Introductory materials on the English 'Nevitts' marking 350 years sincetheir arrival in America Dear Jean and Mike, Carol and Qinny,

After my visit with you this Summer it has taken a Season of work toredo the line of your English and Colonial Nevitt family consistent withthe data now available for the Knyvet-Knevet-Nevet-Nevitt surnames. I nowhave two inches thickness or factual records from the Rolls of Englishkings, histories and descriptive studies-including genealogies. This studymay not be perfect or complete, some parts may never be more so, but itcontains most of the lines so that positive identifications can be made.Ginny's work defines your line while mine includes the complete familylineage for historical definition, within the limitations of English historicaland genealogical data. In fitting together information from different sources,each with particular characteristics) these limitations must be understood.

Genealogy was a British pastime for all gentle and peerage families.Each family for centuries knew its predecessors and planned out the familyassociations in marriage for the future. It was a royal prerogative toselect and approve of all marriages and junctions of noble families. The4th duke of Norfolk, Thomas III Howard, in the tine of Elizabeth I, reestablishedthe College of Arms that investigated all claims for perrage and kept recordof English genealogies for noble and gentle families. These records andsuccessive efforts are contained in the Harlelan Visitations of the countiesof England. Some 120 volumes drawn from manuscripts present the data sourceof modern British peerage. These data are relational for the noble or familyline and they do not include all of the auxiliary lines (brothers and sisters)and contain few dates. There are some obvious errors where the data isbeyond ken for the reporting families.

The rolls of the English Kings (on parchment and often in Latin) werepublished in the latter part of the 19th century. They are the recordsof the government and court and law. The decisions of the king and hisdesignated councilors were the law, and their sitting was the court, royalor extended. These 500 to l000 volumes reaching to the 20th century containan enormous amount or detail relating to persons, property, titles andactivities of the royal government. Relations or origins of persons otherthan title are not usually given in these records, and they presupposea precise knowledge of' persons, titles and families. where persons ofthe same name are concurrent, considerable knowledge or dates, propertiescertain occupations and progress in life are required to permit the disentanglingof different persons reported in the sane time period. Dating is usuallyexcellent and the indexing of these volumes was a scholarly work of greatmerit.

The focus of the Rolls is property. The king owned it all, and everyoneelse paid rent or fees on entry or demise (taxes). One gains the impressionparticularly in Tudor times that the King or Queen knew about every occupant,or movement of persons and controlled everything. It is hard to see howanyone could circumvent royal policy or presence, unless of course theruler benefited in the process. Goods, trade and customs were not the majorpart of government income until the present age. The court or courts collectedfees for each action and the property of nearly everyone of import revertedto the crown on death or attainment to be kept, given out or reinstatedby fees (taxes). Older dating refers to the year of the Reign from accessionday to accession day, not to the Calendar year. The first day of the calendaryear in Britain and her colonies was Julian, March 25th (associated withthe Annunciation and the coming of spring) until l752. This work consistentlygives the modern calendar year as not to confuse, but the potential problemsof date selection are evident. Did the source make the change?

p 2 Older dates in Inquisitions, or local testimony of property holdingson demise, probated by the church courts, refer to feast days like theWednesday after St Swithuns day, A good pre-Vatican II hagiography( bookof saints' lives) and a Julian perpetual calendar are sufficient for correctinterpretation. The precise professional historian or researcher couldrefer to old English church calendars that are likely to be in Latin.

The Victoria histories of the counties of England, still in processof initial publication after a century of work, are the best source ofinformation on successive property transfer, that dates back in placesto the Doomesday Books of 1086. These check well with original translatedsources. Entry into these exhaustive but Still incomplete studies is bythe Anglo-Saxon hundred (hides or livings) not necessarily the same asthe original hundreds, listed and mapped in the Appendix of the reprintedand translated Domesday Books by John Morris. An atlas of the parishesof each county from. middle English times) covers the next level of listingbut diligent map study of these sources is suggested. The final designationunder each parish is the manors, with their description and successiveholders, without minor tenures or disguises included.

Modern genealogical data attempts to give names and the dates and placesof birth, marriage and death. Available English records sometimes givethese dates but often the birth date is really the recorded baptismal date;a marriage date may be the date of the prior marriage license; and thedeath date may be the date of burial, the obituary, or sometimes the dateof Inquisition or probation that can occur gone years afterwards. The dateof accession to a title might be used as the death record of a predecessorsor the written date of the will, prior to death, may be the only availableindicator for demise. Date uncertainty is greatest for death, but thismay also be the most frequently available date because property or titlechanges are noted, while marriage and birth dates are not.

Places of birth, marriage and death are seldom given in the manner ormodern genealogical data, except in church or probate records. The Englishfocus on property gives us the names or properties held on death by counties.The place listed in the Probate Index is the most probable place of death.burial data from the parish register (not necessarily the place of death),or the major property held on demise are likely places of death, unlesshistory or record states specifically otherwise. Unless the parish is aspecific family seat, parish registers are not helpful for genealogicalidentification and family relationship. when and where available they givespecific information on an individual and limited relational informationin marriage and sometimes in the baptismal record. Early deaths of sonsor daughters of the same name are a particular point of confusion.

Histories include only the primary participants, and the miniscule informationgiven on secondary participants seldom confirm their identification orrelates then to their families. although historians degrade genealogy,perhaps because of the errors of the type noted in the two preceding paragraphs,they must be ardent followers of family history to avoid confusion of personsand families. Title-place designation usually refers to some ancient seator prior condition of origin. In England o1d titles rarely designate themodern seat or even those held by previous creations of the title. Title-surnamerelationships are not easy to follow through the vicissitudes of time,except in researched biographies.

The English Dictionary of National Biography is a valuable and accuratesource of compiled data on important persons and sometimes on families.Nancy Lenz Harvey, prominent author of historical romance and professorat the University of Cincinnati introduced me to these methods and gaveme valuable encouragement and advice, I am very grateful for her help.

p.3

Modern historical research is based as much as possible upon the original,transcribed or translated record according to G, R. Elton in his England,1200 to l640, published in 1969. This criteria brings into question theworks or early historians who borrowed or fancified, even those with royalconnections and bias, living in the age of the writing. Polydore Vergil,a latter one glorified Henry VIII, his patron, as the all just and generousmonarch, and this thesis is still current in modern historical books, acceptedas gospel because Henry was a founder, and such roots are inviolate.

English rulers and their administrators were superb diplomats 0f therecord, and it takes a lifetime of effort such as that 0f Muriel St ClareByrne in The Lisle Letters, U. of Chicago Press, 1951, to penetrate theheavy cloak of righteousness and legal correctness that stands out in theEnglish record. when the kings word was law then law, right and justicewere aligned with his person and acts. Anyone who would question the lastword was guilty of treason. Since the parliament usually went along withthe king, increased representation reinforced his righteousness, and lawscould be passed to fill the need.

History is the story of winners, and abrupt changes in reign or policyrequire inordinate personal flexibility to remain with the winners. Loyaltyis the key of success, and personal integrity and belief must be sacrificedto keep what you have and to gain more. The loser chose the wrong side,by lack of foresight or inadvertently by origin. Perhaps he chose to stayas he was in the face or change, a perilous thing to do in the face ofthe autocratic stance of church and state. His interior views were slowlydrawn apart as surely as his body would be more quickly, by the physicalpunishment administered at the time. More than this, he would be forgottensince history is the story of winners.

An example is the Catholic recusant, who was faced with exterminationfor more than a century after the legal separation was effected by Parliamentin 1534. By definition he was a traitor and subject to the most horriblepunishment. All organized attempts to rise in opposition to the new orderrailed because these men were in fact loyal to king and country, in allmatters except that of church establishment, thus they were fighting againstthemselves, It took three centuries before these people, who were degradedby the vicissitudes of change, could be re-enfranchised. Sir Edmund Burkeaffirmed their contributions in the effort and blood of battle to confirmthis loyalty. Martyrdom gave strength to their wlll but in no way convincedtheir oppressors.

Here is a story based upon historical evidence but interpolated to makeliving sense out of cold hard facts and to make persons out of names. Fromthe beginning of our record almost a millenium ago, there was loss followedby hard won gain through marriage and merit, centuries later, and thisprocess was repeated again. It was one family tree with several known branchesof importance. All of these died out or were absorbed in British fashionon the distaff side. One thin line, an offshoot, of historical and genealogicalinterest, lives and flourishes to the present day, in a new land neverdreamed of in the beginning except in fancy. Yet, before our record beginscopatriots of the same origin had penetrated to these very shores, unbeknownto civilized parts for ages to come.

Knyvet of Knevit was the Normianized Anglo-Saxon for CNIHT, or knight,at the time. not yet raised to its medieval significance. One who servedthe warrior chief, a youth or squire on the tribal level. The name wasapplied from an early time of occupation, not to a Saxon but to a Danewho came from Danelaw at the time of king Cnute to serve as a marcher lord'for the wild fastness of Cornwall, from the center of its border with Devonat Launceton.

p. 4 In the reign of Edward the Confessor, the Earl of Wessex, Godwinehad first married Gytha a Dane and second a daughter of the Danish KingSwein, previous conqueror of England and father of King Cnute. He arrangedto have his sons granted earldoms covering all of England south of themidlands and Northumberland. This family was banished for a few years inmid-century, but they returned with force in 1053 to assume neat completecontrol of the government. The Confessor although a celibate married HaroldGodwineson's daughter and the later took over as Earl of Wessex at hisfathers death in l053.

Thane Othmar le Knyvet was marcher Lord and constable at Launceton,Cornwall under Harold Godwineson and his father. His stronghold was Dun-hevetor the 'chief'. Although the record of this holding is in the Norman PropertySurvey or Description known as the Domesday Book, the remains in the late17th century Was a jumble of several successive styles. It is the onlyNorman castle in England or elsewhere that had a square bailey with outerwalls, whose form and size is certainly that of an early Roman militarycamp. The Romans held formal control of Devon from Exeter and there isno record of permanent settlement by the Romans in Cornwall, although earlyrecords are far from complete.

Ptolemy records a settlement at Tamara on the Tamar River about l50AD. This is very likely the site of Dun-hevet, since this is the firstford for crossing the Tamar between this center of the peninsula and thesea. It is a likely point for defense of Devon and for incursion into Cornwall.An early defense post would be constructed of wood with ridges and ditchesroundabout. Thorough Norman razing and castle construction with footingsof stone would leave little evidence of previous structures even with Arc~aeo1ogicalsectioning methods. The form suggested by the terrain would be an obviousbase for rebuilding.

In one corner of the Roman square is a Celtic, conical tor, like theone at Glastonbury. One descriptive source says that the hill at Dun-hevethad no castle on its top from the conquest of the Saxons until the Normanscame. Castles as we know them are a Norman specialty for defense. Thisdoes not preclude the use of the area with ridges and ditches for a Saxonstronghold with housing, all of wood construction. The tor could be usedas a final defense point possibly with a wood defense structure that woulddeteriorate, surrounded by ditches. The main gate to the bailey facingthe drawbridge over an extensive most had a rounded Norman arch on theoutside and a pointed arch on the inside.

William the Conqueror defeated King Harold Godwineson and his Danesmassed in Saxon fashion on Telbam hill north of Hastings in 1066, Surroundedby ditches filled with brush on the defense side. Although the Saxons acceptedWilliam on his coronation at Westminster on Christmas day, rebellions arosein 1067 in the North and Southwest. In quick sweeps the rebels were defeated,Dun-hevet was wasted or destroyed to one-fifth of its former value andBrian of Brittany replaced Othmar Knyvet and became the first Earl of Cornwall.The Conqueror lost patience when Danelaw rose in 1069 and he would trustthe Danes no farther.

When William returned to Normandy in 1068 he took the marcher, Knyvetwith him. He arranged a marriage for Othmar with the Norman heiress Dammartinand gave thus St. Pierre a few miles from his birthplace at Falaise sothat his Uncle Walter could watch over his Normanization. This hold tookthe name canevit and the family name Canivet took on the Norman meaningof Marcher or border guard. In 1075 Brittany rebeled against Duke William'soverlordship and Dun-hevet, back in Cornwall, was given to Robert, Countof Mortain, half brother or William with the title of Earl of Cornwall.

p.5

Since we find no record of the Knyvets in the Latin Pipe Rolls of earlyNorman English times, it is assumed that the family remained in Normandyfor several generations under the watchful eye of the Norman kings andtheir adjuncts in Normandy. Between 1180 and 119S the third generationat St. Pierre de Canevit included Richard and William de Knyvet, namedafter members of the royal family. These men fought for Normandy and Englandagainst France. About this time members of this family acquired propertyin England. With the conquest of Normandy by France some removed to Englandand some to Miens in Piccardy near Flanders to become wool merchants dealingwith England at London.

Before King John assumed the throne, Sir John Knevit held property inSouthwick Northamptonshire a few miles southwest of Fotheringhay castlein Willybrook Hundred under the Earls of Warwick. Grants by Sir John wereconfirmed by his son Richard. Grandson Thomas held Southwick under Peterde Montford who was under Thomas Newburgh, Earl of Warwick at his deathin 1242. His son John was with Simon de Montford in 1264-5 but he was pardonedby Henry IIIrd. Peter de Montford signed the Provisions of Oxford in 1258and he was a member of the Council of nine. Two successive John Knevitsfollowed Thomas, the latter a knight in 1319 was with master John de Laceyand King Edward I, beyond the seas in 1286. His brother Robert was in Irelandfrom 1289 to 1295 and served as an attorney in the last years of Edward'sreign. Sir John held Cambridgeshire estates in 1315.

Sir John's a son Richard married Joan Wourth daughter of Sir RichardWourth in 1304 and he obtained her lands becoming the keeper of the forestof Clive in 1324. Their son later Sir John Knyvet, 2nd lay Chancellor ofEngland, married Eleanor Bassett, heir of 2nd Lord Ralph Bassett of WeldonNorthamptonshire. He was practicing law just before the arrival of theBlack Death in England, 1348-9, the plague that decimated one-third ofthe population and left much property vacant. He rose to Chief Justiceand Chancellor under protector, John of Gaunt, 1372-6, and became the Executorof Edward III. during his term as Chancellor, he called the Good parliamentwhere the first speaker of the Commons was elected by two knights fromeach shire and representatives from each borough. At this time the. Commonsbecame vocal, making recommendations to the king as the basis for passinghis tax aids.

Sir John Knyvet, Chancellor, continued his own line with a son of thesame name, and generated a second family of importance through his secondson Robert Knevet who married the heiresses Isolde de Beihous and EllenFitzwaters. The main seat of this family was at Stanway, Essex west ofColchester, for the better part of two centuries until they merged withthe William Clopton family of Groton, Suffolk. This Stanway family remainedin the good graces of the kings throughout this time.

Three successive John Knevits followed in the Chancellor's Northamptonshireline. The first John Knevit eldest son, harried Joan Botetort, daughterand heir to Sir John Botetort of Mendlesham, Suffolk. In addition to Mendlesham,Suffolk this son of the Chancellor acquired Hamerton, Huntingdon from theBotetorts and Winwick and Turning in Huntingdon and Northamptonshire fromhis father through his mother. His son Sir John sold the original SouthwickManor in 1442, to John Lynne who married his daughter Joan and whose descendentsheld this until 1796.

p. 6

Sir John Knevit, grandson or the Chancellor, married Elizabeth Clifton,the major heir of Sir Constantine Clifton, 2nd Baron de Clifton who heldBuckenham Castle in Norfolk and other manors also southwest of Norwich.Buckenham was the major peat of this Knyvet line and the title later accordedthem, however they continued to hold Weldon and Winwick in Northamptonand Huntingdon, Their only living son, the last John Knevit of this linemarried Alice, daughter of William Lynne. of Bassingborne, Cambridgeshire.Two of this John Knevit's sisters successively married Alice's brotherJohn Lynne, later holder of Southwick Manor.

William Knevit was born in 144O, the only living son of John Knevitand Alice Lynne of Buckenham, Norfolk and counties westward. He and hisfather John fought for Edward 1V, to be, under Richard Neville, Earl orWarwick. His mother singly warded off those who sought to take over thecastle at Buckenham while they were away fighting. They also backed theEarl of Warwick in his takeover for Henry VI in 1470-7l, but they werepardoned by Edward IV. His royal service began at his majority in portcustoms and as Justice of the Peace for over half a century and he wastwice appointed Sheriff of Norfolk. He was knighted in 1475 and continuedto hold important posts throughout his life. Several years before his deathin 1515, he was a member of peace commissions with the highest peers ofthe land.

Sir Williams offspring by his first wife Alice Grey, daughter of SirJohn Grey and granddaughter of Lord Reginald Grey of Ruthin, who died in1474, continued the Buckenham line through his grandson, Sir Thomas Knyvet'seldest son, Edmund. Sir Thomas's second son Sir Henry Knyvet Ambassadorwith Bishop Gardiner to the Emperor Charles V and France, began the linesof Escrick, York and Carlton, Wilts from which a dozen peerages stem althoughthe Knyvett name yielded on the distaff side to the Howards in three generations.

Sir William's son Edmund also produced the Ashwellthorp, Norfolk Knyvetfamily through his second son of the same name. This family served theTudor monarchs in military and household positions and continued throughthe Stuart period with the Knyvet name. Out of the Ashwellthorp familycame the large Funderhall, Norfolk family from William Knyvett, a grandsonof Sir Edmund. This family very nearly reached to the Twentieth Centuryin the Knyvet name. Most of these Knyvet Families from the first marriageof Sir Willliam and Alice Grey were marked by consistent royal serviceand conformity or reformation. The last two generations of the Buckenhamfamily were Catholic recusants. Buckenham was sold in the 1640s.

After the death of Alice Grey Knyvet, Sir William next married JoanStafford, daughter of Humphrey Stafford, lst Duke of Buckingham. Joan Staffordwas. the annulled child bride of William Viscount Beaumont. Sir Williamhad hitched his second family to the high riding star of the Staffords.He could not know that in one generation this Star would fall with a longtern effect upon his new offspring. Sir William took part in the abortiverising of Henry, 2nd Duke of Buckingham in 1483 against Richard Illrd infavor of Henry Tudor. He was able to rescue the child Edward, 3rd Dukeof Buckingham to be, but he lost Buckenham and was attained for the restof this brief reign.

After the battle of Bosworth in August l485, Sir William petitionedHenry VII in parliament for reversal of the attainer and the return ofhis properties and this was granted. Sir William was witness to the Papaldispensation for Elizabeth of York and her marriage to Henry VII. He washigh on the list of personages attending royal functions but Henry's closepurse and his policy regarding noble claimants and their retainers preventedthe award of a peerage to Sir William.

p. 7

Sir William's fortunes and properties increased throughout the reignof Henry VII by inheritance and Marriage, thirdly to Joan Courtenay, sisterand heir of Thomas 6th Earl of Devon. There were no children by this last.union. Joan's first husband Roger Clifford, 2nd son of Thomas 8th Baronde Clifford, was executed in 1485. Their children Charles, Barbara andMary were born in Flanders while these Lancasterian supporters Were exilesand their father was serving the Duke of Austria in a military capacity.These families were attained by Edward IV on his accession as a consequenceof opposition in the fratricidal war or the 'Roses.!, but they were unquestionablyof noble lineage.

The close association of Sir William with the Dukes of Buckingham bymarriage to Joan Stafford lead to his appointment as Councilor and Chancellorto Edward 3'rd Duke of Buckingham at Penhurst and London. He acquired propertiesin Kent at this time. His second son of Joan Stafford, Charles Knevit wasmade the collector for the Duke in Norfolk and steward at Penhurst andTonbridge, Kent. Sir William's daughter Elizabeth was lady in waiting tothe Dutchess.

Charles Clifford, son of Joan Courtenay married Ann Knevit, daughterof Sir William Knevit. In 1508 Charles Clifford, with unfortunate timing,contracted with Edmund Dudley, privy secretary and collector for the royalhousehold of Henry VII for the marriage of his two sons and a daughterfor a consideration of 600 british pounds and on the accession of HenryVIII, the new king permitted the summary trial and execution of EdmundDudley and the other privy secretary to remove old retainers of his fatherwhom he and the people disliked, as scapegoats for his fathers unpopularmonetary policies. Edmund' s son John Dudley subsequently became viscountLisle, Deputy of Calais and Duke of Northumberland, briefly his "protector"and Queenmaker. Henry's conscience had its touching moments.

When Arthur, Prince of Wales, died at 16, Henry VII would not returnCatherine to Ferdinand of Spain because he chose not to part with her dowry..He expected Ferdinand to pay for her subsequent support even though hehad her formally betrothed to the child Henry, Duke of York. Very littlewas provided Catherine, who was reduced to poverty and without sufficientfood or clothing for herself and her few servants. She was in tatters bythe time of the kings death seven years later. Her appeals to Henry andlater to his son for adequate support were of no avail and she was forcedto live in one room over the stables. It is very likely that Catherinesability to bear living and healthy children was impaired by this crueland thoughtless treatment, repeated by the son a score of years later.

Henry VIII' s marriage to Catherine resulted in her first pregnancyin 1510. It was during this pregnancy that young passionate Henry inviteda sister of Edward 3rd Duke of Buckingham to share his quarters. When Edwardfound his sister with a courtier compromised, he escorted her out of thepalace and sent her back to her husband. - Henry was severely miffed bywhat he considered was an interference with his privy affairs and the insultof the Duke was to be avenged a decade later Before princess Mary was bornin 1515 Julian, the royal mistresses were well known culminating in thehighly favored natural son, Richmond in 1519.Wolsey, formerly chaplainto Henry VII capitalized on his intimate knowledge of the royal householdto catapult himself to power assured by his fantastic administrative. capacity.He knew how to obtain approval for practically unrestrained executive powerby encouraging the full time pleasure seeking of the king.

p.8

From the tine of Edward IV, many leading families of this period ofwar and dynastic change lost their properties and even their lives becauseof their family connections and political choice; amid rapidly shiftingrequirements for loyalty. Despite sharp partisan differences, the kingsof the period achieved their major aim of eliminating what they consideredto be the threat of magnates and claimants, by execution or reduction ofthe peerage to the level of courtiers, subservient to the royal will.

Sir William Knevit and the heirs or Joan Courtenay who died February5, 1501 were deprived of inheritance from Thomas 6th Earl of Devon by afinal ruling of the new Kings council in 15ll, requiring reversion of allCourtenay manors previously granted frcm this estate to the current Earlof Devon by the new Tudor creations of this title. By this decision CharlesClifford, the husband of Ann Knevit was disqualified from the inheritancegranted by Henry VIIth because he was born in Flanders, while his fatherwas a Lancasterian exile in the service of the Duke of Austria. At thispoint Charles Clifford is lost from the public record except for a passingreference in Sir.William's will of 1514. His son, William petitioned Maryin 1556 for the return of these properties without results.

As the power of the magnates, lords and landholders decreased, throughthe exercise of royal authority, the power of the merchant class increasedbecause of the majority originally held by the boroughs or towns when theknights of the shires and burgers were first united into one commons. Thisawaited times of true representative influence furthered by a general increasein domestic and foreign trade and the relative importance of collectionsfrom this source to the necessity for special royal income.

Sir William Knevit was one of the very few knights of the shire whowas also elected to represent boroughs or towns. This acknowledged respectof the merchant class was earned by his years or service in customs andas Justice of the Peace. Sir William was early associated with Sir HenryColet, wealthy mercer and mayor of London, who married his sister Christinaand who purchased Weldon and Turning, Northamptonshire from Sir William.These properties were later to proceed to the Ashwellthorp family afterthe death or his son, John Colet, famed Dean of St Paul's and his motherChristina.

Sir William's eldest son, Edmund by Alice Grey, married the sister ofSir James Tyrell who held the tower in June 1483, and their eldest son,Thomas, married Muriel Howard, daughter of Thomas 2nd Duke of Norfolk.Sir Thomas Knyvet so styled, friend of Henry VIII, died August 1512 asthe commander of the Regent, in deathly combat with the largest Frenchwarship of the time with all hands lost. His son Edmund, a child and namesakeof his grandfather, vas the male primogenitor heir of Buckenham Castleand other major holdings but a lengthy and costly wardship of the propertywas necessary for eventual control.

Sir Wllliam Knevit an in-law uncle of Edward 3rd Duke of Buckinghamalso his chancellor and councilor, accepted the advice of Edward Staffordin preparing his will of 1514 to evade the costly wardship. By this meansEdward Knevit adult eldest son by Joan Stafford was made heir of the manorsand titles while great grandson child Edmund by Muriel Howard was givenlimited income and properties through Eleanor Tyrell his grandmother.

p.9

Muriel Howard Knyvet appealed this avoidance or primogenitor to theKing on the advice of her father the Duke of Norfolk, and she requestedhis wardship of her young son. The king and his chancellor Wolsey werenot above encouraging conflict between the great lords particularly ifthey could profit from the contest. In 1517 the wardship of Edmund Knyvetwas granted to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk and husband of Mary Tudor,sister of the King. The Dukes or Suffolk, Buckingham and Norfolk were thegreatest magnates of the kingdom outside of the royal demesne or holdingsbut they did not always serve as Henry VIII' s councilors and could notinfluence all decisions. In this loss for Buckingham's side, the landsof Charles Knevit and his first deceased wife, Eleanor Feteplace were revertedto the ward in Edmund's a name.

Final livery or control of the Buckenham lands was granted to EdmundKnyvet in 1533 when he was twenty-five, and Charles Brandon enjoyed theincome of these lands in the meanwhile. The offspring of Edmund and ThomasKnevit were to prosper throughout the Tudor period. The family riff causedby these proceedings resulted in the removal of Sir William Knevit fromthe genealogies of all of the Buckenham,Ashwellthorp and Funderhall lineswith great confusion at this point of succession to the present day. Thiswork and the large chart presents the precise facts that have been ignoredin the family records for some centuries

Charles Knevit by Joan Stafford and his last wife Ann (Compton or Hugford?)of Warwickshire were given the manors of Hamerton and Winwick in Huntingdonand Northampton for the longer life. The court decision of 1517 requiredthe full reversion of these properties to Sir Edmund Knyvet and his descendantswho served the royal household at Greenwich. Charles Knevit was holdingthese manors in l522 when he approved the use of wood from the old housesin disrepair for the improvement of tenants dwellings, therefore he stillcollected rents.

Charles Knevit also held properties in Kent near Penhurst where he wassteward to Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. He was also receiver forthe Duke's properties in Norfolk. In 1518 his sister Elizabeth, who servedthe Dutchess as lady in waiting, died, and the Duke seized her propertiesincluding gold chains totaling over fifty pounds in weight. Charles Knevitwas directed to enclose some peasant common lands as parks for the Duke.The blame for the uproar and dissatisfaction of the commoners was laidupon Charles Knevit as a scapegoat. Charles was summarily dismissed fromhis positions in Kent and in Norfolk as a consequence of disputes withthe Duke about these matters

The Duke of Buckingham was a difficult and vengeful master to thosehe felt had wronged him and he sought to destroy persons who opposed him.This earned him the hatred of many of his servants who were even fearfulof their lives. He had earned the hatred of Cardinal Wolsey who had beenbelittled by the Duke on state occasions. It is likely that the King himselfwaited patiently for the opportunity to even scores with the Duke for hisearly affronts of 1510.

Margaret Gadding another lady in waiting to the Dutchess was dismissedfor her unwanted comments about the Knevit disputes after she buried Elizabeth,Charles Knevit's sister. She wrote a letter to the King in 1520 complainingabout her dismissal. She also conveyed tales or scuttlebutt attributedto Robert Gilbert the Dukes last chancellor and to Charles Knevit. Edward3'rd fluke of Buckingham ordered Robert Gilbert's journey to Oxford inNovember of 1520 to determine the nature of the charges and evidence reportedby Margaret Gedding of Charles Knevit, and Gilbert communicated with Westminsteron this inquiry.

p. 10

When Cardinal Wolsey called in Robert Gilbert1 chancellor for Buckinghamto investigate the charges he had received, he entrapped him with the previousinformation and set him and his agents to entrap Charles Knevit, as isrecorded in a letter to Wolsey. When this was completed he turned the newtestimony over to the king to avert any charge of personal malice and theDuke of Buckingham was called unsuspecting to London on April 8, 1521.The private investigation by the king was still in process at Greenwichon the 16th 0f April. The king judged the Duke guilty on the basis of thetestimony and a jury of peers was called to confirm this, beginning May13th, at the Tower of London where Edward Stafford was held, as were hisaccusers.

The evidence of Charles Knevit was to the point regarding treason, butit included very private conversations and what were likely drunken ravingsor the Duke in his less rational hours. This rambling talk related to imaginedwrongs and aspirations that were private mutterings at most. It did includethe desire for accession to the throne in the event no male heir was born,as predicted by a monk and reported by the Duke's chaplain. There was anunrelated death wish for Henry with dramatic undertones of knife actionbased on a story told him by his father about Richard III. Actually HenryVIIIth knew his strength politically, and how little danger the Duke'sravings constituted.

Robert Gilbert the Duke's Chancellor had a more telling accusation ofWolsey as the procurer of women for Henry and Edward Stafford's accountof Henry's loose relations with women. This moral charge could not be counteredand it enraged the King most sorely, as had the earlier encounter withthe Duke in 1510 during Cathetine's first pregnancy. Charles Knevit's testimonyhad covered the formal charge of treason, but Gilbert's account determinedthe will of the King for the death of Buckingham.

By premeditated consideration and decision, the will of the King and'Wolsey was for the death of Edward Stafford and his attainment. Buckinghamwas not permitted to prepare a defense against his accusers and his selectedpeers found the defendant guilty and the Duke of Buckingham was executedon May 17, 1521. Parliament saw to the act of attainment and Wolsey distributedthe Duke's great land holdings to the King and to the nobles who had tobe pacified about Buckingham's execution.

Thus were the King and his Chancellor mollified for the hurts allegedof Edward Stafford 3rd Duke of Buckingharn and the threat that his existencewas to the King. Historians and legal experts are unanimous in saying thatthe death sentence was unjustified and that the Duke was given neitherdefense nor recourse. By this act, this most powerful magnate and anotherproper claimant to the throne was eliminated and his lands confiscated.His family was reduced in honors and permitted to retain certain Staffordholdings and the Earldom.

According to drafts prepared and corrected by Cromwell in 1543 CharlesKnevit was to receive several manors and be given recourse for the returnof his property taken by the Duke. Actually in 1523 these were all in thehands of the King, Charles Brandon and Mary Tudor and Edward Neville. Thesedata make it obvious that Charles Knevit claimed entrapment by CardinalWolsey and he never received any reward, in fact, he was in debt to themerchants of London and pledged his manor of Leigh, Kent as surety. S

p. 11

To distract attention from the testimony of Robert Gilbert, chancellorto Edward Stafford, Polydore Vergil the first historian who lived at thetime, perfumed the actions of Henry VI11, his patron and later his executionersby blackening the names of Charles Knevit and cardinal Wolsey. He labelsCharles as a troublemaker for the Duke and the King, who informs on theduke for gain, and Wolsey as a malicious lowborn knave who was so anxiousfor the Duke's destruction that he incited Charles Knevit to this testimony.

William Shakespeare in his play Henry VIII took his lead from PolydoreVergil and kept his head. He has Cardinal Wolsey bring Charles Knevit,the Surveyor, before the mighty and all just King Henry and his wife Catherineto report the treason of the Duke of Buckingham, after Norfolk has toldBuckigham that Wolsey has instigated this charge. Henry examines the Surveyor,and on the basis of the testimony declares before the council that Edwardis guilty. Catherine's gentle dissuader is ignored by the King.

The Chronicler Hall who is Shakespeare's usual source, does not interpretthe events but merely reports that it was Robert Gilbert who first reportedthe evidence to the King. Records and letters of the time say that theKing personally investigated the case before bringing this to Wolsey'sattention by an unusual personal letter and that he determined that Buckinghamwas guilty before the jury was called or the indictment was read. The actof defamation always contains elements of the truth. Exaggeration and strongcontrast, point the blame, to shield the actions of the accuser.

A contemporary of Charles Knevit in London at the same time1 Sir ThomasMore, also executed by his patron, encouraged Henry to write a defenseof' the Sacraments in opposition to the teaching of Martin Luther and Thomashelped the King to make his work theologically correct. A special editionof Henry's book was sent to the Pope and Henry was given the title Defenderof the Faith that became a part of the British royal title. This work wasmore influential than the written works of Sir Thomas because Henry didnot find it possible to contradict this thesis in the establishment ofhis English church, or to more radically reform this church. The AnglicanChurch derives its sacramental and catholic font from this foundation

Sir Thomas More has been blamed for the historical errors in the unsignedManuscript on the Life of Richard III that was found with his works andpublished posthumously. This work proports to record the actual eventsand dialogue witnessed by the author. Thomas was five years of age whenthe events of June 1483 occurred. This work was either copied from a workby Cardinal Morton who was present at the time, or written from storiestold him while he was a page under Morton at the ages of ten to twelve.Only good literary criticism could resolve this mystery of authorship.

The time of reformation was at hand in Europe and the legal parliamentaryact of establishment of Henry VIII as head of the English church was onlya decade away. Henry had grown tired of Catherine who now had little chanceof producing a male heir. Ann Boleyn the Kings mistress was growing infavor following her sister Mary after he married off the mother of hisnatural son Henry Fitzroy. The removal of Catherine could bring war withSpain and her nephew, Emperor Charles V was the temporal master of Rome,as well as the Empire, with more papal influence than had Henry or Wolsey.England was prosperous and rather withdrawn from continental interests.provincial and self satisfied her people had a well developed sense ofbeing English.

p.12.

Over the centuries, strong English kings frequently contended with thechurch over the exercise of civil power. They usually sought control ofits personnel In civil matters as well as rights of nomination and vetofor church posts. In their view the government included the church insofaras they could exercise this power. The leaders of the boroughs or townsthought in like manner and contended with the church over local privilegesand rights. In the mid 14th century William of Ockham provided a philosophicalbase for the ascendancy of secular power over the church. In the late 14thcentury, the writings of John Wycliffe at Oxford began a movement thatforeshadowed Protestantism and which sparked John Hus in Bohemia. EnglishLollardy as this was known was seemingly irradicated by Henry IV, but anunderground was nurtured in some fraternal guilds and by secular and economicattitudes in the South of England.

The church and its monastic establishments were surveyed by cardinalWolsey who exercised both temporal and spiritual authority in England.He eliminated small and nonfunctional orders taking their funds and propertiesfor the government, he taxed the larger orders heavily and he set up investigationsor the larger monasteries with the pretext of reforming their practices.This effort set the stage and provided the data and mode of operation followedby his successor Thomas Cromwell in disestablishing the monasteries anddistributing their wealth and properties to the nobility to gain theirsupport for this action. The church was self satisfied and unable to respondto this wave of change that corresponded with catastrophic events in NorthernEurope. An authority centered church lost touch with the people and lackedthe pastoral qualities of concern, listening and response. Weak kings andstrong popes were succeeded by strong kings and a weak church, each intheir age taking advantage of the other.

A nobility that was bent to the will of the King, as courtiers, acquiescedand yielded where economic advantage and the holding of property requiredthis passive attitude. A Commons that did not even have self knowledgeof potential powers, could be manipulated by political selection and bythe generation of new boroughs, as kings had once done by moving the parliamentto provincial towns. These were very trying tines and the people were subjectto new interpretations by authority that was recognized and accessibleto them, an age with little feeling.

David Mathew clearly presents the fix of the people in their retentionof the old faith. There was no effective opposition leadership, althoughthe majority of the peers were Catholic well into the reign of ElizabethI. The Tudors took their authority by the subjection of the nobles, andthis was not countered until the rise of representational power. Loyaltyto the monarch and to England were high values for most people, includingthe nonconformists to the point where physical opposition invariably failed.Most of those who held a Catholic position did so simply by conservativeresistance to change, withdrawing as necessary, from the entire Englishsociety that required conformity.

Large landed nobles could resist successfully without immediate selfdestruction, but ordinary people or gentle families without large resourceswere subject to conformity by royal and parliamentary authority, or mustsuffer dissemblage. Only the anonymous nature of persons in the capitalcity with its foreign embassies. and the somewhat autonomous north of England1offered long range possibilities for individual or familial nonconformityoutside of exile in Ireland or on the continent. Just as economic and politicaladvantage was often the basis for conformity, so likewise, economic andpolitical loss and injustice gave rise to thought that could eventuallybecome faith centered.

p.13

After 1521, Charles Knevit was in the retinue of the Deputy of Calais,Lord Burners John Bourchier, who served in this post from 1520-26. LordBerners was the father-in-law of his half nephew, Sir Edmund Knyvet ofAshwellthorp, Norfolk who married his daughter and heir, Joan, who carriedthe Berners title to the Ashwellthorp Knyvets. Charles and Lord John hadthe same lineage on the distaff side from Ann daughter of Thomas Woodstock,Duke of Gloucester and the youngest son of Edward III. Charles frequentlycommuted between Calais and Westminster with communications, under theprotection of the king.

Charles Knevit accompanied the forces of the King to France in 1523,bat he did not enjoy high favor from the king. The king could require thata gentleman provide costly overseas service at his own expense and depletethe persons resources through lack of repayment. If a person died whileholding properties in several English counties, there was a Chancery inquisitionof his possessions that could require a royal decision on the successionto the property. Since Charles Knevit was subject to the reversion of hisproperties to Sir Edmund of Buckenham, he could not leave many properties.His assets could be passed on in the form of credits by close merchantfamilies or landowners thereby escaping The more rigid inheritance restraintsfor land holdings.

In 1526 Charles Knevit sold Leigh, rent to Thomas viscount Rochford,father Of Ann Boleyn for 60 English pounds. This indicates a sacrificesale required by his finances or a takeover based on an unpaid obligation.Charles was a resident of London Kent and Huntingdon before his propertieswere sold or taken over. He was also a resident of Warwickshire, wherehis in-laws by his wife Ann (Compton or Husford)? had property on the ancientstraight Roman road the Fosse Way at Stretton or at Princethorpe.. Someor his children were raised in this area according to Harleian visitationsone that acknowledged him and his son Richard, by his married daughtersAnn Robinson Irby Carr, Lucy Gates and Alice Verney. Charles Knevit diedbefore 1528 after his wire Ann's death.

Sir Edward Knevit of Norfolk died after his brother Charles in 1528.His major holding was Greshan (Greyshaw) manor, Wymondham, Norfolk andthis was left in the hands or trustees (to retain control) for his wifeAnn Strange, if she remained unmarried. There was 10 3:/yr. for Ann KnevitClifford his sister, now a widow, and 100 1/2 for Elizabeth daughter ofCharles Knevit, if she accepted the husband designated by the Duchess ofNorfolk whom she served as a lady in waiting otherwise the money wouldgo for charity. Elizabeth married Richard Fitzwilliams of an excellentold family. The site of Greyshaw manor was sold in 1565 by Sir Thomas Knyvetof Buckenham, son of Sir Edmund so the manor did pass out of the Knevithands.

Edward Knevit also provided a small sun of 5 1/yr. for the upbringingof the youngest son of Charles Knevit, Anthony by the church if he shouldbe found? This Anthony must have been born in the 1520's and he was subjectto the great uncertainties of Charles Knevit's subsistence at the time.When he became of age he was a resident of Chidingston near Leigh, Kentand he purchased property at Penley Park, Tring, Hertford from EdraundVerney who was in trouble with Mary I. He became involved with associatesin the Wyratt rebellion from Kent against Mary's marriage to Philip ofSpain. This rebellion was put down at Westminster and at the very gatesof London which would not let the rebels enter. He was executed at theTower early in 1554 with the other rebels. Before this time he was a memberof the queens household and forfeited his honors by attaint.

p.14

Charles Knevit's second son Richard of whom we are concerned, is foundin the Rolls record as a messenger and envoy from 1541, under his half-cousin,Sir Henry Knyvet, Ambassador with Bishop Gardiner to Emperor Charles Vas well as to France, Italy and Calais. The youngest son of Sir Edmnndof Sir William, Sir Anthony Knyvet was the Porter of Calais in the 1540s.Richard Knevit remained on the continent in France and Italy in the finalyears of the reign of Henry VIII. Henry attempted to bring him back toEngland in l545 but this was foiled by the claim that he was essentialas a linguist in Italy. In the reign of Edward VI the Duke of SomersetEdward Seymour, protector of the realm sold Richard Knevits housing inLondon as a part of crown collections.

In 1553, Mary's first year as queen, Richard Knevit and his brotherAnthony were pardoned and the latter was of the royal household. With Anthonysexecution and attaint in 1554, his brother Richard is given the right tosue Edmund Verney and collect 400 pounds that was owed to Anthony. Thefortunes of Richard Knevit were rapidly on the rise in Mary's short reign.In l556 Richard Knevit married Hellen daughter of the deceased wealthyLondon mercer and landowner in Surrey, William Harding, a close associateof the notable family of Sir Thomas Gresham, from her ward Robert Warner.Richard purchased Radford Semele, a large manor on the Roman Fosse Wayeast of Warwick in Warwickshire, from Lord Thomas Darcy of Chiche, Essexin l556 after at least three years of residence there. He then sold themanor to Robert Warner of London, and he rented this back at the same yearlyrate to escape ownership identification in the event of Elizabeth's accession.The manor north of Radford Sernele on the Fosse Way was Off church, heldby the Knightley family that was acknowledged as catholic recusant untilthe property was taken over by the crown in 1626.

The marriage of Richard Knevit was short lived because he died at Westminsterin 1559, the first year of Elizabeth's reign. He and Ellen had two children,Mary who married the 2nd son of Roger Lord North in 1581 and Henry namedfor Richards benefactor Sir Henry Knyvet. Little Henry was seven monthsof age at his father's death. Hellen Harding Knevit inherited considerableproperties in Surrey with her sister Catherine who married Richard Onsloweand most of these properties were put into the hands and tenure of theOnslowe's on a formal basis. Helen was remarried at this time to Sir ThomasBrowne of Betchworth castle Surrey, a line associated with the later recusantLord Montague.

Elizabeth I gave the wardship of Henry Knevet at age 3, for upbringingand for conformity, to Sir William More her most trusted agent and sheriffin Surrey who helped to eliminate the catholic presence south of Londonlate in her reign. Sir William had just completed his new manor house atLosely just south of Guilford in 1569 when Elizabeth visited, accompaniedby the 4th Duke of.Norfolk (Thomas Howard. Norfolk was in clandestine correspondenceby code with Mary Queen of Scots, held in the vicinity of Sheffield castle,promising marriage without sanction from the queen of England, and therewas possible higher status for the Duke. The Duke a romantic; starved bylack or opportunity in Elizabeth' sgovernment did not take this opportunityto explain himself to the Queen, but he met the children at Losely andapparently bought the wardship of Henry Knevit then at the age of eleven.

Henry Knevit next appears listed in the ciphers found at the NorfolkHouse (Charterhouse) in 1572 at the time of the Duke's trial and execution.He was apparently a messenger for Norfolk for two years. He entered MagdalenCollege at Oxford in 1571 at the actual age of 13, a somewhat common occurrenceat the time. The alumni records or Oxford and Cambridge confuse Henry Knevitof the Radford Semele manor of Warwickshire with Henry Knyvet of Ashwellthrop,Norfolk

p.15

After Oxford it is possible that Henry Knevit entered the inns of courtsince there was an appreciable recusant contingent there over the yearsbut this conjecture is not certain. Henry was sent to the continent byWalsingham, the vigilant conformer, as a carrier and cipher expert in l577-78.This shows how much confidence Elizabeth and her agents had in their programof educating the children of known recusants. The 14th Duke of Norfolkreceived reformative education from both sides in his youth as the reignschanged. He adhered to his teacher John Fox the reformer at his death,but affirmed at that time that he had employed and supported Catholics,and was willing to die for this action.

In 1589 Henry Knevet sold Radford Semele to John Browne Of Barnham,Sussex, the grandson of his mother Ellen Harding by Sir Thomas Browns ofBetchworth Castle. This property passed from Sir William Browne in 1637to one or his daughters. Old English families were close and mutually supportiveof their kin in these difficult times. Henry married Magdalen Ford of Middlesexhad two sons, Henry and Robert, who are known from the Harleian visitations.The son Henry Jr. was in the naval service and he married Alice Armstead,December 30, 1618 at St. Leonards in Foster Lane. Both he and his wife'sfamily resided in this northwest Londontown vicinity. Their son Richard,styled Nevitt for his lack of service to the crown, was born in 1619. HisMother died before he was grown and his father was either away in serviceor deceased.

The son, Richard Nevitt was warded to John Saunders of Peter and Paul'swharf. He owned with Thomas Cornwalys, one fourth of the Dove, a fiftyton small pinnance contracted by Lord Baltimore who owned the remainingshares, as tender for the voyage of the Ark of London to the Calvert'spalatinate of Maryland with the first colonists. John Saunders, with hisward Richard Nevitt signed on for transport to Maryland and were passengerson the Ark when they left London in late October for the Isle of Wight.The two vessels left Cowes on November 27, 1633 and after an initiallydifficult passage went via Barbadoes to the Chesapeake Bay. They firstdisembarked formally at St. Clements Island in Maryland off Breton Bayneck on March 25, 1634 the first day of the English Julian year.

The best account of the voyage of the Ark and the Dove and the backgroundof the founding colonists is given in The Flowering of the Maryland Palatinateby Harry Wright Newman of Washington, DC, 1961. This author identifiesRichard Nevitt and his background despite difficult orthography or possiblesubterfuge under the name R. Nevell achieved by not crossing the T's. Sincea John Nevill was also aboard, Newman and other researchers had to carefullyidentify and then dissociate the John Nevill family that settled in CharlesCounty from the Richard Nevitt family that settled in St. Mary's county.Harry Wright Newman specifically identified the English family connectionand the origins of the latter family. This work and the associated familychart are the consequence of following these leads for two years as faras available English records would take me.

John Saunders died within a year of the arrival of the Ark, and RichardNevitt "as placed under Ferdinand Poulton, head of the Jesuit missionin Maryland. He also died within two years while crossing to the city ofSt. Marys. In 1639 after Richard had served the cost of his transport,he married Ann Norrise who was brought over by Sir John Lewger, Secretaryof the Maryland Council. In 1641 they first obtained land on the east sideof Breton Bay' from Randell Revell and John Medley, and continued to acquireland in this vicinity into the following generation. The tolerance theCalverts instructed for Maryland was soon lost, but Newtown manor of Bretonneck sustained many in the difficult century ahead.

--0-894429689-970879822=:27120--