Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Addition/Correction: Sir John de Cromwell, Lord Cromwell, died 1335, and his wife, Idoine de Vipont
173 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
May 20, 2016, 10:02:06 PM5/20/16
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 553 (sub Cromwell) includes an account of Sir John de Cromwell, Lord Cromwell, who died in 1335. Sir John de Cromwell had a long and distinguished career, he being a long time Constable of the Tower of London, Justice of of the forest South of Trent, Steward of the King’s Household, and Admiral of the Fleet.
Regarding his parentage and marriage, the following information is supplied by Complete Peerage on page 553:
"John de Cromwell, probably younger son of Ralph de Cromwell (who died 1289), by his 2nd wife, Margaret, daughter of Roger de Somery ... He married, before 25 June 1302, Idoine, widow of Roger de Leyburne (died 1283), and daughter and coheiress of Robert de Vipont, of Brougham Castle, Westmorland, being niece and coheiress of Richard FitzJohn [Lord FitzJohn]. She, who was heiress to large estates, died s.p. 1333, before 18 Nov., when the writ for her Inq. p.m. is dated. He died before 8 October 1335." END OF QUOTE.
Having stated that Sir John de Cromwell's wife, Idoine, died without issue, the following information is added on page 553, footnote f, regarding the possibility that Sir John de Cromwell had issue:
"It is not, of course, certain that he did not have issue by a previous wife, as, if such existed, they would not necessarily appear in the records." END OF QUOTE.
As we see above, Complete Peerage maintains that Sir John de Cromwell was "probably younger son of Ralph de Cromwell,"... "by his 2nd wife, Margaret, daughter of Roger de Somery"
Complete Peerage cites no evidence, however, to support that allegation.
On page 551 in the same volume, footnote i, it is likewise claimed that Sir John de Cromwell was "probably" a younger son of Ralph de Cromwell. Here is the evidence cited on that page for that claim:
Nothing.
So who were Sir John de Cromwell's parents? As it turns out, there are several contemporary pieces of evidence which point to the correct parentage of Sir John de Cromwell. Complete Peerage states that Sir John de Cromwell married Idoine de Vipont before 25 June 1302. That information is doubtless correct, but I've been unable to locate the original source of that statement.
Be that as it may, Complete Peerage strangely missed a late date papal dispensation for the marriage of Sir John and Idoine dated 15 March 1317, which record shows that Sir John and his wife were related in the 4th degree of kindred (or, if you prefer 3rd cousins to one another). The record reads as follows:
Source: Papal Registers: Letters 2 (1895): 137.
"1317. Id. Mar. [15 March] Avignon. To John de Cromuel, knight, constable of the Tower of London, and Ydona, his wife. Dispensation to remain in the marriage which they contracted, not knowing that they were related in the fourth degree of kindred." END OF QUOTE.
Since the ancestry of Idoine de Vipont is well known, it should be easy to determine if the proposed parentage for Sir John de Cromwell fits the kinship indicated by the dispensation. The ancestral lines of the two parties can be traced in my book, Royal Ancestry, a 5 volume set.
l. Hugh, Earl of Chester, married Bertrade de Montfort.
2. Mabel of Chester, married William d'Aubeney, Earl of Arundel.
3. Nichole (or Colette) d'Aubeney, married Roger de Somery, Knt.
4. Margaret de Somery, married Ralph de Cromwell, Knt.
5. John de Cromwell, Knt., married Idoine de Vipont.
l. Hugh, Earl of Chester, married Bertrade de Montfort.
2. Agnes of Chester, married William de Ferrers, Earl of Chester.
3. Sibyl de Ferrers, marrried John de Vipont.
4. Robert de Vipont, married Isabel Fitz John.
5. Idoine de Vipont, married John de Cromwell, Knt.
We see above that Sir John de Cromwell and his wife, Idoine de Vipont, were in fact related in the 4th degree [i.e., 3rd cousins], by common descent from Hugh, Earl of Chester (died 1181), presuming that Complete Peerage has correctly identified Sir John's "probable" parentage.
As for other evidence of Sir John de Cromwell's parentage, we saw above that Complete Peerage expressed doubt if Sir John Cromwell had issue, but added that if such issue existed by a previous marriage, "they would not necessarily appear in the records." That statement is patently false. The following two records prove that Sir John de Cromwell had at least two sons, Sir Ralph de Cromwell, living in 1315, and Richard de Cromwell, living in 1331, although by what wife or mistress it is not stated.
1. Calendar of Close Rolls, 1313–1318 (1893): 230:
"Enrollment of grant from John de Cromwell, knight, to Sir Ralph de Cromwell, knight, his son, of his manor of Wrenstede, in the county of Kent, in the parish of Frethenestede, and the advowson of the church. Dated at London, Friday after Holy Trinity, 8 Edward II [1315]." END OF QUOTE.
2. Papal Registers: Letters 2 (1895): 353:
Date: 1331. 10 Kal. Nov. [23 October] Avignon. To Richard, son of John de Crumbewell, knight, of the diocese of Lincoln. Indult that that his confessor shall give him plenary absolution at the hour of death).
3. By fine dated 1320, John de Croumbwell [Cromwell] granted the reversion of the manor of Bleasby, Nottinghamshire to Richard de Croumbwell [Cromwell] and his issue. In default of such issue, the manor was to revert to the right heirs of John de Cromwell.
We see above that Sir John de Cromwell conveyed the manor of Wrenstede (in Frinsted), Kent in 1315 to his son, Ralph Cromwell, Knt. However, Feudal Aids 3 (1904): 15 indicates that it was Richard de Cromwell who held the manor of Frinsted, Kent in 1316. So it is possible that son Richard de Cromwell mentioned in 1331 is the same person as Sir Ralph de Cromwell named in 1315.
Sheffield City Archives: Estate papers of the Copley Family, Baronets, of Sprotborough, CD/376 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk) indicates that Richard de Cromwell, of Bleasby, Nottinghamshire was living in 1325. Presumably this Richard de Cromwell is the same person as Richard de Cromwell, Knt. who owed debts in 1337 and 1341 [see National Archives, C 241/110/230; C 241/114/11].
So we have indications that Sir John de Cromwell had at least one son, Richard de Cromwell, who appears to have been knighted, who held manors in Kent and Nottinghamshire by the gift of his father. The following evidence suggests that Richard de Cromwell was probably illegitimate.
Recently I located a lawsuit dated 1341, whereby Henry de Chalfhunte and Maud his wife sued Richard de Crumbwell, knight in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the manor of Wrenstede (in Frinsted), Kent [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/326, image 194f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no326/aCP40no326fronts/IMG_0194.htm)].
In the course of the lawsuit, Ralph de Crumbwell, Knt., the elder was called to warranty. Sir Ralph de Crumbwell is specifically named as “kinsman and heir” of John de Crumbwell, Knt.
We can be certain that the deceased Sir John de Cromwell named in this lawsuit is the one who married Idoine de Vipont. But who was Sir Ralph de Cromwell, senior who was named as his kinsman and heir?
The answer to that question lies in yet another record dated 1340-1, whereby "Ralph de Crumbewell, the elder," was licensed to grant a messuage and rent in Lambley, Nottinghamshire to a chaplain in the church of the Holy Trinity there, retaining land and rent in Lambley and Cromwell, Nottinghamshire [Reference: National Archives, C 143/254/1].
Ralph de Cromwell, the elder in the record dated 1340-1 can readily be identified as Sir Ralph de Cromwell, Knt., born c. 1292, died 1356, of Cromwell, Hucknall Torkard, and Lambley, Nottinghamshire, West Hallam, Derbyshire, etc. He was styled "the elder" in 1340-1 and 1341, as he had an adult son of the same name, Ralph de Cromwell, who came of age by 1338.
So how was Ralph de Cromwell, the elder related to Sir John de Cromwell? Sir Ralph de Cromwell the elder was the nephew of Sir John de Cromwell, he being the son of Sir John's older brother, Sir Ralph de Cromwell, who died in 1399. Given that Ralph de Cromwell, the elder is styled Sir John de Cromwell's kinsman and heir in 1341, this equally means that Sir Richard de Cromwell can not have been the heir to Sir John de Cromwell. This suggests that Sir Richard de Cromwell was an illegitimate son of Sir John de Cromwell. [Note: This assumes that the various references to Richard de Cromwell in this time period are for the same man].
As for the manor of Bleasby, Nottinghamshire, it appears to have been in the hands of the senior Cromwell line in 1412, which suggests that following the death of Sir Richard de Cromwell after 1341, the manor reverted by the terms of the fine in 1320 to Sir John de Cromwell's right heirs, that is, the senior line of the family.
Is there any other evidence which proves Sir John de Cromwell's place in this family? Actually yes there is.
Papal Registers: Letters 2 (1895): 144 indicates that John de Cromuel [Cromwell], constable of the Tower, was styled “uncle” of Baldwin de Wyeteney [Whitney], a cleric, in 1317. How were the two men related? Sir John de Cromwell's had an older half-sister, Joan de Cromwell, who married Sir Alexander de Freville, which couple in turn were the parents of Elizabeth de Freville, who married in 1301 Eustace de Whitney. It would appear that Baldwin de Whitney was a child of Elizabeth (de Freville) de Whitney. If so, it would make Sir John de Cromwell the great-uncle to Baldwin de Whitney.
Although Complete Peerage makes no mention of it, Sir John de Cromwell served as Steward of the King's Household. Below is one of many records which proves he held this office.
Source: Shakespeare Birthplace Trust: Gregory of Stivichall, DR10/2095 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).
"Title: PERSONAL PAPERS - MISCELLANEOUS
Reference: DR10/2095
Date: 1306. Certificate from Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex and constable of England, that Sir John de Cromwell', steward of the king's household had testified that Sir Walter de Bedewynd' had testified to him that Sir Alexander de Fryvill' had performed his knight service in the Scottish war of 34 Edward I." END OF QUOTE.
Lastly, as I stated above, Complete Peerage refers to Sir John de Cromwell's wife as Idoine, whereas I find the online Discovery catalogue refers to her more than once by the Latin form Idonia. Which form is correct? Inasmuch as the Discovery catalogue entry in question cites at least two original Parliamentary petitions for this lady which can be viewed online, it is easy to see exactly what name John de Cromwell's wife was known as during her lifetime.
SC 8/172/8596 (petition dated 1305-7) refers to her as "Idoygne."
SC 8/11/525 (petition dated 1332) refers to her as "Idoigne."
Hence we learn from this petition that Sir John de Cromwell's wife was known as Idoygne or Idoigne (which forms may be modernized as Idoine). There is no Latin form Idonia, as alleged by the modern Discovery catalogue, in either of these records.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 553 (sub Cromwell) includes an account of Sir John de Cromwell, Lord Cromwell, who died in 1335. Sir John de Cromwell had a long and distinguished career, he being a long time Constable of the Tower of London, Justice of of the forest South of Trent, Steward of the King’s Household, and Admiral of the Fleet.
Regarding his parentage and marriage, the following information is supplied by Complete Peerage on page 553:
"John de Cromwell, probably younger son of Ralph de Cromwell (who died 1289), by his 2nd wife, Margaret, daughter of Roger de Somery ... He married, before 25 June 1302, Idoine, widow of Roger de Leyburne (died 1283), and daughter and coheiress of Robert de Vipont, of Brougham Castle, Westmorland, being niece and coheiress of Richard FitzJohn [Lord FitzJohn]. She, who was heiress to large estates, died s.p. 1333, before 18 Nov., when the writ for her Inq. p.m. is dated. He died before 8 October 1335." END OF QUOTE.
Having stated that Sir John de Cromwell's wife, Idoine, died without issue, the following information is added on page 553, footnote f, regarding the possibility that Sir John de Cromwell had issue:
"It is not, of course, certain that he did not have issue by a previous wife, as, if such existed, they would not necessarily appear in the records." END OF QUOTE.
As we see above, Complete Peerage maintains that Sir John de Cromwell was "probably younger son of Ralph de Cromwell,"... "by his 2nd wife, Margaret, daughter of Roger de Somery"
Complete Peerage cites no evidence, however, to support that allegation.
On page 551 in the same volume, footnote i, it is likewise claimed that Sir John de Cromwell was "probably" a younger son of Ralph de Cromwell. Here is the evidence cited on that page for that claim:
Nothing.
So who were Sir John de Cromwell's parents? As it turns out, there are several contemporary pieces of evidence which point to the correct parentage of Sir John de Cromwell. Complete Peerage states that Sir John de Cromwell married Idoine de Vipont before 25 June 1302. That information is doubtless correct, but I've been unable to locate the original source of that statement.
Be that as it may, Complete Peerage strangely missed a late date papal dispensation for the marriage of Sir John and Idoine dated 15 March 1317, which record shows that Sir John and his wife were related in the 4th degree of kindred (or, if you prefer 3rd cousins to one another). The record reads as follows:
Source: Papal Registers: Letters 2 (1895): 137.
"1317. Id. Mar. [15 March] Avignon. To John de Cromuel, knight, constable of the Tower of London, and Ydona, his wife. Dispensation to remain in the marriage which they contracted, not knowing that they were related in the fourth degree of kindred." END OF QUOTE.
Since the ancestry of Idoine de Vipont is well known, it should be easy to determine if the proposed parentage for Sir John de Cromwell fits the kinship indicated by the dispensation. The ancestral lines of the two parties can be traced in my book, Royal Ancestry, a 5 volume set.
l. Hugh, Earl of Chester, married Bertrade de Montfort.
2. Mabel of Chester, married William d'Aubeney, Earl of Arundel.
3. Nichole (or Colette) d'Aubeney, married Roger de Somery, Knt.
4. Margaret de Somery, married Ralph de Cromwell, Knt.
5. John de Cromwell, Knt., married Idoine de Vipont.
l. Hugh, Earl of Chester, married Bertrade de Montfort.
2. Agnes of Chester, married William de Ferrers, Earl of Chester.
3. Sibyl de Ferrers, marrried John de Vipont.
4. Robert de Vipont, married Isabel Fitz John.
5. Idoine de Vipont, married John de Cromwell, Knt.
We see above that Sir John de Cromwell and his wife, Idoine de Vipont, were in fact related in the 4th degree [i.e., 3rd cousins], by common descent from Hugh, Earl of Chester (died 1181), presuming that Complete Peerage has correctly identified Sir John's "probable" parentage.
As for other evidence of Sir John de Cromwell's parentage, we saw above that Complete Peerage expressed doubt if Sir John Cromwell had issue, but added that if such issue existed by a previous marriage, "they would not necessarily appear in the records." That statement is patently false. The following two records prove that Sir John de Cromwell had at least two sons, Sir Ralph de Cromwell, living in 1315, and Richard de Cromwell, living in 1331, although by what wife or mistress it is not stated.
1. Calendar of Close Rolls, 1313–1318 (1893): 230:
"Enrollment of grant from John de Cromwell, knight, to Sir Ralph de Cromwell, knight, his son, of his manor of Wrenstede, in the county of Kent, in the parish of Frethenestede, and the advowson of the church. Dated at London, Friday after Holy Trinity, 8 Edward II [1315]." END OF QUOTE.
2. Papal Registers: Letters 2 (1895): 353:
Date: 1331. 10 Kal. Nov. [23 October] Avignon. To Richard, son of John de Crumbewell, knight, of the diocese of Lincoln. Indult that that his confessor shall give him plenary absolution at the hour of death).
3. By fine dated 1320, John de Croumbwell [Cromwell] granted the reversion of the manor of Bleasby, Nottinghamshire to Richard de Croumbwell [Cromwell] and his issue. In default of such issue, the manor was to revert to the right heirs of John de Cromwell.
We see above that Sir John de Cromwell conveyed the manor of Wrenstede (in Frinsted), Kent in 1315 to his son, Ralph Cromwell, Knt. However, Feudal Aids 3 (1904): 15 indicates that it was Richard de Cromwell who held the manor of Frinsted, Kent in 1316. So it is possible that son Richard de Cromwell mentioned in 1331 is the same person as Sir Ralph de Cromwell named in 1315.
Sheffield City Archives: Estate papers of the Copley Family, Baronets, of Sprotborough, CD/376 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk) indicates that Richard de Cromwell, of Bleasby, Nottinghamshire was living in 1325. Presumably this Richard de Cromwell is the same person as Richard de Cromwell, Knt. who owed debts in 1337 and 1341 [see National Archives, C 241/110/230; C 241/114/11].
So we have indications that Sir John de Cromwell had at least one son, Richard de Cromwell, who appears to have been knighted, who held manors in Kent and Nottinghamshire by the gift of his father. The following evidence suggests that Richard de Cromwell was probably illegitimate.
Recently I located a lawsuit dated 1341, whereby Henry de Chalfhunte and Maud his wife sued Richard de Crumbwell, knight in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the manor of Wrenstede (in Frinsted), Kent [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/326, image 194f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no326/aCP40no326fronts/IMG_0194.htm)].
In the course of the lawsuit, Ralph de Crumbwell, Knt., the elder was called to warranty. Sir Ralph de Crumbwell is specifically named as “kinsman and heir” of John de Crumbwell, Knt.
We can be certain that the deceased Sir John de Cromwell named in this lawsuit is the one who married Idoine de Vipont. But who was Sir Ralph de Cromwell, senior who was named as his kinsman and heir?
The answer to that question lies in yet another record dated 1340-1, whereby "Ralph de Crumbewell, the elder," was licensed to grant a messuage and rent in Lambley, Nottinghamshire to a chaplain in the church of the Holy Trinity there, retaining land and rent in Lambley and Cromwell, Nottinghamshire [Reference: National Archives, C 143/254/1].
Ralph de Cromwell, the elder in the record dated 1340-1 can readily be identified as Sir Ralph de Cromwell, Knt., born c. 1292, died 1356, of Cromwell, Hucknall Torkard, and Lambley, Nottinghamshire, West Hallam, Derbyshire, etc. He was styled "the elder" in 1340-1 and 1341, as he had an adult son of the same name, Ralph de Cromwell, who came of age by 1338.
So how was Ralph de Cromwell, the elder related to Sir John de Cromwell? Sir Ralph de Cromwell the elder was the nephew of Sir John de Cromwell, he being the son of Sir John's older brother, Sir Ralph de Cromwell, who died in 1399. Given that Ralph de Cromwell, the elder is styled Sir John de Cromwell's kinsman and heir in 1341, this equally means that Sir Richard de Cromwell can not have been the heir to Sir John de Cromwell. This suggests that Sir Richard de Cromwell was an illegitimate son of Sir John de Cromwell. [Note: This assumes that the various references to Richard de Cromwell in this time period are for the same man].
As for the manor of Bleasby, Nottinghamshire, it appears to have been in the hands of the senior Cromwell line in 1412, which suggests that following the death of Sir Richard de Cromwell after 1341, the manor reverted by the terms of the fine in 1320 to Sir John de Cromwell's right heirs, that is, the senior line of the family.
Is there any other evidence which proves Sir John de Cromwell's place in this family? Actually yes there is.
Papal Registers: Letters 2 (1895): 144 indicates that John de Cromuel [Cromwell], constable of the Tower, was styled “uncle” of Baldwin de Wyeteney [Whitney], a cleric, in 1317. How were the two men related? Sir John de Cromwell's had an older half-sister, Joan de Cromwell, who married Sir Alexander de Freville, which couple in turn were the parents of Elizabeth de Freville, who married in 1301 Eustace de Whitney. It would appear that Baldwin de Whitney was a child of Elizabeth (de Freville) de Whitney. If so, it would make Sir John de Cromwell the great-uncle to Baldwin de Whitney.
Although Complete Peerage makes no mention of it, Sir John de Cromwell served as Steward of the King's Household. Below is one of many records which proves he held this office.
Source: Shakespeare Birthplace Trust: Gregory of Stivichall, DR10/2095 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).
"Title: PERSONAL PAPERS - MISCELLANEOUS
Reference: DR10/2095
Date: 1306. Certificate from Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex and constable of England, that Sir John de Cromwell', steward of the king's household had testified that Sir Walter de Bedewynd' had testified to him that Sir Alexander de Fryvill' had performed his knight service in the Scottish war of 34 Edward I." END OF QUOTE.
Lastly, as I stated above, Complete Peerage refers to Sir John de Cromwell's wife as Idoine, whereas I find the online Discovery catalogue refers to her more than once by the Latin form Idonia. Which form is correct? Inasmuch as the Discovery catalogue entry in question cites at least two original Parliamentary petitions for this lady which can be viewed online, it is easy to see exactly what name John de Cromwell's wife was known as during her lifetime.
SC 8/172/8596 (petition dated 1305-7) refers to her as "Idoygne."
SC 8/11/525 (petition dated 1332) refers to her as "Idoigne."
Hence we learn from this petition that Sir John de Cromwell's wife was known as Idoygne or Idoigne (which forms may be modernized as Idoine). There is no Latin form Idonia, as alleged by the modern Discovery catalogue, in either of these records.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
joe...@gmail.com
May 21, 2016, 7:23:38 AM5/21/16
to
On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 10:02:06 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 553 (sub Cromwell) includes an account of Sir John de Cromwell, Lord Cromwell, who died in 1335. Sir John de Cromwell had a long and distinguished career, he being a long time Constable of the Tower of London, Justice of of the forest South of Trent, Steward of the King’s Household, and Admiral of the Fleet.
'
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 553 (sub Cromwell) includes an account of Sir John de Cromwell, Lord Cromwell, who died in 1335. Sir John de Cromwell had a long and distinguished career, he being a long time Constable of the Tower of London, Justice of of the forest South of Trent, Steward of the King’s Household, and Admiral of the Fleet.
<snip>
Douglas, most excellent synthesis of the many sources to discover the answers. Bravo
--Joe Cook
Douglas Richardson
May 22, 2016, 2:15:39 AM5/22/16
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Nicolas, Siege of Carlaverock (1828): 356 discusses the troublesome issue of the parentage of Sir John de Cromwell, Lord Cromwell, who died in 1335:
"Although Dugdale states that 'there is notable mention in our public records of this family before any of them became Barons of the realm,' he does not positively inform us who was the father of John de Cromwell, the first peer, but leaves it to be inferred that he was the son as well as successor of a Ralph de Cromwell who was living in the 35th Edw. I. It appears from the inquisition on a Ralph de Cromwell, and who, it may be safely presumed, was the person mentioned by Dugdale, that he left Ralph his son his heir, and who was then only seven years of age. Many reasons could be adduced for believing that the subject of this article was not related to the Lords Cromwell of Tatshall; but as the pedigrees of that house are confused and contradictory, and as the usual sources of information, Inquisitiones post Mortem, relating to that family do not regularly occur, it is impossible to throw any light on the subject, without very considerable expense and labour." END OF QUOTE
Regarding Sir John de Cromwell's illegitimate son, Sir Richard de Cromwell, below is a record dated 1338, in which Sir Richard de Crumbewell [Cromwell] specifically names his father as Sir John de Crumbewell [Cromwell]. This record confirms that Richard de Cromwell was knighted, as I suspected.
Source: Price, Yorkshire Deeds 10 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Rec. Series 120) (1955): 162.
"446. Wednesday, SS. Simon and Jude, 12 Edward III [Oct. 28, 1338]. Release and quitclaim by Richard de Crumbewell, knight to Sir Robert de Clifford of an annual rent of 6li. which the grantor had from his father Sir John de Crumbewell from the farms and mills of Malteby [Maltby] and Staneley. Warranty. Sealing clause. Witnesses: Frank de Barneby, William de Reygate, John de Lacy and William de Leysyngcroft. At Lesyngcroft. (Ibid., B15, 2)."
"Seal of red wax, diam. 3/4 inch: shield of arms, a fess, over all a bend. [Legend:] S' RICARDI CRVMWELL." END OF QUOTE.
For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of Sir Richard de Cromwell, the illegitimate son of Sir John de Cromwell.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + +
RICHARD DE CROMWELL (or CRUMBWELL, CRUMBEWELL, CROUMBWELL), Knt., of Wrenstede (in Frinsted), Kent, Bleasby, Nottinghamshire, etc., of illegitimate birth. In 1320 his father granted the reversion of the manor of Bleasby, Nottinghamshire to him and his issue; in default of such issue, the manor was to revert to the right heirs of John de Cromwell. In 1331, as “Richard, son of John de Crumbewell, knight,” he obtained a papal indult for plenary remission at the hour of death. In 1337 he owed John Elys, of Spalding, merchant of London, a debt of £20, on account of a loan. In 1338 he released and quitclaimed to Robert de Clifford an annual rent of £6 which the grantor had from his father Sir John de Crumbewell from the farms and mills of Malteby [Maltby] and Staneley. In 1341 Henry de Chalfhunte and Maud his wife sued him in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the manor of Wrenstede (in Frinsted), Kent; Ralph de Crumbwell, Knt., the elder “kinsman and heir” of John de Crumbwell, Knt. was called to warranty. In 1341 he owed John Trippok a debt of £10.
References:
Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 353. Feudal Aids 3 (1904): 15. Price, Yorkshire Deeds 10 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser. 120) (1955): 162 (release and quitclaim dated 1338 by Richard de Crumbewell, knight, son of Sir John de Crumbewell) (seal of Sir Richard de Crumbewell: shield of arms, a fess, over all a bend. Legend: S’ RICARDI CRVMWELL.). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/326, image 194f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no326/aCP40no326fronts/IMG_0194.htm). National Archives, C 241/110/230; C 241/114/11 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). Sheffield City Archives: Estate papers of the Copley Family, Baronets, of Sprotborough, CD/376 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).
Nicolas, Siege of Carlaverock (1828): 356 discusses the troublesome issue of the parentage of Sir John de Cromwell, Lord Cromwell, who died in 1335:
"Although Dugdale states that 'there is notable mention in our public records of this family before any of them became Barons of the realm,' he does not positively inform us who was the father of John de Cromwell, the first peer, but leaves it to be inferred that he was the son as well as successor of a Ralph de Cromwell who was living in the 35th Edw. I. It appears from the inquisition on a Ralph de Cromwell, and who, it may be safely presumed, was the person mentioned by Dugdale, that he left Ralph his son his heir, and who was then only seven years of age. Many reasons could be adduced for believing that the subject of this article was not related to the Lords Cromwell of Tatshall; but as the pedigrees of that house are confused and contradictory, and as the usual sources of information, Inquisitiones post Mortem, relating to that family do not regularly occur, it is impossible to throw any light on the subject, without very considerable expense and labour." END OF QUOTE
Regarding Sir John de Cromwell's illegitimate son, Sir Richard de Cromwell, below is a record dated 1338, in which Sir Richard de Crumbewell [Cromwell] specifically names his father as Sir John de Crumbewell [Cromwell]. This record confirms that Richard de Cromwell was knighted, as I suspected.
Source: Price, Yorkshire Deeds 10 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Rec. Series 120) (1955): 162.
"446. Wednesday, SS. Simon and Jude, 12 Edward III [Oct. 28, 1338]. Release and quitclaim by Richard de Crumbewell, knight to Sir Robert de Clifford of an annual rent of 6li. which the grantor had from his father Sir John de Crumbewell from the farms and mills of Malteby [Maltby] and Staneley. Warranty. Sealing clause. Witnesses: Frank de Barneby, William de Reygate, John de Lacy and William de Leysyngcroft. At Lesyngcroft. (Ibid., B15, 2)."
"Seal of red wax, diam. 3/4 inch: shield of arms, a fess, over all a bend. [Legend:] S' RICARDI CRVMWELL." END OF QUOTE.
For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of Sir Richard de Cromwell, the illegitimate son of Sir John de Cromwell.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
RICHARD DE CROMWELL (or CRUMBWELL, CRUMBEWELL, CROUMBWELL), Knt., of Wrenstede (in Frinsted), Kent, Bleasby, Nottinghamshire, etc., of illegitimate birth. In 1320 his father granted the reversion of the manor of Bleasby, Nottinghamshire to him and his issue; in default of such issue, the manor was to revert to the right heirs of John de Cromwell. In 1331, as “Richard, son of John de Crumbewell, knight,” he obtained a papal indult for plenary remission at the hour of death. In 1337 he owed John Elys, of Spalding, merchant of London, a debt of £20, on account of a loan. In 1338 he released and quitclaimed to Robert de Clifford an annual rent of £6 which the grantor had from his father Sir John de Crumbewell from the farms and mills of Malteby [Maltby] and Staneley. In 1341 Henry de Chalfhunte and Maud his wife sued him in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the manor of Wrenstede (in Frinsted), Kent; Ralph de Crumbwell, Knt., the elder “kinsman and heir” of John de Crumbwell, Knt. was called to warranty. In 1341 he owed John Trippok a debt of £10.
References:
Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 353. Feudal Aids 3 (1904): 15. Price, Yorkshire Deeds 10 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser. 120) (1955): 162 (release and quitclaim dated 1338 by Richard de Crumbewell, knight, son of Sir John de Crumbewell) (seal of Sir Richard de Crumbewell: shield of arms, a fess, over all a bend. Legend: S’ RICARDI CRVMWELL.). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/326, image 194f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no326/aCP40no326fronts/IMG_0194.htm). National Archives, C 241/110/230; C 241/114/11 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). Sheffield City Archives: Estate papers of the Copley Family, Baronets, of Sprotborough, CD/376 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).
0 new messages