I have that Isabel Sadington inherited Noseley manor , LEI from her mother
Joyce Martival and passed it to her daughter Margaret Hastings who married
Sir Roger Heron.[apparently from VCH Leics. v5 p 266]. Margaret Hastings is
said to have died in 1406 and been buried at Noseley. I didn't have a
second husband for her but this doesn't mean anything.
Roger and Margaret's daughter Isabel took Noseley to her husband Thomas
Hesilrige of Fawdon and it was in turn inherited by their son Thomas, born
1407 died 29 Sep 1467 buried at Noseley. The Noseley manor has remained in
the Hesilrige family to the present day.
It is this last Thomas that I have as married to Elizabeth Brockett,
daughter of Sir Thomas Brockett of Bolton Percy, YKS but this is not
sourced and could well be wrong.
I do have some references to Noseley that link the Heselriges with the
Martivals.
Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Record Office: Hazlerigg Family of
Noseley
The Hazlerigg Collection
Catalogue Ref. DG21
Reference: DG21/35
Cartulary
Scope and Content
A roll of ten membranes, Hartopp's "Lincoln Roll" containing copies of 14
deeds relating to Noseley chapel. It contains copies of nos. 11, 17 and 19,
and of eleven other documents which have not survived (Hartopp's nos. 12,
13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 29).
Publication Note
(No.39 in Hartopp)
Reference: DG21/35/a
Deed of gift
Creation dates: June 2 Edward I [1274]
Scope and Content
(i) Anketinus de Martivallis, lord of Noseley.
(ii) The Chapel of St. Mary, Noseley.
One messuage in Noseley, one messuage and one virgate of land in Slawston
and land in Hallaton and Houghton.
Witnesses: Robert de Martivall of Ullesthorp
Ralph de Martivall of Halloughton
Henry Mallory of Walton
Walter de Billsdon
Robert Paynell
Publication Note
(No.12 in Hartopp)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Reference: DG21/35/b
Confirmation
Creation dates: Christmas 5 Edward I [25th December 1276]
Scope and Content
(i) Roger de Martivall, son and heir of Anketin.
(ii) The Chapel of St. Mary, Noseley.
The gifts of his father Anketinus to (ii), as described in (a).
Witnesses as in (a)
Publication Note
(No.13 in Hartopp)
regards
Louise
> John Brandon wrote in message
> I think CP, in one of its Heron articles, discusses a Roger Heron (d.
> by 1400), who married a woman named Margaret (no surname provided),
> who remarried to a John Blaket in the decade 1400-1410.
>
> Nichols' _Leicestershire_, 2 pt. 2, pedigree chart of "Martival and
> Hesilrige," identifies this Margaret as Margaret Hastings, daughter of
> Sir Ralph Hastings by his wife (of whom Margaret was the heiress)
> Isabel Saddington.
>
> Nichols' chart says that Margaret's second husband was "John Brocket,"
> perhaps an understandable mistake for "John Blaket." It also shows
> that Margaret's only child and heir was Isabel Heron, an ancestor
> somehow of the Hesilrige family of Leicestershire.
>
> I know that Nichols tends to be unreliable in the earlier generations
> in some of his charts, so this is just mentioned as a clue ...
According to Margaret's memorial inscription in Noseley church, her second
husband was certainly John Blaket.
"Hic jacet domina Margareta uxor Johannis Blaket, quondam uxor Rogeri
Heroni, militis, filia Radulphi Hastyngs que obit an. 1406 cujus anime
propitiet' D's. Amen"
[John Harwood Hill, The History of Market Harborough, (Leicester, 1875),
p.180]
Cheers
Rosie
Thanks to John, Louise and Rosie for details of a further CP addition.
In the light of this identification, the question remains whether Nichols
was also right about Isabel being Margaret's only child and heir, and
therefore whether Sir Roger Heron had an earlier wife who was the mother of
his son and heir.
I suppose this boils down to the question of whether Isabel had Noseley as
Margaret's heir, or whether it was just settled on her. Tony Ingham was kind
enough to send me the abstract of Margaret's inquisition post mortem during
our previous Heron research. Dated 26 Sept 1407, it states that she died 7
April last, but names no heir (she held Croydon, Cambridgeshire, for life,
with reversion to William son and heir of William Heron [Roger's grandson]).
Chris Phillips
That's a good question. According to John Harwood Hill on the chapter on Noseley in his 'The History of Market Harborough' (Leicester, 1875), Margaret had three daughters, Isabel, Margaret and Elizabeth d.s.p. Unfortunately he doesn't give a source for this.
However, A2A brings up the following record of a fine which shows that Margaret did have other daughters.
The Hazelrigg Collection
Reference: DG21/24
Final Concord
Creation dates: Morrow of All Souls, 4 Henry IV [3rd November 1403]
Scope and Content (ii) John Blaket and Margaret his wife, querents.(i) Thomas Weston, priest, deforciant.
The manors of Noseley, Gilmorton, Newton Harcourt and Humberstone, and lands in Saddington, Laughton, Scraptoft and Ilston, to (ii) and their heirs, then to Isabella daughter of Margaret and her heirs then to Margaret's other daughters.
Publication Note (No.33 in Hartopp).
It has always been a puzzle to me why Roger Heron 'lost' Ford and the hereditary lands, and the reason may be that we are looking at a completely different Roger to the son and heir of William d 1379. Given the problem with the piece on the Herons as a whole, of which you are more than aware, it seems likely.
Cheers
Rosie
Many thanks for that. Leaving out William's issue would seem strange if he
was her son, but on the other hand I suppose if the intention was to provide
first for the daughters, the above, followed by the usual remainder to her
right heirs would achieve this.
> It has always been a puzzle to me why Roger Heron 'lost' Ford and the
hereditary lands, and the reason may be that we are looking at a completely
different Roger to the son and heir of William d 1379. Given the problem
with the piece on the Herons as a whole, of which you are more than aware,
it seems likely.
I was reasonably satisfied from the indications that we'd found previously
that - as Tony Ingham suggested - Roger's branch didn't lose Ford until the
male line failed in 1425. Looking at the chronology, the generations are
rather long (Roger being born maybe 70 years before his grandson), so I
don't think there would be any problem fitting in an earlier marriage of
Roger's, before Margaret.
Chris Phillips