Whatmore Family History

At the risk of upsetting some of my readers I must confess that I have never been a fan of the Stuart dynasty, the monarchs of which attempted to emulate their successful Tudor predecessors without possessing either the skills and intelligence of the Tudor kings and Queens. Falling back on the outdated idea of the ‘divine right of Kings’ the Stuarts attempted to pursue personal agendas which were out of step with the needs and interests of their subjects. My dislike of this dynasty was reinforced by the discovery that the last Stuart monarch, James II was personally responsible for the removal from office of  a member of our family – Thomas Watmore born in 1645 and who was a burgess of the town of Bewdley.

Thomas was the last of a line of Watmores who had served as burgesses  (Council members) of Bewdley. The first of these was Humphrey Watmore, born in Stottesdon in 1598 who married Elizabeth Yeates and who settled at Bewdley where he established a successful tannery. The descendants of Humphrey are shown in the chart below.

Chart devised by Geoffrey Whatmore    Typeset by Rhys Whatmore

The Thomas Watmore who is the subject of this post was the son of Humphrey. Thomas married a Joyce and their known children were Humphrey 1669, Thomas who died in infancy in 1674, John 1673-1682, Thomas 1675 who died in 1695 the year after he matriculated at  University College, Oxford, Mary 1677, Elizabeth 1680 and Joyce who died in infancy in 1684.  These children would have been baptised at Ribbesford church which is some way out of the town, as at that time there was only at Chapel of Ease in the town itself.

Thomas became a burgess in 1669 when he was twenty-four. The bailiff  (mayor) of the town was elected annual from among the burgesses and Thomas served in this role in 1676 and again in 1685 and during these two years in office he would  probably have lived in the magnificent half-timbered Baliff’s House which still exists in the main street of Bewdley.

  Click to enlarge

The Bailiff’s House, Bewdley    Photograph Copyright: Phillip Halling      Source: Geograph website and reproduced here in accordance with the terms of the site licence which can be read at this link:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

The town of Bewdley received its first charter in the 12^th year of the reign of Edward IV. (1472). Additional privileges were granted to the borough  by Henry VII and were confirmed by Henry VIII in 1509 and again in 1525. The borough of Bewdley was incorporated anew by James I in 1606. This charter conferred for the first time the right of the borough to return a member to sit in parliament. The ruling body of the borough was to consist of a Bailiff and 12 capital burgesses and Parliament later confirmed that only these 13 people had the right to vote for the MP. However there was also a class of Free or Honorary Burgesses and these tended to be wealthy landowners who paid to become burgesses.

Tensions arose when the Capital burgesses and the Honorary burgesses had different interests. By 1676 the Capital burgesses tended to be dissenters whereas the Honorary Burgesses tended to be High Tories. It appears however, that the latter could not vote for the MP.

Charles II and his successor James II, scheming to get their own way, sought to pack parliament with their own supporters. One way to do this was to annul the charters of Boroughs and grant new ones in which people from outside the towns could become Capital burgesses who would then have the right to vote for the local MP.

In 1684 Charles II annulled the charter of Bewdley and prepared to issue a new one. On this occasion the Bailiff and Capital Burgesses  voluntarily surrendered  the old charter – perhaps influenced by the fact that the new one laid down that all boats going under Bewdley bridge should pay a toll to the Corporation and that the Bailiff and burgesses should have the power to make themselves into companies  and to keep all strange traders from coming into town.

 Bewdley Bridge    Source: ‘A History of Bewdley’ by John R Burton  Publsihed for the author by William Reeves of Fleet Street 1883

The records of the burgesesses include the following:

 ‘1684. Agreed that the charter of James I be surrendered to King Charles II and that the Bayliffe do attend our Recorder Sir Thos. Walcot and deliver to him our charter and instrument of resignation, who is desired humbly to present the same to his mat^ie.’

Peter Branch    Bayliffe                        John Bury        Justice 

Charles II died before the new charter could be issued and James II granted one dated 4 May 1685. James II at once set to work to undermine the powers of Boroughs using a committee of seven people, including the infamous Judge Jeffries, which sat in Whitehall and regulated municipal elections.

By 1688, the Bailiff and Capital burgesses of Bewdley had had enough and refused to relinquish further powers to the King. James II’s immediate response was to order the remove of Thomas Watmore and some of  his fellow burgesses  from the Corporation of Bewdley. It is said that the official instruction, was accompanied by a letter in the king’s own handwriting.

  Click to enlarge

Portrait of James II   circa 1680   from the studio of Sir  Godfrey Kneller    Image in the public domain from Wikopaedia

The Corporation records include the following:

 ‘Sept. 12 1688.   4 James II.  In obedience to an order of his Maj^ty’s Privy Council  Tho: Watmore, Tho: Burlton and Sam. Sandys Esq. 3 Burg. & Henry Townshend Esq^re Chief Recorder were all of them voted and removed out of their s^d several places And in accordance to his Maj^ty’sLrs of Recommendation to us directed John Bury  Humfry Yarranton &Higgins James Esq^re were elected & chosen Burg. Instead of Watmore, &c, and John Soley Esq elected recorder in stead of Townshend’. 

The country’s patience with James II was, however, rapidly running out, and realising this, the King hastily issued a proclamation promising to restore the ancient charters. It was too late for the King, however, as William of Orange was already on his way and James II was deposed by Parliament in the ‘Glorious Revolution’.  There were to be further disputes over the Bewdley charter later on, but never again was there royal interference on such a scale.

 Thomas Watmore died in 1693 and it would seem that by 1700, there were no longer any members of this Watmore branch at Bewdley.

Taking a ‘leap of faith’, I have assumed that the John Watmore born at Bewdley in 1666, the son of Humphrey Watmore  and Ann Bourne, is the John who married Sarah Doolittle on 24 May 1688 at Kidderminster, thus continuing  the Bewdley branch elsewhere. John and Sarah’s descendants include the members of the ‘Malvern’ branch of the Watmore family.

  Click to enlarge

This post is based on the research of Geoffrey Whatmore which is set out in ‘Wat’s Brother in Law’ – available as a CD ROM. Further details can be found at this link: http://www.genfair.co.uk/product_list.php?sid=115&page=1

I have also made use of ‘A History of Bewdley’ by John R Burton, Rector of Dowles, published for the author by William Reeves of Fleet Street in 1883.