In investigating the descent of two Devonshire families, I save met with
four instances of persons designating themselves as _groom_. They were
certainly well connected, and in fortune apparently much above the class
of people who accept the care of horses in this present day.
If they were grooms of horses, society was in a very different state
from that in which it is at the present day; if they were not such
grooms, what then were they? I believe they were unmarried persons.
First, there is Samuel Weeks, of South Tawton, groom; will proved in the
Archdeacon of Exeter's Court, 1639. His father was Richard Weeks, styled
gentleman in the parish register; and Samuel Weeks signs his name in a
peculiarly fine Italian hand, that I do not remember to have seen in any
instance of that time except in that of a thorough gentleman.
Francis Kingwell, of Crediton, groom. His will was proved in the
Bishop's Court in 1639; his sister married a Richard Hole, of South
Tawton, yeoman of substance; her second husband was John Weeks, of South
Tawton, gentleman, and his sons were gentlemen. These Weekses were, I
doubt not, nearly related to the Wykes or Weeks, of North Wyke, in the
same parish, a family of great antiquity.
Thirdly, here is John Hole, of South Tawton, groom, 1640. His inventory
is 180_l._, of which 4_l._ was for his clothes, whereas a gentleman in
one case in this neighbourhood has his clothes valued at ten shillings;
Kingwell's inventory was the same.
Robert Hole, of Zeal Monachorum, groom, is the fourth instance. His will
was proved at Westminster in 1654; he was the son of a wealthy yeoman,
and his brother, Thomas Hole, was a gentleman.
I trouble you that I may learn, through your kindness, whether _groom_,
in these instances, was used with the meaning which we attach to it; or
at that time, or in the English language, or the vernacular tongue of
central Devonshire, meant anything else.