Part of Henry’s legacy may have been a group of descendants who continued to make seals well into the fourteenth century. Among the goldsmiths active in the early fourteenth century, a remarkable number used the surname ‘de Keles’, and some of them made seals for royalty. Thomas de Keles, goldsmith, borrowed £15 from a merchant in 1312.⁴⁸ William de Keles, goldsmith, witnessed a property exchange in the parish of St Giles Cripplegate in 1299, which suggests he was active in the north-west of London; the same year he borrowed 48s from the alderman Adam de Fulham.⁴⁹ William was commissioned to make a seal for Edward I’s second queen, Margaret, in 1306.⁵⁰ While William de Keles is recorded borrowing money, Simon de Keles, goldsmith, is known to have lent it: in 1307 he provided 40s to Edmund Lambyn.⁵¹ Simon was commissioned to make a seal for Edward II.⁵² The coincidence of the names, together with their involvement in goldsmith work and seal-making, suggests that Thomas, William and Simon were perhaps apprentices, sons, or even grandsons of Henry de Keles [A]. However, they were all regarded as goldsmiths, rather than sealers.

A stronger case can be made for a connection between Henry de Keles [A] and Henry de Keles [B], who is described as a sealer in his will, which was enrolled in 1318.⁵³ He had a wife named Salerna, a son named Didier, and houses in the parish of St Botolph without Aldersgate. Henry [B]’s ownership of land in this part of the city is significant because Henry [A] also held land there.⁵⁴ Together with the coincidence of their names and occupations, this suggests that Henry [B] may have been a descendant of Henry [A]. Henry [B] can be placed in the ward of Aldersgate from the mid-1280s. He is included in a muster list for Aldersgate Ward, which has been dated 1292–96.⁵⁵ He acted as a witness to property conveyances in the parishes of St Botoloph without Aldersgate, as well as in the parish of St Anne and St Agnes, which was immediately inside the gate, on several occasions.⁵⁶ As well as locating him in this part of the city, his repeated appearances as a witness demonstrate that he was well respected.⁵⁷ So does the fact that Henry was appointed, on at least two occasions, to act as a representative of his ward. In 1297, he was one of two men called from his ward to consult with the aldermen on civic ordinances.⁵⁸ In 1298, he was one of four men summoned to discuss a proposed civic tax.⁵⁹ Thus, during his lifetime, he was a prominent man in that part of the city.

Henry [B] was also a prosperous craftsman, as an inquest in 1301 into the death of John Kyngessone, paternoster-maker, shows. He was involved in an altercation with Thomas Willeday that began in Henry’s house, which was located outside Aldersgate. After he was assaulted by Thomas Willeday, John Kygnessone tried to flee to the house of John Lamb, paternoster-maker, who was Henry’s tenant.⁶⁰ Thus in addition to confirming that Henry lived in Aldersgate, the case reveals that Henry had his own tenants. Another indication of his wealth is that in 1292 he acted as a surety for the prior of St Bartholomew’s Smithfield.⁶¹ The most direct way to evaluate Henry’s economic standing would be to examine the amount he paid in tax; unfortunately, the return for Aldersgate is missing from the records for the tax of 1292. Moreover, Henry had died by 1318, so he is not on the tax rolls of 1319. However, his wife Salerna continued to reside in Aldersgate after his death; she was assessed at 3s 2d, which is an indication that Henry left her valuable assets, for the minimum tax in 1319 was 6½d.⁶² Thus the economic standing of Salerna, Henry’s widow, is a further indication that he accumulated substantial wealth.

The 1319 tax rolls list other sealers, including Robert Newcomen.⁶³ He had interests in properties in a variety of locations both inside and outside London, and he may have shifted his place of residence during the course of his life. In 1311, he acquired a five-year lease on a shop in the parish of St Mary Colechurch from Henry son of Hugh de Rokyngham, goldsmith.⁶⁴ The shop was on Cheapside, in the heart of the goldsmith district, and opposite the city’s water conduit, and thus in an excellent location for retail activity. His will indicates that he had a house on Fleet Street, in the parish of St Bride, so that is where he may have resided, at least later in his life.⁶⁵ However, in 1319 Robert was taxed as a resident of the ward of Farringdon Within, which did not cover either of those parishes.⁶⁶ At that date, he was probably regarded as a resident of the parish of St Martin le Querne.⁶⁷ Robert witnessed a property exchange in that parish in 1321.⁶⁸ He held a shop there, which he leased to William Newcomen.⁶⁹ His charitable activity, as will be discussed in more detail below, also suggests that he had a strong affinity to this particular parish. Robert had considerable property on the outskirts of the city. In 1325 he made a grant to St Bartholomew’s Hospital which included his interests in 37 acres (c. 15 ha) in the parishes of St Giles and St Botolph without Aldersgate.⁷⁰ Geographically his properties were dispersed, but they were valuable.

Robert’s social network is also well documented. Robert married twice, and one of his wives was the daughter of the mercer William le Callere.⁷¹ Robert also associated with goldsmiths: he acted as executor for the goldsmith Thomas Rys, and Robert appointed as one of his own executors the goldsmith Thomas Warener.⁷² Robert Newcomen’s own will reveals further information about his social network. He was predeceased by his brother Gilbert, and Robert provided money for his children, including a marriage portion for his daughter, which suggests that he took some of the responsibility for their upbringing. Robert’s brother John and three sisters, Johanna, Isolde and Eleanor, were still alive when he prepared his will. Robert provided substantial gifts for them, and also remembered several of their husbands, wives, and children.⁷³ Robert only mentions one direct descendant, his daughter Agnes. However, Robert had a particularly close relationship with his niece Margaret and her husband William. Robert left to Margaret household items, including silver spoons, and appointed her and her husband to act, with Thomas Warener, as his executors. However, there are hints that Robert did not entirely trust William. He owed Robert ten pounds, and Robert ordered him ‘on peril of his soul’ to use the money to pay a chantry chaplain for a term of three years. Robert also enjoined William to pay Agnes rent for the shop in St Michael le Querne, and he specified that if William did not pay she would have the right to lease the shop to someone else. The shop and its lease must have been a point of contention between the two men. Indeed, when Robert’s will was presented in the Husting court, William contested this provision.⁷⁴ In addition to developing social connections with other prominent Londoners, Robert had a large extended family to which he offered significant financial support.

Robert made provisions for charitable gifts in his will, but he also made important gifts before his death. In 1324, he was in the process of establishing a chantry in the church of St Michael le Querne.⁷⁵ As already mentioned, in 1325, he made a substantial grant to St Bartholomew’s Hospital which was intended to support two chaplains.⁷⁶ Although Robert may already have divested himself of many of his assets before his death, his will reveals the belief that his estate could provide for further gifts. He directed half a mark to St Paul’s Cathedral, and additional cash and material gifts to the hospitals of St Bartholomew, St Mary Bishopsgate and St Thomas Southwark, as well as several parish churches.⁷⁷ However, the focus of his charity remained the church of St Michael le Querne. He wanted to be buried before the altar ‘of our Lady’, and he provided funds for its clerks and its fabric as well as his chantry. Robert wanted an impressive funeral. He provided 20s for wax and ‘other expenses’ and 40s for masses sung on the day of his interment. These charitable and pious interests indicate that he was wealthy enough to make important gifts to a number of organisations in the city.

Whether Robert Newcomen, Henry de Keles [A] and Henry de Keles [B] were representative of sealers in late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century London is difficult to determine. Ekwall only identified one sealer in the records for the tax of 1292 (‘Simon le Seler’ of Vintry ward) and he was charged 2s (the lowest sum assessed in that tax). Ekwall also identified two sealers on the rolls of the 1319 tax; in addition to Robert Newcomen, Ekwall suggests that Adam le Seller (Coleman Street ward), who was assessed at 20d, practised the craft. This was significantly less than the half mark assessed on Robert Newcomen. As the sums assessed on Simon, Adam and Robert suggest, within this occupational group there were artisans with a range of levels of economic standing. This may have been in part the result of differing levels of skill, and consequently a varying capacity to take lucrative commissions from wealthy clients, but it probably also reflected varying positions in the life-cycle. Men at the beginning of their careers had accumulated less wealth than their better-established colleagues. Adam was probably a relatively young man in 1319, because he continued to be active until 1332, when the records of another tax survive. This time he was assessed at 8s, which suggests that he had improved his economic situation between 1319 and 1332.⁷⁸ Robert Newcomen as well as Henry de Keles [A] and [B] were successful businessmen, but there is little evidence that they were truly exceptional members of their craft.

The economic standing of the sealers suggests that they made high quality goods for wealthy clients, but because they did not sign their work it is not easy to identify particular pieces that they made. However, presumably seal-makers engraved their own seals, or at the very least directed their fabrication in their own workshops. Thus it seems likely that Henry [A] made his own seal, which is round, 26mm in diameter and presents a radial motif formed by four branches with leaves in the angles (Fig. 5.2).⁷⁹ Moreover, Henry probably also engraved the seal his wife Alice used during his lifetime (Fig. 5.3).⁸⁰ She had a pointed oval seal, 32 × 20 mm. The four central ‘petals’ are surrounded by a wealth of ornamentation, including a star and a crescent. Radial motifs were fashionable in this period, so there is nothing exceptional in the use of those motifs. However, their fine engraving demonstrates that Henry was a skilled craftsmen. An impression of the seal of Robert Newcomen also survives (Fig. 5.4).⁸¹ It is round and 24 mm in diameter. At the centre is a shield displaying a lion set within an elaborate border. This too was a common motif for its time, for between the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries the fashions in seals changed.⁸² Seals with radial motifs declined in popularity, while shields-of-arms became more common. Consequently the most distinctive aspect of Robert’s seal is once again not the motif it displays, but the quality of its execution. The seal’s most remarkable feature is its legend, in which the letters are separated by interlocking half-circles: a dramatic demonstration of the engraver’s skill. Thus both Henry and Robert used seals which advertised their competence as craftsmen.