Barony of Perceval
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
I am trying to identify whether a Barony of Perceval was created by
writ of summons to Roger Perceval in 24 Edw. I, as mentioned in
Burke's 'A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great
Britain and Ireland 1838 (Vol. IV, p. 614). See:
http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/perceval_burke.pdf
and 'A Genealogical History of the House of Yvery'. See:
http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/perceval.pdf
CP makes no mention of such a barony (not to be confused with an Irish
barony of the same name, which is mentioned by CP (Vol. 10, p. 434) -
or perhaps the two have been confused).
Interestingly, I have determined that if the barony existed it would
have passed to Hester Thrale, the companion of Dr. Johnson, as heir of
Anne Perceval, heiress of Yvery, her great-grandmother. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hester_Thrale
On Hester Thrale's death in 1821 the barony fell into abeyance between
the daughters who survived her, the first (d 1857), sixth (d 1858),
seventh (d 1824) and eleventh (d 1858). In 1876 the barony resolved
itself to a single heir, Georgina Keith, on the death of Thomas Arthur
Bertie Mostyn (1801-1876), 3rd and only surviving son of Cecilia
Margaret Thrale (1777-1857), assuming that the three daughters of
Henry Meredith Mostyn (1799-1840), who died unmarried, were dead by
that date. On Georgina Keith's death in 1892 the Barony of Perceval
(if it existed) passed to the senior heir (if there was one) of
Norfolk Salusbury of Plas-y-Ward (d. 1736), whose children were
Robert, Thelwall and Elizabeth (see below).
1) Robert Salusbury (d 1776) of Cotton Hall, Denbigh, who m Gwendolen
Davis (d 1790) and had five children:
(1) Sir Robert Salusbury, 1st Bart., of Cotton Hall and Llanwern (d
1817) who married Katherine Vann(e), heiress of Llanwern, Newport,
Monmouthshire and had issue:
(a) Sir Thomas Robert Salusbury, 2nd Bart. (b 1783), who married,
secondly, Elizabeth Mary Burroughs, his cousin (below) and dsp in 1835
(as a result of a riding accident).
(b) Sir Charles John Salusbury (dsp 1868), who succeeded his brother
as 3rd baronet (the baronetcy became extinct on his death).
(c) Henry Vanne Salusbury (1796-1830) who m Elinor de Mierre and dsp.
(d) Sarah Katherine Salusbury.
(e) Charlotte Gwendolen Salusbury (d 1861) who m Thomas Bates Rous (d
1850) of Courtyrala, Glamorgan, and had issue.
(f) Elizabeth Jane Salusbury.
(2) John Salusbury, who dsp.
(3)Thomas Salusbury, who married Sarah, daughter of Richard Bulkeley
Hatchett of Tedsmore, West Felton, Oswestry, Salop (see 'Owen of
Tedsmore' BLG).
(4) Lynch Salusbury (d 1837), Vicar of Offley, who married, firstly,
Jane Offley and, secondly, Ann Dickie. He took the surname of
Burroughs and inherited the Wellbury estate on the death in 1804 of
Sarah Salusbury (formerly King, nee Burroughs) and the Offley estate
shortly afterwards (see below). He had issue:
(a) William Burroughs (1791-1833).
(b) Samuel Burroughs (1795-1815).
(c) Elizabeth Mary Burroughs (1793-1867), referred to as her father's
'only surviving daughter', who married her cousin Sir Thomas Robert
Salusbury (above) and adopted Anne Salusbury Steward (below)
(d) Gwen Burroughs (1796-1812).
(5) Thelwall Salusbury (d 1814), who married Elizabeth Offley (d
1811), sister of Jane (above), and had issue:
(a) Robert Salusbury (1797-1832) dsp.
(b) Mary (d 1855), who married Sir Charles Payne, 4th Bart., of
Stourton Castle, Kinver, Staffordshire (d 1870) and had issue; (i)
Salusbury Gillies Payne (1829-1893), who m Catherine Chadwick and had
13 children, (ii) Emily Mary Payne who m (1854) Charles Grimshawe of
Tottington, Lancashire & Apsley Guise, Beds, (iii) Isabel Jane Payne
who dsp, (iv) Laura Anne Payne who m (1852) Abel Mellor of Sandy
Place, Bedfordshire, (v) Gertrude Maria Grace Payne who m William
Gaskell Rouse .
(c) Thelwall Salusbury, who married Elizabeth Powell, daughter of
Folliott Powell of Tempsford Hall and had issue.
(d) Anne (1804-1832), who married Samuel Steward and had 4 children,
including Anne Salusbury Steward, who was adopted by Elizabeth Mary
Burroughs (above), widow of Sir Thomas Robert Salusbury (d 1783)
(above). Anne married George Hughes (1821-72) and had issue (see
above).
(2) Thelwall Salusbury (d 1804), Vicar of Offley 1755-75, who married
Ann, natural daughter of James Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, (who,
according to family notes, had an only child, 'Mrs. Telford', who left
issue).
(3) Elizabeth who m Rev. Thomas Hughes (1710-1776) and had issue (I am
a descendant).
See:
http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/page3.htm
Many thanks.
Graham
Nathaniel Taylor
<e4c817af-b75d-41cd...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk" <gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I am trying to identify whether a Barony of Perceval was created by
> writ of summons to Roger Perceval in 24 Edw. I, as mentioned in
> Burke's 'A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great
> Britain and Ireland 1838 (Vol. IV, p. 614). See:
>
> http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/perceval_burke.pdf
>
> and 'A Genealogical History of the House of Yvery'. See:
>
> http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/perceval.pdf
>
> CP makes no mention of such a barony (not to be confused with an Irish
> barony of the same name, which is mentioned by CP (Vol. 10, p. 434) -
> or perhaps the two have been confused).
CP cites "Beatson's _Political Index_" for the supposed Irish barony but
rejects it, though it is included in your Burke's account, p. 610,
footnote, noting a writ of summons to a parliament at Dublin in 1285 for
Robert Perceval (from the Irish Close Rolls) and confidently calling his
three successors "Baron Perceval". Therefore it is interesting that the
same Burke's entry does not cite a source for the alleged summons in 24
Edward I, nor does it apply the title 'Baron Perceval' to Roger or any
of his successors.
No Perceval is found in the list of those summoned 24 Edward I in
Dugdale's _Perfect Copy of All Summons of the Nobility to the Great
Councils and Parliaments of this Realm_ (1685), pp. 13-18: in fact no
Perceval appears anywhere in that entire volume (which is downloadable
from EEBO and still useful after 300 years). Unless you turn up proof
of the summons, somehow overlooked by everyone, in the close rolls (the
right volume, the 3d vol. of the Edward I close rolls, does not seem to
be online), you should assume that the statement in Burke's is some sort
of mistake compounded by wishful thinking.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
> In article
> <e4c817af-b75d-41cd-97a1-3fe650500...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Thanks for your answer.
Now there's a first! You advise that I 'assume' that the statement in
Burke's is wrong? I am not happy to assume anything just because the
evidence is not easy to uncover. You say that I will have to turn up
proof 'somehow overlooked by everyone', but the point is the proof was
not overlooked by everyone; it was found by someone - apparently. I
generally 'assume' that, on the whole, if people make statements they
have some reason for doing so. It then becomes a question of trying to
identify that reason (which is what I am trying to do). What is not
safe is to assume that they have no reason.
I find it curious that this barony is not mentioned in the obvious
sources. I suspect that Burke got his information from 'A Genealogical
History of the House of Yvery' but, as far as I can remember, that
book was written for the Earl of Egmont and a Barony of Perceval (by
patent) was created for them in 1715. They are hardly likely to have
had an interest in publicising the idea that a more senior branch (the
senior branch, in fact) of the family already held a barony (by writ)
of the same name. In fact, the book states (as far as I can remember)
that Anne Perceval, the heiress of this senior branch, had no
chlidren, when we know that she did, which seems to suggest that they
were keen to promote the idea that the senior line had died out. They
simply say that Roger Perceval was summoned by writ but that none of
his heirs were; this is hardly an earth-shattering assertion. It is
very curious. What I am not prepared to assume is that this barony is
a complete invention (as you suggest I should do) but it is clear that
it will be difficult to unearth the underlying evidence. Perhaps the
evidence will never be uncovered (re-discovered). And why make such a
specific statement if it can be easily disproved?
With regard to the Irish title, Burke's 'Extinct Peerage' (p. 630)
also lists the barony (cr. 1285 extinct 1322). The list of Irish
baronies is based on an MS in Ulster's Office apparently. Did the
compiler of that MS just invent the Irish barony? Should I make that
assumption? It is odd that CP just says that 'no such barony' existed
without explaining the reason for this assertion. It is, in fact, a
baseless assertion - and I do not accept baseless assertions from
anyone, even CP.
Interestingly, it appears that there is an Earldom of Yvery that may
have descended with the barony. This is interesting in itself. Was it
an 'Earldom' in Normandy, and, if so, why is it referred to as an
Earldom and not a County? Would it descend to heirs general as with,
say, the Earldom of Devon and other earldoms held in fee simple (as
all the old earldoms originally were)? Were there any other 'Earldoms'
in Normandy at that time? I have not come across any. Or was it a
territorial title that went to the French branch of the family?
Perhaps we have two baronies by writ and an earldom in fee simple that
are complete inventions - all in the same family!
Graham
Renia
>
> Interestingly, I have determined that if the barony existed it would
> have passed to Hester Thrale, the companion of Dr. Johnson, as heir of
> Anne Perceval, heiress of Yvery, her great-grandmother.
If the Perceval barony existed, and the supposed earldom of Yvery, why
should these titles pass to Hester Thrale, when there were male Perceval
descendants?
Nathaniel Taylor
Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
If this barony existed it would be a barony by writ of summons, hence
heritable by heirs general.
Nathaniel Taylor
<ada9e114-abc0-43ae...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
"gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk" <gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Now there's a first! You advise that I 'assume' that the statement in
> Burke's is wrong? I am not happy to assume anything just because the
> evidence is not easy to uncover. You say that I will have to turn up
> proof 'somehow overlooked by everyone', but the point is the proof was
> not overlooked by everyone; it was found by someone - apparently.
Not necessarily. The fact that a statement was made doesn't imply that
its maker possessed proof of that statement.
> I generally 'assume' that, on the whole, if people make statements they
> have some reason for doing so. It then becomes a question of trying to
> identify that reason (which is what I am trying to do). What is not
> safe is to assume that they have no reason.
It is safe to assume that there may be a reason that such a statement
was made; but if you can disprove the statement with external evidence
it may not be particularly easy or fruitful to try to run its basis to
ground.
In this case, writs of summons to Parliament are a well studied corpus,
from Dugdale, to _Baronia anglica concentrata_, to the _Complete
Peerage_. The official crown copy of these writs are carefully
abstracted in the published calendar of close rolls. If you look for it
there and don't find it, then -- end of story. The statement in the
Yvery book (repeated uncritically in Burke's) will be proved false and
no amount of justificatory argument about why they must have had some
reason for saying so will help.
With regard to the Irish barony, I would check the 1828 edition of the
patent & close rolls for Ireland--which is apparently what Burke cited
for the summons to the Dublin parliament--as well as the 1806 work cited
by CP in its dismissal of the claim (note the dates of alleged creation
of the barony don't agree). The Irish barony may well have had a sort
of theoretical existence which should have been admitted by CP; however
I would look carefully at theoretical works on the Anglo-Irish baronage
to see whether there were other preconditions for them--perhaps the
summons to a Dublin parliament did not have the same theoretical effect
in creating a barony that English summonses were later held to have
done. If a summons to a Dublin parliament is not in dispute, why does
CP dismiss the barony? It does take a dim view of some of these
theoretical baronies. I particularly like the Ughtred article in CP, in
which that barony (for which only one man was summoned to parliament,
not any of his heirs) is called an 'imaginary barony', though CP deigns
to give us a three- or four-generation genealogy of the heirs of the
first 'Lord Ughtred'.
But as the alleged English Perceval barony doesn't even get that
treatment in CP, I doubt you'll find any evidence of the alleged Edward
I summons in the English close rolls.
> Interestingly, it appears that there is an Earldom of Yvery that may
> have descended with the barony
Why does it so appear? What is the nature of this allegation,
presumably in the same Yvery book?
> Perhaps we have two baronies by writ and an earldom in fee simple that
> are complete inventions - all in the same family!
Hardly surprising. Even leaving aside the interesting question of the
alleged Irish barony, if you found one fictitious title claimed in a
particular genealogy it should not be surprising to find another in the
same source.
t...@clearwire.net
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14 Sep, 18:04, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
>
> > No Perceval is found in the list of those summoned 24 Edward I in
> > Dugdale's _Perfect Copy of All Summons of the Nobility to the Great
> > Councils and Parliaments of this Realm_ (1685), pp. 13-18: in fact no
> > Perceval appears anywhere in that entire volume (which is downloadable
> > from EEBO and still useful after 300 years). Unless you turn up proof
> > of the summons, somehow overlooked by everyone, in the close rolls (the
> > right volume, the 3d vol. of the Edward I close rolls, does not seem to
> > be online), you should assume that the statement in Burke's is some sort
> > of mistake compounded by wishful thinking.
> Now there's a first! You advise that I 'assume' that the statement in
> Burke's is wrong?
Actually, this is advisable for just about anything found in Burke's:
assume it is wrong unless you have evidence to support it - not a bad
way of operating in general.
> I am not happy to assume anything just because the
> evidence is not easy to uncover.
The scholarly method involves only accepting novel claims if they have
evidence, not only rejecting claims if there is evidence to the
contrary.
> You say that I will have to turn up
> proof 'somehow overlooked by everyone', but the point is the proof was
> not overlooked by everyone; it was found by someone - apparently.
No. Just because it appeared in a book from 1838 does not mean that
someone found evidence. There is a lot of material in such books that
is without the slightest evidence, arising, as Nat suggests, from
confusion, wishful thinking, and outright invention. It was this
realization that was one of the cornerstones of the movement to put
medieval English genealogy on a more sound scholarly footing.
Basically, Burke was in the business of selling books to the people he
was writing about. That is a strong motivation to be less fastidious
about the quality of evidence supporting one's claims.
> I
> generally 'assume' that, on the whole, if people make statements they
> have some reason for doing so. It then becomes a question of trying to
> identify that reason (which is what I am trying to do). What is not
> safe is to assume that they have no reason.
They certainly had a reason, but that could be to make money, to
flatter people, or simply because some other book somewhere said the
same thing. Given the failure of anyone else to find anything, and the
track record of the Burke compilations from this period, it is wise to
risk erring on the side of caution over assuming good scholarship and
good faith on their part.
> I find it curious that this barony is not mentioned in the obvious
> sources.
Perhaps the authors of the obvious sources found no support for it.
> I suspect that Burke got his information from 'A Genealogical
> History of the House of Yvery' but, as far as I can remember, that
> book was written for the Earl of Egmont and a Barony of Perceval (by
> patent) was created for them in 1715. They are hardly likely to have
> had an interest in publicising the idea that a more senior branch (the
> senior branch, in fact) of the family already held a barony (by writ)
> of the same name. In fact, the book states (as far as I can remember)
> that Anne Perceval, the heiress of this senior branch, had no
> chlidren, when we know that she did, which seems to suggest that they
> were keen to promote the idea that the senior line had died out. They
> simply say that Roger Perceval was summoned by writ but that none of
> his heirs were; this is hardly an earth-shattering assertion. It is
> very curious. What I am not prepared to assume is that this barony is
> a complete invention (as you suggest I should do) but it is clear that
> it will be difficult to unearth the underlying evidence. Perhaps the
> evidence will never be uncovered (re-discovered). And why make such a
> specific statement if it can be easily disproved?
Because who, in 1742, was going to check? It was very common for
family histories of the time to 'exaggerate' to the point of fantasy.
Why is rather beside the point - it is so common as to render them all
untrustworthy, and their claims should be, like all claims, assumed to
be false unless there is a good reason (such as evidence) not to.
> With regard to the Irish title, Burke's 'Extinct Peerage' (p. 630)
> also lists the barony (cr. 1285 extinct 1322). The list of Irish
> baronies is based on an MS in Ulster's Office apparently. Did the
> compiler of that MS just invent the Irish barony?
Wouldn't be the first time.
> Should I make that
> assumption? It is odd that CP just says that 'no such barony' existed
> without explaining the reason for this assertion. It is, in fact, a
> baseless assertion - and I do not accept baseless assertions from
> anyone, even CP.
Yet you are accepting a baseless assertion from Burke.
> Interestingly, it appears that there is an Earldom of Yvery that may
> have descended with the barony. This is interesting in itself. Was it
> an 'Earldom' in Normandy, and, if so, why is it referred to as an
> Earldom and not a County? Would it descend to heirs general as with,
> say, the Earldom of Devon and other earldoms held in fee simple (as
> all the old earldoms originally were)? Were there any other 'Earldoms'
> in Normandy at that time? I have not come across any. Or was it a
> territorial title that went to the French branch of the family?
There were never any Norman Earldoms. This looks like another
'exageration' - a claim to a title that never existed.
> Perhaps we have two baronies by writ and an earldom in fee simple that
> are complete inventions - all in the same family!
Once you make yourself a baron, why stop there.
taf
Renia
>
> Interestingly, it appears that there is an Earldom of Yvery that may
> have descended with the barony. This is interesting in itself. Was it
> an 'Earldom' in Normandy, and, if so, why is it referred to as an
> Earldom and not a County? Would it descend to heirs general as with,
> say, the Earldom of Devon and other earldoms held in fee simple (as
> all the old earldoms originally were)? Were there any other 'Earldoms'
> in Normandy at that time? I have not come across any. Or was it a
> territorial title that went to the French branch of the family?
Your earldom of Yvery is more commonly known as Ivry and its lord was a
count. The town of Ivry was renamed Ivrey-la-Bataille in the 16th century.
QUOTE
Ralph of Ivry was among the first of the Norman lords to be given the
title ‘count’. In contrast with the title inflation of the rest of
northern France, where local lords started to call themselves counts,
the Norman counts of Rouen kept the title for their own use until they
adopted the style of dukes of Normandy. Thereafter the title of count
was sparingly conferred upon close family members, such as Ralph, who
were given specific military tasks. The title retained, to some degree,
the characteristics of the Carolingian office of count: it was granted
by the duke, it was revocable and it held the specific duties of defence
and the administration of the duke’s rights. Ralph of Ivry played an
important role in consolidating ducal power, both on the southern
frontier and further west in lower Normandy, and many of his interests
and responsibilities descended to his son-in-law Osbern the Steward, and
to his grandson, William fitz Osbern, the companion of the Conqueror. As
pressure from the south again heightened in the 1050s, Duke William
built a castle at Breteuil, which he entrusted to William fitz Osbern.
UNQUOTE
http://richardjohnbr.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!CE8351513DFB560!746.entry
Burke's 1838 (Perceval) gives William de Breteuil as "earl" meaning
Compte d'Ivry, whose daughter, Isabella, married Ascelin Gouel de Perceval.
Douglas Richardson
Our enthusiastic poster has apparently never heard of John Holand,
Duke of Exeter, Earl of Huntingdon and Ivry, who died 5 August 1447,
or his son, Henry (or Harry) Holand, Knt., Duke of Exeter, Earl of
Huntingdon and Ivry. For instances of Sir John Holand and his son,
Sir Henry, using the style “Earl of Huntingdon and Ivry,” see Rymer,
Fœdera 11 (1727): 8–9, 10–12, 34; Lacy, Reg. of Edmund Lacy 1
(Episcopal Regs. of the Diocese of Exeter 9) (1909): 129, 149, 251,
262–263, 381.
Also, there is John Gray, K.G. (died 1421) and his son, Henry Gray,
Knt. (died 1450), both of whom were Counts/Earls of Tancarville. In
1449 the French invaded Normandy. One of the places taken earliest
was the castle of Tancarville, it being surrendered by the Duke of
Somerset in Oct. 1449; thus Henry Gray lost his earldom. For an
instance of Sir Henry Gray being styled "Count of Tancarville," see
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1441–1446 (1908): 177. This item may be
viewed at the following weblink:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h6v4/body/Henry6vol4page0177.pdf
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
david11...@gmail.com
What have references to 15th century English earldoms got to do with
Norman earldoms, or the total lack of them?
Matt Tompkins
> On Sep 15, 8:15 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> > "There were never any Norman Earldoms." Wrong.
> What have references to 15th century English earldoms got to do with
> Norman earldoms, or the total lack of them?
These are not titles of eleventh- or twelfth-century Normans in
England, but fiefs and titles of fifteenth-century Englishmen in
Normandy, granted to them by English kings for services rendered in
the Hundred Years War.
In 1418 and 1419 Henry V granted a number of Norman counties to his
leading commanders (all in tale male, I believe). The French titles
seem sometimes to have been rendered in English records as earldoms.
Thomas Beaufort, duke of Exeter, received the earldom of Harcourt,
Thomas Montagu, earl of Salisbury, received that of Perche, Richard
Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, received Aumale, Sir John Grey got
Tankerville, and Sir Thomas Bourchier had Eu. Two counties went to
Frenchmen - Gaston de Foix received Longueville (two years later the
same title was granted by the French to Archibald Douglas) and Arthur,
earl of Richmond (brother of the duke of Brittany, later himself
duke), received Ivry, but he changed to the French side and in 1425
Ivry was re-granted to John Holland, earl of Huntingdon (later duke of
Exeter). A number of lesser seigniories - vicounties and lordships -
were also granted, and more grants were made in Henry VI’s reign – for
example, in 1425 William de la Pole, earl (later duke) of Suffolk,
received the county of Dreux.
When Normandy was lost later in the century these titles ceased to be
used, though the earldom of Tankerville was revived in about 1700 for
descendants of Sir John Grey, and may still be in existence today.
Matt Tompkins
t...@clearwire.net
> "There were never any Norman Earldoms." Wrong.
>
> Our enthusiastic poster has apparently never heard of John Holand,
> Duke of Exeter, Earl of Huntingdon and Ivry, who died 5 August 1447,
Our arrogant, self-important and blinkered poster apparently thinks
that the forms used by the English nobility to refer to Norman
counties has some bearing on this issue.
Perhaps, Mr. Richardson, you could actually help the original poster
and indicate the reason for skepticism with the "Earldom of Yvery"
that he was asking about. By this post really wasn't about providing
information, was it?
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Ah, yes, we wouldn't want to attack someone without wishing them our
"Best always". There is a word for people like you.
taf
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
You say 'Yet you are accepting a baseless assertion from Burke.'
No I am not. I not accepting anything and I am not dismissing
anything. You have misrepresented my position. I am keeping an open
mind and asking for help from the forum. My nose tells me that there
is something there - and don't dismiss my nose!
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Cripes, chaps and chapesses! If we can't hold a civilized
conversation, what hope is there for civilization? We're supposed to
be the intelligent ones. Well, I am at least.... (Joke) Let's all be
nice to eachother. After all I never get cross with anyone.
PS The existence of Norman 'earldoms' at a later date does indicate
that a Norman county could be referred to as an earldom at an earlier
date.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> Burke's 1838 (Perceval) gives William de Breteuil as "earl" meaning
> Compte d'Ivry, whose daughter, Isabella, married Ascelin Gouel de Perceval.
Thank you for that. I have always thought that there is something odd
about the connection between the Lovel and Perceval families and the
association of Ralph d'Ivry with the Perceval family. See CP vol. 8,
p. 208 et seq. (for Lovel and Ralph d'Ivry) and CP Vol. 5, p. 28 (for
Egmont). We seem to have two different families, one Counts of Ivry
and the other Seigneurs of Ivry. Any ideas?
Graham
Renia
> On 15 Sep, 02:46, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>> gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Interestingly, it appears that there is an Earldom of Yvery that may
>>> have descended with the barony. This is interesting in itself. Was it
>>> an 'Earldom' in Normandy, and, if so, why is it referred to as an
>>> Earldom and not a County? Would it descend to heirs general as with,
>>> say, the Earldom of Devon and other earldoms held in fee simple (as
>>> all the old earldoms originally were)? Were there any other 'Earldoms'
>>> in Normandy at that time? I have not come across any. Or was it a
>>> territorial title that went to the French branch of the family?
>> Your earldom of Yvery is more commonly known as Ivry and its lord was a
Your thread has set me on a research spree and I am loving it! I have a
theory no one else seems to have thought of and am seriously thinking of
publishing, so I can say no more at the moment.
I will say, that it appears the Perceval and Lovel families are one and
the same, and that there is only one Ivry family.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Vol. 2 of 'A Genealogical History of the House of Ivry' is on Google
books but not volume 1 it seems. The Perceval family history as given
in:
http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/perceval_burke.pdf
recounts that the Perceval and Lovel families are branches of the same
stock (p. 610) but it may be that the Percevals tacked their pedigree
onto the Lovel pedigree (Why is there no mention in CP under Lovel of
any Perceval connection to the Lovels?). Is the Ascelin mentioned in
CP Vol. 8, p. 209 the same Ascelin who held Weston-in-Gordano,
Somerset, at the Survey and who is ancestor the Percevals of that
place (my ancestors). Also, Roger d'Ivry (who held the feudal Barony
of Beckley in Oxfordshire) doesn't seem, on the face of it at least,
to fit into either family (CP CP Vol. 8, p. 208, note c.) . There seem
to be loads of people floating about who had some sort of lordship
rights over Ivry or in that area. But the whole thing needs to be
sorted out anyway.
Good luck with your researches.
Graham
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry! I meant Roger d'Ivry.
See also the comment at CP Vol. 5, p. 28, notes a. and b. basically
rubbishing the genealogy in 'A Genealogical History of the House of
Yvery'.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
See CP Vol. 8, p. 213, note g for reference to a Countess of Ivry,
apparently a scribal error. According to the same note, Ralph d'Ivry
(where does he fit in?) was a count, but not of Ivry.
Graham
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
The key seems to lie in the sons of William Lovel (see CP,8,213). It
is at this point that the Ivry, Lovel and Perceval branches of the
family were seperated/established according to Burke (http://
www.peerage.org/genealogy/perceval_burke.pdf see p. 610) - but CP does
not mention a son 'Richard, surnamed de Perceval'.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
> you should assume that the statement in Burke's is some sort
> of mistake compounded by wishful thinking.
As stated in Burke, Roger de Perceval was summoned to Parliament in 24
Edw. I. as 'Dns [i.e. Dominus - that is 'Lord'] Rgs [i.e. Roger]
Percevall'. See p. 73 at:
http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/perceval_writ_24_edw_1.pdf
Perhaps someone with a greater knowledge of Latin than I can comment.
Graham
John Watson
Not a summons to Parliament, but a summons to serve against the Scots
and turn up with men and arms at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 1st March
1296.
Regards,
John
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
So he was summoned as a baron but not to a parliament? And if he
wasn't summoned as a baron, what does 'dominus' mean? When you read
it, it is clearly a military summons, so why would anyone think it was
a summons to a parliament? A mystery. But then again, if you owed
military service as a tenant in chief, you also had a right to attend
your lord's court as a tenant in chief; in other words, in the case of
the tenants in chief of the king, a right to be summoned to
Parliament. So he may not have been summoned to a parliament, but the
summons of 24 edw. 1 makes it clear that he had a right to be so
summoned (or rather that he had a right to be summoned in order to
obtain consent to extraordinary aids - which is the same thing). So he
was a baron after all (though not in accordance with the later - and
erroneous - doctrine of baronies by writ).
Regards,
Graham
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
PS The text refers to some form of council ('de nostro consilio
duximus...'). Can anyone translate the Latin? Was this a council that
had been held or was it a council to be held?
Graham
t...@clearwire.net
This elaborate analysis doesn't change the fact that he was
(apparently) not summoned to Parliament. He was summoned to military
service. Where these two facts place him with respect to a modern
concept of 'right to be summoned' is somewhat anachronistic. There
are barons and Barons, lords and Lords. He seems to have been the
former, but not the latter, in each pair.
taf
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for that. The analysis is quite simple. The doctrine of
baronies by writ looks for evidence of a feudal RIGHT; that is
evidence of a right to be summoned to Parliament and the evidence
looked for is a writ of summons. I am merely looking at a
corresponding feudal DUTY; that is military service as a tenant in
chief of the king. Both are equally valid as evidence of the existence
of a barony - they are merely two sides of the same coin. Neither is
more valid than the other in my view. I am satisfied that a summons to
military service as a 'dominus' means that the person summoned was a
baron. Of course, the right to be summoned was becoming a somewhat
cloudy issue at that time but that does not alter the fact that a man
holding in chief of the king and exercising a certain jurisdiction was
a baron (though not necessarily a peer in accordance with the modern
meaning - but then we have no right to impose our modern and, in this
case, erroneous doctrines on the middle ages).
Graham
Renia
That is not so. The general term of "baron", (lower case) is an almost
slang term for "landowner" (that is, holder of land directly from the
king). A "Baron" (capital) was more specifically a title, pertinent to
particular "barons" who had been given "Baronies" by the king.
> they are merely two sides of the same coin. Neither is
> more valid than the other in my view. I am satisfied that a summons to
> military service as a 'dominus' means that the person summoned was a
> baron.
No, not if you mean "Baron". The feudal duties of a servant did not
entitle them to a "Barony". Only the king could grant them that directly.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am a mere beginner in this area. So what was a 'Barony'? What were
its distinguishing characteristics (that made it different from, say,
knight's service)? And what was the difference between a 'baron' and a
'Baron'? And are you sure that only the king could grant baronies?
Graham
Renia
Knight's service was the duty of a tenant to provide arms (men &
equipment) if his lord needed it, with a minimum for so many days in a
year. (Such duty went on beyond the middle ages, even into the 16th and
turn of the 17th century.) This did not make him a "Sir", the modern
title for a modern knight or Baron, and neither did it make him a baron,
because his duty was to his lord, who was his baron (including, for this
discussion, the king).
A Barony was a hereditory lordship or fee belonging to a baron, granted
by the king.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
But since both a knight and a baron owed military service, what was
the difference between them?
Renia
>
> But since both a knight and a baron owed military service, what was
> the difference between them?
The knight owed military service to the baron.
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 9/21/2008 4:05:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
re...@DELETEotenet.gr writes:
The knight owed military service to the baron.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
t...@clearwire.net
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Thank you for that. The analysis is quite simple. The doctrine of
> baronies by writ looks for evidence of a feudal RIGHT; that is
> evidence of a right to be summoned to Parliament and the evidence
> looked for is a writ of summons. I am merely looking at a
> corresponding feudal DUTY; that is military service as a tenant in
> chief of the king. Both are equally valid as evidence of the existence
> of a barony - they are merely two sides of the same coin. Neither is
> more valid than the other in my view.
Not really, as these describe distinct applications of the term
"barony". It would be like equating the term Commodore in the
Napoleonic Era navies with that in the modern navies. One evolved
into the other, and they represent analogous status, but one qualified
for them in different manners, and however similar, they are not two
sides of the same coin, but different coins with the same name.
> I am satisfied that a summons to
> military service as a 'dominus' means that the person summoned was a
> baron.
I don't know that this was the case. Dominus could be used as an
honorary. I would have to see an analysis of the use of this term in
such documents during the reign of Edward I before being convinced
that this must necessarily have been the case.
> Of course, the right to be summoned was becoming a somewhat
> cloudy issue at that time but that does not alter the fact that a man
> holding in chief of the king and exercising a certain jurisdiction was
> a baron
True, a man holding a barony was a baron - I just don't see where the
invoking a supposed right to be summoned to Parliament comes into the
equation, if all you wish to show is that he held in chief of the
king, then there ought to be IPMs, Pleas, Fines or other records of
landholding, the consultation of which might prove more productive and
definitive than analysis of word usage and supposed rights as we now
interpret them.
taf
Renia
> So any baron could create a knight?
Actually, some Barons did create their own knights.
Douglas Richardson
< > I am satisfied that a summons to
< > military service as a 'dominus' means that the person summoned was
a
< > baron.
<
< I don't know that this was the case. Dominus could be used as an
< honorary. I would have to see an analysis of the use of this term in
< such documents during the reign of Edward I before being convinced
< that this must necessarily have been the case.
The word "dominus" when preceding a man's given name should be
translated "Sir," either for a knight or for a priest. When following
a man's surname, however, it should be translated "lord."
If a man received a military summons addressed as "Dominus Thomas de
Furnival," it simply means that "Sir Thomas de Furnival " was a
knighted individual. That's all. It does not imply, suggest, or mean
that the person in question was summoned as a baron.
Renia
Dominus had several meanings depending on context and when it was used.
1. Courtesy title for a cleric without a degree.
2. Lord of the manor.
3. Sir, master or lord (depending on context)
Not all lords of the manor were knighted. Not all knights were lord of a
manor.
Nathaniel Taylor
<ac972590-526f-46b4...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
"gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk" <gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, your Roger is there, and now that I look again at the same list in
Dugdale I do see the same man, that I missed before, though he is not in
the 'index of barons'.
And Douglas Richardson is right, that in the 14th century in England
'dominus' before a personal name usually meant 'Sir' and this style
would mean that this Roger Perceval was considered a knight, so the use
of 'dominus' here does not mean he was understood to be a baron.
John Watson pointed out that this set of writs is for military service
against the Scots, not a parliament as such. Yes, there is reference
that implies the king taking *counsel* (i.e. advice): ... parati et
prompti ad faciendum ea quae tunc temporis de nostro consilio duximus
iniungendum...), which I think means something like "ready and willing
to perform that which at that time, by our counsel we will have been led
to command." But please note the difference between the nouns
'consilium' (= counsel, advice) and 'concilium' (= council, a meeting).
It has also been pointed out separately that in modern peerage doctrine,
what is necessary to consider someone to have been a baron in the
peerage sense is both the existence of an individual writ of summons to
one of the great councils now considered a parliament, and evidence of
the summonnee having actually sat in such a parliament. I do not think
these writs correspond to one of the 'great councils' now considered an
actual parliament, so even if your man went to Newcastle to listen to
the king & fight the Scots he wouldn't count.
You should verify this particular event and the modern consensus on it
in modern constitutional histories of the development of parliaments
under Edward I. If you don't like what you find there, you can have
your lawyer take it up with the Earl Marshal or find some spiritualist
to harass Horace Round's ghost.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
t...@clearwire.net
> You should verify this particular event and the modern consensus on it
> in modern constitutional histories of the development of parliaments
> under Edward I. If you don't like what you find there, you can have
> your lawyer take it up with the Earl Marshal or find some spiritualist
> to harass Horace Round's ghost.
Or maybe send the lawyer after Round's ghost and the spiritualist
after the Earl Marshal, which would probably be no less productive,
and at least sounds more entertaining.
taf
Peter G R Howarth
> ... The analysis is quite simple. The doctrine of
> baronies by writ looks for evidence of a feudal RIGHT; that is
> evidence of a right to be summoned to Parliament and the evidence
> looked for is a writ of summons. I am merely looking at a
> corresponding feudal DUTY; that is military service as a tenant in
> chief of the king.
I am not sure that barons always thought of a summons to Parliament as a
right; some of them wanted to be excused having to obey the summons.
Regarding the status of baron, the preface of I J Sanders, _English
Baronies: A study of their origin and descent 1086-1327_, 1960, begins:
"In thirteenth-century England neither the crown nor the tenants-in-chief
had any clear conception either of the origin of tenure _per baroniam_ or of
the reason why a tenant-in-chief was considered to be a _baro_. In the vast
majority of cases a man's status as a _baro_ rested merely on tradition...."
His book gives details of 'Baronies' and 'Probable Baronies'. I would
suggest that this would be the best place to start learning about barons.
He does not include the name Percival in his index.
To learn about knight service, the _servitium debitum_ which all
tenants-in-chief including ecclesiastics owed to the king, try the chapter,
'The Introduction of Knight Service into England' in J H Round, _Feudal
England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries_, 1895.
Peter G R Howarth
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Good idea! I will try both. All things considered (mainly the lack of
any baronial relief as per Sanders) I think he was not a feudal baron
i.e. Weston-in-Gordano was not a barony. Also, because he was not
summoneed to a Parliament (I doubt whether the 'council' in Newcastle
would qualify - but are you 100% sure Mr. Taylor that it would not, or
should I just 'assume' in accordance with your practice, henceforward
to be known as 'the Taylor doctrine of assumption'?) he was not a
baron by writ (according to the modern doctrine). But at least I have
got to the truth - in spite of the rather nasty attitude and snide
comments of Mr. Taylor - so I now know why Burke and other sources say
he was summoned as a baron. You see, Mr. Taylor, you should always
look at the evidence. Let this be a lesson to you, even if it brings
no improvement in your manners.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
> In article
> <ac972590-526f-46b4-a00c-e64e4e62a...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Er... 'dominus' means 'knight' does it? Is that why there are people
in the list described as 'dominus' who are most definitely feudal
barons e.g. de Berkeley? Also, this would mean that there were people
summoned to perform military service (those not described as
'dominus') who were not knights, that is who did not hold by knight's
service. So how can a person who does not hold land by military
service be summoned to perform military service? I think not.
jonathan kirton
Can anybody please help with a translation of the following, with
which I am having considerable trouble:-
From: The Calendar of Close Rolls, 45 Henry III, 1261, page 477.
"Rex perdonavit Roberto de Ros de Belvero (sic. Belvoir, co. Leics.,
and of Helmsley, co. Yorks.) et Alexandro de Kirketon', (of Kirketon
in Hoylaund (Holland), co. Lincs. & Sibethorpe, co. Notts.) militi
suo (knights together), transgressionem quam fecerunt torneando
(turned or re-turned?) nuper (recently) apud Pontem Fractum (weak or
broken bridge? perhaps a place name?) contra inhibicionem regis et ei
(sic) remisit indignacionem quam erga eos conceperat ea occasione. Et
mandatum est vicecomiti Linc' quod si terras predictorum Roberti et
Alexandri in balliva tua (sic) occasione diete transgressionis in
manum regis ad mandatum regis ceperit, eas eis sine dilacione
restituat, nullam molestiam aut gravamen eis inferens occasione
predicta. Teste rege apud Sanctum Paulum London' xxvij. die Maii."
They had evidently done something that annoyed the king, I think, but
I do not understand what it might have been, or how it was resolved.
Many thanks in advance for any help or advice,
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kirton, Canada
Nathaniel Taylor
jonathan kirton <jonatha...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Something like this: The king has pardoned Robert de Ros of Belvoir,
and Alexander de Kirketon, his knights, for the offence they made,
turning (turning around, withdrawing or returning) at (or to) Pontefract
(a castle in Yorks. West Riding) against the injuction of the king; and
he has remitted the indignation he conceived against them at that time.
And the Sheriff of Lincoln is commanded that if you have begun to seize
the lands of the said Robert and Alexander into the king's hand,
following his (earlier) order, that you restore them without delay,
without prejudice or injury to (those men) for the aforesaid occasion.
Attested by the king at St. Paul's, London, 17 May (1261).
Not exactly clear what they did and why, and he didn't like it, but is
now countermanding an earlier order for seizure of their property in
Lincolnshire.
Nathaniel Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> > "Rex perdonavit Roberto de Ros de Belvero (sic. Belvoir, co. Leics.,
> > and of Helmsley, co. Yorks.) et Alexandro de Kirketon', (of Kirketon
> > in Hoylaund (Holland), co. Lincs. & Sibethorpe, co. Notts.) militi
> > suo (knights together), transgressionem quam fecerunt torneando
> > (turned or re-turned?) nuper (recently) apud Pontem Fractum (weak or
> > broken bridge? perhaps a place name?) contra inhibicionem regis ...
> Something like this: The king has pardoned Robert de Ros of Belvoir,
> and Alexander de Kirketon, his knights, for the offence they made,
> turning (turning around, withdrawing or returning) at (or to) Pontefract
> (a castle in Yorks. West Riding) against the injuction of the king...
>
> Not exactly clear what they did and why, and he didn't like it, but is
> now countermanding an earlier order for seizure of their property in
> Lincolnshire.
John Carmi Parsons has just corrected me offlist. 'torneando nuper apud
Pontem Fractum contra inhibicionem regis' means they participated in a
tournament at Pontefract, violating the king's injuction (against
tournaments). 'Torneare' is the verb, to tourney (or to joust),
emerging with that sense in the early 13th century (according to
Niermeyer). John wrote: "The Church considered it frivolous
entertainment &�if anyone got killed, the person responsible had to do
penance for taking a life.��Kings didn't like tournaments b/c they could
escalate into�politically dangerous feuds or�valuable knights�might be
injured or killed."
I would add that the papacy at this time was actively promoting
crusading as a better use of knightly resources (though crusades at the
time included such things as the papally-sanctioned Angevin conquest of
Naples). Henry III was trying to manipulate and placate the baronage in
the buildup to the second barons' war, and also remain in good odor with
the church. This might explain both the original condemnation, and its
speedy reversal. Matthew Paris said of Henry III that he had a 'heart
of wax'.
Alex Maxwell Findlater
suis". The alternative is that it was abbreviated to "milit' su' "
and the contraction was expanded incorrectly. If it was transcribed
as part of the Rolls Series, then one would prima facie not expect an
error. As it stands only Kirkton was a knight.
Nathaniel Taylor
<c3c3b905-4a9c-4c29...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Alex Maxwell Findlater <maxwellf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "militi suo" means his (one) knight. The plural would be "militibus
> suis". The alternative is that it was abbreviated to "milit' su' "
> and the contraction was expanded incorrectly.
Ah, right. Was the non-knight jousting too, or just hacking around in a
melee?
Alex Maxwell Findlater
>
> Ah, right. Was the non-knight jousting too, or just hacking around in a
> melee?
>
of the reasons the kings did not like these non-Royal tounaments was
that it allowed the nobles to get togther without supervision, so that
dissent might be spread - and dissent was often fully justified.
jonathan kirton
My very sincere thanks to all of you for your outstanding and very
prompt response to my plea for help.
I have been trying to work out how it might be that Robert de Ros is
the first mentioned subject, in the entry in the Calendar of Close
Rolls, but that Alexander de Kirketon might have been the only one who
by 1261 had actually been knighted. I would suppose that Robert's
name was probably the first mentioned because his ancestry was more
prominent than that of Kirketon, whose father had been a probable
Saxon knight in the service of the Huntingfields of Norfolk, until his
marriage to a lady of Norman descent, Margeria Bozon, sometime before
1220.
I had formerly assumed that the earliest mention of Alexander de
Kirketon to be found occurred in the Nottinghamshire Inquisition Post
Mortem of a certain Robert de Sancto Georgio, which was stated to
have taken place in the year 1245-6 (ref.: "Abstracts of the
Inquisitions Post Mortem", Vol. II, 1242 -1321, (1914), p. 97). This
identifies that Ranulf de Kirketon, son of Alexander de Kirketon, was
a juror at this inquisition, which would seem to imply that Ranulf /
Ralph was then an adult, and had probably been born no later than
1224. This would seem to make it likely that the future Sir Alexander
was not born much later than 1208, so that by 1261 he would have been
aged at least 53, perhaps a bit too old for jousting (but maybe he was
just attending the tournament as a spectator.)?
At the same time Leo van de Pas in his Genealogics estimates that Sir
Robert de Ros, of Helmsley (which he probably did not inherit until
the death of his father in about 1264) was born in about 1235, which
would make him aged about 26 at the time of the entry in the Calendar
of Close Rolls; so perhaps in 1261 he had not yet been knighted?
However Leo also identifies that Robert de Ros' wife was "Isabel d'
Aubeney", but here again I note that "Abstracts of the Inquisitions
Post Mortem", Vol. II, 1242-1321 (1914) p. 106 carries a statement:
"IPM of William de Albyniaco, father of Isabella, wife of Robert de
Ros............................ Inquisitor:.......Alexander de
Kyrketon". (unfortunately I do not have a date reference for this IPM)
However the Cal. of Close Rolls, Edward I, Vol. 1, p.56 carries a
statement that "Richard de la Vache acknowledges that he owes Isabella
de Albiniaco, countess of Arundel", a sum of money, and in the next
paragraph identifies that Alexander de Kirketon of co. Lincs. is one
of a number of individuals who has made a pledge for this sum to be
found for her.
These two, Sir Robert and Sir Alexander, were clearly friends; in
August, 1264, by which date Sir Robert had indeed been knighted, the
pair rode together to the Battle of Evesham (ref.: "Knights of Edward
I" (1929) Charles Moor, p. 290), and just three years later, in July,
1268 "Charter of Robert de Ros, lord of Belver (sic.
Belvoir), .......Testibus (witnessed by) Domino Alexandro de Kirketon;
& Domino Radulfo, filius est" (Sir Alexander de Kirketon and his son
Sir Ralph de Kirketon) (ref.: "Manuscripts of his Grace the Duke of
Rutland", Vol. 4, p. 9)
Genealogics shows that Sir Robert de Ros of Helmsley died on 17 May,
1285, but evidently before he died he had written a will by which Sir
Alexander de Kirketon, and his heirs, were enfeoffed on 4 June, 1285
with most of the rents of Sir Robert's holdings at Melton, co. Lincs.
(ref.: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, 2: 343-4. IPM of Robert
de Ros of Beuveyr als Beuvayr (sic. Beauvoir, co. Leics. & Melton, co.
Lincs.). Sir Alexander de Kirketon died later in that same year, and
was interred in the Gray Friars' Church, London, with a memorial stone
between the choir and the alter, which was still intact in 1598 when
John Stow wrote his "Survey of London" (ref.: p. 120).
Can it be that Sir Robert de Ros of Helmsley is NOT the same man as
Robert de Ros of Belvoir, which for some time I have believed were one
and the same?
I very much suspect an error in the reported dating of the Inquisition
Post Mortem of Robert de Sancto Georgio (above), because I suspect
that Sir Alexander de Kirketon probably was much closer in age to that
of his friend Robert de Ros.
Can anybody advise me any further?
Sincerely, Jonathan
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Everard, a minor in 1166, d 1183
\
Robert, ward of the K in 1185, livery 1190 m Isobel, widow Rbt de Brus
ygr, d William I of Scotland, d bef Dec 1226. This Sir Robert had a
younger son, Robert (d 1169) who had Wark from his father. Robert of
Wark had a son Robert (d 1274) also of Wark, although a younger son.
\
Sir William, did homage for lands 23 Dec 1226, d prob 1264. Had two
younger sons Piers & Sir William, who had Ingmanthorpe
\
Sir Robert of Hemsley and ju of Belvoir, fought at Evesham for de
Montfort, m 1243x44 Isabel d&h Wm d’Aubigny of Belvoir (d 15 June
1301),he d 17 May 1285
\
William de Ros aged 30 or more in June 1285
So there is plenty of room for confusing the Roberts!!
wjhonson
Do they give a source for this 1243x44 marriage year?
Thanks
Will
John P. Ravilious
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Will,
All sources I have to hand (Weis, Boyer, Richardson's MC Ancestry
(2005)) give the date of the marriage as "betw 5 June 1243 & 17 May
1244". My own notes give "before 17 May 1244", drawing on Complete
Peerage.
Without the CP text to hand, I can only surmise there are two
documents which show they were not married (5 June 1243) and then
*bingo* [on 17 May 1244 if not before] they were.
Cheers,
John
John P. Ravilious
wrote:
Dear Jonathan,
Sir Robert de Ros (d. 17 May 1285), elder son of Sir William de
Ros of Helmsley (d. ca. 1264) and his wife Lucy, became lord of
Belvoir during his father's lifetime by his marriage to Isabel de
Aubigny (or de Albini), heir of her father William de Aubigny of
Belvoir (d. 1242). During at least the period 1244-1264, he was lord
of Belvoir but _not_ of Helmsley. During this period, "Robertus de
Ros de Beuver" [or similar] would only have refered to this specific
Robert de Ros.
To add to the potential for confusion after this date, he could
have readily been refered to as 'of Helmsley' or 'of Belvoir'. There
is a charter of "Robertus de Ros, dominus de Beuver... advocatus
prioratus de Wartria" dated St. Michael's Day, 1279 in which he
confirmed the grants of his predecessors to Warter Priory [Dugdale,
Mon. Anglicanum VI/1:300, Num. VII].
Cheers,
John
wjhonson
wrote:
>
> At the same time Leo van de Pas in his Genealogics estimates that Sir Robert de Ros, of Helmsley (which he probably did not inherit until the death of his father in about 1264) was born in about 1235, which would make him aged about 26 at the time of the entry in the Calendar of Close Rolls; so perhaps in 1261 he had not yet been knighted?
I would be a little careful here. This estimate is not based on any
document. It is a pure guess. We know his father did homage for lands
in 1226 so he was then an adult (or at least nearly so).
We know his *son* was in Jun 1285 called "age 30 and more".
We know he was married *by* (not necessarily in) 1246.
And that's about it as far as pinning him down.
So from that meager evidence, he was born 1213-1237.
Not very hopeful so far!
Will Johnon
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Or did you want me to supply it? Excerpta e Rot Fin vol i, p 400; Cal
Patent Rolls 1232-47. p 425, both printed sources, so next time you
are in a big Library, perhaps you would check them for us, please.
The exact quote is between 5 June 1243 and 17 May 1244, so one would
be perhaps the agreement and the other a reference to lands
transferred - or something like that.
wjhonson
Actually it's more interesting than that.
You know that the CPR is online. Here is the terminus excerpt
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h3v3/body/Henry3vol3page0425.pdf
1244 May 17
Windsor.
Membrane 6-cont.
Mandate to Bernard de Sabaudia and Hugh Giffard to deliver Isabel
daughter of William de Aubynny, who is in the king's custody, to
Robert son of William de Ros, her husband, and let him take her where
he will.
But why is she "in the king's custody" ?
She was not the heiress of her father.
Will Johnson
Alex Maxwell Findlater
1285, so technically too young to marry in 1244, but as under 12
certainly young enough to still be in ward. She is considered to have
carried Belvoir to the Ros family. Did she have a brother?
wjhonson
Margaret d'Umfraville was dead by Sep 1198
Her son William d'Aubigny left a widow Isabel and also a daughter
Isabel. This daughter Isabel who was married by or in 1244 to William
de Ros.
Can you cite that IPM exactly? In 1285 Isabel inherited Belvoir as
heir of "William d'Aubigny", however if her father had *just* died he
would have been almost 100 years old.
A more likely situation, is that she had a brother William and this is
who she inherited Belvoir from.
CP "Albini" (at least the first edition, I haven't checked the second
edition) states that the issue is unclear.
Will
Alex Maxwell Findlater
>
> Can you cite that IPM exactly? In 1285 Isabel inherited Belvoir as
> heir of "William d'Aubigny", however if her father had *just* died he
> would have been almost 100 years old.
>
>
That surely was when her husband died, Ipm ref C 133/5/10. She was
then aged either 50 or 52, hence her birth date. While her husband
was alive he would have held Belvoir, on his death it would revert to
her. She died 15 June 1301. She was a ward in 1244, which is
consistent with her father's death before that time. The dates of
Robert de Ros are pretty clear and match and their son William was 30
and more at his father's death in 1285, which is again consistent with
Isabel's birth in 1233x5. If you are worried look up the Ipm - I live
in the country and am many miles from a library!
jonathan kirton
My very sincere thanks to all who have contributed to this thread;
everything has now become much more clear as a result.
In fact it would appear that the first association between the future
Sir Robert de Ros of Belvoir and Helmsley and Sir Alexander de
Kirketon, Knight, occurred soon after the death in 1242 of William d'
Albini IV / Albyniaco / Aubeney, feudal lord of Belvoir (variously
described as being in co. Leics. OR in co. Lincs, but actually in co.
Leics.. See Wikipedia reference following.) when Alexander de Kirketon
served as the Inquisitor at the Inquisition Post Mortem of the above
William ("Abstracts of the Inquisitions Post Mortem", Vol. II,
1242-1321 (1914) p. 106) as I previously mentioned, which states: "IPM
of William de Albyniaco (sic), father of Isabella, wife of Robert de
Ros....Inquisitor: Alexander de Kirketon".
Collins's "Peerage of England" (Brydges, Vol. VI (1812), p. 486,
states specifically: "Robert de Roos, eldest son of William de Roos,
married Lady Isabel, the rich heiress of William de Albini IV. Lord of
Belvoir in Leicestershire, by Albreda, daughter of Henry Lord Biset
(son of William de Albini III................etc.)
John Burke's "A General Dictionary of the Peerages....." (1831) p.471,
states: "Robert de Ros, who had married in the lifetime of his father,
Isabel, daughter and heiress of William de Albini, feudal Lord of
Belvoir, by whom he acquired Belvoir Castle, in the county of Lincoln
(sic) (see Daubenay, Barons Daubenay and Earl of Bridgewater) and
other extended landed possessions. This great heiress was in ward to
the king, and a mandate upon her marriage, bearing date at Windsor,
17th. May, 1244 ................", etc..
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belvoir_Castle) states that
Belvoir was a royal manor until it was granted to Robert, 1st. baron
de Ros in 1257. (A family that died out in 1508)
So it would seem that Robert and Isabel's marriage had certainly
actually occurred before 1257. The castle had originally been a Norman
earthwork motte and bailey fortress. It was Robert de Ros who founded
the stone castle in 1267, when he was granted a licence to crenellate
it.
From all these I conclude that Sir Alexander de Kirketon WAS
considerably older than Sir Robert de Ros, and that at the Pontefract
tournament in 1261 it was likely Robert de Ros who may have been doing
the jousting, and Sir Alexander was probably just a spectator.
Again, many thanks to all,
Jonathan
wjhonson
document that associates William d'Aubigny with it, or rather with
"Belver" (sic)
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924011387796#page/n63/mode/1up
Interesting that here he does not name the Sheriffs to whom he is
writing, just "Sheriff of Nottingham" and "Sheriff of Leicester". I
suppose we need another source to tell us exactly who these were in
1242
There is no mention here of an heir. It is known clearly that a "writ
of extent" means "the guy is dead" ? I suppose the beginning of this
book probably explains a lot, (50 pages of introduction) but I haven't
yet read it. So since it doesn't name an heir, it also doesn't name
her husband. I wonder if that extract you cited is filling in gaps
that aren't in the actual underlying documents.
photo...@gmail.com
> secondly, Elizabeth Mary Burroughs, his cousin (below) and dsp in 1835
> (as a result of a riding accident).
Hi Found your comment here, and I have been researching the name burroughs. I understood that Sir Thomas married Sarah Burroughs (dau of Samuel Burroughs), not Elizabeth Mary ... And this Sarah became Dame Sarah Salusbury who forced her cousins to take her maiden name Burroughs on her death in 1804??? Or am I mixed up with all the Thomas' and Roberts!