The following exchange adds to the knowledge of William, his daughter Katherine and the latter’s husband Sir Robert Frogmorton:

From: ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: A Rich widow
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:21:13 +0000 (UTC)


Do you have the will of William Marowe? ‚Äî this might help to explain  things.

From the wording below I take the L1,860 to be the amount bequested to the  
five children, Agnes was presumably alive when the will was made, but  
subsequently died, the Will may have contained a clause that any child or  childrens
share who have subsequently died, shall accrue to the other  children.

It is perhaps possible that the widow is contemplating remarrying, in  which
case it would be prudent to take steps that the children's bequests do not  
become the property of her subsequent husband and I would hazard a guess this is
the purpose of the bond.  This would probably have been done at the  
instigation of William Marowe's executor(s), possibly the widow herself and  may have
been a requirement of the will, especially if the children were by a  former
wife.

Adrian


In a message dated 21/06/2005 10:44:53 GMT Standard Time,  
peter@pmarrow.freeserve.co.uk writes:

Dear  medieval genealogists,

Please can someone explain to me what is going  on here with the payment of
what was a very large sum of money into the  coffers of the City of London?
William Marowe, a rich merchant grocer,  mayor of London 1455/56, has just
died (his testament was proved just  after this date on 15th May, 1465) and
now here is his widow up before the  mayor and aldermen:

Custod 'pueror' Will i Marowe orph  'Civit'.

12 May, 6 Edward IV. [A.D. 1466], came Dame (Footnote 1)  Katherine Marowe,
widow, John Reynkyn, John Marchall, Thomas Riche,  mercers, and Philip
Hardbeen, grocer, and entered into bond in the sum of  L1,860 for the
delivery into the Chamber of divers sums of money and  jewels, to the use of
William, Thomas, Johanna, and Katherine, children of  William Marowe, late
Alderman, the same being bequeathed to them by their  said father, and
accruing to them by the decease of Agnes, their sister.  (Footnote 2) [from:
'Folios 41 - 50: Feb 1465-6 -', Calendar of  letter-books of the city of
London: L: Edward IV-Henry VII (1912), pp.  62-70, to be found on that most
excellent website  http://www.british-history.ac.uk].

Was that 1860 pounds what the now  dead little girl Agnes would have been
due from William's will? Or is the  bond some sort of surety that the four
surviving children will get their  due from William's will at a later date?
I presume the bond would be  repaid later? Is the widow Katherine (nee Rich)
not in charge of her  children? Are they being treated as orphans in the
care of the  City?

The first footnote to that calendar entry is about William never  having
been a knight. The second is about Robert Frogmarten (sic, usually  now
written Throckmorton) later 'acknowledged satisfaction for his wife's  
property'. That spurious knighthood, implied above, was also made specific  
in later visitation pedigrees etc and has now propagated far and wide on  
the net. B.H. Putnam debunked the knighthood way back in 1926 in her work  
on Thomas Marowe the lawyer.

William and Katherine Marowe also had  another son, John, not mentioned
above as he had died young.

best regards to One and All
Peter  Marrow
Edinburgh
__________________________________________________________________

And this from Peter Marow on 2 Jul 2005 shows that William’s son Thomas proivded for katherine in his will:

'And to any daughter of my suster kateryn Throgmerton vinnarics I bequeth x
marks and to any of her daughters inaries v marks Item I bequeth to my lady
ffrowyk v li of money beseching her to pray for my soule Item to my suster
fferys a crymsyn gowne wt a depe purpell of chanks which was my wiffs and
xx s in money '
__________________________________________________________________