info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Addition: Maud de Roos [died 1388], wife of John de Welles, Knt., 4th Lord Welles
389 views
Skip to first unread message
celticp...@gmail.com
Feb 6, 2018, 1:30:41 AM2/6/18
to
Dear Newsgroup `
Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441 (sub Welles) includes a biography of John de Welle/Welles, 4th Lord Welles [died 1361]. The author states that Maud, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles, was "probably daughter of William (de Ros), 2nd Lord Ros (of Helmsley), by Margery, sister and coheiress of Giles (de Badlesmere), 2nd Lord Badlesmere, lst daughter of Bartholomew, lst Lord Badlesmere." The evidence the author cites for the parentage of Maud consists solely of the fact that the wardship of John de Welle(s) was previously granted 17 March 1344/5, to his presumed mother-in-law, Margery, widow of William de Ros [Reference: Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441, footnote d, citing Cal. Fine Rolls, vol. 5, pp. 412, 417]. At best, this is skimpy evidence to suggest that Lord Welles' wife was a Roos. As such, I've had to look elsewhere to find confirmation of Maud de Welles' parentage. The evidence I've located to date is presented below. It falls into several parts. And yes, as we will see, Maud de Welles was Lord Roos' daughter.
(lst) There is heraldic evidence which indicates that a Welles-Roos marriage took place. In 1935/37 Commander S.N. Smith published an interesting article on the Delamare and Paulet Family Monuments found in the church at Nunney, Somerset. At the tomb of Sir John Paulet and his wife, Constance Poynings, there was formerly found a series of heraldic shields which commemorated the various marital matches in the ancestry of this couple. Among the shields placed at this tomb were the arms of Poynings impaling Welles (for Constance's parents), the arms of Welles impaling Mowbray (for Constance's maternal grandparents), and the arms of Welles impaling Roos (evidently for Constance's great-grandparents, John de Welle(s), 3rd Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de Roos) [Reference: Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldic, 5th ser., 9 (1935-1937): 84-87].
(2nd) There exists an ancient visitation pedigree of the Roos family
taken c. 1480-1500 in the Visitation of the North. This pedigree was
published in 1930 in Surtees Society, Vol. 144, pp. 161-164. This
pedigree is reliable in most details. This pedigree lists four
children for William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos, and his wife, Margery de
Badlesmere, including a daughter, Maud. Unfortunately, no marriage is
provided for Maud. Evidence exists, however, to prove the existence
of the other three children named in this visitation record.
(3rd) There is an ancient genealogy of the Roos family which is published in Atkinson, Cartularium Abbathiae de Rievalle (Surtees Society 83) (1889): 358-362. The following is a specific quotation from that source which indicates states that William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley, and his
wife, Margery de Baldlesmere, had a daughter named Maud:
"Willelmus de Roos, filius ejus, duxit in uxorem Margeriam de Badilesmere, et genuit ex ea Willelmum, Thomam, Margaretam et Matildim, et sepultus est apud Kirkham in mausoleo lapideo juxta magnum altare, et parte australi." END OF QUOTE.
(4th) In the great series, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum, by Walter de Gray Birch, Vol. 3, pg. 651, Mr. Birch includes the description of a surviving seal of a certain Matildis de Well' [Maud de Welles], who he identified as being the widow of Sir John de Well[es], of Lincolnshire. This would be Maud, wife of Sir John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles. The seal was taken from a document dated 1373, during the period of Lady Welles' widowhood. According to Mr. Birch, the seal has a shield of arms on it. The dexter side (usually reversed for the husband's arms) is uncertain. The sinister side (usually reserved for the woman's arms) display the arms of Roos, namely three water-bougets, two and one. This seal is good evidence that that Maud de Welles was in fact a Roos.
(5th) It appears that King Henry V of England repeatedly referred to Sir Henry le Scrope, 3rd Lord Scrope of Masham, as his "kinsman" [consanguinei nostri] in 1414. See T. Rymer, Foedera, 9 (1729): 102, 104, 136, 138, 142, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5326982506;view=1up;seq=128
Assuming that Maud, wife of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, was in fact the daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley, then King Henry V of England and Henry le Scrope were related in the 4th and 4th degrees of kinship (that is 3rd cousins), by virtue of their common descent from Sir Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord Badlesmere (died 1322).
1. Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord Badlemere.
2. Elizabeth de Badlesmere, married William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton.
3. Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex.
4. Mary de Bohun, married King Henry IV of England.
5. King Henry V of England.
1. Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord Badlemere.
2. Margery de Badlesmere, married William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley.
3. Maud de Roos, married John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles.
4. Margery Welles, married Stephen le Scrope, 2nd Lord Scrope of Masham.
5. Henry le Scrope, 3rd Lord Scrope of Masham.
(6th) Following the death of Sir John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, on 11 October 1361, in Feb. 1362 the king took the fealty of his widow, Maud, and ordered various escheators not the intermeddle with the manors of Theydon Garnon, Essex, Faxton, Northamptonshire, and Grainsby, Lincolnshire, she having previously held these lands jointly with her husband [see Cal. of Close Rolls, 1360–1364 (1909): 305–306]. We know that Lord Welles died testate, for in 1363 Maud, widow of John de Welle, Knt., William [de] Stayne, Robert Stynt, parson of the church of Cumberworth, Lincolnshire, and another, executors of the will of John de Welle, Knt., sued Robert, parson of Gunby, Lincolnshire, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Bratoft, Lincolnshire. See Court of Common Pleas, CP40/414, image 319d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no414/bCP40no414dorses/IMG_0319.htm).
Following John de Welles' death in 1361, custody of his lands and of his heir, young John de Welles, were first granted to Queen Philippe, wife of King Edward III, and she in turn granted the custody of the lands and heir to the young heir's mother, Maud, widow of John de Welles. This information is established by the proof of age taken in 1373 for young John de Welles, which yields the following statement:
"Writ to the escheator to take proof of the age of the said heir, warning Maud late the wife of John his father, guardian of the lands of his inheritance by commitment of queen Philippa, to be present and shew cause why the lands should not be restored to him. 27 March, 47 Edward III [1373]." Reference: Cal. IPM 13 (1954): 262–263, available at the following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol13/pp255-272
In 1366 Maud, widow of John de Welle, Knt., 4th Lord Welles, leased the manors of Ellington and Hayden, Northumberland to Roger de Widdrington, she making this grant as custodian of the body and lands of John son and heir of the said John de Welle by grant of Queen Philippe. Reference: Hodgson, History of Northumberland Pt. 2 Vol. 2 (1832): 212.
Thus it would appear that Maud, widow of Sir John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, was both his executrix and the guardian of their son and heir, young John de Welles. But was she a Roos?
It's the bane of medieval records to have two individuals of the same name alive at the same time, be they father and son, uncle and nephew, or cousins, with little to distinguish them in the records. At this junction another Maud, widow of John de Welle, Knt., makes her appearance in the records. In Michaelmas term 1367 Maud, widow of John de Welle, Knt., sued Roger de Mers, Maud daughter of William Roos of Helmsley, and William de Stayne, custodians of the lands and heir of John de Welle, Knt., in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the third part of the manors of Skendleby and Cumberworth, Lincolnshire, and Ellington and Hayden, Northumberland, which the said Maud claimed as dower of the dotation of said John her husband. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/429, image 817f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no429/aCP40no429fronts/IMG_0817.htm).
The properties involved in this lawsuit are known Welles family manors. The plaintiff in this lawsuit was evidently the widow of yet an earlier John de Welles, Knt., he being Sir John de Welles, the uncle of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles. Sir John de Welles the uncle was born in 1311 [see Cal. IPM 6 (1910): 157–158]. In 1334 he stood as godfather of his brother, Adam de Welle’s son and heir, John de Welle [the future 4th Lord Welles] [see Cal. IPM 10 (1921): 232–233]. In 1334-1335 he and his older brother, Adam de Welle [3rd Lord Welles], were summoned for military service against the Scots [Reference: Rpts. from the Lords Committees touching the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm 4 App. 1 Pt. 2 (1829): 435–440].
The defendants in the 1367 lawsuit were custodians of the land and heir of John de Welles, Knt., 4th Lord Welles, and they include "Maud daughter of William de Roos of Helmsley." As to the identity of Maud de Roos here named, she can only be the widow of 4th Lord Welles who we know for a fact had custody of the lands and heir in 1366 and 1373. Thus this lawsuit provides conclusive evidence once and for all that Maud, widow of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, was in fact Maud de Roos, daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley.
In summary, we have various pieces of evidence which prove that Maud, the wife of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, was the daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley. First, we have the grant of John Welles' own wardship to Lady Roos [his mother-in-law] which Complete Peerage first noted back in 1959. We have Maud de Welles' own seal displaying her Roos arms, a visitation, an ancient pedigree, and the Scrope royal kinship, all of which offer support that John de Welles' wife, Maud, was a daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley. Finally we see that Maud, widow of John de Welles, had custody of her own son in 1366 and 1373 by grant of the queen. In 1367, as one of custodians of young John de Welles, she was sued as "Maud daughter of William de Roos of Helmsley." This is yet another instance of a high born woman in the medieval period appearing in contemporary records after marriage under her maiden name.
For interest sake, below is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles [died 1361], and his wife, Maud de Roos [died 1388]. The individual descents down to the immigrants may be found in my various books.
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Walter Aston, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William Bernard, Essex Beville, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph Bolles, Nathaniel Browne, Charles Calvert, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, James Cudworth, Margaret Fleming, William Goddard, Katherine Hamby, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane, & Nicholas Lowe, Thomas Lunsford, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne Mauleverer, Thomas Owsley, Herbert Pelham, George Reade, Thomas Rudyard, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Olive Welby, John West.
If you descend from Maud de Roos, Lady Welles (as I know many of you do), I'd greatly appreciate if you would take the time to post your line of descent from her down to about 1650 or to your Gateway immigrant ancestor.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441 (sub Welles) includes a biography of John de Welle/Welles, 4th Lord Welles [died 1361]. The author states that Maud, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles, was "probably daughter of William (de Ros), 2nd Lord Ros (of Helmsley), by Margery, sister and coheiress of Giles (de Badlesmere), 2nd Lord Badlesmere, lst daughter of Bartholomew, lst Lord Badlesmere." The evidence the author cites for the parentage of Maud consists solely of the fact that the wardship of John de Welle(s) was previously granted 17 March 1344/5, to his presumed mother-in-law, Margery, widow of William de Ros [Reference: Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441, footnote d, citing Cal. Fine Rolls, vol. 5, pp. 412, 417]. At best, this is skimpy evidence to suggest that Lord Welles' wife was a Roos. As such, I've had to look elsewhere to find confirmation of Maud de Welles' parentage. The evidence I've located to date is presented below. It falls into several parts. And yes, as we will see, Maud de Welles was Lord Roos' daughter.
(lst) There is heraldic evidence which indicates that a Welles-Roos marriage took place. In 1935/37 Commander S.N. Smith published an interesting article on the Delamare and Paulet Family Monuments found in the church at Nunney, Somerset. At the tomb of Sir John Paulet and his wife, Constance Poynings, there was formerly found a series of heraldic shields which commemorated the various marital matches in the ancestry of this couple. Among the shields placed at this tomb were the arms of Poynings impaling Welles (for Constance's parents), the arms of Welles impaling Mowbray (for Constance's maternal grandparents), and the arms of Welles impaling Roos (evidently for Constance's great-grandparents, John de Welle(s), 3rd Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de Roos) [Reference: Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldic, 5th ser., 9 (1935-1937): 84-87].
(2nd) There exists an ancient visitation pedigree of the Roos family
taken c. 1480-1500 in the Visitation of the North. This pedigree was
published in 1930 in Surtees Society, Vol. 144, pp. 161-164. This
pedigree is reliable in most details. This pedigree lists four
children for William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos, and his wife, Margery de
Badlesmere, including a daughter, Maud. Unfortunately, no marriage is
provided for Maud. Evidence exists, however, to prove the existence
of the other three children named in this visitation record.
(3rd) There is an ancient genealogy of the Roos family which is published in Atkinson, Cartularium Abbathiae de Rievalle (Surtees Society 83) (1889): 358-362. The following is a specific quotation from that source which indicates states that William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley, and his
wife, Margery de Baldlesmere, had a daughter named Maud:
"Willelmus de Roos, filius ejus, duxit in uxorem Margeriam de Badilesmere, et genuit ex ea Willelmum, Thomam, Margaretam et Matildim, et sepultus est apud Kirkham in mausoleo lapideo juxta magnum altare, et parte australi." END OF QUOTE.
(4th) In the great series, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum, by Walter de Gray Birch, Vol. 3, pg. 651, Mr. Birch includes the description of a surviving seal of a certain Matildis de Well' [Maud de Welles], who he identified as being the widow of Sir John de Well[es], of Lincolnshire. This would be Maud, wife of Sir John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles. The seal was taken from a document dated 1373, during the period of Lady Welles' widowhood. According to Mr. Birch, the seal has a shield of arms on it. The dexter side (usually reversed for the husband's arms) is uncertain. The sinister side (usually reserved for the woman's arms) display the arms of Roos, namely three water-bougets, two and one. This seal is good evidence that that Maud de Welles was in fact a Roos.
(5th) It appears that King Henry V of England repeatedly referred to Sir Henry le Scrope, 3rd Lord Scrope of Masham, as his "kinsman" [consanguinei nostri] in 1414. See T. Rymer, Foedera, 9 (1729): 102, 104, 136, 138, 142, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5326982506;view=1up;seq=128
Assuming that Maud, wife of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, was in fact the daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley, then King Henry V of England and Henry le Scrope were related in the 4th and 4th degrees of kinship (that is 3rd cousins), by virtue of their common descent from Sir Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord Badlesmere (died 1322).
1. Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord Badlemere.
2. Elizabeth de Badlesmere, married William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton.
3. Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex.
4. Mary de Bohun, married King Henry IV of England.
5. King Henry V of England.
1. Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Knt., 1st Lord Badlemere.
2. Margery de Badlesmere, married William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley.
3. Maud de Roos, married John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles.
4. Margery Welles, married Stephen le Scrope, 2nd Lord Scrope of Masham.
5. Henry le Scrope, 3rd Lord Scrope of Masham.
(6th) Following the death of Sir John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, on 11 October 1361, in Feb. 1362 the king took the fealty of his widow, Maud, and ordered various escheators not the intermeddle with the manors of Theydon Garnon, Essex, Faxton, Northamptonshire, and Grainsby, Lincolnshire, she having previously held these lands jointly with her husband [see Cal. of Close Rolls, 1360–1364 (1909): 305–306]. We know that Lord Welles died testate, for in 1363 Maud, widow of John de Welle, Knt., William [de] Stayne, Robert Stynt, parson of the church of Cumberworth, Lincolnshire, and another, executors of the will of John de Welle, Knt., sued Robert, parson of Gunby, Lincolnshire, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Bratoft, Lincolnshire. See Court of Common Pleas, CP40/414, image 319d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no414/bCP40no414dorses/IMG_0319.htm).
Following John de Welles' death in 1361, custody of his lands and of his heir, young John de Welles, were first granted to Queen Philippe, wife of King Edward III, and she in turn granted the custody of the lands and heir to the young heir's mother, Maud, widow of John de Welles. This information is established by the proof of age taken in 1373 for young John de Welles, which yields the following statement:
"Writ to the escheator to take proof of the age of the said heir, warning Maud late the wife of John his father, guardian of the lands of his inheritance by commitment of queen Philippa, to be present and shew cause why the lands should not be restored to him. 27 March, 47 Edward III [1373]." Reference: Cal. IPM 13 (1954): 262–263, available at the following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol13/pp255-272
In 1366 Maud, widow of John de Welle, Knt., 4th Lord Welles, leased the manors of Ellington and Hayden, Northumberland to Roger de Widdrington, she making this grant as custodian of the body and lands of John son and heir of the said John de Welle by grant of Queen Philippe. Reference: Hodgson, History of Northumberland Pt. 2 Vol. 2 (1832): 212.
Thus it would appear that Maud, widow of Sir John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, was both his executrix and the guardian of their son and heir, young John de Welles. But was she a Roos?
It's the bane of medieval records to have two individuals of the same name alive at the same time, be they father and son, uncle and nephew, or cousins, with little to distinguish them in the records. At this junction another Maud, widow of John de Welle, Knt., makes her appearance in the records. In Michaelmas term 1367 Maud, widow of John de Welle, Knt., sued Roger de Mers, Maud daughter of William Roos of Helmsley, and William de Stayne, custodians of the lands and heir of John de Welle, Knt., in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the third part of the manors of Skendleby and Cumberworth, Lincolnshire, and Ellington and Hayden, Northumberland, which the said Maud claimed as dower of the dotation of said John her husband. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/429, image 817f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no429/aCP40no429fronts/IMG_0817.htm).
The properties involved in this lawsuit are known Welles family manors. The plaintiff in this lawsuit was evidently the widow of yet an earlier John de Welles, Knt., he being Sir John de Welles, the uncle of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles. Sir John de Welles the uncle was born in 1311 [see Cal. IPM 6 (1910): 157–158]. In 1334 he stood as godfather of his brother, Adam de Welle’s son and heir, John de Welle [the future 4th Lord Welles] [see Cal. IPM 10 (1921): 232–233]. In 1334-1335 he and his older brother, Adam de Welle [3rd Lord Welles], were summoned for military service against the Scots [Reference: Rpts. from the Lords Committees touching the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm 4 App. 1 Pt. 2 (1829): 435–440].
The defendants in the 1367 lawsuit were custodians of the land and heir of John de Welles, Knt., 4th Lord Welles, and they include "Maud daughter of William de Roos of Helmsley." As to the identity of Maud de Roos here named, she can only be the widow of 4th Lord Welles who we know for a fact had custody of the lands and heir in 1366 and 1373. Thus this lawsuit provides conclusive evidence once and for all that Maud, widow of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, was in fact Maud de Roos, daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley.
In summary, we have various pieces of evidence which prove that Maud, the wife of John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles, was the daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley. First, we have the grant of John Welles' own wardship to Lady Roos [his mother-in-law] which Complete Peerage first noted back in 1959. We have Maud de Welles' own seal displaying her Roos arms, a visitation, an ancient pedigree, and the Scrope royal kinship, all of which offer support that John de Welles' wife, Maud, was a daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley. Finally we see that Maud, widow of John de Welles, had custody of her own son in 1366 and 1373 by grant of the queen. In 1367, as one of custodians of young John de Welles, she was sued as "Maud daughter of William de Roos of Helmsley." This is yet another instance of a high born woman in the medieval period appearing in contemporary records after marriage under her maiden name.
For interest sake, below is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir John de Welles, 4th Lord Welles [died 1361], and his wife, Maud de Roos [died 1388]. The individual descents down to the immigrants may be found in my various books.
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Walter Aston, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William Bernard, Essex Beville, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph Bolles, Nathaniel Browne, Charles Calvert, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, James Cudworth, Margaret Fleming, William Goddard, Katherine Hamby, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane, & Nicholas Lowe, Thomas Lunsford, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne Mauleverer, Thomas Owsley, Herbert Pelham, George Reade, Thomas Rudyard, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Olive Welby, John West.
If you descend from Maud de Roos, Lady Welles (as I know many of you do), I'd greatly appreciate if you would take the time to post your line of descent from her down to about 1650 or to your Gateway immigrant ancestor.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
WLM
Feb 8, 2018, 9:37:40 PM2/8/18
to
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 12:30:41 AM UTC-6, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup `
>
> Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441 (sub Welles) includes a biography of John de Welle/Welles, 4th Lord Welles [died 1361]. The author states that Maud, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles, was "probably daughter of William (de Ros), 2nd Lord Ros (of Helmsley), by Margery, sister and coheiress of Giles (de Badlesmere), 2nd Lord Badlesmere, lst daughter of Bartholomew, lst Lord Badlesmere." The evidence the author cites for the parentage of Maud consists solely of the fact that the wardship of John de Welle(s) was previously granted 17 March 1344/5, to his presumed mother-in-law, Margery, widow of William de Ros [Reference: Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441, footnote d, citing Cal. Fine Rolls, vol. 5, pp. 412, 417]. At best, this is skimpy evidence to suggest that Lord Welles' wife was a Roos. As such, I've had to look elsewhere to find confirmation of Maud de Welles' parentage. The evidence I've located to date is presented below. It falls into several parts. And yes, as we will see, Maud de Welles was Lord Roos' daughter.
>
> Dear Newsgroup `
>
> Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441 (sub Welles) includes a biography of John de Welle/Welles, 4th Lord Welles [died 1361]. The author states that Maud, wife of John de Welle(s), 4th Lord Welles, was "probably daughter of William (de Ros), 2nd Lord Ros (of Helmsley), by Margery, sister and coheiress of Giles (de Badlesmere), 2nd Lord Badlesmere, lst daughter of Bartholomew, lst Lord Badlesmere." The evidence the author cites for the parentage of Maud consists solely of the fact that the wardship of John de Welle(s) was previously granted 17 March 1344/5, to his presumed mother-in-law, Margery, widow of William de Ros [Reference: Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441, footnote d, citing Cal. Fine Rolls, vol. 5, pp. 412, 417]. At best, this is skimpy evidence to suggest that Lord Welles' wife was a Roos. As such, I've had to look elsewhere to find confirmation of Maud de Welles' parentage. The evidence I've located to date is presented below. It falls into several parts. And yes, as we will see, Maud de Welles was Lord Roos' daughter.
>
> If you descend from Maud de Roos, Lady Welles (as I know many of you do), I'd greatly appreciate if you would take the time to post your line of descent from her down to about 1650 or to your Gateway immigrant ancestor.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas: Another excellent bit of research. Thank you for your ongoing work. As you requested, I have two lines from Maud. I hope these will stand up to your and the group's scrutiny:
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Maud de Ros +Sir John de Welles, 4th Lord de Welles
Margery de Welles +Sir Stephen le Scrope of Masham, 2nd Baron le Scrope
Maud le Scrope +Sir Baldwin Freville IV, Lord of Tamworth
Joyce Freville, Heiress of Ashtede and Newdigate +Sir Roger Aston, Sheriff of Staffordshire
Sir Robert Aston of Park Hall +Isabel Johanna (Joan) Brereton
Sir John Aston, Sheriff of Staffordshire and Warwickshire +Elizabeth Delves
Margaret Aston +John VI Kinnersley of Loxley
Thomas Kinnersley of Loxley +Margery Agard
Isabel Kinnersley +John Bradshaw of Wyndley and Champeyne, Forester of Feein Postern Park
Anne Bradshaw +John Fowke of Gunston Hall
Francis Fowke of Gunston Hall +Jane Raynsford
John Fowke of Gunston Hall +Dorothy Cupper
Roger Fowke Esq. of Gunstan Hall +Mary Bayley
Col. Gerard Fowke, Gentleman of the Bedchamber for King Charles I d. before 30 Oct 1669 at Charles County, Maryland Colony +Anne Thoroughgood d. after 1686 at Charles County, Maryland Colony
Maud de Ros +Sir John de Welles, 4th Lord de Welles
Sir John de Welles, 5th Lord Welles + Eleanor (Alianor) de Mowbray
Eudes (Eudo) de Welles + Maud de Greystoke
Sir Lionel (Leo) de Welles, 6th Lord Welles and K.G. +Joan (Cicily) Waterton, Heiress of Methley
Margaret de Welles +Sir Thomas Dymoke, King's Champion
Sir Robert Dymoke, Lord of Scrivelsby Manor and King's Champion +Anne (Jane) Sparrow
Sir Edward Dymoke, Lord of Scrivelsby Manor and King's Champion +Anne Tailboys of Kyme
Frances Dymoke +Sir Thomas Windebank
Mildred Windebank +Robert Reade, Esquire
Col. George Reade, Esquire; Acting Governor of Virginia d. before 20 Nov 1671 at Gloucester County, Virginia Colony+ Elizabeth Martiau d. before 24 Jan 1687 at York County, Virginia Colony
Thanks
WLM (bmcdon797atgmail.com)
gdco...@gmail.com
Feb 10, 2018, 12:06:49 AM2/10/18
to
If you accept the arguments of Kirk & Hollick in NEHGR 161 (Jan 2007):27-36, Thomas Bradbury is also descended from Lord Welles:
Sir John de Welles, Knt., 4th Lord Welles
Sir John Welles, Knt., 5th Lord Welles
Eudes Welles
Sir Lionel Welles, Knt., 6th Lord Welles
Margaret Welles
Jane Dymoke
Katherine Fulnetby
Anne Dynewell
William Whitgift
Elizabeth Whitgift
Captain Thomas Bradbury
Thanks,
Greg Cooke
supe...@gmail.com
Feb 11, 2018, 6:18:54 PM2/11/18
to
Hi,
Then does this apply to:
John de la Mare d 1383 = Margaret Norton
Philip de la Mare d 1396 = Matilda Hussey
Eleanor de la Mare d 1413= William Paulet d 1435
John I Paulet = Constance Poynings
John II Paulet = Elizabeth or Eleanor Roos
John III Paulet = Alice Paulet his cousin
William Paulet = Elizabeth Capel
John Paulet = Elizabeth Seymour sister of Jane Seymour who marries K. Hy VIII
Lucas Poynings = Isabel St. John
Thomas Poynings = Philippa Mortimer d/o Edmund Mortimer
Hugh Poynings = Eleanor Welles
Constance Poynings = John I Paulet
John Welles = Maud de Ros
John Welles = Eleanor Moubray
Eleanor Welles = Hugh Poynings
Constance Poynings = John I Paulet
This would fit into the arms found in the Nunney Church for Delamare.
Pam
Then does this apply to:
John de la Mare d 1383 = Margaret Norton
Philip de la Mare d 1396 = Matilda Hussey
Eleanor de la Mare d 1413= William Paulet d 1435
John I Paulet = Constance Poynings
John II Paulet = Elizabeth or Eleanor Roos
John III Paulet = Alice Paulet his cousin
William Paulet = Elizabeth Capel
John Paulet = Elizabeth Seymour sister of Jane Seymour who marries K. Hy VIII
Lucas Poynings = Isabel St. John
Thomas Poynings = Philippa Mortimer d/o Edmund Mortimer
Hugh Poynings = Eleanor Welles
Constance Poynings = John I Paulet
John Welles = Maud de Ros
John Welles = Eleanor Moubray
Eleanor Welles = Hugh Poynings
Constance Poynings = John I Paulet
This would fit into the arms found in the Nunney Church for Delamare.
Pam
0 new messages