Dymoke Conyers Ancestry

[joe...@gmail.com]

The other Dymoke thread reminded me of a question I meant to ask.

Burke's Peerage gives the following line, and I was looking for more sources to back up the line which is proving difficult. But who wouldn't want an ancestor named "Scolastica"?

1. Ralph de Cotam
2. Scolastica de Cotam m. John de Conyers
3. Roger de Conyers
4. John de Conyers m. Elizabeth de Aton
5. Robert Conyers m. Isabel Pert
6. Joan Conyers m. Philip Dymoke
7. Thomas Dymoke m. Margaret Welles.

Thanks,
JoeCook

[John Watson]

You don't have an ancestor called Scholastica de Cotum.

The line should be:
1. Henry fitz Conan (d. bef. 1328)
2. Elizabeth fitz Henry m. John de Conyers (d. bef. Oct 1304)
3. Roger de Conyers (d. bef 1334)
4. John de Conyers (d. bef Mar 1396) m. Elizabeth de Aton (d. bef may 1402
etc. etc.

Unfortunately most sources for the various branches of the Conyers family are hopelessly confused.

Scholastica daughter of Ralph de Cotum married Roger son of William de Conyers of Clifton, Northumberland, who died before 1298. The descendants of this Conyers branch were of Stubhouse, Durham and later became the Conyers of Ormesby and Hornby, Yorkshire.

The Conyers family shown in your post were of Sockburn, Durham.

Regards,
John

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 4:30:00 AM UTC-5, John Watson wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 January 2017 02:03:09 UTC, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Burke's Peerage gives the following line, and I was looking for more sources to back up the line which is proving difficult. But who wouldn't want an ancestor named "Scolastica"?
> >
> > 1. Ralph de Cotam
> > 2. Scolastica de Cotam m. John de Conyers
> > 3. Roger de Conyers
> > 4. John de Conyers m. Elizabeth de Aton
> > 5. Robert Conyers m. Isabel Pert
> > 6. Joan Conyers m. Philip Dymoke
> > 7. Thomas Dymoke m. Margaret Welles.
>

> You don't have an ancestor called Scholastica de Cotum.
>
> The line should be:
> 1. Henry fitz Conan (d. bef. 1328)
> 2. Elizabeth fitz Henry m. John de Conyers (d. bef. Oct 1304)
> 3. Roger de Conyers (d. bef 1334)
> 4. John de Conyers (d. bef Mar 1396) m. Elizabeth de Aton (d. bef may 1402
> etc. etc.

What evidence have you found connecting John de Conyers who died 1304 to #4 John de Conyers? I have not been able to find any evidence that this is the correct reconstruction.

> Unfortunately most sources for the various branches of the Conyers family are hopelessly confused.

This is what I have found.

Thank you,
JoeCook

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 7:55:00 AM UTC-5, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 4:30:00 AM UTC-5, John Watson wrote:

> > The line should be:
> > 1. Henry fitz Conan (d. bef. 1328)
> > 2. Elizabeth fitz Henry m. John de Conyers (d. bef. Oct 1304)
> > 3. Roger de Conyers (d. bef 1334)
> > 4. John de Conyers (d. bef Mar 1396) m. Elizabeth de Aton (d. bef may 1402
> > etc. etc.

And certainly the Henry Fitz Conan you speak of is the one born around 1279, son of Conan Fitz Henry and Petronille. Petronille by 1295 remarried to a Conyers as discussed here (https://books.google.com/books?id=HDZKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92)

Does it make more sense that the property from Henry Fitz Conan came into the Conyers family through the route of Petronille receiving it and then passing it down to some children of her second marriage? Asopposed to your reconstruction above?

Joe

[John Watson]

Hi Joe,

It's a bit more more complicated than that. It's taken me a long time to work out the genealogy of this family. Henry son of Conan of Manfield, Kelfield, Liverton, etc. married Juliana, by whom he had at least three children, Conan, Margery and Elizabeth. Henry died before August 1285 (CFR, i, 219). Conan son of Henry married Pernel de Burton, daughter of Roger de Burton and Joan de Meinill and widow of Humphrey son of Geoffrey de Conyers of Sockburn. She was the mother of John de Conyers (c. 1272- c.1303). Their son and heir Henry son of Conan was born at Sockburn on 21 September 1277 (CIPM, iii, 498, No. 623), when his father was only about 15 years old. Conan son of Henry died in the lifetime of his father before 1285, probably about 1282.

John de Conyers, son of Humphrey de Conyers and Pernel de Burton married Elizabeth, daughter of Henry son of Conan and sister of Conan son of Henry, Pernel's second husband (I told you it was complicated). This John de Conyers also had a bigamous marriage to a lady called Margaret from Northamtonshire, as shown in the following case from the Common Pleas:-

14 October 1304, York, Quindene of Michaelmas, 32 Edward I, Margaret who was the wife of John de Coigners by her attorney claimed against Elizabeth the daughter of Henry Conan, a third part of a third part of a messuage, 20 tofts, 30 carucates and 50 bovates of land, a windmill and a watermill in Rounton [Rungeton], Girsby [Griseby] and Dinsdale [Dytenes Hale], and against Anthony, bishop of Durham, custodian of the lands and heir of John son of Humphrey de Coigne[rs], a third part of the other two parts of the same lands in the same vills. Elizabeth and the bishop appeared by their attornies and denied that Margaret was entitled to dower in the lands because John had espoused (disponsavit) Elizabeth when aged 7 years, and she had remained his wife throughout his life and at the time of his death was seised as his lawful wife, and that Margaret was ever joined to John in lawful matrimony (umquam … legitimo matrimonio copulata). Margaret replied that she was espoused (disponsata fuit) at Maidwell [Maydewelle] in Northamtonshire in the diocese of Lincoln and was joined to John in lawful matrimony (eidem Johanni legitimo matrimonio copulata). The bishop of Lincoln was ordered to inquire into the truth of the matter and report to the court at Westminster in the quindene of Hilary [27 Jan 1305]. He didn’t, and the order was repeated thrice, with successive new deadlines of 3 weeks after Easter, the quindene of St John the Baptist and the quindene of St Martin [13 Oct 1305]
Court of Common Pleas: CP 40/149 m. 98.
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no149/aCP40no149fronts/IMG_0207.htm

Regards,
John

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 12:25:24 PM UTC-5, John Watson wrote:
> It's a bit more more complicated than that. <snip> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no149/aCP40no149fronts/IMG_0207.htm

Thank you John; that's rather impressive result. These were surely hard to find breadcrumbs as this family has been long studied and mangled at every opportunity.

--Joe Cook

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 12:25:24 PM UTC-5, John Watson wrote:

One really small insignificant point. If Henry Fitz Conan came of age September 22, 1299, wouldn't that make his birthdate September 23, 1278? (Not Sept 21, 1277)?
Thanks,
Joe

[John Watson]

Hi Joe,

If you read the inquisition for his proof of age held "in the Term of St. Hilary, 28 Edw. I." [presumably January 1300] you will see that he was aged 22 on "on Monday after St. Lambert last" which was 23 September 1299. So he was born on 23 September 1277 (not 21 September as in my earlier post). Sorry about that.

Regards,
John

[al...@mindspring.com]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 4:30:00 AM UTC-5, John Watson wrote:

> On Wednesday, 18 January 2017 02:03:09 UTC, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The other Dymoke thread reminded me of a question I meant to ask.
> >
> > Burke's Peerage gives the following line, and I was looking for more sources to back up the line which is proving difficult. But who wouldn't want an ancestor named "Scolastica"?
> >
> > 1. Ralph de Cotam
> > 2. Scolastica de Cotam m. John de Conyers
> > 3. Roger de Conyers
> > 4. John de Conyers m. Elizabeth de Aton
> > 5. Robert Conyers m. Isabel Pert
> > 6. Joan Conyers m. Philip Dymoke
> > 7. Thomas Dymoke m. Margaret Welles.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > JoeCook

John,

I am a little confused here.
>
> The line should be:
> 1. Henry fitz Conan (d. bef. 1328)[

based on your later post wouldn't this be the Henry fitz Conan who died in 1285?]

> 2. Elizabeth fitz Henry m. John de Conyers (d. bef. Oct 1304)
> 3. Roger de Conyers (d. bef 1334)
> 4. John de Conyers (d. bef Mar 1396) m. Elizabeth de Aton (d. bef may 1402
> etc. etc.

Doug Smith

[John Watson]

On Wednesday, 18 January 2017 02:03:09 UTC, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

You are correct.