gloucestershire and his former guardian, Sir Edmund Stradling.6 CIPM, xx. 933; xxiii. 721. Six years later, Maurice obtained licence to settle two thirds of the former Corbet manors of Alveston and Langley, along with two thirds of the hundred of Langley and the reversion of the remaining third part his mother held in dower, on himself, his wife Alice and their children.7 CPR, 1436-41, p. 120.

The heir to the greater part of the Russell inheritance was Margaret Kemys’s half-brother Thomas Russell, Sir Maurice Russell’s son by his second marriage, but he died, still a minor, in May 1431. Thomas’s posthumous baby daughter, Margery, did not long survive him since she died in March 1432. The infant’s nearest heirs by blood were her aunts, Margaret Kemys and Isabel, by then the wife of Stephen Haytfeld*. Deciding to which of the Russell estates the two women should succeed was not a simple task. First, there were the dower interests of their stepmother, Sir Maurice Russell’s second wife Joan Dauntsey, now married to Sir John Stradling, and of Thomas Russell’s widow – another Joan – to consider. Moreover, the heir general, their cousin John Haket, and the heir male, Sir Theobald Gorges*alias Russell, each had a right to a part of the inheritance. A series of inquisitions held after the deaths of Thomas and Margery Russell decided the respective shares of all four heirs. In Somerset, Margaret and Isabel received assigned lands at Horsington and the advowsons of Horsington parish church and the chapel of South Cherington, and in Dorset the hundred of Redhone and Beaminster Forum. In November 1432, the Crown directed the escheator of the two counties to partition these estates between Margaret and Kemys on the one part, and Isabel and Haytfeld on the other. The Russell manor of Horsington was divided between Gorges and Haket, although Joan Dauntsey retained a third of Haket’s share in dower. Haket also received the manors of Kingston Russell and Bradpole in Dorset and lands at Dyrham in Gloucestershire, again properties in which Joan held a like interest.8 The Commons 1386-1421, iv. 253; CIPM, xxiii. 673-9; CFR, xvi. 124-32.

As it happened, Margaret, Isabel and their husbands were also able to take possession of other parts of the Russell inheritance not assigned to them by the inquisitions. Not long afterwards, they acquired Kingston Russell and Bradpole from Haket, the manors of Yaverland, Roburgh and Wathe on the Isle of Wight (subject to Joan Dauntsey’s dower share) and moieties of those of Lytton in Dorset and Aust in Gloucestershire, both later regarded as complete manors. Having secured these properties, they agreed between themselves that Isabel and her husband should have the Isle of Wight manors and Bradpole, while Margaret and Kemys should take Kingston Russell, Lytton and Aust. Among the parties to these arrangements were John Kemys clerk and Maurice Kemys, evidently two of Kemys’s relatives.9 CP25(1)/292/68/161; CCR, 1435-41, pp. 141,143; C140/57/56; 60/16. Soon afterwards, the Haytfelds elected to sell the reversions of Bradpole and the Isle of Wight manors to the lawyer John Cottesmore. By means of a fine of November 1435, it was agreed that they should retain the manors, along with the reversion of Joan Dauntsey’s share in the same, for their lives, after which they were to pass to Cottesmore.10 CP25(1)/292/68/195; C140/1/10. Isabel died 18 months later but Joan’s interest in the Russell estates did not expire until her own death in 1457.11 CIPM, xxiv. 650, 659; C139/163/1, 6; 166/25; CCR, 1454-61, pp. 161-2.

If Kemys himself had inherited lands there is no evidence for them, and any such inheritance would have paled into insignificance beside that of his wife. It was to Margaret that he owed his status in Gloucestershire, where he was among the gentry required to uphold the peace in 1434. There is no sign of his having acquired any major properties on his own account, whether in Gloucestershire or elsewhere, although it is possible that he bought a tenement and other holdings in Siston in the spring of 1465. He was also a party to conveyances of properties at Stapleton and Oldbury near Bristol in the previous two decades, but it is not entirely clear whether these transactions were for the benefit of himself or another of the parties, his son Roger, who was certainly in possession of both properties at the beginning of the 1480s. Kemys was also associated with another relative, Thomas Kemys – apparently his brother – to whom he made conveyances of property in Bristol in the 1460s.12 CPR, 1429-36, p. 373; Bristol RO, St. Philip and St. Jacob parish recs., P/St.P and J/D/6(b, e); CP25(1)/79/91/108; 92/132; CIMisc. viii. 474; HP Biogs. ed. Wedgwood and Holt, 511.

Over the years, Kemys had many dealings with various men and institutions from Bristol, which lay within easy range of Siston and several of the other manors he held in his wife’s right and where in the mid fifteenth century a namesake was rector of the parish church of St. Mary le Port. In the spring of 1427 he and another namesake, from Newport in south Wales, entered a statute staple for no less than £400 to the merchant John Newton† of Bristol, to guarantee they would pay for merchandise acquired from him in the town’s staple. Twenty years later, the statute, in which Kemys is styled ‘the younger’ and his namesake – possibly his father – as ‘the elder’, provided the basis of a lawsuit concerning their alleged failure to settle their debt with Newton. Kemys also had disagreements with the abbot of St. Augustine, Bristol, whom he and his wife sued in the late 1420s for detaining chattels belonging to them, and with John Joce, a merchant from the town against whom he began an action of trespass in the mid 1450s. Within Bristol, Kemys had a connexion with the parish church of Saint Philip and Saint Jacob. In April 1467, he and his son Roger conveyed a messuage and other properties in King’s Barton near Gloucester to trustees acting for the church, where he endowed a chantry and a fund for the poor. Roger also had his interests at Bristol, where he held property in the right of his wife.13 St. Philip and St. Jacob parish recs., P/St.P and J/D/5(d), 7(a), 7(d)**E**; C241/235/109; CP40/677, rot. 175; KB27/775, rot. 77d; Trans. Bristol and Glos. Arch. Soc. viii. 236; C1/41/21; CCR, 1467-76, no. 1568.

It was not until some years after his wife had inherited a share of the Russell estates that Kemys held any public office. In the event, his role in local government was restricted to a term as escheator of Gloucestershire and membership of just two ad hoc commissions, all of which predated his only known Parliament. The Commons in the Parliament of 1450 is generally considered to have contained a significant number of men sympathetic to the duke of York, who had actively canvassed for the return of his supporters to the Lower House and whose servant, Sir William Oldhall*, was chosen as Speaker after it had opened. Kemys’s fellow knight of the shire was another of York’s men, Sir John Barre*, but there is no evidence that he himself was likewise a follower of the duke.

A lord with whom Kemys certainly had links was William, Lord Botreaux, whose estates lay predominantly in south-west England and included holdings at Bristol. He was a feoffee and executor for Botreaux, although it is not clear whether he already had a connexion with that lord when elected to the Commons.14 C140/7/15; CCR, 1461-8, pp. 116-17; Reg. Bourgchier (Canterbury and York Soc. liv), 202; CPR, 1461-7, p. 286. Another Botreaux feoffee was Sir Maurice Berkeley I*, who also acted for Kemys in the same capacity, as a trustee of the estates comprising the Russell inheritance.15 CPR, 1429-36, p. 367; CP25(1)/292/68/161; CCR, 1454-61, p. 161; 1476-85, no. 499; C140/57/56. The relationship between Kemys and Berkeley stretched back to at least the first half of the 1430s. It was certainly a close one, for a petition which another Gloucestershire gentleman, Robert Stanshawe*, submitted to Parliament reveals that Kemys was Berkeley’s retainer. In the petition, addressed to the Commons and probably dating from 1433, Stanshawe sought the support of the Lower House in a quarrel over lands at Siston. He had recovered these lands from Robert Moun alias Russell in the court of common pleas, only to encounter further trouble immediately afterwards. Having won his suit, he had obtained a writ directing the sheriff of Gloucestershire to deliver the lands to him, a task the sheriff had then directed John Burnell, one of the King’s bailiffs in Gloucestershire, to perform. Upon arriving in Siston, however, Burnell had found himself confronted by Kemys and 39 other armed men, of whom Kemys and 22 others had worn Berkeley’s livery, and they had prevented him from performing his duties. Stanshawe concluded his petition by asking Parliament to authorize the chancellor to hear and determine these riots and contempts, and to award him damages. It was adopted by the Commons and referred to the Lords but in the end it was not accepted, on the grounds that it was within the scope of the common law to provide a remedy for his grievances.16 SC8/139/6916; CP40/687, rot. 572d. Presumably, Berkeley had ordered his men to stop Burnell from executing the writ, but the petition does not provide an explanation for his apparent opposition to Stanshawe.

In spite of this episode, Kemys had later dealings with other members of the Stanshawe family. Within a few years of Stanshawe’s death in the spring of 1447, a young bride was found for his younger son, Henry Stanshawe. Kemys participated in the match-making as one of the ‘gouvernours’ of the girl in question, an orphan of unknown parentage named Margaret. The marriage, which appears to have taken place in 1450, proved short-lived for by 1453 at the latest Henry was dead and Margaret was the wife of Hugh Mille*. She was the heir to lands in Gloucestershire worth nearly £20 p.a., although when she married Mille her inheritance was in the hands of Isabel, Nicholas* and Robert Stanshawe, respectively the mother, uncle and elder brother of the late Henry, who had held it in trust for her since her first marriage. At the time of that previous match, these trustees had entered into obligations in the large sum of 400 marks with Kemys and her two other guardians, John Sharp III* and Thomas Exeter, to guarantee that they would settle the lands on her and Henry before Christmas Day. According to a bill Margaret and her new husband submitted to the chancellor following their marriage, her former in-laws had reneged on this undertaking and were retaining the lands. The Milles complained that they were powerless to take action at common law over the matter because Margaret’s erstwhile guardians, against whom they directed the bill, were refusing to hand the obligations over to them. Taken at face value, the Chancery suit suggests that Kemys and his two associates had connived with the Stanshawes to withhold the lands from the Milles, but this is far from certain since the suit’s outcome is not known. It is likewise not clear whether Kemys’s purchase of a royal pardon in early 1455 was in any way connected with the same dispute.17 C1/22/149; C67/41, m. 5.

Some three decades after the confrontation at Siston, Kemys was still associated with Sir Maurice Berkeley, since the knight was the other executor of Lord Botreaux, who died in the spring of 1462.18 Reg. Bourgchier, 202. Just over a year later, Botreaux’s daughter and heir Margaret made a release of her family’s manor and advowson of Clifton by Bristol to Kemys and other feoffees.19 CCR, 1461-8, p. 179. She was the widow of Robert, 2nd Lord Hungerford, and the mother of Robert, Lord Hungerford and Moleyns, a diehard Lancastrian who was executed after the battle of Hexham in May 1464. Six months later, Sir Maurice Berkeley died,20 C140/14/29. leaving Kemys as Botreaux’s sole executor. It is impossible to tell if Kemys shared the 3rd Lord Hungerford’s political sympathies or whether there were any political connotations to the royal pardon he received in February 1466,21 C67/45, m. 4. although there is no evidence that he held any office under the Crown after the accession of Edward IV.

By the time Edward took the throne, Kemys had lost his wife, who had died in early 1460. It is uncertain whether he married again, although a John Kemys and his wife Isabel sued a miller for debt at Westminster in 1465, in a lawsuit emanating from Gloucestershire.22 CP40/815, rot. 58. HP Biogs. 511, mistakenly states that he took a second wife called Eleanor. There was a John Kemys who was married to a woman of that name, but he was another man altogether. A grantee and tenant of the Luttrells of Dunster, this John was dead by 1450. Presumably it was he who was the Luttrells’ bailiff at Carhampton, Som. in 1440: Honour of Dunster (Som. Rec. Soc. xxxiii), p. lv; Some Som. Manors (Som. Rec. Soc. extra ser. 1931), 118-19; Som. Feet of Fines (Som. Rec. Soc. xxii), 107-8; C1/10/85. Confusingly, he is referred to as if he were still alive in a royal grant of 1463, by which Edward IV gave away the confiscated estates of the Lancastrian Sir James Luttrell to the newly ennobled Sir William Herbert*: CPR, 1461-7, p. 286. The heir to Margaret Kemys’s share of the Russell and Corbet estates was Maurice Denys, her son by her previous marriage, and in late 1461 and again in February 1467 Kemys witnessed deeds by which Maurice’s own son, Walter Denys, acknowledged the estate for life which Maurice and his wife held in the former Corbet manors of Alveston and Earthcott.23 CFR, xix. 246; CPR, 1452-61, p. 562; CCR, 1461-8, pp. 196, 405-6. Kemys almost completely disappears from view after the latter date, although he survived until mid 1476.24 An inq. held in Dorset on 1 July 1477 found that he had died on ‘Saturday before St. Thomas the martyr last’, but presumably the feast day in question was the translation of St. Thomas Becket (7 July) rather than those commemorating his martyrdom (29 Dec.) and return from exile (2 Dec.), since writs of diem clausit extremum for Kemys were issued on 10 July and 12 Nov. 1476: CFR, xxi. nos. 329, 343, 345. After his death, inquisitions held in Gloucestershire and Dorset found that he had died holding his late wife’s manors of Siston, Aust, Kingston Russell and Lytton, all of which he had enjoyed for life after her death. Kemys had outlived his stepson, Maurice Denys, who had died in 1474, and the heir to the manors was Maurice’s son Walter Denys. Walter was unable to take immediate possession of Siston, for first it passed to Kemys’s son Roger. Roger owed his interest in the manor, another life term, to a settlement apparently made some time after Margaret’s death. The inquisitions also recorded that Kemys’s ‘cousin’ and heir was William Kemys, possibly his grandson, who was aged 40 or more. William was perhaps the man to whom the Crown granted an annuity of ten marks from the Welsh lordship of Newport in January 1484.25 C140/57/56; 60/16; CFR, xxi. no. 228; CPR, 1476-85, p. 414.