Re: Michael Wentworth of Little Harbor, New Hampshire
John Higgins
criteria for inclusion: immigrants who "were themselves notable or left
descendants notable in American history" (from the title page of RD600). He
certainly doesn't qualify on the 2nd point, since his issue died out with
his daughter.
A related , and more interesting, addition to GBR's work would be Michael's
wife's first husband Benning Wentworth, a colonial governor of New
Hampshire. He apparently can be traced back to "Elder" William Wentworth
who does appear in GBR's work. [I wonder what the status is of Paul Reed's
projected writings on the Wentworth, which GBR indicates as
forthcoming....or did I miss its publication?]
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:51 AM
Subject: Michael Wentworth of Little Harbor, New Hampshire
> Wouldn't this be somebody new for Gary's book?
>
>
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=1P2sAMt0JL0C&dq=langford+sal
ford&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Dlangford%2Bsalford&lpg=PA215&p
g=PA259
>
> http://www.oldandsold.com/articles15/shrines-89.shtml
>
Nathaniel Taylor
jthi...@sbcglobal.net ("John Higgins") wrote:
> I guess it would depend on whether Col. Michael Wentworth meets GBR's
> criteria for inclusion: immigrants who "were themselves notable or left
> descendants notable in American history" (from the title page of RD600). He
> certainly doesn't qualify on the 2nd point, since his issue died out with
> his daughter.
>
> A related , and more interesting, addition to GBR's work would be Michael's
> wife's first husband Benning Wentworth, a colonial governor of New
> Hampshire. He apparently can be traced back to "Elder" William Wentworth
> who does appear in GBR's work. [I wonder what the status is of Paul Reed's
> projected writings on the Wentworth, which GBR indicates as
> forthcoming....or did I miss its publication?]
The particular royal line for Wentworth that appears in RD600 is wrong;
it contains a chronological impossibility and is based on the alleged
Fitzwilliam - Sothill marriage, which crops up as a perennial problem
here (Joan Fitzwilliam, if she is a Fitzwilliam, cannot be daughter of
the parents given to her there). Gary and I went over some other, more
valid royal lines for Wentworth, one of which will probably appear in
Gary's corrigenda to be included with the next printing of RD600. Based
on work Paul began in the 1990s Wentworth has a couple of those
ubiquitous Yorkshire descents from William the Lion and at least one
from Henry II. Paul's work has not been published, though.
The irony is that Wentworth had a different, and also bogus, line in
RD500.
In addition to Benning Wentworth I think William Wentworth has many
'notable' descendants of the type Gary likes to trace.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/immigrantsa.htm
ADRIANC...@aol.com
>>>>
The particular royal line for Wentworth that appears in RD600 is wrong;
it contains a chronological impossibility and is based on the alleged
Fitzwilliam - Sothill marriage, which crops up as a perennial problem
here (Joan Fitzwilliam, if she is a Fitzwilliam, cannot be daughter of
the parents given to her there). Gary and I went over some other, more
valid royal lines for Wentworth, one of which will probably appear in
Gary's corrigenda to be included with the next printing of RD600. Based
on work Paul began in the 1990s Wentworth has a couple of those
ubiquitous Yorkshire descents from William the Lion and at least one
from Henry II. Paul's work has not been published, though.
The irony is that Wentworth had a different, and also bogus, line in
RD500.
In addition to Benning Wentworth I think William Wentworth has many
'notable' descendants of the type Gary likes to trace.
Nat Taylor
<<<<
Re the Fitzwilliam line, yesterday I came across a Walter Fitwilliam of
Adthlingfleth in a deed dated about 1180. I've not seen a Walter Fitwilliam this
far back in the Yorkshire Fitwilliam pedigrees, nor can I see him mentioned
in Keats-Rohan's DD. Has anybody come accross him?
Adrian
Reference: WWM/D/1; Lease; Creation dates: c.1180
Scope and Content
Clement, Abbot of the Church of St Mary, York., to Walter Fitzwilliam of
Adthlingfleth.
Land in Haldanaby, and the manor of Usafleth, with all appurtenances, viz.
lands, moors and meadows, with clearings and the new furlong, from Wdefleth to
the more, already leased, to the dike called Crosdic, and the fish pond of
Eriscar, and the middle of that land between Horscroft, and the dike which
divides Usafleth and Buthorp. Reciting an agreement between the Church of St
Mary, and the Church of Selby, concerning tithes, but with the exception of
Buthorp tithes.
At a rent of 14 marks of silver, and 7s. 4d., plus Buthorp tithes, which are
already held by Walter Fitzwilliam, at an additional one mark per year.
Witnesses: Joscelin the chaplain, Walter the clerk of Hornes ha, Roger the
clerk of Forcona, Hendone of Athlingfleth, Rauf of these lands, Robert of
these lands, Gervalius the constable, Richard of [Hupp ...], Stephen of [M ...],
Alan of Elmswell, Gaufridus of Ketelby.
n.d. but c.1180, at the time of Abbot Clement.
PRO; A2A; Sheffield Archives_ Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments [WWM_C - WWM_E].
John P. Ravilious
I have nothing re: the descent of this Walter fitz William, but he
evidently held land in Adlingfleet of the lords of the manor
(D'eville): below is a grant by Robert D'eiville (or Daivill, or de
Davidvilla at the time) [1]witnessed by " William, clerk of
Ethelinghefled, Walter his son " and others.
Grant, undated [date est. c.1150]:
' By Robert de Davidvilla [D'Eyville] to William son of Scledware,
of one bovate at Ethelinghefled [Adlingfleet] at an annual rent of 11b
pepper
Witnesses, William de Davidvilla, Roger his brother, Geoffrey de
Davidvilla, William, clerk of Ethelinghefled, Walter his son and Yvo
son of the same, Anschetil de Huc, Savaric his brother, Alexander de
Cressi, Geoffrey his brother, Holdewin de Redness, Harvey his son '
[Undated] - A2A, Sheffield Archives: Copley Papers: Deeds re
Adlingfleet (Humberside), SY570/Z/1/1
Hope this is helpful (despite lack of a Sprotborough
connection......).
Cheers,
John
NOTES:
[1] This is the Robert de Daiville, of Egmanton, Notts. and
Adlingfleet, co. Yorks., who d. bef 2 Apr 1201, and was the husband of
(1) NN de Stuteville, and (2) Juliana de Montfort. He was the
constable of Roger de Mowbray -' Robertus de Daiville' - who held 4
knights' fees de vetere, and 1 fee de novo from Roger de Mowbray at
Freeby, Kirkby Bellars and Welby, co. Leics., Egmanton, Tuxford, and
Weston, co. Notts., Baxby, Butterwick, Kilburn, Nawton, Thornton
Bridge, Thornton on the Hill and Adlingfleet, co. Yorks. in 1166 [DD
429, cites Red Book of the Exchequer, 343, 418-21].
ADRIANC...@aol.com wrote:
> Nat Taylor wrote
>
<<<<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Claud...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/22/2005 5:18:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ADRIANC...@aol.com writes:
The particular royal line for Wentworth that appears in RD600 is wrong;
it contains a chronological impossibility and is based on the alleged
Fitzwilliam - Sothill marriage, which crops up as a perennial problem
here (Joan Fitzwilliam, if she is a Fitzwilliam, cannot be daughter of
the parents given to her there). Gary and I went over some other, more
valid royal lines for Wentworth, one of which will probably appear in
Gary's corrigenda to be included with the next printing of RD600. Based
on work Paul began in the 1990s Wentworth has a couple of those
ubiquitous Yorkshire descents from William the Lion and at least one
from Henry II. Paul's work has not been published, though.
The line of Sothill is confusing. It appears that Henry de Sothill [c.
1345-1376] who married Dionysia NN was the father of three children by her:
1.Henry de Sothill [c. 1365-1421] who married Joan FitzWilliam [this is
based on the documentation concerning the manor of Rawtonstall, Yorkshire]. After
Henry's death in 1421 Joan married William Burton as her second husband.
Joan appears to be the daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam by Maud de Cromwell
so GBR is one generation off in his lineage. Joan was born ca. 1380 - 1385
which works as John FitzWilliam the eldest son and heir was born July 25, 1377.
2. Robert de Sothill proven to be Henry's brother by a charter dated 11
Henry IV [1409-1410] naming him as such.
3. Beatrice de Sothill. This is where the chronology would place her and the
onomastic evidence seems likely as she would be the granddaughter of
Beatrice de Neville of Redbourne Manor, co. Lincoln. There is also the fact that
this placement would make Beatrice de Sothill the wife to her step-brother as
Dionysia married Sir Thomas Markenfield as her second husband [and his second
wife]. This did occur in this period when women remarried later in life.
I have seen no hard evidence that proves this theory about Beatrice's
placement but it can be conjectured from the documentation available on her
brothers and parents.
I welcome any pertinent documentation on this.
Sincerely,
MichaelAnne
John P. Ravilious
Dear MichaelAnne, Nat, Adrian, et al.,
On the matter of the Nevill - Soothill connection, I had
placed this on a back burner some time ago, but recall that I was
concerned whether a sound blood relationship existed, from the
existence of the following record from 1371:
Item details for C 143/375/5
John de Bekyngham and Beatrice his wife to grant two-thirds
of the manor of Redbourne, with the reversion of the other third,
now held for life by Constance late the wife of Peter de Nevill,
to Gerard de Sotehill, Robert his brother, and the heirs of the
said Gerard, retaining land and rent in Flixborough.
45 EDWARD III
My original thinking was, if Gerard Soothill was the elder son
of Beatrice by her former marriage (or eldest son of a daughter of
Beatrice) - and Henry by a former marriage of his father - why grant
what was already to be inherited? In thinking on this again,
thanks to prompting by your post, it now seems more obvious (if
unproven) that:
A. Henry, the eldest son, was the heir of the Soothill
lands and more than well provided for;
B. The grant to Gerard (with remainder to younger brother
Robert) was a provision of the mother's lands
to a younger (usually 2nd, non-clerical) son. The
grant of the lands in Beatrice's lifetime would ensure
that Gerard received the lands.
I would suggest then that the relevant pedigree reflecting the
individuals in the Neville of Redbourne family, esp. re: the
descent of Redbourne, Lincs. would be shown (although not
comprehensively) as follows:
Roger de Neville of Redbourne
d. 1357
______________________I____________________________
I I I
Peter de Beatrice de Philippa
Neville Neville de Neville
d. 1366 1) Henry = = 2) John de = Thomas
=Constance de Soothill I Bekyngham Neville
I I I
I ____________I______________ I______
Roger de I I I I
Neville Sir Henry Sir Gerard Robert John
dsp 1370 Soothill Soothill Soothill de Neville
age ca 7 d bef 1376 d. 1410 d. 1428
= Denise = Muriel Salvain
I I________________
_____________I______ ____________I_______
I I I I III
Henry Robert Beatrice Sir Gerard <siblings>
= Sir Thomas of Redbourn
Markenfield and Brearley
d. ca. 1464
I
V
As you noted, MichaelAnne, this would also have onomastic
support with the name Beatrice continuing in the elder line of the
Soothill family.
Cheers, and Happy Holidays to all.
John
NOTES
[1] See SGM threads, <Reginald de Soothill and his descendants
Friday>, <The Soothills and the manor of Redbourne, Lincs.>,
<Soothill of Soothill, co. Yorks., Redbourn, co. Lincs. &
C - Pt I>, and a host of others.
WJho...@aol.com
Claud...@aol.com writes:
<< The line of Sothill is confusing. It appears that Henry de Sothill [c.
1345-1376] who married Dionysia NN was the father of three children by her:
>>
Is the name Dionysia (Dionisia) unusual?
Just yesterday I ran across it for the first time as I was adding details of
the ancestry of John, 4th Lord Dinham of Hartland (d 25 Dec 1428)
His great-great-grandmother was Dionisia de Champernoun wife to William de
Botreaux of Boscastle
and this couple were parents to William de Botreaux.
Could this Dionisia be ancestral to your Dionisia ?
Will Johnson
Louise Staley
I though Dionisia is a form of Denise. In my medieval database of about
7,000 people the name Dionisia/Denise occurs 7 times and is seen in the
Anesty, Champernoun, Dotyn, English, Fitzwilliam, l'Envise and Sampson
families as well as the wife of Osbert le Soor. In my (small sample)
this name occurs with the same frequency as Clarice and Aline but more
often than Agatha, Aveline and Avice (just a sample form the A's).
Louise
Leo van de Pas
> The particular royal line for Wentworth that appears in RD600 is wrong;
> it contains a chronological impossibility and is based on the alleged
> Fitzwilliam - Sothill marriage, which crops up as a perennial problem
> here (Joan Fitzwilliam, if she is a Fitzwilliam, cannot be daughter of
> the parents given to her there). Gary and I went over some other, more
> valid royal lines for Wentworth, one of which will probably appear in
> Gary's corrigenda to be included with the next printing of RD600. Based
> on work Paul began in the 1990s Wentworth has a couple of those
> ubiquitous Yorkshire descents from William the Lion and at least one
> from Henry II. Paul's work has not been published, though.
>
I feel thoroughly confused, perhaps I am looking on the wrong page?
Page 399
8.Maud de Cromwell = Sir William FitzWilliam
9.Joan FitzWilliam = Sir Henry Sotehill
Nat tells that this link is wrong, but MichaelAnne Guido in a later message
tells that "Joan appears to be the daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam by
Maud de Cromwell so GBR is one generation off in his lineage" Did
MichaelAnne look at a different page of GBR's book?. Why is GBR off by one
generation?
The subject of this line is William Wentworth who married (1) NN (2)
Elizabedth Knight.
do I correctly read Nathaniel's remark that this William descends from
William the Lion and Henry II (of England)? My knowledge about the ancestors
of this William is pretty poor, and at the moment I have no link to William
the Lion or Henry II. I do have a link to Henry I of England (through Robert
de Caen) , Henri I of France, Olof III of Sweden, Brian Boru of Ireland,
Jaroslav I of Kiev, Emperor Heinrich the Fowler, Lady Godiva, Charlemagne,
Alfred the Great and many others.
Then I spotted another difference of opinion.
GBR page 399
14 Thomas Wentworth = Jane Mirfield
15 Oliver Wentworth = Jane
16 William Wentworth = Anne
17 Christopher Wentworth = Catherine Marbury
18 William Wentworth = Susanna Carter
19. William the immigrant who married (1) NN (2) Elizabeth Knight
From other sources I have the follow
11 Joan FitzWilliam = Sir Henry Sothll = they are generation 9 in GBR's list
12 Sir Gerard Sothill = Muriel Salvin
13Sir Gerard Sothill = NN Percehay
14 Richard Sothill = agnes
15 Isabel Sothill (not Jane) = Oliver Wentworth (no parents for him)
16 William Wentworth died 1574 = Ellen Gilby (not Anne)
17 Christopher Wentworth 1556-1633 = Catherine Marbury
18 William Wentworth bapt 1584 = Sisannah Carter
19 William the immigrant 1615-1696 married (1) Elizabeth Kenney (2)
Elizabeth Knight
9.(or 11) Joan FitzWilliam is an interesting link, and I hope her correct
parentage can be established as Gerald Paget shows her to be an ancestor of
Prince Charles, but he mentions her father only as William FitzWilliam of
Spotborough.
In my system I have Joan FitzWilliam also as ancestor of Nathaniel Taylor,
John Ravilious, Brom Nichol Jr. Lady Diana Spencer, Sarah Ferguson, Camilla
Cornwall, and several Gateway Ancestors William Farrar, Afra Harleston, John
Harleston, Elizabeth Harleston, Robert Peyton, Christopher Lawson and
Richard Saltonstall.
Can anyone clear up these discrepancies?
With many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Jwc...@aol.com
I have been reviewing the Sothill information and note
that Gerard de Sothill of Redbourne married _________ Salvain (apparently Muriel)
and was lineal ancestor by her to the Sothills of Drax and Everingham. In
your original post you gave Gerard as son of Henry Soothill and Joan. was Joan
actually Beatrice de Neville ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Nathaniel Taylor
<...>
> 9.(or 11) Joan FitzWilliam is an interesting link, and I hope her correct
> parentage can be established as Gerald Paget shows her to be an ancestor of
> Prince Charles, but he mentions her father only as William FitzWilliam of
> Spotborough.
Leo,
John made a couple of lengthy and very helpful Sothill posts back in
2002, which help navigate the confused Sothill pedigree--which still
needs a definitive rehash. But especially John's message of 9 Nov 2002
shows while there was a Joan, daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam who
married a Henry Sothill--at the end of the 14th or turn of the 15th
century--, there was an earlier Henry, with wife Joan (perhaps three
generations prior) who are conflated with them in some of the
traditional pedigrees. Paget's line may rightly connect to the later,
true Fitzwilliam marriage, but I am not sure. William Wentworth, about
whom I was writing above, descends from the earlier but not later Henry
& Joan, so has no Fitzwilliam-Cromwell descent as far as I know.
Nathaniel Taylor
leov...@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:
<...>
> 9.(or 11) Joan FitzWilliam is an interesting link, and I hope her correct
> parentage can be established as Gerald Paget shows her to be an ancestor of
> Prince Charles, but he mentions her father only as William FitzWilliam of
> Spotborough.
Leo,
John made a couple of lengthy and very helpful Sothill posts back in
2002, which help navigate the confused Sothill pedigree--which still
needs a definitive rehash. But especially John's message of 9 Nov 2002
shows while there was a Joan, daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam who
married a Henry Sothill--at the end of the 14th or turn of the 15th
century--, there was an earlier Henry, with wife Joan (perhaps three
generations prior) who are conflated with them in some of the
traditional pedigrees. Paget's line may rightly connect to the later,
true Fitzwilliam marriage, but I am not sure. William Wentworth, about
whom I was writing above, descends from the earlier but not later Henry
& Joan, so has no Fitzwilliam-Cromwell descent as far as I know.
Claud...@aol.com
Here is the lineage of Sothill that was developed over the past two years by
John Ravilious and myself. This is slightly different than what is in the
archives. Please note that William de Sothill married Joan in generation 4 not
his brother Henry. This is shown by:
DD/SR/26/37
3 Edw II [1309-10]
Grant by Henry son of Sir John de Sothill', brother and heir of William de
Sothill', to Joan, widow of William, of the manor of Sothill' etc, with all
William's lands etc in Morlay, Batelay, Heckmundwick', Erdeslawe and
Chiddeshill' (Soothill, Yk Morley, Yk Batley, Yk Heckmondwike, Yk Ardsley, Yk Chidsall,
Yk) as dower Henry to have two thirds and Joan one third of the profits from
thinning the woods: [other conditions are stated]
DD/SR/26/38
3 Edw II [1309-10]
Quitclaim by Richard son of John de Heckmundwyk' (Heckmondwike, Yk) in
favour of Joan widow of William son of John de Sotthyll' of all ameans of rent and
service on the tenement in Heckmundwyk' which her late husband held of
Richards father.
The following AT explains the descent the documentation shows for this
family. I am sorry that I confused you by stating that GBR was one generation off.
What I meant by this statement was that Beatrice Sothill was the sister of
Henry Sothill that married Joan Fitzwilliam not their daughter.
1.Reginald de Sothill
2. John de Sothill
3.Sir John de Sothill [-bef. 1311]
4. Henry de Sothill
5. Henry de Sothill [-bef. 1371]
+ Beatrice de Neville
6. Henry Sothill [ca. 1345-1376]
+ Dionysia [ her second husband was Thomas
Markenfield]
7. Beatrice Sothill
+ Thomas Markenfield [-aft. 1415]
8. Elizabeth Markenfield
+ Walter Calverley, Esq.
[1402-March 5, 1466/7]
9. Joan Calverley [aft. 1457]
+ John Wentworth [aft.
1459]
10. Thomas Wentworth
[1447-1524]
+ Jane Mirfield
[-bef. April 1, 1522]
7. Henry Sothill [ca. 1365 -bef. April 20,
1421]
+ Joan Fitzwilliam [daughter of William
Fitzwilliam and Maud
Cromwell] [ca. 1380-1385 -aft. April
20, 1421]
8. John Sothill
8. Henry Sothill
7. Robert Sothill
6. Sir Gerard Sothill [1352-1410]
+ Maud Salvain
7. Sir Gerard Sothill
8. Richard Sothill
7. John Sothill [ -1445]
+ Joan Poucher [ -1451]
8. John Sothill [- ca. Nov. 28, 1494]
+ Agnes Ingelby [ -bef. 1482]
9. George Sothill [1464-1502]
9. Barbara Sothill
+ Sir Marmaduke Constable [
1478-Sept. 7, 1545]
9.Mary Sothill
+ sir John Normanville
7. Thomas Sothill
7. Joan Sothill
5. Isabel Sothill
+ William de Bosville
5. John Sothill
+ Helen de Moseley
4. William de Sothill
+ Joan
2. William de Sothill
Best regards,
MichaelAnne
Nathaniel Taylor
Michael Anne, Thanks for this outline. Joan Fitzwilliam has been, at
least in some pedigrees, placed as wife of one of the earlier
Henrys--that's part of the origin of the confusion.
Jwc...@aol.com
Is Maud Salvain the same person as Muriel
Salvain d 1441, wife of Sir Gerard Sothill of Redbourne who according to John
Ravilious` post of August 4, 2001 "MC line: de Ros , Salvain , Soothill, Lacy,
Farrar " was the daughter of Sir Gerard Salvain of North Duffield, York by his
wife Alice, granddaughter of John Salvain, Great Granddaughter of Sir Gerard
Salvain, Kt. by Agnes Mauleverer, daughter of Robert Mauleverer, 2nd Great
Granddaughter of John Salvain by Margaret de Ros, who was daughter of Robert de
Ros, 1st Baron Ros of Wark by his wife Lora, 3rd Gr gd of Robert de Ros of
Wark by Margaret, daughter of Piers de Brus of Skelton, 4th Gr gd of Robert de
Ros of Wark by Christian Bertram, and 6th Gr gd of Magna Carta Surety Robert
de Ros by Isabel, illegitimate daughter of William I, the Lion, King of Scots.
Has this line since been disproven ?
Sincerely.
Douglas Richardson
It appears you have fallen into one of Complete Peerage's unfortunate
errors. Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 120 (sub Roos) states that Sir
Robert de Roos (died 1269/70), of Wark, Northumberland, married
"(?2ndly), Christine Bertram, dughter of _____ Bertram, and sister and
in her issue coheiress of Roger Bertram." This is wrong. Christine
Bertram's 1st husband was actually Sir Robert de Roos' elder son,
William de Roos, of Mindrum, Northumberland, who died before 1269.
Christine Bertram's second husband was Robert de Penbury, living 1291.
The evidence of Christine Bertram's first marriage comes from a forest
plea
dated the Octaves of St. Hilary 1241, which shows that Sir Robert de
Roos and Sir Roger Bertram had arranged a double marriage between their
children. The plea reads as follows:
"To his worshipful lord Henry, by the grace of God king of England,
lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou,
[his servant] Thomas of Straton, health and due reverence with
obedience. At another time we made known by letter to you .... that
Sir Robert de Ros had taken in your hand the pleas of herbage, hambling
of dogs and dead wood which belonge to the foresters, where you have no
demesne wood ....
"Also Sir Roger Bertram's men did chase in Chivele in the king's forest
and take a hind and a fawn buck, after the eyre of the justics of the
forest ... They are still to be attached, and, if they were not
attached, they and three hounds of Sir Roger Bertram were taken by the
foresters and by several men of those parts ... Nor, by reason of such
conspiracy and such releases have the foresters been able to do their
office and the king's advantage; and this because the marriages were
pre-arranged, and have no been made, between the son and heir of Sir
Roger [Bertram] and a daughter of Sir Robert [de Ros] on the one part,
and on the other between the son and heir of Sir Robert [de Ros] and a
daughter of Sir Roger [Bertram]." [Reference: Northumberland Pleas from
the Curia Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle
upon Tyne Records Committee 2) (1922:) 122-125].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Leo van de Pas
Thank you very much for a very much appreciated message. BUT as happens so many times, you close one door and three others open :-)
I have notes on several other Sothills and they just have to be part of this family. Can you see how?
Thomas Sothill
father of
Elizabeth Sothill, she married Percival Amyas of Netherton
parents of
Margaret Amyas married John Drax
Henry Sothill
father of
Alice Sothill, she married Sir John Harington of Exton
parents of
John Harington who died in 1553
John Sothill, of Sothill, he married Alice Neville
parents of
1.Alice Sothill, she married John Beaumont
2.Thomas Sothill, of Sothill, he married (I) Margery FitzWilliam (2) Elizabeth Saville
he is father of
by 1st wife Elizabeth who married (1) 1517 Sir Henry Savile (2) Richard Gascoigne
by 2nd wife Michael Sothill, he married NN Sandys
I hope you can help with these.
With many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Claud...@aol.com
The entire early Ros line is chaotic. Can you please explain where these
two IPMs fit into the line? From the IPM's it certainly appears that Christine
was the wife of Robert de Ros son of Robert de Ros by his wife Margaret de
Brus.
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. II, Edward I, Kraus Reprint, 1973:
Pages 49-50:
70. Robert de Ros of Werk.
Writ, 20 April, 2 Edward I.
Westmoreland. Extent, Monday after the quinzaine of the Holy Trinity, 2
Edward I.
Kyrkeby in Kendale. The castle, manor and town (extent given), including
moieties of the mills of Rospeton, Appeltweht, Kirkeby, Patton, and Dylaker, the
fishery of the force (de Fors), lands &c. in Helsinton, the farms of
Grenering and Hagayl, a meadow called Rispetunhenge, the farms of Beauconquayte,
Staveleye and Stirkele town, the meadow of Leythilde, the farms of Schalqratrig
and Hotun, the farm of tenants in the forest with Schoureschale and
Oxinholme, a slate quarry, part of the forest of Ridale with Satsondalf, Becmelbrid,
and Curkerdale, the farms of Gresmere with a moiety of the mill, and Langeden
with a moiety of the mill and herbage of the forest, Crostweyk with the farm,
herbage, and mill, a moiety of Yverholm (?), the farm of Chefdor, Roger's
Island in Wynendamere, small fisheries above Kirkeby, rent from free tenants of
Westmoreland, &c. The tenants in Kenetemere of John de Bella Aqua, who
married Laderina one of the sisters and heirs of Peter de Brus, no longer do suit
at the fulling mill of Kirkeby, and William de Wynd [eshoure] has raised a
mill a tGrarig to the damage of the mill of Patton.
This manor fell to the pourparty of Margaret de Ros (his wife), younger
daughter (sic) and one of the heirs of Peter de Brus, who held it of the king on
chief.
Writ of certiorari, on the complaint of Sapientia, late the wife of William
de Karliolo the younger, that the escheator had taken into the king's hand
certain lands &c, in Cargou, which the said Robert held for life by her demise,
25 June, 2 Edward I.
[Cumberland] Inq. Wednesday before St. Michael, 2 Edward I.
Cargou. The manor (extent given) was not held of the king in chief, nor by
the demise of Sapientia for life, but the said Robert died vested and seised
thereof in demesne as of fee, and held it of the said Sapientia, rendering her
yearly a falcon or 1 mark of silver, and doing for her the foreign service
pertaining to the king, viz.----32d. cornage at the king's exchequer at
Carlisle.
(See Nos. 133 and 145 and Henry III. No. 800)
C. Edw. I, File 5. (10.)
Page 93:
145. Robert de Ros son of Robert de Ros of Werk.
Writ. Whereas the king understanding that the said Robert held the manor of
Cargou of Sapientia late the wife of William de Karliolo the younger, lately
commanded the wardship of the same be delivered to her, saving to Christiana
late the wife of the said Robert her dower, and so that she should answer to
the king for the issues of the wardship belonging to the king, and that
meanwhile the escheator should enquire whether the said Robert held anything of
the king in chief; and whereas the said Sapientia died, bequeathing the said
wardship to Geoffrey de Tyllol, and the escheator took the same into the king's
hand, but has not yet made inquisition; the escheator is commanded to
enquire whether the said Robert held anything by which the wardship of his lands
ought to pertain to the king. 2 May, 3 Edward I.
Cumberland. Inq. The morrow of Holy Trinity, 3 Edward I.
Cargou. The manor was held by the said Robert of the said Sapientia, and his
reeve paid 32d. yearly cornage at the king's exchequer at Carlisle for her,
but he held nothing of the king in chief, and did no other service to the
king.
(See No.
70)
C. Edw. I. File 11. (5.)
Sincerely,
MichaelAnne
Claud...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/24/2005 4:15:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
nathani...@earthlink.net writes:
Michael Anne, Thanks for this outline. Joan Fitzwilliam has been, at
least in some pedigrees, placed as wife of one of the earlier
Henrys--that's part of the origin of the confusion.
Nat Taylor
Dear Nat,
You are very welcome. The Sothill line is still far from complete as is
evidenced by Leo's posting. Thank you for all your input on this line.
Sincerely,
MichaelAnne
Claud...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/25/2005 4:33:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
leov...@netspeed.com.au writes:
John Sothill, of Sothill, he married Alice Neville
parents of
1. Alice Sothill, she married John Beaumont
2. Thomas Sothill, of Sothill, he married (I) Margery FitzWilliam (2)
Elizabeth Saville
he is father of
by 1st wife Elizabeth who married (1) 1517 Sir Henry Savile (2) Richard
Gascoigne
by 2nd wife Michael Sothill, he married NN Sandys
Dear Leo,
I can only speculate on this lineage out of all three you asked about. This
one based on the property descent seems to be:
Henry Sothill
+ Joan FitzWilliam
John Sothill
+ Alice Mauleverer
John Sothill [-bef. June 16, 1485]
+ NN
John Sothill [-Sept. 28, 1498]
+ Alice Neville
Thomas Sothill
The line from John Sothill who married NN can be documented. The problem
with this line is proving that John Sothill who married Alice Mauleverer is the
same as John Sothill the eldest son and heir of Henry Sothill of Sothill who
was named in his will in 1421. John Sothill was still a minor in 1421 and was
given livery of his lands before 1430. The sole proof of this link is the
fact that John Sothill [died bef. June 16, 1485] was quitclaimed the manor of
Sothill, co. York by William Mirfield in 34 Henry VI [1455-6] who was the
executor of Henry Sothill's will of 1421.
I have no proof of how the other two branches fit into the Sothill family. I
hope this helps a little.
Sincerely,
MichaelAnne
Douglas Richardson
There is nothing chaotic about the early Roos family of Wark,
Northumberland at all. This family is well covered by Hedley,
Northumberland Families (1968), pp. 224-229, which work you evidently
have not seen. Hedley provides adequate evidence to prove that William
de Roos, of Mindrum, Northumberland (died before 1269) [elder son and
heir apparent of Sir Robert de Roos of Wark, Northumberland (died
1267/69)] married in or before 1241 Christine Bertram. They had two
sons, Robert and William (both of whom died without issue), and
evidently two daughters, _____ (wife of John Archer) and Joan (wife of
Walter Wetwange). Christine Bertram survived William de Roos and
married (2nd) Robert de Penbury (living 1291), by which marriage she
had a son, Ely de Penbury. Christine was living in 1294.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 121, footnote b (sub Ros), indicates that
the first IPM you quoted in your post is for this William de Roos'
younger brother, Robert de Roos the younger, of Wark, Northumberland,
who died shortly before 20 April 1274. Robert de Roos the younger
married Margaret de Brus, sister and co-heiress of Peter de Brus, of
Skelton, Yorkshire. This IPM clearly states that Robert de Roos the
younger (died 1274) was seised of the manor of Cargou, Cumberland at
the time of his death.
I assume that the second IPM you have quoted is also for Robert de Roos
the younger, as it concerns the same property, Cargou, Cumberland,
which was covered by the first IPM. The second IPM states that dower in
Cargou, Cumberland was saved for "Christiana late the wife of the said
Robert [de Ros]." Since the "said Robert" de Ros was the clearly the
same individual who had died the previous year survived by a wife named
Margaret, it appears that the 2nd IPM incorrectly referred to Robert's
widow as Christiana. The widow of Robert de Roos the younger was
clearly Margaret de Brus, who survived him many years and died in 1307.
Incidentally, you have brought my attention to another unfortunate
error in Complete Peerage. C.P. 11 (1949): 121 (sub Ros) states that
Robert de Roos, of Wark (died 1274) was the "son and heir" of Robert de
Roos, of Wark (died 1267/9). However, the evidence presented on the
preceding pg. 120, footnote i, clearly indicates that Robert de Roos
(died 1274) was actually the younger son of Robert de Roos (died
1267/9). Among various pieces of evidence discussed, it quotes a plea
of Quo Warranto which shows that Robert de Roos [III] was forced to
surrender his claim to free warren, market, and fair at Wark to the
king in 1292-3, because his father [Robert de Roos the younger, died
1274] was "the younger son" of Robert de Roos the elder [died 1267/9],
who had originally been granted Wark by the king.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Chris Phillips
> There is nothing chaotic about the early Roos family of Wark,
> Northumberland at all. This family is well covered by Hedley,
> Northumberland Families (1968), pp. 224-229, which work you evidently
> have not seen.
The problem is that there is that one piece of evidence cited by
MichaelAnne - the IPM mentioning a Christiana as widow of "Robert de Ros,
son of Robert de Ros of Werk" - which cannot be reconciled with Hedley's
solution. There is also an associated entry on the fine roll (Cal. Fine
Rolls i 32; cited by Complete Peerage) that says the same thing.
This is why several different reconstructions of the family have been
published - one in Complete Peerage, which makes Christine Bertram the wife
of Robert, the father of Robert the husband of Margaret, and another in
History of Northumberland, which makes her the wife of Robert, the son of
Robert and Margaret. Then there is Hedley, who makes her the wife of
William, the brother of Robert the husband of Margaret.
The unfortunate thing is that Hedley doesn't comment on the problematic
inquisition at all, so it's not clear whether he was even aware of the
difficulty.
I think on the whole Hedley's solution does make most sense, and the
references to a Christiana widow of Robert probably have to be set aside as
an error. But it would be nice to have some definite proof that the Robert
of this IPM was the husband of Margaret. The manor of Cargo later passed to
Ros of Kendal, descendants of William, the younger son of Robert and
Margaret, but it doesn't seem to be known how or when it first came to the
family.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
makes it absolutely certain that Christine Bertram married William de
Roos (died before 1269), rather than his father, Robert de Roos the
elder (died 1267/9). I've already cited the forest plea of 1241 which
shows it was the SON AND HEIR of Robert de Roos the elder who married
the Bertram girl, not Robert himself. I've also cited the Quo Warranto
plea of 1292-3 which shows that Robert de Roos' surviving son, Robert
the younger, was actually his younger son, NOT his eldest son as
alleged by Complete Peerage. Taking these two records together, it is
clear that NEITHER Robert de Roos the elder NOR his younger son, Robert
de Roos the younger, could have married Christine Bertram. I'll be
glad to repost both of these records again if that would help you.
Again, to be fair to Hedley, there are abundant records to prove that
Robert de Roos the younger married Margaret de Brus, who survived him.
As such, if Hedley saw the second IPM in question which referred to
Robert the younger's widow as "Christiana," I assume he correctly
concluded it was a simple clerical error.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
butl...@aol.com
In your last paragraph you mentioned you wondered how the Barony of
Kendal passed to the Ros family of Kendal. Well, William de Lancaster
III,who died without issue,his eldest sister, married Peter de Brus,
whose Grandson, Peter de Brus of Skelton, held the Barony of Kendal,
died without issue, the Barony passed to his 3rd oldest sister
Margaret, who married Robert de Ros, who's family henceforth held the
Barony of Kendal, etc.
Hope this helps some.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> To be fair to Hedley, you're leaving out some of the evidence which
> makes it absolutely certain that Christine Bertram married William de
> Roos (died before 1269), rather than his father, Robert de Roos the
> elder (died 1267/9). I've already cited the forest plea of 1241 which
> shows it was the SON AND HEIR of Robert de Roos the elder who married
> the Bertram girl, not Robert himself.
I think "absolutely certain" may be putting it a bit strongly, as the 1241
record doesn't actually name either of the parties. (After all, Robert de
Ros may have had other sons we don't know about.)
But as I said, taking all the evidence together, I do think Hedley is
probably correct that William de Ros married Christine Bertram.
> I've also cited the Quo Warranto
> plea of 1292-3 which shows that Robert de Roos' surviving son, Robert
> the younger, was actually his younger son, NOT his eldest son as
> alleged by Complete Peerage.
I think that's rather an odd way of putting it, seeing that the Quo Warranto
evidence is discussed in detail by the author of the Complete Peerage
account, who clearly did understand the implication that Robert was a
younger son.
> Taking these two records together, it is
> clear that NEITHER Robert de Roos the elder NOR his younger son, Robert
> de Roos the younger, could have married Christine Bertram. I'll be
> glad to repost both of these records again if that would help you.
If you have the Latin text of the Quo Warranto entry that would be useful,
as I didn't have time to copy that when I looked at it in the library.
> Again, to be fair to Hedley, there are abundant records to prove that
> Robert de Roos the younger married Margaret de Brus, who survived him.
> As such, if Hedley saw the second IPM in question which referred to
> Robert the younger's widow as "Christiana," I assume he correctly
> concluded it was a simple clerical error.
Obviously if it's the case that the second IPM refers to the same Robert who
left a widow Margaret, then there must have been an error, as he couldn't
also have left a widow Christiana.
To my mind it seems likely that it does refer to the same Robert, but of
course the authors of Complete Peerage and History of Northumberland had
seen the same inquisition evidence, but came to different conclusions. The
reason is that with so many Roberts, all sons of Roberts, and so few firm
data about their dates of death or ages, it is sometimes difficult to know
which one is being referred to.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> In your last paragraph you mentioned you wondered how the Barony of
> Kendal passed to the Ros family of Kendal.
Sorry, I mustn't have made myself very clear.
I think it is clear enough how the barony of Kendal passed to the Ros family
of Kendal.
I was just noting that the manor of Cargo, with which the inquisition that
mentions Christine is concerned, likewise passed to the Ros family of
Kendal.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
In my earlier post yesterday, I stated that Complete Peerage
erroneously identified Robert de Roos the younger (died 1274) as the
son and heir of his father, Robert de Roos the elder (died 1267/69). I
erred in that statement. Complete Peerage correctly states that Robert
de Roos the younger was a "younger son" of Robert de Roos the elder.
Mea culpa. My error was caused by confusing Complete Peerage's
statements about Robert de Roos the younger, with those made about his
son, Robert de Roos III. Too many Robert de Roos'es!
Regardless, my comments about Robert de Roos the younger being a
younger son stilll stand as evidence that he could not have married
Christine Bertram. We know this because the forest plea of 1241 states
that it was the eldest son and heir of Robert de Roos the elder who
married the Bertram girl. Robert de Roos the younger being a younger
son could obviously not be that son so married, only his eldest brother
then living.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< I've already cited the forest plea of 1241 which
shows it was the SON AND HEIR of Robert de Roos the elder who married
the Bertram girl, not Robert himself. >>
Doesn't it actually just say that there was an arrangement for the two
children to marry but that they didn't?
Douglas Richardson
This is the specific language of the 1241 Forest Plea involving the
double marriage between the children of Sir Robert de Roos of Wark and
Sir Roger Bertram.
In my earlier transcript of this record, I appear to have typed the
words "have now been made" incorrectly as "have no been made." If my
typo confused you, I apologize. The correct wording appears below.
The plea indicates that the two marriages had been pre-arranged and had
taken place.
DR
+ + + + + + + + + + +
"To his worshipful lord Henry, by the grace of God king of England,
lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou,
[his servant] Thomas of Straton, health and due reverence with
obedience. At another time we made known by letter to you .... that
Sir Robert de Ros had taken in your hand the pleas of herbage, hambling
of dogs and dead wood which belonge to the foresters, where you have no
demesne wood ....
"Also Sir Roger Bertram's men did chase in Chivele in the king's forest
and take a hind and a fawn buck, after the eyre of the justics of the
forest ... They are still to be attached, and, if they were not
attached, they and three hounds of Sir Roger Bertram were taken by the
foresters and by several men of those parts ... Nor, by reason of such
conspiracy and such releases have the foresters been able to do their
office and the king's advantage; and this because the marriages were
pre-arranged, and have now been made, between the son and heir of Sir
Roger [Bertram] and a daughter of Sir Robert [de Ros] on the one part,
and on the other between the son and heir of Sir Robert [de Ros] and a
daughter of Sir Roger [Bertram]." [Reference: Northumberland Pleas
from the Curia Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the
Newcastle upon Tyne Records Committee 2) (1922): 122, 125].