1893 text

Robert Pepys of Brampton, eldest son of Thomas Pepys the red, and brother of Samuel’s father.

11 Annotations

vincent   Link to this

for all the pe**** put to gether by a peeps/ of Kings Lynne Pages of reading of who is who
:http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pepys/pepys/pafg06.htm
a color image of the house at Bramton
Capt. Robert Pepys uncle who left him the house fathers' bro: john

vincent   Link to this

Here is a copy of site he did die Sine Prole

see will dated 1657 Aug. 12.
136 M i Capt. Robert Pepys
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pepys/...

Lynn   Link to this

The Pepys Family Tree in Claire Tomalin's biography of Samuel Pepys has Robert Pepys as son of Thomas "The Black" Pepys.

vincent   Link to this

Just one of those mysteries of birth certificates and decyphering dates and names and records kept and not kept;

Pauline   Link to this

Pepys, Robert (d. July 1661)
Of Brampton; eldest son of Thomas Pepys 'the Black' and brother of [Sam]'s father; often known as Captain Pepys from his service in the militia. he is described in a bond of 1630 as 'of Hinchingbrooke' and it is likely that he was a bailiff employed by the Montagus after they acquired the property in 1627. (Sir Sidney Montagu was a witness to the bond.) In Aug. 1630 he married Anne, widow of Richard Trice, at All Saints, Huntingdon, and then or soon after moved to the house at Brampton which [Sam} was ultimately to inherit and where it is likely that he lived when attending Huntingdon school c. 1642-c.1644. Robert Pepys becamse a man of substance, owning property in Brampton and three neighbouring parishes and holding several local offices, as a receiver of assessments (1647), and as a commissioner of assessments (1657) and of militia (March 1660). When appointed ot the two last posts he was described as an esquire.

The first of four paragraphs in the L&M Companions

Pauline   Link to this

L&M Companion, continued.
He left no children of his own, but two stepsons (Jasper and Tom Trice), both lawyers. Perhaps foreseeing trouble he expressed the wish in his will that 'all occasions of differences and suites of law [be] avoided amongst my bretheren and kindred about my estate'. But disputes quickly arose. The stepsons were concerned that their mother (and they themselves) were bequeathed nothing. She was even deprived of the L200 which their stepfather had on their marriage undertaken to leave her. In his will he justified himself by saying that not only had he been deceived about the size of her jointure and about her income from her first husband's estate, but he had also been involved in expenses connected with Richard Trice's will that in themselves amounted to almost L200. His widow died soon after him, in Oct. 1661, but her aggrieved sons set Chancery in motion to get their L200. By an out-of-court agreement reached in Nov. 1663, they settled for half.

Pauline   Link to this

L&M Companion, continued. The real estate.
A more complicated series of disputes arose about the real estate, which consisted of the Brampton house and its land, together with other property in Offord, Gravely and Stirtloe. The greater part of the land was willed to Pepys and his father, who were to act as executors. John was to have possession for life and Pepys an annuity of L30 (rising to half the annual value after the death of Thomas Pepys, the testator's brother)[birth order: Robert, Thomas, John] and reversionary interest in the whole estate after the death of his father. The gross annual value (apart from the Brampton house) was L128, which was reduced by debts, legacies and annuities to L29. Most of the land was held in copyhold--i.e. on terms based on the custom of the manor. Difficulties now arose from the fact that some of the surrenders (documents by which the copyhold hand was transmitted) were missing. In those cases the property would be inherited by the testator's brother Thomas Pepys (of St Alphage's parish, London) as heir-at-law. Apart from half-an-acre at Buckden which he had received by manorial custom as heir-at-law, he had been bequeathed only an annuity of L20, and his two sons legacies of L35 each. All three were therefore determined to press every possible claim the law would allow. The executors had no trouble about the Stirtloe land, which was sold immediately in 1661 to the tenant to pay debts. The Graveley property however (worth L24 p.a. gross) was adjudged by the manorial court in Sept. 1661 to pass to the heir-at-law in the absence of the surrenders. The Brampton property --much the largest (74 acres, let in 14 parcels) -- was awarded a year later, in Oct. 1662, to the executors, although the surrenders were also missing in that case. Thomas Pepys, after an attempt at arbitration, appealed on the ground that this offended manorial custom, and also on the ground that the settlement had been made conditinal on the payment of annuities and legacies which had not yet been paid -- his own among them. He threatened to prosecute any Brampton tenants who paid their rents to the executors. Negotiations for an out-of-court settlement which would apply to the whole etate were resumed and agreement was reached in Feb. 1663. The heir-at-law abandoned his claims in Brampton, Buckden and Offord, and the executors their claims in Gravely. The executors were to be free to sell more land to pay debts (provided the proposals were approved by three named arbitrators), and the heirs-at-law were given half of the personal estate in excess of the probate value of L372. This done, the executors were to pay all annuities and legacies and the remainder was to be settled on the heirs' family in the event of a failure of male heirs in the executors' family. Even after Thomas Pepys's death in 1676 Pepys was still fearing litigation from his son.

Emilio   Link to this

Copyhold

For any wondering about copyhold from the note above . . . It was one of three basic forms of property rights at the time: freehold, leasehold, and copyhold. Freehold was what we commonly think of as ownership today--you pay a certain amount and the property is yours. The freeholder could lease the property to a tenant in exchange for rent.

This leaves the special case of the tenants whose families had been on the property for centuries and who couldn't simply be thrown off. Their rights were protected by copyhold, based on 'immemorial custom of the manor' as shown by a copy of the old manorial records. It sounds above like an owner had to possess surrenders from all of the copyholders to prove his ownership before he could give the property to anyone but the designated heir-at-law, leading to Sam's troubles for the next few years.

Copyhold was only abolished in 1922.

in Aqua Scripto   Link to this

A new connection to the pepis clan
Found again for those that want to explore the Family tree.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Epepy...
P.S. need a general sub group for the extended Peapes organisation i.e. Cozens etal.

Michael Robinson   Link to this

Robert Pepys Original Probate etc.

Pepys, Robert, of Brampton, Hunts, esq.
1661 30 Oct. National Archives (UK) PROB 4/21135

Pepys V Trice

The papers survive, at least in part, and are held in the UK National Archives at Kew, catalogue Chancery "C 10/63/77"

Log in to post an annotation.

If you don't have an account, then register here.

References