For George Browne, the inside of a grim prison cell must have seemed a better option than a blood-soaked block at Tyburn, he was lucky to have escaped death,
and this thought must have crossed his mind, but his focus lay on his family's lands in Kent, and his intentions were to recover them. Within two months of his imprisonment, Browne was released on a pardon granted by the Yorkists. This pardon covered all the acts before the 24th of August, and the timing of his request for a pardon more than suggests his motives were in connection with his father’s forfeiture. Word must have got to Browne that Thomas Vaughan was taking steps to improve his present circumstances, and the opportunity to do just that took the form of Browne’s widowed mother Eleanor.
and this thought must have crossed his mind, but his focus lay on his family's lands in Kent, and his intentions were to recover them. Within two months of his imprisonment, Browne was released on a pardon granted by the Yorkists. This pardon covered all the acts before the 24th of August, and the timing of his request for a pardon more than suggests his motives were in connection with his father’s forfeiture. Word must have got to Browne that Thomas Vaughan was taking steps to improve his present circumstances, and the opportunity to do just that took the form of Browne’s widowed mother Eleanor.
In 1467 when Vaughan was dealing with the lands of Thomas Browne Edward IV wrote:
“Thies bee the consideracions that have moeved us to graunte unto our trusty and welbeloved squier for oure body, Thomas Vaghan the proviso in fourme undrewriten.
Furst considred the good hert, feithfull love & true service by him done unto the prince of blissed memoir' my lord my fadre, whom God pardoune.
With whom he was banysshed the lande and atteinte by auctorite of parliament as it appereth of recorde, and upon whom al that seasone he attended, forsaking al his fees, goodes & lyfelode.
Secondely howe that withoute variaunce he hath stedefastely contynued with my saide lord and fader and with us in his trewe service, nat having othre rewarde in landes & tenementes but onely the landes and tenementes late Thomas Browne's, atteinted. For the whiche he standeth and hath stande in grete trouble & coste in the lawe to defende the claymes and titles that divers folkes pretende to the same, wherof parte is recovered from him.
Thirdely considred that he paide to us for the same landes and tenementes m l li in money to his uttre undoing yf the saide landes and tenementes shulde nowe bee resumed from him."
“Thies bee the consideracions that have moeved us to graunte unto our trusty and welbeloved squier for oure body, Thomas Vaghan the proviso in fourme undrewriten.
Furst considred the good hert, feithfull love & true service by him done unto the prince of blissed memoir' my lord my fadre, whom God pardoune.
With whom he was banysshed the lande and atteinte by auctorite of parliament as it appereth of recorde, and upon whom al that seasone he attended, forsaking al his fees, goodes & lyfelode.
Secondely howe that withoute variaunce he hath stedefastely contynued with my saide lord and fader and with us in his trewe service, nat having othre rewarde in landes & tenementes but onely the landes and tenementes late Thomas Browne's, atteinted. For the whiche he standeth and hath stande in grete trouble & coste in the lawe to defende the claymes and titles that divers folkes pretende to the same, wherof parte is recovered from him.
Thirdely considred that he paide to us for the same landes and tenementes m l li in money to his uttre undoing yf the saide landes and tenementes shulde nowe bee resumed from him."
One thing we can definitely say about Vaughan was that he was quick off the mark, Thomas Browne was in his grave less than three months before he had married his widow Eleanor. One moment Vaughan was a loyal, but not necessarily wealthy member of Henry’s court, sharing the ownership of a house in London with Jasper Tudor, the next he is the proud owner of nine estates in Kent with the hope of getting his hands on the tenth.
Thomas Browne was executed on the 21st July 1460, and we find in Henry VI’s Close Rolls dated the 28th November 1460 the following statement:
“Thomas Vaughan of London esquire and Eleanor his wife”
A fast worker Vaughan most certainly was.
It is highly likely that Vaughan had married Eleanor after the 24th of August, Browne may have taken out the pardon to cover all events up to that date and this suggests that his mother was still unmarried at that point and therefore his family lands, by rights, belong to him and his siblings and not by right of marriage to Thomas Vaughan. George Browne was released in the September and began, as mentioned previously, to spend much time, money and energy claiming back what he considered rightfully his.
Thomas Vaughan’s new wife was an Arundel by birth, she was the great-great granddaughter of Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel and the 3x great-granddaughter of Hugh Despenser the younger, it was through her links to the mighty Fitzalan family that Thomas Browne had received lands in Surrey and in Kent. Eleanor had nine children by Browne, their second son, the aforementioned George, who was born at their manor in Tonford in Kent, and their third son Anthony, at Betchworth Castle in Surrey.
By the 18th of October, Vaughan and Eleanor had set about claiming Browne’s forfeited estates, the applications to obtain these make quite interesting reading, and show how determined Vaughan was to obtain these properties. Firstly, for a payment of £1000, Eleanor along with Vaughan secured all of her husband's “goods, chattels, monies and debts.” However, the thirteen manors with houses, two wharfs, two windmills and properties in Lime Street and Billingsgate in London and a castle in Kent were all claimed by Thomas Vaughan and not Eleanor. The granting of these lands came with a condition that the couple be granted the properties but not the property rights, at the death of Vaughan the property would revert to Eleanor and Thomas Browne’s children. A recognizance or bond, at a cost of yet another £1000, finally secured the properties, and the rights of Thomas Browne’s heirs were safeguarded via a panel of trustees, the document to this effect was issued on the 9th of November. Vaughan’s windfall did not include the manor of Swanscombe. This manor had passed down through the royal family from Edmund Mortimer to Richard Duke of York, but it had been taken by the crown at the Coventry Parliament in 1459 and granted to Thomas Browne. Being part of the Browne estates, Vaughan could have contested, but it passed to York without any complaint, however, the estate of Tonford in Kent, which had been granted, albeit, temporarily, to John Fogge, was a different matter.
The manor of Tonford lies on the western side of the River Stour in Kent, Thomas Browne had built four round towers, three of which can be seen below, and he had received a license to crenelate in 1449. The towers are long gone and only the original flint walls, mullioned windows, and timbered roof survive today. From the images below we can get some idea of what these three men were fighting over.
Thomas Browne was executed on the 21st July 1460, and we find in Henry VI’s Close Rolls dated the 28th November 1460 the following statement:
“Thomas Vaughan of London esquire and Eleanor his wife”
A fast worker Vaughan most certainly was.
It is highly likely that Vaughan had married Eleanor after the 24th of August, Browne may have taken out the pardon to cover all events up to that date and this suggests that his mother was still unmarried at that point and therefore his family lands, by rights, belong to him and his siblings and not by right of marriage to Thomas Vaughan. George Browne was released in the September and began, as mentioned previously, to spend much time, money and energy claiming back what he considered rightfully his.
Thomas Vaughan’s new wife was an Arundel by birth, she was the great-great granddaughter of Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel and the 3x great-granddaughter of Hugh Despenser the younger, it was through her links to the mighty Fitzalan family that Thomas Browne had received lands in Surrey and in Kent. Eleanor had nine children by Browne, their second son, the aforementioned George, who was born at their manor in Tonford in Kent, and their third son Anthony, at Betchworth Castle in Surrey.
By the 18th of October, Vaughan and Eleanor had set about claiming Browne’s forfeited estates, the applications to obtain these make quite interesting reading, and show how determined Vaughan was to obtain these properties. Firstly, for a payment of £1000, Eleanor along with Vaughan secured all of her husband's “goods, chattels, monies and debts.” However, the thirteen manors with houses, two wharfs, two windmills and properties in Lime Street and Billingsgate in London and a castle in Kent were all claimed by Thomas Vaughan and not Eleanor. The granting of these lands came with a condition that the couple be granted the properties but not the property rights, at the death of Vaughan the property would revert to Eleanor and Thomas Browne’s children. A recognizance or bond, at a cost of yet another £1000, finally secured the properties, and the rights of Thomas Browne’s heirs were safeguarded via a panel of trustees, the document to this effect was issued on the 9th of November. Vaughan’s windfall did not include the manor of Swanscombe. This manor had passed down through the royal family from Edmund Mortimer to Richard Duke of York, but it had been taken by the crown at the Coventry Parliament in 1459 and granted to Thomas Browne. Being part of the Browne estates, Vaughan could have contested, but it passed to York without any complaint, however, the estate of Tonford in Kent, which had been granted, albeit, temporarily, to John Fogge, was a different matter.
The manor of Tonford lies on the western side of the River Stour in Kent, Thomas Browne had built four round towers, three of which can be seen below, and he had received a license to crenelate in 1449. The towers are long gone and only the original flint walls, mullioned windows, and timbered roof survive today. From the images below we can get some idea of what these three men were fighting over.
Fogge had been granted this manor by reversion in the June of 1460 as a reward for joining the Yorkist party, but no doubt this was disputed by Thomas Browne. Fogge’s claim had been that Browne had illegally deprived his family of the manor in the 1430’s. This dispute had carried over after Browne's death, Vaughan and Eleanor challenged it on the basis that in 1435, John Fogge had released the claim and with a recognizance or bond of £1000 to Thomas Browne that he (Fogge) abide by rulings agreed upon. In the Close Rolls concerning this claim, we find the wording Mutatis Mutandis, a term used when “comparing two or more situations making necessary alterations while not affecting the main point of issue.” The Vaughan’s claim to Tonford was unsuccessful as we can see in a £1000 recognizance of the 28th November.
“Thomas Vaughan of London and Eleanor his wife to John Fogge esquire, recongisance of £1000 on
Condition, that they and all others who have title, estate or interest to their use in the manors of Tonford and Dane
shall abide and perform to John Prysot, Knight, chief justice and Walter Moile, justice of the bench.”
Condition, that they and all others who have title, estate or interest to their use in the manors of Tonford and Dane
shall abide and perform to John Prysot, Knight, chief justice and Walter Moile, justice of the bench.”
By 1471 the manor of Tonford was finally settled on Sir John Fogge. Unlike George Browne, who was executed for his part in the Buckingham rebellion, Fogge lost his lands including Tonford in 1484, by 1485 under the new Tudor regime, Fogge was pardoned and his estates restored.
Vaughan’s dispute with John Fogge was effectively over by the end of 1460, but the ill feeling between Vaughan and his stepson were set to continue. The document of November 1460, safeguarding the right of the Browne lands settled things down and the relationship between the two men, it seems, was cordial but this did not last long. Thomas Vaughan’s willingness to accept the conditions set on the property rights of Browne’s children suggests that he had no children of his own with Eleanor, and no offspring meant no heirs to inherit and therefore this could account for the lull in the proceedings, however by the August of 1465 the game changed. An enfeoffment dated the 16th of August was issued and the rights of the Browne estates would no longer pass to the offspring of Thomas Browne and Eleanor but to the offspring of “the heirs of the bodies” of Thomas Vaughan and Eleanor, this suggests that Eleanor was pregnant or had given birth. If that did not anger Browne, then the enfeoffment of the beginning of 1467 most certainly did. From January 2nd, the large estates that Thomas Browne had been adding to his ‘portfolio’ since 1430 were now granted to Thomas Vaughan alone, his wife and their assigns. If a child had been born to Vaughan and Eleanor it had not lived past its second year and with no heir to inherit it must have been blatantly obvious to George Browne that his stepfather had no intention of bequeathing the estate to him.
Serious disputes over land were nothing new, many believe that the First Battle of St Albans was as much about the ongoing squabble between the Percy and the Neville family as it was about the major fallout that was rearing its ugly head, that of the house of York and Lancaster. It cannot be doubted that this battle, for the individual members of these two northern families, was very personal, each trying to destroy the other under the guise of a greater cause. The origins of the squabble had its roots in land, or the loss of it, bitterness turned to anger, discussion to litigation, and skirmishes into outright warfare, the dispute between the Browne/Vaughan was heading along similar lines. Their dispute, following the 1467 enfeoffment, turned away from a peace hopeful gained in the courts of law to violence in the fields of Kent.
Vaughan’s dispute with John Fogge was effectively over by the end of 1460, but the ill feeling between Vaughan and his stepson were set to continue. The document of November 1460, safeguarding the right of the Browne lands settled things down and the relationship between the two men, it seems, was cordial but this did not last long. Thomas Vaughan’s willingness to accept the conditions set on the property rights of Browne’s children suggests that he had no children of his own with Eleanor, and no offspring meant no heirs to inherit and therefore this could account for the lull in the proceedings, however by the August of 1465 the game changed. An enfeoffment dated the 16th of August was issued and the rights of the Browne estates would no longer pass to the offspring of Thomas Browne and Eleanor but to the offspring of “the heirs of the bodies” of Thomas Vaughan and Eleanor, this suggests that Eleanor was pregnant or had given birth. If that did not anger Browne, then the enfeoffment of the beginning of 1467 most certainly did. From January 2nd, the large estates that Thomas Browne had been adding to his ‘portfolio’ since 1430 were now granted to Thomas Vaughan alone, his wife and their assigns. If a child had been born to Vaughan and Eleanor it had not lived past its second year and with no heir to inherit it must have been blatantly obvious to George Browne that his stepfather had no intention of bequeathing the estate to him.
Serious disputes over land were nothing new, many believe that the First Battle of St Albans was as much about the ongoing squabble between the Percy and the Neville family as it was about the major fallout that was rearing its ugly head, that of the house of York and Lancaster. It cannot be doubted that this battle, for the individual members of these two northern families, was very personal, each trying to destroy the other under the guise of a greater cause. The origins of the squabble had its roots in land, or the loss of it, bitterness turned to anger, discussion to litigation, and skirmishes into outright warfare, the dispute between the Browne/Vaughan was heading along similar lines. Their dispute, following the 1467 enfeoffment, turned away from a peace hopeful gained in the courts of law to violence in the fields of Kent.
The spring of 1467 saw Thomas Vaughan away from London and staying at his manor of Betchworth, if he had recently lost a child maybe Betchworth was the ideal place for him to reassess his position. In the hush of the cold evening on the last day of March that year, a distant rumble of horses hooves shattered the peace that surrounded Betchworth Castle, as the noise became louder Vaughan would have risen and looked down from a window to see a group of men making their way towards his property. As these men came closer, Vaughan would have soon recoginsed his son-in-law. George Browne, accompanied by one Henry Carpenter and a number of other armed men halted outside the castle walls. Either Thomas Vaughan had come out to talk or Browne barged into Vaughan’s residence, however, a fight ensued and Vaughan was ejected from his property. It must have been obvious to Vaughan how angry George Browne was as he smashed windows, pushed down walls, and upturned water troughs.
Brown and his group of rioters went on to damage the property to the value of £100.
George Browne was an embittered man, and no doubt with reference to his father’s ruination, he would later state that Thomas Browne was brought down
Brown and his group of rioters went on to damage the property to the value of £100.
George Browne was an embittered man, and no doubt with reference to his father’s ruination, he would later state that Thomas Browne was brought down
“by grete and inordynet labours and of grete malcie of dyvers his enemyes and evell willers”
George Browne was placing the blame for the death of his father and the resulting loss of lands squarely at his stepfather's feet.
Looking at the events of the summer of 1460 and the August of 1467 as a separate issue, I cannot help but think that Vaughan's actions showed underhandedness. The quickness of his marriage to Browne’s widow, the agreement claiming the Browne inheritance with the ‘promise’ to protect the rights of the Brownes heirs, all lead me to think that his course of action was premeditated. However, it was the usual policy that lands of a convicted traitor were granted to others, either as a reward or as an incentive. George Browne was, like so many, on the wrong side at the wrong time. He was kicking up a fuss, no matter to him that he was in a similar situation with the Poynings inheritance, I wonder if at any time he considered disinheriting the Poynings heir in favour of his own offspring if he had, he certainly had a good tutor.
If Vaughan hadn’t realised how much Browne resented him, then he certainly did now.
Vaughan soon brought a case against Browne for his attack at Betchworth, but no action was taken as the case was held over. In the five months, it took to bring the case back to court, Browne had been in much trouble, he had a number of trespass cases brought against him, it was only the intervention of the Paston’s, his wife's family, that serious action was not taken against him. The Betchworth case was set to be heard again in court on the fourth of September, but Browne and the others failed to turn up and an order went out for their arrest.
At the beginning of the following year the case again came before the courts, however, this time both Browne and Vaughan did not attend, the charges were heard and denied by both their lawyers and once again the case was held over until the following April, and that is the last time we hear of it.
George Browne went on to take up a number of posts in Kent, and by 1468 could be found in the pay of George, Duke of Clarence and Thomas Vaughan left England to travel to Burgundy in official business.
Looking at the events of the summer of 1460 and the August of 1467 as a separate issue, I cannot help but think that Vaughan's actions showed underhandedness. The quickness of his marriage to Browne’s widow, the agreement claiming the Browne inheritance with the ‘promise’ to protect the rights of the Brownes heirs, all lead me to think that his course of action was premeditated. However, it was the usual policy that lands of a convicted traitor were granted to others, either as a reward or as an incentive. George Browne was, like so many, on the wrong side at the wrong time. He was kicking up a fuss, no matter to him that he was in a similar situation with the Poynings inheritance, I wonder if at any time he considered disinheriting the Poynings heir in favour of his own offspring if he had, he certainly had a good tutor.
If Vaughan hadn’t realised how much Browne resented him, then he certainly did now.
Vaughan soon brought a case against Browne for his attack at Betchworth, but no action was taken as the case was held over. In the five months, it took to bring the case back to court, Browne had been in much trouble, he had a number of trespass cases brought against him, it was only the intervention of the Paston’s, his wife's family, that serious action was not taken against him. The Betchworth case was set to be heard again in court on the fourth of September, but Browne and the others failed to turn up and an order went out for their arrest.
At the beginning of the following year the case again came before the courts, however, this time both Browne and Vaughan did not attend, the charges were heard and denied by both their lawyers and once again the case was held over until the following April, and that is the last time we hear of it.
George Browne went on to take up a number of posts in Kent, and by 1468 could be found in the pay of George, Duke of Clarence and Thomas Vaughan left England to travel to Burgundy in official business.
