C.P. Addition: Katherine Paynell, wife of Nicholas de Cantelowe (died 22 Feb. 1371) and Henry Retford (died 1409)

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 includes a full biography of an ancestor of King Henry VIII's brother-in-law, Charles Brandon, namely Sir Henry Retford (or Ratford, Redford, Ridford) (born c.1354, died 1409), of Carlton Paynell, Broughton, Castlethorpe (in Broughton), Irby-on-Humber, and Killingholme, Lincolnshire, which individual was Speaker of the House of Commons in 1402. The biography of Sir Henry Retford may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/retford-sir-henry-1354-1409

Roskell states that Sir Henry Retford married before Easter 1385, "Katherine, widow of Sir Ralph Paynell (died after July 1383) of Caythorpe and Carlton Paynell."

Support for Roskell's statement is provided by a fine dated 1385 copied below which specifically states that Katherine, wife of Henry de Redford, Knt., was the widow of Ralph Paynell.

Reference: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_143_145.shtml

CP 25/1/143/145, number 47.
County: Lincolnshire.
Place: Westminster.

Date: The day after Ascension, 8 Richard [II] [12 May 1385]. And afterwards two weeks from Holy Trinity in the same year [11 June 1385].

Parties: Henry de Redford', knight, and Katherine, his wife, querents, and John de Somerby, chaplain, and John Bate, chaplain, deforciants.
Property: The manors of Caysthorp' and Carleton' Paynell' and 2 messuages, 1 toft, 30 acres of land and 10 acres of meadow in Lincoln', Appulby, Parua Carleton' and Scalby, which Katherine, who was the wife of Ralph Paynell', knight, holds for life.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: John and John have granted for themselves and the heirs of John de Somerby that the manors and tenements - which Katherine, who was the wife of Ralph, held for life of the inheritance of John de Somerby in the aforesaid vills on the day the agreement was made, and which after the decease of Katherine, who was the wife of Ralph, ought to revert to John and John and the heirs of John de Somerby - after the decease of Katherine, who was the wife of Ralph, shall remain to Henry and Katherine, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, remainder to the right heirs of Katherine, the wife of Henry.
For this: Henry and Katherine, his wife, have given them 500 pounds sterling.

+ + + + + + + + + +

On the surface, the above fine would seem like conclusive evidence. However, a contemporary lawsuit dated 1396 in the Court of Common Pleas specifically states that Katherine, wife of Henry Ridford, was the daughter and heiress (not widow) of Ralph Paynell, Knt. Below is a brief abstract of this lawsuit:

In 1396 William Chesterfield, of Lincoln, and Christian his wife, daughter and heir of Robert Conestable, of London, whom John Chorley called to warranty, sued Henry de Ridford, Knt., and Katherine his wife, "daughter and heiress of Ralph Paynell, Knt." in a Lincolnshire plea. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/541a, image 586f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no541a/aCP40no541afronts/IMG_0586.htm).

So we have one record dated 1385, in which Katherine is identified as the widow of Ralph Paynell, Knt. and one record dated 1396, in which Katherine is identified as daughter and heiress of Ralph Paynell, Knt.

Which record is correct?

My research indicates that that Sir Ralph Paynell, of Caythorpe, Lincolnshire definitely had a daughter, Katherine, who in 1369 petitioned the Court of York for an annulment of her marriage to Nicholas de Cantelowe on the grounds of impotence. The matter of the annulment is discussed in full in the following book: Pedersen, Marriage Disputes in Medieval England (2000): 30, 88, 145-147, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ne7eBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA145

In the course of the legal proceedings, Katherine was evidently abducted by her husband, Nicholas de Cantelowe, and forced to swear not to proceed with the annulment. Katherine eventually made her escape. When the commissary general decided that the marriage should be annulled, Nicholas appealed to the Apostolic See. Nicholas de Cantelowe died 21 Feb. 1371 at Avignon, while prosecuting the case.

The matter of the annulment of the marriage of Katherine Paynell and Nicholas de Cantelowe is further discussed in the following books:

Impotence and Virginity in the Late Medieval Ecclesiastical Court of York (2008): 2122.
Bolton and Meek, Aspects of Power and Authority in the Middle Ages (2007).

Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 114-115 (sub Cauntelo) has a brief biography of Nicholas de Cantelowe, who died at Avignon in 1371. Complete Peerage states that he married Katherine before 10 March 1365/6, but doesn't identify her parentage. It further states that Katherine died before 6 July 1375, but doesn't appear to cite a source which documents that statement. No mention is made of the annulment proceedings.

While it is entirely possible that Sir Ralph Paynell, of Caythorpe, Lincolnshire had both a widow Katherine and a daughter Katherine, it seems likely on the basis of chronology that the daughter Katherine Paynell married (1st) before 10 March 1365/6 Nicholas de Cantelowe, who died 22 Feb. 1370/1, and further that she married (2nd) before Easter 1385 Henry Retford, Knt., born about 1354, who died in 1409.

Roskell indicates that Katherine Paynell and Henry Retford had one son, Henry Retford, who was a minor at his father's death in 1409, or born after 1388. This is correct. There appears to have been at least one other child, Elizabeth, who married before 1420, Maurice Bruyn, Knt., which couple are ancestral to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. Elizabeth's place in this family is proven by a record dated 1452, whereby the younger Henry Ratford, Knt., is styled “brother of Elizabeth wife of Maurice Bruyn knight and mother of Henry Bruyn esquire” when he quitclaimed his interest in the manor of Ranston, Dorset to Richard Chokke and others.

Further research indicates that Sir Henry Retford was survived not by his wife, Katherine Paynell, but rather by a much younger 2nd wife, Mary, who married (2nd) John Heron, Knt. (died 12 Sept. 1420), of Eschot, Northumberland, Eppleton (in Houghton-le-Spring) and Twizel, Durham, Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire, etc., and (3rd) before 8 Dec. 1425 William Clinton, Knt., 4th Lord Clinton (died 30 July (or 20 August) 1431). Mary died 3 Feb. 1458/9. Evidence of Mary's 1st marriage to Sir Henry Retford is provided by a lawsuit dated 1430, whereby William Clinton and his wife, Mary, sued Richard [Fleming], Bishop of Lincoln, Henry Redford, Esq., and another in the Court of Common Pleas regarding presentation to the church of Irby on Humber, Lincolnshire (a Redford property) [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/677, image 257f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no677/aCP40no677fronts/IMG_0257.htm)]. Further evidence of Mary's identity as the widow of Sir Henry Retford is discussed in Early Yorkshire Charters, 6 (1939): 268–269.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[John Watson]

Dear Douglas,

The 1385 fine which you have quoted does not state that Katherine, wife of Henry de Retford, knight, was the widow of Ralph Paynell. Quite clearly from the fine they were two different women, since Katherine wife of Henry de Retford was to inherit after the death of the Katherine, widow of Ralph Paynell.

I would also like to point out that Katherine, widow of Nicholas de Cauntelo (died 22 Feb 1371) married secondly before 3 December 1371, Sir John Auncell, knight, who died some time before January 1380.

3 December 1371, Whereas a plea is pending before the king in the Chancery without the king's writ touching the manors of Lavyngton, Wythcall and Kynthorp, co. Lincoln, late of Nicholas de Cantilupo, which have been taken into the king's hand by his death, between John Auncell, 'chivaler,' and Katharine his wife, late the wife of the said Nicholas, asserting that the said Katharine was jointly enfeoffed with her late husband of the said manors, not held of the king, of the gift of Richard de Maundevill, clerk, Thomas de Vaus, parson of the church of Berghton, and Robert de Ketelby, chaplain, and William de Cantilupo, brother of the said Nicholas, who died without heir of his body, asserting that his said brother held the manors in tail with remainder to him, William, in tail; the king, because John and Katharine have shewn no deed of joint feoffment and William has shewn in the Chancery a deed attesting the alleged tail, and because William is the nearest heir in blood of the said Nicholas as appears by divers inquisitions post mortem returned into the Chancery, has committed to him, by mainprise of Thomas Boys of the county of Bedford and John Aghton of the county of Nottingham, the keeping of the manors with the issues from the death of Nicholas while the plea remains undiscussed, so that he answer to John Auncel and Katharine for the said issues if the manors be adjudged to pertain to them of right, and provided he keep the said manors without waste or destruction and that he perform the real services and other charges incumbent thereon for so long as he shall have the keeping.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, vol. 15: 1370-1374 (1914), 163.

Regards,
John

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

Thank you for your post. Much appreciated.

Yes, you're quite correct. A close reading of the fine I posted dated 1385 actually distinguishes between Katherine, wife of Sir Henry Redford, and Katherine, widow of Ralph Paynell, Knt. So, yes, it is clear that they were two separate people.

When I first encountered this fine a while ago, I read it with the understanding from Roskell that Henry Retford had married Katherine, widow of Ralph Paynell, Knt. I had no reason to believe that Roskell had stated his facts wrong. Following Roskell (who is usually reliable), I assumed the two Katherine's were the same person.

As you pointed out, the fine makes it crystal clear that the two Katherine's were entirely separate people. The lawsuit I recently found dated 1396 straightens out this mess by making it clear that Sir Henry Retford's wife, Katherine, was the daughter and heiress of Sir Ralph Paynell, not his widow.

Since posting my earlier message last night, I encountered statements online that Katherine Paynell, widow of Nicholas de Cantelowe, married (2nd) Sir John Auncell. The Patent Rolls record you posted indeed proves that Katherine Paynell, widow of Nicholas de Cantelowe, married (2nd) before 3 December 1371 Sir John Auncell, Knt.

As I indicated in my first post, Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 114-115 (sub Cauntelo) states that Katherine, widow of Nicholas de Cantelowe, died before 6 July 1375. However, if Nicholas de Cantelowe's wife, Katherine Paynell, is the same person who married Sir Henry Retford as I believe, then this statement would necessarily be in error.

In your post, you've stated that Katherine Paynell's 2nd husband, Sir John Auncell, knight, died some time before January 1380. I'm sure this is correct. When you have a minute, can you please post your source for this information?

Since reading your post, I've located an entirely new Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1381 which proves that Katherine, widow of Sir John Auncell, was living as late as Michaelmas 1381. As such, this provides us concrete evidence that Katherine Paynell did not die before 6 July 1375, as alleged by Complete Peerage. Rather she was living in Michaelmas 1381 and thus she was available to marry (3rd) before Easter 1385 to Sir Henry Retford.

Below is an abstract of the 1381 lawsuit:

In Michaelmas term 1381 Katherine widow of John Auncell, Knt. sued John Wykes in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £20 [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/483, image 660 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no483/483_0660.htm)].

Summarizing the findings, it appears that Sir Ralph Paynell had both a widow, Katherine, living 1385, and a daughter, Katherine. The daughter Katherine married (1st) Nicholas de Cantelowe (died 1371); (2nd) Sir John Auncell, died before Jan. 1380; and (3rd) Sir Henry Retford, died 1409. Katherine Paynell predeceased Sir Henry Retford, as contemporary records show that he was survived by a younger wife named Mary.

For interest's sake, I've set forth below the line of descent from Katherine Paynell, wife of Sir Henry Retford, down to Charles Brandon, K.G., 1st Duke of Suffolk, the brother-in-law of King Henry VIII of England.

1. Katherine Paynell, married (3rd) before Easter 1385 Sir Henry Retford, Knt., of Carlton Paynell, Lincolnshire, Speaker of the House of Commons, died 1409.
2. Elizabeth Retford, died 1471, married before 1420 Maurice Bruyn, Knt., of South Ockendon, Essex, died 1466.
3. Henry (or Harry) Bruyn, Knt., died 1461, married Elizabeth Darcy.
4. ELizabeth Bruyn, died 1494, married (2nd) before 4 Nov. 1475 William Brandon, Knt., of Beckenham, Kent and South Ockendon, Essex, killed 1485.
5. Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk, died 1545, married (3rd) 1515 Mary Tudor, daughter of King Henry VII of England.

For further details of Generations 2 through 5 above, please see my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), available for purchase on Amazon or ebay.

[John Watson]

Dear Douglas,

Sir John Auncell died before the date of this entry in the Patent Rolls:

16 January 1380, Appointment, for life, by mainprize of John Corbrig and John Mauncell of the county of Buckingham, of Adam de Ramesey, king's esquire, to the custody of the manor of Somerton and a moiety of the manor of Carleton (excepting knights' fees, advowsons, escheats, wardships, marriages, and reliefs), rendering 50 marks yearly at the Exchequer, and paying the porter of Somerton Castle his accustomed wages in the same manner as did John Aunsell, knight, deceased; he is to have all estovers in the premises, viz. corn of every kind, oxen, cows, plough-cattle, sheep, ploughs, carts, and other utensils, rendering the same or their value at his death as appraised by the sheriff of Lincoln.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Richard II, vol. 1: 1377-1381 (1895), 564.

Regards,
John

[John Higgins]

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:29:16 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 includes a full biography of an ancestor of King Henry VIII's brother-in-law, Charles Brandon, namely Sir Henry Retford (or Ratford, Redford, Ridford) (born c.1354, died 1409), of Carlton Paynell, Broughton, Castlethorpe (in Broughton), Irby-on-Humber, and Killingholme, Lincolnshire, which individual was Speaker of the House of Commons in 1402. The biography of Sir Henry Retford may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/retford-sir-henry-1354-1409
>
> Roskell states that Sir Henry Retford married before Easter 1385, "Katherine, widow of Sir Ralph Paynell (died after July 1383) of Caythorpe and Carlton Paynell."
>
> Support for Roskell's statement is provided by a fine dated 1385 copied below which specifically states that Katherine, wife of Henry de Redford, Knt., was the widow of Ralph Paynell.
>

[snip]

>
> Roskell indicates that Katherine Paynell and Henry Retford had one son, Henry Retford, who was a minor at his father's death in 1409, or born after 1388. This is correct. There appears to have been at least one other child, Elizabeth, who married before 1420, Maurice Bruyn, Knt., which couple are ancestral to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. Elizabeth's place in this family is proven by a record dated 1452, whereby the younger Henry Ratford, Knt., is styled “brother of Elizabeth wife of Maurice Bruyn knight and mother of Henry Bruyn esquire” when he quitclaimed his interest in the manor of Ranston, Dorset to Richard Chokke and others.
>
> Further research indicates that Sir Henry Retford was survived not by his wife, Katherine Paynell, but rather by a much younger 2nd wife, Mary, who married (2nd) John Heron, Knt. (died 12 Sept. 1420), of Eschot, Northumberland, Eppleton (in Houghton-le-Spring) and Twizel, Durham, Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire, etc., and (3rd) before 8 Dec. 1425 William Clinton, Knt., 4th Lord Clinton (died 30 July (or 20 August) 1431). Mary died 3 Feb. 1458/9. Evidence of Mary's 1st marriage to Sir Henry Retford is provided by a lawsuit dated 1430, whereby William Clinton and his wife, Mary, sued Richard [Fleming], Bishop of Lincoln, Henry Redford, Esq., and another in the Court of Common Pleas regarding presentation to the church of Irby on Humber, Lincolnshire (a Redford property) [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/677, image 257f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no677/aCP40no677fronts/IMG_0257.htm)]. Further evidence of Mary's identity as the widow of Sir Henry Retford is discussed in Early Yorkshire Charters, 6 (1939): 268–269.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

The post above is incorrect in attributing the remarks about Sir Henry Retford to J. S. Roskell. Although Roskell was the editor (or one of the editors) of HOP 1386-1421, he was not the author of the article on Sir Henry Retford the Speaker – which was actually written by Carole Rawcliffe. For much of the information in the Retford article, Ms. Rawcliffe cites an earlier article by Roskell which appeared in Lincolnshire Architectural and Archaeological Society Reports and Papers, new ser., 7 (1957–8), 117–25, and was reprinted in volume 3 of Roskell’s Parliament and Politics in Late Medieval England, 1983. But Ms. Rawcliffe’s HOP article does update and modify Roskell’s earlier article in some respects. Since Roskell himself was the editor of this portion of the HOP series, it seems reasonable to assume that he agreed with Ms. Rawcliffe’s changes to what he had previously written.

One particular change by Ms. Rawcliffe concerns Mary, the supposed second wife and widow of Sir Henry Retford the Speaker. Footnote 7 in the HOP article says the following: “Roskell is mistaken in asserting that the MP’s widow had two more husbands (William, Lord Clinton (d.1431), and Sir John Heron of Northumberland), and lived on until 1459, some 40 years after Retford’s death. In fact, this evidence relates to his son’s wife, Mary, who took Sir Henry Retford the younger as her third and last husband: CP, iii. 315; CFR, xix. 212 (where the three men are listed in reverse order).”

This certainly makes much more sense chronologically. Note also that the HOP article footnote is also a correction to the article on Clinton in CP 3:315.

BTW the link provided above to the 1430 lawsuit involving William Clinton and his wife Mary does not seem to work.

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-6, John Higgins wrote:

< One particular change by Ms. Rawcliffe concerns Mary, the supposed second <wife and widow of Sir Henry Retford the Speaker. Footnote 7 in the HOP <article says the following: “Roskell is mistaken in asserting that the MP’s <widow had two more husbands (William, Lord Clinton (d.1431), and Sir John <Heron of Northumberland), and lived on until 1459, some 40 years after <Retford’s death. In fact, this evidence relates to his son’s wife, Mary, who <took Sir Henry Retford the younger as her third and last husband: CP, iii. <315; CFR, xix. 212 (where the three men are listed in reverse order).”

Simply put, Rawcliffe is wrong. As I indicated in my earlier post, Henry Retford the younger was still living in 1452, when he was styled “brother of Elizabeth wife of Maurice Bruyn knight and mother of Henry Bruyn esquire" in a quitclaim conveyance. The known chronology of the Retford and Bruyn families simply does not permit Henry Retford the younger to be the husband of Mary, who later married Sir John Heron (died 1420) and Sir William Clinton (born c.1377-8, died 1431). Rather, Mary's husband, Sir Henry Retford, can only be the elder Sir Henry Retford who died in 1409.

As for Sir Henry Retford the younger, Roskell states that he "became sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1427, and was later made mayor of Bordeaux. A prominent Yorkist, he fought on the losing side at the battle of Ludlow in 1459, and was duly attained for treason by the Coventry Parliament of that same year." I have no reason to doubt these statements.

Furthermore, the younger Henry Retford appears to have married a woman named Ellen. Below is an abstract of a petition by Ellen, wife of Henry Ratford, dated c.1422-c.1433, which is found in the online Discovery Catalogue.

Reference: SC 8/302/15064
Description:
Petitioners: Ellen Ratford, wife of Henry Ratford.
Name(s): Ratford, Ellen
Addressees: Chancellor.
Nature of request: Ratford requests letters of safe-conduct be granted to Vallee to go to France to carry letters to various persons for the delivery of her husband who is a prisoner there, and to return to England with various seals of certain French people for the delivery of Sessay who is held prisoner in England.
Nature of endorsement: [None].
Places mentioned: France.
People mentioned: Henry Ratford, husband of the petitioner; Bandet de la Vallee; Guichard Sessay.
Note: The petition is dated to c. 1422-c. 1433 on the basis of the dating of the immediate petitions preceding it.
Date: [c. 1422-c. 1433]
Held by: The National Archives, Kew

< BTW the link provided above to the 1430 lawsuit involving William Clinton <and his wife Mary does not seem to work.

Here is the weblink again.

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no677/aCP40no677fronts/IMG_0257.htm

Henry Redford the younger was one of the defendants in this lawsuit. The plaintiffs were William Clinton and his wife, Mary, which Mary was Henry's step-mother.

Best always, Doouglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

Thanks for posting this reference. Much appreciated.

DR

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

< As I indicated in my earlier post, Henry Retford the younger was still
< living in 1452, when he was styled “brother of Elizabeth wife of Maurice
< Bruyn knight and mother of Henry Bruyn esquire" in a quitclaim conveyance.

The reference for the above record is Calendar of Close Rolls, 1447–1454 (1941–7): 349.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[John Higgins]

You appear to have missed the point of what Ms. Rawcliffe (with Mr. Roskell's agreement as the editor) is saying. She is NOT saying that Mary "later married" Sir John Heron (d. 1420) and Sir William Clinton (d. 1431). Rather, she is saying that the marriage to Sir Henry Retford the younger follows these two marriages - the marriage order was Heron,Clinton, Retford (the younger). The chronological difficulty which concerns you disappears in this sequence of marriages.

As to the 1430 lawsuit involving William Clinton and his wife Mary versus "Henry Retford Esq.", I see nothing in that document that indicates that Mary was the stepmother of Henry Retford the younger. This seems to be simply your assumption based on your construction of the situation - convenient but not necessarily accurate.

With respect to Ellen, wife of "Henry Ratford" in the vague period of ca. 1422 to ca. 1433, first you need to demonstrate that "Henry Ratford" (for whom no geographic information is provided) is the same person as Henry Retford the younger. And then you need to rule out the possibility that Henry Retford was married twice - first to Ellen and then to Mary the widow of Heron and Clinton.

Simply put, you haven't demonstrated that Ms. Rawcliffe is wrong.

[John Watson]

Some reference material:

12 February 1459, Writ of diem clausit extremum; Mary who was the wife of William Clynton knight (late the wife of John Heron and late the wife of Henry Ratford knight); Sussex; Hertford; Northumberland.
Calendar of Fine Rolls, vol. 19, Henry VI: 1452-1461 (1939), 212.

21 March 1460, Grant for hfe to Richard Welles, knight, for good service against the rebels, of £10 yearly from the manors of Burton by Lincoln, Karleton Kyme, Carleton Paynell, Caysthorp, Broghton, Worleby by Saxby,
Killyngholm and Irby by Laceby, co. Lincoln, in the king's hands by the forfeiture of Henry Ratford, knight, and by an act in the parliament held at Coventry.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry VI, vol. 6: 1452-1461 (1910), 551.

1 July 1461, Writ of diem clausit extremum; Ellen late the wife of Henry Ratford knight; Lincoln.
Calendar of Fine Rolls, vol. 20, Edward IV, Henry VI: 1461-1471 (1949), 2.

Regards,

John

[John Watson]

It seems to me that if Mary was the second wife of Henry Retford (d. 1409), then it is more likely that she was the mother of his son Henry who was still living in 1460.

Regards,
John

[John Watson]

The younger Henry Retford died at the battle of Wakefield on 30 December 1460, according to two contemporary chronicles (Stow and William of Worcester).
see: Clements R. Markham, "The Battle of Wakefield," The Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical Journal, vol. 9 (1886), 122.

Regards,
John

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John (Watson) ~

Thank you for your several posts which concern Sir Henry Retford the younger (died 1460) and his wife, Ellen (died 1461). They're all much appreciated. You're the best, John!

Earlier I had posted evidence that Ellen was the name of the wife of Sir Henry Retford the younger as early as c.1422-1432, and you've now posted evidence that Ellen died as Sir Henry's widow in 1461. Taken together, the evidence makes it clear that Mary (died 1459), later wife of Sir John Heron (died 1420) and Sir William Clinton, Lord Clinton and Say (died 1431) can not have been the wife of Sir Henry Retford the younger. Rather, Mary can only have been the wife of Sir Henry Retford the elder (died 1409).

Below is yet another record concerning Sir Henry Retford and Ellen his wife. This record is a fine dated 1450. Sir Henry's step-mother, Mary, then widow of Sir William Clinton, is mentioned in the fine.

Reference: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_145_160.shtml#27
CP 25/1/145/160, number 27.
County: Lincolnshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: Two weeks from Easter, 28 Henry VI [19 April 1450].
Parties: William Stanley, esquire, querent, and Henry Redford', knight, and Ellen, his wife, deforciants.
Property: The manor of Casthorp', which Mary, who was the wife of William Clynton', knight, holds for life.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: Henry and Ellen have acknowledged the manor to be the right of William.
For this: William has granted for himself and his heirs that the manor - which Mary held for life of the inheritance of William on the day the agreement was made, and which after the decease of Mary ought to revert to William and his heirs - after the decease of Mary shall remain to Henry and Ellen and the heirs of their bodies, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, remainder to the right heirs of Henry.

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

Insofar as the order of the marriages of Mary (died 1459) is concerned, I've already stated that Mary married (1st) Sir Henry Retford the elder (died 1409); (2nd) John Heron, Knt. (died 12 Sept. 1420), of Eschot, Northumberland, Eppleton (in Houghton-le-Spring) and Twizel, Durham, Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire, etc.; and (3rd) William Clinton, Knt., 4th Lord Clinton, of Folkestone, Kent, Austrey and Maxstoke, Warwickshire, etc. (born c.1377-8, died 30 July (or 20 August) 1431). This is the correct order of her marriages.

For iron clad evidence as to the order of Mary's marriages, I find that John Heron, knight, and Mary, his wife, in 1413-1414 held lands and tenements late of Henry Ridford in Broughton, Lincolnshire [Reference: Pipe Roll, E 372/259, Lincolnshire, dorse; cited by Lincoln Central Library, Ross MSS, vol. 2, p. 41, as Pipe Roll, 13 Henry IV; also see the website, Some Notes on Medieval English Genealogy, at http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk]. This record proves that Sir Henry Retford was Mary's 1st husband and that Sir John Heron was Mary's 2nd husband.

As to Mary's subsequent dower rights at Broughton, Lincolnshire (a Retford property), I find that her third husband, Sir William Clinton, presented to the church of Broughton, Lincolnshire in 1425, in right of his wife, Mary [Reference: Jacob, Reg. of Henry Chichele 1 (Canterbury & York Soc. 45) (1943): 347]. And, in 1430, William Clinton and his wife, Mary, sued Richard [Fleming], Bishop of Lincoln, Henry Redford, Esq. [Mary's step-son], and another in the Court of Common Pleas regarding presentation to the church of Irby on Humber, Lincolnshire (another Retford property) [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/677, image 257f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no677/aCP40no677fronts/IMG_0257.htm)].

Mary's 2nd husband, Sir John Heron, is discussed in Betham, Baronetage of England 4 (1804): 28–31 (sub Heron) and in Hedley, Northumberland Fams. 2 (1970): 78-79. Unfortunately, neither source mentions Mary as Sir John Heron's wife.

Burgess and Duffy, The Parish in late medieval England (2006): 38 includes a brief mention of Ellen, widow of Sir Henry Retford the younger:

"Elena Ratford (died 1461), widow of Sir Henry Retford of Irby (Lincs.) and resident in the close, was given permission on 1460." END OF QUOTE.

As far as which wife of Sir Henry Retford the elder was the mother of his children, I already posted a fine which showed that Katherine Paynell was the wife of Sir Henry Retford the elder in 1385 and I also cited a Common Pleas lawsuit which suggested that Katherine was still living as late as 1396. Below please find the abstract of a fine which conclusively proves that Katherine (Paynell) Retford was living as late as 1395:

Reference: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_144_150.shtml#17

CP 25/1/144/150, number 17.
County: Lincolnshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: Two weeks from St John the Baptist, 19 Richard [II] [8 July 1395].
Parties: Master Thomas de Aston', canon of the cathedral church of the Blessed Mary of Lincoln', querent, and Henry de Rydefforde, knight, and Katherine, his wife, deforciants.
Property: 1 rood of land in Middele Carleton' by Carleton' Paynell' and the advowson of the church of the vill of Middele Carleton'.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: Henry and Katherine have acknowledged the land and advowson to be the right of Thomas, as those which he has of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Katherine to him and his heirs for ever.
Warranty: Warranty.
For this: Thomas has given them 100 marks of silver.

+ + + + + + + + +

As to which wife Katherine or Mary was the mother of Sir Henry Retford the elder's children, it appears Katherine Paynell was the mother of both Sir Henry's two known children, Henry the younger and Elizabeth. We can be virtually certain of this as Katherine Paynell's inheritance fell first to Sir Henry Redford the younger and, then upon his death in 1460, at least part of it fell to his sister, ELizabeth (Retford) Bruyn. I might also note that Elizabeth (Retford) Bruyn named a daughter Katherine, presumably in honor of her mother, Katherine Paynell.

As to when the two known children of Sir Henry Retford the elder were born, we know that Sir Henry and his 1st wife, Katherine, were married before Easter 1385. Their son, Henry, was still a minor at his father's death in 1409, or born in or after 1388. However, the younger Henry must have been born quite close to 1388, as Roskell notes he was made a Sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1427. In general, men first became sheriff about the age of 40. Using this loose rule of thumb, it suggests that Henry Retford the younger was born about 1387, which was shortly after the marriage of his parents. Even if he was born a bit later, Henry the younger would surely have been born in the time frame of his father's marriage to Katherine Paynell, which we know took place from 1385 to at least 1396.

I don't have an estimate of the birth date of Elizabeth Retford, wife of Sir Maurice Bruyn. I do know, however, that Elizabeth's husband, Sir Maurice Bruyn, was born in 1386. This means Sir Maurice was very close in age to Elizabeth's brother, Sir Henry Retford the younger.

Trans. Essex Arch. Society n.s. 2 (1884): 55–57 has an abstract of the 1471 will of Dame Elizabeth (Retford) Bruyn, widow of Sir Maurice Bruyn. This information may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Uhc5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55

The author states in his introduction that Elizabeth, wife of Sir Maurice Bruyn, was "daughter and coheir of Sir Henry Ratford, of Ireby." This statement implies that Sir Henry Retford and his wife, Katherine Paynell, might have had another daughter.

That Elizabeth (Retford) Bruyn might have had a sister is further suggested by the fact that Elizabeth inherited the manors of Carlton Paynell, Irby-on-Humber, Killingholme, and Worlaby, Lincolnshire on the death of her brother, Sir Henry Retford the younger, in 1460. That leaves about half of the Retford-Paynell family manors which are left unaccounted.

For a list of the known Retford family manors which Elizabeth (Retford) Bruyn inherited, please see an extract of the inquisition post mortem of her grand-daughter, Elizabeth Brandon, widow, taken in 1494, an English transcript of which can be found in Lincolnshire Notes and Queries, 2 (1891): 79-80. This transcript may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=fBktAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA79

In summary, we see that many of the statements made by Complete Peerage and Roskell regarding the Retford and associated families have been proven to be false or incomplete. Surely still more can be learned about these people as additional records are located.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John (Watson) ~

In my previous post, I tentatively proposed that Sir Henry Retford (died 1409) and his 1st wife, Katherine Paynell (living 1396), had at least one other daughter. I made this statement on the basis of the fact that only part of the Retford-Paynell inheritance fell to their known daughter, Elizabeth (Retford) Bruyn, on the death of her brother, Sir Henry Paynell the younger, in 1460. I theorized that Sir Henry Retford the younger must have had at least one other sister and coheir.

Since my post I've checked some additional sources and have now determined that there was in fact a second daughter, Eleanor Retford, who married William Lawe. Eleanor in turn was survived by a daughter and heiress, Constance Lawe, who married Peter Assheton.

Direct evidence of Eleanor Retford's existence is provided by a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Hilary 9 Henry VII [1494], m. 335d, whereby Peter Assheton and Constance his wife sued John Moll and Richard Kechin clerk for the advowson of the church of Casthorp and Braghton [Broughton], Lincolnshire.

The lawsuit states that Henry Retford, Knt. [died 1409] held the manor of Casthorp and Braghton to which the advowson is appendant and other manors in the said county. In the pedigree set forth in the lawsuit, Sir Henry Retford is assigned three children, namely Henry Retford, Knt., son and heir, who died without issue, and two daughters, Elizabeth and Eleanor. ELizabeth and Eleanor are both styled styled "sister and coheir" to their brother, Henry Retford the younger. Elizabeth is not given any husband or children in the lawsuit. But Eleanor is identified as the mother of the plaintiff, Constance, wife of Peter Assheton.

An abstract of this lawsuit was published some years ago in Genealogist n.s. 25 (1909): 91, and may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://www.myheritage.com/research/collection-90100/the-genealogist-genealogical-quarterly-magazine-vol25-1909?itemId=27185280&action=showRecord

After locating the above mentioned lawsuit, I located abstracts of three additional fines, one Common Pleas lawsuit, and two Star Chamber records which concern the immediate family of Eleanor Retford, wife of William Lawe, and Peter Assheton and his wife, Constance Lawe. From one of the fines, we learn that Eleanor (Retford) Lawe had at least a second daughter and coheir who is not named. I presume she is Eleanor, wife of Thomas Cornwayll, Knt. who mentioned in the fine labelled as item 3 below.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

1. Reference: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_145_164.shtml#9

CP 25/1/145/164, number 9.

County: Lincolnshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: One week from St Martin, 4 Henry VII [18 November 1488].

Parties: Thomas Assheton', knight, John Bothe, knight, Richard Assheton', esquire, Robert Dokenfeld' and John Langley, esquire, querents, and Peter Assheton' and Constance, his wife, one of the daughters and heirs of William Lawe and of Eleanor, his wife, deforciants.
Property: A moiety of the manor [sic] of Casthorp' and Braghton', and the advowson of a moiety of the church of Braghton'.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: Peter and Constance have acknowledged the moiety of the manor and the advowson to be the right of Thomas, as those which Thomas, John, Richard, Robert and John have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Constance to Thomas, John, Richard, Robert and John and the heirs of Thomas for ever.
Warranty: Warranty.
For this: Thomas, John, Richard, Robert and John have granted to Peter and Constance the moiety of the manor and the advowson and have rendered them to them in the court, to hold to Peter and Constance, without impeachment of waste, of Thomas, John, Richard, Robert and John and the heirs of Thomas for the lives of Peter and Constance, rendering yearly 1 rose at the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist, and doing to the chief lords all other services. And after the decease of Peter and Constance the moiety of the manor and the advowson shall revert to Thomas, John, Richard, Robert and John and the heirs of Thomas, quit of the heirs of Peter and Constance, to hold of the chief lords for ever.

2. Reference: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_145_165.shtml#77

CP 25/1/145/165, number 77.

County: Lincolnshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: One week from St John the Baptist, 22 Henry VII [1 July 1507].

Parties: John Bothe, knight, Edmund Dudley, esquire, and Godfrey Folyambe, querents, and Peter Assheton' and Constance, his wife, deforciants.
Property: A moiety of the manor [sic] of Caysthrop' and Braghton', and a moiety of 80 messuages, of 2000 acres of land, of 1000 acres of meadow, of 1000 acres of pasture, of 400 acres of wood and 46 shillings and 8 pence of rent in Cayschrop' [sic], Braghton' and Kyllyngholme, and also the advowson of the church of Braghton'.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: Peter and Constance have acknowledged the moiety of the manor and tenements and the advowson to be the right of Edmund, as that [sic] which Edmund, John and Godfrey have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed it from themselves and the heirs of Constance to John, Edmund and Godfrey and the heirs of Edmund for ever.
Warranty: Warranty.
For this: John, Edmund and Godfrey have given them 400 pounds sterling.

3. Reference: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_145_164.shtml#25

CP 25/1/145/164, number 25.
Link: Image of document at AALT
County: Lincolnshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: One week from St Martin, 14 Henry VII [18 November 1498].
Parties: John Wichcote (or John Withcote), esquire, Richard Topcliff, esquire, and William Tynke, querents, and Thomas Cornwayll', knight, and Eleanor, his wife, deforciants.
Property: A moiety of the manor of Casthorp'.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: Thomas and Eleanor have acknowledged the moiety of the manor to be the right of John, and have remised and quitclaimed it from themselves and the heirs of Eleanor to John, Richard and William and the heirs of John for ever.
Warranty: Warranty by Thomas and Eleanor, against George, abbot of St Peter, Westminster, and his successors, for the life of Eleanor.
For this: John, Richard and William have given them 200 marks of silver.

4. In 1495 John Welshe and Katherine Blount, executors of the will of Isabel Horde, executrix of the will of John Hoorde, Esq., of Shrewsbury, Shropshire sued Peter Assheton, Gent., of Braughton, Lincolnshire, also of the town of Westminister, Middlesex in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 20 marks.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/931, image 860d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/H7/CP40no931/bCP40no931dorses/IMG_0860.htm).

5. Source: Online Discovery catalogue

Reference: STAC 1/2/113
STAC 1 - Court of Star Chamber: Proceedings, Henry VII
Description:
Plaintiff: Richard, bishop of Winchester Defendant: Peter Aschston Place or Subject: Illegal distraints in Welton, Ryland, Irby, Burton, etc County: Lincs
Date: 20 Hen VII [1504-1505]

Held by: The National Archives, Kew

6. Source: Online Discovery catalogue

Reference: STAC 2/17/310
STAC 2 - Court of Star Chamber: Proceedings, Henry VIII
Description:
PLAINTIFF: The bishop of Winchester DEFENDANT: Peter Assheton PLACE OR SUBJECT: Title to lands formerly of Sir Henry Redford. Bill missing at transfer
Date: 22/04/1509-28/01/1547

[Douglas Richardson]

In my post just now, I said the following:

"I made this statement on the basis of the fact that only part of the Retford-Paynell inheritance fell to their known daughter, Elizabeth (Retford) Bruyn, on the death of her brother, Sir Henry Paynell the younger, in 1460."

It was Sir Henry Retford the younger who died in 1460, not Sir Henry Paynell. There was no Sir Henry Paynell.

DR

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below are a variety of records which shed additional light on the descendants of the Paynell and Retford families. These records involve the Lowe, Assheton, Ursley/Urseley, and Whichecote families.

The first item below concerns Sir Ralph Paynel, who I assume is the Sir Ralph Paynell who was the father of Katherine Paynell, wife successively of Nicholas Cantelowe, Sir John Auncell, and Sir Henry Retford.

The succeeding records below concern Katherine Paynell's 2nd daughter, Eleanor Retford, and her husband, William Lowe, of Enville, Staffordshire, and her descendants. I earlier located a feet of fine in which Eleanor's husband was called William Lawe. Upon further checking, however, I've since determined that Eleanor Retford's husband was actually named William Lowe.

The records cited below prove that William Lowe and his wife, Eleanor Retford, had three children, namely one son, Richard Lowe, Esq. (husband of Eleanor Mitton), and two daughters, Constance (wife of Peter/Piers Assheton) and Elizabeth (wife of Thomas Ursley/Urseley). Elizabeth Lowe and her husband, Thomas Ursley/Urseley, in turn are shown to be the parents of Margaret Ursley/Urseley, wife of Edmund Whichecote.

A John Wichcote, Esq., shows up in 1498 fine. I suspect he was the son and heir of Edmund Whichecote and his wife, Margaret Ursley. He occurs in another record below dated 1493-1500.

A Sir Thomas Berkeley and his wife, Eleanor, occur in a fine below dated 1465. I'm uncertain as to the identity of Eleanor, but I believe she is the same person as Eleanor Retford, who was earlier the wife of William Lowe. I suspect Sir Thomas Berkeley is the man of that name of Wymondham, Leicestershire, who died in 1488. Further research needs to be done to confirm the identity of Sir Thomas Berkeley and his wife, Eleanor.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Source: Online Discovery catalogue
Reference: C 143/221/9

Description:
Ralph Paynel, knight, to grant a messuage and land in Broughton (Berghton) to a chaplain in St. James's chapel at Glanfordbrigg, retaining the manor of Caysthorp. Lincoln.

Date: 6 EDWARD III [1332-1333]

+ + + + + + + + +

Source: Online Discovery catalogue
Reference: C 1/276/26

Description:
Short title: Assheton v Assheton.
Plaintiffs: Piers Assheton, esquire, and Constance, his wife.
Defendants: Sir Thomas Assheton, knight, feoffee to uses.
Subject: The manor[s] of Caysthorp and Braghton. Lincolnshire
Date: 1504-1515

+ + + + + + + + + +

Source: Online Discovery catalogue

Reference: C 1/277/29
Description:

Short title: Assheton v Assheton.
Plaintiffs: Piers Assheton and Constance, his wife.
Defendants: Sir Thomas Assheton, knight, Gervys Assheton, clerk and Nicholas Assheton.
Subject: Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Casthorp. Lincolnshire
Date: 1504-1515

+ + + + + + + + +

Source: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk

Chancery Proceeding
Reference: C 1/174/24

Description:
Short title: Urseley v Cornwall.
Plaintiffs: Thomas Urseley and Elizabeth, his wife, and Piers Ashton and Custance, his wife.
Defendants: Sir Thomas Cornwall, knight, and Eleanor, his wife, previously the wife of Hugh Molle, and William Mytton, her father.
Subject: Detention of deeds relating to the manors of Milton and Enfield, and other lands, late of Richard Lowe, father of the said Elizabeth and Custance.
Cambridgeshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire.
2 documents
Date: 1486-1493, or 1504-1515

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Source: Online Discovery catalogue

Chancery Proceeding
Reference: C 1/114/40
Description:
Short title: Asshton v Cornewaille.

Plaintiffs: Piers Asshton and Constance, his wife, and Edmund Whychecote and Margaret, his wife, daughter and heir of Elizabeth, late the wife of Thomas Urseley.

Defendants: Sir Thomas Cornewaille, knight, and Eleanor, his wife, late the wife of Hugh Molle, and William Mitton.
Subject: Detention of deeds relating to the manors of Milton and Enfeld, and other lands of Richard Lowe, esquire, brother of the said Constance and Elizabeth, and of the manor of Casthorp. Cambridgeshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire, Lincolnshire

Date: 1486-1493 or 1504-1515

Note: Eleanor, wife of Sir Thomas Cornewaille above, was the widow of Richard Lowe.

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Source: Online Discovery catalogue

Chancery Proceeding
Reference: C 1/230/5
Description:
Short title: Ursley v The Sheriffs of London.
Plaintiffs: Johane, late the wife of Thomas Ursley.
Defendants: The sheriffs of London.
Subject: Arrest for debt at the suit of John Whichcote, esquire, in order to make her release the arrears of an annuity charged on the manor of Casthorp. Certiorari. Lincolnshire.
SFP
Date: 1493-1500

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Various feet of fines
Source: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk

1. CP 25/1/143/145, number 43: (1385)
Persons: Henry de Redford'; Katherine; John de Somerby; John Bate
Places: Caysthorp'; Carleton' Paynell'; Lincoln'; Appulby; Parua Carleton'; Scalby [Lincolnshire]

2. CP 25/1/143/145, number 47: (1385)
Persons: Henry de Redford'; Katherine; John de Somerby; John Bate; Katherine; Ralph Paynell'
Places: Caysthorp'; Carleton' Paynell'; Lincoln'; Appulby; Parua Carleton'; Scalby [Lincolnshire]

3. CP 25/1/145/164, number 9: (1488)
Persons: Thomas Assheton'; John Bothe; Richard Assheton'; Robert Dokenfeld'; John Langley; Peter Assheton'; Constance; William Lawe; Eleanor
Places: Casthorp'; Braghton'; Braghton' [Lincolnshire]

4. CP 25/1/145/164, number 25: (1498)
Persons: John Wichcote; Richard Topcliff; William Tynke; Thomas Cornwayll'; Eleanor
Places: Casthorp' [Lincolnshire]

5. CP 25/1/145/165, number 77: (1507)
Persons: John Bothe; Edmund Dudley; Godfrey Folyambe; Peter Assheton'; Constance
Places: Caysthrop'; Braghton'; Cayschrop'; Braghton'; Kyllyngholme; Braghton' [Lincolnshire]

6. CP 25/1/145/160, number 27: (1450)
Persons: William Stanley; Henry Redford'; Ellen; Mary; William Clynton'
Places: Casthorp' [Lincolnshire]

7. CP 25/1/144/149, number 18: (1394)
Persons: Robert Cumberworth'; William Kelke; John Bate; Peter Grele; Henry de Retford'; Katherine
Places: Keysthorp'; Berghton'; Carleton' [Lincolnshire]

8. CP 25/1/145/162, number 10: (1465)
Persons: Geoffrey Shererd'; John Quyk'; Thomas Berkeley; Eleanor
Places: Casthorp' [Lincolnshire]

9. CP 25/1/191/27, number 48: (1432)
Persons: William Lowe; Eleanor Radford'; Richard Lestraunge
Places: Midlyngton' [Oxfordshire]

10. CP 25/1/191/28, number 27: (1446-1447)
Persons: William Lacon'; John Husee; Roger Kynnaston'; William Lowe; Eleanor
Places: Byrseter; Midlyngton'; Byrseter [Oxfordshire]

11. CP 25/1/191/28, number 28: (1446-1447)
Persons: William Lowe; Eleanor; Richard Lestraunge; Elizabeth
Places: Byrseter; Midlyngton'; Byrseter [Oxfordshire

[John Watson]

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 05:52:27 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:

> A Sir Thomas Berkeley and his wife, Eleanor, occur in a fine below dated 1465. I'm uncertain as to the identity of Eleanor, but I believe she is the same person as Eleanor Retford, who was earlier the wife of William Lowe. I suspect Sir Thomas Berkeley is the man of that name of Wymondham, Leicestershire, who died in 1488. Further research needs to be done to confirm the identity of Sir Thomas Berkeley and his wife, Eleanor.
>

Dear Douglas,

I think you may need to find a different Thomas Berkeley. According to HOP, Sir Thomas Berkeley of Wymondham, Leicestershire (MP for Leicestershire 1472-5) married (1) Emma, daughter of William Brokesby, and (2) Sybil, widow of Sir William Lacon, M.P., justice of K.B. (who d. 1475) and daughter of John Syterwold of Cleever.
Josiah C. Wedgewood, History of Parliament, Biographies of the Members of the Commons House, 1439-1509 (London: HMSO, 1936), 68.

Regards,
John

[John Watson]

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 05:52:27 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>

Dear Douglas,

This fine concerning the manor of Bicestre has an interesting list of remainders. Do you have any idea how or if these people are related to the Retford family. Who was Sir Phllip Radford (Retford)? Perhaps a son of Sir Henry and his second wife Mary?

CP 25/1/191/27, number 49.

Link: Image of document at AALT

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_191_27.shtml#49
County: Oxfordshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: Two weeks from Easter, 10 Henry VI [4 May 1432].
Parties: Thomas Fitz Hugh' and Robert Came (or Robert Caine), querents, and Richard Lestraunge, knight, and Constance, his wife, deforciants.
Property: The manor of Burcestre, excepting 2 messuages, a twelfth part of 1 messuage, 30 acres of land and 5 acres of meadow in Burcestre in the same manor.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: Richard and Constance have acknowledged the manor to be the right of Thomas, as that which Thomas and Robert have of their gift.
For this: Thomas and Robert have granted to Richard and Constance the manor and have rendered it to them in the court, to hold to Richard and Constance and the heirs of their bodies, of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders (1) to William Lowe and Eleanor Radford' and the heirs of their bodies, (2) to the heirs of the body of the same Eleanor, (3) to the heirs of the body of the aforesaid William, (4) to Edmund Hungerford', knight, and Margery, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, (5) to Philip Radford', knight, and the heirs of his body, (6) to William Heron', esquire, and the heirs of his body and (7) to the right heirs of Richard.

Regards,

John

[Kevan Barton via]

Douglas,

Do you know if the Whichcots of which you speak are of the Harpswell, Lincolnshire, Whichcots?

Cheers,
Kevan

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John and Kevan ~

I've located some additional records regarding the descendants of Eleanor Redford and her husband, William Lowe, of Enville, Staffordshire.

Taken together, the records below prove that Eleanor's grand-daughter, Margaret Ursley/Ursseley, died 1506, married (1st) Edmund Whichecote, and (2nd) before 1497 Thomas Arnold, of Harpswell, Lincolnshire. By her 1st marriage, Margaret had one child, John Whichecote, born about 1491 (aged 15 in 1506].

I assume John Whitecote is the John Whichecote of Harpswell, Lincolnshire below who left a will proved 10 March 1510.

I might note that Margaret Ursley and her 2nd husband, Thomas Arnold, are mentioned in the 4th and 5th fines cited below.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

Source: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem: Series 2, Volume 3, Henry VII (1955): 184-209.

310. MARGARET ARNOLD.
Writ 24 May, 21 Henry VII; inquisition 12 October, 22 Henry VII [1506].
Margaret late the wife of Thomas Arnald, late of Harpeswell, co. Lincoln, died 1 March, 21 Henry VII [1506], seised in fee of the under-mentioned moiety. John Wechecott, son of Edmund Wechecott, is her son and heir, and is aged 15 years and more.

LINCOLN. Moiety of the manor of Casthrope and Braghtton, with appurtenances in Braghtton and Casthrope, worth 22l., held of the king in chief by 6s. 8d. rent services unknown.

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Source: Online Discovery catalogue

Title: GRANT
Reference: 5735/2/23/1/11
Description:
Richard Lowe, lord of Enefeld and his wife Eleanor grant to William Lowe, Humphrey Mere and Henry Hille a parcel of land in Middlefield, Enville near the chantry.
Date: Whit 1470
Held by: Shropshire Archives, not available at The National Archives

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Source: Online Discovery catalogue

Reference: PROB 11/16/105
Description: Will of John Whichecote of Harpswell, Lincolnshire
Date: 10 March 1510

Held by: The National Archives, Kew

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Source: Online Discovery catalogue

Title: RELEASE
Reference: 5735/2/23/1/10
Description:
Richard Lowe and his wife Eleanor release to William Lee, Humphrey Mere and John Tolles land in Middlefield, Enville near the chantry.
Date: 15 Sep 1470
Held by: Shropshire Archives, not available at The National Archives

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Feet of Fines

Source: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/search.php

1. CP 25/1/294/76, number 91: (1473)
Persons: Thomas Acton'; John Salter; Richard Lowe; Eleanor
Places: Milton'; Enfeld'; Salop'; Rodynton' [Cambridgeshire. Staffordshire. Shropshire]

2. CP 25/1/260/28, number 8: (1475)
Persons: John Acton'; Thomas Forest; Richard Lowe; Eleanor
Places: Enfeld; Kydermynstre [Worcestershire]

3. CP 25/1/294/77, number 135: (1481)
Persons: William Huse; John Broun'; John Ryngeley; William Wylkys; John Wolf; Constance Lowe; Hugh Molle; Eleanor
Places: Milton'; Enfelde; Salopia; Radyngton' [Cambridgeshire. Staffordshire. Shropshire]

4. CP 25/1/294/80, number 71: (1497)
Persons: John Wichcote; Richard [T]opclyffe; Peter Lowethian'; Thomas Arnold'; Margaret; Elizabeth; Richard Lowe
Places: Milton'; Middilton'; Enfeld'; Salop'; Rodyngton' [Cambridgeshire. Staffordshire. Shropshire]

5. CP 25/1/294/80, number 72: (1497-1498)
Persons: John Wichcote; Richard Topclyffe; Peter Lowethian'; Thomas Arnold'; Margaret; Elizabeth; Richard Lowe; Thomas Cornewayle; Eleanor
Places: Milton'; Middilton'; Milton'; Middilton'; Enfeld'; Salop'; Rodyngton' [Cambridgeshire. Staffordshire. Shropshire]

[Kevan Barton via]

Douglas,

Thank you for your response. As always, I enjoy and appreciate what you add to gen-med.

WRT the Whichcots of Harpswell, it certainly looks like there is some connection, however, there is not enough info yet to connect them to the line from which I descend. The Edmund Whichecote you mention overlaps timewise with a John Whichcot (c 1441-1518) of Harpswell who appears to have married Elizabeth Tyrwhit, d. of John Tyrwhit and NN Rolleston. It would be fun to find that the will you mentioned is from the first John Whichcot who married Tyrwhit. Perhaps your Edmund is a brother of this John Whichcot.

I wish I could add more detail, but everything is in storage; and my wife and I are missionaries in South Korea.

Cheers,
Kevan