HOPTON, Sir Ralph (1509/10-71), of Witham, Som.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 1509/10, s. of one Hopton by Agnes Haines. m. bef. 1545, Dorothy, da. of Sir Christopher Willoughby of Parham, Suff. s.p.3
Servant, household of Cromwell by 1538, knight marshal, the Household 26 Aug. 1542-11 May 1556, Dec. 1558-60, jt. (with Robert Hopton†) knight marshal 1560-d.; surveyor, ct. augmentations, Som. July 1551-4, Exchequer 1554-d.; j.p.q. Som. 1558/59-d.4
Ralph Hopton’s parentage is obscure. Although he was closely related to Sir Arthur Hopton, the fact that his heir-at-law was his mother’s brother suggests that he was kinsman only of the half-blood. He first appears in 1538 as a servant of Cromwell, one of the gentlemen ‘most meet to be daily waiters upon my said lord’, and in June 1539 he acted as Cromwell’s agent in a land transaction. Like so many of the minister’s servants he passed into the royal household and administration: in 1542 he was made knight marshal and two years later he served with the army in France, where he was knighted by the King.5
In 1539 Hopton had obtained a lease of the dissolved friary at Witham with its lands (which he purchased outright in 1544), and during the next decade he bought other monastic estates in Somerset. As knight marshal he helped to suppress the western rebellion in 1549, and it was he who delivered the letters from Sir John Russell, Baron Russell, and William Herbert I to the Council in London declaring their support for the Earl of Warwick against the Protector Somerset. Following the coup d’état the command of the Tower, with particular responsibility for the prisoners there, was entrusted to him until 19 Mar. 1552, after the execution of Somerset, and a grant of lands made to Hopton two months later, ostensibly for services against the western rebels, was doubtless also meant to reward his support for the new regime.6
It is tempting to attribute Hopton’s return to the Parliament of March 1553 to court favour rather than to local standing, although his re-election six months later cannot be so explained. As a Protestant he probably sympathized with the device to alter the succession but nothing has come to light about his part in the crisis following the death