ROPER, John (c.1534-1618)

Roper’s ancestors from the twelfth century onwards were Kent landowners, with their principal seat latterly at Eltham. His grandfather John served as attorney general to Henry VIII in 1521-4, having already acquired the prothonotaryship, or chief clerkship, of King’s Bench, a lucrative office which remained a family sinecure for the next two generations. Roper’s father Christopher, a younger son, inherited around 3,000 acres in north Kent, settled at Lynsted, and sat in Parliament for Rochester in 1553.13 Arch. Cant. xxiii. 131; Vis. Kent, 82; Oxford DNB, xl. 716; C142/376/122. Following the Reformation, the Ropers emerged as prominent Kent conservatives. Christopher, employed as a receiver by Cardinal Pole, helped to suppress Sir Thomas Wyatt’s^‡ rebellion against Mary I, and became a Kent magistrate.14 P. Clark, Eng. Provincial Soc. 62; CSP Dom. 1553-8, pp. 300, 361; CPR, 1553-4, pp. 20, 28; HMC Pepys, 2.

With the accession of Elizabeth I, however, the family’s situation became more testing. Although the Eltham branch retained the prothonotaryship, their obdurate recusancy made them targets for persecution.15 HP Commons, 1509-58, iii. 214-15; APC, 1581-2, pp. 148, 158, 249; 1598-9, p. 79; 1599-1600, p. 310. Roper, himself a Catholic, maintained a private chapel at Lynsted, and he and his household were also occasionally presented as recusants. Nevertheless, he exercised greater discretion than his Eltham cousins, and apparently conformed to the Anglican Church when required.16 Vallance, 149-50, 154; Cal. of Assize Recs. Kent Indictments, Eliz. I ed. J.S. Cockburn, 218; HMC Hatfield, ix. 379; x. 402. Moreover, he was careful to cultivate powerful allies at court, such as Sir Christopher Hatton^‡ and Sir William Cecil^‡, 1st Lord Burghley, who could be relied upon to protect him. Roper’s faith debarred him from the Kent bench, but he secured a share in the prothonotaryship in 1573, and a knighthood in 1588. His first marriage brought him nearly 2,000 more acres, primarily in north Kent, and by the end of the century he had rebuilt Lynsted Lodge on a much grander scale.17 E.S. Brooks, Sir Christopher Hatton, 200; Add. 39828, f. 217; Clark, 325; C142/109/86; Vallance, 147. In 1585 Roper married his eldest daughter, Elizabeth, to the heir of William Vaux^†, 3rd Lord Vaux, an impoverished Catholic peer, though this union drew him into a protracted dispute over the marriage settlement, which was only partially resolved by an act of Parliament in 1593. It was presumably this business which prompted Roper’s failed bid to win election that year as a Kent knight of the shire.18 CP, xii. pt. 2, p. 223; APC, 1590, pp. 294-6; 1591, p. 95; HMC Var. 67-8, 70-3, 76-7, 83-4. Towards the end of Elizabeth’s reign, he attached himself to Burghley’s son, Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury), though the latter proved a demanding patron, in 1600 forcing Roper to sell him a house in the Strand, London.19 HMC Hatfield, vi. 30, 449; xii. 217, 528; Hatfield House, CP 80/60; 251/106.

In March 1603 Roper was ‘the first man of note’ in Kent to proclaim James I’s accession.20 Hasted, Kent, vi. 300. The change of regime presented him with both challenges and opportunities. Since 1598 Roper had been sole prothonotary of King’s Bench, collecting an annual income estimated at around £4,000.21 G.E. Aylmer, King’s Servants, 214; HMC Cowper, i. 104. This valuable prize immediately attracted the attention of the Scottish favourites who surrounded the king. In July 1603 James granted the office in reversion to the Scottish secretary of state, Sir James Elphinstone, and it was only the latter’s influence with Cecil which prevented the king from granting a second reversion the following year to a groom of the privy chamber.22 C66/1612; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 195. Roper, a helpless bystander in these transactions, continued to send gifts to ingratiate himself with his patron, but Cecil apparently ignored his pleas to be spared contributing £300 towards a privy seal loan in 1604.23 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 209, 229; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 261-2; xvii. 325.

Nevertheless, Roper’s wealth and religion worked to his advantage when the peace negotiations with Spain got underway. In August 1604 he was appointed to meet the constable of Castile on the latter’s arrival in England ahead of the signing of the treaty of London. Twelve months later, both Spanish ambassadors stayed at Lynsted Lodge en route to the Continent, by which time Roper stood high in their favour. Indeed, the count of Villa Mediana persuaded James that Roper deserved a peerage. According to Sir Lewis Lewknor^‡, who escorted the ambassadors, Villa Mediana used his last conversation on English soil to commend Roper to Cecil, now earl of Salisbury, and to remind him to support this proposal.24 Eg. 860, f. 7; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 399, 407; Hatfield House, CP 117/19; SP14/15/52. In the event, nothing came of this Spanish intervention, and in November 1605 Roper found himself on the defensive again, with both of his daughters, Elizabeth Vaux and Jane, Lady Lovell, briefly suspected of complicity in the Gunpowder Plot.25 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 249, 253; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 192. However, in July or August 1606 Roper was invited to purchase a peerage, probably by Jane Neville, wife of the claimant to the earldom of Westmorland, who had asked the king to allow her to nominate a candidate for a new barony. Roper used this opportunity to remind Salisbury of James’s promise to Villa Mediana, while at the same time insisting that he would much rather buy an honour than receive one through Spanish influence. Neither option pleased Salisbury, and as Roper dared not proceed without his approval, the matter was again dropped.26 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 36; Hatfield House, CP 117/19; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 102.

Despite this double failure to secure a peerage, Roper did not entirely abandon his ambitions, and over the next decade events gradually played into his hands. The critical bargaining tool would prove to be the prothonotaryship. In 1607 Sir James Elphinstone, now 1st Lord Balmerino [S], obtained a second grant of this office in reversion, this time in partnership with a rising English lawyer, Robert Heath^‡. However, Balmerino, anticipating his dramatic fall from grace, made over his interest in the prothonotaryship to Heath in March 1609.27 HMC Hatfield, xix. 157-8; Eg. 2978, ff. 5-6, 64r-v; C66/1727; C54/2150/15. Another royal favourite, Sir Robert Carr^* (later earl of Somerset), almost immediately showed interest in the office, and in the spring of 1610 he reached an accord with Heath.28 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 172-3; SP14/54/10. Roper, now 76 and ripe for retirement, responded by offering to surrender the prothonotaryship outright to Carr in return for a barony.29 Egerton Pprs. ed. J.P. Collier (Cam. Soc. xii), 455. Roper is referred to in error as Sir John Ross. However, the climate at court was still not quite right for such a transaction, and Carr turned him down. Instead, a new reversion was granted in July 1612 to Heath and James Whitelocke^‡, who were thereby installed as prospective trustees for Carr, now Viscount Rochester, and Sir John Harington^* (later 2nd Lord Harington), the real beneficiaries.30 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 331; C66/1956/12; Liber Famelicus of Sir James Whitelocke ed. J. Bruce (Cam. Soc. lxx), 27; C54/2150/15.

Harington died in 1614, whereupon his interest in the reversion was bought out by Rochester, now earl of Somerset. However, the latter was in turn disgraced in the following year over the Overbury affair. Following his trial in May 1616, all Somerset’s property was forfeit to the crown, and therefore the king resolved to grant a fresh reversion to benefit his new favourite, George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham). Roper seized his opportunity, and again indicated his willingness to surrender his office in return for a peerage. This time James embraced the idea, and by late June, Roper was being talked of as a potential baron. However, the royal finances were now parlous, and the king, in desperate need of cash to pay for a forthcoming embassy to France, unexpectedly offered to sell him the honour instead. On 9 July, in return for £10,000, Roper was created Lord Teynham, or ‘Ten Ms’, as a contemporary wit observed.31 Liber Famelicus, 46, 57; Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 34, 38; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 10, 18.

Although a story circulated that Teynham had bought his title with his prothonotaryship, he did not in fact surrender the office until the following November, and on rather different terms from those first envisaged. Having purchased his barony with his own money, he now struck a much tougher bargain with Villiers. The office was ostensibly transferred to the favourite’s chosen trustees, Heath and Robert Shute^‡, but Teynham retained both the management and profits for life. Given that he was now aged about 82, this was unlikely to be a long transition. To underpin the deal, he also insisted on having the power to nominate replacements for Heath and Shute, should either of them predecease him. On that basis, by the time of his death Teynham had probably recouped at least two-thirds of the cost of his barony.32 SP14/88/9; Liber Famelicus, 57-9; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, i. 440; C66/2090/16; 66/2096/5.

For Teynham, who was routinely and erroneously referred to as Lord Roper, his peerage made little practical difference. In November 1616 he attended the creation of Prince Charles (Stuart^*) as prince of Wales, and in July 1618 he entertained yet another Spanish ambassador, the count of Gondomar. However, he seems not to have participated in routine court life, and never had the opportunity to sit in the Lords.33 T. Rymer, Foedera, vii. pt. 2, p. 217; ‘Camden Diary’, 34; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 33; HMC Downshire, vi. 51.

Teynham drew up his will on 21 Nov. 1616, its preamble devoid of openly Catholic sentiments. With the exception of four granddaughters, to whom he assigned £1,000 dowries, most of his relatives were merely bequeathed mourning clothes and gold rings. However, he left silver-gilt cups to four King’s Bench colleagues, Lord Chief Justice Sir Henry Montagu^* (later 1st earl of Manchester), Sir John Croke^‡, Sir John Doddridge^‡ and Sir Robert Houghton^‡. From his circle of Catholic acquaintances he remembered the notorious Lord William Howard, together with Edward Wotton^*, 1st Lord Wotton, William Petre^*, 2nd Lord Petre, and his ‘especial and approved good friend’, Secretary of State Sir Thomas Lake^‡. More surprisingly, he also bequeathed a silver-gilt cup to the puritan archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot^*, as a mark of affection. Teynham left £30 to the local poor, and £45 to poor prisoners in the London gaols, but he was conspicuously generous to 23 named servants, ranging from his clerk and housekeeper to a scullion, ‘Hannce the Fleming’, who were collectively to receive nearly £215 outright, and annuities totalling more than £115.34 PROB 11/134, ff. 340-3.

Teynham died in August 1618, and was buried in his family’s chapel at Lynsted church, where he had already erected a ‘noble altar tomb of marble’ to himself and his second wife. His death caused little comment in London, beyond the fact that Villiers, now marquess of Buckingham, had finally got his hands on the profits of the prothonotaryship. Teynham’s barony descended to his son Christopher^*, 2nd Lord Teynham.35 Hasted, vi. 576; Vallance, 153; HMC Downshire, vi. 493, 556; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 170.