VILLIERS, Christopher (1593/4-1630)

The youngest of the five sons of Sir George Villiers^‡, a Leicestershire squire of modest means, Christopher Villiers first appears in the records in April 1609 when, aged 15, he visited the Buckinghamshire astrologer-cum-physician Richard Napier to have his fortune read. His prospects must have seemed bleak, or at least far less promising than those of his elder brothers John (Villiers^*, later Viscount Purbeck) and George (Villiers^*, successively earl, marquess and 1st duke of Buckingham), both of whom were then in France for their education. However, following George’s rise to power, his situation was transformed. In February 1617, on the same day that the newly created earl of Buckingham was admitted to membership of the Privy Council, Christopher was sworn a groom of the king’s bedchamber and granted an annuity of £200 for life.10 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 52; SO3/6, unfol. (Feb. 1617). The grant of the annuity was confirmed on 7 Mar.: CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 440.

Following the marriage in September 1617 of Christopher’s elder brother John to the eldest daughter of the disgraced former lord chief justice of King’s Bench, Sir Edward Coke^‡, the latter’s estranged wife, Lady Hatton, proposed a match between Christopher and her younger daughter. Lady Hatton, a woman of independent means, was furious that her husband had obtained Buckingham’s favour and hoped that the offer of her daughter would lead to his eclipse. In the short term her stratagem succeeded, as Buckingham shifted his attention to Lady Hatton, becoming a frequent visitor to her house.11 HMC Downshire, vi. 235; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 497. However, the proposed marriage failed to materialize, and by the spring of 1618 Villiers was in pursuit of Elizabeth Howard, heir to a substantial Staffordshire estate and widow of one of the younger sons of the lord treasurer, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk.12 Harl. 1581, f. 156.

Villiers’ hopes of marrying Elizabeth Howard were quickly disappointed, as Elizabeth preferred a rival suitor, Sir William Cavendish^* (later Viscount Mansfield).13 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 81; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 174. He had no more luck in wooing another wealthy widow, Lady Ros, sister of the disgraced secretary of state Sir Thomas Lake^‡, despite Buckingham’s support.14 HMC Downshire, vi. 531. In May 1619 London’s elderly lord mayor, Sir Sebastian Harvey, agreed to match his 14-year old daughter and heir to Villiers. However, it soon became apparent that Harvey, rumoured to be worth about £200,000, had only consented after being bombarded with messages from the king, James I, and Buckingham’s mother. He eventually explained that his daughter was too young to marry and would, at any rate, be permitted to choose her own husband in due course. Upbraided by the king for treating Villiers uncivilly, he was fined £2,000 by Star Chamber the following year, ostensibly for offences committed during his shrievalty ten years earlier.15 Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 166-7, 171; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 241, 253, 306; Fortescue Pprs. ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. i), 84-5, 87.

By the autumn of 1619, Villiers had been rejected as a marriage suitor no less than three times, despite his powerful connections. One possible reason for this was that his means remained limited. However, Buckingham had done his best to overcome this obstacle, having allegedly persuaded the childless Sir Robert Naunton^‡ to name Villiers as his heir in return for his appointment as secretary of state.16 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 505; CSP Ven. 1617-19, p. 440n; R. Schreiber, Political Career of Sir Robert Naunton 1589-1635, p. 16. The king, too, had tried to make Villiers an attractive proposition, promising to Harvey that he would make Villiers ‘a fit and competent match’.17 Fortescue Pprs. 85. Villiers himself had made every effort to improve his financial situation. An eager monopolist, in 1618 he obtained shares worth £500 p.a. in the new alehouse patent.18 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, vi. 289; CD 1621, iv. 129. At around the same time he also became associated with a scheme advanced by London’s artisan skinners.19 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 544; Add. 10038, f. 148. In view of all this, it seems unlikely that poverty was the chief cause of Villiers’ lack of success on the marriage market. A more compelling explanation lies in Villiers’ exceptionally unappealing character. During the summer progress of 1620 he and a Scottish courtier beat another gentleman ‘almost to death’.20 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 316. Over the next few years, he was portrayed in popular libels as a lecherous drunkard.21 Bodl., ms Eng.Poet.c50; Add. 61683, f. 74. His reputation as an alcoholic is confirmed by one of his acquaintances, Arthur Wilson, who also claimed that he had ‘a weak brain’.22 A. Wilson, Hist. of Gt. Britain (1653), 147.

Villiers’ activities as a monopolist earned him a good deal of ill will. Shortly before the 1621 Parliament met, he aroused the opposition of bishops’ proctors by proposing to establish a central register for wills.23 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 323; Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vi. 140-1. This project was never implemented, but had it been put into effect it would have garnered him an immense fee income. More serious was his involvement in the controversial alehouse monopoly. Buckingham was initially advised that the alehouse patent would not arouse the ire of Parliament. However, in November 1620 the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, 1st Viscount St Alban, had second thoughts, and warned that, unless the grant was rescinded, Villiers would probably be attacked by the Commons.24 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vi. 294-5; vii. 148. Sure enough, in February 1621 the Commons’ committee for grievances resolved to call Villiers before them. An alarmed Buckingham subsequently distanced himself from both Villiers and from his elder half-brother, Sir Edward^‡, whom the Commons quickly identified as the chief patentee.25 CD 1621, vi. 262; ii. 212. In the event, however, Villiers had nothing to fear, as before long the Commons were preoccupied with investigating the corruption of the lord chancellor. Following the dissolution of the 1621 Parliament, therefore, Villiers continued to seek new and lucrative grants of monopoly. Indeed, in August 1621 the king promised him half of his own third share in a new patent for manufacturing steel.26 Fortescue Pprs. 177.

By 1622 Villiers was the only one of the five Villiers brothers without a wife. Buckingham was determined to remedy this situation, and opened negotiations with Francis Norris^*, 1st earl of Berkshire, for a marriage between Villiers and Berkshire’s only daughter Elizabeth. Berkshire was horrified at the prospect of matching his daughter to Villiers, and, being of unbalanced mind, committed suicide in January. His unexpected death made no difference, for by mid February it was rumoured that Villiers would not only marry Elizabeth but also be created earl of Berkshire himself. However, Elizabeth had no intention of saddling herself with a drunkard, and in March, in accordance with her late father’s wishes, she wed Edward Wray^‡, one of the grooms of the bedchamber, aided and abetted by her uncle, the 17th earl of Oxford (Henry de Vere^*). Buckingham was so furious that he had Wray dismissed and Oxford imprisoned in the Tower.27 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 423; Add. 72275, ff. 128, 130; Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 304; D’Ewes Diary 1622-4 ed. E. Bourcier, 75, 159; F. von Raumer, Hist. of Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ii. 269-70. In desperation, the favourite turned to one of his mother’s kinsmen, Sir Thomas Beaumont^‡, to supply his brother with a wife from among his daughters. As Beaumont was almost landless, the king agreed to provide Villiers with property of his own and to grant him £2,100 in recently imposed Star Chamber fines. He also offered to make Villiers a viscount. Buckingham, for his part, gave his brother £4,000 from his Irish revenues.28 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 434; T. Rymer, Foedera, viii. pt. 1, p. 165; Harl. 1581, f. 411v.

Villiers may have been less than pleased at the prospect of marrying one of Beaumont’s daughters. For some time he had been conducting an affair with his first cousin Elizabeth Sheldon, and by April she was pregnant. By June he had promised to take her as his wife, to the alarm of Buckingham and the king, who offered to make him earl of Berkshire if he married his Beaumont kinswoman.29 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 434, 439, 441-2. However, he could not be dissuaded, and sometime over the summer the couple were wed. The news evidently irritated Buckingham, as Villiers was not among the new earls created in September 1622, whose number included his brother-in-law William Feilding^*, earl of Denbigh.30 HMC 4th Rep. 255. The only advancement Villiers received that year was promotion to the rank of gentleman of the bedchamber. He was also granted an annual pension of £1,000.31 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 447.

Buckingham’s annoyance soon subsided, however, and before leaving for Spain in February 1623 he agreed with James that better provision should be made for Villiers. Consequently, in April, Villiers was created earl of Anglesey and granted, for his maintenance, two royal forests in Wiltshire reportedly worth between £800 and £1,100 p.a.32 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 497, 507; Letters of King Jas. VI and I ed. G.P.V. Akrigg, 389; Procs. 1626, i. 476. Shortly thereafter, the king also promised to pay his debts, and give him additional lands worth £400 annually.33 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 573; 1623-5, p. 32. See also Add. 72276, f. 36. Almost overnight, Anglesey had been become a man of substance, a transformation which inevitably led to ambition. When, in December 1623, it was rumoured that Thomas Erskine, 1st earl of Kellie [S] was thinking of returning to Scotland, Anglesey announced that he hoped to succeed him as groom of the stole.34 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 535.

Anglesey attended Parliament when it opened on 19 Feb. 1624, and was formally introduced to the House of Lords six days later by the 3rd earl of Essex (Walter Devereux^*) and the 4th earl of Lincoln (Theophilus Clinton^*). He attended assiduously until 17 Mar., but thereafter was often absent. He played no recorded part in the assembly, but was among those peers who asked the clerk of the parliaments to provide him with a copy of the king’s opening speech.35 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 60v. After Parliament rose for the summer, it was rumoured that Buckingham, now a duke, was contemplating surrendering his office of master of the horse to Anglesey.36 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 327. However, the latter was too dull witted ever to be granted an office of any substance, a fact which he himself subsequently came to recognize.37 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 327.

Following the discovery that the son born to Viscount Purbeck in October 1624 was actually fathered by Sir Robert Howard^‡, Anglesey was charged by Buckingham to prosecute Purbeck’s wife in High Commission for adultery.38 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 608. Purbeck was unable to perform this task himself, having become mentally unstable, while Buckingham was otherwise preoccupied with matters of state. Two months later Anglesey, ostensibly in association with his brother Purbeck, sued Buckingham in Chancery over lands belonging to the duke in which he claimed in interest.39 C2/Jas.I/B9/36. This lawsuit suggests that a rift had developed between Anglesey and the favourite, but if so it was of short duration.

Anglesey was among those peers who signed the proclamation of 27 Mar. 1625 announcing the death of King James and the accession of his son, Charles I.40 Stuart Royal Proclamations, II: Chas. I ed. J.F. Larkin, 2. Most of the late king’s household were retained by the new monarch, but Charles was more fastidious than his father and banished Anglesey from court, saying that ‘he would have no drunkards of his chamber’.41 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 12. Charles nevertheless honoured James I’s financial commitments to Anglesey, and in April ordered that the grant of land worth £400 p.a. made two years earlier be perfected.42 CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 12, 539; Procs. 1626, i. 476; E403/2563, f. 30r-v. Anglesey was also permitted to help greet the new queen, Henrietta Maria, on her arrival at Dover in late May.43 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 620.

Anglesey failed to attend the Westminster sitting of the 1625 Parliament, being listed as sick at a call of the upper House on 23 June.44 Procs. 1625, p. 45. However, he took his seat on 5 Aug., shortly after the assembly reconvened at Oxford, and continued to attend every day thereafter bar one. As in 1624, he played no recorded part in Parliament’s proceedings.

Following the dissolution, Anglesey may have experienced financial difficulties. On 27 Nov. Buckingham gave him £100, and two days later the king confirmed his grant of £2,100 worth of Star Chamber fines, which had been awarded to Anglesey in 1622 but never paid.45 Add. 12528, f. 32; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 163. Shortly thereafter Anglesey may have suffered a renewed bout of illness, for in February 1626 he failed to attend both the king’s coronation and the opening of the 1626 Parliament.46 Manner of the Coronation of King Chas. I ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. li. His first recorded appearance in the Lords was on 11 Feb., five days after proceedings began, but he started to attend regularly only from the beginning of March.

During the 1626 Parliament, the crown’s gifts to Anglesey formed part of the Commons’ impeachment charges against Buckingham. Sir John Eliot^‡ claimed that, over the last two years, ‘great quantities of land’ had been given to Anglesey, while Christopher Wandesford^‡ alleged that royal lands worth £4,960 had been sold for Anglesey’s benefit. In May the Commons reckoned that the estate granted to Anglesey in 1623, including both Wiltshire forests and the lands worth £400 annually, would have realized £30,000 at sale. Buckingham subsequently disputed this figure, and alleged that Anglesey enjoyed no more than £700 p.a. from the crown. He also claimed that James had bestowed the lands in question on Anglesey during his absence in Spain and without his knowledge.47 Procs. 1626, ii. 360; iii. 48; i. 412, 476, 584. Anglesey himself is not reported to have said anything in his own defence, despite sitting frequently during the impeachment proceedings.

Following the dissolution, the king demanded a Forced Loan, to which Anglesey contributed £100 in December 1626.48 E401/1913, unfol. (8 Dec. 1626). The next year Anglesey offered to accompany Buckingham on the latter’s expedition to the Île de Ré, but was ordered to remain behind.49 CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 327. He may have subsequently mastered his alcoholism, for in October 1627 the king readmitted him to his former post in the bedchamber.50 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 275. When a fresh Parliament met in 1628, Anglesey again played no discernible part in the Lords’ proceedings, as he is not recorded as having addressed the House and failed to secure even a single committee nomination. However, in April, after the judges expressed their unwillingness to explain their judgement in the Five Knights’ Case without the king’s permission, he was sent by Buckingham to speak with Charles, who instructed the judges to cooperate.51 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 217-18. It also seems likely that Anglesey accompanied Buckingham at the end of May, when the duke took Charles to a nearby country house to discuss the royal response to the Petition of Right. Certainly Anglesey was absent from the Lords during this period, as were several other Buckingham loyalists, among them the 6th earl of Rutland (Francis Manners^*), the 2nd earl of Salisbury (William Cecil^*) and the 1st earl of Bridgwater (John Egerton^*).

Following the end of the session, Anglesey was granted by the crown a 51-year lease of Ashley House, in Walton-on-Thames, and its adjacent manor. Ashley House was of recent construction, having been erected between 1602 and 1607 by the wife of the 7th Lord Berkeley (Henry Berkeley^*). In all likelihood it soon became Anglesey’s new home, as it was at Walton that the earl’s wife would be buried in 1662.52 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 223; J.W. Lindus Forge, ‘Obits. of Buildings’, Surr. Arch. Soc. lxxi. 263; E.W. Brayley, Top. Hist. of Surr. ii. 351; O. Manning and W. Bray, Hist. and Antiquities of Surr. ii. 767. Ashley House lay near the king’s palace of Hampton Court, the keepership of which Anglesey acquired following the assassination of Buckingham in August 1628. Anglesey was probably at Portsmouth when Buckingham was murdered, as his wife was present in the house in which the duke was staying.53 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, i. 382.

Anglesey’s finances may have improved during the later 1620s. Several parcels of crown lands, part of the April 1623 grant worth £400 p.a., were finally conveyed to him in 1628 and 1629.54 CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 211, 225; SO3/9, unfol. (July 1629). Moreover, in July 1628 Edward Barrett^*, 1st Lord Newburgh, was persuaded to bestow upon Anglesey the reversion to lands worth £1,200 p.a. in return for appointment as chancellor of the Exchequer.55 Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, ii. 204; Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 452. By June 1628 Anglesey was wealthy enough to lend £600 to the Wiltshire gentleman Sir Edward Bayntun^‡.56 LC4/58, no. 129.

Anglesey played no recorded part in the 1629 session of Parliament, though he missed just six of its sittings. Following the dissolution, in June 1629, he finally became a magistrate. Two months later he was one of 12 peers required to repair to Windsor to sign the peace treaty with France on 6 Sept., but in the event his presence was not needed.57 LC5/132, p. 137; CSP Ven. 1629-32, p. 191. He died intestate on 3 Apr. 1630 at Windsor. It has been claimed that he was buried nine days later in St George’s Chapel, but the registers record no such interment.58 Oxford DNB, lxvi. 482; Baptism, Marriage and Burial Regs. of St George’s Chapel ed. E.H. Fellowes and E.R. Poyser, esp. 191-2. Letters of administration were granted the following month to his widow, who obtained a grant of his crown pension, plus arrears.59 PCC Letters of Admon. 1620-30 ed. J.H. Morrison, 109; CSP Dom. 1629-31, pp. 392, 530; HMC Montagu, 116. Anglesey was succeeded by his eldest and only surviving son Charles^†, an infant.