> > Ferreres by 1/4 knight's fee.
>
> > Rettendun town, 200a. , 6s. (?) rent, &c. held of the bishop of Ely by
>
> > service of 1/2 knight's fee.
>
> > Sussex. Writs, 22 and 28 June. Inq. 2 July, 38 Hen. III.
>
> > Torringg', 10l. 16s. 1 1/2 d. held by the courtesy of England of the
>
> > inheritance of Eustacia his first wife of the earl of Winchester for 1
>
> > knight's fee, doing 6s. to guard at the castle of Pevenesel, and half
>
> > Hetun' (sic).
>
> > Philip de Nevile, knight, aged 40 and more, is the heir of the said
>
> > Eustacia, to whom the manor ought to revert.
>
> > Northampton. Writ, 15 July. Inq. Thursday before St. Margaret, 38 Hen.
>
> > III.
>
> > Brampton and Haudeneby manors held by the courtesy of England of the
>
> > inheritance of Eustacia his wife.
>
> >
>
> > So two different heirs: John de la Haye and William de Munchesney. Can
>
> > someone explain this?
>
> >
>
> > Regards,
>
> >
>
> > John
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> It seems to me that the above IPM of Ralph de la Haye, of Layer de la Haye & Quendon, Essex places some doubt about Eustache Trian's marriage to Ralph de la Haye of Burwell, d. 1254. It seems certain that the Eustache who m. Ralph of Layer de la Haye, was previously m. to Robert Neville, whose heir was the Philip mentioned in the IPM. I assume that Eustache received "Torringg", Sussex in dower from the Nevilles, which Ralph de la Haye, as was his right, continued to hold after her death; and it was to be returned ("reverted") to Philip forthwith. It looks like Brampton and Haudeneby were Eustache's by inheritance, and would go to her heir. In Roger de Quincy, the 2nd Earl of Winchester's IPM (1264), Haudeneby was held of the Earl by Philip de Neville and Sibyl de Aldeneby (implying that they were NOT married, but were coheirs) and 'Bramptun' was held by William Rocelin (I have also seen it as Rosceline or Roscelyn) (I don't know what his relation was, he was also listed about 8 years later, 4 Dec 1282, in John Marshal's IPM as holding Aldeby, Norfolk-- BTW is there some connection between the names Sibyl "Aldeneby", "Haudeneby" & "Aldeby"?). Curiously no lands in Sussex (nor any of the southern or southwest part of England) were noted in Roger de Quincy's IPM, leaving a question about what is meant by "Torringg, Sussex".
>
>
>
> If Eustache m. Ralph de la Haye, of Burwell, then either she m. (1) Robert de Neville, (2) Ralph de la Haye, of Burwell, and (3) Ralph de la Haye, of Layer de la Haye. This seems very unlikely, and the only other possibility is that the two Ralph de la Hayes are one and the same. Certainly their death dates are probably very close, yet the compiler of the Calendar of IPMs did not place the writs for Ralph of Layer de la Haye with those of Ralph of Burwell, treating them as separate people. The biggest difference is that Ralph of Layer de la Haye seems to have died without any surviving issue, whereas Ralph of Burwell had issue. Ralph of Essex's heir was William de Munchensy, b. c1330 (age 24 in 1354). CP IX:416 used the IPM of Ralph de la Haye to determine William's birth year, and CP IX:415 had this to say about William's father: WILLIAM I DE MUNCHENSY, presumably son and heir, was next owner of the fee. In 1229 he made Ralph de la Hay his attorney to enforce service for a freehold in Lindwood, Essex; by fines levied in 1240 and 1241 he sold Staverton property to William of York, provost of Beverley. In 1245 William de Munchensy had protection on going to Rome with Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. He married Joan, daughter and heir of Geoffrey DE CREK, which Joan must also have been heir of Ralph de la Hay. (k) He was dead by June 1263. (k) 'Genealogist', N.S., vol. xii, p. 173. So maybe the article in Genealogist might shed some light on the matter. It seems likely that William Munchensy's attorney, Ralph de la Hay, might be the same Ralph whose IPM was in 1254, and therefore was a contemporary (and possibly a cousin) of the elder William Munchensy.
>
>
>
> VCH Gloucester (Oxenton) just states that Eustache's 2nd husband was Ralph de la Haye, without identifying any properties he held.
>
>
>
> On another, mostly unrelated matter, I see that many posts to SGM are indicating that Philip de Neville, was the son of Robert de Neville (and Eustache Trian). In particular John Watson, in a post of 22 Nov 2009, cited an entry in the Close Rolls of 13 July 1354, which (in Latin that my high school Latin is inadequate to handle) he stated proved that Philip was a son of Robert & Eustache. CP IX:476-8, in its line for the Nevilles of Scotton & Manton, states that Robert had one son Ralph who d. s.p. maybe after 1227, when his heir was Philip, the son of Robert's younger brother Ralph. I haven't actually seen a discussion of this. So is there a "CP Correction" here?
>
>
>
> Jim Weber
Dear Jim,
"Torringg, Sussex" is almost certainly a small village, today called Tarring Neville in East Sussex, about a mile or so from Newhaven. Unfortunately the VCH Sussex volume covering this area has not been published (and is unlikely to be in the near future).
There are three Close Roll entries in July 1254 concerning Philip de Neville.
The first two are about 10 librates of land and the manor of Tarring [Neville], Sussex, the inheritance of Eustache, the first wife of Ralph de la Haye, which should descend to Philip de Neville, the son of Eustache. The third concerns the manors of Brampton and Holdenby in Northamptonshire, which Ralph de la Haye held by the courtesy of England after the death of his wife Eustache, and which descend to Philip de Neville.
9 July 1254, Pro Philippo de Neville.-- Quia rex accepit per inquisicionem quam fieri fecit quod Radulphus de la Haye non tenuit decem libratas terre cum pertinenciis in Torring' de hereditate Eustachie prime uxoris sue nisi ad vitam suam secundum legem terre, eo quod predictus Radulphus de ea prolem suscitaverat, et quod predicte x. librate terre jure hereditario ad Philippum de Nevill' debent descendere, mandatum est escaetori regis in comitatu Sussex' quod eidem Philippo de predictis x. libratis terre cum pertinenciis plenam seisinam habere faciat. Teste R. comite apud Warr' ix. die Julii. Per H. de Bath'.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 8: 1253-1254 (1929), 80
13 July 1254, Pro Philippo de Nevill'.-- Quia nulla custodia ad regem pertinet de manerio de Toringe, quod Radulphus de la Haye tenuit per legem terre de hereditate Eustachie quondam uxoris sue matris Philippi de Nevill' cujus heres ipse est, mandatum est escaetori regis in comitatu Sussex' quod, si quid ceperit de manerio supradicto post mortem predicti Radulphi, id eidem Philippo sine dilacione restitui faciat.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 8: 1253-1254 (1929), 83
21 July 1254, Pro Philippo de Nevill'.-- Quia rex accepit per inquisicionem, quam per escaetorem regis in comitatu Norhamt' fieri fecit, quod Radulphus de Haya, qui mortuus est, non tenuit maneria de Brampton' et Haundeneby in feodo et hereditate, set ea tenuit per legem Anglie de hereditate Eustachie uxoris sue, eo quod prolem ex ea suscitavit, mandatum est predicto escaetori quod de maneriis predictis Philippo de Nevill' filio et heredi predicte Eustachie plenam seisinam habere faciat. Teste R. comite Cornubie apud Oxoniam xxj. die Julii. Per H. de Bathonia.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 8: 1253-1254 (1929), 87-8
Best regards,
John