MRP: Thomas Stanley - Revision history

Francescagreenstreet at 16:31, February 27, 2012

2012-02-27T16:31:05Z

Francescagreenstreet at 09:44, February 24, 2012

2012-02-24T09:44:14Z

Francescagreenstreet at 08:20, February 17, 2012

2012-02-17T08:20:17Z

Francescagreenstreet at 08:17, February 17, 2012

2012-02-17T08:17:27Z

Francescagreenstreet at 22:19, January 20, 2012

2012-01-20T22:19:47Z

Francescagreenstreet at 12:56, January 5, 2012

2012-01-05T12:56:11Z

Francescagreenstreet at 12:55, January 5, 2012

2012-01-05T12:55:04Z

Francescagreenstreet at 12:53, January 5, 2012

2012-01-05T12:53:12Z

Francescagreenstreet at 22:34, January 4, 2012

2012-01-04T22:34:08Z

Francescagreenstreet at 22:32, January 4, 2012

2012-01-04T22:32:28Z

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 <u>Will & inventory</u>
-See AA/V/H/97/1/132v 14 April 1669 Will of Thomas Stanley, Gentleman, Plaxtol, Kent
+See [[MRP: Thomas Stanley will| AA/V/H/97/1/132v 14 April 1669 Will of Thomas Stanley, Gentleman, Plaxtol, Kent]]
 See [[MRP: VH 96/6226 Inventory of Thomas Stanley 1669|VH 96/6226 Inventory of Thomas Stanley 1669]]

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 ===Centre for Kentish Studies===
-U522 A3. 53, cited in Peter Clark, The English alehouse: a social history, 1200-1830 (London,  1983), p. 120, as source of information on the "accumulating estates of Thomas Stanley, the Rochester brewer"
+U522 A3. 53, cited in Peter Clark, ''The English alehouse: a social history, 1200-1830'' (London,  1983), p. 120, as source of information on the "accumulating estates of Thomas Stanley, the Rochester brewer"
 CKS/Maidstone Borough/Court of Pleas/Files and Loose Papers  MD/JBp1  1591-1755/MD/JBp1/15  Thomas Stanley  1641-1642
 * See also Gervase Maplisden  MD/JBp1/10  1635-1636

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 His brother William Stanley’s widow, Adrie or Awdrey Stanley, went on to marry another commercial associate of Thomas Stanley, the brewer and alderman of Rochester, Barnabas Walsall.   Barnabas became a commercial partner of Thomas Stanley, though there was some friction betwen them.  Though a step-nephew, Barnabas was addressed by Thomas Stanley as 'son' (SURELY BARNABAS WAS A "STEP BROTHER?"), whereas the same Barnabas was addressed as 'father-in-law' by Thomas’ nephew, the lawyer William Stanley, who named him one of two executors.
-It was Barnabas who effected the introduction between Thomas Stanley and Elizabeth Dalyson, as is mentioned in Thomas Stanley’s answer to the complaint of Sir Henry and Sir George Oxenden.  A letter survives from Thomas to Barnabas Walsall in which he expresses obligation to Mrs Dalyson for her affections towards his daughter, but disapproves of his daughter meeting with her son "especially here at my house, until all other matters are in some measure agreed."  It is clear from this letter that Thomas Stanley’s wife was inclined towards another for their daughter, but that Stanley himself sees the advantages of a link with the Dalyson family.  He instructed Walsall to arrange for Mrs. Dalyson to accompany Walsall on a casual visit to the Hamptons whilst noting “I am not p’vided for her enterteymn:t according to her worth.”  After this visit "I may take occassion to see her son & soe p’ceed on or of as the cause shall requier." A further letter from Thomas Stanley to Walsall, of the same date, states "Touching M:rs Dalyson I know not how to treat untill I can know the strength of my estate," having reproved Walsall for neglecting Stanley’s business interests.
+It was Barnabas who effected the introduction between Thomas Stanley and Elizabeth Dalyson, as is mentioned in Thomas Stanley’s answer to the complaint of Sir Henry and Sir George Oxenden.  A letter survives from Thomas to Barnabas Walsall in which he expresses obligation to Mrs Dalyson for her affections towards his daughter, but disapproves of his daughter meeting with her son "especially here at my house, until all other matters are in some measure agreed."  It is clear from this letter that Thomas Stanley’s wife was inclined towards another for their daughter, but that Stanley himself sees the advantages of a link with the Dalyson family.  He instructed Walsall to arrange for Mrs. Dalyson to accompany Walsall on a casual visit to the Hamptons whilst noting "I am not p’vided for her enterteymn:t according to her worth." After this visit "I may take occassion to see her son & soe p’ceed on or of as the cause shall requier." A further letter from Thomas Stanley to Walsall, of the same date, states "Touching M:rs Dalyson I know not how to treat untill I can know the strength of my estate," having reproved Walsall for neglecting Stanley’s business interests.
 What of the practicalities? The two families lived just eight miles linked by the Rochester to Tonbridge road; Frances Stanley at the Hamptons in West Peckham, which lay equidistant between Tonbridge and Maidstone; Maximilian in Halling, just outside Rochester.  Following the marriage Thomas Stanley executed a lease agreement with Elizabeth Dalyson for the Hamptons and presumably shortly thereafter Maximilian and his new wife established themselves there.  Certainly by 1663 Thomas gave a different property as his own address, which was then in Plaxtol rather the Hamptons.  It is unclear if and for how long Elizabeth Dalyson herself may have lived at the Hamptons with her son and daughter-in-law, or whether she stayed at Bishops Place, in Halling,  the property owned by her deceased husband, where her children had been born.  By the 1660s it is clear that Elizabeth had lodgings in London on Throgmorton Street, in the heart of the commercial city, though she continued to visit Kent, frequenting the three houses of the Hamptons, Dean and Langdon Abbey to see Dalyson, Oxenden and Master relations.

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 Thomas Stanley, Maximilian Dalyson’s future father-in-law, was more than twenty-five years older than Maximilian’s mother, Elizabeth Dalyson.  A picture of him was in existence at [[MRP: the Hamptons|the Hamptons]], West Peckham, in 1887, at the time of the publication of his selected correspondence in the ''Archaeologica Cantiana''.  However, it is probable that the portrait was destroyed in a fire which consumed the house shortly thereafter.
-Born in February 1580/81 in West Peckham, he was in his late sixties when he and Elizabeth entered into discussions about the marriage of their two children, Frances his only daughter and heir apparent, and Maximilian, Elizabeth’s only son.  Both children were still minors.  The “young couple” were fifteen and seventeen respectively when they met.   Frances was Thomas’ only child by a third, late, marriage, at the age of fifty-two or fifty-three, to a much younger widow, Mary Duling.  She had been married to William Duling, an alderman and former mayor of Rochester, who had run Thomas’ Rochester brewery.
+Born in February 1580/81 in West Peckham, he was in his late sixties when he and Elizabeth entered into discussions about the marriage of their two children, Frances his only daughter and heir apparent, and Maximilian, Elizabeth’s only son.  Both children were still minors.  The "young couple" were fifteen and seventeen respectively when they met.   Frances was Thomas’ only child by a third, late, marriage, at the age of fifty-two or fifty-three, to a much younger widow, Mary Duling.  She had been married to William Duling, an alderman and former mayor of Rochester, who had run Thomas’ Rochester brewery.
 [[File:SIGNATURE_Thomas_Stanley_C225839_1667.PNG|thumbnail|200px]]
@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 His daughter would have been attractive to Elizabeth from the practical standpoint of money and property, given Elizabeth's financial vulnerabilities and lack of portions for her daughters. Thomas Stanley was commercially successful, and had substantial wealth from diverse commercial interests, including owning brewery interests in Gravesend and Rochester, and other rent producing assets such as a fulling mill and tenements, together with the lending of money.   Fifteen years before the marriage negotiations he assessed his wealth at over £10,000, and reported owning considerable property.
-He had London connections, and may himself have been apprenticed in London.  One brother, John Stanley, was a Cheapside goldsmith, and his nephew, William Stanley, gent., was a Middle Temple lawyer.  This nephew was one of three sons of a Maidstone based brother, the eponymous William Stanley.  Thomas had property dealings with his nephew.  Dying relatively young the nephew noted in an addendum to his will of 1648 that he was “much oblidged and engaged unto my loving uncle.”  In addition the nephew noted owning property himself in West Peckham.
+He had London connections, and may himself have been apprenticed in London.  One brother, John Stanley, was a Cheapside goldsmith, and his nephew, William Stanley, gent., was a Middle Temple lawyer.  This nephew was one of three sons of a Maidstone based brother, the eponymous William Stanley.  Thomas had property dealings with his nephew.  Dying relatively young the nephew noted in an addendum to his will of 1648 that he was "much oblidged and engaged unto my loving uncle."  In addition the nephew noted owning property himself in West Peckham.
 However, Thomas’ strongest commercial links were in Kent.  He appears to spent the early part of his commercial life in Gravesend, before moving subsequently to Maidstone, and then to West Peckham.  As Portreve of Gravesend in 1611 (later again in 1616), he had drawn up a  list of the 181 freemen of that town for that year.  He had strong Maidstone connections, where he was a Jurat and mayor.  He had been mayor of Maidstone (1625-1626, 1641-1642), in which town he owned property.  He had clear commercial influence in both Gravesend and Rochester.  His second brother, William Stanley, was a relatively wealthy mercer in Maidstone, who died in 1621.  Thomas was his sole executor.  By the time of the marriage negotiations he had moved his main residence from Maidstone to the Hamptons in West Peckham, which he had he inherited from his father, John Stanley, when in his late thirties (in March 1616-17).
-His brother William Stanley’s widow, Adrie or Awdrey Stanley, went on to marry another commercial associate of Thomas Stanley, the brewer and alderman of Rochester, Barnabas Walsall.   Barnabas became a commercial partner of Thomas Stanley, though there was some friction betwen them.  Though a step-nephew, Barnabas was addressed by Thomas Stanley as 'son', SURELY BARNABAS WAS A "STEP BROTHER?", whereas the same Barnabas was addressed as 'father-in-law' by Thomas’ nephew, the lawyer William Stanley, who named him one of two executors.
+His brother William Stanley’s widow, Adrie or Awdrey Stanley, went on to marry another commercial associate of Thomas Stanley, the brewer and alderman of Rochester, Barnabas Walsall.   Barnabas became a commercial partner of Thomas Stanley, though there was some friction betwen them.  Though a step-nephew, Barnabas was addressed by Thomas Stanley as 'son' (SURELY BARNABAS WAS A "STEP BROTHER?"), whereas the same Barnabas was addressed as 'father-in-law' by Thomas’ nephew, the lawyer William Stanley, who named him one of two executors.
-It was Barnabas who effected the introduction between Thomas Stanley and Elizabeth Dalyson, as is mentioned in Thomas Stanley’s answer to the complaint of Sir Henry and Sir George Oxenden.  A letter survives from Thomas to Barnabas Walsall in which he expresses obligation to Mrs Dalyson for her affections towards his daughter, but disapproves of his daughter meeting with her son “especially here at my house, until all other matters are in some measure agreed.”  It is clear from this letter that Thomas Stanley’s wife was inclined towards another for their daughter, but that Stanley himself sees the advantages of a link with the Dalyson family.  He instructed Walsall to arrange for Mrs. Dalyson to accompany Walsall on a casual visit to the Hamptons whilst noting “I am not p’vided for her enterteymn:t according to her worth.”  After this visit “I may take occassion to see her son & soe p’ceed on or of as the cause shall requier.”  A further letter from Thomas Stanley to Walsall, of the same date, states “Touching M:rs Dalyson I know not how to treat untill I can know the strength of my estate,” having reproved Walsall for neglecting Stanley’s business interests.
+It was Barnabas who effected the introduction between Thomas Stanley and Elizabeth Dalyson, as is mentioned in Thomas Stanley’s answer to the complaint of Sir Henry and Sir George Oxenden.  A letter survives from Thomas to Barnabas Walsall in which he expresses obligation to Mrs Dalyson for her affections towards his daughter, but disapproves of his daughter meeting with her son "especially here at my house, until all other matters are in some measure agreed."  It is clear from this letter that Thomas Stanley’s wife was inclined towards another for their daughter, but that Stanley himself sees the advantages of a link with the Dalyson family.  He instructed Walsall to arrange for Mrs. Dalyson to accompany Walsall on a casual visit to the Hamptons whilst noting “I am not p’vided for her enterteymn:t according to her worth.”  After this visit "I may take occassion to see her son & soe p’ceed on or of as the cause shall requier." A further letter from Thomas Stanley to Walsall, of the same date, states "Touching M:rs Dalyson I know not how to treat untill I can know the strength of my estate," having reproved Walsall for neglecting Stanley’s business interests.
 What of the practicalities? The two families lived just eight miles linked by the Rochester to Tonbridge road; Frances Stanley at the Hamptons in West Peckham, which lay equidistant between Tonbridge and Maidstone; Maximilian in Halling, just outside Rochester.  Following the marriage Thomas Stanley executed a lease agreement with Elizabeth Dalyson for the Hamptons and presumably shortly thereafter Maximilian and his new wife established themselves there.  Certainly by 1663 Thomas gave a different property as his own address, which was then in Plaxtol rather the Hamptons.  It is unclear if and for how long Elizabeth Dalyson herself may have lived at the Hamptons with her son and daughter-in-law, or whether she stayed at Bishops Place, in Halling,  the property owned by her deceased husband, where her children had been born.  By the 1660s it is clear that Elizabeth had lodgings in London on Throgmorton Street, in the heart of the commercial city, though she continued to visit Kent, frequenting the three houses of the Hamptons, Dean and Langdon Abbey to see Dalyson, Oxenden and Master relations.
 What can we tell from the size and configuration of Thomas Stanley’s Plaxtol home, as inventoried in 1669?  There were ten rooms in the main building, four chambers being upstairs, one chamber down in the kitchin, and five rooms on the groundfloor (parlour, hall, study, kitchen and buttery).  Probably separate from the main building were several buildings connected with food processing – the milk house, the brewhouse and washhouse, together with a brewhouse chamber, and a mill house.  For agricultural purposes there were barns, a stable, yards, pastures, and a hop ground.   This is a very different building and estate to [[MRP: Yotes Court|Yotes Court]] in Mereworth, or the [[MRP: Stonepitt|Stonepitt]] manor house in Seal, both owned by neighbours with whom Thomas Stanley had contact.
 ----
 ==Possible primary sources==

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 ----
 ==Possible primary sources==
+===TNA===
-'''TNA'''
 C 9/49/48 Dalison v. Oxenden 1667
@@ Line 82: / Line 81: @@
 PROB 4/9525 Stanley, Mary, of West Peckham, (late of Plextol), Kent 16[?78] 27 Mar. ?[1677]
-'''PRC wills'''
+PROB 11/138 Dale 64–109 Will of William Stanley, Mercer of Maidstone, Kent 05 September 1621
+PROB 11/205 Essex 108-149 Will of William Stanley, Gentleman of Middle Temple London 11 October 1648
-Will of William Stanley, Mercer of Maidstone, Kent 05 September 1621 PROB 11/138 Dale 64 – 109
+PROB 11/353 Hale 1–43 Will of Mary Stanley, Widow of Wrotham, Kent 12 February 1677
-Will of William Stanley, Gentleman of Middle Temple London 11 October 1648 PROB 11/205 Essex 108 - 149
+----
-Will of Mary Stanley, Widow of Wrotham, Kent 12 February 1677 PROB 11/353 Hale Quire Numbers: 1 – 43
+===House of Lords Archives===
-−
-'''House of Lords Archives'''
 HL/PO/JO/10/1/120  22 April 1642 -- Petition of Thomas Stanley, gent., mayor of Maidstone
+----
-'''Lambeth Palace Library'''
+===Lambeth Palace Library===
 AA/V/H/97/1/132v  14 April 1669 Will of Thomas Stanley, Gentleman, Plaxtol, Kent
 VH  96/6226 Inventory of Thomas Stanley
+----
-'''Kent Archival Service'''
+===Centre for Kentish Studies===
 U522 A3. 53, cited in Peter Clark, The English alehouse: a social history, 1200-1830 (London,  1983), p. 120, as source of information on the "accumulating estates of Thomas Stanley, the Rochester brewer"
@@ Line 105: / Line 102: @@
 * See also Caleb Banks  MD/JBp1/17  1644-1645, MD/JBp1/18, MD/JBp1/19; MD/JBp1/30  1657
 * See also George Ongley  MD/JBp1/27  1651-1652
+----
-'''Secondary books & journals'''
+==Possible secondary books & journals==
 Cruden, Robert Peirce, ''The history of the town of Gravesend in the county of Kent, and of the port of London'' (London, 1843), p. 28
@@ Line 112: / Line 109: @@
 Philpot, John, ''The visitation of Kent: taken in the years 1619-1623'' (London, 1898), p. 55
-‘Letters of Thomas Stanley of Hamptons’ in ''Archaeologia Cantiana'', vol. 17 (London, 1887), pp. 353-372
+'Letters of Thomas Stanley of Hamptons' in ''Archaeologia Cantiana'', vol. 17 (London, 1887), pp. 353-372
 ----
@@ Line 132: / Line 129: @@
 IGI, Sarah Willard
 RCA_T1_006_13 7 September 1643, Barnabas Walsall, Mayor & Clement Brewer, Rochester, cordwainer, lease
+----
-'''Secondary books & journals'''
+==Possible Secondary books & journals==
 [http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3364/ - Kümin, Beat A. (2010) 'Brewing cultures in early modern towns : an introduction', ''Brewery History'', vol. 135 . pp. 2-9]

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, January 5, 2012
Line 13:		Line 13:
	<u>Will & inventory</u>		<u>Will & inventory</u>

		+	See AA/V/H/97/1/132v 14 April 1669 Will of Thomas Stanley, Gentleman, Plaxtol, Kent
	See [[MRP: VH 96/6226 Inventory of Thomas Stanley 1669\|VH 96/6226 Inventory of Thomas Stanley 1669]]		See [[MRP: VH 96/6226 Inventory of Thomas Stanley 1669\|VH 96/6226 Inventory of Thomas Stanley 1669]]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ----
 ==Suggested links==
 <u>Family</u>

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 [[File:SIGNATURE_Mary_Stanley_C225839_1667.PNG|thumbnail|200px]]
-His daughter would have been attractive to Elizabeth from the practical standpoint of money and property, given her own and her childrens’ financial vulnerabilities. Thomas Stanley was commercially successful, and had substantial wealth from diverse commercial interests, including owning brewery interests in Gravesend and Rochester, and other rent producing assets such as a fulling mill and tenements, together with the lending of money.   Fifteen years before the marriage negotiations he assessed his wealth at over £10,000, and reported owning considerable property.
+His daughter would have been attractive to Elizabeth from the practical standpoint of money and property, given Elizabeth's financial vulnerabilities and lack of portions for her daughters. Thomas Stanley was commercially successful, and had substantial wealth from diverse commercial interests, including owning brewery interests in Gravesend and Rochester, and other rent producing assets such as a fulling mill and tenements, together with the lending of money.   Fifteen years before the marriage negotiations he assessed his wealth at over £10,000, and reported owning considerable property.
 He had London connections, and may himself have been apprenticed in London.  One brother, John Stanley, was a Cheapside goldsmith, and his nephew, William Stanley, gent., was a Middle Temple lawyer.  This nephew was one of three sons of a Maidstone based brother, the eponymous William Stanley.  Thomas had property dealings with his nephew.  Dying relatively young the nephew noted in an addendum to his will of 1648 that he was “much oblidged and engaged unto my loving uncle.”  In addition the nephew noted owning property himself in West Peckham.

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 '''THIS ENTRY REQUIRES EDITING'''
-Thomas Stanley, Maximilian Dalyson’s future father-in-law, was more than twenty-five years older than Elizabeth Dalyson, Maximilian’s mother.  A picture of him was in existence at [[MRP: the Hamptons|the Hamptons]], West Peckham, in 1887, at the time of the publication of his selected correspondence in the ''Archaeologica Cantiana''.   However, it is probable that the portrait was destroyed in a fire which consumed the house shortly thereafter.
+Thomas Stanley, Maximilian Dalyson’s future father-in-law, was more than twenty-five years older than Maximilian’s mother, Elizabeth Dalyson.  A picture of him was in existence at [[MRP: the Hamptons|the Hamptons]], West Peckham, in 1887, at the time of the publication of his selected correspondence in the ''Archaeologica Cantiana''.  However, it is probable that the portrait was destroyed in a fire which consumed the house shortly thereafter.
 Born in February 1580/81 in West Peckham, he was in his late sixties when he and Elizabeth entered into discussions about the marriage of their two children, Frances his only daughter and heir apparent, and Maximilian, Elizabeth’s only son.  Both children were still minors.  The “young couple” were fifteen and seventeen respectively when they met.   Frances was Thomas’ only child by a third, late, marriage, at the age of fifty-two or fifty-three, to a much younger widow, Mary Duling.  She had been married to William Duling, an alderman and former mayor of Rochester, who had run Thomas’ Rochester brewery.