Family:Whitney, Robert (b1550-a1595)

From WRG
Jump to: navigation, search

Robert Whitney, parentage unknown, was born perhaps sometime before 1574,[1] and died sometime after 1594.[2]

He married an unknown woman.

He was probably the Robert Whitney, vintner, of Burnham Ulph, Norfolk who was listed in the Vintner's Fines on 28 Sep 1570.[3]

In the early 1590s he was involved in a series of lawsuits with William Armiger the younger, Gent.

In 1592 or 1593 he brought suit against William Armiger the younger, Gent. in Chancery Court.

He obtained a subpoena against Armiger who had not appeared in court.[4]
He obtained a subpoena against Armiger who had not appeared in court.[5]
He claimed that Armiger had submitted an insufficient Demurrer and the matter was sent to a Master of the Court for review.[6]

Sometime about 1593 William Armiger the younger, Gent. brought suit against him in the Court of Star Chamber.

Sometime before 18 Feb 36 1593/4 a Bill of Complaint was filed by William Armiger the younger, Gent. In this document, it is alleged that Robert Whitney was "long a man of a very badd and lewde liffe & consideracion in so much that he being greatly decayed thereby" and that his house was "decayed by fyer". This document mentions a messuage in "Burnham Ulpe".[7]
On 18 Feb 36 Elizabeth I (1593/4) he filed his Answer in the case.[8]
In 1593/4 a document was filed in this case.[9]

In 1594 he brought suit against William Armiger the younger, Gent. in the Court of Requests.

On 26 Nov 1594 it was found that he was a "subsidy man" - one contributing to the King's subsidy, and thus a man of means, and could no longer be allowed to follow his cause in forma pauperis - 'in the form of a pauper.'[10]
On 30 Jan 1594/5 it was ordered that Armiger file his Answer despite having submitted a Demurrer.[11]

Robert Whitney apparently had no children, but planned to make Ralph Hildich his heir. He had traveled to the borders of Wales from whence he brought Hildich, his nephew.[12]


1. ^  Supposition. Since he was married at the time of the lawsuit, he would have had to have been at least 18 to 20 years of age, and perhaps much older.

2. ^  STAC 5/A2/4

3. ^  E 176/2/190 and E 176/2/206 (not yet obtained)

4. ^  Archive:C 33/85#Page 732 verso

5. ^  Archive:C 33/86#Page 760 verso

6. ^  Archive:C 33/88#Page 235 recto

7. ^  STAC 5/A2/4

8. ^  STAC 5/A2/4

9. ^  STAC 5/A26/29. This document has not yet been obtained.

10. ^  Archive:REQ 1/18#Page 96

11. ^  Archive:REQ 1/18#Page 250

12. ^  He states that he had no issue by his then wife and was without hope of having issue, and thus made Ralph Hildich his heir, STAC 5/A2/4

Copyright © 2009, Tim Doyle and the Whitney Research Group

Personal tools