ROPER, John (c.1591-1628)

Little is known of Roper’s early life, his Catholic upbringing effectively ruling out a university education.11 Kent Hist. and Lib. Centre, DCb/PRC32/47/221. In 1606 his father requested permission for him to learn foreign languages, presumably through travel overseas. It is not known whether the necessary licence was forthcoming, though his younger brother was permitted to go abroad seven years later.12 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 114; APC, 1613-14, p. 235. Roper’s marriage in 1615 to a daughter of the Catholic William Petre^*, 2nd Lord Petre brought him a valuable court connection, for her maternal grandfather was Edward Somerset^*, 4th earl of Worcester and, from January 1616, lord privy seal.13 Geneal. Colls. 38. It was presumably through Worcester’s influence that Roper became a knight of the Bath when Prince Charles (Stuart^*) was created prince of Wales later that year; the earl was one of the current commissioners for the office of earl marshal, whose duties included the nomination of the new knights.14 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 395; J. Guillim, A Display of Heraldry (1724), appendix, 41.

The same patron presumably intervened on his behalf in 1622, when Roper succeeded to the barony of Teynham. While his father, a persistent recusant, had been barred from major office throughout his life, Teynham was promptly added to the Kent bench despite his Catholicism, the first of his family to achieve this honour for more than half a century. The more relaxed official attitude towards Catholics at this juncture – James I was seeking a Spanish bride for Prince Charles – no doubt also aided Teynham’s cause. Further local appointments followed during the next three years. He also witnessed the inaugural session of the newly revived court of chivalry in November 1623.15 P. Clark, Eng. Provincial Soc. 325; Add. 6297, f. 196.

Teynham was present in the Lords on 12 Feb. 1624, when the last Jacobean Parliament was prorogued, and also attended the state opening and presentation of the Commons’ Speaker a week later. However, he absented himself from the rest of this session, probably to avoid taking the obligatory oath of allegiance, and awarded his proxy to the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham. Teynham was subsequently denounced by the Commons as a recusant office-holder, but for the time being no action was taken against him.16 Add. 40087, ff. 3, 18; LJ, iii. 205b, 394b.

When the first Caroline Parliament met in 1625, Teynham again limited his attendance to the state opening, and once more gave his proxy to Buckingham. This behaviour went unremarked in the Lords, but he was again attacked in the Commons, this time over an incident in which one of his servants allegedly defaced a bible in Canterbury Cathedral.17 Procs. 1625, pp. 231, 591. In October 1625, with the country at war with Spain, Teynham’s weapons and armour were confiscated, and around the same time he was removed from the Kent bench. The following March he was indicted for recusancy, but the assize judges ruled that he had been prevented from receiving the Anglican sacraments by an unspecified ‘misfortune’.18 APC, 1625-6, p. 229; SP16/11/56 and 56.I; Cal. Assize Recs. Kent Indictments, Chas. I ed. J.S. Cockburn, 21.

Although no longer a magistrate, Teynham was reappointed a commissioner for sewers in August 1625. During the 1626 Parliament this became the pretext for the Commons to present him again as a recusant office-holder. He himself did not attend the Parliament, aside from the state opening, having obtained a dispensation to absent himself ‘in regard of indisposition of body’. His proxy was initially handed to Buckingham, but subsequently transferred to the duke’s Catholic father-in-law, Francis Manners^*, 6th earl of Rutland, probably after the Lords’ ruling on 25 Feb., which limited the number of proxies held by a single peer.19 C181/3, f. 188v; Procs. 1626, iv. 211; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 560; LJ, iii. 491a-b.

Teynham contributed £200 to the Forced Loan in November 1626, apparently without protest, but he was evidently now running into financial difficulties.20 E401/1913. When he drew up his will on 28 Feb. 1627, he made extensive provision for the payment of his debts, even permitting the sale of his ancestral plate and reassigning revenues originally intended for the maintenance of his younger children. He also asserted his lifelong allegiance to the ‘holy Catholic Church’, and nominated his Catholic kinsmen Lord Petre and Henry Somerset^*, Lord Herbert (later 5th earl of Worcester) as guardians of his infant son. Teynham died 12 months later, less than three weeks before the third Caroline Parliament assembled, and was buried in his family’s chapel at Lynsted church. His will was unsuccessfully challenged by his children, who sought to reinstate the original financial arrangements made for them.21 Kent Hist. and Lib. Centre, DCb/PRC32/47/221; CP, xii. pt. 1, p. 681. The barony passed to his son Christopher^†, 4th Lord Teynham who, then aged only six, became a royal ward.22 WARD 7/77/155; C142/449/69.