Re: Lucy (de Ros ?) de Audley, wife of Sir William de Ryther
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< The above Sir John de Roos and his wife, Margaret, whose fine you
posted can be readily identified as Sir John de Roos, Lord Roos of
Watton (died shortly before 16 Nov. 1338), of Watton, Norfolk, Ilkley
and Thornton, Yorkshire, Steward of the Royal Household, Admiral of
the Fleet north of Thames' mouth, and his wife, Margaret de Goushill.
For further particulars of this couple, see Douglas Richardson, Magna
Carta Ancestry (2005). >>
Leo does not show this second match for this Margaret but it is shown by
stirnet here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/cc4rz/czmisc03.htm
citing only "TCP" [the complete peerage] [evidently CAMOYS]
Will Johnson
the...@aol.com
Tuesday, 30 January, 2007
Dear Doug, Tim, Will, et al.,
Following on this recent thread, Rosie Bevan kindly provided
the following two items that bear on the matter of Lucy's
identification.
A. Fine dated 1280:
' 54. York. Morrow of Cand. Before the same. Between William
de Ryther, quer., and John de Ros, deforc., of the manors
of Ryther, Scarthecroft and Gildehus' with the advowson of
Ryther church. Covenant. John's right. William and Lucy
his wife and the heirs of Lucy's body to hold of the chief
lords with remainder to William and reversion after William's
death to John and the heirs of his body with remainders to
Alexander, John's brother, and the heirs of his body and to
William's next heirs. ' [1]
B. IPM of Sir Robert Ryther, 3 Aug 6 Hen. VII (1491), which
states in part:
' He also died seised in tail male of the under-mentioned manor
and advowson of Ryther, by virtue of the gift thereof made by
John son of Robert Roos, by way of fine and with the King's
licence, to one William Ryther and Lucy his wife in tail
male, with remainder to the right heirs of the said William,
he being cousin and heir male of the said William and Lucy,
viz. son of William, son of William, son of William, son of
Robert, son of Robert, son of Robert their son. ' [2]
The statement in the IPM of 1491 identifying John de Ros as
'son of Robert Roos' appears to be in error. In a prior post, I
noted that John de Ros may well have been the brother, not the son
of Sir Robert de Ros (d. 1285). Two reasons support that
suggestion:
1. The fine dated 1280 above provides for reversion of the
manors to John de Ros, 'with remainders to Alexander,
John's brother,...' Sir Robert de Ros (d. 1285) had no
known son Alexander; however, he did have younger brothers
John and Alexander, the latter of whom was identified in
a charter of Sir Robert, enfeoffing Thomas de Werke,
chaplain, in certain lands in Helmsley, dated 1264x1285.
This charter was witnessed by his brothers Sir Peter,
Sir William, Sir Alexander and Sir Herbert [ " Hiis
testibus: Dominis Petro de Ros, Willelmo de Ros,
Alexandro de Ros, Herberto de Ros, militibus et
fratribus,.." ]. [3]
2. The chronology of the generations does not readily support
the filiation in the 1491 IPM (and in CP XI:8). Sir William
de Ros, eldest son and heir of Sir Robert, was born 1255 or
before (he was aged 30 and more at his father's death), and
his mother Isabel de Aubigny was born ca. 1233. It is not
reasonable to place Lucy de Ros, widow of Henry de Audley
(b. 1251, d. 1276 or before) and married 2ndly in 1280 or
before to William de Ryther, as the daughter of a man (son
of Sir Robert de Ros and Isabel de Aubigny) who
would himself likely have been born 1255 or later, and very
possibly after 1260.
If in fact Lucy was the daughter of John de Ros, he was therefore
certainly the brother, not son, of Sir Robert. Lucy his daughter
would therefore have been the namesake of her paternal grandmother,
Lucy (daughter of Piers fitz Herbert of Blaen Llyfni).
The identification of Lucy, wife of (1) Henry de Audley and (2)
Sir William de Ryther as daughter of John de Ros is not proven, but
is probable based on the evidence in hand. The entail of Gildehusdale
and the other lands on 'the heirs of Lucy's body', with reversion to
John de Ros and remainder to his brother Alexander, is indicative of
a family transaction.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] F.H. Slingsby (ed.). Feet of Fines for the County of York from
1272-1300. Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1956. (Y.A.S.
Record Series, vol. CXXI), p.36.
[2] CIPM Hen VII, vol. 1, p. 252, no. 614.
[3] Hist. Man. Comm., Rutland MSS.IV:84, no. (21).
* John P. Ravilious
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
Douglas Richardson
According to C.P.11 (1949): 8 (sub Ryther), Sir William de Ryther's
wife, Lucy, was the "daughter of John de Ros, son of Robert, 1st Lord
Ros of Helmsley." The source for this statement is nothing
contemporary, so already we're on shaky ground. Rather, it comes
solely from Gen Plantagenet Harrison's Notes, which cites "De Banco
Rolls, 21 Hen VI, m. 128 d, where her portion is said to have been the
manor of Gildhusdale, which was of the fee of Ros in 1284 (Book of
Fees, vol vi,. p. 50)."
We see in your post today that the manors of "Gildehus'" along with
Ryther and Scarthecroft, Yorkshire were settled on William de Ryther,
and his wife, Lucy, in 1280, by John de Ros.
Yet, Gildhusdale can hardly have been Lucy's maritagium as claimed by
Harrison, for the 1280 settlement stipulates that these manors were to
revert after William de Ryther's death to John de Ros and the heirs of
his body with remainders to Alexander, John's brother, and the heirs
of his body and to William's next heirs."
Unless there has been a misprint in your transcript of the 1280
settlement, this is unlike any maritagium I have ever seen before.
Given the wording of this settlement, I suspect that John de Roos was
likely Lucy's brother, not her father, especially since the manor of
Ryther was William de Ryther's own property, not a maritagium
belonging to his wife. If so, then it seems possible that Lucy, wife
of Sir William de Ryther, might be the same person as Lucy de Roos,
wife of Sir William de Kyme, who is thought to have been the sister of
this John de Roos.
Lucy, wife of Sir William de Kyme, was evidently a young widow in
1259, and is known to have still been living in Easter Term, 1275,
when she was summoned to answer Ralph de Normanville in a plea. She
was buried at Grey Friars, York, the same church as her alleged
brother, William de Roos, of Ingmanthorpe. Lucy de Kyme's maiden
name, Roos, is recovered from the Kyme pedigree found in a document at
Kyme in 1640 [Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 5 (1825):
291].
At the very least, the lives of the two Lucy's overlapped each other.
Still, if Complete Peerage is right, that Henry de Audley, the first
husband of Lucy de Ryther, was born about 1251, then Henry would be
somewhat younger in age than Lucy, wife of Sir William de Kyme. Also,
Sir William de Ryther and his wife, Lucy, are known to have had five
sons. If they married in 1277, the year following Henry de Audley's
death, that would mean Lucy de Ryther had her last child perhaps as
early as 1287, which would place her birth no earlier than 1242.
While it is pushing the chronology for Lucy de Ryther to be the same
person as Lucy de Kyme, it would still be possible.
My suggestion would be to see if William and Lucy de Ryther, or Lucy's
earlier husband, Henry de Audley, were in possession of any the known
Kyme family properties which Lucy might have held in dower as a Kyme
widow. Since women in this period usually remarried quickly when they
were young widows, it seems a good bet that Lucy de Kyme remarried
someone, if not Henry de Audley and William de Ryther. Since Lucy de
Ryther lived until 1303, there should be some record of her holding
Kyme properties, if she was the widow of Sir William de Kyme. My
files notes indicate that Sir William de Kyme held the following
properties: Sotby, Newton Kyme, Bullington, Faldingworth, Hardwick,
Ingham, Rand, Spridlington, Toft, Wragby, etc., Lincolnshire, and
Thornton in Craven, Yorkshire.
This matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
.
WJho...@aol.com
<< by way of fine and with the King's
licence, to one William Ryther and Lucy his wife in tail
male, with remainder to the right heirs of the said William,
he being cousin and heir male of the said William and Lucy,
viz. son of William, son of William, son of William, son of
Robert, son of Robert, son of Robert their son. ' [2] >>
Excellent this Sir Robert who d 1491 I already had as the son of William
Ryther by his wife Eleanor FitzWilliam, so now I can give him a pedigree going
back several hundred years.