Identification of Maud, wife of John de Moels, Lord Moels (d. 1310)
The...@aol.com
Good morning all,
Under _Moels_, Complete Peerage states of John de Moels, lst Lord Moels
(d. 20 May 1310),
'He m., in or before 1302, Maud.
NOTE (b) Cal. Patent Rolls, 1301-7, p. 53. Her
parentage has not been ascertained.' [Vol. IX, p. 6]
I have determined that she was Maud de Grey, elder daughter of John de
Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of Wilton; further, that the mother of Maud and her
younger sibling(s) was the lst wife of John de Grey [said to be Anne le
Despenser] and not Maud Basset, his second wife.
In CP, under Grey of Ruthin, there is a statement concerning the
inheritance of Sir Roger de Grey, younger son of John de Grey above and later
Lord Grey [of Ruthin]. The footnote concerning this inheritance states,
' By five fines, leived, two in the octaves of St.
Michael, two from St. Michael in fifteen days, and
one on the morrow of All Souls 5 Edw. II, John de
Grey conveyed (1) the manor of Holwell, two parts
of the manor of Stokehammond and the reversion of
the third part (expectant on the death of Lettice,
wife of John de Eton, who held the same in dower),
(2) the manors of Great Brickhill, Over Bletchley,
and Snellson, (3) the manors of Yelling, Hemingford
Turberville, Harrold, Puddington, Thurleigh,
Brogborough, and Wrest, to himself for life, with
rem. to Roger his son in tail general, with further
remainders, as to (2), to Roger son of John de
Mules, in tail general; as to (3), to John son of
Ralph Basset of Drayton, and to Ralph br. of the
last named John, in successive tail general; with
final rem., in each case, to his own right heirs.
(Feet of Fines, case 3, file 41, no. 16; case 18,
file 63, nos. 18, 24; case 87, file 55, no. 101;
case 93, file 19, no. 17). ' [Vol VI, p. 153 note (a)]
By the foregoing, John de Grey made provision for his descendants other
than his own heir apparent and elder son Henry, who would succeed to the
manor of Wilton in the future, and the prior conveyance by licence (18 Nov
1311) to himself, with remainder to his younger son Roger, of the castle of
Ruthin, co. Denbigh and certain other lands [CP Vol. VI, p. 174]. These were:
1. Roger de Moels [Mules], son of John de Moels, Lord
Moels, by his daughter Maud de Grey. John de Moels
had already died on 20 May 1310, and his elder son
Nicholas had also passed away as well (death
given by CP, Vol IX, p. 6 as simply 'before 29 Jan
1315/16).
Roger was born ca. 11 June 1295, and was a minor
at the time of the fine. In fact, Roger de Moels
did not acquire the manors noted in the above fines,
as he predeceased his grandfather, before 13 Jul
1316. He was succeeded in his right to the manors
of the de Moels family by his brother John, later
4th Lord Moels.
2. John Basset, elder son of Ralph Basset, Lord Basset
of Drayton (d. 1342) by Joan de Grey, daughter of
Henry de Grey by his first wife, together with his
younger brother Ralph Basset. John d.v.p. before
1342; his younger brother Ralph died ca. 1335,
leaving a son Ralph Basset (who eventually succeeded
his grandfather Ralph in 1342 as Lord Basset of
Drayton).
That Maud, and her younger sister Joan, could not have been the daughter
of John de Grey by Maud Basset is due to an almost insurmountable problem of
consanguinity. Maud Basset was the aunt of Ralph Basset of Drayton (d.
1342), husband of Joan de Grey. Were Maud the mother of Joan, she and her
husband Ralph would have been related in the 2nd degree [lst cousins], which
relationship would be most unlikely to receive a dispensation at the time
(prior to 27 march 1304).
Based on the foregoing, the following table reflects the relationships
now identified.
Sir William = Anne le Sir Reynold = Maud de
de Ferrers I Despenser de Grey I Longchamps
I ________________I
I I
1) Anne de = John de Grey = 2) Maud
Ferrers I Lord Grey of Wilton Basset
I d. 28 Oct 1323
____________I___________________________
I I I I
Maud = John de Henry de Sir Roger Joan = Ralph
de I Moels Grey de Grey de Grey I Basset
Grey I d. 1310 I I I
_____I________ I I _____I______
I I I I______ I I I
Nicholas I I I I I I
dsp I Sir John I I John Ralph
______I de Moels I I Basset Basset
I d.ca. 1337 I I dsp dvp 1335
Roger I I I
d.ca. I I I
1316 V V V
from whom, Grey Grey
via Muriel: of of
Lord Dinham; Wilton Ruthin
Lord Hungerford;
& c.
From the marriage of Muriel de Moels and her husband Sir Thomas de
Courtenay, of Dunterton and Woodhuish, co. Devon, the following emigrants are
descended:
1. William Asfordby
2. William Bladen
3. & 4. George and Nehemiah Blakiston
5. William Farrar
6. Anne Humphrey
7. John Nelson
8. Herbert Pelham
9. Edward Raynsford
10. William Skepper
11. Maria Johanna Somerset
12. John Stockman
13. John West
14. George Yate
Good luck, and good hunting to all.
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post on the Moels-Grey connection.
I've checked various sources to see what I could learn regarding the
Moels family. I determined that following the death of his older
brother, Nicholas, in 1316, the wardship of Roger de Moels, son of
John de Moels, Lord Moels (died 1310), was granted to William Inge.
As it turns out, William Inge was the 2nd husband of Iseult (de Grey)
St. Pierre, daughter of John de Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of Wilton. By
your arrangement of the Moels-Grey family, Iseult, wife of William
Inge, would be the aunt of Roger de Moels. William Inge's acquisition
of Roger de Moels' wardship would tend to support your identication of
Roger de Moels' mother, Maud, as being the daughter of John de Grey,
2nd Lord Grey of Wilton.
Have you found anything else regarding the Moels-Grey connection?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<3b.2087fdb...@aol.com>...
Kay Allen AG
married a daughter of Lord Grey de Ruthyn.
Vol. 7(1901), "...Mr. Rogers says he married a daughter (called Matilda in So. Rec.
Soc., vol 6) of Lord Grey de Ruthyn; G.E.C. [CP] says could not have been a
daughter, but might have been a sister, as his father married twice."
Or they confused Ruthyn and Wilton.
Kay Allen AG
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear John ~
>
> Thank you for your good post on the Moels-Grey connection.
>
> I've checked various sources to see what I could learn regarding the
> Moels family. I determined that following the death of his older
> brother, Nicholas, in 1316, the wardship of Roger de Moels, son of
> John de Moels, Lord Moels (died 1310), was granted to William Inge.
> As it turns out, William Inge was the 2nd husband of Iseult (de Grey)
> St. Pierre, daughter of John de Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of Wilton. By
> your arrangement of the Moels-Grey family, Iseult, wife of William
> Inge, would be the aunt of Roger de Moels. William Inge's acquisition
> of Roger de Moels' wardship would tend to support your identication of
> Roger de Moels' mother, Maud, as being the daughter of John de Grey,
> 2nd Lord Grey of Wilton.
>
> Have you found anything else regarding the Moels-Grey connection?
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
>
> The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<3b.2087fdb...@aol.com>...
Chris Phillips
> Somerset and Dorset Notes & Queries, vol/ 6(Sept. 1899): 289 says that
John Moels
> married a daughter of Lord Grey de Ruthyn.
>
> Vol. 7(1901), "...Mr. Rogers says he married a daughter (called Matilda in
So. Rec.
> Soc., vol 6) of Lord Grey de Ruthyn; G.E.C. [CP] says could not have been
a
> daughter, but might have been a sister, as his father married twice."
>
> Or they confused Ruthyn and Wilton.
I think what's quoted (evidently from the first edition of CP, and any
discussion of this seems to have been removed from the second edition) is
consistent with what John Ravilious suggested - that Maud was a daughter of
John, Lord Grey (d.1323). That would make her the sister of the first Lord
Grey of Ruthin, as the Wilton and Ruthin lines diverged with John's sons.
But it seems that John, although described by CP as "(of Wilton)" was
sometimes described as "of Ruthin" (e.g. in CP, vol.6, p.174, note i), so
"Mr Rogers" may also be correct in that sense.
Chris Phillips
John Ravilious
Good morning Chris,
As you have stated, John de Grey, Lord Grey (d. 1323) could easily
be referred to as Lord Grey of Wilton [after Wilton, co. Hereford, the
caput of the barony held by his eldest son Henry and his descendants]
or of Ruthin [Ruthin, co. Denbigh, subsequently held by his younger
son Roger & c.], despite the differentiation between the two lordships
in the Complete Peerage accounts. The devise of the castle and lands
of Ruthin or Ruthyn by John de Grey to his younger son Roger
(d.1352/3), later Lord Grey [of Ruthin], was the cause of the
distinction for later reference.
The fines noted in my earlier post, together with the ages
indicated in CP (and by Douglas Richardson in his post yesterday) of
Roger de Moels, make it evident that Maud [or Matilda *] de Grey, wife
of John de Moels (d. 1310) was the daughter of John de Grey (d. 1323).
This would make her the sister of Roger de Grey (d. 6 March 1352/53),
Lord Grey of Ruthyn *, which would satisfy the concerns of both 'Mr.
Rogers' and G. E. Cokayne * on the subject.
Thanks, good luck, and good hunting.
John
* See Kay Allen's earlier post (citing CP and other sources).
cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote in message news:<019001c1adb2$204d3800$540886d9@oemcomputer>...
Douglas Richardson
It's been some time since I worked on this problem, but, as I recall,
Ruthin, co. Denbigh was originally held by William de Lacy, husband of
Wenthlian, daughter of Llewelyn ap Iowerth, Prince of North Wales.
Following William de Lacy's early death, his widow Wenthlian held his
lands in dower for many years. At her death without issue about 1280,
the King granted her lands to Reynold de Grey, lst Lord Grey of
Wilton. I believe Ruthin was included in this grant. Ruthin was
subsequently held by Reynold, and, at his death, it fell to his son,
John, 2nd Lord Grey of Wilton. Consequently, it would be correct to
call either Reynold or John Lord Grey of Ruthin, as they held the
lordships of both Wilton and Ruthin. Later in life, John conveyed his
ownership of Ruthin to his younger son, Roger, who formally founded
the house known as the Greys of Ruthin. Roger's older brother, Henry,
retained Wilton and they are known as the Greys of Wilton. I believe
this succession of ownership of Ruthin can be verified with the Patent
Rolls.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
the...@aol.com (John Ravilious) wrote in message news:<55712d2e.02020...@posting.google.com>...
John Ravilious
Good morning Douglas,
I see also, re: your notation concerning the wardship of Roger de
Moels (d. before 13 July 1316) the following:
CP Vol IX, p. 7 note c:
'On 20 July 1316 William Inge had a grant in recompense for 200
marks paid to the King for the marriage of Roger, brother and heir of
Nicholas de Moels, who died before any marriage took place (Cal. Fine
Rolls, vol. ii, p. 286;...)'
The only other information I have to add beyond prior SGM posts at
this time are as follows:
1. Dugdale stated of John de Moels (d. 1310),
'This John took to Wife ________ the Daughter to the Lord Grey
of Ruthyn.....
From The Baronage of England (p. 620), his reference was
'Ex coll. R. Gl. S. Claus. de iisd. ann. in dorso'
which Chris Phillips and you have identified as the collection
of
MSS from Robert Glover, Somerset Herald.
2. From Pat Patterson's website, I see the following notation re:
Alice Prouz or la Prouz, widow of Roger de Moels * :
<www.patpnyc.com/ahn-25.shtml>
"During her widowhood Alice held mills at Diptford and Glas,
co.
Devon, which mills were to revert on Alice's death to John de
Moels (apparently 4th Lord Moels), and to Margaret, widow of
Nicholas Moeles (2nd Lord Moels), and to Reginald de Moels"
(Weis,AR.)
I believe Alice was the widow of Roger de Moels, younger
brother of
John de Moels (d. 1310): see CP, Vol IX, p. 5 et seq.
The appearance of the name Reginald into the Moels family would
appear to derive from the de Grey family: this likely is a younger
brother of Roger and John de Moels, and another son of John de Moels
(d. 1310) by Maud de Grey.
Hope the foregoing is helpful.
John
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0202...@posting.google.com>...
taf
On Tuesday, February 5, 2002 at 7:23:46 AM UTC-8, John P. Ravilious wrote:
> I see also, re: your notation concerning the wardship of Roger de
> Moels (d. before 13 July 1316) the following:
>
> CP Vol IX, p. 7 note c:
>
> 'On 20 July 1316 William Inge had a grant in recompense for 200
> marks paid to the King for the marriage of Roger, brother and heir of
> Nicholas de Moels, who died before any marriage took place (Cal. Fine
> Rolls, vol. ii, p. 286;...)'
> Alice Prouz or la Prouz, widow of Roger de Moels * :
>
> <www.patpnyc.com/ahn-25.shtml>
>
> "During her widowhood Alice held mills at Diptford and Glas,
> co.
> Devon, which mills were to revert on Alice's death to John de
> Moels (apparently 4th Lord Moels), and to Margaret, widow of
> Nicholas Moeles (2nd Lord Moels), and to Reginald de Moels"
"John de Inge to retain mills in Deptford and Glas acquired of Alice late the wife of Roger de Moeles for her life. The reversion of the mill in Diptford belongs to John de Moeles, and that of the mill in Glas to Margaret late the wife of Nicholas de Moeles and Reginald de Moeles for their lives, with remainder to the said John and his heirs."
So note that this also involved the Inge family.
> The appearance of the name Reginald into the Moels family would
> appear to derive from the de Grey family: this likely is a younger
> brother of Roger and John de Moels, and another son of John de Moels
> (d. 1310) by Maud de Grey.
I. John de Molis, fl. 1241, perhaps brother of,
II. Nicholas de Moeles, d. 1264/72, m. Hawise de Newmarch, heiress of James de N.
a. James de Moeles, d.s.p., intended playmate of Edward I
b. Roger de Moeles, minor heir at father's death, d. 1295
b1. John, Lord Moels, 1268-1310, m. Maud de Grey
b1a. Nicholas, Lord Moels, 1289-1315/6, m. Margaret de Courtenay d.1249
b1b. Roger, 'Lord Moels', 1295-1316
b1c. John, 'Lord Moels', 1304-1337 m. Joan Lovel
b1ci. Muriel de Moeles b.1222 m. Thomas de Courtenay
b1cii. Isabel de Moeles b.1224 m. William de Botreaux
b1d. (prob) Reginald de Moeles, fl. 1332
b2. Roger de Moeles, d. 1326 m. Alice de Prouz d.1335
b2a. William de Moeles, fl. 1329, d.s.p.
b2b. Joan de Moeles m. John Wotton
b2c. Isolde de Moeles m. Oliver de Wibbery
b2d. Alice m. John d'Aumarle
( b3. Nicholas de Moeles, d. 1335, m. Alice d. 1337
b3a. (?) Roger, app. d.s.p. by 1338)
Notes.
1. there was what appears to be a distinct family of this surname at the time, out of Magna Moeles, Cheshire.
2. Nicholas (b3), his wife Alice and son Roger are based on antiquarian writings of the first decades of the 1900s, citing precisely an ipm of Alice that immediately followed in series that of John (b1c) but does not appear in the published volumes nor TNA Catalogue.
3. there is no reason to expect that Reginald de Moeles died without issue, as he would not have been in line for inheritance anyhow..
taf
terry....@talktalk.net
this is a good post, but I am not sure it fits with the dates. I understand from Complete Peerage that Colban Earl of Fife died in 1270. Sir William Ferrers having married his widow, circa 1271, his subsequent daughter Ann would be born at the earliest circa 1272. Henry Grey, Lord Grey de Wilton is given a birth date of 1282 and he was possibly not the first child of his father, Sir John Grey de Wilton. Therefore he cannot be the son of Ann Ferrers.
Regards
Terry.
John P. Ravilious
Just checking into the newsgroup after a long absence, interesting to see a topic return after a 16 year hiatus!
You are correct about there being a problem with the Ferrers-Grey link noted in the beginning of this thread. This was a separate issue, the solution to which was resolved not long after by Doug Richardson working with others in the newsgroup. As you will see on Leo's Genealogics website, also in the 2011 edition of Doug Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry, the wife of John de Grey was not a Ferrers but rather Maud de Verdun. She was a daughter of John de Verdun of Alton, Staffs. by Eleanor de Bohun.
See Doug Richardson's post on the newsgroup, List of immigrants who descend from Eleanor de Bohun, wife of John de Verdun (17 Jan 2002).
Cheers,
John
taf
> 2. Nicholas (b3), his wife Alice and son Roger are based on antiquarian
> writings of the first decades of the 1900s, citing precisely an ipm of
> Alice that immediately followed in series that of John (b1c) but does
> not appear in the published volumes nor TNA Catalogue.
Oswald Reichel, in D&CN&Q v.7 p. 92 writes that he had:
"asserted that the Alice de Moelis who died in 1338 was the widow of Nicholas de Moelis, for her After Death Inquest (11 Ed. III., No. 57, p. 80), which Mr. Cecil Torr rashly accuses me of not having verified, runs: 'Alice, wife of Nicholas de Moelis in dower, Kingescarswell manor, Dupeford Manor, Lanfeford [Lestre] manor, Alier 1 knight's fee.'"
Again, in his list of citations, he has:
"8. A.D. Inq., 11 Ed. III., No. 57, p. 80: Alice, wife of Nicholas de Moelis, died seized in dower of Kingescarswell manor, Dupeford manor, Langeford manor, Alre 1 knight's fee."
Another subsequent note is:
"13. A.D. Inq., 11 Ed. III., No. 56, p. 79: John de Moelis,. . . ."
The number given for this 'After Death Inquest' can be looked up in the table at the start of the published IPM volumes. There we learn that the document formerly known as 11 Ed III No. 56 had the new designation, Inquisitions Post Mortem 52 (7). When we scan through the abstracted IPMs in the volume, we find that the one labeled as C. Edw. III. File 52. (7.) belongs to none other than John de Moelis, Moeles, Meoles, or Moles, who is readily identifiable from the text as the 4th Lord Moels. Consistent with this numbering, the TNA Catalogue names this IPM as C135/52/7. For 11 Ed. III No. 57, the table says the new number is IPM 52 (8), so looking there should turn up the item in question, but it is the IPM of Roger de Somerville, and this is now C135/52/8.
Anyone have any guesses what might be going on here?
taf
taf
On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 2:42:10 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:47:15 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
>
> Oswald Reichel, in D&CN&Q v.7 p. 92 writes that he had:
>
> "asserted that the Alice de Moelis who died in 1338 was the
> widow of Nicholas de Moelis, for her After Death Inquest (11
> Ed. III., No. 57, p. 80), which Mr. Cecil Torr rashly accuses
> me of not having verified, runs: 'Alice, wife of Nicholas de
> Moelis in dower, Kingescarswell manor, Dupeford Manor,
> Lanfeford [Lestre] manor, Alier 1 knight's fee.'"
>
> Again, in his list of citations, he has:
>
> "8. A.D. Inq., 11 Ed. III., No. 57, p. 80: Alice, wife of
> Nicholas de Moelis, died seized in dower of Kingescarswell
> manor, Dupeford manor, Langeford manor, Alre 1 knight's fee."
> up in the table at the start of the published IPM volumes.
> There we learn that the document formerly known as 11 Ed III
> No. 56 had the new designation, Inquisitions Post Mortem 52 (7).
> When we scan through the abstracted IPMs in the volume, we find
> that the one labeled as C. Edw. III. File 52. (7.) belongs to
> none other than John de Moelis, Moeles, Meoles, or Moles, who
> is readily identifiable from the text as the 4th Lord Moels.
> Consistent with this numbering, the TNA Catalogue names this
> IPM as C135/52/7. For 11 Ed. III No. 57, the table says the
> new number is IPM 52 (8), so looking there should turn up the
> item in question, but it is the IPM of Roger de Somerville, and
> this is now C135/52/8.
What, then, happened to the document?
It is there, in disguise, at the end of of the entry for John de Moeles. It is noteworthy that there is a numbering snafu in the Calendarium. The ipm of John de Moeles is 11 E III #56, beginning on page 79 and going to p. 80, next comes Alice, who is #57, beginning on p. 80. Then comes that of Roger de Somerville and his wife Agnes, but this is also listed as #57.
The published summaries in the Calendar can be tracked with the properties listed in the Calendarium. They follow the same order, with a few additions to the newer edition. They properties run through all of those listed for John in the Calendarium, then continued on with Stoke Moeles, North Cadbury, Kingscarswell, etc., those that in the Calendarium form the ipm of Alice, wife of Nicholas. In the newer abstract, these are described as the lands held in dower by Margaret, widow of Nicholas (2nd Lord).
Thus it looks like in the preparation of the Calendarium (or perhaps a heading
of the original document) the name Alice was substituted for that of Margaret, that this was not a separate ipm but an addendum to that of John detailing the dower rights held by his sister-in-law since being assigned two decades earlier when her husband's heir was his brother Roger. This whole inexplicable mess involving a separate Nicholas with a wife Alice and heir Roger was nothing but a confusion based on a clerical error at one, or perhaps several, steps in the process.
taf