Gilbert de Malpas (Isabella Patrick)
Reedpcgen
For what it's worth, Ormerod 2:598 gives Robert Patric (who is stated to be
lord of a moiety of Malpas) as granting a moiety of Malpas to David de Malpas
ca. 1230-40 (seal three pheons). Ormerod shows this Robert to be somehow
descended from Letitia, daughter and coheir of Robert FitzHugh, Domesday lord
of Malpas. Robert's son William Patric, is given as marrying Beatrix, daughter
and coheir of David the Bastard, alias le Clerc, illegitimate son and intruder
into the moity of Malpas held by his father William de Malpas, who died without
legitimate issue. Beatrix is stated to have received, on partition, a fourth
of the barony of Maplas in 44 Henry III. She, by William Patric, had one
daughter and sole heir, Isabella (living 1281) who married (1) Sir Philip
Burnell, d. s. p. (without issue), and (2) Richard de Sutton. They had issue
at least one son and heir, John de Sutton, who was alive during the reign of
Edward III (1327-77). William de Malpas is shown as the direct male descendant
of William le Belward, who is given as marrying Mabella, the other daughter and
coheir of Robert FitzHugh.
There was apparently a suit concerning John son of John de Sutton, chevaler,
over a moiety of a fourth of the barony recorded in the Plea Rolls11 & 12, and
12 & 13 Rich. II. Quotations from suits in the Chester Plea Rolls concerning
the bastardry of David, his daughters Idonea and Beatrix, and John de Sutton,
etc., are found on pp. 600-1, and the patrons of the rectors of the moieties of
Malpas are on pp. 605-14. The full title of this work, should you want to
check it, is _The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester..._ by
George Ormerod, 2nd. ed., by Thomas Helsby (London, 1882). It is also
available on microfilm through the Family History Library Branch Library
system.
pcr
P. S. Ormerod makes no mention of any Gilbert de Malpas, but does state that
there was a grant of "the moiety of Malpas, & c., formerly belonging to Gilbert
le Clerc, from Robert Patric to David Malpas." But this moiety would only be
part of the barony which came down by way of descent from a daughter and
coheir, not a son who succeeded the Domesday Robert FitzHugh at Malpas (or he
would have held more than the moiety). Ormerod is very sketchy about the
earliest years of the barony. David le Clerc was said to have been son-in-law
of Robert FitzHugh and succeeded at Malpas (CP).
James C. Woodard
Reedpcgen wrote in message
<199807052359...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Snipped for bandwidth
Paul,
Thank you very much for the info and the source, when my farming is not so
pressing, I'll try to piece together a line from William Patrick back and
post it.
Thanks again,
Jim
James C. Woodard
mailto: gwy...@gte.net
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards"
James C. Woodard
StNeel wrote in message <199807060334...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Snipped for bandwidth
>Hope this is helpful
>
>StNeel
When I have o'erlooked this, you shall have my just and peremptory answer.
:)
Jim
StNeel
---Richard FitzNigel d c1133 m Leticia dau Robert FitzHugh and had 6 children.
They were Robert, Gilbert (de Malpas of Lymme in Chester and Bold in Lancs),
Ralph (de Annesley in Notts.), William (de Houton in Northants), Gervaise (de
Barnston and Colston Basset in Notts and Duckmanton in Derby) and Agnes (m
Nigel des Puis prob descent of one of 5 knights enfeoffed by her grandfather in
Malpas (Dome. Bk).
---The one of interest here is Robert. Quoting the Rev Statham in Descent of
the Family of Statham;
"Robert appears in no documentation of the period save that of his sister Agnes
(Ref 1 below) which may be dated about 1150. Mr. Jeayes (Derbyshire Charters,
I. Jeayes, 1906) gives it a wide range of 1135-1189. I have placed him
tentatively in the pedigree as the heir to the barony of Malpas and as leaving
a daughter Gisla ( Calender of Doc. Preserved in France, J.H. Round f.159).
This daughter was married, I believe, to William Patric who died in 1184 (Ann
Cestr 32 Chartulary of S Werburgh, Cheetham Soc Vols 79,82 ,92(? on last #
-StNeel) )
--- Gilbert de Malpas d c1182 appears to have succeeded to most of his father's
lands outside of the baron of Malpas (Bold & Lymme) & had 4 children.
--- The Rev Statham states that Ormerod's account here is full of errors and
almost unintelligible. The descent of barony of Malpas to the Patric family
remains unsolved (StNeel - he didn't persue it since he follows Gilbert's
descent to the Stathams)
-- I understand the Malpas arm are argent, a cross florry azure.
Ref 1- Harleian MSS 2079 B.M (appearently Court Roll of Chester) which is
given by Rev Statham but is long and in Latin under
-f.12 Richard King John and starts 'Memorandum quod David de Malopassu
--' & has margin notes - "Medietas malpas - -(more latin with a Roberto,
Gilberti clerici, etc.)" on the left & " Malpas Orreby Justiciarius Patrick
Gilbert" on the right
- f. 22 Henry 2 (more latin etc.).
StNeel
>From: "James C. Woodard" <gwy...@gte.net>
>When I have o'erlooked this, you shall have my just and peremptory answer.
>:)
>Jim
O My! Another ' sole keeper of the truth'. Just stick to historical stuff and,
please, quote sources so we all can evaluate your just answer ( not interested
in peremptory ).
StNeel
James C. Woodard
StNeel wrote in message <199807061409...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>From: "James C. Woodard" <gwy...@gte.net>
>
>>When I have o'erlooked this, you shall have my just and peremptory answer.
>>:)
^^^^^
>>Jim
>
>O My! Another ' sole keeper of the truth'. Just stick to historical stuff
and,
>please, quote sources so we all can evaluate your just answer ( not
interested
>in peremptory ).
>
>StNeel
I don't know what your problem is, but it's not with me. Note the smiley
after the paraphrase of Shakespeare. I don't have time right now to examine
the info that you and Paul posted in reply to my query and I was just being
silly. If you took offense it is all in your mind, for none was intended,
if your response is other than an expression of irritation, you should have
used some method to indicate a tongue in cheek response.
Jim
StNeel
>>When I have o'erlooked this, you shall have my just and peremptory answer.
>>>:)
Yes - you are right - I missed the smiley and retorted on preemptory - sorry
about that. I was also laconic as shown by the O My! . I eagerly await your
posting on the subject
P.S. I posted the above within two hours of your retort to my retort - saw it
on the web but see now (next day) it is missing. Thought it worthwhile to
repost
StNeel
James C. Woodard
StNeel wrote in message <199807071620...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>James C. Woodard" <gwy...@gte.net> wrote
>
>>>When I have o'erlooked this, you shall have my just and peremptory
answer.
>>>>:)
>
>Yes - you are right - I missed the smiley and retorted on preemptory -
sorry
close to the same meaning but not quite.
Regards Jim