Talk:Esquire of the Body

A list from 1660
This source Provides a list of EBs from 1660 until 1672. It should be possible for match the names against Wikpedia biographies and add them to the category:Esquires of the Body.

I am not sure what "Esquires of the Body in Ordinary Supernumerary" and "Esquires of the Body in Extraordinary" but I guess those if added should be added to sub categories. I suggest that when a matching biography is found it is added to the line as  — name followed by a tick when the category is added to the biography. -- PBS (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Office-Holders in Modern Britain: Volume 11 (revised) - Court Officers, 1660-1837 in the section "Index of officers: .. - .." (pages 684–1661)

gives full names in aliphatic order on surname. -- PBS (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Esquires of the Body 1660-1702
 * 1660 4 June Marsham, F. — Ferdinando Marsham (D. by 6 Dec. 1681)
 * 1660 4 June Norwood, H. — Henry Norwood(c.1614-89) ✅
 * 1660 4 June Newport, Hon. A. — Andrew Newport ✅
 * 1660 4 June March, G. — Sri George March (D. by 25 Nov. 1673)
 * 1673 25 Nov. Cheeke, T. — Thomas Cheeke) (surrendered post by 27 Apr. 1679) Was "Esquire of the Body in Extraordinary" for ten years before appointment as Esquire to the Body
 * 1675 18 Dec. Newport, F. — Andrew Newport (Surr. by 18 Dec. 1675)✅
 * 1676 5 Jan. Talbot, S. — Sharington Talbot (D. by 23 July 1685)
 * 1679 27 Apr. Russell, F. — Francis Russell (dab page) (Res. by 30 Apr. 1687)
 * 1680 24 Sept. Kingsmill, H. — Henry Kingsmill (a dab page) (24 Sept. 1680 Vac. 6 Feb. 1685 on d. of Charles II. again (23 July 1685, Surr. by 22 Aug. 1692)
 * 1681 6 Dec. Goring, P. — Peircy Goring or Peircy Goreing (Vac. 6 Feb. 1685 on d. of Charles II)
 * 1685 23 July Kingsmill, H. — See 2 above.
 * 1687 30 Apr. Bagnall, D. — Dudley Bagnall (Vac. 11 Dec. 1688 on abd. of James II.)
 * 1689 5 Apr. Grantham, Sir T. — Sir [[Thomas Grantham], (Vac. 8 Mar. 1702 on d. of William III.)
 * 1692 22 Aug. Sydenham, W. — William Sydenham (Vac. 8 Mar. 1702 on d. of William III.) —  the current article William Sydenham (1615–1661)  is clearly not the correct article as it is a biography on the regicide who died 30 years earlier.


 * Esquires of the Body in Ordinary Supernumerary1667-?
 * 1667 22 July Rodbard, T.
 * 1667 19 Aug. Hanmer, Sir J.
 * 1669 8 Feb. Kynkwell, M.
 * 1670 15 Nov. Wadlowe, J.
 * 1672 21 June Phillipps, H.
 * 1675 19 Oct. Hodges, J.


 * Esquires of the Body in Extraordinary 1660-?1685
 * [1660] Snelling, M.
 * 1660 14 Aug. Pawlett, J.
 * [1660 14 Aug.] Samwayes, J.
 * 1661 22 Jan. Flower, T.
 * 1661 19 Feb. Roe, R.
 * [1661 19 Feb.] Needham, F.
 * 1662 23 June Wadlowe, J.
 * 1663 9 Jan. Crofts, E.
 * 1663 29 Jan. Needham, R.
 * 1663 5 Feb. Cason, J.
 * 1663 10 Aug. Crevett, G.
 * 1664 24 May Cheeke, T.
 * 1665 18 May Poe, W.
 * 1666 12 Apr. Moseley, S.
 * 1666 29 Aug. Essington, W.
 * 1666 4 Oct. Murray, J.
 * 1667 26 Mar. Hovenor, A.
 * 1667 12 Sept. Bell, -
 * 1667 9 Oct. Long, J.
 * 1668 28 Jan. Moore, D.
 * 1668 23 Feb. Phillips, H.
 * 1672 21 Dec. Osbourne, H.

Knight of the Body
I have moved the following sentence here for further discussion
 * "The next grade up in the hierarchy of royal courtiers was the Knight of the Body."

I am not sure this is true. From what I see on the net and AFAICT there is not a lot. A Knight of the Body was a body guard. As such a person in that position was closer to a modern day security guard, rather than a man servant and probably did not give the same level of interment access as an Esquire. I think it needs an inline citation for the statement even though it is in the lead because it is not mentioned in the body of the text. -- PBS (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's simpler than that - a Knight of the Body was an Esquire of the Body who had been knighted, which latterly most were. You couldn't refer to someone who was a knight as an esquire. The job was the same. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting do you have any links that confirm that? -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, and I must say I did some poking around on the internet with inconclusive results. But I suspect it's right. Certainly the knights of the body weren't just the equivalent of the large men with dark suits and earpieces today, but intimates verging on companions. Modern "Upstairs Downstairs" conceptions of domestic service miss that changing the King's towels was a fast-track route to success and power. Look for example at Thomas Boleyn, 1st Earl of Wiltshire. Our articles doesn't say it, but he was Esquire to Henry VII, then knighted (Knight of the Bath) at Henry VIII's coronation, and continued with him. The article also doesn't make it clear that like most higher court posts, there were many occupants who each only served for part of the time. One source suggested it was usually 2 months on and 10 months off for these.  My Valet de chambre ("Groom" in the English court) describes one rank down & I hope gives a flavour.  Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You could well be right. I don't know and unreliable sources may be jumping to conclusions as for example is possible with the article John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford. There are currently 28 articles with a mention of "knight of the body". I think that this needs some more investigation. -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Further stew for the pot. According to one of the sources in this article by Tudor times Esquires of the body were usually knights and they usually had servants of their own to assist them:

I have also come across another source: "The most important innovation in the administration of the royal chamber in the sixteenth century was the creation of the post of the gentleman of the privy chamber on the French model (gentilhomme de la chambre). This post was created around 1518 by amalgamating the posts for the two earlier officers—the esquire of the household and the knight of the body. These gentlemen of the privy chamber of "gentlemen wayters" (later these gentlemen waiters would belong to the chamber) were require to "diligently attend upon..."

Perhaps you would like to read it and give me your thoughts. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had seen that. It doesn't quite settle the matter, & I think shows one has to deal with different arrangements at different dates, which our articles tend not to do. What I haven't seen is any source that clearly has the Esquires and the Knights with different roles. The earlier household books (Liber Nigra etc) only talk of esquires generally, though searches on biographies tend just to turn up knights. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether PBS is questioning whether Knights of the Body actually existed ("There are currently 28 articles with a mention of "knight of the body". I think that this needs some more investigation"). I think that's beyond doubt. I don't think it's logical to assume that in a highly stratified society Knights and Esquires of the Body were at exactly the same level in the hierarchy of the royal household, or at exactly the same level of precedence during formal processions etc, in which case one must have been higher than the other. Surely the term "Knight of the Body" needs at least a mention somewhere in this article, with a brief, ideally uncontroversial, comment. As the roles of the two offices were probably very similar (let's remember that in the case of King Louis XIV whether you handed him his spoon or fork at breakfast was a hierarchical matter for courtiers), both roles/titles should probably be dealt with in the same article. "Knight of the Body" is already linked in many cases (or certainly used to be!) to this article title (Esquire of the Body), so the term needs to appear in the intro. I would therefore suggest the sentence under discussion (my own work I think) be restored. But if that's too problematic for anyone, perhaps restore as: "A courtier with a similar role was the Knight of the Body".(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC))
 * You're missing the point entirely. "Knights" of the Body are extremely elusive in the very detailed contemporary sources detailing the royal household & its costs. But very commonly mentioned in biographical sources. I'm suggesting that there was only one role, generally referred to as an esquire, but as a knight when the holder was actually knighted, as in fact became the usual case. Find a good source that clearly mentions knights and esquires as different roles & I'll accept that. Equally a good source confirming my suspicion would allow the article to make that clear, & set up a redirect. Following you in wild speculation, I expect that, as with Thomas Boleyn, 1st Earl of Wiltshire (see above), if esquires were not already knights on appointment, they were knighted after a few years in service. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Going back to Prosad above, I find p. 30 further confusing, suggesting that esquires were superior to knights. Perhaps the Knights were honorary, unpaid, roles. But further clarification is certainly needed. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The main practical concern here is what to link Knight of the Body to. It seems no-one here knows if he performed exactly the same role as an Esquire, so let's just admit that and say: "A courtier with a similar role was the Knight of the Body, although it is unclear from available sources whether the two roles were identical". Please suggest an alternative wording if not happy with that.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC))
 * There is no need for a red links to be turned blue, they are informative and there is no time limit on the project. I am against your suggested wording because it is OR without a source to back up it. It is better to say nothing than to add incorrect information. -- PBS (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the absence of clear info there's no good choice, but I have agree with PBS. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaaargh How on earth did I get here?

I was recently in Broadway, Worcestershire, at the church of St. Eadburgha. Hmm, I foolishly wiki-wondered (having little else to do), who was she? Yawn She was Eadburh of Winchester, kings's daughter, granddaughter of Alfred the Great, and sister to three other kings. TLDR She came to be Abbess of the Nun-a-minster in Winchester. Her remains were taken to Pershore Abbey in 972 where, by the Dissolution, the monks were "droncke as myss" at Matins: now the world knows that there are at least five churches dedicated to her in the area (the disappeared chapels and broken crosses are for the real experts). Wondered about the church bells in the abbey coz my mate used to live in Pershore and my sister used to do the campano-wotsit heave-ho thingy: thus the 'Bells' section.

Which led on to Rudhall of Gloucester, coz I was born in said shire. Rudhall's earliest bell is from 1684. The techniques of Jacob van Eyck and Pieter and François Hemony seem to be involved, Pieter died in 1680. I hadn't realised that Britain was still fighting the Dutch until June 1687, and the Glorious Revolution was in November 1688. I went to school in Reading, but we never about learnt about the Battle of Broad Street in history lessons.

Sooo, I foolishly decided to attempt to update the somewhat brief summary of the Rudhall article. There followed a frenzied hunt (on archive.org) for info on a memorial brass in a Gloucester church to an earlier 16th-century bellfounder. Many, many moons ago I made several brass rubbings myself in Fairford Church of John Tame and others: but Tame's son, Sir Edmund Tame, was reputed to be a Knight of the Body [Eh? Wot?], and his son (also Edmund) was said to be an Esquire of that ilk. But the bibliography needed some work... so, not only Esquire, but Esquire, extraordinary, says Holt on pp. 138-139 of...

(Holt is wildly dismissive of almost everything to do with the oft-repeated rural legends about John Tame and Fairford church & its stunning glass: he seems to say says that Tame was only a tenant of some land for his sheep in Fairford, and a mean old bugger to boot who disinherited his oldest son, and who mostly lived and made his money in Cirencester).

So I was just about to make some swift additions here about Knights of the Body: and thought "Hmm, best just have a wee peep at the talk page, coz I done this before, see?"—and here I am. Anyway...

Hi, In the work cited above by (I think) ,

...at the foot of p. 36 above note 4 there is a ref to a work by Samuel Pegge. Having struggled though the higgledy-piggledy mess that is archive.org (ie let's misname everything, tip it all into a pit and run away), I finally arrived at this:


 * (see also Pts. IV & V)

It was written some 80 years after the office died out and there was no-one to be examined viva voce, as the author says. He writes carefully–but with some authority–on a subject that seems to be have been somewhat vague even back then. On p. 14 he says this:


 * The ESQUIRES of the BODY then, Sir, were in the department of the Lord Chamberlain, their duty being, for the most part, in the rooms above stairs : they were Gentlemen of birth, or of good alliance, if not of fortune : and though ESQUIRE was the generical appellation, yet they were often knights, which last when spoken of individually, were called KNIGHTS of the BODY.
 * In some cases one KNIGHT of the BODY seems to have been equivalent to two ESQUIRES; for it is said in certain cases, that there must be "two ESQUIRES or one KNIGHT."

...and goes onto explain how two men of a given rank are worth one of the next highest: I imagine for appearance's sake, to maintain the Order of precedence or whatever flim-flammery royal acolytes and king-whisperers enjoy getting up to...

The whole thing is worth reading. I think that this a useful source, and throws some much-needed light on a suitably recondite subject. I have already formulated some thoughts: what d'you reckon? >MinorProphet (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In Richard III: A Study of Service (Cambridge UP, 1989), Rosemary Horrox says of one royal attendant: "His household career, based on military aid to the king, was then powered by lending money to the crown, which carried him in quick succession from gentleman usher to esquire of the body and finally to knight of the body. The knights outranked the esquires of the body, but their social background was very similar and promotion from one to the other was not uncommon." (p. 249). She also says that Richard III (r. 1483–5) had fifty knights of the body, and "only" 4 king's knights. This was substantially different to the arrangement in Edward IV's time (r. 1460–70, 1471–83); in the first decade of Edward's reign, there had been ten knights of the body only, but this grew "in part through the regrading of members of the retinue. King's knights became carvers or knights of the body, for example. By 1483, Edward had at least thirty knights of the body." (pp. 227-8)
 * Horrox also discussed the Black Book (c. 1471–2) in which king's knights were effectively considered "midway between the knights and esquires of the body and the royal servants outside the household". In practice, 'king's esquire' (or 'esquire of the household') tended to be a catch-all term for esquires within the household who were not knights or esquires of the body; the term "esquire of the household" was used to describe some officials who were serjeants at arms or gentleman ushers, for instance. Horrox barely found mention of "knights of the household".
 * What is not clear from Horrox's discussion is why some were made knights of the body and others esquires of the body, especially whether this has to do with being a knight more generally. Certainly, knight and esquire of the body were distinct positions in the household, and there was a hierarchical distinction between them as well. —Noswall59 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Josiah Wedgwood and Anne D. Holt in their History of Parliament: Biographies of the Members of the Commons House, 1439-1509 wrote that "Sixty of the Knights of the Shire [i.e. county representatives in the Commons] were at some time also Knights of the Body, and ninety of them were Squires of the Body; many of the ninety are included in the sixty, for the squires got knighted in due course and remained "Of the Body". Most got this Court preferment after, not before, they had been elected to Parliament" (p. xxx). —Noswall59 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC).
 * And, finally, Chris Given-Wilson gives a useful account of their formation ("The King and the Gentry in Fourteenth-Century England", Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 37 (1987), pp. 90-91): "By the mid-fourteenth century, however, this long-established system of household knights was breaking down. ... In effect, the mid-fourteenth century marks the demise of the household knight of the type whose existence is so well documented for over a century prior to that time. In his place arose the chamber knight ... clearly associated with that general shift from the hall to the chamber which is a well-known feature of both royal and noble households in the later middle ages, and with the increasing importance attached to the office of king's chamberlain ... During the fifteenth century they came to be known as 'knights of the body', though both their numbers and duties remained similar." —Noswall59 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC).
 * This is all very useful, & I hope you are ready to write it up. I tend to think that Knight of the Body should also be dealt with here. It looks as though the two roles were somewhat shifting in function and importance, which is not really a surprise. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnbod: I've had a go at summarising everything. I've tried to be careful, because I am no expert and no one seems to have explicitly and directly defined the distinction between Knights and Esquires of the Body; the role did change and there are subtleties of definition, hierarchy, interpretation and history which could easily be distorted. Hopefully I have captured this as best as possible, but anyone here do review it if you have the time. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC).

See next section. >MinorProphet (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed split
Well, for the last few days (being still at a loose end) I have been hunting down loads of sources and snippets of info about the Knights of the Body. Their function seems to have varied considerably over the centuries, and there seems to be no single work dealing with this topic at all. My own notes seem to have turned into an article in its own right, so...

NB I have all the refs for the following, but haven't included any here, they're just a bit of drudgery - yay, sfn ! This is an attempt at a chronological account of the development of the Knights of the Body. Simon Pegge found a reference to a knight of the body to Richard I, although the term seems to have become more widespread from around the times of Edward III, Richard II or Henry IV.

As far as I can tell, although they shared a similar title to the Squires of the Body, the Knights of the Body were not part of the Royal Household at all and fulfilled an entirely different function. They barely figure in the ordinances or the accounts of the Household, although they did seem to have had their own place in the ceremonial Order of Precedence at state occasions.

Although many Squires of the Body became Knights of the Body, their roles were wholly separate: the Knights of the Body did not constitute part of the pecking order within the royal household - unlike the various levels of Yeomen, Valets, Grooms, Esquires in ordinary, Gentlemen Ushers, etc.

The knights of the body seem to have developed over the centuries from the military Household Knights in the time of kings Edward I-III, who actually went to war with the king and constituted the core of his army. From around 1360 (when Edward III stopped going personally into battle) the Household Knights were swiftly replaced by the King's Knights - there were nearly 150 during Richard II's reign. Many were of considerable local standing and helped to bolster the king's rule in the shires and localities. They were not part of the household: they were attached to the person of the king.

From around 1348 Edward III created a much smaller number of close personal advisors (twelve) called Knights of the Chamber. They were also not part of the royal household. They became more like councillors, special commissioners, or diplomats who facilitated the passing of foreign treaties etc. Richard II and Henry IV had a similar number of chamber knights.

A proper knight bachelor, (miles, pl. milites. lit. 'soldier') and knights banneret had two squires: one to carry the knight's shield (scutifer), and a more senior one to carry his lance (armiger). Unfortunately, the latter term also denotes a person entitled to use a heraldic achievement (i.e, to bear arms). I suspect that the term armigeri pro corpore regis has sometimes led to mis-identification of a certain number of people described as 'Knights of the Body' when they were actually squires.

The Squires of the Body, definitely part of the Household, were at first called scutiferii pro corpore regis in the time of Edward III, and later - I think - armigeri pro corpore regis: these were always and only the most personal servants of the king, actually dressing him in the morning, personally bringing his pottage at mealtimes and putting him to bed in the evening and guarding him during the night. Literally no-one else was allowed to lay hands on the king.

I am still not entirely clear, but it seems that during the 15th century (Henrys IV, V and VI), the Knights of the Chamber (milites camere regis) were superseded by the Knights of the Body (milites pro corpore regis). Like the earlier chamber knights, they were not part of the royal household under the Lord Chamberlain: they were attached to the person of the king, and had much the same functions of personal councillor or diplomat.

There were also Knights of the Shire, who were not necessarily actually knighted but seem to have been landed gentry with a courtesy title. By the time of Henry VII, however, the Knights of the Body were fulfilling much the same function, instilling loyalty to the Crown, and seeing the Crown as ultimate guarantor of justice in the shires: the king was offering a direct and personal connection to important local Gentlemen. The title of Knight of the Body seems to have been awarded along with some other position, eg keeper of a castle or a town (including Lieutenant of Calais until Mary's time...) Henry VIII created a large number of Knights of the Body for just this purpose, who had often been Squires of the Body under Henry VII.

Squire of the Body was not a permanent position, often only held for a few years on the way up the ladder of social and political power. Not every Squire of the Body who was knighted became a Knight of the Body; many were made Knights of the Body without ever having been Squires: and in at least one case Henry VIII appointed a young man aged 21 to be Knight of the Body before he was even created knight bachelor. Many Squires of the Body were knights bachelor in their own right.

The Knights seem to have fulfilled various public functions during state ceremonies of marriages and funerals: when Edward VI was christened, (1537) the font was kept by two Knights and four Esquires of the Body. (Pegge, p. 27)

During the time of Mary and Elizabeth, who necessarily had different personal needs and used other methods of asserting their power, the position of Knight of the Body seems to have fallen into disuse: the last reference I have found is to Sir James Boleyn (or Bullen), of Blickling, Norfolk, who died in 1561. The Knights of the Body seem partly to have transmogrified into the Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber: this is merely yet another courtesy title, since they were often viscounts and earls in their own right.

As I said, I have refs for all the above. Along with Noswall59's useful contributions above and in the current article, I think that Knight of the Body deserves its own article, since although they had a similar title to Esquires of the Body they had entirely different functions. >MinorProphet (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi all. Courtesy ping

It's been a while since my last post, but in the intervening four years I have been slowly compiling Draft:Knights for the body. I feel I have discovered most of the reasons why their history is so unclear - it's mostly down to historians of all ages using imprecise terms to translate the original Latin names of the knights which appeared in the Calendars of the Patent Rolls etc. I think I have sorted out almost the entire history of the Knights of (or for) the Body, and who they weren't, and have attempted to distinguish between genuine usage of the term, and fanciful invention. I emailed the author of one of the books I cite, an academic at a UK university, who kindly wrote back with some suggestions, saying he couldn't see any obvious errors.

However, the draft has become more and more bloated and has grown to include a load of secondary material which could easily be transferred to other existing articles. Most of the remaining work to be done is to make proper cites and refs/sfns, and prune where necessary. It badly needs some pics, as well.

It's easy to become discouraged by the task which still remains of turning it into a proper article for mainspace, and I would be grateful if anyone with an hour or two to spare could have a look and make some comments/suggestions, either here or at Draft talk:Knights for the body. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)