Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Complete Peerage Correction: Parentage of Emma, Joan, and Isabel de Tateshale
65 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Sep 16, 2011, 3:44:17 PM9/16/11
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 645-653 (sub Tateshal) has a good
account of the baronial Tateshale family. Following the death of
Robert de Tateshale, 3rd Lord Tateshale, who died as a minor in 1306,
Complete Peerage, page 653, notes that:
".... his estates were divided between his 3 coheirs: 2 ladies who
were almost certainly the daughters of [his grandfather, Robert de
Tateshale] 1st Lord Tateshale (although described as his sisters) and
[Thomas de Cailly] the son and heir of his elder sister." END OF
QUOTE.
In a footnote c on the same page, the author quotes an inquisition
taken in 1306 in which "the jurors stated that Emma, Joan and Isabel
were sisters of Robert his grandfather." However, the author added:
"There are grounds for supposing that the statement was inaccurate,
and that they were the latter's daughters by Joan his wife." Further
discussion ensued as to why the writer of this piece thought the
Tateshale heiresses were the daughters of Robert de Tateshale, 1st
Lord Tateshale, rather than his sisters.
Since the publication of Complete Peerage's Tateshale account, many
historians and genealogists have accepted this identification of Emma,
Joan, and Isabel de Tateshale as the daughters of Robert de Tateshale,
1st Lord Tateshale, died 1298, rather than his sisters as stated by
jurors in a contemporary inquisition taken in 1306.
For conclusive evidence that Complete Peerage is wrong, the reader may
wish to consult a lawsuit dated Michaelmas term 1307, a record of
which is published in Year Books of Edward II, 1 (Selden Soc. 17)
(1903): 1–4. This lawsuit may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=68YKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR97
In the 1307 lawsuit, one of the Tateshale heiresses, namely Joan de
Tateshale, then widow of Robert de Driby, was sued by Peter son of
Peter de Mauley, Roger de Kerdeston, and Juliane de Gaunt for the
third part of two parts of the manor of Hunmanby, Yorkshire.
In Joan's reply, she stated the following:
"And the said Joan defends their right etc., and says she ought not to
answer to this writ. For she says that after the death of Gilbert of
Gaunt the elder, upon whose seisin [the demandants claim], Gilbert the
younger, son and heir of Gilbert the elder, was seised of the said
manor with the appurtenances; and against him Robert of Tattershall,
Joan's brother, one of whose heirs she is, brought a writ of right for
the said manor with the appurtenances before Hugh of Cressingham and
his fellows, the justices last making eyre in that county, and ...
that Gilbert the younger there pleased with the said Robert and put
himself on a jury of the country, which was there taken between them;
and that upon the verdict of the jury Robert recovered his seisin
against Gilbert by judgement of the court." END OF QUOTE
So Joan (de Tateshale) de Driby stated that Robert de Tateshale was
her brother. But which Robert de Tateshale?
In this case, it is quite easy to make the identification of the
correct Robert de Tateshale. Joan de Tateshale stated that the
earlier legal proceedings between her brother and Gilbert de Gaunt the
younger took place following the death of Gilbert's father, Gilbert de
Gaunt the elder. Gilbert de Gaunt the elder is known to have died in
1274 [see Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 625 (sub Gaunt)]. Gilbert de
Gaunt the younger was in possession of the Gaunt family estates from
1274 to until his own death in 1298 [see Complete Peerage, 5 (1926):
626–628 (sub Gaunt)]. Consequently Gilbert de Gaunt the younger's
claim to the manor of Hunmanby against Joan de Tatetshale's brother,
Robert de Tateshale, must have occurred sometime in the period,
1274-1298.
Which Robert de Tateshale was active in the period, 1274-1298?
Answer: Robert de Tateshale, Knt., 1st Lord Tateshale, who was in
possession of the Tateshale estates from 1273 to 1298.
It is clear that from the testimony of Joan (de Tateshale) (de Driby)
that she was indeed the sister of Robert de Tatetshale, 1st Lord
Tateshale, as stated in the 1306 inquisition, not his daughter as
supposed by Complete Peerage. This would equally be true for Joan's
sisters, Emma (wife of Adam de Cailly) and Isabel (wife of John de
Orreby, Lord Orreby).
Do you descend from the Tateshale family? If so, I'd enjoy hearing
from you here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 645-653 (sub Tateshal) has a good
account of the baronial Tateshale family. Following the death of
Robert de Tateshale, 3rd Lord Tateshale, who died as a minor in 1306,
Complete Peerage, page 653, notes that:
".... his estates were divided between his 3 coheirs: 2 ladies who
were almost certainly the daughters of [his grandfather, Robert de
Tateshale] 1st Lord Tateshale (although described as his sisters) and
[Thomas de Cailly] the son and heir of his elder sister." END OF
QUOTE.
In a footnote c on the same page, the author quotes an inquisition
taken in 1306 in which "the jurors stated that Emma, Joan and Isabel
were sisters of Robert his grandfather." However, the author added:
"There are grounds for supposing that the statement was inaccurate,
and that they were the latter's daughters by Joan his wife." Further
discussion ensued as to why the writer of this piece thought the
Tateshale heiresses were the daughters of Robert de Tateshale, 1st
Lord Tateshale, rather than his sisters.
Since the publication of Complete Peerage's Tateshale account, many
historians and genealogists have accepted this identification of Emma,
Joan, and Isabel de Tateshale as the daughters of Robert de Tateshale,
1st Lord Tateshale, died 1298, rather than his sisters as stated by
jurors in a contemporary inquisition taken in 1306.
For conclusive evidence that Complete Peerage is wrong, the reader may
wish to consult a lawsuit dated Michaelmas term 1307, a record of
which is published in Year Books of Edward II, 1 (Selden Soc. 17)
(1903): 1–4. This lawsuit may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=68YKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR97
In the 1307 lawsuit, one of the Tateshale heiresses, namely Joan de
Tateshale, then widow of Robert de Driby, was sued by Peter son of
Peter de Mauley, Roger de Kerdeston, and Juliane de Gaunt for the
third part of two parts of the manor of Hunmanby, Yorkshire.
In Joan's reply, she stated the following:
"And the said Joan defends their right etc., and says she ought not to
answer to this writ. For she says that after the death of Gilbert of
Gaunt the elder, upon whose seisin [the demandants claim], Gilbert the
younger, son and heir of Gilbert the elder, was seised of the said
manor with the appurtenances; and against him Robert of Tattershall,
Joan's brother, one of whose heirs she is, brought a writ of right for
the said manor with the appurtenances before Hugh of Cressingham and
his fellows, the justices last making eyre in that county, and ...
that Gilbert the younger there pleased with the said Robert and put
himself on a jury of the country, which was there taken between them;
and that upon the verdict of the jury Robert recovered his seisin
against Gilbert by judgement of the court." END OF QUOTE
So Joan (de Tateshale) de Driby stated that Robert de Tateshale was
her brother. But which Robert de Tateshale?
In this case, it is quite easy to make the identification of the
correct Robert de Tateshale. Joan de Tateshale stated that the
earlier legal proceedings between her brother and Gilbert de Gaunt the
younger took place following the death of Gilbert's father, Gilbert de
Gaunt the elder. Gilbert de Gaunt the elder is known to have died in
1274 [see Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 625 (sub Gaunt)]. Gilbert de
Gaunt the younger was in possession of the Gaunt family estates from
1274 to until his own death in 1298 [see Complete Peerage, 5 (1926):
626–628 (sub Gaunt)]. Consequently Gilbert de Gaunt the younger's
claim to the manor of Hunmanby against Joan de Tatetshale's brother,
Robert de Tateshale, must have occurred sometime in the period,
1274-1298.
Which Robert de Tateshale was active in the period, 1274-1298?
Answer: Robert de Tateshale, Knt., 1st Lord Tateshale, who was in
possession of the Tateshale estates from 1273 to 1298.
It is clear that from the testimony of Joan (de Tateshale) (de Driby)
that she was indeed the sister of Robert de Tatetshale, 1st Lord
Tateshale, as stated in the 1306 inquisition, not his daughter as
supposed by Complete Peerage. This would equally be true for Joan's
sisters, Emma (wife of Adam de Cailly) and Isabel (wife of John de
Orreby, Lord Orreby).
Do you descend from the Tateshale family? If so, I'd enjoy hearing
from you here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
J Cook
Sep 16, 2011, 9:25:38 PM9/16/11
to
On Sep 16, 3:44 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Do you descend from the Tateshale family? If so, I'd enjoy hearing
> from you here on the newsgroup.
Walt Disney is one...
Message has been deleted
Douglas Richardson
Sep 16, 2011, 10:41:01 PM9/16/11
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my previous post, I quoted the reply of Joan (de Tateshale) de
Driby given in a lawsuit dated 1307, in which she stated that there
had been earlier legal proceedings between her brother, Robert de
Tateshale, and Gilbert de Gaunt the younger. According to Joan de
Tateshale, these proceedings took place "before Hugh of Cressingham
and his fellows, the justices last making eyre in that county [i.e.,
Yorkshire]."
As best I can determine the date of the Yorkshire eyre "before Hugh de
Cressingham and his fellows" is 1293-1294, as indicated by the
references below found online on the National Archives website at the
following weblink:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Hierarchy.mvc/Index/2?iaid=76028
The date of the earlier eyre, 1293-1294, adds further confirmation
that Joan de Tateshale's brother was in fact Sir Robert de Tateshale,
1st Lord Tateshale, who died in 1298. In any event, the Yorkshire
eyre would necessarily date from before the death of Hugh de
Cressingham which took place in 1297, as indicated by a brief entry of
him on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_de_Cressingham
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
All Departments JUST
Records of itinerant justices and other court records: 1198-1528
JUST 1
Justices in Eyre, of Assize, of Oyer and Terminer, and of the Peace,
etc: ...: 1198-1528 YORKSHIRE:
JUST 1/1071
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of foreign pleas and
essoins: 21-22 Edw I View description JUST 1/1089
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of civil pleas: 21-22
Edw I View description JUST 1/1090
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of civil pleas: 21 Edw
I View description JUST 1/1091
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of civil pleas: 22 Edw
I View description JUST 1/1092
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of civil pleas: 22 Edw
I View description JUST 1/1093
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of quo warranto pleas.
Originally formed one roll ...: 21-22 Edw I View description JUST
1/1094
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of plaints: 21-22 Edw
I View description JUST 1/1095
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of pleas of
conspirators and maintainers of ...: [21-22 Edw I] View description
JUST 1/1096
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of attorneys: 21-22
Edw I View description JUST 1/1097
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of foreign quo
warranto pleas. Originally formed one ...: 21-22 Edw I View description
In my previous post, I quoted the reply of Joan (de Tateshale) de
Driby given in a lawsuit dated 1307, in which she stated that there
had been earlier legal proceedings between her brother, Robert de
Tateshale, and Gilbert de Gaunt the younger. According to Joan de
Tateshale, these proceedings took place "before Hugh of Cressingham
and his fellows, the justices last making eyre in that county [i.e.,
Yorkshire]."
As best I can determine the date of the Yorkshire eyre "before Hugh de
Cressingham and his fellows" is 1293-1294, as indicated by the
references below found online on the National Archives website at the
following weblink:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Hierarchy.mvc/Index/2?iaid=76028
The date of the earlier eyre, 1293-1294, adds further confirmation
that Joan de Tateshale's brother was in fact Sir Robert de Tateshale,
1st Lord Tateshale, who died in 1298. In any event, the Yorkshire
eyre would necessarily date from before the death of Hugh de
Cressingham which took place in 1297, as indicated by a brief entry of
him on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_de_Cressingham
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
All Departments JUST
Records of itinerant justices and other court records: 1198-1528
JUST 1
Justices in Eyre, of Assize, of Oyer and Terminer, and of the Peace,
etc: ...: 1198-1528 YORKSHIRE:
JUST 1/1071
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of foreign pleas and
essoins: 21-22 Edw I View description JUST 1/1089
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of civil pleas: 21-22
Edw I View description JUST 1/1090
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of civil pleas: 21 Edw
I View description JUST 1/1091
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of civil pleas: 22 Edw
I View description JUST 1/1092
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of civil pleas: 22 Edw
I View description JUST 1/1093
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of quo warranto pleas.
Originally formed one roll ...: 21-22 Edw I View description JUST
1/1094
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of plaints: 21-22 Edw
I View description JUST 1/1095
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of pleas of
conspirators and maintainers of ...: [21-22 Edw I] View description
JUST 1/1096
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of attorneys: 21-22
Edw I View description JUST 1/1097
Yorkshire eyre of 1293-1294, Cressingham's roll of foreign quo
warranto pleas. Originally formed one ...: 21-22 Edw I View description
John
Sep 17, 2011, 12:26:27 AM9/17/11
to
Maybe DR will hear from them on the newsgroup. :-)
0 new messages