Parentage of Margaret, wife of Sir Leonard Kerdeston
Douglas Richardson
Queen Henrietta Maria of France (known as Queen Mary in England), wife
of King Charles I of England, is a known descendant of Sir Leonard
Kerdeston, of Claxton, Kerdeston, East Ruston, etc., Norfolk, who died
about 1420. Her line of descent goes as follows:
l. Sir Leonard Kerdeston, died c. 1420, m. Margaret.
2. Thomas Kerdeston, Knt., died 1446, m. Elizabeth de la Pole.
3. Margaret Kerdeston, m. Jean de Foix, K.G., Victomte of Chatillon,
Earl of Kendal, died 1485.
4. Gaston de Foix, Earl of Kendale and Bénauges, m. Catherine de Foix
5. Anne de Foix, m. Wladisaw Jagiello, King of Hungary
6. Anna Jagiello of Hungary, m. Ferdinand I, Empreror of the Holy Roman
Empire.
7. Johanna of Austria, m. Francesco I de Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany
8. Marie de Medici, m. Henri IV, King of France.
9. Henrietta Maria of France, m. Charles I, King of England.
To date, the identity of Sir Leonard Kerdeston's wife, Margaret, has
been unknown. Margaret's given name is proven by a PRO Document
available online on the helpful online National Archives website
(http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp).
E 210/5741, Date: 11 Richard II [1387-1388].
"Will, indented, of Leonard de Kerdeston, knight, son of William de
Kerdeston, made on leaving the country on the King's expedition;
confirms his father's will as to founding a chantry in Reepham church;
bequests for improvement of Reepham and Hillington (Helgheton)
churches; to his wife Margaret, one-third of the manors of Kerdiston,
Claxton, Hillington, Syderstone and Swanton Novers, and the reversion
of the manor of [East] Ruston (Ryston) after the death of Cecily his
mother." END OF QUOTE.
Recently I came across the will of Lady Elizabeth Elmham dated 1
December 1419, proved 18 February 1419/20 [Reference: Registered Wills,
56-57 Hyrning, Consistory Court of Norwich, found on FHL Microfilm
94857]. Lady Elmham can be identified as the widow of Thomas Caterton
and William Elmham, Knt., and the daughter of Hugh de Hastings, Knt.
(died 1369), by his wife, Margaret de Everingham [Reference: Roskell et
al., House of Commons 1386-1421, 3 (1992): 13-17 (biog. of Sir
William Elmham)].
Reviewing this will, I find that Lady Elizabeth Elmham named various
Hastings near relations, among them her niece, Lady Margaret Kerdeston.
Thus, it appears that Lady Margaret Kerdeston was the child of one of
Lady Elmham's Hastings siblings. Of these siblings, we have two
possible candidates available as the parent of Lady Margaret Kerdeston,
one being Lady Elmham's brother, Sir Hugh de Hastings, died 1386
(husband of Anne le Despenser), and one being her sister, Joan Hastings
(wife of Thomas Morley, K.G., 4th Lord Morley).
To date, no clear evidence has surfaced which proves which of Lady
Elmham's siblings is the parent of Lady Margaret Kerdeston. However, I
presently lean towards the position that Lady Margaret Kerdeston was
the daughter of Joan Hastings, by Thomas Morley. One piece of evidence
is onomastic, as we find that Lady Margaret Kerdeston named a son,
Thomas, which given name is found regularly in the Morley family. If
Lady Kerdeston was a Morley, it would explain the appearance of the
given name Thomas for her son. I note also that Lady Margaret
Kerdeston's son, Sir Thomas Kerdeston, twice employed Sir Thomas Morley
(died 1435), 5th Lord Morley, grandson of Joan Hastings, as a feoffee
(see abstracts of documents below). Sir Thomas Morley, 5th Lord
Morley, however, was the also husband of Sir Thomas Kerdeston's
sister-in-law, Isabel de la Pole, which might better explain the close
association of these two parties.
While this evidence is suggestive, further research is needed to
clearly establish Lady Margaret Kerdeston's parentage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives online catalogue
(http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp)
E 210/426
Letter of attorney by Thomas de Kerdeston, knight, authorising John
Hony, and John Clerk of Ingeworth, the younger, to deliver seisin to
Humphry Stafford, earl of Stafford, William Pole, earl of Suffolk,
Thomas, lord of Morlee, Thomas Erpyngham, Simon Felbrigge, John
Carbonel, Henry Ingelose and Edmund Berry, knights, William Paston,
Thomas Frampton, clerk, John Berneye of Wichynham, John Berneye of
Redham, William Garneys, Robert Bolton, clerk, and Richard Lound, of
moieties of the manors of Sydesterne and Brucham Neuton, and of all
lands and tenements &c. Date at Claxton, 30 June, 10 Henry V [1422].
E 210/10839
Oliver Gross and others to Thomas, lord of Morley, Henry Inglose, and
Edmund Berry, knights: Quitclaim of all rights in the manors of
Helhoughton, Kerdiston, Syderstone, Bircham Newton, East Ruston, and
Swanton Novers and in all lands in the vills of Claxton, Helhoughton
and other places, in the services of certain persons, and in the
advowsons of the churches of Ashby, Helhoughton, Newton, Reepham and
Kerdiston: of certain rights in Bulcamp and Henham with their
appurtenances in the county of Suffolk, in the old park and 50 acres of
meadow called 'Shirmour. Date: 11 Henry VI [1432-1433].
John P. Ravilious
Thanks for that post concerning Margaret ( ) Kerdeston. From
what we have in hand, I agree that the probability (not certainty) is
that she was a daughter of Sir Thomas Morley and Joan Hastings. I
assume, the 1419 will of Lady Elizabeth Elmham is in Latin? In English
it would hopefully be clear, but if the term ' nepta ' is used in
describing Margaret Kerdeston in the will, we might me in slightly
muddier water.....
By the bye, on the Morley front, I noted the following on the
National Archives site referring to the IPM of ' Robert Morley,
brother and heir of Thomas ' held in 6 Hen V [between 20 March 1417/18
and 19 March 1418/19]:
' Morley, Robert, brother and heir of Thomas: Norf
6 Hen V ' [ C 138/31/18 ]
Thomas, Lord Morley, died 6 Dec 1435; and while he was married
before 5 Feb 1402/3 to Isabel de la Pole, his son (and eventual heir)
Robert was not born until 20 Nov 1418 [CP IX:218 et seq.].
This Robert Morley would appear to be a younger brother of Thomas,
Lord Morley, who died before Thomas had any issue by his marriage. He
must therefore have died between 20 March 1417/8 and 20 Nov 1418.
Further, this means that Ann Morley (future wife of John Hastings,
Esq., of Elsing and Gressenhall) and her sister Elizabeth (future wife
of Sir John Arundell of Lanherne, Cornwall) - whose birthdates are
otherwise unknown - were both born after 1418.
Cheers,
John
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Queen Henrietta Maria of France (known as Queen Mary in England), wife
> of King Charles I of England, is a known descendant of Sir Leonard
> Kerdeston, of Claxton, Kerdeston, East Ruston, etc., Norfolk, who died
> about 1420. Her line of descent goes as follows:
>
> l. Sir Leonard Kerdeston, died c. 1420, m. Margaret.
> 2. Thomas Kerdeston, Knt., died 1446, m. Elizabeth de la Pole.
> 3. Margaret Kerdeston, m. Jean de Foix, K.G., Victomte of Chatillon,
> Earl of Kendal, died 1485.
> 4. Gaston de Foix, Earl of Kendale and Bénauges, m. Catherine de Foix
> 5. Anne de Foix, m. Wladisaw Jagiello, King of Hungary
> 6. Anna Jagiello of Hungary, m. Ferdinand I, Empreror of the Holy Roman
> Empire.
> 7. Johanna of Austria, m. Francesco I de Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany
> 8. Marie de Medici, m. Henri IV, King of France.
> 9. Henrietta Maria of France, m. Charles I, King of England.
>
> To date, the identity of Sir Leonard Kerdeston's wife, Margaret, has
> been unknown. Margaret's given name is proven by a PRO Document
> available online on the helpful online National Archives website
> (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp).
>
> E 210/5741, Date: 11 Richard II [1387-1388].
>
<<<<<<<< snip >>>>
mhol...@mac.com
opposed to a niece by marriage? Perhaps Lady Margaret Kerdeston was
the daughter of a sibling of one of the two husbands of Lady Elizabeth
Elmham. Just wondering.
Martin
Douglas Richardson
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Queen Henrietta Maria of France (known as Queen Mary in England)
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
Dear Newsgroup ~
I've been informed by a correspondant that every reference she has seen
to Queen Henrietta Maria is as Henrietta Maria, not Mary. She is
therefore questioning my statement that she was known in England as
Queen Mary.
Can anyone supply a reference which indicates she was called Queen
Mary? I read such a statement in the past, but can not recall the
source.
Leo van de Pas
Henrietta Maria (as she is known to us, though to her contemporaries in
England she was Queen Mary) delighted............
I agree with whoever queried this. To me it seems pedantic to refer to her
as Mary when she is known to us as Henriette Maria. The same applies to
In his time there was Emperor Charles, but we know him as Charlemage.
In their time there was no William the Conqueror.
For a few hundred years there was no Plantagenet dynasty. But as subsequent
tradition has made us familiar with the alternatives, I think, we should
stick to them. After all Queen Mary as Queen Mary existed only a few years
and calling her that now can confuse her with Queen (regnant) Mary I and
Queen (regnant) Mary II.
Douglas Richardson
correct that Queen Henrietta Maria was known to her contemporaries as
Queen Mary.
This is not being pedantic, Pas. It's called being historically
accurate. The way to handle it in your database is to show her name as
"Henrietta Maria (or Mary)." Quite simple really.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Leo van de Pas
is pedantic to promote something against the general accepted trend. If you
want to be historically correct drop the term Plantagenet as it isn't what
the Angevins were known by, as I have said once before start calling John of
Gaunt John of Gent/Ghent and drop the the Conqueror for the said Williamd,
and the Great for Alfred, why not start rewriting known history to get it
"historically correct". Quite simple really, at least according to "Rich"
who hasn't produced a single document confirming that there has been a
"knightly class" in England.
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
You can find an overview of the 1419 will of Lady Elizabeth (Hastings)
Elmham at the following website:
http://www.walsham-le-willows.org/review25.htm
As I recall, the will of Lady Elmham is in French. It includes
bequests to over 40 people, including several parties who are
specifically called niece or nephew. I believe everyone called niece
and nephew in the will are exactly that. One niece Anne (surname not
given) was a nun at Campsey. I have not been able to identify Anne's
parentage.
Among Lady Elmham's named relatives is another niece, Margaret
Rochford, who appears to have been Margaret Russell, daughter of Lady
Elmham's sister, Margaret Hastings, by her 2nd marriage to Sir John
Russell. Margaret Russell was the wife of Ralph Rochford, Knt., of
Fenn (in Boston), Lincolnshire. My research indicates that Sir Ralph
Rochford died testate shortly before 1 Nov. 1449. His widow, Margaret,
was living 14 Jan. 1453 [References: Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds 3
(1900): 544; Cal. Close Rolls, 1447-1454 (1947): 162, 474, 482].
Margaret (Russell) Russell had at least three sons, Ralph, Esq., John,
Esq., and Henry, Esq.
I believe Margaret (Russell) Rochford has living descendants. The
website at http://www.nottshistory.org.uk/articles/haughtonthrosby.htm
mentions a certain Joan Rochford, daughter of Henry Rochford, of Stoke
Rochford, Lincolnshire, who married a Henry Stanhope. Quite possibly
Joan (Rochford) Stanhope is the granddaughter of Margaret (Russell)
Rochford.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
contemporary records where possible. If Queen Henrietta Maria was
known as Queen Mary to her contemporaries as Mr. Williamson says, I
believe it is correct to refer to her as "Henrietta Maria (or Mary)."
That's not being pedantic. It's being historically accurate.
Leo van de Pas
Ancestry? It would be "Historically correct".
Which contemporaries called her "Mary"? And in which time? She was born in
1609 and until at least 1625/1626 lived in France, surely she was not known
as "Mary" then?
She married by proxy in 1625 and went to live in England, shortly after
giving birth to her last child in 1644 she escaped to France, and so only
for about 19 years she was in England known as Queen Mary.
From 1644 till 1660 she remained in France and the French may have called
her "Marie", I doubt very much they called her "Mary". She stayed a short
while in England, returned to France where she died in 1669. And so the
question is, which contemporaries called her "Mary"? Most of her life she
was in France.
To call her Henrietta Maria (or Mary or Marie) is so pedantic it is not even
funny.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Douglas Richardson
> Ancestry? It would be "Historically correct".
Thanks for the laugh.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Tony Hoskins
in England she was often known as "Mary".
Obviously, that "Maryland" derives its name from her should tell the
tale. Why is this a contentious issue, I opine?
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Leo van de Pas
pedantic to insist that "Mary" has to be mentioned when referring to her. I
think "history" has called her Henrietta Maria/Marie, as history has given
the names to Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Alfred the Great and on and
on. He wants to have "Henrietta Maria (or Mary)" surely he does not expect
"Emperor Charles (or Charlemagne)"?
I agreed with him that there are records of her having been referred to as
Queen Mary, but no 'pedantic' is what has to be replied
to...........................I am still waiting to hear about the documents
proving his statement there was a "knightly class". But no, nitpicking is
more in his line.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Douglas Richardson
< I think "history" has called her Henrietta Maria/Marie ...
You think ? If she was known as Queen Mary in her lifetime, I think
that settles the matter. Or, is Pas trying to re-write "history?"
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
> ----- Original Message -----
atsar...@hotmail.com
of King Charles I of England"
IS this true? I've seen it alleged here, but no official documents
quoted. I have often heard it stated that the colony of Maryland was so
named in fact for the BVM, and that its having Queen Henrietta Maria as
its namesake was a blatant coverup by the Catholic titleholders.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
atsar...@hotmail.com
In any case what name she was called by contemporaries need not affect
us unduly. The reason we give a differing name (or number) to any
historical figure (most of them, after all, in languages different from
the ones they themselves spoke) is to cure confusion for those reading
history NOW. Few monarchs of England were known by regnal numbers --
the early ones seem not to have used them at any time while living --
these were added later for historians' convenience. Similarly nicknames
-- the Black Prince was a nick invented long after the man's death, as
was Crookback for Richard III. We call the lady Henrietta so as not to
confuse her with the many Marys all over the Tudor and Stuart family
trees. It would make no sense to do otherwise. (Edward VII was never
known as Prince Edward -- he was Prince Albert, or Bertie, or the P of
W before his accession. Similarly George VI.)
Whose interests are being served here, anyway?
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Leo van de Pas
silly guns.
You are also a waste of time, if only more people would realise that.
I am not rewriting anything, I accept Charlemagne, William the Conqueror,
Alfred the Great, all names never used by these individuals, and I do accept
Henrietta Maria as most historians and genealogists, trained or not, accept.
Here a few examples.
Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, page 207
Charles I married Henrietta Maria etc. she has here an interesting footnote
she was never crowned owing to the religious difficulties involved.
No mention of her being regarded as "Queen Mary"
Lines of Succession, by Jiri Louda & Michael Maclagan, page 27, table 7
Charles I marries Henrietta Maria
Charles II, His Life and Times, by Antonia Fraser,
page 9 "Henrietta Maria" twice, Page 10 "Queen Henrietta Maria" twice
page 11 Queen Henrietta Maria and so on and on.
The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy, John Cannon & Ralph
Griffiths
"Henrietta Maria pages 367, 368, 372, 373, 395, 398, 642
Europaische Stammtafeln, Freytag von Loringhoven Volume II Tafel 18
Henriette, not even Maria is mentioned here.
La Dynastie Capetienne, by Thierry La Hete, page 41
Henriette again no Marie/Maria
Kings and Queens of Britain, by David Williamson, page 140
The entry starts with Henrietta Maria, the biography starts with Henrietta
Maria, and then we get.... Henrietta Maria (as she is known to us ((but not
to Richardson)), though to her contemporaries _in England_ she was Queen
Mary) delighted in .........
Richardson is so sure of this that he came to gen-med to ask for a source
that this was so, because he did not remember where he had seen that
exception. And so I can only wonder, he sure was he? How sure is he of
anything?
Is this going to be yet another blooper (his term, not mine) to be added to
his list? Did it not start with Amy de Gaveston? And another recent addition
isn't it his "knightly class"?
Todd A. Farmerie
> She was indeed "Henrietta Maria/Henriette Marie", but in common parlance
> in England she was often known as "Mary".
>
> Obviously, that "Maryland" derives its name from her should tell the
> tale. Why is this a contentious issue, I opine?
I have heard alternative explanations of the name of the state.
taf