Theoretically it would be presumed the "obtaining a wardship from the Crown," was simply that of a philanthropic trusteeship, but practically it meant something of a much more sordid nature, even the disposal of the person and possessions of the ward, for its own selfish uses and purposes, a monstrous privilege, or rather power, which was the chief object of their acquisition, and as a rule duly enforced. Therefore in accordance, we learn further that

"Sir Edward intended her for John his eldest son, but she preferred in affection Fulke his younger son, and we get the following account of this marriage from a manuscript entitled 'The Genealogie, Life, and Death of Robert, Lord Brooke,'—wrote in 1644, and in possession of Francis Earl Brooke,[8]—'In the days of king Henry the Eighth, I read of Sir Edward Grevill of Milcote, who had the wardship of Elizabeth, one of the daughters of the Lord Brook's son. This Knight made a motion to his ward, to be married to John his eldest son; but she refused, saying, that she did like better of Fulke his second son. He told her, that he (Fulke) had no estate of land to maintain her, and that he was in the King's service of warre, beyond the seas, and therefore his returne was very doubtful. She replyed and said, that shee had an estate sufficient for both, for him, and for herselfe, and that shee would pray for his safeties, and waite for his coming. Upon his returne home, for the worthy service he had performed, he was by king Henry honoured with knighthood; and then he married Elizabeth, the daughter of the Lord Brooke's son.'"

After all, Sir Edward did not have it exactly his own way, some little romance was mixed up with this "matter of mere attorneyship," and the evidently high-spirited girl had a will of her own, and preferred the sailor youth, to the more prosaic stay-at-home son. It is well perhaps her inclinations did not lead her for choice outside Sir Edward's family circle, and doubtless the knight was sufficiently reconciled to find one of his boys in possession of the heiress.

By this marriage Sir Fulke settled himself at Beauchamp's-Court, and with his wife's large property, and others acquired afterward by purchase, became of high distinction and position in the county of Warwick, and it further appears that

"he was an affectionate husband and tender parent; that he had encountered great difficulties, in securing the inheritance of his wife (the daughters of the late Lord Broke, claiming as coheirs), and that he was remarkably accurate in his accounts, and adhered strictly to justice in all his transactions, appears by the whole tenor of his will, dated 12 Elizabeth, in which towards the end he thus expresses himself, 'and my especial requests to my executors (his wife and eldest son) for the love I have borne them, and for the travel I have taken in establishing the hole inheritance, with my great costs also to be considered, I most earnestly require them, and on God's behalf charge them, that my debts be paied, if I die before the accomplishments thereof.'"

So it fortunately turned out, that the Lady Elizabeth was happily wedded to a kind, honourable, and just man. She bore him seven children, three sons and four daughters,—Fulke, who succeeded his father,—Robert, of Thorpe-Latimer, Lincolnshire, ancestor of the Earls Brooke and of Warwick,—Edward, of Harrold Park, Waltham-Abbey, Essex, whose line terminated in two daughters coheiresses,—Mary, married to William Harris of Hayne, Devon,—Eleanor, to Sir John Conway, of Arrow, and Ragley, in Warwick, who died in 1603, father of Edward, first Baron Conway,—Catherine, to Charles Read, of the county of Gloucester, and Blanche who died unmarried.

This evidently attached couple did not long survive each other, Sir Fulke died 10 Nov., 1559, and his wife followed him to the tomb the year following—1560.

They were buried under a magnificent monument that originally stood at the end of the south aisle, near the chancel in Alcester church, but which is now removed to a position near the tower at the west end.

Considering Alcester church was almost wholly rebuilt about a century and a half since, at an era when memorials of the dead were not too circumspectly cared for, this noble tomb with its recumbent figures, and wealth of ornament has been wonderfully preserved from injury. Except that the coloured decoration is somewhat softened by Time, it is otherwise but little mutilated, and displays all its antient splendour almost unimpaired.