info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Neville of Scotton /Cauntelo / Ros of Ingmanthorpe / de la Haye of Arlington
234 views
Skip to first unread message
Jwc...@aol.com
Dec 3, 2009, 9:29:49 PM12/3/09
to GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com, Jwc1870@AOL..com
Dear John , Douglas and others,
The IPM of Sir
Ralph de la Haye of Burwell mentioning writs taken 22 and 28 June 1254 ,
Inquistion taken July 2, 1254 at the manor of Torring, Sussex a rent of 10
pounds 16 shillings 1 1/2 pence held by the courtesy of England of the Earl
of Winchester for 1 knight`s fee , doing 6 shillings to guard the castle of
Pevenesel and half Heton of the inheritance of Eustacia, 1st wife of the
said Ralph to revert to Philip de Neville , heir of the said Eustacia then
aged 40 and more. Sir Philip de Neville and Sibyl de Aldeneby held the
manor of Haudenby, Northants for 1 knight`s fee of Roger de Quincy, Earl of
Winchester.at the Earl`s death in 1264.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
The IPM of Sir
Ralph de la Haye of Burwell mentioning writs taken 22 and 28 June 1254 ,
Inquistion taken July 2, 1254 at the manor of Torring, Sussex a rent of 10
pounds 16 shillings 1 1/2 pence held by the courtesy of England of the Earl
of Winchester for 1 knight`s fee , doing 6 shillings to guard the castle of
Pevenesel and half Heton of the inheritance of Eustacia, 1st wife of the
said Ralph to revert to Philip de Neville , heir of the said Eustacia then
aged 40 and more. Sir Philip de Neville and Sibyl de Aldeneby held the
manor of Haudenby, Northants for 1 knight`s fee of Roger de Quincy, Earl of
Winchester.at the Earl`s death in 1264.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
John Watson
Dec 3, 2009, 11:53:15 PM12/3/09
to
James,
Ralph de la Haye's IPM is available online here:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=108011
For his lands in Essex, it states that William, son of Sir William de
Munchesney, aged 24 is his heir. Presumably Ralph de la Haye had an
ealier wife than Eustache Trian. By this wife he had a daughter who
married Sir William de Munchesney. Does anyone have any information
that could confirm this. I believe this Munchesney family is covered
in CP Vol. 9, but I don't have access to it at the moment.
Regards,
John
John Watson
Dec 4, 2009, 6:02:51 AM12/4/09
to
Hi all,
Perhaps I am getting confused.
Was there more than one IPM of Ralph de la Haye, or were there 2
persons called Ralph de la Haye who died in the same year?
The Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 1 shows both of these:-
291. Ralph de Haya.
Writ (missing). Inq. Wednesday after St. Peter, 38 Hen. III.
John de Haya, aged 30, is his heir.
Lincoln; Lindsey. Burewel held of the king in chief by 1 knight's fee.
Mucketun, held by Robert Maucufnand by 1/6 knight's fee.
Cartun, held by Joan by 1/2 knight's fee.
301. Ralph de la Haye alias de Haya.
William, son of Sir William de Munchenesi alias Munkanesey, aged 24,
is his heir.
Writ and mandate &c. with transcript of writ, 30 Jan. 38 Hen. III.
[Essex.] Extent (undated).
Quendene town, 200a. arable, 52s. works, 2a. meadow, and profits of
wood, held of Sir Warin de Munkanesey by service of 1 knight's fee.
[Essex.] Extent (undated).
Legra de le Haye town, 120a. arable, 10a. wood, 2a. meadow, and 1 (?)
mark rent, held of the king in chief of the honour of Boulogne, and
suit of court is due therefrom; 140a. arable, 7a. meadow, 20a. wood,
29s. 8d. rent, &c, held of Sir Henry de Esex by 1 knight's fee; and
60a. arable, 3a. meadow, and 6s. rent held of the fee of the earl of
Ferreres by ¼ knight's fee.
Rettendun town, 200a. , 6s. (?) rent, &c. held of the bishop of Ely by
service of ½ knight's fee.
Sussex. Writs, 22 and 28 June. Inq. 2 July, 38 Hen. III.
Torringg', 10l. 16s. 1½d. held by the courtesy of England of the
inheritance of Eustacia his first wife of the earl of Winchester for 1
knight's fee, doing 6s. to guard at the castle of Pevenesel, and half
Hetun' (sic).
Philip de Nevile, knight, aged 40 and more, is the heir of the said
Eustacia, to whom the manor ought to revert.
Northampton. Writ, 15 July. Inq. Thursday before St. Margaret, 38 Hen.
III.
Brampton and Haudeneby manors held by the courtesy of England of the
inheritance of Eustacia his wife.
So two different heirs: John de la Haye and William de Munchesney. Can
someone explain this?
Regards,
John
jim....@nwintl.com
Apr 9, 2014, 9:34:17 PM4/9/14
to
It seems to me that the above IPM of Ralph de la Haye, of Layer de la Haye & Quendon, Essex places some doubt about Eustache Trian's marriage to Ralph de la Haye of Burwell, d. 1254. It seems certain that the Eustache who m. Ralph of Layer de la Haye, was previously m. to Robert Neville, whose heir was the Philip mentioned in the IPM. I assume that Eustache received "Torringg", Sussex in dower from the Nevilles, which Ralph de la Haye, as was his right, continued to hold after her death; and it was to be returned ("reverted") to Philip forthwith. It looks like Brampton and Haudeneby were Eustache's by inheritance, and would go to her heir. In Roger de Quincy, the 2nd Earl of Winchester's IPM (1264), Haudeneby was held of the Earl by Philip de Neville and Sibyl de Aldeneby (implying that they were NOT married, but were coheirs) and 'Bramptun' was held by William Rocelin (I have also seen it as Rosceline or Roscelyn) (I don't know what his relation was, he was also listed about 8 years later, 4 Dec 1282, in John Marshal's IPM as holding Aldeby, Norfolk-- BTW is there some connection between the names Sibyl "Aldeneby", "Haudeneby" & "Aldeby"?). Curiously no lands in Sussex (nor any of the southern or southwest part of England) were noted in Roger de Quincy's IPM, leaving a question about what is meant by "Torringg, Sussex".
If Eustache m. Ralph de la Haye, of Burwell, then either she m. (1) Robert de Neville, (2) Ralph de la Haye, of Burwell, and (3) Ralph de la Haye, of Layer de la Haye. This seems very unlikely, and the only other possibility is that the two Ralph de la Hayes are one and the same. Certainly their death dates are probably very close, yet the compiler of the Calendar of IPMs did not place the writs for Ralph of Layer de la Haye with those of Ralph of Burwell, treating them as separate people. The biggest difference is that Ralph of Layer de la Haye seems to have died without any surviving issue, whereas Ralph of Burwell had issue. Ralph of Essex's heir was William de Munchensy, b. c1330 (age 24 in 1354). CP IX:416 used the IPM of Ralph de la Haye to determine William's birth year, and CP IX:415 had this to say about William's father: WILLIAM I DE MUNCHENSY, presumably son and heir, was next owner of the fee. In 1229 he made Ralph de la Hay his attorney to enforce service for a freehold in Lindwood, Essex; by fines levied in 1240 and 1241 he sold Staverton property to William of York, provost of Beverley. In 1245 William de Munchensy had protection on going to Rome with Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. He married Joan, daughter and heir of Geoffrey DE CREK, which Joan must also have been heir of Ralph de la Hay. (k) He was dead by June 1263. (k) 'Genealogist', N.S., vol. xii, p. 173. So maybe the article in Genealogist might shed some light on the matter. It seems likely that William Munchensy's attorney, Ralph de la Hay, might be the same Ralph whose IPM was in 1254, and therefore was a contemporary (and possibly a cousin) of the elder William Munchensy.
VCH Gloucester (Oxenton) just states that Eustache's 2nd husband was Ralph de la Haye, without identifying any properties he held.
On another, mostly unrelated matter, I see that many posts to SGM are indicating that Philip de Neville, was the son of Robert de Neville (and Eustache Trian). In particular John Watson, in a post of 22 Nov 2009, cited an entry in the Close Rolls of 13 July 1354, which (in Latin that my high school Latin is inadequate to handle) he stated proved that Philip was a son of Robert & Eustache. CP IX:476-8, in its line for the Nevilles of Scotton & Manton, states that Robert had one son Ralph who d. s.p. maybe after 1227, when his heir was Philip, the son of Robert's younger brother Ralph. I haven't actually seen a discussion of this. So is there a "CP Correction" here?
Jim Weber
John Watson
Apr 10, 2014, 1:03:21 AM4/10/14
to
>
> > Rettendun town, 200a. , 6s. (?) rent, &c. held of the bishop of Ely by
>
> > service of 1/2 knight's fee.
> > Rettendun town, 200a. , 6s. (?) rent, &c. held of the bishop of Ely by
>
>
> > Sussex. Writs, 22 and 28 June. Inq. 2 July, 38 Hen. III.
>
> > Torringg', 10l. 16s. 1 1/2 d. held by the courtesy of England of the
> > Sussex. Writs, 22 and 28 June. Inq. 2 July, 38 Hen. III.
>
>
> > inheritance of Eustacia his first wife of the earl of Winchester for 1
>
> > knight's fee, doing 6s. to guard at the castle of Pevenesel, and half
>
> > Hetun' (sic).
>
> > Philip de Nevile, knight, aged 40 and more, is the heir of the said
>
> > Eustacia, to whom the manor ought to revert.
>
> > Northampton. Writ, 15 July. Inq. Thursday before St. Margaret, 38 Hen.
>
> > III.
>
> > Brampton and Haudeneby manors held by the courtesy of England of the
>
> > inheritance of Eustacia his wife.
>
> >
>
> > So two different heirs: John de la Haye and William de Munchesney. Can
>
> > someone explain this?
>
> >
>
> > Regards,
>
> >
>
> > John
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> It seems to me that the above IPM of Ralph de la Haye, of Layer de la Haye & Quendon, Essex places some doubt about Eustache Trian's marriage to Ralph de la Haye of Burwell, d. 1254. It seems certain that the Eustache who m. Ralph of Layer de la Haye, was previously m. to Robert Neville, whose heir was the Philip mentioned in the IPM. I assume that Eustache received "Torringg", Sussex in dower from the Nevilles, which Ralph de la Haye, as was his right, continued to hold after her death; and it was to be returned ("reverted") to Philip forthwith. It looks like Brampton and Haudeneby were Eustache's by inheritance, and would go to her heir. In Roger de Quincy, the 2nd Earl of Winchester's IPM (1264), Haudeneby was held of the Earl by Philip de Neville and Sibyl de Aldeneby (implying that they were NOT married, but were coheirs) and 'Bramptun' was held by William Rocelin (I have also seen it as Rosceline or Roscelyn) (I don't know what his relation was, he was also listed about 8 years later, 4 Dec 1282, in John Marshal's IPM as holding Aldeby, Norfolk-- BTW is there some connection between the names Sibyl "Aldeneby", "Haudeneby" & "Aldeby"?). Curiously no lands in Sussex (nor any of the southern or southwest part of England) were noted in Roger de Quincy's IPM, leaving a question about what is meant by "Torringg, Sussex".
>
>
>
> If Eustache m. Ralph de la Haye, of Burwell, then either she m. (1) Robert de Neville, (2) Ralph de la Haye, of Burwell, and (3) Ralph de la Haye, of Layer de la Haye. This seems very unlikely, and the only other possibility is that the two Ralph de la Hayes are one and the same. Certainly their death dates are probably very close, yet the compiler of the Calendar of IPMs did not place the writs for Ralph of Layer de la Haye with those of Ralph of Burwell, treating them as separate people. The biggest difference is that Ralph of Layer de la Haye seems to have died without any surviving issue, whereas Ralph of Burwell had issue. Ralph of Essex's heir was William de Munchensy, b. c1330 (age 24 in 1354). CP IX:416 used the IPM of Ralph de la Haye to determine William's birth year, and CP IX:415 had this to say about William's father: WILLIAM I DE MUNCHENSY, presumably son and heir, was next owner of the fee. In 1229 he made Ralph de la Hay his attorney to enforce service for a freehold in Lindwood, Essex; by fines levied in 1240 and 1241 he sold Staverton property to William of York, provost of Beverley. In 1245 William de Munchensy had protection on going to Rome with Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. He married Joan, daughter and heir of Geoffrey DE CREK, which Joan must also have been heir of Ralph de la Hay. (k) He was dead by June 1263. (k) 'Genealogist', N.S., vol. xii, p. 173. So maybe the article in Genealogist might shed some light on the matter. It seems likely that William Munchensy's attorney, Ralph de la Hay, might be the same Ralph whose IPM was in 1254, and therefore was a contemporary (and possibly a cousin) of the elder William Munchensy.
>
>
>
> VCH Gloucester (Oxenton) just states that Eustache's 2nd husband was Ralph de la Haye, without identifying any properties he held.
>
>
>
> On another, mostly unrelated matter, I see that many posts to SGM are indicating that Philip de Neville, was the son of Robert de Neville (and Eustache Trian). In particular John Watson, in a post of 22 Nov 2009, cited an entry in the Close Rolls of 13 July 1354, which (in Latin that my high school Latin is inadequate to handle) he stated proved that Philip was a son of Robert & Eustache. CP IX:476-8, in its line for the Nevilles of Scotton & Manton, states that Robert had one son Ralph who d. s.p. maybe after 1227, when his heir was Philip, the son of Robert's younger brother Ralph. I haven't actually seen a discussion of this. So is there a "CP Correction" here?
>
>
>
> Jim Weber
Dear Jim,
> > inheritance of Eustacia his first wife of the earl of Winchester for 1
>
> > knight's fee, doing 6s. to guard at the castle of Pevenesel, and half
>
> > Hetun' (sic).
>
> > Philip de Nevile, knight, aged 40 and more, is the heir of the said
>
> > Eustacia, to whom the manor ought to revert.
>
> > Northampton. Writ, 15 July. Inq. Thursday before St. Margaret, 38 Hen.
>
> > III.
>
> > Brampton and Haudeneby manors held by the courtesy of England of the
>
> > inheritance of Eustacia his wife.
>
> >
>
> > So two different heirs: John de la Haye and William de Munchesney. Can
>
> > someone explain this?
>
> >
>
> > Regards,
>
> >
>
> > John
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> It seems to me that the above IPM of Ralph de la Haye, of Layer de la Haye & Quendon, Essex places some doubt about Eustache Trian's marriage to Ralph de la Haye of Burwell, d. 1254. It seems certain that the Eustache who m. Ralph of Layer de la Haye, was previously m. to Robert Neville, whose heir was the Philip mentioned in the IPM. I assume that Eustache received "Torringg", Sussex in dower from the Nevilles, which Ralph de la Haye, as was his right, continued to hold after her death; and it was to be returned ("reverted") to Philip forthwith. It looks like Brampton and Haudeneby were Eustache's by inheritance, and would go to her heir. In Roger de Quincy, the 2nd Earl of Winchester's IPM (1264), Haudeneby was held of the Earl by Philip de Neville and Sibyl de Aldeneby (implying that they were NOT married, but were coheirs) and 'Bramptun' was held by William Rocelin (I have also seen it as Rosceline or Roscelyn) (I don't know what his relation was, he was also listed about 8 years later, 4 Dec 1282, in John Marshal's IPM as holding Aldeby, Norfolk-- BTW is there some connection between the names Sibyl "Aldeneby", "Haudeneby" & "Aldeby"?). Curiously no lands in Sussex (nor any of the southern or southwest part of England) were noted in Roger de Quincy's IPM, leaving a question about what is meant by "Torringg, Sussex".
>
>
>
> If Eustache m. Ralph de la Haye, of Burwell, then either she m. (1) Robert de Neville, (2) Ralph de la Haye, of Burwell, and (3) Ralph de la Haye, of Layer de la Haye. This seems very unlikely, and the only other possibility is that the two Ralph de la Hayes are one and the same. Certainly their death dates are probably very close, yet the compiler of the Calendar of IPMs did not place the writs for Ralph of Layer de la Haye with those of Ralph of Burwell, treating them as separate people. The biggest difference is that Ralph of Layer de la Haye seems to have died without any surviving issue, whereas Ralph of Burwell had issue. Ralph of Essex's heir was William de Munchensy, b. c1330 (age 24 in 1354). CP IX:416 used the IPM of Ralph de la Haye to determine William's birth year, and CP IX:415 had this to say about William's father: WILLIAM I DE MUNCHENSY, presumably son and heir, was next owner of the fee. In 1229 he made Ralph de la Hay his attorney to enforce service for a freehold in Lindwood, Essex; by fines levied in 1240 and 1241 he sold Staverton property to William of York, provost of Beverley. In 1245 William de Munchensy had protection on going to Rome with Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. He married Joan, daughter and heir of Geoffrey DE CREK, which Joan must also have been heir of Ralph de la Hay. (k) He was dead by June 1263. (k) 'Genealogist', N.S., vol. xii, p. 173. So maybe the article in Genealogist might shed some light on the matter. It seems likely that William Munchensy's attorney, Ralph de la Hay, might be the same Ralph whose IPM was in 1254, and therefore was a contemporary (and possibly a cousin) of the elder William Munchensy.
>
>
>
> VCH Gloucester (Oxenton) just states that Eustache's 2nd husband was Ralph de la Haye, without identifying any properties he held.
>
>
>
> On another, mostly unrelated matter, I see that many posts to SGM are indicating that Philip de Neville, was the son of Robert de Neville (and Eustache Trian). In particular John Watson, in a post of 22 Nov 2009, cited an entry in the Close Rolls of 13 July 1354, which (in Latin that my high school Latin is inadequate to handle) he stated proved that Philip was a son of Robert & Eustache. CP IX:476-8, in its line for the Nevilles of Scotton & Manton, states that Robert had one son Ralph who d. s.p. maybe after 1227, when his heir was Philip, the son of Robert's younger brother Ralph. I haven't actually seen a discussion of this. So is there a "CP Correction" here?
>
>
>
> Jim Weber
"Torringg, Sussex" is almost certainly a small village, today called Tarring Neville in East Sussex, about a mile or so from Newhaven. Unfortunately the VCH Sussex volume covering this area has not been published (and is unlikely to be in the near future).
There are three Close Roll entries in July 1254 concerning Philip de Neville.
The first two are about 10 librates of land and the manor of Tarring [Neville], Sussex, the inheritance of Eustache, the first wife of Ralph de la Haye, which should descend to Philip de Neville, the son of Eustache. The third concerns the manors of Brampton and Holdenby in Northamptonshire, which Ralph de la Haye held by the courtesy of England after the death of his wife Eustache, and which descend to Philip de Neville.
9 July 1254, Pro Philippo de Neville.-- Quia rex accepit per inquisicionem quam fieri fecit quod Radulphus de la Haye non tenuit decem libratas terre cum pertinenciis in Torring' de hereditate Eustachie prime uxoris sue nisi ad vitam suam secundum legem terre, eo quod predictus Radulphus de ea prolem suscitaverat, et quod predicte x. librate terre jure hereditario ad Philippum de Nevill' debent descendere, mandatum est escaetori regis in comitatu Sussex' quod eidem Philippo de predictis x. libratis terre cum pertinenciis plenam seisinam habere faciat. Teste R. comite apud Warr' ix. die Julii. Per H. de Bath'.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 8: 1253-1254 (1929), 80
13 July 1254, Pro Philippo de Nevill'.-- Quia nulla custodia ad regem pertinet de manerio de Toringe, quod Radulphus de la Haye tenuit per legem terre de hereditate Eustachie quondam uxoris sue matris Philippi de Nevill' cujus heres ipse est, mandatum est escaetori regis in comitatu Sussex' quod, si quid ceperit de manerio supradicto post mortem predicti Radulphi, id eidem Philippo sine dilacione restitui faciat.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 8: 1253-1254 (1929), 83
21 July 1254, Pro Philippo de Nevill'.-- Quia rex accepit per inquisicionem, quam per escaetorem regis in comitatu Norhamt' fieri fecit, quod Radulphus de Haya, qui mortuus est, non tenuit maneria de Brampton' et Haundeneby in feodo et hereditate, set ea tenuit per legem Anglie de hereditate Eustachie uxoris sue, eo quod prolem ex ea suscitavit, mandatum est predicto escaetori quod de maneriis predictis Philippo de Nevill' filio et heredi predicte Eustachie plenam seisinam habere faciat. Teste R. comite Cornubie apud Oxoniam xxj. die Julii. Per H. de Bathonia.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 8: 1253-1254 (1929), 87-8
Best regards,
John
John Watson
Apr 10, 2014, 5:25:03 AM4/10/14
to
On Thursday, 10 April 2014 06:03:21 UTC+1, John Watson wrote:
Dear Jim,
On your last point concerning a possible correction to CP. I don't have access to CP Vol. 9 (except through your website of course), so I wasn't aware of this discrepancy.
Robert de Neville definitely married Eustache de Trian:
24 August 1214, Order to P. Bishop of Winchester, to give seisin to Robert de Nevill of the manor of Oxenden which was of Robert de Trian whose heir is Eustachia sister of the aforesaid Robert de Trian who the aforesaid Robert de Nevill has married.
Thomas Duffus Hardy, ed., Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londoniensi Asservati, Vol. 1, 1204-1224, 170b
From the entry in the Close Rolls which I previously posted:
Regards,
John
Dear Jim,
On your last point concerning a possible correction to CP. I don't have access to CP Vol. 9 (except through your website of course), so I wasn't aware of this discrepancy.
Robert de Neville definitely married Eustache de Trian:
24 August 1214, Order to P. Bishop of Winchester, to give seisin to Robert de Nevill of the manor of Oxenden which was of Robert de Trian whose heir is Eustachia sister of the aforesaid Robert de Trian who the aforesaid Robert de Nevill has married.
Thomas Duffus Hardy, ed., Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londoniensi Asservati, Vol. 1, 1204-1224, 170b
From the entry in the Close Rolls which I previously posted:
21 July 1254, Pro Philippo de Nevill'.-- Quia rex accepit per inquisicionem, quam per escaetorem regis in comitatu Norhamt' fieri fecit, quod Radulphus de Haya, qui mortuus est, non tenuit maneria de Brampton' et Haundeneby in feodo et hereditate, set ea tenuit per legem Anglie de hereditate Eustachie uxoris sue, eo quod prolem ex ea suscitavit, mandatum est predicto escaetori quod de maneriis predictis Philippo de Nevill' filio et heredi predicte Eustachie plenam seisinam habere faciat. Teste R. comite Cornubie apud Oxoniam xxj. die Julii. Per H. de Bathonia.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 8: 1253-1254 (1929), 87-8
In this entry, Philip de Neville is stated to be the son and heir of Eustache. So unless Robert de Neville's younger brother Ralph also married a lady named Eustache it seems pretty certain that Philip de Neville of Scotton was the son of Robert de Neville and Eustache de Trian, and not the son of Ralph de Neville.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 8: 1253-1254 (1929), 87-8
Regards,
John
jim....@nwintl.com
Apr 10, 2014, 12:24:26 PM4/10/14
to
Below is a google translation of your Latin quote from the Calendar Roll.
Because the king took by the inquisition, rather than by the king's escheator in the county court Norhamt 'to be made, because it did, Ralph de Hay, who died, and it did not hold the manors of Brampton and Haundeneby in fee and heritage, but he held them by the law of England of the inheritance of his wife Eustacia , the fact that the offspring had by her, it was commanded of the manors aforesaid escheator that the said Philip de Nevill, 'cause the son and heir of the said Eustacia to have full seisin. Witness R. earl of Cornwall to Oxford.
It reads a little funny here and there, especially the last sentence. Is it really saying something more like "it was commanded of the aforesaid escheator to cause the son and heir of the said Eustacia, the said Philip de Nevill, to have full seisin." Certainly then there is no question about the statement.
Another point: You stated in a post 22 Nov 2009 that Eustache d. 1346. CP suggests that Robert's son & heir (implied as his only child) Ralph died sometime around 1227, and certainly before Philip presented to Scotton, 1239-40. If Ralph preceded his mother in death with no offspring (leaving Eustache with no surviving heir in the Neville family), then Philip would not be her heir in 1346 unless he were her son. Is that true?
Jim Weber
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
Apr 10, 2014, 12:52:08 PM4/10/14
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> On Thursday, 10 April 2014 06:03:21 UTC+1, John Watson wrote:> From the entry in the Close Rolls which I previously posted:
>
> 21 July 1254, Pro Philippo de Nevill'.-- Quia rex accepit per inquisicionem, quam per escaetorem regis in comitatu Norhamt' fieri fecit, quod Radulphus de Haya, qui mortuus est, non tenuit maneria de Brampton' et Haundeneby in feodo et hereditate, set ea tenuit per legem Anglie de hereditate Eustachie uxoris sue, eo quod prolem ex ea suscitavit, mandatum est predicto escaetori quod de maneriis predictis Philippo de Nevill' filio et heredi predicte Eustachie plenam seisinam habere faciat. Teste R. comite Cornubie apud Oxoniam xxj. die Julii. Per H. de Bathonia.
>
> Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 8: 1253-1254 (1929), 87-8
>
> In this entry, Philip de Neville is stated to be the son and heir of Eustache. So unless Robert de Neville's younger brother Ralph also married a lady named Eustache it seems pretty certain that Philip de Neville of Scotton was the son of Robert de Neville and Eustache de Trian, and not the son of Ralph de Neville.
>
> Regards,
> John
-----Original Message-----
>
> 21 July 1254, Pro Philippo de Nevill'.-- Quia rex accepit per inquisicionem, quam per escaetorem regis in comitatu Norhamt' fieri fecit, quod Radulphus de Haya, qui mortuus est, non tenuit maneria de Brampton' et Haundeneby in feodo et hereditate, set ea tenuit per legem Anglie de hereditate Eustachie uxoris sue, eo quod prolem ex ea suscitavit, mandatum est predicto escaetori quod de maneriis predictis Philippo de Nevill' filio et heredi predicte Eustachie plenam seisinam habere faciat. Teste R. comite Cornubie apud Oxoniam xxj. die Julii. Per H. de Bathonia.
>
> Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 8: 1253-1254 (1929), 87-8
>
> In this entry, Philip de Neville is stated to be the son and heir of Eustache. So unless Robert de Neville's younger brother Ralph also married a lady named Eustache it seems pretty certain that Philip de Neville of Scotton was the son of Robert de Neville and Eustache de Trian, and not the son of Ralph de Neville.
>
> Regards,
> John
>From jim.we...ntl.com
> John,
>
> Below is a google translation of your Latin quote from the Calendar Roll.
>
> Because the king took by the inquisition, rather than by the king's escheator in the county court Norhamt 'to be made, because it did, Ralph de Hay, who died, and it did not hold the manors of Brampton and Haundeneby in fee and heritage, but he held them by the law of England of the inheritance of his wife Eustacia , the fact that the offspring had by her, it was commanded of the manors aforesaid escheator that the said Philip de Nevill, 'cause the son and heir of the said Eustacia to have full seisin. Witness R. earl of Cornwall to Oxford.
>
> It reads a little funny here and there, especially the last sentence. Is it really saying something more like "it was commanded of the aforesaid escheator to cause the son and heir of the said Eustacia, the said Philip de Nevill, to have full seisin." Certainly then there is no question about the statement.
>
You're quite right, Jim.
>
> Below is a google translation of your Latin quote from the Calendar Roll.
>
> Because the king took by the inquisition, rather than by the king's escheator in the county court Norhamt 'to be made, because it did, Ralph de Hay, who died, and it did not hold the manors of Brampton and Haundeneby in fee and heritage, but he held them by the law of England of the inheritance of his wife Eustacia , the fact that the offspring had by her, it was commanded of the manors aforesaid escheator that the said Philip de Nevill, 'cause the son and heir of the said Eustacia to have full seisin. Witness R. earl of Cornwall to Oxford.
>
> It reads a little funny here and there, especially the last sentence. Is it really saying something more like "it was commanded of the aforesaid escheator to cause the son and heir of the said Eustacia, the said Philip de Nevill, to have full seisin." Certainly then there is no question about the statement.
>
What it says is:
Because the king understood, by the inquisition which he caused to be made by the king's escheator in the county court Northampton, that Ralph de Hay, who died, did not hold the manors of Brampton and Haundeneby in fee and inheritance, but held them by the law of England of the inheritance of his wife Eustacia , because he had offspring by her, it was commanded to the aforesaid escheator that he should cause the said Philip de Nevill, son and heir of the said Eustacia, to have full seisin. Witness R. earl of Cornwall at Oxford, 12 July. By Henry de Bath.
Matt Tompkins
John Watson
Apr 10, 2014, 1:07:48 PM4/10/14
to
There were two people called Ralph de Neville, one the brother of Robert de Neville and the other his son and heir. Differentiating between them in the records is difficult. Presumably both of them died without heirs. The young Ralph must have died before his younger brother Philip presented to Scotton in 1239-40. Philip was the heir of his mother Eustache for the manors of Tarring Neville, Sussex and Brampton and Holdenby in Northamptonshire. From his brother Ralph de Neville he inherited the manor of Scotton and some other properties in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire (Filey?).
The death date of Eustache was just a guess, and I cannot now find anything in my notes to suggest how I arrived at that date. Eustache was alive at Easter 1246, when there is a fine between Ralph de la Haye and Eustache his wife and their son John de la Haye concerning the manor of Oxendon in Gloucestershire [1]. She was certainly dead in 1252 when Ralph de la Haye had married secondly Isabel daughter and heiress of William de Montague (d. ca. 1238) [2].
1. An abstract of Feet of Fines for the County of Sussex: vol. 1: 1190-1248 (1903), pp. 107-115.
2. L.F. Salzman, "Some Sussex Domesday Tenants, Alvared Pincera and His Descendants", Sussex Archaeological Collections, Vol. 57 (1915)].
Best regards,
John
jim....@nwintl.com
Apr 10, 2014, 1:48:11 PM4/10/14
to
So it's official: The presence of Eustache Trian, wife of Robert de Neville of Scotton, whose son and heir was Philip de Neville, proves that Robert & Eustache were parents of Philip de Neville. Robert's son Ralph may not have been a son of Eustache, but for simplicity's sake could be represented so, at least until proof otherwise is found. In terms of the Neville inheritance, Robert was the heir of his brother Ralph, not his cousin Ralph as CP stated. CP, not knowing about Eustache, had the parent of Philip as Robert's younger brother Ralph, which is now shown to be wrong.
Jim Weber
jim....@nwintl.com
Apr 10, 2014, 6:44:02 PM4/10/14
to
John,
Now that we have one of my concerns (Philip's father) put to rest,I have another idea on the two Ralph de la Hayes:
VCH Gloucester (Oxenton) stated that it was either Eustache Trian OR HER DAUGHTER Eustache who m. Ralph de la Haye of Burwell and had a son John by him. Robert de Neville & Eustache had a son Ralph, b. 1204/5 (per CP underage in Jan 1220/1, but presented to Manton in 1225/6) and a son Robert, b. c1210 (certainly before 1219 because he presented to Scotton in 1230-40), so they could easily have had a daughter Eustache, b., say, c1206. I have seen several cases where a daughter m. someone and then later the widowed mother marries into the same family (often the widower father of the bridegroom, although in this case it could be a cousin, etc.).
I believe that a Eustache de Neville, b. c1206, would fit nicely with the information given in VCH Gloucester (Oxenton).
Jim Weber
Now that we have one of my concerns (Philip's father) put to rest,I have another idea on the two Ralph de la Hayes:
VCH Gloucester (Oxenton) stated that it was either Eustache Trian OR HER DAUGHTER Eustache who m. Ralph de la Haye of Burwell and had a son John by him. Robert de Neville & Eustache had a son Ralph, b. 1204/5 (per CP underage in Jan 1220/1, but presented to Manton in 1225/6) and a son Robert, b. c1210 (certainly before 1219 because he presented to Scotton in 1230-40), so they could easily have had a daughter Eustache, b., say, c1206. I have seen several cases where a daughter m. someone and then later the widowed mother marries into the same family (often the widower father of the bridegroom, although in this case it could be a cousin, etc.).
I believe that a Eustache de Neville, b. c1206, would fit nicely with the information given in VCH Gloucester (Oxenton).
Jim Weber
0 new messages