SUFFOLK

A substantial branch of the Duke family was established in the county of Suffolk during the 14th century. A lineage of this family has been given by Walter Garland Duke.

The early experience of the Duke family in Suffolk does not appear to have been very fortunate. In 1278, William le Gardener, imprisoned at Ipswich for the death of Robert le Duk, made bail.

In 1374 Ralph de Shelton, knight of Norfolk, was involved in a case against William Assheman, who had been charged with threatening Walter Duke of Suffolk.

In 1377, Walter Duke of Suffolk was appointed a tax commissioner for an assessment of knight's fees. This appears to be the same Walter Duke who did homage for his land in Shadingfield at Framlingham Castle during the reign of Edward III, and was said to have been a grandson of Roger le Duke, Mayor of London in 1230. The time elapsed between Roger and Walter does not encourage this interpretation, however. There is a gap of 147 years between the AD 1230 end of Roger le Duke's tenure as Mayor of London and the 1377 appearance of Walter Duke in Suffolk records.

In 1382, and again in 1383, Robert Duke of Suffolk was appointed a tax commissioner of Suffolk. In 1384 Simon Duke of St. Edmond [Bury St. Edmonds] was one of hundreds compelled to a recognisance of Ł10,000 to make no insurrection against the abbot and convent of St. Edmonds.

In 1413, Robert Duk was a witness in London to a charter of a tenement of 5 acres in Sotirlee [4.5 miles northeast of Beccles, in East Suffolk] and Senstede, and a charter of a great number of properties in the same area.

In 1414 John Duke, master of the hospital of St. Nicholas Bury St. Edmunds, obtained a writ to the sheriff of Suffolk to set free his cattle, taken unlawfully by Nicholas Coners of Berton by Bury, Esquire.

The subsequent history of the Suffolk family (or at least of principal heirs) is relatively well documented. Walter was succeeded by Roger Duke and he was succeeded in turn by his son, Robert Duke. Robert Duke held the lands in Shadingfield, including 4 knights' fees in Shadingfield, Brosyerde, Swyftlynge, and Ryngstede, in the eleventh year of the reign of Henry VI (AD 1433). These were held of the Mowbrays, Dukes of Suffolk at this time. His wife, Alice, died in 1437. His son, John Duke of Brampton, married Joan Park, daughter of William de la Park, gentleman, and was Lord of the Manor of Aslacton, in Norfolk, and of Ilketshall, in Suffolk, in 1445.

This line eventually led to the only branch of the family (other than that of Devon, in the 20th century) known to have actually acquired a title, that of baron, but the line is now extinct.

The Duke family of Suffolk has a long record of involvement in trade and merchant affairs. Hugh atte Fenne of Yarmouth, written in 1476, recorded business dealings with Thomas Duke and his close relatives Thomas Playter and John Russe.

The Duke family of Suffolk does not seem to have been very active in the English Civil War, except for George Duke of Wandsworth, son of George Duke of Suffolk (d. 1551) and Anne Bleverhaysset, and husband of Katharine Braham or Barham, daughter of Richard Barham of Wandsworth. At the time of the restoration of the crown, George Duke made a statement indicating his suffering in support of the monarchy, and consequently his worthiness for the position of Secretary to the Council for Trade, a position which he was granted:

Engaged in the late wars, but was taken prisoner in December, 1646, kept in the New Prison, near Thames Street, on pump water and pottage till April, 1647, and then turned out, half dead and naked, into Lambeth Fields. Made his way back to Windsor where he lived, and engaged in a design, which was long continued, to surprise the castle for the King; had spies at the Council of State and Cromwell's Council and spent large sums on intelligence and holding correspondence with His Majesty and his friends. Raised 500 men for Sir George Booth's rising. Has often helped the King's friends with necessaries and money, and thus spent 20 years and most of his fortune, having also lost Ł3000 purchase money and Ł1200 a year, by suppresion of his office in the Starchamber.

Later, George Duke of Wandsworth was again rewarded. On 14 Mar 1664 King Charles II recommended him to the Duke of York, Governor, and the Assistants of the Royal Fishing Company, identifying him as the late secretary of the Committee for Trade, "to be entertained by them in the same post, for which he is particularly fitted." Two of his sons were graduated from Oxford University: Edward, third son of George Duke of Wandsworth, received a D. Med. from Gloucester Hall 9 Aug 1660 and was made an honorary fellow of the College of Physicians 1664; and William, matriculated Christ Church 3 Jul 1663, aged 18, B.A. 1667, M.A. 23 Mar 1669-70.

George Duke's marriage to Katharine Braham is of interest. Evelyn Brandenberger believed that a Mary Barham was wife of Thomas Duke, founder of the Virginia Duke family, but has since found that the Mary Barham who was sister of Anthony Barham of Virginia died in England, and too soon to have been the Mary who married Thomas Duke of Virginia. Thomas Duke married Marie Barham in Surrey County, England, on 12 Nov 1633.

The will of "Anthony Barham, Gent. of Mulberry Island in Virginia at present residing in England" was dated September 6, 1641. It was proved in London in 1642 by "friends Edward Maior and William Butler," both of whom were mentioned as legatees in the will. Others mentioned include Edward Aldey (Awtley), minister of St. Andrews in Canterbury; wife Elizabeth; daughter Elizabeth, "Mother (mother-in-law) Bennet" and "Brother-in-law richard Bennett (son of Thomas Bennett); sister Graves and her son; "my sister Mary Duke" as well as Joane Pierce and Mr. William Pierce (son of Captain William Pierce). He also mentions money due him from Thomas Lyne. Brandenberger found that Anthony Barham came to Virginia on the Abigail in 1621. He was one of the inhabitants of the William Pierce Plantation on the Muster of 1624/25, and the will of Ann Barham, his mother, establishes that he was in Virginia in 1640. The nuncupative will of Ann Barham of the City of Canterberry, Kent, widow (mother of Anthony), dated June 21, 1640, was proved in court on the 13th of July the same year. In it she bequeathed to her daughter Mrs. Graves, "to Anthony Barham now in Virginia" money in the hands of Thomas Lyne (Perogative Court of Canterberry, Coventry 102).

On the other hand, Brandenberger identifies other connections between the Duke family of Kent and the Barhams. Sir Martin Barham, eldest son of Sir Francis Barham lived in County Kent. His first wife was Ursula Rudstone, a relative of Anne Rudstone, daugher of Isaac Rudstone of Boughton Manchensie. Anne maried second William Duke, Esq., of Richmond Surry, son of Thomas Duke of Aylesford Kent.

OTHER BRANCHES

In some English counties there are branches of the Duke family that appear in the late 12th century, and probably represent groups derived from cousins or even brothers of the Roger le Duc who was sheriff of London under Richard I.

SUSSEX

In 1343, the king promised Robert le Duk of Angemeryng [Angmering, 3 miles NE of Littlehampton, Sussex] payment of Ł23 6s. 4 1/2 d. due for five sacks, forty-three cloves, of his wool, at 6 marks the sack, taken by Hugh Boucy and his fellows, lately appointed to take for the king a moiety of the wool in the county of Sussex.

In 1383, a Walter Duke was involved in a suit for trespass in Sussex.

THE FAMILY OF RALPH DUKE IN BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

Earlier references noted the presence of Radulphus Dux in Buckinghamshire in 1198.

In 1237 we find another reference to the le Duc family in Buckinghamshire. John le Duc and Alexander le Duc were burgesses of the town of Wycumbe in southwestern Buckinghamshire, near the Oxfordshire border.

In 1272, the sheriff of Bucks was order to hold Raph Bagge and Thomas le Fevre at Saint Albans (immediately north of London) for the murder of John Duke.

KENT

The Duke family in Surrey and Kent could be an off-shoot of the London family; Surrey is immediately south of London. Dorking, where one individual is identified, is now a southern London suburb.

In 1247 Nicholas le Duc is recorded as having held a messuage (with water rights and a mill) near Ospringe, Kent, which was 0.5 miles north of Haversham.

Henry Duk(es) was among the many charged in 1318 with surrounding the dwelling of the Abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, at Salmanston, Kent, attempting to burn the manor, and succeeding in felling trees and destroying ploughs, carts, and harnesses. This was followed by besieging Henry de Newenton, a monk, in the abbot's home at Clyvesende, removing the roof and wrecking the houses, imprisoning the monk.

LEICESTERSHIRE, LINCOLNSHIRE, AND THE FAR NORTH

Other Duke families, especially in the northern counties, do not appear to have been related to the Norman family that originated in London.

In 1229 Robert Duk was among many individuals listed for military service, from Lincolnshire.

In 1242 an Alan Duc is mentioned in Navenby, Lincolnshire.

In 1274, Richard le Duk of Wissenden, a town that was then in Rutland but now is in Leicestershire, was imprisoned at Ocham for the death of Thomas de Assewell, and made bail.

In the Hundred Rolls we find a number of individuals in Lincolnshire. "Ranulphs sviens Nichi Duke" is listed as bailing out an imprisoned felon, Stepho Schankes, in that county. Walter Duke, in the Hundred of Beltslawe, is listed as having been unjustly imprisoned for military service.

It was noted earlier that a Reginald le Duc, probably a member of the Norman family, was recorded in an early Yorkshire reference. It is nevertheless doubtful that later Yorkshire references are connected to this family. In 1348, Thomas "Duck" was charged with being among those who hunted in the park of Peter de Malo Lacu, assaulting his servants. In 1360, Thomas Duk, 'sadeler,' of Richmond, Yorkshire, was found to have acted in self-defense in the death of Richard de Aton of Richmond, also a "sadeler."

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

By A.D.1300 the Duke family had expanded into many areas in southern England. The Norman family identified with Roger le Duc of London was especially conspicuous in several locations besides Suffolk. In Oxfordshire and Warwickshire we find branches of the family first identified with Robert le Duc, heir of Roger. This family was associated in some way with the Earl of Warwickshire. It persisted until at least the 17th century. Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire were home to yet another branch, with probable ties to the Oxfordshire line.

The remaining family of the Duke name in southeastern England was centered in London. Its specific relationship to the others has not been discovered, but there is evidence that this group continued without significant interruption from the time of Roger le Duc in London. In about 1340 at least three members of the family (William, Thomas, and Clayus or Clays le Duc) resided in Brussels and in Lombardy, and were engaged in the wool trade. This branch of the family was heavily involved in providing financing to Edward III during the years 1339-1340.

Somewhat later the London family included a member of the late medieval guilds of London who also was sufficiently wealthy to provide a significant part of the financing for the crown's military ventures, in this case Richard II's war in Ireland. Thomas Duke 'skinner' had ties to Devonshire and other southwestern counties of England, including a John Duke of Chiriton, Wiltshire. Thomas Duke became Sheriff of London in 1408-09, and died in 1422. His son, John, may have moved to Southampton sometime between 1408 and 1412.

The other London-based family members of this time period were associated with the royal household. Both were named John Duke or le Duc. The oldest, apparently a serjeant and yeoman of the king's household, was provided with maintenance for life at the priory of Thorney in 1368; this was probably a form of retirement benefit. The middle individual was a yeoman of the king's household under Edward III in 1361 and in 1370 was promoted to "esquire" of the king's household.

Finally, in 1404 John Duke, groom of the king's chamber, was appointed to another position, bailiff itinerant in Wilts. This might have been a form of retirement as well, but seems an unlikely position for an older man, requiring frequent travel throughout the county. In addition, the position of "groom of the king's chamber" was lower than that held by the earlier John Duke, who was appointed a king's esquire. This was yet another, younger John Duke who began to receive royal benefits in the early 15th century and was then appointed to the Wiltshire position.

THE DUKE FAMILY IN SOUTH WESTERN ENGLAND

The history of the Duke family in southwestern England does not seem to be earlier than the 13th century. The principal early evidence of the Duke family in this region relates, once more, to Roger le Duc, Lord Mayor of London in 1227-1230. However, the family is absent from the available records during a fairly prolonged period.

Although some still-hidden information may appear, at present it seems that the real settlement of the Duke family in southwestern England dates from the 50-year period after the 1280 hundred rolls, and especially to the period 1280-1300. By the time of the 1332 lay subsidy (moveable property tax) rolls, there are many Duke listings, concentrated heavily in Wiltshire.

THE SOUTH WESTERN ROOTS OF THE DUKE FAMILY

The Duke family of Devonshire has been described as one whose members were descendants of Norman knights, who were not in the forefront of political events but "who went on century after century to till their land, serve in Parliament, and obediently ride off to die in foreign wars." These country squires obtained university educations, frequently were members of the Inns of Court, and undertook responsible positions of public service, but they were not among the titled nobility.

WILTSHIRE

The Duke family first appears in Wiltshire in the 14th century; it is not present in the Hundred Rolls of 1279-81. When the 1332 tax rolls were made, the Duke family had expanded to include at least 8 adults holding significant amounts of property, scattered throughout the county. One of the earliest reference probably does not involve a Wiltshire resident. Nicholas le Duk (see Gloucestershire) was charged with many others for breaking into houses at Sevenhampton and Heyworth, Wilts, and carrying away goods. This could easily be the Nicholas Duke of Gloucestershire found in the tax rolls for that county, since these locations are quite near one another. The Wiltshire tax rolls provide a different cast of characters.

THE 1332 TAX ROLLS

In 1332 Wiltshire tax roles show that at least five and perhaps as many as 12 individuals with the name Duke (in some cases still in its Norman form) held property in Wiltshire:

HUNDRED	TOWN	NAME	TAX
Mere	Zeals (Sceles)	John Duke	22 3/4 d
"	"	William Duke	12d
Frustfield	Whelpley	William Duke	12d
Dunworth	Tisbury	William Duke	8s 0d
Alderbury	Winterborne Dauntsey	Henry Duke
Dole	Tilshead	Sibyl la Dukes	5s 0d
Swanborough	Wilcot (Wylcote)	William le Douke (ob.)	12 d
Studfold	[All] Cannings	Geoffrey le Duke	5 s 0 d
Startley	Christian Malford	William Duke	20d
Startley	Christian Malford	Roger Douce	18 d
Chippenham	Corsham	John Duyke	3 s 11/4 d
Chippenham	Kington Michael	Richard Doke	12 d
Chedglow	Sutton	Peter Ducke (ob.)	12d
Chedglow	Crudwell	John Duke (ob.)	16 d

Individuals might appear in the tax lists for multiple hundreds and villages, if they possessed property in multiple areas. It is especially unlikely that each reference to William or John Duke is independent; these are almost certainly indicative of multiple properties in the hands of a lesser number of individuals. It is especially likely that the William Duke properties of southern, and perhaps also those of central, Wilts belonged to one person.
It is also unknown whether all of the individuals listed were in fact resident -- rather than just holders of taxable property -- in Wiltshire.
The lands were held by various primary tenants under the crown; the Duke family was not a tenant in capite for any of the Wilts properties that they occupied. Many of the properties were held by the Duchy of Lancaster in the early part of the 14th century, becoming part of the holdings of the Earl of Salisbury after 1337, and returning at the end of the century (with the beheading of the last de Montague earl) to the crown and the House of Lancaster. The Abbess of Shaftesbury held Tisbury, a tie with Dorset.
Comparison with other taxpayers of Wiltshire suggests that the Duke family there was generally comfortable, especially when it is considered that tradespeople, craftsmen, and the smaller farmers normally fell below minimum levels for taxation, and when it is also recalled that the properties may not have been held by distinct individuals. The taxes listed here represent a 15th of the assessed value of livestock and agricultural produce, or one tenth the value of household goods, merchandise, tools, and other moveable goods. Altogether, 9,700 Wiltshire individuals paid Ł1490 in taxes. Taxes of 3 shillings were average, and taxes of 8 shillings were within the higher range in the county.
LATER EVENTS IN WILTSHIRE
In 1352, John Duk and Richard Duk were charged with many others for having broken into the close, house, and dovecoat of Walter Mareys at Trol, Wilts, looting the house and killing the doves, and burning the timber of the houses.
Another notice does much to clarify the position of the Duke family in Wiltshire. A 1381 notice to the escheator of the county of Wilts identified John Duyk as Bailiff of the liberty of William Earl of Salisbury of the hundred of Aldewardebury. This was the second de Montagu (or de Montacute) to serve as Earl of Salisbury. The hundred mentioned was a private hundred of the earls, although prior to the appointment of the first earl, also William de Montague, it had belonged to the Duchy of Lancaster. This position would easily account for multiple properties in the ownership of single individuals among the Wilts Duke family. A bailiff, in particular, would be in an excellent position to acquire properties within the holdings of the overlord, and many of the Wilts holdings were indeed held from the king by the Earl of Salisbury.
In 1400, the Earl of Salisbury attempted to overthrow King Henry IV, after his murder of Richard II. He, and others with him, were captured at Circencester in southern Gloucester (near the northern Wilts Duke properties) and beheaded. The line was thereafter attainted.
In 1404 a John Duk received a Wiltshire appointment from Henry IV:

Grant for life to the king's servant John Duc, one of the grooms of the King's chamber, of the office of bailiff itinerant in the county of Wilts with the fees and wages pertaining to it.
This appointment is singularly appropriate for a member of a family that had previously provided the bailiff for the holder of the most extensive holdings in the county, those of the de Montague Earls of Salisbury. It suggests that the members of the king's household discussed previously were from this part of the extended (at this point, very extended) Duke family.
In 1404 a writ to the sheriff of Wiltshire required the release of John Duyk of Conok, and five others, on mainprise of Thomas de la Pole, knight; William Copdoke, William Rede and John Denham of Suffolk. They were charged with threatening the Prior of Lanthony and had mainperned in chancery that they would "do or procure no hurt or harm to the prior, the canons, their men or servants, nor fire their houses." On the same day another writ to the Sheriff of Wilts was ordered, by mainprise of Thomas Duyk 'skynner,' John son of Thomas Duyk, John Hadoun 'draper' and John Trom 'skynner,' all of London, in respect of taking a second time of John Duyk of Chiriton the younger security for keeping peace toward the prior or canons of Lanthony. Conok was a holding within the Chiriton parish, and was held by the Knights Hospitallers after 1308, until it reverted to the crown in 1324. Later, in the 1340's it was sold to the de la Pole family of Suffolk. This explains the Thomas de la Pole's involvement in the situation of John Duke; the dispute was doubtless about property rights involving Conok and the adjacent Lanthony Priory lands.
In 1405, William Duke was a juror in Salisbury for the inquisition post mortem on Elizabeth Seyntomer. This information is found in the "Hungerford Cartulary", the records of the powerful Hungerford family, and indicates that William Duke may have been a feofee of the Hungerford family at this time. Hungerford succeeded to many of the estates of the earls of Salisbury.
This may or may not have been the same individual, county unspecified, mentioned in King Henry IV's records for 1403:

Pardon to Julian the wife of William Duke for all felonies and trespasses committed by her, except treason, murder and rape.
The like to Maud daughter of William Duke and Julian his wife.
This wording appears frequently in the Patent Rolls, and appears to be a conventional pardon that may refer to conventional offenses, like those of trespass against the king's rights in property held by the family, or perhaps to political opposition falling short of an actual charge of treason.
In 1413, John Duyk, chaplain, with Robert Ennok and John Frankelayn, received in fee the manor of Beyton and the advowson of the church there, and the manor of Lye in the parish of Westbury, Wilts, with services to the chief lords of the fee. This was recorded in the "Edington Cartulary." The grant was from John Rous, the elder. In 1414 Duke and his colleagues in turn granted the properties to John Rous, the younger. These transfers illustrate the overlapping quality of feudal relationships. In addition to the oddity of the re-transfer of the property, it is interesting that John Rous and a member of the Lye family are listed among Hungerford's retinue at Agincourt in 1415.
There are also later references to the family in Salisbury and adjacent areas. In 1428 a Peter Duke was a juror in the Underditch Hundred, where the estate of Lake that was to become the family seat is located.
In 1455 John Duke brought suit concerning a messuage in Malmesbury, and won.

In 1457 Henry Duke was listed as one of the wardens of St. Nicholas Hospital, Salisbury, just south of the cathedral. He was a priest, and in 1462 was Master of the hospital of St. Nicholas, where he was granted an indult:

To Henry Duke, priest, master of the hospital of St. Nicholas in the city of Salisbury. Indult to have a portable altar, on which he may celebrate or have celebrated by a fit priest mass and other divine offices in presence of himself and his household servants, to choose a fit priest, secular or regular, as his confessor, who may, after hearing his confession, grant him absolution for his crimes etc., in cases not reserved to the apostolic see, as often as opportune, and in reserved cases (except certain cases specified, e.g. violation of interdict, etc.) once only, and enjoin penance, and who, or other confessor of his choice, may grant him, being penitent and having confessed, plenary remission of all his sins, likewise once only, namedly in the hour of death, and may commute his vows of abstinence and pilgrimage, except those of pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Rome and Compostela; with the usual clauses providing for the making of satisfaction to whom it is due, against abuse of the present indult and requiring the usual Friday fasting for a year, etc. Sincere devotionis. (G. de Piccolominibus. xxv. A. de Reate. S. Crusiliati, S. de Spada.)
This indult is far more complex than most that were registered. It is especially interesting that his vows of abstinence could be commuted under this indulgence. He might have been one of the medieval priests, common in earlier times, who married and raised a family.
DORSET
Dorset is a critical county for the history of the Duke family of Otterton, Devon. All sources agree that John Duke of Sherbourne, Dorset, was the founder of the Otterton line.
1332 LAY SUBSIDY ROLLS
After Roger Duke's original lifetime grant of three manors in Dorset, the 1332 lay subsidy (tax) rolls are the next record of the Duke family in Dorset. They are absent from the hundred rolls of 1279-81.

HUNDRED TOWN NAME TAX

Whitchurch Symondsbury (Sceles) John 5 s. 0 d.

Badbury Bridport John 18 d.

Bere Regis Byre William 5 s. 0 d.

Totcombe Cerne Abbas Walter 2 s. 0 d.

Cokdene Canford Walter 8 d.
THE 1340 INQUISTION NONARUM
In 1340 John Duke is listed as mong those responsible for accounting for the taxes of the parish of Canford, where William Duke previously held property. He is almost certainly a son of this William Duke.
THE DUKE FAMILY OF CERNE ABBAS
Walter Duke held property in Cerne Abbas in 1332, and later records indicate that his family, or some part of it, lived there in later years. In 1363, Robert, Bishop of Salisbury, complained that John Duk was among those who waylaid his carts carrying six tuns [large barrels] of wine from Melcombe to his castle at Shirborn [Sherbourne], destroying the wine and impounding the horses at Great Mynterne, assaulting his servants. Thomas, Abbot of Cerne [Dorset], was also among those charged.
However, this was not the end of it. On January 30, 1363, the Abbot of Cerne complained that a group broke his close and houses at Great Mynterne, Dorset, and carried away his goods, at the same time recovering the wine and horses in question, which he described as having been impounded by Richard de Elleworth, his bailiff. Richard de Elleworth; Nicholas Honye, tithing-man of the town; and John Duk and Richard Goulde, the abbot's servants, attempted to stop them and were assaulted. Truly, it was an interesting time.
In 1376, Edward le Duk was charged with participating in the looting of a ship that had been driven ashore at Purbeck, on the Dorset coast. The nature of the incident is not so clear as it would be today, however, since rights to salvage from ships driven ashore were common gifts of the crown to religious houses and to towns. Suit was frequently brought when one group infringed on the rights of another in this respect. However, in this case it was shipowner who protested.
There are also 15th century references to the Duke family in Dorset, suggesting that some members of the family stayed in this county. Thomas Duke, of Cerne Abbey, was ordained Deacon on June 5, 1490, by Thomas Langton, Bishop of Salisbury.
It is interesting that in Dorset all early (but much later than this period) references to individuals named Duke in the International Genealogical Index were located in the Swanage area, and could be associated with the Duke family occupation of the Vast Priory property of Swanwic. The county of Dorset has a remarkably small number of persons named Duke listed in that data base.
SOUTHAMPTON
There is an isolated early reference to the Duke family in the area of Southampton, on the Isle of Wight. In about 1230-35, Godfrid Duc held half an acre on Wight, as a tenant of Robert Rabel, who in turn held property from God's House, Southampton.
In 1412, James Bruyn, 'Ducheman,' was ordered freed by the Sheriff of Kent, on charges of rape and abduction of Margaret Plumpton, on mainprise of John Duke of the county of Southampton [Hampshire], John Gerard of Gloucestershire, esquire, Henry Ponsharde of Berkshire, and John Gosselyn of Hertfordshire. It is possible that this John Duke was the son of Thomas Duke, skinner, of London.
Earlier he had been involved with many of his father's London business affairs, but after 1408 seems to have disappeared from the London scene. This business of providing surety for court cases is one in which he had been especially active while in London. In 1422, Robert Dooke was appointed to be deputy to the king's chief butler, Thomas Chaucer, in the port of "Jernemut" [Yarmouth, Somerset]. Thomas was the son of Geoffrey Chaucer, author of Canterbury Tales. Geoffrey Chaucer was an esquire in the service of King Edward III, with John Duke, who was given life residency at Thorneye in 1368. Thomas Chaucer's grandfather, Geoffrey's father, had held this same position in in 1347-1349.
WORCESTERSHIRE, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, AND SOMERSET
WORCESTERSHIRE
Worcestershire is north of Gloucester in western England. A surviving lay subsidy roll from Worcester, made in about 1280 and therefore earlier than those of other counties presented here, includes William, Walter, and John Duke.
There can be little doubt that the Duke family in Worcester was in some way under the control of the Earl of Warwick. Walter Duke's residence was in a parish in which William de Bello Campo (Beauchamp in Anglo-Norman, or "beautiful fields"), Earl of Warwick since 1268, was the most prominent taxpayer. William le Duke's residence was in a parish in which Roger de Clifford, knight to Warwick, lived. The Duke family homes were strung out along the eastern bank of the Severn in close proximity to the Beauchamp family seat at Powyck.
In 1327 John de Stonystret of Hyndelegh was pardoned for the death of William, son of Thomas le Duc, of Hyndelegh.
The later lay subsidy rolls of 1332-3 in Worcester are unfortunately quite fragmentary. However, the 1340 Nonarum Inquisitiones roll preserves a record of one family member:

HUNDRED TOWN NAME TAX

Tyberton Phillipi le Duk' ?
This Phillip appears to be a descendant of the John Duke previously resident in this town. He served with Joh' de Eveling, Stephi le Baillj, and John Grys.
Later we find evidence that the Duke family continued in this county, and continued their association with the Beauchamp family. Friar Henry Duke, Prior of the Austin [Augustininian] Friars of Droitwich, in 1388 accepted funding for an anchoret's cell at the Priory from Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick and "founder of our convent."
GLOUCESTERSHIRE
The Duke family also appears in Gloucestershire records during the 13th century, which is not surprising given the role of the Beauchamps in that county. In 1285 Henry le Duc of Hope Maloysel (Hope Mansell, west of Gloucester) was pardoned for participating in a group led by John de Botillier, associated with the Earls of Warwick. They captured and decapitated Philip de Blakeneye, who had trespassed in the Dene Forest, kept by Grimbald Pauncefot, constable of the castle of St. Briavel. De Blakeneye escaped to commit futher trespasses and robberies. Then, Henry le Duc and others are said to have "pursuing him with hue and cry as one fleeing from justice, decapitated him." The Dean Forest and St. Briavel are west of the Severn, on the extreme southern border of Gloucestershire and Wales. This was well within the territory of the Earls of Warwick. In 1321, William de Beauchamp was made Gov. of St. Briavel and of the Forest of Dean.
Beween 1301 and 1307, John Duce of Bristol, Gloucestershire, was pardoned by Edward I for crimes committed in company with many others of the area against Maurice de Berkeley while he was in Scotland on the king's service. The history of the Duke family in Gloucestershire seems to have been a spotted one.
Walter Duke was in the southern part of the county (now Avon since the British local government reorganisation of the 1970's), probably along the Avon River. William Duke is in a town on the northwestern boundary of Wiltshire, east of Gloucester. Nicholas le Duke is in the town of Gloucester.
In 1345, Thomas le Duk' of Gloucester is listed as a priest at Tewkesbury Abbey on the Saturday in Embertide after Pentecost. The apostrophe casts some doubt on whether this is the Duc family; the apostrophe is often used in abbreviating "Duket," a separate surname. However, Worcester records sometimes use this form for "Duke" and in this case the individual is more likely of the Duke family.
In 1403 John Duke was ordered arrested, to be brought before the king and council, with others from the Cirencester, Gloucester, area. No reason was given for the order, but the charge was presumably serious, to justify an appearance before the royal council. This suggests political charges rather than any conventional crime. Since Richard II had been deposed in 1399 and there was still a great deal of activity by his supporters, it is possible that the charges here were related to the radical change in government of 1399-1400. In particular, this may refer to a member of the Wiltshire Duke family, who as we shall see had connections that particularly predisposed them to oppose Henry IV, the Lancastrian usurper of the throne who deposed, and later killed, Richard II in 1399.
In 1453, John Duke of Cirencestre, Gloucester, 'chapman,' [merchant, trader] was pardoned for outlawries in the counties of Gloucester, Worcester, and in London.
During the 15th century the Gloucestershire family was engaged in trade with France. In 1479, Bartram Duke imported "14 weys of coal" and "5 C onions" on the James of Rochelle (France). Bartram Duke is listed as master, and the owner of the shipment was the "factor and attorney of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Ewe."
On October 28, 1479, Martin Duke was master of the James of Rochelle, importing 33 tuns wine for John Esterfild' and Henry Vaghan. On January 29, 1480, custom was paid by Nicholas Duke on 7 mantles imported through the Port of Bristol.
Bartram Duke was described as "alien" and may have taken up residence in France. Burke's General Armory refers to members of the family who moved to France in the late Middle Ages, doubtless to pursue their business interests.
SOMERSET
The Duke family in Somerset appears to have been derived from the Worcester and Gloucestershire settlers. In 1315 Philip le Duk was named among the many individuals who were charged with breaking a dyke belonging to the church of St. Andrew in Wells, Somerset. This violence appears to have arisen from a dispute concerning water rights. This Phillip le Duk could easily be the same who was noted in Tibberton, Worc., in 1340. If not, he is presumably a close relative.
In 1402, John Duke of Congesbury, Somerset, (a few miles southeast of Bristol) was pardoned for "all felonies committed by him except treason, murder, and rape.
DEVON
EARLY REFERENCES IN DEVON
In 1298, Joel de Duk was identified with the import of 2 tuns of wine on the la cogge Sainte Marie of Teignmouth, which docked at Topsham. In 1299, he is listed for 6 tuns and 1 pipe, on the le Bonan of Exmouth, docked at Topsham. In 1302-1303, John le Duk was listed for "5 tuns, of which W. de Ochamton has 1 tun; 4 tuns customed," on the Seynt Anne of Teignmouth.
However, records of the 1332 tax rolls show that no Duke of that period lived in the vicinity of Otterton. Plympton Hundred is in the southwestern part of Devon, and Shirwill is in the extreme northeast. Otterton, the later home of the Duke family, is in the southeast. Like the Somerset family, these individuals may have been connected with the Gloucestershire Duke family.
Both the Plympton (southern, near Plymouth) and Shirwell (northwestern) areas later held substantial families of the Duke name with unknown connection to the Otterton family; these references may reflect their origins.
CONTINUE