Assorted rogues - Person Sheet
Assorted rogues - Person Sheet
NameJohn Colepeper 106
Death22 Dec 1480106,791
TitleKnight
FatherWalter Colepeper (ca1400-1462)
MotherAgnes Roper (-1457)
Spouses
ChildrenAlexander (ca1470-1541)
Notes for John Colepeper
Extract from 791:
“Although Richard is entered in the Visitation in Kent, in 1619, as Walter Colepeper's eldest son, this was not the case, as Sir John, as the eldest son, inherited Hardreshull, co. Warwick, Bayhall, co. Kent, and Wigsell, co. Sussex. It appears also from the same Visitation that this Sir John married Agnes, daughter of John Bedgebury, but no mention whatever is there made of the undoubted fact that some time before 1460 he was the husband of Agnes Gainsford, which is clearly proved by the Proceedings in Chancery relating to the abduction of the two Wakehurst heiresses by Sir John's brothers, Richard and Nicholas,41 where it is expressly stated that a sister of John and William Gainsford was wedded to John Culpepyr, and later on in the same suit mention is made of John Culpeper and Agnes, his wife. The marriage is also alluded to in De Banco Roll, Trin., 5 Edward IV., m. 118d, and it explains the mention of Ottewell and George Gainsford (grandsons of the above John Gainsford, who married Anne Wakehurst, aunt of the co-heiresses, and sons of Sir John Gainsford, by Anne, daughter of Ottewell Worsley), as cousins in the will Walter Colepeper, of Calais, 1514--1516.
The question arises, therefore, as to whether the record of Sir John's marriage with Agnes Bedgebury is not due to a mistake on the part of the heralds. In their pedigree they certainly omit these two important facts, viz., that before 1460 Sir John was the husband of Agnes Gainsford, and also that his father Walter's wife, of the same Christian name, was the widow of John Bedgebury. It seems therefore not improbable that these two marriages have been confused; such, indeed, must have been the case unless Sir John was twice married, and of this the Visitation affords no evidence whatever. Sir John Colepeper died 22nd December, 1480, and was buried at Goudherst.
His two brothers, Richard and Nicholas, under somewhat romantic circumstances, married Margaret and Elizabeth Wakehurst, (granddaughters and co-heiresses of Richard Wakehurst, sen., of Wakehurst, in Ardingly. These two girls were confided by Elizabeth, their grandmother, Thomas Echyngham, Thomas Hoo, John Gaynesford and William Gaynesford, their guardians, to the care of John Colepeper and Agnes, his wife, the former of whom "promysed on the faithe and trouthe of his bodye and as he was a gentylman," that they should not be wronged. In spite of this promise, however, he, with Richard and Nicholas his brethren, "with force and armes riotously agense the Kynges peas arayed in the manr of warre at Goutherst toke and caried" them away to Bobbing, Alexander Clifford's place in Kent, and afterwards transported them to London to a place of John Gibson, "the seide Margarete and Elizabeth at the tyme of their takyng away makyng grete and pittious lamentacion and wepyng."42
This high-handed proceeding on the part of the two fortune hunting brothers was productive of much litigation, as Elizabeth Wakehurst, grandmother of the two heiresses, refused to resign the title deeds of their estates,43 and it was some time before a peaceable settlement was obtained. Richard died without issue, but Nicholas became the ancestor of the Colepepers of Wakehurst, and as the brass to him and his wife Elizabeth in Ardingly Church shows ten sons and eight daughters, we may conclude that they lived long and happily together. [The famous herbalist, Dr. Nicholas Culpeper, was the great-grandson of this Nicholas].
Sir John Colepeper, of Bedgebury, by Agnes, his wife, had two sons:--
(i.) Alexander, progenitor of the senior line of Bedgebury, in Goudhurst, co. Kent, whose descendants, as belonging more to Kent than to Sussex, we shall here omit.
(ii.) Walter, ancestor of the Wigsell branch of the family.
Notes for Agnes (Spouse 1)
The Visitation of Kent calls her Agnes Bedgebery, but this is likely a mistake, as explained in the entry for John. I shall follow 791 instead of the Visitation.

A Gaynesford pedigree appears in the Visitation106, but with no sign of an Agnes anywhere.
Last Modified 17 Jul 2005Created 8 Jun 2020 using Reunion for Macintosh
My genealogy home page.