In 46. How Young was the Mother of George Yate of Maryland (d. 1691)?, I noted that “Mr. Yates” and “his Wife” received a pass to travel to France from the House of Lords, on the same day and just before a similar pass was issued for “Lord Roper” and “his Lady”. Because Lady Roper was a second cousin of Catherine Weston White, these records were taken as implying that the Yates were John Yate and his proposed wife Elizabeth White, Catherine’s daughter.
Unfortunately, however, I mistakenly identified the Lord and Lady as John Roper, 3rd Baron Teynham, and his wife Mary Petre. In fact, in 1642 when the passes were issued, John Roper had long been dead, and the recipient was actually the couple’s son Christopher Roper, the 4th Baron Teynham [1].
Monument of Christopher Roper, 2nd Baron Teynham, and his Wife Katharine Seborne
The error, however, does not materially affect the observation that the two passes, issued the same date, likely went to related parties. Through his mother Mary Petre Roper, Christopher Roper was the second cousin once removed of Catherine Weston White, and the third cousin of Elizabeth White. A known relationship therefore continues to lend support to the identification of the Yates couple as John Yate and his proposed wife Elizabeth White.
Motivation for Leaving England
Some further digging has revealed the motivation of the Ropers for leaving England. Their pass was approved on 9 Sept 1642 [2], but on 5 Sept it had been reported to the House of Lords that Lord Roper and Sir Peter Rycaut had been apprehended, and that they had been [3]:
. . . brought out of Kent, and committed . . . to the Custody of the Gentleman Usher attending this House.
The Dean of Canterbury had also been apprehended in Kent, and being considered “very malignant” toward Parliament, was committed to Fleet Prison. Further, all the arrestees [3]:
… shall remain in the several Prisons where they are now, until the Pleasure of this House . . . be further known.
It is therefore clear that Lord Roper was a royalist who had been captured by Parliamentarian forces in the opening phase of the First English Civil War. Records indicate that his apprehension took place at Rochester, co. Kent, a bit prior to 20 Aug [1]. The arrest was probably made at his own house [4]:
[In August] parliamentarian soldiers made an expedition into Kent, visiting the houses of known Royalist sympathisers and removing not only arms and armour but also money and other goods.
By 5 Sept, Lord Roper had been committed to prison, awaiting judgment by the House of Lords. Four days later he was granted a pass to France. His exile, it seems, was not purely voluntary.
As Lord Roper was one of the bigger fish in Parliament’s net, his pass suggests that there was some added but unknown significance to the Yates pass immediately preceding. In fact the Yates pass was taken up right after opening prayers in the House of Lords on 9 Sept 1642. Why hadn’t the seemingly more important Roper case been handled first?
A Speculation
Having a working hypothesis is a key tool in the The Genealogist’s Craft. Having one directs research into nooks and crannies that might otherwise go unexplored. In fact that is its main utility; it is probably the case, more often than not, that a working hypothesis proves wrong.
Recognizing that, I suggest the following speculation, offered purely as a working hypothesis. When Lord Roper was imprisoned, the House of Lords was presented with the problem of what to do with one of their own, a peer of the realm [1]. A possibility was a pass to France that would solve the problem through a not-completely-voluntary exile. However, supporters in the House were faced with a dilemma. If they offered that up as a proposal, there was no guarantee that it would be approved — and if it wasn’t approved, attitudes might harden in favor of indefinite incarceration or worse.
What was needed was a test case that would allow assessment of the temper of the House. Therefore the decision was made to first propose a pass for someone closely associated with Lord and Lady Roper. As we know, there was a third cousin relationship to Elizabeth White, the proposed wife of John Yate. Perhaps the Yate couple had been visiting the Ropers, and John had been arrested, or at least had been suspected and briefly detained.
In any event the Yates case could be presented as connected to that of the Ropers, but with less risk. Debate on the case would cast light on the likely outcome of any proposal to issue the Ropers a pass. If the Yates pass was approved, a Roper pass might be approved. On the other hand, if prospects appeared dim based on the handling of the Yates pass, the Roper pass would not be proposed at all, and another strategy would be developed. Presumably things went well, and both the Yates and Ropers were issued passes.
The problem with speculation, of course, is that there is no evidence for it. There’s no conclusive evidence that the Yates and Roper cases were connected, even though the cousin relationship is suggestive. There’s certainly no evidence that the Yates were visiting the Ropers, or that John Yate had been arrested or detained when Lord Roper was arrested. But the speculation does have a basis, the fact that the Yate case was handled as the first business of the day in the House of Lords, followed immediately by the presumably much more important Roper case.
Could speculation be true? The answer may depend on further application, over time, of The Genealogist’s Craft.
Notes:
[1] Cokayne, G.E. (1953). The Complete Peerage. London: The St. Catherine Press Ltd., v. 12, part 1, pp. 681-2.
[2] Journal of the House of Lords, v. 5, p. 344.
[3] Journal of the House of Lords, v. 5, pp. 338-340.
[4] Information retrieved from https://www.wilcuma.org.uk/the-hstory-of-the-english-counties-after-the-conquest-crusade/the-civil-war (2020).
Picture Attribution
“Lynsted, Ss Peter & Paul church, Sir Christopher Roper monument” by Jules & Jenny is licensed under CC BY 2.0. The 2nd Baron was father of the 3rd Baron, and grandfather of the 4th Baron, the Lord Roper of the pass to France.
The Genealogist's Craft 