Richard Uthwatt (1658-1719)
The son of John Uthwat and Mary Prichard, Richard was born in London Circa 1658, having been baptised March 3rd at St. Nicholas, Deptford. We know nothing of his formative years, and frustratingly, Boyd’s survey of London, which was so useful in regard to his father, omits to record his profession, but it is possible to piece together a reasonably detailed picture of Richard’s later years.
He married Martha, the eldest daughter of a Colonel John Staples at Southwark St George the Martyr on June 6th, 1682. Of the lineage of the Colonel and his daughter, little else is presently known, though we can piece together a few clues about the family. On May 25th, 1685, a Richard Uthwat attended the London marriage of John Staples and Jane Hewitt. We know this because his name appears on the record, standing in as the father of the bride. Why this should be requires a brief explanation of the peculiar nature of the church at which they married, St. James, Duke Place. This church was famous (or perhaps infamous) as a place that required no banns, license or even the permission of a father to wed. This state of affairs had come about because the church fell outside the authority of the Bishop of London (the City of London Corporation appointed the minister) and hence all the irksome rules that governed marriages were null and void. Unsurprisingly, St. James became immensely popular with those who, for one reason or another, were in haste to marry.
We can speculate then that the John Staples whose marriage Richard Uthwatt attended was a relative of his wife Martha; the clear presumption must be that John and Martha Staples were siblings and that their father was the aforementioned Colonel Staples. Martha’s will provides another brother, Charles and two sisters, but here the trail grows tepid.
Richard and Martha Uthwat had at least ten children together, but sadly they had to bear the tragedy of losing at least five of them, all before 1704. It seems likely that all their children were born somewhere other than Great Linford (one as we shall see in a quite surprising place), though their son John, born circa 1689, was buried in the village graveyard in 1712, aged just 23.
A series of mortgage documents (now held at the London Metropolitan archives E/MW/C/0190) mentions Richard (as well as John Uthwat and Daniel King), placing him at St. James, Westminster; both Richard and Daniel are referred to in these documents as the executors of Sir William Prichard’s will, so this must place Richard at St. James on or around 1704.
Of their numerous children, Richard, born 1699, is perhaps the most interesting, because he was married in 1725 to Elizabeth Andrewes, which ties the Andrewes family of Lathbury into the complex lineage that includes the Uthwatts and Prichards.
A soldier’s life
But what of Richard’s profession, if any? Intriguingly it seems highly likely that Richard served in the British army. We get a first strong clue from the unexpected fact that his son Thomas was born at Antwerp, in Belgium, circa 1693. The book, A Collection of tracts by W. Bradbrook and others on the local history and parish registers of Buckinghamshire, published 1903, makes mention of this fact, and adding to the evidence, a Richard Uthwat, his wife Martha and Thomas are explicitly mentioned by name in the Naturalization (Persons Born Abroad During the War) Act of 1697. This act of parliament specifies that children, “born out of the dominion between 1689-90, Feb. 13 and 1698-9, Feb. 25 whose fathers and mothers were natural born subjects and were then actually in the service of the king or queen should be naturalized.”
While we cannot say with absolute certainty that the Richard, Martha and Thomas Uthwat mentioned in this document would in the fulness of time become the Uthwats of Great Linford, the fact that Thomas was born in 1693, within the period specified by the Act, would seem particularly compelling.
Presuming then we are satisfied that we have the right people, the document raises a number of questions, perhaps foremost, which war is the Act referring to? Without a shadow of doubt this must be the so called Nine Years War, fought against France between 1689 and 1697. In this conflict, England was just one of many nations joined together in a coalition against the French that drew in armies from the Dutch Republic, Bavaria, Brandenburg, Saxony, the Holy Roman Empire (led by the Habsburg Monarchy), Spain, and Savoy.
So as the wording of the act makes plain, Richard was “in the service” of the government, during the war, but was this a civilian or military role, and if the latter, in which branch? A Richard Uthwatt crops up repeatedly in records as the purser of various navy ships in the period, but unless we have his year of birth badly wrong, it seems unlikely that this is the same man, as the service dates provided would mean he had attained this position in his mid-teens, which seems improbable.
A more credible clue comes from a letter of 1697 held by the Shropshire Archives that was written by an R. Uthwatt. The content of the letter is described thusly (question marks denote uncertain words):
While we cannot say with absolute certainty that the Richard, Martha and Thomas Uthwat mentioned in this document would in the fulness of time become the Uthwats of Great Linford, the fact that Thomas was born in 1693, within the period specified by the Act, would seem particularly compelling.
Presuming then we are satisfied that we have the right people, the document raises a number of questions, perhaps foremost, which war is the Act referring to? Without a shadow of doubt this must be the so called Nine Years War, fought against France between 1689 and 1697. In this conflict, England was just one of many nations joined together in a coalition against the French that drew in armies from the Dutch Republic, Bavaria, Brandenburg, Saxony, the Holy Roman Empire (led by the Habsburg Monarchy), Spain, and Savoy.
So as the wording of the act makes plain, Richard was “in the service” of the government, during the war, but was this a civilian or military role, and if the latter, in which branch? A Richard Uthwatt crops up repeatedly in records as the purser of various navy ships in the period, but unless we have his year of birth badly wrong, it seems unlikely that this is the same man, as the service dates provided would mean he had attained this position in his mid-teens, which seems improbable.
A more credible clue comes from a letter of 1697 held by the Shropshire Archives that was written by an R. Uthwatt. The content of the letter is described thusly (question marks denote uncertain words):
This bearer comes with horse of Col. Withers to be left for my Lord Rivers at the Bee Hive at Antwerp, pray be so kind to give this soldier 10 shillings a weeks for his board wage from Saturday next, and continue it till my Lord comes over, who will send for him. If my Lord does not come there himself pray charge down what you pay out to his Lord’s account & ???? oblige him ?? ???? ???
Your most humble servant
R Uthwatt
This seems promising, as here we have a reference to Antwerp where Thomas Uthwatt is thought to have been born, and it seems unlikely that if Richard was a civilian, that he could have dispatched a soldier on this mission.
A final piece of evidence appears to confirm that Richard was indeed a serving officer of high rank. In 1699 the Journal of the House of Commons records that a Richard Uthwat and Thomas Moor successfully petitioned parliament as follows:
A final piece of evidence appears to confirm that Richard was indeed a serving officer of high rank. In 1699 the Journal of the House of Commons records that a Richard Uthwat and Thomas Moor successfully petitioned parliament as follows:
A Petition of Richard Uthwat and Thomas Moor was presented to the House, and read; setting forth, That they have been employed as Commissaries of the Musters, during the War abroad in Flanders; and, upon the Return of the Troops from thence, were ordered to do their Duty here; and have been at considerable Expenses in attending the General Officers that were appointed to disband Part of the Forces last Year: And praying they may be paid as far as the General Officers of the Army shall be paid.
Ordered, That the said Richard Uthwat and Thomas Moor be paid as far as the General Officers shall be paid.
Musters (or Muster rolls) were compiled for pay and accounting purposes and were in effect the main everyday service records of the armed forces. As “Commissaries of the Musters”, Richard Uthwat and Thomas Moor would have been in a very important and responsible role, tasked with mustering troops by regiment and checking names against the muster roll as well as checking the soldiers’ arms and equipment. It seems likely that Richard was one of a number of officers reporting to the Commissary General of Musters.
An unusual will
We do not know when Richard ceased to be a serving office, but he passed away in 1719, followed several years later by his wife Martha; both were buried at Great Linford, Richard on December 28th, 1719, and Martha on May 23rd, 1724. The will is an interesting one, containing the instruction that he be buried on the North Side of which ever churchyard he died nearest too, presumably hedging his bets as to which of his properties he died at, which has fate would have it, was Great Linford.
But it is the request to be buried on the north side that stands out. The north side of a churchyard was traditionally reserved for unbaptised children, the excommunicated, the insane (those possessed by the Devil), criminals or people who had committed suicide. To the best of our knowledge Richard was none of the above, so the instruction is a decidedly odd one; was the tradition observed at Great Linford and did he feel he was deserving of this ignominy, or could there be another reason?
Perhaps there is a clue; according to George Lipscomb in volume 4 of his, A History and Antiquities of the County of Buckingham, Richard’s daughter-in-law Elizabeth Uthwatt, nee Andrewes had, “long before embraced the tenets of the Church of Rome, and gone with her daughter, Mrs Sherwood, the wife of a Roman Catholic Surgeon in Devonshire Street, London, to reside there.” If there was a preference toward Catholicism within the family, might it be that Richard had been similarly motivated? Would this make him averse to a burial in Anglican consecrated ground? Sadly his grave has not survived, so we cannot check where he was laid to rest.
A marriage record between Elizabeth’s daughter (also called Elizabeth) and her Popish surgeon eludes detection for now, but of passing interest, one tangential record exists that highlights the extreme danger facing Catholic worshippers. Held by the Birmingham Archdiocesan Archives is a letter written on 27 Feb 1740/1741 by the Right Reverend Matthew Prichard (no known relation to Sir William Prichard) of Monmouthshire to a Mr Fisher, next door to Mr Sherwood, Surgeon, in Devonshire Street, near Red Lyon Square, London. This purportedly gives an account of the martyrdom of one Richard Kemble. Kemble must have been executed for his faith.
The will throws up another strange ambiguity, which is discussed in the biography of his son Richard Uthwatt (1699-1731).
But it is the request to be buried on the north side that stands out. The north side of a churchyard was traditionally reserved for unbaptised children, the excommunicated, the insane (those possessed by the Devil), criminals or people who had committed suicide. To the best of our knowledge Richard was none of the above, so the instruction is a decidedly odd one; was the tradition observed at Great Linford and did he feel he was deserving of this ignominy, or could there be another reason?
Perhaps there is a clue; according to George Lipscomb in volume 4 of his, A History and Antiquities of the County of Buckingham, Richard’s daughter-in-law Elizabeth Uthwatt, nee Andrewes had, “long before embraced the tenets of the Church of Rome, and gone with her daughter, Mrs Sherwood, the wife of a Roman Catholic Surgeon in Devonshire Street, London, to reside there.” If there was a preference toward Catholicism within the family, might it be that Richard had been similarly motivated? Would this make him averse to a burial in Anglican consecrated ground? Sadly his grave has not survived, so we cannot check where he was laid to rest.
A marriage record between Elizabeth’s daughter (also called Elizabeth) and her Popish surgeon eludes detection for now, but of passing interest, one tangential record exists that highlights the extreme danger facing Catholic worshippers. Held by the Birmingham Archdiocesan Archives is a letter written on 27 Feb 1740/1741 by the Right Reverend Matthew Prichard (no known relation to Sir William Prichard) of Monmouthshire to a Mr Fisher, next door to Mr Sherwood, Surgeon, in Devonshire Street, near Red Lyon Square, London. This purportedly gives an account of the martyrdom of one Richard Kemble. Kemble must have been executed for his faith.
The will throws up another strange ambiguity, which is discussed in the biography of his son Richard Uthwatt (1699-1731).
|
|
