Re: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of Yorkshire
John Higgins
conclusion that Walter Griffith [A] who mar. Jane Neville is a distinct
person from the Walter [B] who mar. Agnes Constable. I thought that it had
been well-established that these were two marriages of the same Walter.
Back in 1997 Adrian Channing posted the following:
" In the church of St Martin adjoining Burton Agnes Hall now in county
Humberside there is the following MI:
Here lie the remains of Sir Walter Griffiths Knt. / who departed this Life
on the 9th day of August 1481 / and Iane [Jane] his first Wife, / Daughter
of Sir Ralph Nevill by Mary / Grandaughter to John of Gaunt Duke of
Lancaster / in this Chapel also lie the remains / of Agnes, Second Wife of
the said Sir Walter / Daughter of Sir Robert Constable of Flamborough / and
married secondly to Sir Gervase Clifton / of Clifton in the County of
Nottingham, Knt of the Bath / she died Jan 23Di [might be D.] 1505 /
leaving issue by Sir Walter Griffith aforesaid Walter / his successor made
Knt of the Bath on All Hallows Eve/ 1494 at the Creation of Henry 2D son of
Henry vii Duke of York / and Agnes married to Sir Gervase Clifton / of
Clifton in Nottinghamshire Knt of the Bath [her step-father?]"
[end of quote]
This seems to say pretty conclusively that Sir Walter who d. 1481 had two
wives. The MI could possibly be wrong, particularly if it is not
contemporaneous, but that would be a pretty big error...
Any thoughts on this?
----- Original Message -----
From: <jeff...@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:05 PM
Subject: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of Yorkshire
> SOME NOTES ON THE THREE WALTER GRIFFITHS OF BURTON AGNES, EAST RIDING
> OF YORKSHIRE.
>
>
>
>
> (A) Walter Griffith, b. ca. 1415, living 1457, d. --, son and heir of
> Sir John Griffith of Wychnor, Staffordshire and his wife Catherine
> Tyrwhitt, dau. of Robert Tyrwhitt; m. 6 Nov 1435 Jane Neville, living
> 1457, great great granddaughter of King Edward III by John of Gaunt,
> via Gaunt's daughter Joan Beaufort, who m. (1) Sir Robert Ferrers
> (see Note 1).
>
> (B) Walter Griffith, knt., b. ca. 1437, d. 9 Aug 1481; m. (her first)
> ca. 1463 Agnes Constable, the elder daughter of that name, b. ca. 1445,
> daughter of Sir Robert Constable of Flamborough and his wife Agnes
> Wentworth; Robert Constable and Agnes Wentworth m. ca. 1442 (see Note
> 2).
>
> (C) Walter Griffith, knt., son and heir, said to have been knighted
> 1497 in Scotland by the Earl of Surrey, b. by 1472 (as indicated by the
> IPM of his father, Sir Walter Griffith, dated 17 Jun 1493; I had
> erroneously given his birthyear as 1460 in my www.rootsweb.com
> "Skipwith" message board posts), d. 1531; m. Jane Ferrers, daughter
> of Sir John Ferrers of Tamworth and Dorothy Harper his wife, daughter
> of William Harper of Rushall (the website
> www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ff/ferrers2.htm says that "Anne
> Ferrers m. Sir Walter Graffeth"); this Jane according to reasonable
> chronology would have been b. ca. 1494, which, given the fact that Sir
> Walter's son and heir, Sir George Griffith (who was knighted at
> Calais in 1532 at age 21) was b. ca. 1511, seems credible, making Sir
> Walter's wife about 17 when her son was born. However, the
> identification of Jane Ferrers as the dau. of Sir John Ferrers of
> Tamworth and Dorothy Harper his wife has been questioned.
>
>
> (Note 1) The marriage of Walter Griffith and Jane Neville is
> well-proved by a marriage indenture dated 23 Sep 1435 between Sir John
> Griffith, father of Walter Griffith, who is his son and heir, and Joan,
> countess of Westmorland (Joan Beaufort), grandmother of Jane Neville;
> the marriage to take place on 6 Nov 1435.
> This Sir John Griffith was b. ca. 1397, and d. 20 Jun 1471 (author of
> manuscript "The Early Owners Of Burton Agnes" cites an IPM 11 Ed.
> IV, No. 30 for him) and had children besides Walter, namely Margaret,
> d. 28 Jan 1491, who m. (first) Robert Willoughby and (second) Sir Peter
> Legh; Richardson mentions this woman in PA3.; and a dau. Elizabeth
> (Elsbeth) who m. Thomas ap Gruffud ap Nicolas and was thereby the
> mother of Sir Rhys ap Thomas 1449-1525; but this man could not possibly
> be the nephew of a man b. ca. 1472 as claimed on "The Boyntons of
> England" website; he would be the nephew of Walter Griffith who m.
> Jane Neville (see A above). I don't know how the birthyear of 1449
> was fixed for this Sir Rhys ap Thomas, but there's no doubt that he
> didn't m. Katherine Howard, as discussed below; apparently it was his
> grandson.
> Even though it is a proven fact that Sir John Griffith was the father
> of (A) Walter, Sir John must have been for the times a very old man
> when he died in 1471. I think these two daughters were younger than
> (A) Walter, which is borne out by the birthyear of 1449 for
> Elizabeth's (Elsbeth's) son Sir Rhys ap Thomas.
> The manuscript cites the Pardon Roll of 1472 for Walter Griffith (A),
> but I think the entry probably belongs to Walter (B). The Griffiths
> were Lancastrians.
> One record which definitely belongs to Walter (A) is that in 1457
> Walter and Jane (or Joan) were granted "leave to have an oratory for
> a year." Unfortunately I do not have this document, so I do not know
> if it refers to Walter as a knight; Richardson does not claim
> knighthood for this man in PA3 or MCA.
>
> (Note 2) The IPM quoted in No. B above proves that this Sir Walter
> Griffith d. 9 Aug 1481 had a brother Rhys Griffith, Esq., (said by an
> undocumented internet source to have been b. ca. 1441; he d. 1489
> according to the IPM); he had a daughter Joan, b. ca. 1471 (in my
> Rootsweb posts I stated "b. ca. 1467" which is an error; the error
> resulted from not calculating "9 Hen. VII" correctly; the same IPM
> states that "Joan wife of Leo Dymok, aged 22 and more, is his [Rhys]
> daughter and heir"; of Lionel Dymoke, d. 1519, it is recorded that
> there is a brass of him on the north wall of St. Mary Church in
> Horncastle, Lincs. Wearing armor as the King's champion; beneath this
> is another brass representing Sir Lionel in his shroud.). The death
> date on the Burton Agnes tomb of Sir Walter Griffith is 9 Aug 1481, and
> the death date of the Sir Walter Griffith in the Lincs. IPM quoted
> above was also 9 Aug 1481. This makes it easy to say they were the
> same person, and thus Rhys Griffith, Esq. was also of the Burton Agnes
> family.
> In connection with the marriage of Gervase Clifton Jr. and Agnes
> Griffith, we have the following from a2a under "Bower Family of
> Welham, cat. DDBR, Marriage settlement relating to the manors of Cressy
> Hall and Downhall in Claypole-ref. DDBR/7/1-date 18 Dec. 1482
> Parties: 1) Gervase Clifton, esquire 2) his son Gervase, junior, and
> Angnes Griffith, daughter of Sir Walter Griffith, deceased Property:
> manors of Cressy Hall and Bownhall in Claypole with all appurtenances
> (excepting the advowson there and from the manor of Bownhall, 4 boates
> of land and desmesne meadow in tenure of William Standart) Witnesses:
> John Stanhope, Thomas Thurland, Hugh Annysley, Humphrey Hercy, esquire,
> John Carleton of Claypole, John Coddington of Claypole, John Parker of
> Claypole, given at Claypole."
> This proves that Gervase Clifton Sr. was not knighted as of 18 Dec
> 1482, some sixteen months after the death of Sir Walter Griffith, and
> that Sir Walter Griffith had a daughter Agnes who m. Gervase Clifton
> Jr., and that Gervase Jr. was not knighted as of the same date as his
> father; this daughter Agnes Griffith (who I estimate to have been b.
> ca. 1464, and thus some years older than her brother Walter) was the
> daughter of Sir Walter Griffith and his wife Agnes Constable; she was
> not, however, their only child, as witness below.
> The website
> www.boyntons.us/yorkshire/people/lineage/collier/06early.html has an
> article entitled "The Early Owners Of Burton Agnes," which, in
> spite of some error, does much to straighten out the account of this
> Griffith family (unfortunately, although some references of good
> quality are provided, the author is unknown). It cites Agnes
> (Constable) Griffith's will (Test Ebor. IV, 242) as naming Sir Walter
> Griffith her son; this Sir Walter (who d. 1531) requested in his will
> to be buried in the new chapel annexed to the Church of St. Martin in
> Burton Agnes "where my ladie, my moder lieth."
> Of any other children of Sir Walter and Agnes (Constable) Griffith, I
> have only the claim by Roger Hailwood (see below) that gen. C Sir
> Walter Griffith b. 1472 had a nephew, Sir Rees ap Thomas, KG, who m.
> 1590 Katherine Howard, dau. of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk; this is
> quite a feat considering that that Sir Rees was beheaded in 1531;
> according to Howard family data, Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk,
> and his second wife Agnes Tilney had a dau. Katherine b. ca. 1499 who
> m. Sir Rhys ap Griffith ap Fitzuryon Rhys, b. ca. 1500 and d. 1531;
> this man was the son of Sir Griffith ap Rhys, knt. and Catherine St.
> John; evidently Sir Griffith ap Rhys was the son of Elsbeth Griffith,
> dau. of Sir John, as noted above, and this is the connection to the
> Griffiths of Burton Agnes.
>
> (Note 3) I do not know who put together the website "The Boyntons of
> England," (www.pluvoy.com/enboynton.html) but they should reformat
> their hard drive and start over; by their own admission they didn't
> know if their data was correct, and it reprints an article by Roger
> Hailwood which seems to be a regurgitation of some plan of the
> Victorian restoration of St. Martin's; I will leave it up to others
> to judge the efficacy of that.
> >From gen. (C) Sir Walter Griffith onwards the pedigrees in various
> places and forms agree that it continues as shown in primogeniture:
> Sir George Griffith, b. ca. 1511, d. 1559; m. Elizabeth
> Skevington
> Sir Walter Griffith; m. Catherine Blount
> Sir Henry Griffith, b. 1558, d. 1620; m. ca. 1583 Elizabeth
> Throckmorton, dau. of Thomas Throckmorton
> Sir Henry Griffith, bart., b. 1603, d. 1654, last of the
> Burton Agnes Griffiths; at his death the estate passed
> to his nephew, a son of Sir Mathew and Frances
> (Griffith) Boynton; m. (first) Mary Willoughby (second)
> Dorothy Bellingham; no issue by either wife
> Doubtless more about these wives above could be learned, but as from
> gen. (C) onward the line has no particular significance for me, I will
> leave it to others to flesh it out, and just append this record from
> a2a (although it may already have been posted to SGM):
> "St. Quintin of Harpham collection Catalogue Ref. MD229 Creators:
> St. Quintin family of Harpham, Burton Agnes, East Riding of Yorkshire
> Deeds Deeds relating to Harpham MD229/45a-date 15 July 1514 By Ralph
> Bigod, Walter Griffith, John Constable and John Normanville, knights,
> to John Santqwytyn esq, son and heir of John Santqwytyn esq, of all of
> the lands they had of the grant of his father."
> I appended this because it shows the association of familiar Burton
> Agnes names.
>
> On chronological grounds alone, it is weird that two brothers (Walter &
> Rhys) allegedly both had their heirs when they were in their 50s, and
> this in the 15th century. Of course, this did happen sometimes, but
> seeing it twice should setoff an alarm.
>
> However, I do have facts to work with to support the data above:
>
> 1. Walter Griffith, knt., d. 9 Aug 1481 had a brother Rhys Griffith,
> esq., who d. 1489.
> 2. There is no doubt that the Walter above was buried at Burton Agnes
> church, East Riding of Yorkshire.
> 3. Walter who d. 1481 was married to Agnes Constable when he died.
> 4. Sir John Griffith, d. 20 Jun 1471, was the father of the Walter
> Griffith who m. Jane Neville in 1435; this Walter was his son and heir,
> and Walter's wife Jane was living in 1457.
> 5. Sir John Griffith above did not have a son Rhys, just Walter and two
> daughters.
>
> Therefore, we have two Walter Griffiths who have been misidentified as
> one person. That Sir John Griffith did not have a son Rhys proves that
> the Walter d. 1481 who did have a brother Rhys cannot be the Walter who
> was the son of Sir John Griffith; or, put differently, the Walter
> Griffith who m. Jane Neville, and the Sir Walter Griffith who m. Agnes
> Constable are not the same person. This kind of error happens all the
> time. Names run in families and are given to men for several
> generations in sequence. The only people to claim that Walters A & B
> are the same person are the people with "The Boyntons of England"
> website referenced above.
>
> So, who were the parents of Sir Walter Griffith d. 1481 and Rhys
> Griffith Esq. d. 1489?
>
> There is no doubt that Sir Henry Griffith, d. 1620 (and from whom
> Thynne the herald received his information) was the father of Sir Henry
> Griffith, bart., d. 1654; Sir Henry Griffith the baronet was the last
> Griffith to hold Burton Agnes, which then passed to a son of his sister
> Frances who had m. Sir Mathew Boynton.
>
> There is no disagreement that (B) Sir Walter Griffith d. 1481 and Agnes
> Constable his wife were the parents of (C) Sir Walter Griffith; that
> (B) Sir Walter was the brother of Rhys Griffith Esq. d. 1489 is well
> proved. We know from the marriage contract between Sir John Griffith
> and Joan Beaufort that the Walter (who is not named as a knight in that
> document, although he could have been knighted later, but I have no
> record at hand showing that he was knighted) who m. Jane Neville was
> Sir John Griffith's son and heir. Sir John Griffith did not have any
> other sons, so the "ownership" of the manor of Burton Agnes would
> pass in the male line from this Walter. Thus it is shown that (B)
> Walter must have been the son and heir of (A) Walter, as (B) Walter
> held Burton Agnes, and is credited with restoring the Norman manor
> house and installing the 15th century roof. As mentioned before, (B)
> Walter had a younger brother Rhys Griffith d. 1489, so Rhys must have
> been a son of (A) Walter as well. (A) Walter's wife Jane Neville was
> living in 1457, so there is no doubt as to who was the mother of (B)
> Walter and Rhys. If (A) Walter had no children, the manor would have
> passed to a sister (of which he had two) as heiress; this did not
> happen; and if he had no son, it would have passed to one of his
> daughters, although we have no record of any daughters.
>
> One other possibility exists, that Sir Walter d. 1481 and Rhys d. 1489
> were both sons of Sir John Griffith and Catherine Tyrwhitt. This would
> mean that Jane (Neville) Griffith d. without known issue. Agnes
> (Constable) Griffith was b. ca. 1445 and m. ca. 1463; she would have
> thus been some 30 years younger than her putative husband. Of Sir John
> Griffith d. 1471, having researched him in depth I can find no evidence
> that he ever had a son named Rhys. If he did, Rhys would have to have
> been a younger, if not the youngest child, and even so would have been
> close to 50 when he had his heir, Joan (Griffith) Dymoke.
> In connection with this are some notes made 10 Jan 1948 by The Society
> of London Antiquaries following previous notes of 1 Aug 1604 by Francis
> Thynne, Lancaster herald, regarding the pedigree of Griffith of Burton
> Agnes as it existed at that time:
> "Still lower on the pedigree is a drawing of the tomb of Sir Walter
> Griffith I (ob. 1481) shewing on the end the two shields described by
> Collier, viz. (1) Neville quartering Boteler of Wem; and (2) Somerville
> and Griffyth quarterly with Merlay in pretence."
> This is a much earlier depiction of the tomb than exists today. Jane
> Neville's father Sir Ralph Neville d. 26 Feb 1457/8. Jane's
> brother John d. 17 Mar 1481/2 with issue. The Neville arms quartering
> Boteler of Wem are for Elizabeth, dau. of William le Boteler, 3rd Lord
> Boteler of Wem; Elizabeth m. Robert de Ferrers, knt. of Willisham,
> Suffolk, and was the mother of Sir Robert Ferrers, first husband of
> Joan Beaufort, dau. of John of Gaunt. This display does not seem to
> signify that Neville m. the occupant of the tomb, but rather that the
> occupant was a descendant of the families represented by the arms; it
> thus appears that this Sir Walter Griffith was the son of Jane Neville,
> and that Shield (1) represents his mother's family and Shield (2) his
> father's. There is no representation of the arms of Constable of
> Flamborough on this tomb; in any case this Sir Walter's wife Agnes
> Constable was not an heiress, although she did bear him two known
> children. I am not an expert in heraldry; this is my interpretation of
> the display.
> Again, I must point to the fact that Sir John Griffith who d. 1471 did
> not have a son named Rhys, although Sir John was the son of a Rhys.
>
> NB: The "ownership" chain of Burton Agnes was as follows:
> Previously held by the Stutevilles, it passed to Roger de Merlay who
> had two daughters (thus the Merlay in pretence); his dau.Isabel m.
> Robert de Somerville of Wychnor, Staffs.; Sir Philip de Somerville had
> a dau. Joan who m. Rhys ap Griffith, and they were the common ancestors
> of the Griffith family of Burton Agnes.
>
> If there are errors here they are my own.
>
>
> Jeff Chipman
> 10/28/05
>
Brad Verity
Your research into the Griffiths of Burton Agnes is very thorough.
Thank you for making such a detailed post.
"John Higgins" wrote:
[snip]
> This seems to say pretty conclusively that Sir Walter who d. 1481 had two
> wives. The MI could possibly be wrong, particularly if it is not
> contemporaneous, but that would be a pretty big error...
>
> Any thoughts on this?
The M.I. evidence does seem conclusive. Also, back in July 2000,
Kenneth Kirkpatrick, who had done much research into Sir Lionel Dymoke,
posted the following about Rhys Griffith, esquire:
"Rhys Griffith, esq. Writ de Amotus 9 June, inq. 17 June, 9 Hen. VII.
John, Lord de Dudley, and John Bryngham, knt., gave the undermentioned
mill, lands, and rent to him the said Rhys Griffith, for the term of
his life, with remainder to Walter Griffith, knt., his brother. The
said Walter died 9 Aug., 21 Edw. IV, leaving issue Walter Griffith his
son and heir, 21 years old and more on 8 June inst., to whom the
premises remain. The said Rhys died 8 Oct., 4 Hen. VII. Joan the wife
of Leo Dymok, aged 22 and more, is his daughter and heir. LINC.
[lands, etc., in Orby, Wynsby, and Wadyngton, held of William, Viscount
Bemond, as of the manor of Folkyngham, co. Linc.] [Inquisitions Post
Mortem, Henry VII]."
There's nothing in the above IPM to deny Rhys being a son of Sir John
Griffith (d. 1471). Also, Sir Walter Griffith was likely younger than
age 20 when married to Joan Neville in 1435. Heirs were often married
as children - he could have been about age 10, so born in the 1420s
rather than the 1410s.
Cheers, -------Brad
Peter Sutton
You may be interested in the following extract from the Plea Rolls (Ref:
Collections For a History of Staffordshire Volume VI. New Series - Part I
page 156):
"DE BANCO. MICH., 2 R. III. Notts. Thomas Frebody, late of Bromwych, co.
Stafford, gentilman, was sued by Gervase Clyfton, knight, and Agnes, his
wife, late wife of Walter Gryffyth, knight, the executrix of the will of the
said Walter, for a debt of 20 marks, and they produced a bond of the said
Thomas for that amount dated r9 E. IV, at Mansfeld. Thomas appeared by
William Wilkes, his attorney, and asked for license "inde interloquendi" to
the Octaves of St. Hillary, which was granted, m. 227."
I think you will find that it was "Anne" the daughter of Agnes Constable and
Walter who married Gervase junior. "Agnes" the other daughter was married
to Sir John Egerton (See Collections For a History of Staffordshire Volume
1912 Star Chamber proceedings 1498-1553 "Egerton v Wylloughby).
As for the ownership of Burton Agnes it passed from Anselm de Stutville to
his sister and coheir Alice who was the widow of Roger de Merlay I. Then to
her heir Roger de Merlay II; when his heir Roger de Merlay III died in 1265
it was divided between two of his 3 daughters, Mary married to William de
Graystock and Isabel who later married Robert de Somerville. In 1294
William de Graystock exchanged his portion with Robert de Somerville.
The eventual heir of Robert and Isabel was their youngest son Sir Philip de
Somerville. The Somerville property consisted of two fees held of Ferrers -
Wichnor and Sirescot: of 3/4 fee in Dunstall and Barton held of the same; of
Ingleby (Derbyshire) Cossington (Leicestershire) Stockton (Warwickshire),
Burton Agnes (Yorkshire) and of some other manors in Northumberland and
Nottinghamshire.
Some of these appear to have been conveyed to Sir Philip in 1300 by his
eldest brother, Edmund who was a priest. The rest came to him on the death
of his brother Roger in 1336. In the late 1330's he levied a series of
fines, the effect of which was to settle much of his property upon Rees ap
Griffith and Joan his wife (daughter of Sir Philip) and their issue, saving
a life interest to himself and his wife Margaret.
The IPM on Sir Philip de Somerville taken at York in response to a writ of
28 January 29 Edward III says that the reversion of the whole manor of
Burton Agnes belonged to Rhys ap Griffyn and his wife Joan and the heirs of
Joan. Joan was one of the two daughters of Sir Philip, and his co-heir with
the daughter of her deceased sister Elizabeth.
Hope this helps.
Peter Sutton
VII" correctly; the same IPM states that "Joan wife of Leo Dymok, aged 22
jeff...@hotmail.com
The problem with your thesis is that there is no independent record of
Sir John Griffith having a son Rhys. There is an independent record
(namely the marriage contract with Joan Beaufort) of Sir John having a
son named Walter, who was his heir, and that this Walter m. Jane
Neville. The 1493 IPM you mention does not say who the parents of the
Walter and Rhys under discussion are. It does not give their
birthdates. Also, the MI is of unknown provenance, since it was made
late in the 19th century, and the 1604 description of the tomb of Sir
Walter Griffith d. 9 Aug 1481 says nothing about it. Please visit
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Burtonagnes/Burtonagnes92.html
for a discussion of this issue on page 2.
This 1604 description of the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (who died 9
Aug 1481) is going to be very difficult for anyone to get around.
Those shields are displayed in the customary fashion indicating that he
was a descendant of the families depicted. Since we know that Walter
Griffith (who I have yet to see proof was knighted) married Jane
Neville 6 Nov 1435, she is the only Neville known to be associated with
this family. Since if you are correct, Jane Neville would have no
issue, what is the point of displaying the Neville arms at all?
Jeff Chipman
jeff...@hotmail.com
Thank you for this information, I did not know about it.
Jeff Chipman
Peter Sutton
Rhys I was the great-grandfather of Sir John Griffith.
Peter Sutton
-----Original Message-----
From: jeff...@hotmail.com [mailto:jeff...@hotmail.com]
Sent: 29 October 2005 19:39
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of
Yorkshire
John--
I think you should read my post again. It is not established that this
Walter had two wives. I am well aware of the MI in the church at Burton
Agnes you mention that Adrian Channing posted. It was not made at the time
of the burial of Walter Griffith in 1481, but was modern as of 1892, as the
document "Burton Agnes: Geographical and Historical information from the
year 1892" records
(www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Burtonagnes/Burtonagnes92.html).
Somebody, using god knows what as a reference, restored St. Martin's in the
Victorian era.
Walter Griffith who d. 9 Aug 1481 had a brother Rhys who d. in 1489.
This is proven by a Lincs. IPM of 1493 which specifically states that Rhys
was Walter's brother, and gives the death dates for both Walter and Rhys.
Therefore, wherever Walter goes, Rhys goes.
By your interpretation, Rhys would also be a son of Sir John Griffith and
Catherine Tyrwhitt. Sir John Griffith did not have a son Rhys; therefore
Walter and Rhys belong to different parents. An internet source, without
citing documentation, says that Rhys Griffith was b.
ca. 1441. This date fits very well with other evidence. If the Walter who
d. 1481 had Jane Neville as a first wife, then Jane Neville did not have any
known issue, as the Walter who d. 1481 had his heir Sir Walter Griffith born
in 1472. There was an older dau. Agnes who m. Gervase Clifton Jr. in 1482,
but she would have been by Agnes Constable, not Jane Neville.
Douglas Richardson, in both PA3 and MCA states that Walter Griffith m.
Jane Neville. In MCA he also says that Sir Walter Griffith m. Agnes
Constable (and presumably Agnes the elder, as her parents had another
Agnes). I am not going to put words into Douglas Richardson's mouth, but he
does not claim that the Walter Griffith who m. Jane Neville was a knight,
nor does he link Walter/Jane with Sir Walter/Agnes. Internet sources say
that the Walter who m. Agnes Constable was b. ca. 1437, but again cite no
references for this date, although again, it accords well
with the evidence (Agnes was b. ca. 1445). The only place which makes
these two men one is the inscription at Burton Agnes.
It's an obscure piece of information which sheds definitive light on this
situation. I did some research on "a2a" and found a reference to a pedigree
of Griffith of Burton Agnes in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries
of London. I emailed them, and was happy to learn that they would copy the
manuscript for me.
It consists of some photos of portions of a pedigree roll, some paintings of
knights, but principally it deals with the heraldry and genealogy of the
Griffith family of Burton Agnes. In 1948 Marcus Wickham-Boynton, then the
owner of the manor of Burton Agnes, loaned SAL this material, and Hugh
Stanford of the Society evaluated it. It is headed thus: "Pedigree of
Griffith of Burton Agnes, East Yorks compiled by Francis Thynne, Lancaster
Herald and dated 1 August 1604."
This material of course precedes the church restoration by about 250 years.
Hugh Stanford made this note concerning a drawing of the tomb of Walter
Griffith who d. 1481:
"Still lower on the pedigree is a drawing of the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith
I (ob. 1481) shewing on the end the two shields described by Collier, viz.
(1) Neville quartering Boteler of Wem; and (2) Somerville and Griffyth
quarterly with Merlay in pretence."
Shield (2) shows basically the genealogical reasons that the manor of Burton
Agnes came into the possession of the Griffith family; namely that Roger de
Merlay III had only two daughters, one of whom m. Robert de Somerville
(hence Merlay in pretence); and later that the male line of Somerville
failed, and a dau. of Philip de Somerville m. Rhys Griffith I; this Rhys I
was the grandfather of the Sir John Griffith under discussion here.
Shield (1) is for his mother's family, and merely shows that Sir Ralph
Neville, a younger son of Ralph Neville (who became Earl of
Westmorland) and Margaret Stafford, m. Mary Ferrers, dau. of Robert Ferrers
and Joan Beaufort, Ferrers having the le Boteler ancestry.
Shield (2) is displayed in the same fashion as Shield (1), and it is my
understanding (and here I'm not claiming to be an expert in heraldry,
although I do have a reference on the subject) that in any case it is not
displayed in the manner it would be for a man displaying the arms of a wife,
but rather refers to an ancestor. Neville is here not quartering Griffith,
but rather Boteler. As for the arms of Constable, Agnes was not an heiress
and had male relatives living.
On chronological grounds alone, the identification of Walter d. 1481 as a
son of Sir John Griffith is suspect, but the above heraldry shows that
Walter d. 1481 was in fact a son of Walter Griffith and Jane Neville, and
thus so is Rhys d. 1489. This makes them both descendants of Edward III.
Jeff Chipman
10/29/05
John Higgins
uncovered does seem to trump the MI, especially if the MI is modern and not
contemporaneous. And the fact that Sir John Griffith is not known to have
had a son Rhys, while Rhys and Walter (d. 1481) are clearly brothers, is
also important. Your construction of the pedigree for this family appears
to be as good as we can get with the limited facts available.
As you've noted this gives the Griiffiths of Burton Agnes an early descent
from Edward III - something I once had in my data but discarded after
learning about the supposed double marriage of Walter Griffith.
As to the Gervase Cliftons, if I've got this right Agnes Constable, widow of
Sir Walter (who d. 1481) mar. (2) as his 2nd wife Sir Gervase Clifton the
elder (d. 1491). Sir Gervase the younger, son by his father's 1st wife,
mar. (as his 1st wife?) Agnes (now identified as Anne), dau. of Anne
Constable and Sir Walter Griffith. Right??
----- Original Message -----
From: <jeff...@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of
Yorkshire
> John--
> I think you should read my post again. It is not established that this
> Walter had two wives. I am well aware of the MI in the church at
> Burton Agnes you mention that Adrian Channing posted. It was not made
> at the time of the burial of Walter Griffith in 1481, but was modern as
> of 1892, as the document "Burton Agnes: Geographical and Historical
> information from the year 1892" records
> (www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Burtonagnes/Burtonagnes92.html).
> Somebody, using god knows what as a reference, restored St. Martin's in
> the Victorian era.
> Walter Griffith who d. 9 Aug 1481 had a brother Rhys who d. in 1489.
> This is proven by a Lincs. IPM of 1493 which specifically states that
> Rhys was Walter's brother, and gives the death dates for both Walter
> and Rhys. Therefore, wherever Walter goes, Rhys goes.
> By your interpretation, Rhys would also be a son of Sir John Griffith
> and Catherine Tyrwhitt. Sir John Griffith did not have a son Rhys;
> therefore Walter and Rhys belong to different parents. An internet
> source, without citing documentation, says that Rhys Griffith was b.
> ca. 1441. This date fits very well with other evidence. If the Walter
> who d. 1481 had Jane Neville as a first wife, then Jane Neville did not
> have any known issue, as the Walter who d. 1481 had his heir Sir Walter
> Griffith born in 1472. There was an older dau. Agnes who m. Gervase
> Clifton Jr. in 1482, but she would have been by Agnes Constable, not
> Jane Neville.
> Douglas Richardson, in both PA3 and MCA states that Walter Griffith m.
> Jane Neville. In MCA he also says that Sir Walter Griffith m. Agnes
> Constable (and presumably Agnes the elder, as her parents had another
> Agnes). I am not going to put words into Douglas Richardson's mouth,
> but he does not claim that the Walter Griffith who m. Jane Neville was
> a knight, nor does he link Walter/Jane with Sir Walter/Agnes. Internet
> sources say that the Walter who m. Agnes Constable was b. ca. 1437, but
> again cite no references for this date, although again, it accords well
> with the evidence (Agnes was b. ca. 1445). The only place which makes
> these two men one is the inscription at Burton Agnes.
> It's an obscure piece of information which sheds definitive light on
> this situation. I did some research on "a2a" and found a reference to
> a pedigree of Griffith of Burton Agnes in the possession of the Society
> of Antiquaries of London. I emailed them, and was happy to learn that
> they would copy the manuscript for me.
> It consists of some photos of portions of a pedigree roll, some
> paintings of knights, but principally it deals with the heraldry and
> genealogy of the Griffith family of Burton Agnes. In 1948 Marcus
> Wickham-Boynton, then the owner of the manor of Burton Agnes, loaned
> SAL this material, and Hugh Stanford of the Society evaluated it. It
> is headed thus: "Pedigree of Griffith of Burton Agnes, East Yorks
> compiled by Francis Thynne, Lancaster Herald and dated 1 August 1604."
> This material of course precedes the church restoration by about 250
> years. Hugh Stanford made this note concerning a drawing of the tomb
> of Walter Griffith who d. 1481:
> "Still lower on the pedigree is a drawing of the tomb of Sir Walter
> Griffith I (ob. 1481) shewing on the end the two shields described by
> Collier, viz. (1) Neville quartering Boteler of Wem; and (2) Somerville
> and Griffyth quarterly with Merlay in pretence."
> Shield (2) shows basically the genealogical reasons that the manor of
> Burton Agnes came into the possession of the Griffith family; namely
> that Roger de Merlay III had only two daughters, one of whom m. Robert
> de Somerville (hence Merlay in pretence); and later that the male line
> of Somerville failed, and a dau. of Philip de Somerville m. Rhys
> Griffith I; this Rhys I was the grandfather of the Sir John Griffith
> under discussion here.
> Shield (1) is for his mother's family, and merely shows that Sir Ralph
> Neville, a younger son of Ralph Neville (who became Earl of
> Westmorland) and Margaret Stafford, m. Mary Ferrers, dau. of Robert
> Ferrers and Joan Beaufort, Ferrers having the le Boteler ancestry.
> Shield (2) is displayed in the same fashion as Shield (1), and it is my
> understanding (and here I'm not claiming to be an expert in heraldry,
> although I do have a reference on the subject) that in any case it is
> not displayed in the manner it would be for a man displaying the arms
> of a wife, but rather refers to an ancestor. Neville is here not
> quartering Griffith, but rather Boteler. As for the arms of Constable,
> Agnes was not an heiress and had male relatives living.
> On chronological grounds alone, the identification of Walter d. 1481 as
> a son of Sir John Griffith is suspect, but the above heraldry shows
> that Walter d. 1481 was in fact a son of Walter Griffith and Jane
Brad Verity
Comments interspersed.
jeff...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Dear Brad--
> The problem with your thesis is that there is no independent record of
> Sir John Griffith having a son Rhys.
But this does not mean that he couldn't have had a son Rhys. I'm
usually in agreement with your stance "if there's no record, it
probably didn't happen". But muniments from this family, I take it,
have not survived the centuries, so in this particular instance, we
have to keep within the realm of possibility that Sir John may have had
a younger son Rhys. Especially since chronologically, it is possible
for a man who died in 1471 to have had a younger son who died in 1489.
> There is an independent record
> (namely the marriage contract with Joan Beaufort) of Sir John having a
> son named Walter, who was his heir, and that this Walter m. Jane
> Neville.
Yes, I have a copy of the entry from the Catalogue of Ancient Deeds,
and can transcribe it for you, if it'll help you.
> The 1493 IPM you mention does not say who the parents of the
> Walter and Rhys under discussion are.
Very true, and that was actually my point, which I probably could have
made clearer. It doesn't say who their father was, so it could have
been Sir John.
> It does not give their
> birthdates.
No, though the IPM of Sir John Griffith from 1471, if it exists, would
give the birthdate of his heir Sir Walter.
The current Calendar of IPM series has not yet reached the 1470s (I
believe its up to the 1430s), but there is an older, much less exact,
calendar of the IPMs (from the 19th or early 20th century) which may
state some info regarding the age of Sir Walter. Also, it would be
possible to order the IPM of Sir John from the National Archives. The
text would be handwritten, hard to decipher, and may be in Latin, but
the age of Sir Walter would be in it.
Another avenue you could check is the Calendar of Fine Rolls, Close
Rolls and Patent Rolls, as often they have entries about the dispersal
of lands after the death of a tenant-in-chief and repeat information
taken from the IPMs.
> Also, the MI is of unknown provenance, since it was made
> late in the 19th century, and the 1604 description of the tomb of Sir
> Walter Griffith d. 9 Aug 1481 says nothing about it.
I missed this point in your initial post, so, apologies.
> Please visit
> http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Burtonagnes/Burtonagnes92.html
> for a discussion of this issue on page 2.
Thanks for the link - I visited it. GENUKI is such an amazing online
source.
> This 1604 description of the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (who died 9
> Aug 1481) is going to be very difficult for anyone to get around.
> Those shields are displayed in the customary fashion indicating that he
> was a descendant of the families depicted.
I'm not familiar enough with heraldry to know the difference between
families the entombed is descended from versus families the entombed
was associated with, or married into.
> Since we know that Walter
> Griffith (who I have yet to see proof was knighted)
This proof may be hard to come by. A review of the Patent and Close
Rolls, etc., might help determine when a knighted Sir Walter first
appears on record.
> married Jane
> Neville 6 Nov 1435, she is the only Neville known to be associated with
> this family. Since if you are correct, Jane Neville would have no
> issue, what is the point of displaying the Neville arms at all?
Maybe I've missed a step here, but from the GENUKI link you posted
above, it mentions the tomb has effigies of a knight and his lady. If
the 19th century M.I. is accurate as to who the tomb belongs to, Sir
Walter and his first wife Jane Neville, wouldn't it be appropriate to
display the arms the lady entombed, whether she had children or not?
If what you propose is correct, and the Sir Walter buried here was the
son and not the husband of Jane Neville, then who is the lady who is
buried with him? Agnes Constable? From the request of her son Sir
Walter the younger in his 1531 will that he be buried in the new chapel
of St. Martin church in Burton Agnes "where my ladie, my moder lieth"
makes it sound as if Agnes was buried separately from Sir Walter the
elder.
Cheers, --------Brad
John Higgins
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Sutton" <peter...@ntlworld.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Subject: RE: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of
Yorkshire
[snip]
> I think you will find that it was "Anne" the daughter of Agnes Constable
and
> Walter who married Gervase junior. "Agnes" the other daughter was married
> to Sir John Egerton (See Collections For a History of Staffordshire Volume
> 1912 Star Chamber proceedings 1498-1553 "Egerton v Wylloughby).
Ormerod's Cheshire 3:692, sub Egerton of Wrinehill, says that John Egerton
of Wrinehill (d. 1 June 17 Henry VIII) mar. Isabel, dau. of Sir Walter
Griffith (of Wichnor, co. Staff.) by Jane, his wife, dau. of Sir John
Ferrers of Tamworth. This Griffith/Egerton marriage is said to have been
"ante 10 Henry VIII".
Is this a different Griffith/Egerton marriage than the one cited by Peter
Sutton? Or has Ormerod mis-identifed both the name and the parentage of the
Griffith daughter? Based on the marriage date I'd guess that the Griffith
daughter is properly one generation earlier in the Griffith pedigree as
indicated by Peter Sutton. In a quick check of Egerton pedigrees I can't
find any other John Egerton who married a Griffith.
Brad Verity
> Ormerod's Cheshire 3:692, sub Egerton of Wrinehill, says that John Egerton
> of Wrinehill (d. 1 June 17 Henry VIII) mar. Isabel, dau. of Sir Walter
> Griffith (of Wichnor, co. Staff.) by Jane, his wife, dau. of Sir John
> Ferrers of Tamworth. This Griffith/Egerton marriage is said to have been
> "ante 10 Henry VIII".
>
> Is this a different Griffith/Egerton marriage than the one cited by Peter
> Sutton? Or has Ormerod mis-identifed both the name and the parentage of the
> Griffith daughter?
Here you go, from the National Archives:
C 1/413/34 Walter Gryffyth, knight. v. Isabel Egerton, executrix and
late the wife of Randal Egerton of Wrinehill, esquire.: Expenses
incurred on behalf of John Egerton, son of defendant, on the promise
that they should be deducted from money due to him on his marriage with
complainant's daughter Agnes. 1515-1518
If the above Chancery document is dated correctly, then the Agnes
Griffith who married John Egerton of Wrinehill, was the daughter of Sir
Walter Griffith (d. 1531), as Ormerod has it. Ormerod did get the
first name wrong - it was 'Agnes' not 'Isabel'. Isabel was the first
name of John Egerton's mother, not his wife. Apparently Sir Walter
Griffith the younger named a daughter after his mother Agnes.
Agnes Griffith Egerton survived her husband:
STAC 2/23/310 PLAINTIFF: Agnes Egerton, widow DEFENDANT: Hugh
Willoughby, Philip Dracote, and others PLACE OR SUBJECT: The manor of
Cheddleton COUNTY: Stafford 22/04/1509-28/01/1547
She died before 1550, and possibly before 1540:
C 1/1068/10 Anthony SHALCROSSE, executor of Agnes Egerton, v. John
HARROWER, late abbot of Hulton, and others.: Debts.: [STAFFORD.]
1538-1544
As for the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (d. 1481) in St. Martin church,
Burton Agnes, it does seem that the lady buried with him was not Agnes
Constable.
The link Jeff provided in his original post
http://www.boyntons.us/yorkshire/people/lineage/collier/06early.html
has an abstract from the will of Agnes Constable Griffith Clifton: "be
buried (in) Anes-burton Church in the chauntre closett therin, by our
Lady, as my sonne knawthe", as well as abstracts from the will of her
son Sir Walter Griffith: "be beried in the new Chappell, annexed to the
Churche of Sancte Martyn at Annas Burton, where my ladie, my moder
lieth." Also: "a priest be wadged to pray for the leth of my soull, my
fader's and moder's--in the Church and Chappell of Annas Burton, where
my said moder is beried".
The same website describes Sir Walter and his first wife as being
buried in "the great tomb before the altar of the Blessed Virgin".
>From the wording, it appears Agnes was buried separately from her
husband Sir Walter Griffith, in a new chapel of the church.
Hope this helps.
Cheers, -------Brad
jeff...@hotmail.com
Thanks for your data; I find it interesting. I'd like to make a couple
of points:
1. Jane Neville had a brother John, b. ca. 1418, d. 17 Mar 1481/2; he
was never knighted, and his marriage to Elizabeth Newmarch resulted in
one dau., Joan; he m. 2nd Margaret Plumpton, with no issue. That was
the end of the male line of Sir Ralph Neville, 2nd son of Ralph Neville
and Margaret Stafford.
2. From the above we can't necessarily construct the birthdate of Jane
Neville, but it does give some general idea of the time frame. Another
fact bears mentioning: Richardson in MCA p. 264 says that Mary Ferrers
was the younger dau. of Robert Ferrers and Joan Beaufort, who he m.
"before 30 Sept. 1390." He died "before 29 Nov. 1396." This gives a
general guideline that his daus. Elizabeth and Mary were born between
those dates, and Mary who m. Sir Ralph Neville was the younger of the
two. I think I estimated Mary's birthyear as being 1394, kind of in
the middle of the range; it probably wasn't a lot earlier, but it could
have been a little later. Mary was probably about 17 when she married
Neville about 1411. From the birthdate of Jane's brother John as ca.
1418, it wouldn't surprise me if Jane Neville were older than John.
3. The marriage of Jane Neville and Walter Griffith is nothing more
than the marriage of the children of two knights. This was not a
dynastic marriage which would have been arranged and conducted in
childhood, where the passing of large blocks of property was at stake.
As far as I can tell, Jane Neville brought nothing but prestige to the
union. The manor of Burton Agnes (I don't know if this branch of the
Griffith family still held Wychnor in Staffs.) provided good support,
but was hardly the vast estate of a magnate. I can think of no reason
that these two would have been married as children.
Even given that Jane was the grandau. of a countess didn't get her
brother a knighthood, and I have no record at hand which shows Jane's
husband Walter Griffith was knighted either.
4. I want to give the details of the Griffith pedigree in the
collection of the Society of Antiquaries of London:
It is Catalogue Ref. SAL/MS, which means that it is a manuscript in the
collection of SAL; File-Griffith Family-ref. SAL/MS/774-date: 1948
"Description by Hugh Stanford of an illuminated pedigree of the
Griffith family of Burton Agnes, East Yorks., with a note by Francis
Thynne, Lancaster Herald, dated 1 Aug. 1604; 10 January 1948 (fol.5V
)."
The pedigree roll was not created by Francis Thynne; however the notes
quoted by Hugh Stanford were.
5. I would think thatq Agnes Constable is the woman buried with Sir
Walter Griffith; she did m. 2nd Gervase Clifton, esq. (as of Dec. 1482
he was not knighted), but I do not believe had children by him, so it
would be logical she was buried with Sir Walter Griffith, as her son by
him held the manor of Burton Agnes; she is definitely bur. in St.
Martin's, as her son attested in his will.
6. The descirption of the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith, d. 9 Aug 1481,
is complete proof that he was the son of Walter Griffith and his wife
Jane Neville. The Neville arms are displayed as ancestor arms.
This is what Woodcock and Robinson say about the matter in their "The
Oxford Guide to Heraldry" p. 123 (and I'm quoting this not to be a
smart aleck, but because I am new to heraldry and want to get the facts
right):
An armigerous man impales the arms of his wife as long as her father is
alive. On the father's death he may, if she has no surviving brothers
or deceased brothers who left issue, place her arms on a shield in the
centre of his own arms. This is termed an escutcheon of pretence
because he pretends to represent her family, and as there are no
immediate male members of that family it is not inapropriate to bear
such a coat in battle or times of war."
The authors go on to say that men have quartered, and impaled (meaning
"the shield is divided vertically, and the husband's arms are placed to
the dexter, and the wife's to the sinister") their wive's arms.
Impaled, quartering, and pretence are the 3 ways men bear their wife's
arms under certain established circumstances. All of these involve
modifications of the husband's shield. There is no doubt that the
Neville arms on the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith do not fall into any of
these categories, so we can be certain that it was not he who married
Jane Neville, nor was Jane Neville an heraldic heiress, so her arms
could not be quartered; she was not given a grant of her own arms. The
presence of the Neville/Boteler shield on this tomb can only be because
she was the mother of Sir Walter Griffith, the occupant of the tomb.
As far as the Griffiths are concerned, I am certain they were not
tenants in chief.
Jeff Chipman
Brad Verity
Thank you for a very detailed response. I've interspersed my comments
below.
jeff...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 1. Jane Neville had a brother John, b. ca. 1418,
I assume you estimated the year of birth for John Neville from his age
(40) given in his father's 1458 IPM. But keep in mind that 40 was not
a precise age, and there are several IPMs where the jurors returned
someone as age 40 and were very off. So John could have been born
earlier than 1418.
> d. 17 Mar 1481/2; he
> was never knighted, and his marriage to Elizabeth Newmarch resulted in
> one dau., Joan; he m. 2nd Margaret Plumpton, with no issue. That was
> the end of the male line of Sir Ralph Neville, 2nd son of Ralph Neville
> and Margaret Stafford.
Yes.
> 2. From the above we can't necessarily construct the birthdate of Jane
> Neville, but it does give some general idea of the time frame. Another
> fact bears mentioning: Richardson in MCA p. 264 says that Mary Ferrers
> was the younger dau. of Robert Ferrers and Joan Beaufort, who he m.
> "before 30 Sept. 1390." He died "before 29 Nov. 1396." This gives a
> general guideline that his daus. Elizabeth and Mary were born between
> those dates, and Mary who m. Sir Ralph Neville was the younger of the
> two. I think I estimated Mary's birthyear as being 1394, kind of in
> the middle of the range;
PA3 gives "before 1394 (aged 17 in 1411)" for Mary's birth.
> it probably wasn't a lot earlier, but it could
> have been a little later. Mary was probably about 17 when she married
> Neville about 1411. From the birthdate of Jane's brother John as ca.
> 1418, it wouldn't surprise me if Jane Neville were older than John.
It's possible she was older than John, and possible that she was
younger. We only know that she was born before 1435.
> 3. The marriage of Jane Neville and Walter Griffith is nothing more
> than the marriage of the children of two knights. This was not a
> dynastic marriage which would have been arranged and conducted in
> childhood, where the passing of large blocks of property was at stake.
I disagree here - the countess of Westmorland, Jane's grandmother, got
involved. And Walter Griffith was an heir to whatever lands his father
Sir John was holding. Jane was a potential heir to her mother's half
of the barony of Wem (should her brother die childless, Jane and/or her
issue would inherit). I don't think we can rule out that the couple
were out of childhood when the marriage took place.
> As far as I can tell, Jane Neville brought nothing but prestige to the
> union.
She may have brought some kind of marriage portion, perhaps cash,
possibly a forgiveness of debts owed by Sir John Griffith. The
indenture between the countess of Westmorland and Sir John, dated at
York 23 Sep. 1435, only stipulates that Sir John is to settle on the
couple lands in Burton Agnes and elsewhere in Yorkshire worth 100 marks
a year.
I completely agree as to the prestige that the Friffiths acquired with
this marriage.
> The manor of Burton Agnes (I don't know if this branch of the
> Griffith family still held Wychnor in Staffs.) provided good support,
> but was hardly the vast estate of a magnate.
Agreed. If IPMs for any of the Griffiths exist, they will help shed
light on the properties the family held.
> I can think of no reason
> that these two would have been married as children.
That's not enough to rule out that they weren't married as children.
> Even given that Jane was the grandau. of a countess didn't get her
> brother a knighthood, and I have no record at hand which shows Jane's
> husband Walter Griffith was knighted either.
By this, I'm guessing you mean you've found no record naming Walter and
Jane together that has him as a knight. This may be so. If he was the
same Walter dead in 1481 and buried in the tomb, he may have been
knighted after Jane's death.
> 4. I want to give the details of the Griffith pedigree in the
> collection of the Society of Antiquaries of London:
> It is Catalogue Ref. SAL/MS, which means that it is a manuscript in the
> collection of SAL; File-Griffith Family-ref. SAL/MS/774-date: 1948
> "Description by Hugh Stanford of an illuminated pedigree of the
> Griffith family of Burton Agnes, East Yorks., with a note by Francis
> Thynne, Lancaster Herald, dated 1 Aug. 1604; 10 January 1948 (fol.5V
> )."
> The pedigree roll was not created by Francis Thynne; however the notes
> quoted by Hugh Stanford were.
Great - hopefully it will be of much assistance in your research!
> 5. I would think thatq Agnes Constable is the woman buried with Sir
> Walter Griffith; she did m. 2nd Gervase Clifton, esq. (as of Dec. 1482
> he was not knighted), but I do not believe had children by him, so it
> would be logical she was buried with Sir Walter Griffith, as her son by
> him held the manor of Burton Agnes; she is definitely bur. in St.
> Martin's, as her son attested in his will.
Yes, but in the post I made in response to John Higgins, from the
wording in Agnes' own will, as well as the will of her son, it appears
she was buried in the same church in a separate location.
> 6. The descirption of the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith, d. 9 Aug 1481,
> is complete proof that he was the son of Walter Griffith and his wife
> Jane Neville. The Neville arms are displayed as ancestor arms.
I have to disagree with you here, too, Jeff. "Complete proof" is much
too strong a stance.
[snip]
> The authors go on to say that men have quartered, and impaled (meaning
> "the shield is divided vertically, and the husband's arms are placed to
> the dexter, and the wife's to the sinister") their wive's arms.
> Impaled, quartering, and pretence are the 3 ways men bear their wife's
> arms under certain established circumstances. All of these involve
> modifications of the husband's shield. There is no doubt that the
> Neville arms on the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith do not fall into any of
> these categories,
As I understand it, the arms on the tomb are as follows: two shields.
One is of Neville quartering Boteler of Wem, and the other is of
Somerville and Griffith quarterly with Merlay in pretence.
As there are two effigies on the tomb, my guess would be that each
shield is for one of the effigies. The Neville quartering Boteler of
Wem for the lady, and the other shield for the knight.
The shields were separated out, rather than one shield with each of the
arms impaled. I don't know how heraldically sound this is, but it
seems to make as much sense as your proposal that the shields represent
the parents of the knight. If that were the case, what about the lady
who lies entombed with him? Where are the shields for her parents?
> so we can be certain that it was not he who married
> Jane Neville, nor was Jane Neville an heraldic heiress, so her arms
> could not be quartered; she was not given a grant of her own arms.
She would then be identified with the arms of her father, as I
understand it.
> The
> presence of the Neville/Boteler shield on this tomb can only be because
> she was the mother of Sir Walter Griffith, the occupant of the tomb.
This is too strong a statement. The presence of the Neville/Boteler
shield could very well be because she was actually the lady entombed!
> As far as the Griffiths are concerned, I am certain they were not
> tenants in chief.
That may be so, but luckily some kind of IPM for Sir John does exist.
At the website:
http://www.boyntons.us/yorkshire/people/lineage/collier/06early.html
The source given for the 1471 date for Sir John Griffith's death is
"Inq. p. m. 11 Ed. IV, No. 30". This should be able to be ordered
through the National Archives.
Cheers, ------Brad
jeff...@hotmail.com
I think you are in error about the display of the Neville/Boteler arms.
According to "The Oxford Guide," p. 119 the rule (and it was followed
in the 15th cent.) is that "a husband and a wife who is not an heraldic
heiress impale their arms;" and "married women bear their husband's
arms or their husband and father's arms on a shield."
This is clearly not the case at the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith who d.
1481. I don't think there's any doubt that the arms on the shield at
this tomb are of Sir Ralph Neville, father of Jane. The arms are so
constructed to quarter Boteler of Wem, because Ralph's wife Mary
Ferrers was the younger dau. of Robert Ferrers, 2nd Lord Ferrers of
Wem and Joan Beaufort; Robert was the son of Elizabeth Le Boteler, dau.
and heiress of William Le Boteler, 3rd Lord Boteler of Wem, by which
marriage the barony of Wem came to the Ferrers family. This explains
the construction of the Neville/Boteler shield perfectly.
Brad, I understand what you're saying; it's just that it doesn't fit
the facts. There is no evidence that Jane Neville and Walter Griffith
were married as children. They were not of the class in which such
marriages took place. They were not children of magnates, and there
weren't huge landholdings at stake. I agree with you that Jane
probably brought something to the marriage, but there is no record of
forgiveness of some large debt and it doesn't appear that she brought
any property, as nothing like that pops up in later records. With the
possible exception of Wychnor, the only property I have any record of
these people owning is Burton Agnes, which doubtless provided the
family with some comfort.
Displaying arms of a woman who had no issue was regarded as a
questionable practice. I'm glad you raised this question, that Jane
Neville had no children. If this is the case, then why is her father's
shield at Sir Walter's tomb? It is not displayed in any way or form
that would indicate she was married to the occupant of the tomb.
However, it is displayed exactly how I have seen such ancestral shields
displayed in these "family" country churches. As for Agnes Constable,
she was not an heiress either, but bear in mind that she married for a
second time to Gervase Clifton Sr.; her son by Sir Walter clearly
states that his wife and mother are buried in St. Martin's. I don't
have Agnes' death date, but as she was married to Clifton for some
time, her interment at St. Martin's probably was some years after her
first husband's death.
The fact is, outside the parish of Burton Agnes, nobody thinks these
two Walters are the same person. Much of your argument is speculation.
I want to see a record or some contemperaneous statement that the
Walter Griffith who m. Jane Neville was a knight. Jane's brother John
wasn't. The Walter who m. Agnes Constable was a knight, as revealed in
the IPM. That 1493 IPM mentions no children of Walter by an earlier
wife. By your argument that would be saying none of her issue survived
or she had none at all.
Then there is the problem of Sir Walter d. 1481 having a brother Rhys.
It's interesting to me that (and I mean I've strip-mined the 'net) I
have never found any indication that Sir John Griffith had a son Rhys.
Outside of the IPM, there is a claim that Rhys was b. 1441. I don't
know what the source of that statement is BUT if Rhys were indeed the
son of Sir John, Rhys would have been for the times pretty old to have
his oldest (and apparently only) child. I did discover that Sir John
had two daughters, so why a son would be in hiding I don't know.
These kinds of cock-ups happen all the time, and when men of the same
name succeed each other it can become confusing. I will say that the
pedigree roll does show Walter d. 1481 with two wives, but with issue
by both! This pedigree roll is not the pedigree put together by
Francis Thynne; I don't know who did it or when. I have to go with the
notes made by Thynne as they are much closer to the events than a
modern inscription placed on an old tomb.
I appreciate your arguments, but I have to defer to the records and the
customs of heraldry. I don't think there is any doubt that Sir Walter
Griffith d. 9 Aug 1481 was the son of Walter and Jane (Neville)
Griffith.
Jeff Chipman
jeff...@hotmail.com
The website "The Boyntons of England" (just type that in as a google
search and it will come up) has a listing of the displays of arms at
Burton Agnes. It's interesting that the arms of Tyrwhitt (for
Catherine Tyrwhitt, wife of Sir John Griffith) are not mentioned as
displayed.
I would also point to the fact, that, in support of what I say above,
the other tombs show the arms of the husband impaling those of the
wife, while the arms on Sir Walter Griffith's tomb do not.
The description is as follows:
i. Quarterly: 1 and 4, (Azure) crusilly three eagles displayed (or)
(Somerville): 2 and 3, (Gules) on a fess dancetty argent between six
lions rampant (or) three martlets (Sable) (Griffith) on an escutcheon
of pretence: barruly argent and gules, a bordure (Azure) charger with
martlets (or) (Merlay).
ii. Quarterly: 1 and 4, (Gules) a saltire argent (Nevil); 2 and 3
(Gules) a fess compony (or and sable) between six crosses patty
(argent) (Boteler).
In other words, we have two shields here. In both shields, the arms of
a given family occupy two quarters, in perfect accord with heraldic
rules. However, you will note that Griffith does not impale Neville,
which it would if the occupant were the husband of Jane Neville. Sir
Walter d. 1481 did have an heir, another Sir Walter who d. 1531 and
mentioned the burial of his wife and mother as given above.
In this document (which may not be exhaustive) the only other tomb
which does not show the husband impaling the wife's arms is the case of
Sir Henry Griffith, bart., who m. twice; the practice in case of
multiple marriages is to have the wives' arms on seperate shields and
not impaled. He was, in fact, the last of the male line Griffiths to
hold Burton Agnes, and the arms of his wives, in accordance with
practice, though neither one bore him children, are on seperate shields
and not impaled. This practice also supports the contention that Sir
Walter Griffith d. 1481 was only married once, as it is known that his
children were by Agnes Constable, and if any arms are impaled it would
be hers; but as I have said she outlived her husband by some years and
had marital connections to the Cliftons through her own marriage and
the marriage of her daughter.
There is one other item of interest here: that the badge of the
Griffith family was a griffin.
Other than this, I know nothing more of the heraldry of Burton Agnes.
Jeff Chipman
John Higgins
research on Jeff's part. I don't know that we can resolve the question, but
I hope the discussion will continue....
----- Original Message -----
From: <jeff...@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of
Yorkshire
[big snip]
> The fact is, outside the parish of Burton Agnes, nobody thinks these
> two Walters are the same person. Much of your argument is speculation.
This may be a bit of an overstatement....I wonder if anybody "outside the
parish of Burton Agnes" is actually on record as saying that there were two
Walters.
> These kinds of cock-ups happen all the time, and when men of the same
> name succeed each other it can become confusing. I will say that the
> pedigree roll does show Walter d. 1481 with two wives, but with issue
> by both! This pedigree roll is not the pedigree put together by
> Francis Thynne; I don't know who did it or when. I have to go with the
> notes made by Thynne as they are much closer to the events than a
> modern inscription placed on an old tomb.
I'm confused by your reference to the "pedigree roll" followed immediately
by the reference to a [different?] "pedigree put together by Francis
Thynne". Are these both in the material that the Society of Antiquaries of
London copied for you? In an earlier post you described the SAL material as
follows:
"It consists of some photos of portions of a pedigree roll, some
paintings of knights, but principally it deals with the heraldry and
genealogy of the Griffith family of Burton Agnes. In 1948 Marcus
Wickham-Boynton, then the owner of the manor of Burton Agnes, loaned
SAL this material, and Hugh Stanford of the Society evaluated it. It
is headed thus: "Pedigree of Griffith of Burton Agnes, East Yorks
compiled by Francis Thynne, Lancaster Herald and dated 1 August 1604.""
[end of quote]
Is the Thynne pedigree something separate from the pedigree roll? If there
are two separate pedigrees here, are they both true genealogical pedigrees
as we would understand the term? (i.e., not simply or primarily heraldic
information) Does the Thynne pedigree directly address the question of one
or two wives for Walter (to say nothing of one or two Walters)? (in terms of
genealogy, not heraldry)
I recognize that you may have addressed this in your earlier posts, but it's
not immediately clear how these two relate to one another and if they are in
conflict. For the sake of my sometimes dense mind, can you clarify this?
( And I did re-read your very informative post of Sept 3, which also refers
to both the pedigree roll and the pedigree and seems to imply that they are
the same.)
I also am intrigued by Brad's comments regarding the locations of the
various burials within the chruch at Burton Agnes. If Agnes Constable
Griffith was in fact buried in a chapel of the church while Sir Walter who
d. 1481 was buried in "the great tomb before the altar of the Blessed
Virgin", it begs the question of WHO (if anyone) is (or was) buried with Sir
Walter - and the logical answer would seem to be Jane Neville [or maybe
nobody].
This has been a most interesting discussion, but it may yet be premature to
say definitively which answer is right. I think a case of sorts can be made
for both a single Walter with two wives as well as two Walters. We just
don't have enough facts to be totally certain - as we all would always like
to be!! :-)
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip>
> 6. The descirption of the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith, d. 9 Aug 1481,
> is complete proof that he was the son of Walter Griffith and his wife
> Jane Neville. The Neville arms are displayed as ancestor arms.
> This is what Woodcock and Robinson say about the matter in their "The
> Oxford Guide to Heraldry" p. 123 (and I'm quoting this not to be a
> smart aleck, but because I am new to heraldry and want to get the facts
> right):
> An armigerous man impales the arms of his wife as long as her father is
> alive. On the father's death he may, if she has no surviving brothers
> or deceased brothers who left issue, place her arms on a shield in the
> centre of his own arms. This is termed an escutcheon of pretence
> because he pretends to represent her family, and as there are no
> immediate male members of that family it is not inapropriate to bear
> such a coat in battle or times of war."
> The authors go on to say that men have quartered, and impaled (meaning
> "the shield is divided vertically, and the husband's arms are placed to
> the dexter, and the wife's to the sinister") their wive's arms.
> Impaled, quartering, and pretence are the 3 ways men bear their wife's
> arms under certain established circumstances.
My reading of those words was slightly different. The authors
correctly record that quartering of a wife's father's arms was
practised, but the are not clear that this practice is not now what is
done.
> All of these involve modifications of the husband's shield.
Not quite.
> There is no doubt that the Neville arms on the tomb of Sir Walter
> Griffith do not fall into any of these categories, so we can be
> certain that it was not he who married Jane Neville, nor was Jane
> Neville an heraldic heiress, so her arms could not be quartered; she
> was not given a grant of her own arms. The presence of the
> Neville/Boteler shield on this tomb can only be because she was the
> mother of Sir Walter Griffith, the occupant of the tomb.
I am extremely wary about making any deductions from heraldry. My
grandfather got some modern heralds (20th century that is) to do some
work for him and very beautiful it is too. But several of the
components are just wrong. The heralds had not done their research
correctly into the genealogy. In particular for some of the errors they
had treated the medieval practice of quartering the wife's arms as an
indicator of being heiresses when in fact some of the wives had brothers
with issue.
If modern heralds of the College of Arms can get such things worng,
then what hope do sculptors of a country tomb have?
My strong recommendation is to establish the genealogy first from good
documentation and then ask what the heraldry might or might not mean.
So the last quoted sentence, above, "The presence of the
Neville/Boteler shield on this tomb can only be because she was the
mother of Sir Walter Griffith, the occupant of the tomb." cannot be
accepted. You have to find out what the relationship was of these
Nevilles and Botelers and then you can say what the sculptor might have
thought he was doing.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> I wanted to add the following:
> The website "The Boyntons of England" (just type that in as a google
> search and it will come up) has a listing of the displays of arms at
> Burton Agnes. It's interesting that the arms of Tyrwhitt (for
> Catherine Tyrwhitt, wife of Sir John Griffith) are not mentioned as
> displayed.
> I would also point to the fact, that, in support of what I say above,
> the other tombs show the arms of the husband impaling those of the
> wife, while the arms on Sir Walter Griffith's tomb do not.
> The description is as follows:
> i. Quarterly: 1 and 4, (Azure) crusilly three eagles displayed (or)
> (Somerville): 2 and 3, (Gules) on a fess dancetty argent between six
> lions rampant (or) three martlets (Sable) (Griffith) on an escutcheon
> of pretence: barruly argent and gules, a bordure (Azure) charger with
> martlets (or) (Merlay).
>
> ii. Quarterly: 1 and 4, (Gules) a saltire argent (Nevil); 2 and 3
> (Gules) a fess compony (or and sable) between six crosses patty
> (argent) (Boteler).
>
> In other words, we have two shields here. In both shields, the arms of
> a given family occupy two quarters, in perfect accord with heraldic
> rules.
I do not think that heraldic rules were clear enough at the time of this
sculpture. Remember the Garter king of arms was only instituted in
1415 and the College's charter might only have been granted in 1555, so
there were few rules clearly laid down at the time of which you speak.
Further the rules have changed over the years. There is no published
book of the rules of the College of Arms, much as various heralds have
published their own books over the years. I think the modern consensus
is that there are no so-called heraldic rules that are not broken by
some equally accepted practice or other.
> However, you will note that Griffith does not impale Neville,
> which it would if the occupant were the husband of Jane Neville. Sir
> Walter d. 1481 did have an heir, another Sir Walter who d. 1531 and
> mentioned the burial of his wife and mother as given above.
> In this document (which may not be exhaustive) the only other tomb
> which does not show the husband impaling the wife's arms is the case of
> Sir Henry Griffith, bart., who m. twice; the practice in case of
> multiple marriages is to have the wives' arms on seperate shields and
> not impaled. He was, in fact, the last of the male line Griffiths to
> hold Burton Agnes, and the arms of his wives, in accordance with
> practice, though neither one bore him children, are on seperate shields
> and not impaled. This practice also supports the contention that Sir
> Walter Griffith d. 1481 was only married once, as it is known that his
> children were by Agnes Constable, and if any arms are impaled it would
> be hers; but as I have said she outlived her husband by some years and
> had marital connections to the Cliftons through her own marriage and
> the marriage of her daughter.
> There is one other item of interest here: that the badge of the
> Griffith family was a griffin.
>
> Other than this, I know nothing more of the heraldry of Burton Agnes.
--
jeff...@hotmail.com
thi
jeff...@hotmail.com
various times.
This is my argument from the heraldic evidence in this case:
RE: the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith, d. 9 Aug 1481.
This tomb displays two seperate shields, one for Griffith, and one for
Neville.
If the occupant of the tomb was twice married, there should be another
shield for Constable, and neither Neville or Constable would be
impaled. This is not the case, so the occupant wasn't married twice.
If the occupant was married once, to Neville, then the heraldic display
would be Griffith impaling Neville. This is not the case, so we know
that the occupant wasn't married to Neville.
Therefore, the reason for the display of the Neville arms is because
she was an ancestress of the occupant.
The reason I recommended visiting "The Boyntons Of England" website is
because it mentions the arms at this tomb. I'd like also to point out
that there is nothing at this tomb to indicate that the occupant's
mother was Catherine Tyrwhitt, wife of Sir John Griffith. I have no
documentation that the Tyrwhitt arms are displayed anywhere in St.
Martin's church.
However this may be, the display at Sir Walter's tomb is exactly the
same as Francis Thynne recorded it 400 years ago. Of the tombs and
arms recorded in "The Boyntons Of England" website, there are only two
tombs where the male's arms do not impale the woman's, and those are
Sir Walter Griffith's and that of Sir Henry Griffith, Bart. In the
latter case, the display of arms is in perfect accordance with the
custom governing the situation of having two wives.
In the case of Sir Walter, the display is also correct as I have
delineated above. It is the way ancestor shields are displayed in
these churches. I can see no reason why Sir Walter would not have
impaled the Neville arms if Jane Neville was his wife; everybody else
in the church impaled their wives' arms, except in the case of Sir
Henry as noted above.
>From what I can tell, the denizens of St. Martin's followed the
heraldic customs to a "T." In connection with this, Woodcock and
Robinson say, "Prior to the formulation of the present rules there are
cases in the early fifteenth century where a husband quartered his
wife's arms..." rather than impale them. The display at Sir Walter's
tomb doesn't follow any accepted custom of displaying a wife's arms.
I am glad that contrary arguments are being put forth. This is a new
line and it should be scrutinized. Both chronology and the available
evidence indicate that Sir Walter and his brother Rhys were the
Tim Powys-Lybbe
customary cheverons, so that I can precisely address each point as
appropriate.
In message of 30 Oct, jeff...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Tim, I agree that the heraldic rules have been loosely observed at
> various times.
> This is my argument from the heraldic evidence in this case:
>
> RE: the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith, d. 9 Aug 1481.
> This tomb displays two seperate shields, one for Griffith, and one for
> Neville.
See below.
> If the occupant of the tomb was twice married, there should be another
> shield for Constable, and neither Neville or Constable would be
> impaled.
Why does there have to be a second shield if they were twice married?
The fact that some people have used such devices does not mean that all
people want such a display? Perhaps they did not wish to acknowledge
the first wife for fear of giving offence to the second (surviving)
one? Perhaps the second wife commissioned the carving and was just not
interested in any record o the first wife?
> This is not the case, so the occupant wasn't married twice.
Hmmm...
> If the occupant was married once, to Neville, then the heraldic
> display would be Griffith impaling Neville.
How do you know that the occupant might have been the one who married
Neville? How do you know that the shield was supposed to represent the
occupant?
> This is not the case, so we know that the occupant wasn't married to
> Neville.
More Hmmm...
> Therefore, the reason for the display of the Neville arms is because
> she was an ancestress of the occupant.
>
> The reason I recommended visiting "The Boyntons Of England" website is
> because it mentions the arms at this tomb.
I looked at this site and saw they had listed as the first set of arms
on the tomb these:
"Quarterlty [sic]: 1 and 4, (Azure) crusilly three eagles displayed
(or) (Somerville); 2 and 3, (Gules) on a fess dancetty argent between
six lions rampant (or) three martlets (Sable) (Griffith) on an
escutcheon of pretence: barruly argent and gules, a bordure (Azure)
charger with martlets (or) (Merlay)."
These arms are those of Somerville quartered with Griffith, therefore
they are the arms of a Somerville male whose ancestor married a
Griffith and which Somerville had marrried a Merlay heiress. I can't
see that they are the arms of any Griffith.
I assume of course that this site has correctly blazoned the arms.
> I'd like also to point out that there is nothing at this tomb to
> indicate that the occupant's mother was Catherine Tyrwhitt, wife of
> Sir John Griffith. I have no documentation that the Tyrwhitt arms
> are displayed anywhere in St. Martin's church. However this may be,
> the display at Sir Walter's tomb is exactly the same as Francis Thynne
> recorded it 400 years ago. Of the tombs and arms recorded in "The
> Boyntons Of England" website, there are only two tombs where the
> male's arms do not impale the woman's, and those are Sir Walter
> Griffith's and that of Sir Henry Griffith, Bart. In the latter case,
> the display of arms is in perfect accordance with the custom
> governing the situation of having two wives. In the case of Sir
> Walter, the display is also correct as I have delineated above.
But the arms aren't even those of Griffith.
> It is the way ancestor shields are displayed in these churches. I
> can see no reason why Sir Walter would not have impaled the Neville
> arms if Jane Neville was his wife; everybody else in the church
> impaled their wives' arms, except in the case of Sir Henry as noted
> above. From what I can tell, the denizens of St. Martin's followed the
> heraldic customs to a "T." In connection with this, Woodcock and
> Robinson say, "Prior to the formulation of the present rules there are
> cases in the early fifteenth century where a husband quartered his
> wife's arms..." rather than impale them. The display at Sir Walter's
> tomb doesn't follow any accepted custom of displaying a wife's arms.
> I am glad that contrary arguments are being put forth. This is a new
> line and it should be scrutinized. Both chronology and the available
> evidence indicate that Sir Walter and his brother Rhys were the
> descendants of Edward III.
A final Hmmm... :-)
Brad Verity
A lot of discussion on this very interesting topic you've researched.
I've combined your two posts and interspersed my comments.
jeff...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I think you are in error about the display of the Neville/Boteler arms.
> According to "The Oxford Guide," p. 119 the rule (and it was followed
> in the 15th cent.) is that "a husband and a wife who is not an heraldic
> heiress impale their arms;" and "married women bear their husband's
> arms or their husband and father's arms on a shield."
That may be a rule, but there are always exceptions.
> This is clearly not the case at the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith who d.
> 1481. I don't think there's any doubt that the arms on the shield at
> this tomb are of Sir Ralph Neville, father of Jane. The arms are so
> constructed to quarter Boteler of Wem, because Ralph's wife Mary
> Ferrers was the younger dau. of Robert Ferrers, 2nd Lord Ferrers of
> Wem and Joan Beaufort; Robert was the son of Elizabeth Le Boteler, dau.
> and heiress of William Le Boteler, 3rd Lord Boteler of Wem, by which
> marriage the barony of Wem came to the Ferrers family. This explains
> the construction of the Neville/Boteler shield perfectly.
Yes, I agree completely.
> Brad, I understand what you're saying; it's just that it doesn't fit
> the facts.
But the facts are so few that it can fit, as can your proposal that
there were two Walter Griffiths between Sir John (d. 1471) and Sir
Walter (d. 1531).
So more facts are needed.
> There is no evidence that Jane Neville and Walter Griffith
> were married as children.
This is true, but you can also argue that there is no evidence they
were married as adults. There is only evidence that they were married,
in 1435. Their ages need to be deduced from other facts.
I'm not saying they HAD to be married as children. I'm just saying
they COULD have been.
> They were not of the class in which such
> marriages took place. They were not children of magnates, and there
> weren't huge landholdings at stake.
Marriages of the gentry class were also arranged sometimes when the
couple were very young, especially for an heir or heiress. It was not
just the nobility and great magnate classes that did this. In some
posts a week or so ago, I discussed the Fitzwilliams of Aldwark, a 15th
century Yorkshire gentry family of similar status to the Griffiths of
Burton Agnes. History of Parliament describes the Fitzwilliamses as "a
relatively undistinguished Yorkshire family."
Thomas Fitzwilliam, the eldest son and heir to the family, was born in
1448, and his parents were arranging his marriage in 1455, when he was
only age 7.
> I agree with you that Jane
> probably brought something to the marriage, but there is no record of
> forgiveness of some large debt and it doesn't appear that she brought
> any property, as nothing like that pops up in later records.
The forgiveness of debt was pure speculation on my part - there's not
any evidence for it.
It's also a possibility that she brought no marriage portion to the
Griffiths. That as you mentioned it was merely the prestige of being
allied to the Nevilles that attracted the match.
> With the
> possible exception of Wychnor, the only property I have any record of
> these people owning is Burton Agnes, which doubtless provided the
> family with some comfort.
Well, per the Sept. 1435 marriage indenture, we know Sir John Griffith
had other lands in Yorkshire, at least.
> Displaying arms of a woman who had no issue was regarded as a
> questionable practice. I'm glad you raised this question, that Jane
> Neville had no children.
Actually, I didn't realize I was raising the question that Jane Neville
had no children. But now that it's brought up, according to the
Neville pedigree in the Visitation of the North, drawn up in 1480-1500,
the daughter of Mary Ferrers and Ralph Neville is given as "Johanna
nupta Waltero Griffith militi", with no issue stemming from the couple.
This is not proof that there was no issue, but it does suggest so, as
the issue of various other female Nevilles is followed within the same
pedigree.
> If this is the case, then why is her father's
> shield at Sir Walter's tomb?
I'm going to be stubborn and go back to my suggestion that it's to
identify the lady buried in the tomb.
> It is not displayed in any way or form
> that would indicate she was married to the occupant of the tomb.
There are two people buried in the tomb and two shields, one
identifying who the knight was and the other who the lady was. The
fact that they were buried together shows they were married.
> However, it is displayed exactly how I have seen such ancestral shields
> displayed in these "family" country churches.
But why just give the ancestry of the knight? In every married couple
tomb I've read about or seen, the ancestry of both knight and lady is
displayed.
> As for Agnes Constable,
> she was not an heiress either, but bear in mind that she married for a
> second time to Gervase Clifton Sr.; her son by Sir Walter clearly
> states that his wife and mother are buried in St. Martin's.
Yes, but in a separate location. We know this from the wording in both
her own will and her son's will.
> I don't
> have Agnes' death date, but as she was married to Clifton for some
> time, her interment at St. Martin's probably was some years after her
> first husband's death.
Well, I know the 19th century M.I. from Sir Walter's tomb is not
contemporary evidence, but it does state:
"/ in this Chapel also lie the remains / of Agnes, Second Wife of
the said Sir Walter / Daughter of Sir Robert Constable of Flamborough /
and married secondly to Sir Gervase Clifton / of Clifton in the County
of
Nottingham, Knt of the Bath / she died Jan 23Di [might be D.] 1505 / "
> The fact is, outside the parish of Burton Agnes, nobody thinks these
> two Walters are the same person.
But the parish of Burton Agnes is where these individuals lived, died
and were buried. So what the parish believes of them should not be
discarded without strong evidence to the contrary. Though the monument
inscription is 19th century, it may well be based on earlier
inscriptions. Certainly the date of death it states for Sir Walter is
accurate, as is the marriages and parentage it gives for Agnes
Constable and the parentage it describes for Jane Neville. Agnes's
death date can probably be verified (at least per the year) by looking
up her printed will in the Testamenta Eboracensia series. These books
are hard to find, but luckily the University library I use in Los
Angeles has them, and I'd be glad to make a copy of her will for you,
if you'd like.
> Much of your argument is speculation.
Granted, but so is yours. The facts are:
A) Sir John Griffith (d. 1471) had a son and heir Walter, who was
married to Jane Neville, granddaughter of the countess of Westmorland,
in 1435.
B) Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) had a younger brother Rhys Griffith,
esquire (d. 1489)
C) The heir of Sir Walter (d. 1481) was his son, a younger Sir Walter
Griffith (d. 1531), and this was by a wife Agnes Constable.
D) A tomb of a knight and his lady in St. Martin church in Burton Agnes
is said, by the church per the M.I., to be that of Sir Walter (d. 1481)
and his first wife Jane Neville.
E) The lady of the tomb can not be Agnes Constable, as the evidence of
her will and her son's will, plus the tradition held by the church, is
that she was buried in a different part of the church.
>From these facts, you have speculated three successive Walter Griffiths
- the first married to Jane Neville, who had the second who died in
1481 and married Agnes Constable, who had the third who died 1531.
It's a valid speculation that fits within the known facts, if you
assume the church tradition is not accurate.
> I want to see a record or some contemperaneous statement that the
> Walter Griffith who m. Jane Neville was a knight.
Well, we now have the Neville pedigree from 1480-1500 that states
Jane's husband was "Waltero Griffith militi". It's not exactly within
their lifetimes, but at least it's not very long after and within the
15th century.
> Jane's brother John
> wasn't.
I'm a bit confused by this reasoning. Are you suggesting Jane would
not have been married to a knight because her brother was not one? I
don't know that this holds - in 1435, Jane's husband Walter was not
knighted, but there was nothing to prevent him from being so later on.
> The Walter who m. Agnes Constable was a knight, as revealed in
> the IPM.
Yes, and you are speculating two different Walters from this. But
speculating a Walter who was knighted between 1435 and 1481 also fits
the facts.
> That 1493 IPM mentions no children of Walter by an earlier
> wife. By your argument that would be saying none of her issue survived
> or she had none at all.
Not all children are mentioned in IPMs - only the heir and any others
that had claims on lands (through grants, feoffments, etc.). The 1493
IPM makes clear that the heir of Sir Walter (d. 1481) was his son Sir
Walter, whose mother we know was Agnes Constable. So, if Jane Neville
was the first wife of Sir Walter (d. 1481), then they had no surviving
son. They may still have had daughters, since a son, even from a
subsequent marriage, always takes precedence in inheritance over any
daughters.
> Then there is the problem of Sir Walter d. 1481 having a brother Rhys.
> It's interesting to me that (and I mean I've strip-mined the 'net) I
> have never found any indication that Sir John Griffith had a son Rhys.
As you already know, the net alone can not be good evidence. It's a
wonderful method of pointing toward valid sources. From it you've
learned that Sir John Griffith had some form of IPM taken after his
death. Obtaining a copy of that IPM would be a great next step. It
would provide some kind of age for the heir of Sir John.
And again, until we find a document that states the name of Rhys's
father, or states the name of the father of Rhys's documented elder
brother Sir Walter (d. 1481), your proposition that their father was
named Walter, not John, remains speculation.
> Outside of the IPM, there is a claim that Rhys was b. 1441. I don't
> know what the source of that statement is BUT if Rhys were indeed the
> son of Sir John, Rhys would have been for the times pretty old to have
> his oldest (and apparently only) child.
Sir William Beauchamp, lord of Abergavenny, younger brother of the earl
of Warwick, was born about 1343, and did not have any children until
the 1390s.
Yes, it's unusual, but not unprecedented. And considering that Rhys
was a younger son and not the heir, and would need to find a wealthy
widow or some kind of heiress that could bring her own property to the
marriage, it's somewhat explainable.
> I did discover that Sir John
> had two daughters, so why a son would be in hiding I don't know.
The daughters may have been known from pedigrees or research into their
lines of descent. And Rhys may not have been known to whatever source
provided you the two daughters.
> These kinds of cock-ups happen all the time, and when men of the same
> name succeed each other it can become confusing.
Yes.
> I will say that the
> pedigree roll does show Walter d. 1481 with two wives, but with issue
> by both!
Well, that's still possible, as long as the pedigree shows that there
are no sons from Jane Neville who survived Sir Walter.
> This pedigree roll is not the pedigree put together by
> Francis Thynne; I don't know who did it or when. I have to go with the
> notes made by Thynne as they are much closer to the events than a
> modern inscription placed on an old tomb.
Yes, good reasoning.
> I appreciate your arguments, but I have to defer to the records and the
> customs of heraldry. I don't think there is any doubt that Sir Walter
> Griffith d. 9 Aug 1481 was the son of Walter and Jane (Neville)
> Griffith.
I disagree - the records are such that both possibilities remain valid,
nothing in the record evidence so far precludes one from being
possible.
The custom of heraldry is another matter, and I'm not versed enough in
it to see how strongly it favors your suggestion of three, rather than
two, successive Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes.
> I wanted to add the following:
> The website "The Boyntons of England" (just type that in as a google
> search and it will come up) has a listing of the displays of arms at
> Burton Agnes. It's interesting that the arms of Tyrwhitt (for
> Catherine Tyrwhitt, wife of Sir John Griffith) are not mentioned as
> displayed.
I went to that website - thanks for the link. The Tyrwhitt arms not
being displayed probably has to do with no monument to Sir John
Griffith (d. 1471) and his wife surviving in the church. They may have
been buried there, and the monument lost, or perhaps they were buried
elsewhere.
There are no Constable coat of arms either, and we know Agnes was
buried in the church.
> I would also point to the fact, that, in support of what I say above,
> the other tombs show the arms of the husband impaling those of the
> wife, while the arms on Sir Walter Griffith's tomb do not.
True.
> The description is as follows:
> i. Quarterly: 1 and 4, (Azure) crusilly three eagles displayed (or)
> (Somerville): 2 and 3, (Gules) on a fess dancetty argent between six
> lions rampant (or) three martlets (Sable) (Griffith) on an escutcheon
> of pretence: barruly argent and gules, a bordure (Azure) charger with
> martlets (or) (Merlay).
>
> ii. Quarterly: 1 and 4, (Gules) a saltire argent (Nevil); 2 and 3
> (Gules) a fess compony (or and sable) between six crosses patty
> (argent) (Boteler).
>
> In other words, we have two shields here. In both shields, the arms of
> a given family occupy two quarters, in perfect accord with heraldic
> rules.
Fine.
> However, you will note that Griffith does not impale Neville,
> which it would if the occupant were the husband of Jane Neville.
So, we have the fact that the two shields on the tomb are not impaled
with each other, but separate.
Your explanation for this is that the knight in the tomb was not the
husband of Jane Neville.
My explanation is that the tomb designer did not find it necessary to
impale the shields, as it was obvious from the two effigies that the
Griffith knight and Neville lady were married.
> Sir
> Walter d. 1481 did have an heir, another Sir Walter who d. 1531 and
> mentioned the burial of his wife and mother as given above.
Yes. He was the Knight of the Bath who married a Ferrers of Tamworth.
> In this document (which may not be exhaustive) the only other tomb
> which does not show the husband impaling the wife's arms is the case of
> Sir Henry Griffith, bart., who m. twice; the practice in case of
> multiple marriages is to have the wives' arms on seperate shields and
> not impaled. He was, in fact, the last of the male line Griffiths to
> hold Burton Agnes, and the arms of his wives, in accordance with
> practice, though neither one bore him children, are on seperate shields
> and not impaled.
Well, wouldn't this support the contention that Sir Walter (d. 1481)
buried in the tomb had multiple wives? The shields on it are separate.
As Sir Walter predeceased his second wife, maybe it was thought at the
time that she would also be buried in the tomb, but then she ended up
choosing another spot in the church.
> This practice also supports the contention that Sir
> Walter Griffith d. 1481 was only married once, as it is known that his
> children were by Agnes Constable, and if any arms are impaled it would
> be hers;
But then this begs the question why weren't they? Plus, even more
importantly, since we know it wasn't Agnes who was the lady in the tomb
with Sir Walter, then WHO WAS?
> but as I have said she outlived her husband by some years and
> had marital connections to the Cliftons through her own marriage and
> the marriage of her daughter.
Yes, but her will and her son's will show that she chose Burton Agnes,
not the seat of the Cliftons, to be buried.
Now, if her husband already had a beautiful tomb, and she was his only
wife, why be buried separate? But if her husband had a beautiful tomb
that memorialized his first marriage, then her decision to be buried
separately is easier explained.
> There is one other item of interest here: that the badge of the
> Griffith family was a griffin.
>
> Other than this, I know nothing more of the heraldry of Burton Agnes.
It's an interesting discussion all around, Jeff. But don't pin your
entire argument on the tomb heraldry, which, to me at least, is not
wholly convincing. Seek out IPMs, wills and other original
documentation.
Cheers, -----Brad
Jwc...@aol.com
Several Questions about this. If
Walter I Griffith was married 2 times, why did no indication of the 2nd consort
Agnes Constable, mother of his heir appear on his tomb. was it not a celebration
of his life . his children`s heritage and the continuity of his line ? If
Walter I married twice why celebrate the alliance that gave his line no prestige ?
The wording of Agnes Constable Griffith Clifton`s will makes it clear She was
the mother of a Griffith heir.
Second, if Water II Griffith was son to Joan Neville and husband to Agnes
Constable why did He apparently share the tomb of his mother ? Was Walter I or
Walter II buried with Joan Neville ? While Walter I Griffith could have
commissioned the tomb of himself and Jane in his lifetime, why was Agnes Constable
left off it?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
jeff...@hotmail.com
I am going to summarize my conclusions, as I don't have much more on
this topic.
1. The heraldic evidence: There is nothing in the display of the
Neville arms at the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (d. 9 Aug 1481) to
suggest he was the husband of Jane Neville, even by the standards of
the 15th century. The purpose of citing Woodcock and Robinson was to
show that some men in the early 15th century were quartering their
wives' arms even though they weren't entitled to. All known
methods (even during that era) of coupling a husband and wife's arms
involve some modification of the shields. We would expect to see
Griffith impaling Neville, and we do not have that at Sir Walter's
tomb. I have no doubt that what we do have here are the Neville arms
exactly as borne by Sir Ralph Neville, Jane's father. Thus we know
that the occupant of the tomb was not married to Jane Neville, nor was
he married twice, as the arms on separate shields of his alleged wives
are not displayed. The only interpretation of the display is that a
Neville was an ancestress of the occupant. The only Neville known to
have married a Griffith is Jane Neville who m. Walter Griffith 6 Nov
1435, and the arms shown are precisely what we should expect to see
from her father. If the occupant of the tomb were not her son, it
makes no sense to display the Neville arms at all. Having re-examined
the Hailwood article which surveys the monuments at Burton Agnes, the
only display of the Neville arms he mentions are at Sir Walter's
tomb. This is because Jane Neville was not a heraldic heiress, and
thus her arms could not be quartered by descendants. There is no
evidence at Sir Walter's tomb that he was the son of Catherine
Tyrwhitt, and as far as the Hailwood article goes, there's no
evidence at St. Martin's generally that he was.
2. The chronological evidence: Anytime I see one man, let alone two,
have their eldest surviving children at about age 50, it raises a flag.
I am not saying this never happened, just that it should make one
check to be certain that a generation isn't missing. In this case,
the interpolation of a generation makes perfect sense, as the men under
consideration have no chronological barriers of their own to preclude
them being the sons of Jane Neville. If they are not her children, then
as far as is known Jane Neville had no children.
3. (See the website
http://www.boyntons.us/yorkshire/people/lineage/collier/06early.html)
According to this document, Sir John Griffith and Catherine Tyrwhitt
did not live at Burton Agnes; rather, their principal seat was Wychnor,
Staffs. It states that Sir John "long before his death had leased
the manor of Burton Agnes to his son, Walter and Joan his wife, for
their lives, and by a subsequent deed released it in fee." Walter
was at Burton Agnes "as early as 1457, and probably the portion of
the building over the early basement to the west of the present Hall is
his work." The document does name Walter as a knight, but presents
no evidence of the actual knighthood. The document goes on to
indentify Walter's "second" wife as Agnes Constable, sister of
Marmaduke. This Agnes was born somewhere around 1445, and thus at
marriage afer the death of Jane to this man would have been very much
his junior by any reckoning. Again, I'm not saying this never
happened, but then I do not personally know of many examples where a
man married a woman some 30 years his junior. The identification of
Sir John Griffith as a son of Thomas Griffith (as one of the posters of
this thread indirectly indicated) must be right, as Rhys II died in
1380, so John would have to have been born prior to that to be his son;
that would make John as a conservative estimate 91 at death, which I
find ridiculous. Here again we have a case of conflicting statements,
but I think it beyond question that Sir John was the son of Sir Thomas
Griffith and Anne Blount, and that the name Walter came into the
Griffith family from Anne's father Walter Blount. Sir Thomas b. ca.
1377 is said to be a son of Rhys II by Margaret Zouche. No Griffiths
prior to Walter and Jane are claimed to have been buried in Burton
Agnes; on the contrary, they are said to have been buried in Warwicks.
and Yorks. The problem we have here is that Sir Walter Griffith d. 9
Aug 1481 had a brother Rhys d. 1489; I know of no evidence that Sir
John had a son Rhys.
4. Arguments of a child marriage between Walter Griffith and Jane
Neville: I cannot think of a single reason why this would have
transpired. These were not children of magnates or even lesser peers.
This was not a dynastic marriage. Jane Neville, who had a brother John,
was not an heiress. She was the granddaughter of a baron and countess,
and as such probably did bring something to the marriage, but as far as
is known, she did not bring any real property. It seems to me that the
purpose of the marriage contract was simply to ensure that the marriage
took place.
5. Lastly, I have a problem when the usual and customary meaning of
genealogical evidence acquires a different meaning in order to bolster
a conclusion. Identifications (successful ones) have been made by
reliance on heraldic evidence, and I think that's fine as long as
there's no evidence to the contrary. Seals and arms have been used
in the past, and are still used, to identify people. Please note that
Francis Thynne, writing in 1604 of the tomb of Sir Walter Griffth (d.
1481) at Burton Agnes did not say that Jane Neville was his wife or was
buried with him; he merely (and accurately) identified the arms on the
tomb and their display. As a coda, I'll quote from Hugh Stanford of
SAL's evaluation of the pedigree made in 1948:
"As to the reliability of the pedigree I can only say that from a
somewhat cursory examination of the main Somerville-Griffith line (that
is the descent of Wichnor & Burton Agnes), this seems to be
substantially correct-Outside that I have not gone, though one point
makes me skeptical. Among the descendants of the Griffiths Thynne
includes Sir Rees ap Thomas, K.G., whose mother he names as Elizabeth,
daughter of Sir John Griffith (ob. 1471) of Wichnor and Burton Agnes.
That may be correct; at least it accords with some other pedigrees.
Thynne is however certainly wrong in making Sir Rees ap Thomas marry
the Duke of Norfolk's daughter; it was not the K.G. who married
Katherine Howard but his grandson Rhys ap Griffith." This mistake
has in fact never been corrected at St. Martin's to this day.
I realize these statements challenge some conceptions, but those who
maintain the contrary have nothing to point to except a Victorian
epitaph that apparently did not exist on Sir Walter's tomb originally.
I think that's pretty obvious since the epitaph is not couched in 15th
century vernacular, but is in modern speech. If it were a copy of an
earlier epitaph (and no one has given a reason why that would be
necessary) then the language would be archaic. If anyone knows of a
pre-Victorian source for the linkage of Sir Walter with both Jane
Neville and Agnes Constable, I would love to see it.
I thank those who have taken of their time to respond to my post; I
think I'm going stick to my guns on this one.
Jeff Chipman
Douglas Richardson
I found the following abstract of an interesting court proceeding
online which relates to Sir Walter Griffith, Knt., of Burton Agnes,
Yorkshire. It is dated "H 7 H 8." which I presume means Hilary term, 7
Henry 8, or 1516.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/hgarrett/researchfiles/pro/cp1013.txt
CP40/1013. H 7 H 8. m.350.
York. Robert Constable, Hothom, knight, and Walter Gryffyth, Burton
Annes, knight, in mercy for defaults; attached to answer William
Archbishop of Canterbury, Nicholas Bishop of Ely, George Nevyll of
Burgevenny knight Wm Blount of Moungwy knight Thomas Curwen knight Guy
Palmes sergeant at law Thomas Pygott sergeant at law John Carell
sergeant at Law John Roo sergeant at law Richard Broke sergeant at law
John Erneley King's attorney, John Goryng, and Walter Stable, clerk, vi
et armis, they found raped and abucted William Seyntquyntyn, son and
heir of John Seyntquyntyn, within age, whose marriage belong to the
Archbishop et al, by reason of minority, John Seynquyntyn the father
holding of them of their manor of Topclyff ... defs petition as series
of li los.
m.351, Robert Constable attached to answer Henry earl of
Northumberland of plea that he raped and abducted John Seyntquyntyn,
son and heir of John S, whose marriage belonged to earl, at Lekynfeld,
the father holding of manor of Hundmanby in York in chief, etc. Again,
only li los in response.
m.353, against Robert Constable and Walter Gryffyth, by Archbishop of
York et al, rape and abduction of William Seyntquyntyn. Entry breaks
off in narration; marginal note says Devon, not York, but father is
here as above said to hold of manor of Topclyff.
Brad Verity
Thank you for summarizing the evidence of your proposition. There are
some points brought up by me and I believe John and Tim as well that
you have not yet addressed, so I want to bring them up with my
comments.
jeff...@hotmail.com wrote:
> SOME FINAL COMMENTS ON THE THREE WALTER GRIFFITHS OF BURTON AGNES
> I am going to summarize my conclusions, as I don't have much more on
> this topic.
>
> 1. The heraldic evidence: There is nothing in the display of the
> Neville arms at the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (d. 9 Aug 1481) to
> suggest he was the husband of Jane Neville, even by the standards of
> the 15th century.
OK, I grant you there may be, due to the lack of impalement, nothing in
the heraldry of the two shields on the tomb to suggest a marriage
between the two families on the shields.
But what of further evidence of the tomb itself, namely, the effigies
of a knight and his lady. In your proposition, the shields represent
the parentage of the knight. You've yet to address why there is no
identification of the lady effigy.
> The purpose of citing Woodcock and Robinson was to
> show that some men in the early 15th century were quartering their
> wives' arms even though they weren't entitled to. All known
> methods (even during that era) of coupling a husband and wife's arms
> involve some modification of the shields. We would expect to see
> Griffith impaling Neville, and we do not have that at Sir Walter's
> tomb.
I agree with your point here.
> I have no doubt that what we do have here are the Neville arms
> exactly as borne by Sir Ralph Neville, Jane's father.
I agree with you here, too.
> Thus we know
Thus you suggest
> that the occupant of the tomb was not married to Jane Neville,
> nor was
> he married twice, as the arms on separate shields of his alleged wives
> are not displayed.
I grant you that, working from the one fact there are only two shields
on the tomb, there is no reason to suppose the knight was married
twice.
> The only interpretation of the display is that a
> Neville was an ancestress of the occupant.
A strict interpretation of heraldic practices is that the lack of any
impalement on the two shields indicates they were not meant to indicate
a marriage between those two families.
Yet you suggest that the two shields represent the parents of the
knight entombed, even though there is no impalement on the shields to
heraldically indicate any sort of marriage between the two families of
Griffith and Neville/Boteler. You corroborate this by stating you have
seen ancestor coats of arms presented just like this (no impalement) on
other church tombs. Specific examples would be helpful.
> The only Neville known to
> have married a Griffith is Jane Neville who m. Walter Griffith 6 Nov
> 1435, and the arms shown are precisely what we should expect to see
> from her father.
Agreed.
> If the occupant of the tomb were not her son, it
> makes no sense to display the Neville arms at all.
It would make sense to display the Neville arms if the occupant of the
tomb were Jane herself.
> Having re-examined
> the Hailwood article which surveys the monuments at Burton Agnes, the
> only display of the Neville arms he mentions are at Sir Walter's
> tomb.
Fine.
> This is because
An explanation for this could be because
> Jane Neville was not a heraldic heiress, and
> thus her arms could not be quartered by descendants.
Fine. Another explanation could be that Jane Neville died without any
descendants.
> There is no
> evidence at Sir Walter's tomb that he was the son of Catherine
> Tyrwhitt,
Correct.
> and as far as the Hailwood article goes, there's no
> evidence at St. Martin's generally that he was.
As far as the Haliwood article goes, there's no evidence at St.
Martin's church that Agnes Constable was buried there, and was the
mother of Sir Walter Griffith (d. 1531).
> 2. The chronological evidence: Anytime I see one man, let alone two,
> have their eldest surviving children at about age 50,
The known chronology is this, if I understand correctly, per the IPM of
Rhys Griffith, esquire, taken 17 June 9 Henry VII [1494], he died on 8
Oct. 4 Henry VII [1488], and his daughter and heiress Joan, wife of Sir
Leo [Lionel] Dymoke, was aged 22 years and more (born about 1471,
before June 1472).
His elder brother Sir Walter Griffith died 9 Aug. 1481, and his son and
heir Walter was age "21 years and more on 8 Jun. inst." I'm not
certain what the last phrase means, but let's assume it means 8 June
1494, so born by June 1473.
We don't know how old Sir Walter and Rhys were when their heirs were
born. If Sir John Griffith was their father then Walter had to be born
before 1435, putting him at least in his late 40s when his heir was
born.
> it raises a flag.
Fine, that's understandable.
> I am not saying this never happened, just that it should make one
> check to be certain that a generation isn't missing.
Good.
> In this case,
> the interpolation of a generation makes perfect sense,
It's certainly possible.
> as the men under
> consideration have no chronological barriers of their own to preclude
> them being the sons of Jane Neville.
Agreed, given that we have no indication of when the brothers Sir
Walter and Rhys were born, except that they had to have been old enough
to father children in 1471.
> If they are not her children, then
> as far as is known Jane Neville had no children.
Possibly - children have been ascribed to her in the pedigree you
mention.
> 3. (See the website
> http://www.boyntons.us/yorkshire/people/lineage/collier/06early.html)
> According to this document, Sir John Griffith and Catherine Tyrwhitt
> did not live at Burton Agnes; rather, their principal seat was Wychnor,
> Staffs.
Fine. You may want to track down the website's source for this
statement, which appears to be an article in 'Miscellanea Genealogica
et Heraldica', Volume I, p. 64.
> It states that Sir John "long before his death had leased
> the manor of Burton Agnes to his son, Walter and Joan his wife, for
> their lives, and by a subsequent deed released it in fee." Walter
> was at Burton Agnes "as early as 1457, and probably the portion of
> the building over the early basement to the west of the present Hall is
> his work."
Yes, again, it's important to track down the sources the website cites
for all of this, namely the Misc. Gen. et Her. article, plus the vague
"Papers at B.A." Contacting the website owner may help in pinpointing
these sources.
> The document does name Walter as a knight, but presents
> no evidence of the actual knighthood.
The Document (website) looks to me as if it's a transcript of an
article. Contacting the website itself would hopefully clarify this,
and certainly tracking down the sources cited by this article could get
you closer to primary documentation.
> The document goes on to
> indentify Walter's "second" wife as Agnes Constable, sister of
> Marmaduke. This Agnes was born somewhere around 1445, and thus at
> marriage afer the death of Jane to this man would have been very much
> his junior by any reckoning.
Yes, given that estimated birthdate for Agnes, she would have been at
least 15 years younger than Walter.
> Again, I'm not saying this never
> happened, but then I do not personally know of many examples where a
> man married a woman some 30 years his junior.
Here are a couple off the top of my head. Edward I, born 1239, married
secondly, Marguerite of France, born 1278. Richard, earl of Arundel,
born 1346, married secondly, Philippa Mortimer, countess of Pembroke,
born 1375.
We don't know that the gap between Walter and Agnes is as much as 30
years.
> The identification of
> Sir John Griffith as a son of Thomas Griffith (as one of the posters of
> this thread indirectly indicated) must be right, as Rhys II died in
> 1380, so John would have to have been born prior to that to be his son;
> that would make John as a conservative estimate 91 at death, which I
> find ridiculous.
Me too.
> Here again we have a case of conflicting statements,
> but I think it beyond question that Sir John was the son of Sir Thomas
> Griffith and Anne Blount, and that the name Walter came into the
> Griffith family from Anne's father Walter Blount.
This sounds quite reasonable. Good work.
> Sir Thomas b. ca.
> 1377 is said to be a son of Rhys II by Margaret Zouche. No Griffiths
> prior to Walter and Jane are claimed to have been buried in Burton
> Agnes; on the contrary, they are said to have been buried in Warwicks.
OK, good.
> and Yorks. The problem we have here is that Sir Walter Griffith d. 9
> Aug 1481 had a brother Rhys d. 1489; I know of no evidence that Sir
> John had a son Rhys.
Again, this does not mean he couldn't have had one - it is
chronologically possible. There is no evidence that says Rhys's father
was Walter.
> 4. Arguments of a child marriage between Walter Griffith and Jane
> Neville: I cannot think of a single reason why this would have
> transpired.
This does not, and can not ever, mean that it did not transpire.
Here's a reason: there was another suitor for Jane's hand, and Sir John
wanted to insure his heir was the groom. Pure speculation. As any
reasons for or against them being children have to be - we only know
they were married in 1435.
> These were not children of magnates or even lesser peers.
I've already pointed out an example of another Yorkshire knightly
family arranging their heir's marriage when he was age 7.
> This was not a dynastic marriage.
Yes it was - it was not a love match. It was the groom's father and
the bride's grandmother who were parties to the marriage contract. It
was arranged.
> Jane Neville, who had a brother John,
> was not an heiress.
But the groom Walter was the direct heir of his father. And Jane was a
potential heiress should her brother die childless.
> She was the granddaughter of a baron and countess,
> and as such probably did bring something to the marriage, but as far as
> is known, she did not bring any real property. It seems to me that the
> purpose of the marriage contract was simply to ensure that the marriage
> took place.
Yes, agreed - all marriage contracts are drawn up to ensure the
marriage takes place. You may wish to investigate the following two
National Archives documents. The first seems to be the original
document of what was calendared in the Catalogue of Ancient Deeds. But
the second document also pertains to the marriage, and may shed further
light on it.
E 326/3571 Indenture between Jane, countess of Westmoreland, and Sir
John Gryffyth, knight, for the marriage of Walter, son and heir of the
latter, with Jane, daughter of Sir Ralph Neville, knight, and of Mary,
the countess's daughter, the espousals to be solemnized on the sixth of
November next. Sir John is to settle on Walter and Jane lands in Anneys
Burton (Burton Agnes) and elsewhere in Yorkshire to the yearly value of
100 marks. &c.: York. 23 September, 14 Henry VI.
E 327/181 Defeasance of a bond concerning the marriage of Walter son
and heir of John Griffith, knight, and Joan daughter of Ralph Neville,
knight
14 Hen VI
> 5. Lastly, I have a problem when the usual and customary meaning of
> genealogical evidence acquires a different meaning in order to bolster
> a conclusion.
Me too.
> Identifications (successful ones) have been made by
> reliance on heraldic evidence, and I think that's fine as long as
> there's no evidence to the contrary. Seals and arms have been used
> in the past, and are still used, to identify people.
Yes, but documentation holds much greater weight. Pinning your
argument purely on heraldic interpretation and chronological
possibility does not leave you on as firm a ground as backing it up
with documentation.
> Please note that
> Francis Thynne, writing in 1604 of the tomb of Sir Walter Griffth (d.
> 1481) at Burton Agnes did not say that Jane Neville was his wife or was
> buried with him; he merely (and accurately) identified the arms on the
> tomb and their display.
That's the purest interpretation of the physical evidence. There is a
tomb of a knight and lady with a shield carrying the arms of
Griffith/Somerville, and another shield carrying the arms of
Neville/Boteler.
> As a coda, I'll quote from Hugh Stanford of
> SAL's evaluation of the pedigree made in 1948:
>
> "As to the reliability of the pedigree I can only say that from a
> somewhat cursory examination of the main Somerville-Griffith line (that
> is the descent of Wichnor & Burton Agnes), this seems to be
> substantially correct
It would be helpful to know what this pedigree states exactly about the
generations of the Griffiths from Sir John (d. 1471) thru Sir Walter
(d. 1531).
> -Outside that I have not gone, though one point
> makes me skeptical. Among the descendants of the Griffiths Thynne
> includes Sir Rees ap Thomas, K.G., whose mother he names as Elizabeth,
> daughter of Sir John Griffith (ob. 1471) of Wichnor and Burton Agnes.
> That may be correct; at least it accords with some other pedigrees.
OK.
> Thynne is however certainly wrong in making Sir Rees ap Thomas marry
> the Duke of Norfolk's daughter; it was not the K.G. who married
> Katherine Howard but his grandson Rhys ap Griffith." This mistake
> has in fact never been corrected at St. Martin's to this day.
Maybe you can bring it to their attention.
> I realize these statements challenge some conceptions, but those who
> maintain the contrary have nothing to point to except a Victorian
> epitaph that apparently did not exist on Sir Walter's tomb originally.
That's not quite the case. I can point to the tomb, which you claim
contains Sir Walter (d. 1481), son of Walter Griffith and Jane Neville,
and who only had one wife Agnes Constable (d. 1505). I can further
point to 15th/16th century evidence that Agnes was not buried in that
tomb. I can then point back to the tomb and ask you to identify the
lady buried with Sir Walter.
> I think that's pretty obvious since the epitaph is not couched in 15th
> century vernacular, but is in modern speech. If it were a copy of an
> earlier epitaph (and no one has given a reason why that would be
> necessary) then the language would be archaic.
I'm not suggesting a word for word copy. I'm suggesting that the
monument inscription was composed from information that may have been
taken from previous epitaphs, inscriptions, or other records that the
church could access.
> If anyone knows of a
> pre-Victorian source for the linkage of Sir Walter with both Jane
> Neville and Agnes Constable, I would love to see it.
And if anyone knows of a pre-2005 source that gives Jane Neville two
sons named Sir Walter Griffith and Rhys Griffith, I would love to see
it.
At this point, one speculation is no more convincing than the other.
But you may yet be able to ground your proposal on more solid ground -
track down the article in Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, and,
even better, track down the IPM for Sir John Griffith!
> I thank those who have taken of their time to respond to my post; I
> think I'm going stick to my guns on this one.
Great, then more evidence is bound to come to light.
Cheers, --------Brad
Douglas Richardson
Sure I'd be happy to take a look at the Griffith chart you have. I
enjoy seeing old charts. I find them fascinating. I'll contact you by
private e-mail and send you my mailing address.
By the way, I found another record relating to a Walter Griffith, Knt.,
in the National Archives catalogue. The name Griffith is badly
mispelled. The item is an abstract of a Chancery Proceeding. I'm
guessing that the lawsuit dates from the 1500's, but the catalogue
gives it a date range from 1386 to 1558.
C 1/1502/17-18 Walter GRYFFYGHT of Wichnor, knight, v. Robert TEMPLE
and others.: Information of enclosures in Barton-under-Needwood `whiche
yf they were used in tyllage after tholde usage there wolde yerely have
com thereof iij or iiij hundryth quarters of corne.': STAFFORD.
1386-1558
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
jeff...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I did a little more digging and found the pedigree chart I got from
> SAL. This apparently existed in some form in the year 1604 but of
> course it's difficult to know exactly when the drawings were made and
> if they were amended or altered at some later date. I do know that Sir
> Henry Griffith, who held Burton Agnes in 1604 claimed descent from the
> kings of England, a claim that Francis Thynne, the Lancaster Herald,
> accepted. I can say that while it does show Sir Walter Griffith
> married to both Jane Neville and Agnes Constable (who appears to have
> died in 1505 as far as I can tell), it shows that he had issue by both.
> It also shows that the children of Sir John Griffith and Catherine
> Tyrwhitt as being Margaret Griffith and Walter Griffith. It does not
> show that Sir John had a son Rhys.
> I would like to send this material to somebody. If Douglas Richardson
> would consent, I'd like to send him this SAL material. If agreeable
> please email me at :
>
> jeff...@hotmail.com
>
> with your address and I will be happy to drop it in the mail this week.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff Chipman
John Higgins
interpreted as a quote from a previous message and may not be readily
visible. Hopefully this version may be better....If not, use the option to
"show quoted text")
This is a very interesting dialogue prompted by a considerable amount of
research on Jeff's part. I don't know that we can resolve the question, but
I hope the discussion will continue....
[Jeff posted:]
Tim Powys-Lybbe
that both Brad Verity and I have made.
In message of 30 Oct, jeff...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Tim, I agree that the heraldic rules have been loosely observed at
> various times.
> This is my argument from the heraldic evidence in this case:
>
> RE: the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith, d. 9 Aug 1481.
> This tomb displays two seperate shields, one for Griffith, and one for
> Neville.
It doesn't. Neither of the two shields is for Griffith. One is for
Somerville and the other is for Neville.
So all the arguments about the lack of an impaling between Griffith and
Neville fail. We have first to establish who was buried in this tomb
and what the arms were for; neither of these have been clearly
established.
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
Another defect of this heraldry is that the Neville/Boteler shield
doesn't have a quarter for Ferrers- it was after all through the
Ferrers coheiress that these Nevilles represented the Botelers. Perhaps
the Somerville arms were placed first as a kind of status symbol-
Burton Agnes (as well as Wychnor etc.) had come from the Somervilles;
it would be interesting to know whether the Griffiths repeated that
ordering elsewhere, or if it was a purely local gesture (if not just an
error)- maybe intended to show their continuity with the earlier lords.
The Griffith patrimony of Abermarlais and Llansadwrn in Carmarthenshire
was evidently sidelined in favour of the Somerville manors, and
apparently passed via Elizabeth Griffith's marriage with the local man
Thomas ap Gruffudd to their son Sir Rhys ap Thomas KG.
Matthew
Tim Powys-Lybbe
In message of 31 Oct, mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> >
> > In message of 30 Oct, jeff...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > RE: the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith, d. 9 Aug 1481.
> > > This tomb displays two seperate shields, one for Griffith, and
> > > one for Neville.
> >
> > It doesn't. Neither of the two shields is for Griffith. One is for
> > Somerville and the other is for Neville.
> >
> > So all the arguments about the lack of an impaling between Griffith
> > and Neville fail. We have first to establish who was buried in
> > this tomb and what the arms were for; neither of these have been
> > clearly established.
>
> Another defect of this heraldry is that the Neville/Boteler shield
> doesn't have a quarter for Ferrers- it was after all through the
> Ferrers coheiress that these Nevilles represented the Botelers.
Technically you are right, the modern custom or rule is that all
heiresses, on the route to the remotest shown, must also be shown. But
the medieval practice was just to show the quarters, if any, that they
wanted to. Even many modern people just show the quarterings they want
to.
> Perhaps the Somerville arms were placed first as a kind of status
> symbol- Burton Agnes (as well as Wychnor etc.) had come from the
> Somervilles; it would be interesting to know whether the Griffiths
> repeated that ordering elsewhere, or if it was a purely local gesture
> (if not just an error)- maybe intended to show their continuity with
> the earlier lords.
You are making an assumption here, that these first arms were those of
Griffith. I have never seen an armiger do anything other than put his
patrinomial arms in the first quarter. The only exception may be when
he adopts the name of his wife; though in the case of the FitzMaldreds
who adopted the name of Neville, they retained the FitzMaldred arms,
though called them Neville.
On the face of it, those arms are those of Somerville, not Griffith.
Further they are of a Somerville who married a Merlay and which
Somerville was descended from a Griffith mother.
> The Griffith patrimony of Abermarlais and Llansadwrn in
> Carmarthenshire was evidently sidelined in favour of the Somerville
> manors, and apparently passed via Elizabeth Griffith's marriage with
> the local man Thomas ap Gruffudd to their son Sir Rhys ap Thomas KG.
The first thing is to account for these Somerville arms: who might this
Somerville be who married a Merlay and had a Griffith ancestor? Only if
there is absolutely no sensible explanation for them, can you then ask
if the arms were in error and were in fact those of a Griffith. And
then which Griffith married a Merlay?
Can I add that what we are talking of here is _achievements_ of arms not
_coats_ of arms, in other words a person's personal arms marshalled with
some of those he has inherited by him or his forbears marrying heraldic
heiresses. Regardless of the quarterings, the person's core coat of arms
remains precisely the single arms of his father and these can be quite
correctly used on their own. To add quarterings is purely a matter of
person preference and there is no need to do so.
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> <sundry snips made but the core issue has, I hope, been retained.>
>
>
> In message of 31 Oct, mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> > >
> > > In message of 30 Oct, jeff...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > RE: the tomb of Sir Walter Griffith, d. 9 Aug 1481.
> > > > This tomb displays two seperate shields, one for Griffith, and
> > > > one for Neville.
> > >
> > > It doesn't. Neither of the two shields is for Griffith. One is for
> > > Somerville and the other is for Neville.
> > >
> > > So all the arguments about the lack of an impaling between Griffith
> > > and Neville fail. We have first to establish who was buried in
> > > this tomb and what the arms were for; neither of these have been
> > > clearly established.
> >
> >
> > symbol- Burton Agnes (as well as Wychnor etc.) had come from the
> > Somervilles; it would be interesting to know whether the Griffiths
> > repeated that ordering elsewhere, or if it was a purely local gesture
> > (if not just an error)- maybe intended to show their continuity with
> > the earlier lords.
>
> You are making an assumption here, that these first arms were those of
> Griffith.
Granted, I was merely putting forward one possible scenario among
several; and offering a conjectured reason why that might be the case.
However, I note that you said in an earlier post that you were only
assuming the arms to have been correctly blazoned by the Boyntons site-
maybe that should be checked before getting bogged down further!
> On the face of it, those arms are those of Somerville, not Griffith.
> Further they are of a Somerville who married a Merlay and which
> Somerville was descended from a Griffith mother.
>
>> The first thing is to account for these Somerville arms: who might this
> Somerville be who married a Merlay and had a Griffith ancestor? Only if
> there is absolutely no sensible explanation for them, can you then ask
> if the arms were in error and were in fact those of a Griffith. And
> then which Griffith married a Merlay?
Well, I think you were right when you advised that we shouldn't expect
heraldry of this period to follow later rules; and that we should
equally avoid constructing genealogy solely from heraldry. The
genealogy is well established, given the large inheritances involved: a
Somerville male married a Merlay coheiress, and their g-dau and
coheiress married Sir Rhys ap Gruffudd and from them sprang these
Griffiths. It remains (arguably!) most likely that this achievement was
intended to show those relationships but did not do so according to the
correct usage of any heraldic system. (That is if the quarterings are
indeed correctly identified). There are, as you say, other
possibilities that cannot be disproven at this stage, however unlikely
they may seem; I would put my own theory into that category, along with
the Griffith ancestress conjured up by a modern reading of the
heraldry.
Matthew
butlergrt
So you want to know what Somerville married a Merlay? I know it does not
make sense but sometimes one has to think with an ego they may have had,
but the Somerville who married the Merlay in connection was a couple of
centuries earlier. Sir Robert Somerville, 7th baron of Whichnor, as it was
spelled in the records, in 1229, married Isabella, dau. and co-heiress of
Sir Rodger de Merlie, as it was spelled then, a great baron in
Northumberland. 7th Baron, Robert Somerville, died 25 Henry III.
His ancester,from Normandy was Sir Gaulter de Somerville, Lord of
Whichnow, Staffordshire and Aston Somerville, Gloucester, his grandson Sir
Rodger Somerville married Edellie/Edeline Boteler/Buther, dau. of Robert
of Inglishbie.
Study the Boteler/Butlers. It is possible that the shields represent those
who commisioned the tomb and not necesarrily done by Walter Griffith?!
Best,
Emmett L. Butler
Jwc...@aol.com
This Unidentified IPM of 1493 / 94
which mentioned as brothers Walter and Rhys Griffith and their respective heirs
Walter Griffith and Joan Dymoke seems to me likely to be that of either
Walter Griffith I or his wife Joan Neville as Joan is mentioned in her father Rhys
IPM of 1489. We know Walter`s father John apparently withdrew from Burton
Agnes and would have had an IPM in about 1471 Staffordshire. So far though We
have no statement of Walter`s death, unless it is in 1481.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Good afternoon,
> So you want to know what Somerville married a Merlay? I know it does
> not make sense but sometimes one has to think with an ego they may
> have had, but the Somerville who married the Merlay in connection was
> a couple of centuries earlier. Sir Robert Somerville, 7th baron of
> Whichnor, as it was spelled in the records, in 1229, married
> Isabella, dau. and co-heiress of Sir Rodger de Merlie, as it was
> spelled then, a great baron in Northumberland. 7th Baron, Robert
> Somerville, died 25 Henry III.
Many thanks for that. I hasten to add that I am not researching this at
all, just pointing out what the achievement of arms might mean.
The curious thing then is the shield of pretence. The use of this is
solely for a chap who has married a heraldic heiress and while he
cannot quarter her arms, he is allowed to show that he has "captured"
them and that in the future his children will quarter them. So a
shield of pretence only applied to a here and now marriage of the person
represented by the arms. If the only Merlay (the spelling does not
matter in medieval times) marriage was in the 13th century, then that is
the chap whose arms are displayed; this this sounds unlikely!
> His ancester,from Normandy was Sir Gaulter de Somerville, Lord of
> Whichnow, Staffordshire and Aston Somerville, Gloucester, his
> grandson Sir Rodger Somerville married Edellie/Edeline
> Boteler/Buther, dau. of Robert of Inglishbie.
>
> Study the Boteler/Butlers. It is possible that the shields represent
> those who commisioned the tomb and not necesarrily done by Walter
> Griffith?!
Very true. We have yet to be clear about what the arms might have been
referring to.
Should anyone wonder about the uses of shields of pretence at that
time, I have a CDROM copy of a book the garter heraldic stall plates
from before 1485 (the stall plates are still to be seen in St George's
chapel, Windsor). A few of them have shields of pretence and every one
of these has used them what we would regard as correctly, to indicate
that the knight had married a heraldic heiress. So some craftsmen knew
the then rules.
WJho...@aol.com
bat...@hotmail.com writes:
<< PA3 gives "before 1394 (aged 17 in 1411)" for Mary's birth. >>
This was about Mary de Ferrers.
If she was 17 in 1411, then "bef 1394" is not accurate. Rather "bef 1395"
since she could be born IN 1394 and be 17 in 1411.
Her birth should be given as 1393/4. There is no other possible date.
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
bat...@hotmail.com writes:
<< It's possible she was older than John, and possible that she was
younger. We only know that she was born before 1435. >>
For Jane de Neville, daughter of Ralph de Neville and Mary de Ferrers, we
know she was born 1406/35
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
bat...@hotmail.com writes:
<< As I understand it, the arms on the tomb are as follows: two shields.
One is of Neville quartering Boteler of Wem, and the other is of
Somerville and Griffith quarterly with Merlay in pretence.
As there are two effigies on the tomb, my guess would be that each
shield is for one of the effigies. The Neville quartering Boteler of
Wem for the lady, and the other shield for the knight. >>
That makes perfect sense. Jane Neville would have Neville and Boteler since
Elizabeth Baroness Boteler was her great-grandmother.
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
jeff...@hotmail.com writes:
<< The purpose of citing Woodcock and Robinson was to
show that some men in the early 15th century were quartering their
wives' arms even though they weren't entitled to. All known
methods (even during that era) of coupling a husband and wife's arms
involve some modification of the shields. >>
I also have to disagree.
I see no consistent pattern of whether or not a man involved his wife's arms
in his shield after marriage, whether there were children or not. So far you
have stated this over and over without providing any *proof* that this was
indeed the case.
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
jeff...@hotmail.com writes:
<< The only Neville known to
have married a Griffith is Jane Neville who m. Walter Griffith 6 Nov
1435, and the arms shown are precisely what we should expect to see
from her father. If the occupant of the tomb were not her son, it
makes no sense to display the Neville arms at all. >>
And again it does make sense to display them ... if the occupant ... is ..
herself.
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
jeff...@hotmail.com writes:
<< Here again we have a case of conflicting statements,
but I think it beyond question that Sir John was the son of Sir Thomas
Griffith and Anne Blount, and that the name Walter came into the
Griffith family from Anne's father Walter Blount. >>
Beyond question? Why? I question it :)
Will
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< I have never seen an armiger do anything other than put his
patrinomial arms in the first quarter. >>
Edward, King of England in 1272, has a shield of three gold lions on a red
background.
His male-line grandson Edward III, King of England in 1327, in his own first
quater has the French fleur-de-lis gold on a blue background. His paternal
grandfather's shield is in his own 2nd and 3rd quarter.
Will Johnson
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Royal arms are a separate subject with execution the penalty for getting
too heavily involved.
But you are confusing impartible arms with quartered arms. Impartible
arms are a set of different shields that are combined, and may not be
taken apart, as a person's personal arms. This is usually seen where
some hyphenation of the surname has been done and new arms are created
that combine _in one coat_ the arms of the two families.
Having done that, quartering may then occur. The impartible combined
coat is put in the first slot and the various heiresses (their father's
more correctly) in subsequent slots. You can omit or add quarterings
as you think fit. But you cannot alter the personal, combined coat as
you think fit, that stays the same.
Similarly the royal arms are an impartible design, one coat with
separate components. The design is made to whatever purpose the
sovereign wishes; the sovereign is not bound by the "laws of arms", but
is the fount of such laws. The royal arms are not a quartering, much as
they may look like one.
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< Having done that, quartering may then occur. The impartible combined
coat is put in the first slot and the various heiresses (their father's
more correctly) in subsequent slots. You can omit or add quarterings
as you think fit. But you cannot alter the personal, combined coat as
you think fit, that stays the same.
Similarly the royal arms are an impartible design, one coat with
separate components. >>
Are you implying that this shield has given to him by somebody or something?
If so who or what? And no matter how, why put France in the first position
instead of England?
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< But you are confusing impartible arms with quartered arms. Impartible
arms are a set of different shields that are combined, >>
Fine :) Here is another example
Henry Courtenay, Marquis of Exeter has a shield which, in its first quarter
has a hodgepodge of the gold lion on a red background (England) and the
fleur-de-list gold on a blue background (France). His father, William Courtenay,
Earl of Devon d 1511 has none of these on his own shield.
Rather it is Henry's mother Catherine ( or alternatively his grandfather
Edward IV) who is sitting in his first quarter. In either case, Henry himself was
not, at the time, royalty and even if so, his first quarter does not repeat
the standard French/English symbology of the other Plantagenet shields.
Will Johnson
Will Johnson
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> In a message dated 10/31/05 5:37:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> t...@powys.org writes:
>
> << Having done that, quartering may then occur. The impartible
> combined coat is put in the first slot and the various heiresses
> (their father's more correctly) in subsequent slots. You can omit
> or add quarterings as you think fit. But you cannot alter the
> personal, combined coat as you think fit, that stays the same.
>
> Similarly the royal arms are an impartible design, one coat with
> separate components. >>
>
> Are you implying that this shield has given to him by somebody or something?
No. The sovereign is not given a shield by anyone. He is the Big
Cheese.
> If so who or what? And no matter how, why put France in the first
> position instead of England?
Why not? The sovereign can do what he (she) wants. That was the old
theory of government. And it still applies to heraldry.
And if you are trying to make out that you have a right to the French
throne, then most surely you would put some French symbols in a
prominent position.
Jwc...@aol.com
Just a guess, but I would expect that
the Fleur de lis of France were placed in Edward III`s shield`s 1st quarter
because that was what anyone looking at the shield would see first. It was a
blatant challenge to Capetian rights.
mj...@btinternet.com
(and patrinominal) coat being displaced in favour of a quartering.
Most frequently this was done by those entitled to quarter the Royal
Arms; an additional, entirely common example, is furnished by the
Maddisom family of Unthank and Formby, who quartered 1. & 4. de Merlay
and 2. & 3. Maddison - see my recent post on the subject.
MAR
Tim Powys-Lybbe
I would suspect some arrangement with the sovereign that allowed him to
use these arms. The sovereign has the right to break the rules.
To this day one has to get a Royal Licence to change your arms from
those of your father, particularly when you inherit something in a will
with a "Name and Arms" clause. This means getting a document signed by
the sovereign. (Costs a load of dosh as the heralds need paying at
every step.)
The need for the Royal Licence is because the heralds take
the view that they do not have the power to change the arms on their
own, much as they have the power to grant arms on their own (so to
speak).
Tim Powys-Lybbe
I take it that you are referring to putting the Maddison arms, those of
the person's family name, in the second (and third slot) and not to
their quartering of the royal arms. There can be some complicated
reasons for this:
First this could be one of those impartible coats and not a quartering.
so it is the combined Merlay-Maddision design that is in the first, and
only, slot, not any simple arms.
Secondly if there is a name change particularly to multi-barrels, the
last part of the name is usually put in the top left of the new
impartible arms.
If someone has put their quartering of the royal arms in the first
quarter, they have simply got it wrong and should have their heads cut
off.
Peter Sutton
In the Inquisition held following the death of her father Roger de Merley
held on 19th January 1265/6 (Tuesday before the conversion of St. Paul 50
HIII) she is stated to be the second daughter aged 10 and unmarried.
Two years later, when the Inquisition was held following the death of her
youngest sister, Alice, (Tuesday after the purification 52 HIII) she is
called Isabel de Merlay and therefore presumably unmarried.
Therefore she appears to have only been born about 1258.
Following the death of Alice, on 6 November 1270, a Writ of partition was
issued on the complaint of William de Craystok (Graystock)), who married
Mary, eldest daughter and one of the heirs of the said Roger (de Merlay),
that owing to the death of Alice the youngest daughter, who was in the
King's wardship, partition of the woods and parks had been omitted by the
escheator, and Robert de Eure, who married Isabel, another daughter and
heir, would not permit the said William and Mary to have their portion. The
partition took place on 4 March 55 Hen. III (1270/1).
Northumberland - Morpath, Horseleye and Witton. Partition made with full
extent of boundaries, of the said parks and woods. A lot being cast this is
the part of Sir William de Graystoc, viz. - The western part of the forest,
and Estparc with Schaldefen in Morpath; and to Sir Robert de Euer and his
heirs remain, the eastern part of the forest, and Cotingwode and Westparc,
and a parcel of wood in Widehaldside.
Writ of ad plenum certiorari, 20 July, divers contentions having arisen upon
the partition lately made. Inquisition the day of the Exaltation of the
Holy Cross, 55 Hen. III (Monday 14 September 1271).
Northumberland - The whole inheritance of the said Roger de Merlay in the
county was parted at first as follows, viz - Morpath assigned to Sir
William, son of Thomas de Greystock and Mary his wife, Wytton with the
service of Wyndegate to the said Isabel, and Beuasys and Stannington with a
parcel in Trenwell to the said Alice; but the woods remained unparted, the
wood of Morpath in custody of William and Mary, and the forest in that of
Sir Geoffrey de Lesyni, who had the wardship of Isabel and Alice by the
King's gift.
After the death of Alice, her part was parted by lot between the said
William and Mary and the guardian of the said Isabel, and both were content,
but the woods were not parted by lot but assigned; Sir William was never
content with his part, but Robert de Euyer was content.
Whereupon Sir William procured the King's writ to the escheator (as above),
and the woods were parted, and lots cast; but because the part formerly
assigned to the said Robert fell to Sir William by lot, the said Robert
holds it still by force, and William cannot have seisin thereof.
Waste has been done by both parties but chiefly by Robert, and the escheator
having taken an oath from Robert's forester to keep the woods and parks
safely, the said Robert removed him, so that the escheator could not fully
perform the King's mandate (See No. 636).
So it would appear that between 1268 and 1270, when she would have been
10-12 year old she was married to Sir Rober Eure.
According to Hodgson (A History of Northumberland) at the time of her
father's death Isabel was espoused to the son and heir of Marmaduke Thweng,
and afterwards to Robert de Eure, but not married to either. However,
Hodgeson was plainly wrong as the Inquisitions show.
Apparently by the time she was 13/14 she was married to Robert de
Somerville. (Hodgson II ii p. 376) when presumably Sir Robert de Eure must
have died.
Sir Reginald Hardy of Dunstall in his book The Manor of Wichnor - A History
of the Parish of Tatenhill in the County of Stafford Volume 1 published by
Harrison & Sons, London, 1897 says that an entry in the Testa de Nevill
(Scotch Document Record Series) states that in 1271 Robert de Somerville had
married Isabella, widow of Sir Robert Eure one of the daughters and heirs of
Sir Roger de Merlay.
Peter Sutton
mj...@btinternet.com
their surname) inherited Unthank Hall from the de Merlays in the early
15th century.
Thereafter, they quartered the de Merlay arms, but placed them in
quarters 1 and 4, thus relegating their own paternal arms to positions
2 and 3. There was no Royal Licence etc. In the early 17th century
they obtained permission from Segar as Garter to re-order this
quartering, so that the Maddison and de Merlay arms changed position,
bringing the display into what we would consider accordance with the
modern law of arms.
Although the approach to Segar is certainly unusual, there is no reason
I know of to consider the quartered coat impartible in this instance.
It can be dangerous to apply all the rules of heraldry retrospectively.
They say each rule has its exceptions, and the further back into
heraldic history one goes, the truer this becomes. I am sure we can
all think of other instances from the early days of heraldry, such as
displaying more distant quarterings without the intermediate shields.
Cheers
Michael
butlergrt
The date was taken from William Somerville, Esq. Early Volumes by James
Somerville, "The Memorie of the Somervilles", I would agree that your
dates are far more accurate than family memories, but at least you have
shown the fact that Isabel Merlay did marry Robert, 7th Baron,
Somerville.
Thanks for the correction, altho I suppose the book will still mislead
others in the future.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
> First this could be one of those impartible coats and not a quartering.
> so it is the combined Merlay-Maddision design that is in the first, and
> only, slot, not any simple arms.
>
OR someone just won't accept that people didn't follow this rule either.
Weren't we *just* mentioning that *rules* weren't set in stone, but you want
to tenaciously hang onto this one ;)
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
peter...@ntlworld.com writes:
<< held on 19th January 1265/6 (Tuesday before the conversion of St. Paul 50
HIII) she is stated to be the second daughter aged 10 and unmarried.
Two years later, when the Inquisition was held following the death of her
youngest sister, Alice, (Tuesday after the purification 52 HIII) she is
called Isabel de Merlay and therefore presumably unmarried.
Therefore she appears to have only been born about 1258.
Following the death of Alice, on 6 November 1270, a Writ of partition was
issued >>
This is confusing.
1) Her father's I.P.M. is here stated to be 19 Jan 1265/6
2) Then "two years later" her sister Alice died. (so 1267/8 ?)
3) But then Alice died again on 6 Nov 1270 ?
Or Should this last phrase be read as "A Writ of partition was issued on 6
Nov 1270, which date was after the death of Alice [which had occurred sometime
before]..."
Thanks
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
particularly given the other facts. That first comma is the important
one!
mj...@btinternet.com
"[In early times] we find that quarterings were selected in a manner
which would seem to us haphazard. Paternal quarterings were dropped
and the result has been that many coats of arms are now known as the
arms of a family with quite a different surname from that of the family
with which they originated".
(A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 1985 revised edition, p 417)
Tim Powys-Lybbe
I used the word "could" which is not the same as "tenaciously hang on
to" anything. I used "could" because I was just as well aware that it
could be anything and that we may, in the end, have no idea what the
painter or sculptor or designer was referring to.
But if you have an odd-ball, one of the things you can do is list some
of the possibilities and go through them one by one. (Much better would
be to have some decent exegesis on the origins and context of the
particular arms but that would be way off topic on this newsgroup.)
And it seems that we are all agreed that to every heraldic rule there
is at east one exception.
End, hopefully!
John Higgins
one of the sources cited by a website referenced by Jeff Chipman on the
Griffiths of Burton Agnes was an article in "Miscellanea Genealogica et
Heraldica". During a library visit today, I was able to get a copy of the
referenced article and have transcribed it below, with a few comments of
mine added at the end.
The article, such as it is, appears in MGH [original series, 1:64] under the
heading "Griffith" without any explanation or introduction at all, just the
Latin text which follows. It appears, however, to be a transcription of a
tablet, presumably in the church at Burton Agnes, apparently commissioned in
1511 by Sir Walter Griffith to commemorate his ancestors. If this is in
fact valid (despite its uncertain provenance), it's lot closer to being
"contemporary" than some of the other sources that have been cited here.
The Latin text follows (hopefully I haven't introduced any NEW errors of
transcription!):
Obitus et propagtiones antecessorum secundi Walteri Griffith militis qui
hanc tabulam fier fecit 26° die Septembria A° d'ni 1511 A° 3° Henrici 8.
A° 29 Ed. 3. Obitus Philippi se Someruile militis qui habuit exitum
Johannam filiam et heredem quae nupta cuidam Reso ap griffith milit 23° die
Januarij A° regni regia Ed. 3. 29°.
A° 30 Ed. 3. Obitus predicti Resi ap Griffith militis qui cum supradicta
Johanna habuit exitum Resum Griffith secundum qui obijt decimo die Maij A°
dni 1356 et sepultus est in Abbathia de Pollesworth vel Prioratu apud
Caermarden in Wallis.
A° 1 R. 2. Obitus supradictae Johannae uxoris predicta Resi filiae et
heredis antedictae Philippi Someruile militis 8° die Octobris A° 1376 quae
obijt apud Stokton sed vbi sepelitur nescio.
A° 4 R. 2. Obitus secundui Resi Griffith militis filij et heredis predicti
Resi et Johannae qui habuit exitum com Margareta filia N. Zouch Thomam
Grifith in festo Sti Augustini Anglorum ep'I A° 1380 et sepultus est apud
Polesworth predicta.
A° 22 R. 2. Obitus Thomae Griffith armigeri filij et heredis predicti Resi
et Margaretae qui habuit exitum cum Anna vxore sua filia Thome Blount
militis Johannem Griffith in fest Cathedrae Sancti Petri A° 1431 et sepultus
est apud Allrewasse canteria beatae Mariae virginis ibidem.
A° 11 Ed. 4. Obitus Johannis Griffith milits filij et heredis Thomae et
Annae qui habuit exitum cum Catherina vxore sua filia Roberti Tirwhit milits
Walterus Griffith 20 die Junij A° et ambo sepeliuntur in medio chori
ecclesiae de Tatentill.
[undated] Obitus predictae Catherinae vxoris dicti Johannis Griffith in
festo connerstonis Sancti Pauli A° 1457.
A° 21 Ed. 4. Obitus primi Walter Griffth militis filij et heredis predicti
Johannis et Catherinae qui habuit exitum cum Agnete vxore sua filia Roberti
Constable de fflamburghe in com. Eboraci militis secundum Walterum Griffith
in vegilia Sancti Laurentij A° 1481 et sepultus est cum Johanna altera vxore
sua in ecclesia de Annaburton sub magna tumbla coram altare beatae Mariae
ibidem.
A° 21 H. 7. Obitus predictae dnae Agnetis vxoris dicti Walteri 23° die
Januarij A° 1505 et sepulta est in media nave Capellae ex parte borialj
ecclesiae de Annaburton predicta.
[end of transcrition from MGH]
As I read this, the line of descent to Sir Walter Griffith, living 1511, is
as follows in simple outline:
Sir Philip Somerville
Joan Somerville, m. Sir Rhys Griffith [I]
Sir Rhys Griffith [II] m. Margaret Zouche
Sir Thomas Griffith, m. Anne Blount
Sir John Griffith, m. Anne Tyrwhit
Sir Walter Griffith [I], m. (2) Agnes Constable
Sir Walter Griffith [II]
It's interesting to note that the tablet twice mentions the Sir Walter
Griffith living in 1511 as the "second" Sir Walter, not the third as the
proposed argument based on heraldry would imply. Also the tablet is quite
specific about the two wives of the first Sir Walter, and it may well also
be the source of future information about the specific locations of the
burials within the church at Burton Agnes.
Obviously it would be desirable to have more information on this tablet and
its history (I wonder if it still exists?). The MGH article was published in
1866 (or so) and thus pre-dates the Victorian "restoration" of the church at
Burton Agnes, (which I understood from earlier posts to be about 1892) so it
might well describe a tablet existing at that time (and possibly lost
later). In any event, it is definitely an interesting peice of the
puzzle....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <bat...@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of
Yorkshire
> Dear Jeff,
>
> Thank you for summarizing the evidence of your proposition. There are
> some points brought up by me and I believe John and Tim as well that
> you have not yet addressed, so I want to bring them up with my
> comments.
>
> jeff...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > SOME FINAL COMMENTS ON THE THREE WALTER GRIFFITHS OF BURTON AGNES
>
[big snip]
>
> > 3. (See the website
> > http://www.boyntons.us/yorkshire/people/lineage/collier/06early.html)
> > According to this document, Sir John Griffith and Catherine Tyrwhitt
> > did not live at Burton Agnes; rather, their principal seat was Wychnor,
> > Staffs.
>
> Fine. You may want to track down the website's source for this
> statement, which appears to be an article in 'Miscellanea Genealogica
> et Heraldica', Volume I, p. 64.
>
> > It states that Sir John "long before his death had leased
> > the manor of Burton Agnes to his son, Walter and Joan his wife, for
> > their lives, and by a subsequent deed released it in fee." Walter
> > was at Burton Agnes "as early as 1457, and probably the portion of
> > the building over the early basement to the west of the present Hall is
> > his work."
>
> Yes, again, it's important to track down the sources the website cites
> for all of this, namely the Misc. Gen. et Her. article, plus the vague
> "Papers at B.A." Contacting the website owner may help in pinpointing
> these sources.
>
[remainder snipped]
Nathaniel Taylor
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> ... I have never seen an armiger do anything other than put his
> patrinomial arms in the first quarter...
No one in this particular ring (Somerville v. Griffiths) has my maunche
on his helm, but I would like to give a very interesting non-royal,
non-modern example for Tim: several generations of immediate agnate
descendants of Sir Walter Blount and Sancha de Ayala, in the fifteenth
and early sixteenth centuries. They quartered either Sancha's paternal
arms (which we might name Gomez de Toledo) or her maternal arms (the
lords of Ayala in Alava), or both, *before* their agnatic, English coat,
_barry nebuly or and sable_, for Blount.
In addition to the surviving Garter stall enamels of their son Sir John
Blount (d. 1418) [quarterly, 1 & 4, Toledo; 2 & 3, Blount] and grandson
Walter, 1st Lord Mountjoy [quarterly 1: Ayala, 2: Toledo; 3: Blount, 4:
vair, ID disputed], there were similar arms for Sanchaąs
great-granddaughter Anne Blount, wife of Andrews, Baron Windsor of
Stanwell, in the church of Saint Andrewąs in the Wardrobe (see Thomas
Dingley, _History from marble_, 2 vols. [Camden Series, 94, 97: London,
1867-8], 2:464-5); and Sanchaąs great-great-granddaughter Elizabeth
Blount, wife of Sir Thomas Oxenbridge and Sir David Owen, in the church
of Northiam, Sussex (see Fane Lambarde, łCoats of Arms in Sussex
Churches,˛ _Sussex Archaeological Collections_ 68 [1927], at 210-11,
corrected at 69 [1928], 218-9). Then there is the magnificent Tudor
scroll with thirty-six achievements, representing at least nine
generations of Blounts, described and reproduced in the Burlington Fine
Arts Clubąs _Catalogue of a collection of objects of British heraldic
art to the end of the Tudor period_ (London, 1916), pp. 3-5 and plate 3:
here the Blount coat reverts to the first quarter (pushing Ayala and
Toledo into the second and third quarters, respectively) only in the
arms of Sanchaąs great-great grandson William Blount, KG (d. 1535), 4th
Lord Mountjoy, and his daughter Gertrude, wife of Henry Courtenay,
Marquess of Exeter.
Nat Taylor
my own genealogy newly enlarged:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/pdfs/p_Taylor.pdf
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/nltdescendants.htm
Peter Sutton
To avoid any further confusion:
1. At an inquest held on the Tuesday after the Purification 52 HIII Isabel
de Merlay was stated to be aged 12 and one of the heirs of her sister Alice
de Merlay. As Isabel is called "de Merlay" presumably she was not married
at this date. Alice obviously died sometime before this date.
2. Isabel de Merlay appears to have been born about 1256 and not as I
previously said about 1258.
3. The writ of partition was issued on 6th November 1270 and the partition
took place on 4th March 1270/1.
Peter Sutton
-----Original Message-----
From: WJho...@aol.com [mailto:WJho...@aol.com]
Sent: 01 November 2005 20:24
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The 3 Walter Griffiths of Burton Agnes, East Riding of Yorks
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
(snip, but of very interesting post)
> my own genealogy newly enlarged:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/pdfs/p_Taylor.pdf
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/nltdescendants.htm
Congratulations! (And I don't mean on SGM winning the lottery)
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Thanks for that and it is indeed in Walter Blount's stall plate (ref St
John Hope's super book "The Stall Plates of the Knights of the Garter
1348-1485)"). I have now seen one achievement where the patrinomial
arms are nit in the first quarter.
> Then there is the magnificent Tudor scroll with thirty-six
> achievements, representing at least nine generations of Blounts,
> described and reproduced in the Burlington Fine Arts Clubąs
> _Catalogue of a collection of objects of British heraldic art to the
> end of the Tudor period_ (London, 1916), pp. 3-5 and plate 3: here
> the Blount coat reverts to the first quarter (pushing Ayala and
> Toledo into the second and third quarters, respectively) only in the
> arms of Sanchaąs great-great grandson William Blount, KG (d. 1535),
> 4th Lord Mountjoy, and his daughter Gertrude, wife of Henry
> Courtenay, Marquess of Exeter.
Might I suggest that this reversion to what can only be regarded as the
correct order was because someone pointed out that, unless you change
your arms - a perfectly legitimate thing to do - your own personal arms
always goes in the first box? It just does not make sense to have your
personal arms as a subsequent quartering as the quarterings are supposed
to denote families of whom you are a (co-)representative.
Nathaniel Taylor
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
You're welcome. If you didn't have that to hand I was going to send you
a color scan of the excellent plate in Hope's book. I have Sir John
Blount's coat illustrated only from the engraving in Ashmole's _Garter_,
though now that I look I am not sure whether he would have taken it from
an extant enamel or some other source.
> > Then there is the magnificent Tudor scroll with thirty-six
> > achievements, representing at least nine generations of Blounts,
> > described and reproduced in the Burlington Fine Arts Clubąs
> > _Catalogue of a collection of objects of British heraldic art to the
> > end of the Tudor period_ (London, 1916), pp. 3-5 and plate 3: here
> > the Blount coat reverts to the first quarter (pushing Ayala and
> > Toledo into the second and third quarters, respectively) only in the
> > arms of Sanchaąs great-great grandson William Blount, KG (d. 1535),
> > 4th Lord Mountjoy, and his daughter Gertrude, wife of Henry
> > Courtenay, Marquess of Exeter.
>
> Might I suggest that this reversion to what can only be regarded as the
> correct order was because someone pointed out that, unless you change
> your arms - a perfectly legitimate thing to do - your own personal arms
> always goes in the first box? It just does not make sense to have your
> personal arms as a subsequent quartering as the quarterings are supposed
> to denote families of whom you are a (co-)representative.
Quite possible. The irony in this case is that the Blounts were not,
strictly speaking, 'representatives' of either Castilian family under
evolved English heraldic custom, since Sancha de Ayala had a brother who
left progeny. It is possible that there was simply an element of pride
in displaying these exotic foreign arms quartered before one's own, in
this particular family--whose Castilian connections were an important
part of their identity in the Lancastrian affinity of the 15th century;
the exceptional usage may have been encouraged or allowed by their
Lancastrian patrons: at any rate the Blounts were the only *English*
descendants of these particular families. The display obviously became
less meaningful after 4 generations and the unusual placement was
abandoned, though the quarterings survived into later achievements
(they're present in the beautiful, large heraldic scroll from the 1620s
hanging in the reading room at the NEHGS in Boston, as I pointed out to
Gary Roberts one day).
I have not loooked, but I would not be surprised if some similar
examples of distaff-coat-first might be found among other Lancastrian
knights of the Hundred Years' War who had some foreign blood (the Low
Countries, Iberia, etc.).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Brad Verity
Many thanks for tracking down this source - it clears up several
questions.
"John Higgins" wrote:
> Brad Verity mentioned in an earlier post (excerpted at the end of this) that
> one of the sources cited by a website referenced by Jeff Chipman on the
> Griffiths of Burton Agnes was an article in "Miscellanea Genealogica et
> Heraldica". During a library visit today, I was able to get a copy of the
> referenced article and have transcribed it below, with a few comments of
> mine added at the end.
I'm not able to get to the library for a few weeks, so thank you for
taking the time to look this up and transcribe it.
> The article, such as it is, appears in MGH [original series, 1:64] under the
> heading "Griffith" without any explanation or introduction at all, just the
> Latin text which follows. It appears, however, to be a transcription of a
> tablet, presumably in the church at Burton Agnes, apparently commissioned in
> 1511 by Sir Walter Griffith to commemorate his ancestors. If this is in
> fact valid (despite its uncertain provenance), it's lot closer to being
> "contemporary" than some of the other sources that have been cited here.
Yes. The language and wording match the period, and it does seem
authentic. This would be the source that St. Martin's church used for
the 1890-or-so monument inscription. The tablet provides the dates of
death for Sir Walter (d. 1481) and Agnes Constable (d. 1505), but not
Jane Neville, which is the same on the monument inscription. The
church must have wanted to translate the Latin into modern English and
identify for the curious who was buried in the tomb. It left off all
of the Griffith ancestors not buried in the church.
> The Latin text follows (hopefully I haven't introduced any NEW errors of
> transcription!):
>
> Obitus et propagtiones antecessorum secundi Walteri Griffith militis qui
> hanc tabulam fier fecit 26° die Septembria A° d'ni 1511 A° 3° Henrici 8.
As you point out below, here Sir Walter (d. 1531) is referring to
himself as the second Walter Griffith. So there was not an additional
Walter between Sir John (d. 1471) and Sir Walter (d. 1481). As these
were the grandfather and father of the knight who commissioned this
tablet, we can assume he knows his immediate ancestry.
[snip]
> A° 22 R. 2. Obitus Thomae Griffith armigeri filij et heredis predicti Resi
> et Margaretae qui habuit exitum cum Anna vxore sua filia Thome Blount
> militis Johannem Griffith in fest Cathedrae Sancti Petri A° 1431 et sepultus
> est apud Allrewasse canteria beatae Mariae virginis ibidem.
The above is confirmation that Sir John Griffith was indeed the son of
Thomas Griffith ("armigeri" rather than "militi" indicates Thomas was
not knighted) and Anne Blount. I'm confused about the death date of
Thomas. 22 Richard II was 1398/99, but the date of 1431 is also given
within the text. Going by either date, Thomas was dead before the
marriage of Walter Griffith and Jane Neville in 1435, so when that
occurred Sir John was the head of the family and in possession of all
its lands.
> A° 11 Ed. 4. Obitus Johannis Griffith milits filij et heredis Thomae et
> Annae qui habuit exitum cum Catherina vxore sua filia Roberti Tirwhit milits
> Walterus Griffith 20 die Junij A° et ambo sepeliuntur in medio chori
> ecclesiae de Tatentill.
And here is independent confirmation of the 1471 date for Sir John's
death, plus we now have the full date - 20 June 1471. Sir John was not
buried in St. Martin's church, but rather the church of "Tatentill",
wherever that was.
> [undated] Obitus predictae Catherinae vxoris dicti Johannis Griffith in
> festo connerstonis Sancti Pauli A° 1457.
And Sir John's wife Catherine Tyrwhitt died on (some kind of feast day
for St. Paul) 1457. I had thought Rhys Griffith, Sir Walter's younger
brother was perhaps a son of Sir John by a second wife, but this now
cannot be. For even if Sir John remarried right away and Rhys was born
in 1458, he would be too young to himself be married and a father in
1471.
> A° 21 Ed. 4. Obitus primi Walter Griffth militis filij et heredis predicti
> Johannis et Catherinae qui habuit exitum cum Agnete vxore sua filia Roberti
> Constable de fflamburghe in com. Eboraci militis secundum Walterum Griffith
> in vegilia Sancti Laurentij A° 1481 et sepultus est cum Johanna altera vxore
> sua in ecclesia de Annaburton sub magna tumbla coram altare beatae Mariae
> ibidem.
The above gives us the death date of Sir Walter (d. 1481), tells us he
was the first of that name, married Agnes Constable, and was buried
with his wife Jane in a tomb at the altar of the Virgin Mary in the
church at Burton Agnes. What's interesting is no identification of
Jane Neville is given in this except her first name. So the monument
inscription from 1890-or-so must have had another source to further
identify her as it does.
> A° 21 H. 7. Obitus predictae dnae Agnetis vxoris dicti Walteri 23° die
> Januarij A° 1505 et sepulta est in media nave Capellae ex parte borialj
> ecclesiae de Annaburton predicta.
And here Agnes died on 23 Jan. 1505, and was buried in the middle of
the nave in the Chapel of Burton Agnes church, which confirms the
evidence of her will and her son's will.
> [end of transcrition from MGH]
> As I read this, the line of descent to Sir Walter Griffith, living 1511, is
> as follows in simple outline:
>
> Sir Philip Somerville
>
> Joan Somerville, m. Sir Rhys Griffith [I]
>
> Sir Rhys Griffith [II] m. Margaret Zouche
>
> Sir Thomas Griffith, m. Anne Blount
>
> Sir John Griffith, m. Anne Tyrwhit
Should be Catherine Tyrwhitt.
> Sir Walter Griffith [I], m. (2) Agnes Constable
I'm curious - what does the phrase "Johanna altera vxore sua" translate
to exactly. First wife, previous wife, other wife?
> Sir Walter Griffith [II]
Yes. I read the same line of descent from the tablet.
> It's interesting to note that the tablet twice mentions the Sir Walter
> Griffith living in 1511 as the "second" Sir Walter, not the third as the
> proposed argument based on heraldry would imply. Also the tablet is quite
> specific about the two wives of the first Sir Walter, and it may well also
> be the source of future information about the specific locations of the
> burials within the church at Burton Agnes.
Yes, this tablet rather drives a nail into the ...er ... tomb for the
idea that there were three successive Walter Griffiths. So Sir
Walter's son and heir was definitely from his second wife Agnes
Constable, and from her name, it's likely that his daughter Agnes
Griffith, wife of Gervase Clifton, was as well. But the 1604 pedigree
that Jeff has a copy of assigns issue to Walter's first wife Jane
Neville. It's possible she had children who died young, or even
daughters who lived to adulthood and married, but she could not have
had sons who did so. (Actually, she could have had a son who married,
but predeceased his father, leaving no issue.)
> Obviously it would be desirable to have more information on this tablet and
> its history (I wonder if it still exists?).
A query to St. Martin's church in Burton Agnes might provide the
answer.
> The MGH article was published in
> 1866 (or so) and thus pre-dates the Victorian "restoration" of the church at
> Burton Agnes, (which I understood from earlier posts to be about 1892) so it
> might well describe a tablet existing at that time (and possibly lost
> later). In any event, it is definitely an interesting peice of the
> puzzle....
Yes, and a very helpful one. Thanks again, John. Tracking down the
IPM of Sir John Griffith (d. 1471), would provide the age of Sir Walter
at the time, which would help round out the chronology.
Cheers, ------Brad
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
Brad Verity wrote:
(edit)
> > A° 11 Ed. 4. Obitus Johannis Griffith milits filij et heredis Thomae et
> > Annae qui habuit exitum cum Catherina vxore sua filia Roberti Tirwhit milits
> > Walterus Griffith 20 die Junij A° et ambo sepeliuntur in medio chori
> > ecclesiae de Tatentill.
>
> And here is independent confirmation of the 1471 date for Sir John's
> death, plus we now have the full date - 20 June 1471. Sir John was not
> buried in St. Martin's church, but rather the church of "Tatentill",
> wherever that was.
Very likely Tatenhill in Staffordshire, as it is only about 4 miles
from his manor of Wychnor.
CE Wood
of "Tatentill", wherever that was."
Could it have been the Staffordshire town,"Tatenhill"?
CE Wood
Jwc...@aol.com
So Rhys
Griffith d 1489 of Stickford certainly appears to have been a son of Sir John
Griffith and Catherine Tyrwhitt. No Edward III descent for the Welles,
Dymokes and Skipwiths out of this, but Sir John was a son of Thomas Griffith,
Armiger by his wife Anne, daughter probably of Sir Walter Blount and Dona Sancha
Gomez de Toledo y Ayala (I hope that`s correct) (See BXP sub Blount, Baron
Mountjoy) though the 1511 tablet says Thome Blount rather than Walter. Thomas was
the name of Sir Walter and Dona Sancha`s eldest son. Also rather curious about
Catherine Tyrwhitt`s identity, her father is listed as a Sir Robert Tyrwhitt.
was She a sister or niece of that William Tyrwhitt who was the father of Sir
Adam Tyrwhitt who Douglas shows as husband of Elizabeth Lumley in MCA under
Lumley.
Douglas Richardson
The "tabula obituum" for the Griffith family which John Higgins kindly
posted from Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, 1 (1868): 64, was
originally made by the "second Walter Griffith knight" in the year,
1511. This account is not taken from any monument found in the church
of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire. Rather, the record is taken from Harleian
Manuscripts 1077, f. 94 a. This same material was used by Rev.
Stebbing Shaw for his account of the Griffith family in his useful
work, History & Antiquities of Staffordshire, 1 (1791), which he
carefully indicates on pg. 123, footnote 2.
Given that the material was assembled by Sir Walter Griffith II, son
and heir of Sir Walter Griffith I (died 1481) and his wife, Agnes
Constable, I believe the information should be quite accurate as to Sir
Walter Griffith II's parents and grandparents.
We find that Sir Walter Griffith II plainly indicates that his father,
Sir Walter Griffith I, was married twice, first to Joan, and second to
Agnes Constable. He likewise states that his father who he calls
"primi Walter Griffith militis" was the son and heir of John Griffith,
Knt., by his wife, Catherine Tirwhit. He specifically states that his
father, Walter Griffith I, is buried in a tomb in the church of Burton
Agnes, Yorkshire with Joan "his other wife" ["altera vxore sua"].
On the basis of such excellent evidence as provided by this document, I
conclude that Sir Walter Griffith I (died 1481) was the son and heir of
John Griffith, Knt., by Katherine Tirwhit. I also conclude that Sir
Walter Griffith I had two wives, Joan (or Jane) Neville and Agnes
Constable. Sir Walter Griffith I had his son and heir, Walter II, by
his second wife, Agnes Constable.
For those interested in such matters, the Latin word "tabula" has any
of the following meanings:
writing tablet (wax covered board); records (pl.); document, deed,
will; list; plank/board, flat piece of wood; door panel;
counting/playing/notice board; picture, painting; wood panel for
painting; metal/stone tablet/panel w/text .
In this instance, I would think that "tabula obituum" would best be
translated as "List of Deaths" rather than as "tablet."
Lastly, it appears that the 1511 tabula obituum is the same source that
Rev. Stebbing Shaw used to identify Walter Griffith II's ancestress,
Margaret la Zouche, as the daughter of "Nicholas Zouch, of Codnor."
We see from John Higgins' posting, however, that the original tabula
obituum merely refers to Margaret's father as "N. Zouch," with no
indication of his residence. Presumably the initial "N." was employed
to indicate that the given name of Margaret's father was unknown.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
mj...@btinternet.com
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
> Dear Jeff, John, Brad, Michael, etc. ~
>
> We find that Sir Walter Griffith II plainly indicates that his father,
> Sir Walter Griffith I, was married twice, first to Joan, and second to
> Agnes Constable. He likewise states that his father who he calls
> "primi Walter Griffith militis" was the son and heir of John Griffith,
> Knt., by his wife, Catherine Tirwhit. He specifically states that his
> father, Walter Griffith I, is buried in a tomb in the church of Burton
> Agnes, Yorkshire with Joan "his other wife" ["altera vxore sua"].
>
> On the basis of such excellent evidence as provided by this document, I
> conclude that Sir Walter Griffith I (died 1481) was the son and heir of
> John Griffith, Knt., by Katherine Tirwhit. I also conclude that Sir
> Walter Griffith I had two wives, Joan (or Jane) Neville and Agnes
> Constable. Sir Walter Griffith I had his son and heir, Walter II, by
> his second wife, Agnes Constable.
>
> Lastly, it appears that the 1511 tabula obituum is the same source that
> Rev. Stebbing Shaw used to identify Walter Griffith II's ancestress,
> Margaret la Zouche, as the daughter of "Nicholas Zouch, of Codnor."
> We see from John Higgins' posting, however, that the original tabula
> obituum merely refers to Margaret's father as "N. Zouch," with no
> indication of his residence. Presumably the initial "N." was employed
> to indicate that the given name of Margaret's father was unknown.
>
Dear Douglas (and all)
I think this post sums up the situation very well.
Regards
Michael
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for the kind words.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
John Higgins
provides one further clue to the provenance of the Griffith tablet of 1511.
As I mentioned when I posted the excerpt from MGH 1:64, it was published
there, somewhat strangely, without any indication of where it came from.
The reference in Shaw takes us one step closer to its origins.
If the Harleian MS could be checked, I'd venture to guess that it would
probably refer us back to the church at Burton Agnes - but that's just a
guess at this point...
Nonetheless, this tablet is pretty clear contemporary evidence of the
Griffith pedigree...however one may choose to interpret the somewhat
confused (and not necessarily contemporaneous) heraldic information that has
been discussed here.
Jwc...@aol.com
I`ve been
wondering if the double dating of Thomas Griffith`s decease to 22 Richard II (1399)
and 1431 might not indicate that Thomas died in 1399 and his tomb was
erected in 1431 shortly after Margaret`s death.