Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
299 views
Skip to first unread message
John Watson
Feb 11, 2013, 10:41:27 AM2/11/13
to
Dear all,
This is a follow up fo a post that I originally made in this group in
June 2007. Recently I have returned to the question of the two
Margaret Skipwiths, both of whom are said to have been the daughter of
Sir William Skipwith and his wife Alice Hiltoft. I have now finally
found an answer to the question, although the clues were there all the
time.
The first Margaret Skipwith was probably born about 1360. This lady
was definitely the daughter of Sir William Skipwith, chief justice of
the Common Pleas (d. ca 1398). Margaret Skipwith married firstly,
about 1375-8, Alexander Surtees, sheriff of Northumberland in 1379.
Alexander died before June 1380. His inquisition post mortem for
Durham was held on 15 September 1380, which found that his heir was
his son Thomas, aged 20 weeks.
30 June 1380, Commitment to William de Skypwith and Margaret, his
daughter, of the wardship of the heir of Alexander Surteys and all the
lands late of the said Alexander, who held of the king in chief, to
hold the same from the time of Alexander's death until further order,
maintaining the houses and buildings pertaining to the lands, and
supporting all charges incumbent thereon.
Calendar of Fine Rolls, Vol. 9, p. 207
15 October 1380, Commitment to William de Skipwyth, one of the
justices of the Common Bench, - by mainprise of John Carnell of the
county of Northampton and Thomas Castell of the county of Lincoln, -
of the keeping of the town of Northgosford, co. Northumberland, late
of Alexander Surteys, who held of the king in chief, to hold the same
from the time of the death of Alexander until the lawful age of Thomas
Surteys, his son and heir, rendering 8l. yearly by equal portions at
the Michaelmas and Easter Exchequers, maintaining the houses and
buildings pertaining to the town, and supporting all charges incumbent
thereon. Calendar of Fine Rolls, Vol. 9, p. 217
30 October 1380, Grant (commisimus) to William de Skipwyth, knight, of
the marriage of Thomas, son and heir of Alexander Surteys, deceased,
tenant in chief, a minor in the king's custody, paying therefor 20
marks at the Exchequer; if Thomas die a minor without heir of his
body, the grantee is to have the marriage of his sister Alice.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Richard 2, Vol. 2, p. 45
Margaret married secondly Robert Constable of Flamborough and Holme:
20 January 1384, Pardon, for 40s. paid to the king by Robert
Conestable of Flaynburgh to him and Margaret, late the wife of
Alexander Surtays, tenant in chief for intermarrying without licence.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Richard 2, Vol. 2, p. 381
So I don't think that there can be any doubt that Margaret, wife of
Alaxander Surtees and Robert Constable of Flamborough was the daughter
of Sir William Skipwith.
The problem is, that Sir William Skipwith and Alice are said (CP,
ODNB, HOP, etc. etc.) to have had another daughter called Margaret,
who married firstly Hugh Cressy and secondly Henry Vavasour of
Hazlewood. This lady was definitely not the daughter of Sir William
Skipwith, chief justice of the Common Pleas (d. ca 1398).
This Margaret Skipwith was probably born about 1380, which would make
it problematic for her to be the daughter of Sir William Skipwith and
Alice. William and Alice were married some time before April 1351 when
they had a papal indult. Their eldest son, William was already serving
as escheator for Lincolnshire in 1380, so was probably born before
1355.
Margaret married firstly about 1395-7, Hugh Cressy, son of Sir John
Cressy, who was born on 23 June 1374. Hugh and Margaret were already
divorced and she had married secondly Henry Vavasour of Hazlewood
before June 1399:
7 July 1400, Dispensation to Henry Wavesur and Margaret Skypwith, in
accordance with a commission from Francis [Carboni], cardinal priest
of St Susanna and papal penitentiary (recited in full, and dated at St
Peter's Rome, 20 June 1399), to confirm their marriage, which had been
contracted in ignorance of the impediment caused by Margaret's earlier
marriage to Hugh Cressy, son of John Cressy, an uncle to Henry, which
had been terminated by divorce on the grounds of impotence.
R. N. Swanson, A Calender of the Register of Richard Scrope,
Archbishop of York, 1398-1405, Part 1 (Borthwick Institute: 1981) p.
24, No. 156
That she was called Margaret Skipwith is clear from this record, but
that she was a daughter of Sir William is not stated. There are
however, clues to her parentage in her will which was proved at York
on 6 August 1415 [Test. Ebor. i, 362]. In it she mentions her brothers
Thomas and Patrick Skipwith (Item Thomae fratri meo unum owche de auro
optimum. Item Patricio fratri meo xls.) But the problem is that Sir
William Skipwith did not have a son called Thomas. In 1380-1, the
manor of Lasceby was granted to William de Skipwith and Alice his wife
for their lives, remainder to Stephen and Patrick de Skipwith their
sons for their lives, remainder to William de Skipwith their son and
John his brother and the heirs male of their bodies.
A. Gibbon, Notes on the Visitation of Lincolnshire 1634 (Lincoln:
1898) p. 180
No mention of a Thomas. In Margaret's will she also mentions her
mother Alice (Item Aliciae matri meae annulum meum de auro
sanctificatum.) These clues show us definitely who Margaret was:
Margaret Skipwith who married Hugh Cressy and Henry Vavasour was the
daughter of John Skipwith (d. 1415), second son of Sir William
Skipwith and his wife Alice Tilney. John Skipwith and Alice had two
sons who survived their father - Thomas and Patrick. Alice Tilney was
still alive until about 1436. Thomas and Patrick are the brothers
mentioned in Margaret's will and Alice Tilney was her mother.
There are additional clues to Margret's parentage in her will: She
leaves bequests to lady Grace Tilney (widow of Sir Philip Tilney) and
5 marks to find a chaplain to pray in the gallery of lady Margery de
Tilney within the parish church of Boston (I assume that this Margery
was the mother of Alice Tilney). There is also a further clue. In her
will she leaves a gift of rent from her manor of Manby, Lincolnshire
(de manerio meo de Mumby). In April 1384, James Roos and Margaret his
wife gave the manor of Manby to John Skipwith (CP 25/1/143/145, number
12) - it would appear that John Skipwith had given the manor to his
daughter Margaret.
Any comments gratefully received. By the way, I have been looking at
the pedigrees of the Tilney family of Boston - what a dog's breakfast
- more non-existent people. I will post on this soon.
Best regards,
John
This is a follow up fo a post that I originally made in this group in
June 2007. Recently I have returned to the question of the two
Margaret Skipwiths, both of whom are said to have been the daughter of
Sir William Skipwith and his wife Alice Hiltoft. I have now finally
found an answer to the question, although the clues were there all the
time.
The first Margaret Skipwith was probably born about 1360. This lady
was definitely the daughter of Sir William Skipwith, chief justice of
the Common Pleas (d. ca 1398). Margaret Skipwith married firstly,
about 1375-8, Alexander Surtees, sheriff of Northumberland in 1379.
Alexander died before June 1380. His inquisition post mortem for
Durham was held on 15 September 1380, which found that his heir was
his son Thomas, aged 20 weeks.
30 June 1380, Commitment to William de Skypwith and Margaret, his
daughter, of the wardship of the heir of Alexander Surteys and all the
lands late of the said Alexander, who held of the king in chief, to
hold the same from the time of Alexander's death until further order,
maintaining the houses and buildings pertaining to the lands, and
supporting all charges incumbent thereon.
Calendar of Fine Rolls, Vol. 9, p. 207
15 October 1380, Commitment to William de Skipwyth, one of the
justices of the Common Bench, - by mainprise of John Carnell of the
county of Northampton and Thomas Castell of the county of Lincoln, -
of the keeping of the town of Northgosford, co. Northumberland, late
of Alexander Surteys, who held of the king in chief, to hold the same
from the time of the death of Alexander until the lawful age of Thomas
Surteys, his son and heir, rendering 8l. yearly by equal portions at
the Michaelmas and Easter Exchequers, maintaining the houses and
buildings pertaining to the town, and supporting all charges incumbent
thereon. Calendar of Fine Rolls, Vol. 9, p. 217
30 October 1380, Grant (commisimus) to William de Skipwyth, knight, of
the marriage of Thomas, son and heir of Alexander Surteys, deceased,
tenant in chief, a minor in the king's custody, paying therefor 20
marks at the Exchequer; if Thomas die a minor without heir of his
body, the grantee is to have the marriage of his sister Alice.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Richard 2, Vol. 2, p. 45
Margaret married secondly Robert Constable of Flamborough and Holme:
20 January 1384, Pardon, for 40s. paid to the king by Robert
Conestable of Flaynburgh to him and Margaret, late the wife of
Alexander Surtays, tenant in chief for intermarrying without licence.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Richard 2, Vol. 2, p. 381
So I don't think that there can be any doubt that Margaret, wife of
Alaxander Surtees and Robert Constable of Flamborough was the daughter
of Sir William Skipwith.
The problem is, that Sir William Skipwith and Alice are said (CP,
ODNB, HOP, etc. etc.) to have had another daughter called Margaret,
who married firstly Hugh Cressy and secondly Henry Vavasour of
Hazlewood. This lady was definitely not the daughter of Sir William
Skipwith, chief justice of the Common Pleas (d. ca 1398).
This Margaret Skipwith was probably born about 1380, which would make
it problematic for her to be the daughter of Sir William Skipwith and
Alice. William and Alice were married some time before April 1351 when
they had a papal indult. Their eldest son, William was already serving
as escheator for Lincolnshire in 1380, so was probably born before
1355.
Margaret married firstly about 1395-7, Hugh Cressy, son of Sir John
Cressy, who was born on 23 June 1374. Hugh and Margaret were already
divorced and she had married secondly Henry Vavasour of Hazlewood
before June 1399:
7 July 1400, Dispensation to Henry Wavesur and Margaret Skypwith, in
accordance with a commission from Francis [Carboni], cardinal priest
of St Susanna and papal penitentiary (recited in full, and dated at St
Peter's Rome, 20 June 1399), to confirm their marriage, which had been
contracted in ignorance of the impediment caused by Margaret's earlier
marriage to Hugh Cressy, son of John Cressy, an uncle to Henry, which
had been terminated by divorce on the grounds of impotence.
R. N. Swanson, A Calender of the Register of Richard Scrope,
Archbishop of York, 1398-1405, Part 1 (Borthwick Institute: 1981) p.
24, No. 156
That she was called Margaret Skipwith is clear from this record, but
that she was a daughter of Sir William is not stated. There are
however, clues to her parentage in her will which was proved at York
on 6 August 1415 [Test. Ebor. i, 362]. In it she mentions her brothers
Thomas and Patrick Skipwith (Item Thomae fratri meo unum owche de auro
optimum. Item Patricio fratri meo xls.) But the problem is that Sir
William Skipwith did not have a son called Thomas. In 1380-1, the
manor of Lasceby was granted to William de Skipwith and Alice his wife
for their lives, remainder to Stephen and Patrick de Skipwith their
sons for their lives, remainder to William de Skipwith their son and
John his brother and the heirs male of their bodies.
A. Gibbon, Notes on the Visitation of Lincolnshire 1634 (Lincoln:
1898) p. 180
No mention of a Thomas. In Margaret's will she also mentions her
mother Alice (Item Aliciae matri meae annulum meum de auro
sanctificatum.) These clues show us definitely who Margaret was:
Margaret Skipwith who married Hugh Cressy and Henry Vavasour was the
daughter of John Skipwith (d. 1415), second son of Sir William
Skipwith and his wife Alice Tilney. John Skipwith and Alice had two
sons who survived their father - Thomas and Patrick. Alice Tilney was
still alive until about 1436. Thomas and Patrick are the brothers
mentioned in Margaret's will and Alice Tilney was her mother.
There are additional clues to Margret's parentage in her will: She
leaves bequests to lady Grace Tilney (widow of Sir Philip Tilney) and
5 marks to find a chaplain to pray in the gallery of lady Margery de
Tilney within the parish church of Boston (I assume that this Margery
was the mother of Alice Tilney). There is also a further clue. In her
will she leaves a gift of rent from her manor of Manby, Lincolnshire
(de manerio meo de Mumby). In April 1384, James Roos and Margaret his
wife gave the manor of Manby to John Skipwith (CP 25/1/143/145, number
12) - it would appear that John Skipwith had given the manor to his
daughter Margaret.
Any comments gratefully received. By the way, I have been looking at
the pedigrees of the Tilney family of Boston - what a dog's breakfast
- more non-existent people. I will post on this soon.
Best regards,
John
Jan
Feb 11, 2013, 4:32:43 PM2/11/13
to
John, Thanks for this informative post correcting and identifying Margaret Skipwith, wife of Henry Vavasour. It is curious that Gibbons, directly after the item you quote from him, credits William and Alice (Hiltoft) Skipwith with a son Thomas in addition to the four sons William, John, Stephen, and Patrick,
http://books.google.com/books?id=HaNCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180.
The 107th edition of Burke's Peerage (vol. 3, p. 3641) also lists Thomas as a son in this family, but your conclusion from the item in Gibbons seems reasonable.
The item you cite for marriage of Henry Vavasour and Margaret Skipwith is also available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=ok177UJg8K8C&pg=PA24.
The footnote to the will of Henry Vavasour in Testamenta Eboracensia, 1:361 (on the page preceding that of his wife) claims that Henry's children were "according to the pedigree of the family upon record in the College of Arms, William Vavasour, his son and heir, (who married Joan, daughter of Sir John
Langton, of Hudleston); Elizabeth, who married John Sewarby; Alice, the
wife of Thomas Barneston; and Margaret, the wife of Hamon Sutton" and notes that the next will, "that of Lady Vavasour, mentions other children." Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour's will names her children Henry, John, Margaret, Elizabeth, and Johanna.
http://books.google.com/books?id=HaNCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180.
The 107th edition of Burke's Peerage (vol. 3, p. 3641) also lists Thomas as a son in this family, but your conclusion from the item in Gibbons seems reasonable.
The item you cite for marriage of Henry Vavasour and Margaret Skipwith is also available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=ok177UJg8K8C&pg=PA24.
The footnote to the will of Henry Vavasour in Testamenta Eboracensia, 1:361 (on the page preceding that of his wife) claims that Henry's children were "according to the pedigree of the family upon record in the College of Arms, William Vavasour, his son and heir, (who married Joan, daughter of Sir John
Langton, of Hudleston); Elizabeth, who married John Sewarby; Alice, the
wife of Thomas Barneston; and Margaret, the wife of Hamon Sutton" and notes that the next will, "that of Lady Vavasour, mentions other children." Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour's will names her children Henry, John, Margaret, Elizabeth, and Johanna.
John Watson
Feb 11, 2013, 5:13:57 PM2/11/13
to
On Feb 12, 4:32 am, Jan <janwo...@umich.edu> wrote:
> John, Thanks for this informative post correcting and identifying Margaret Skipwith, wife of Henry Vavasour. It is curious that Gibbons, directly after the item you quote from him, credits William and Alice (Hiltoft) Skipwith with a son Thomas in addition to the four sons William, John, Stephen, and Patrick,http://books.google.com/books?id=HaNCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180.
The children of Margaret Skipwith and Henry Vavasour were (in this
order):
Henry, son and heir, married Joan daughter of John Langton of York and
Huddleston. He died in January 1453.
Elizabeth, married William son of William Sywardby. She was still
alive in September 1470.
Joan, who married Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1461.
Margaret, who married Hamon Sutton who died about 1462.
John, who married Isabel de la Haye, one of the three heiresses of
Thomas de la Haye of Spaldington, Yorkshire. He died about 1482.
Regards,
John
> John, Thanks for this informative post correcting and identifying Margaret Skipwith, wife of Henry Vavasour. It is curious that Gibbons, directly after the item you quote from him, credits William and Alice (Hiltoft) Skipwith with a son Thomas in addition to the four sons William, John, Stephen, and Patrick,http://books.google.com/books?id=HaNCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180.
> The 107th edition of Burke's Peerage (vol. 3, p. 3641) also lists Thomas as a son in this family, but your conclusion from the item in Gibbons seems reasonable.
>
> The item you cite for marriage of Henry Vavasour and Margaret Skipwith is also available online athttp://books.google.com/books?id=ok177UJg8K8C&pg=PA24.
>
>
> The footnote to the will of Henry Vavasour in Testamenta Eboracensia, 1:361 (on the page preceding that of his wife) claims that Henry's children were "according to the pedigree of the family upon record in the College of Arms, William Vavasour, his son and heir, (who married Joan, daughter of Sir John
> Langton, of Hudleston); Elizabeth, who married John Sewarby; Alice, the
> wife of Thomas Barneston; and Margaret, the wife of Hamon Sutton" and notes that the next will, "that of Lady Vavasour, mentions other children." Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour's will names her children Henry, John, Margaret, Elizabeth, and Johanna.
Hi Jan,
> The footnote to the will of Henry Vavasour in Testamenta Eboracensia, 1:361 (on the page preceding that of his wife) claims that Henry's children were "according to the pedigree of the family upon record in the College of Arms, William Vavasour, his son and heir, (who married Joan, daughter of Sir John
> Langton, of Hudleston); Elizabeth, who married John Sewarby; Alice, the
> wife of Thomas Barneston; and Margaret, the wife of Hamon Sutton" and notes that the next will, "that of Lady Vavasour, mentions other children." Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour's will names her children Henry, John, Margaret, Elizabeth, and Johanna.
The children of Margaret Skipwith and Henry Vavasour were (in this
order):
Henry, son and heir, married Joan daughter of John Langton of York and
Huddleston. He died in January 1453.
Elizabeth, married William son of William Sywardby. She was still
alive in September 1470.
Joan, who married Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1461.
Margaret, who married Hamon Sutton who died about 1462.
John, who married Isabel de la Haye, one of the three heiresses of
Thomas de la Haye of Spaldington, Yorkshire. He died about 1482.
Regards,
John
Jan
Feb 11, 2013, 5:23:57 PM2/11/13
to
On Monday, February 11, 2013 5:13:57 PM UTC-5, John Watson wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> The children of Margaret Skipwith and Henry Vavasour were (in this
> order):
> Henry, son and heir, married Joan daughter of John Langton of York and
> Huddleston. He died in January 1453.
> Elizabeth, married William son of William Sywardby. She was still
> alive in September 1470.
> Joan, who married Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1461.
> Margaret, who married Hamon Sutton who died about 1462.
> John, who married Isabel de la Haye, one of the three heiresses of
> Thomas de la Haye of Spaldington, Yorkshire. He died about 1482.
>
> Regards,
> John
Thanks, What is the evidence for the marriage of the daughter Joan Vavasour to Thomas Barnardiston?
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> The children of Margaret Skipwith and Henry Vavasour were (in this
> order):
> Henry, son and heir, married Joan daughter of John Langton of York and
> Huddleston. He died in January 1453.
> Elizabeth, married William son of William Sywardby. She was still
> alive in September 1470.
> Joan, who married Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1461.
> Margaret, who married Hamon Sutton who died about 1462.
> John, who married Isabel de la Haye, one of the three heiresses of
> Thomas de la Haye of Spaldington, Yorkshire. He died about 1482.
>
> Regards,
> John
Here is the IPM of Henry Vavasour, which mentions land held jointly with his wife Margaret for their lives, granted by (among others) John son of William Skipwith. Perhaps that grant gives additional support to John Watson's identification of Henry's wife Margaret as the daughter or John and Alice (Tilden) Skipwith.
1413 "Henry Vavasour, Knight.
26. Writ 6 April 1413. Lincoln. Inquisition. Louth. 9 May. Jointly with Henry de Bello Monte, lord of Linwood, Robert Waterton, Hugh Cressy of Olcotes, John Normanvyll and Henry de Melton who are still living, he held the manor of Halton by the grant of John Lascels of Escrick to them and George Monboucher, now deceased, and their heirs and assigns. It is held of Robert Hilton, knight, service unknown, annual value 20 marks. He died on March 27 last. Henry his son and heir is age 9 years and more.
27. Writ 6 April 1413. York. Inquisition. Aberford. 26 April. He held the manor of Eastburn jointly with Margaret his wife by the grant of Ralph earl of Westmorland to them for the term of their lives with remainder to his right heirs by licence of Henry IV [CPR 1405-8, p. 333]. It is held of the king in chief by knight service, annual value 44 marks. They also held jointly for their lives by the grant of Master John Newton, treasurer of St. Peter's, York, William Anthorp, parson of Kirk Deighton by Wetherby, John son of William de Skypwyth, knight, Richard de Norton, John son of John de Ask, Nicholas Gascoygne, Robert Barrye and Robert Rowdon of Aberford, with reversion to Master John Newton and his co-feoffees: the manors of Hazlewood, Wood Hall, Stubbs, Waldon, Ferry Fryston and Addingham, 40 a. arable, 20 a. meadow and 100s. rent in Cocksford and Stutton; 100 a. arable, 40 a. meadow and 100s. rent in Wormersley, Great Smeaton, Little Smeaton, Pickburn, Church Fenton and Scarcroft; and 40 a. arable, 40 a. meadow and 100s. rent in Sicklinghall and Kearby. The manor of Hazlewood and Wood Hall and the premises of Cocksford, Stutton, Sicklinghall and Kearby are held of John de Lancaster, the king's brother, of his manor of Spofforth, service unknown, annual value £20; the manors of Ferry Fryston and Stubbs Waldon and the premises in Wormersley, Great Smeaton, Little Smeaton, Pickburn, Church Fenton and Scarcroft, of the king of the castle of Pontefract of the duchy of Lancaster, service unknown, annual value 20 marks; and the manor of Addington of John Lord Clifford of the Castle of Skipton, service unknown, annual value £10. He died on 27 March last. Henry his son and next heir is aged 9 years and more." {J.L. Kirby, ed., Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. XX, 1-5 Henry V (1413-1418) (London, HMSO, 1995), 7-8}
John Watson
Feb 12, 2013, 1:20:14 AM2/12/13
to
On Feb 12, 5:23 am, Jan <janwo...@umich.edu> wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 5:13:57 PM UTC-5, John Watson wrote:
>
> > Hi Jan,
>
> > The children of Margaret Skipwith and Henry Vavasour were (in this
> > order):
> > Henry, son and heir, married Joan daughter of John Langton of York and
> > Huddleston. He died in January 1453.
> > Elizabeth, married William son of William Sywardby. She was still
> > alive in September 1470.
> > Joan, who married Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1461.
> > Margaret, who married Hamon Sutton who died about 1462.
> > John, who married Isabel de la Haye, one of the three heiresses of
> > Thomas de la Haye of Spaldington, Yorkshire. He died about 1482.
>
> > Regards,
> > John
>
> Thanks, What is the evidence for the marriage of the daughter Joan Vavasour to Thomas Barnardiston?
>
Hi Jan,
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 5:13:57 PM UTC-5, John Watson wrote:
>
> > Hi Jan,
>
> > The children of Margaret Skipwith and Henry Vavasour were (in this
> > order):
> > Henry, son and heir, married Joan daughter of John Langton of York and
> > Huddleston. He died in January 1453.
> > Elizabeth, married William son of William Sywardby. She was still
> > alive in September 1470.
> > Joan, who married Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1461.
> > Margaret, who married Hamon Sutton who died about 1462.
> > John, who married Isabel de la Haye, one of the three heiresses of
> > Thomas de la Haye of Spaldington, Yorkshire. He died about 1482.
>
> > Regards,
> > John
>
> Thanks, What is the evidence for the marriage of the daughter Joan Vavasour to Thomas Barnardiston?
>
I hate to admit this, but the evidence is Burke, A Genealogical and
Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies - you can find
it on Google books. All the pedigrees call her Alice, but since her
mother calls her Joan in her will, I suspect that was actually her
name. She appears to have died before her husband and is not mentioned
in his will in 1461. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=cQIVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA127
and an abstract of his will: http://archive.org/stream/earlylincolnwil00gibbgoog#page/n192/mode/1up
Regards,
John
Jan
Feb 12, 2013, 4:07:44 PM2/12/13
to
Thanks, John, I have read those sources. It is, of course, possible that these and other secondary sources state the wrong given name for the wife of Thomas Barnardiston (d. 1461) but are right that her parents were Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour.
I'd like to find some evidence for this Barnardiston-Vavasour marriage!
While the abstract of the will of Thomas Barnardiston (d. 1461) does not mention a wife, Frederick Arthur Crisp suggests that this Thomas Barnardiston had two wives and that the second wife, named Joan, was living in 1461.
Crisp describes the Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1503 as the "son of Thomas Barnardiston of Ketton and of Great Coates, esquire, by Alice his 1st wife, dau. of Sir Henry Vavasour of Haselwood, co. York." Crisp also states that the Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1503 was "aged 40 and more 28 October 1480 when he was found heir to his step-mother Joan Barnardiston." {Frederick Arthur Crisp, ed., Visitation of England and Wales, Notes, vol. 7, (Privately Printed, 1907), 170. http://books.google.com/books?id=w-kKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA170.}
Have the IPMs taken during the reign of Edward IV been published? It would be interesting to read the IPM of this Joan Barnardiston, dated 28 October 1480.
Some pedigrees show another generation between these two Thomas Barnardistons (d. 1461 and d. 1503), another Thomas who married a daughter of Thomas Waterton.
John, you also gave an order for the children of Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour. We have evidence that the eldest son Henry was born about 1403 (age 9 and more on 9 May 1413 at the time of the IPM and of age by 21 June 1424 when the escheator in Yorkshire was ordered to take his fealty and give him seisin of his father's lands). Do you know of any evidence for the order of the three daughters and the younger son?
I am looking forward to your post about the Tilney family. Meanwhile, I hope someone can shed some light on the marriage of a daughter of Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour to Thomas Barnardiston.
I'd like to find some evidence for this Barnardiston-Vavasour marriage!
While the abstract of the will of Thomas Barnardiston (d. 1461) does not mention a wife, Frederick Arthur Crisp suggests that this Thomas Barnardiston had two wives and that the second wife, named Joan, was living in 1461.
Crisp describes the Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1503 as the "son of Thomas Barnardiston of Ketton and of Great Coates, esquire, by Alice his 1st wife, dau. of Sir Henry Vavasour of Haselwood, co. York." Crisp also states that the Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1503 was "aged 40 and more 28 October 1480 when he was found heir to his step-mother Joan Barnardiston." {Frederick Arthur Crisp, ed., Visitation of England and Wales, Notes, vol. 7, (Privately Printed, 1907), 170. http://books.google.com/books?id=w-kKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA170.}
Have the IPMs taken during the reign of Edward IV been published? It would be interesting to read the IPM of this Joan Barnardiston, dated 28 October 1480.
Some pedigrees show another generation between these two Thomas Barnardistons (d. 1461 and d. 1503), another Thomas who married a daughter of Thomas Waterton.
John, you also gave an order for the children of Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour. We have evidence that the eldest son Henry was born about 1403 (age 9 and more on 9 May 1413 at the time of the IPM and of age by 21 June 1424 when the escheator in Yorkshire was ordered to take his fealty and give him seisin of his father's lands). Do you know of any evidence for the order of the three daughters and the younger son?
I am looking forward to your post about the Tilney family. Meanwhile, I hope someone can shed some light on the marriage of a daughter of Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour to Thomas Barnardiston.
Matt A
Feb 12, 2013, 5:05:02 PM2/12/13
to
http://www.hamline.edu/offices/archives/brass-rubbings/inscriptions.html
-Matt Ahlgren
John Watson
Feb 12, 2013, 7:03:57 PM2/12/13
to
On Feb 13, 4:07 am, Jan <janwo...@umich.edu> wrote:
> Thanks, John, I have read those sources. It is, of course, possible that these and other secondary sources state the wrong given name for the wife of Thomas Barnardiston (d. 1461) but are right that her parents were Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour.
>
> I'd like to find some evidence for this Barnardiston-Vavasour marriage!
>
> While the abstract of the will of Thomas Barnardiston (d. 1461) does not mention a wife, Frederick Arthur Crisp suggests that this Thomas Barnardiston had two wives and that the second wife, named Joan, was living in 1461.
>
> Crisp describes the Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1503 as the "son of Thomas Barnardiston of Ketton and of Great Coates, esquire, by Alice his 1st wife, dau. of Sir Henry Vavasour of Haselwood, co. York." Crisp also states that the Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1503 was "aged 40 and more 28 October 1480 when he was found heir to his step-mother Joan Barnardiston." {Frederick Arthur Crisp, ed., Visitation of England and Wales, Notes, vol. 7, (Privately Printed, 1907), 170.http://books.google.com/books?id=w-kKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA170.}
> Thanks, John, I have read those sources. It is, of course, possible that these and other secondary sources state the wrong given name for the wife of Thomas Barnardiston (d. 1461) but are right that her parents were Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour.
>
> I'd like to find some evidence for this Barnardiston-Vavasour marriage!
>
> While the abstract of the will of Thomas Barnardiston (d. 1461) does not mention a wife, Frederick Arthur Crisp suggests that this Thomas Barnardiston had two wives and that the second wife, named Joan, was living in 1461.
>
>
> Have the IPMs taken during the reign of Edward IV been published? It would be interesting to read the IPM of this Joan Barnardiston, dated 28 October 1480.
>
> Some pedigrees show another generation between these two Thomas Barnardistons (d. 1461 and d. 1503), another Thomas who married a daughter of Thomas Waterton.
>
> John, you also gave an order for the children of Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour. We have evidence that the eldest son Henry was born about 1403 (age 9 and more on 9 May 1413 at the time of the IPM and of age by 21 June 1424 when the escheator in Yorkshire was ordered to take his fealty and give him seisin of his father's lands). Do you know of any evidence for the order of the three daughters and the younger son?
>
> I am looking forward to your post about the Tilney family. Meanwhile, I hope someone can shed some light on the marriage of a daughter of Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour to Thomas Barnardiston.
Jan,
> Have the IPMs taken during the reign of Edward IV been published? It would be interesting to read the IPM of this Joan Barnardiston, dated 28 October 1480.
>
> Some pedigrees show another generation between these two Thomas Barnardistons (d. 1461 and d. 1503), another Thomas who married a daughter of Thomas Waterton.
>
> John, you also gave an order for the children of Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour. We have evidence that the eldest son Henry was born about 1403 (age 9 and more on 9 May 1413 at the time of the IPM and of age by 21 June 1424 when the escheator in Yorkshire was ordered to take his fealty and give him seisin of his father's lands). Do you know of any evidence for the order of the three daughters and the younger son?
>
> I am looking forward to your post about the Tilney family. Meanwhile, I hope someone can shed some light on the marriage of a daughter of Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour to Thomas Barnardiston.
The evidence for the order of the children of Henry and Margaret
Vavasour is the Vavasour pedigree in Surtees Society, Vol. 144,
Visitations of The North - Part III (Durham: 1930) p. 59
Normally visitation pedigrees only give the order of the sons, but
rather unusually, this part of the pedigree numbers all of the
children, including daughters. If you don't have a copy of this
publication (A Visitation of the North of England, 1480-1500) you can
download it from:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/choosefamily.html
[Lots of good stuff on this site]
Regards,
John
Jan
Feb 12, 2013, 9:21:32 PM2/12/13
to
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:05:02 PM UTC-5, Matt A wrote:
>
> One perhaps-overlooked daughter of one of these Thomas Barnardistons:
> http://www.hamline.edu/offices/archives/brass-rubbings/inscriptions.html
>
> -Matt Ahlgren
Thanks for this link, Matt.
>
> One perhaps-overlooked daughter of one of these Thomas Barnardistons:
> http://www.hamline.edu/offices/archives/brass-rubbings/inscriptions.html
>
> -Matt Ahlgren
Crisp's pedigree of the Barnardiston family does (p. 173) include this Elizabeth as a daughter of the Thomas Barnardiston who died in 1503. Crisp says she was married to William Eyre before 1502, was executrix to her husband's will in July 1509, and died 26 October 1548. Will dated 20 May 1548, proved 27 October 1548 (PCC 15 Popuwell). He says her second husband was Sir George Fitzwilliam of Maplethorpe, co. Lincoln. He gives a date for their marriage settlement (16 May 1509) and George Fitzwilliam's death (14 September 1536) and IPM (27 October 1550). Crisp says that William Eyre was an executor to the will of Thomas Barnardiston in 1503, that he died 24 October 1507, was buried at Great Cressingham, will dated 15 October 1507 (PCC 16 Bennett). The tomb inscription reported on the website gives the death year as 1509.
There were some court cases concerning Thomas Barnardiston's 1503 will, e.g. C1/283/43 (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C7464040) and C1/279/55 (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C7778684)
Jan
Feb 12, 2013, 11:39:36 PM2/12/13
to
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:03:57 PM UTC-5, John Watson wrote:
> Normally visitation pedigrees only give the order of the sons, but
> rather unusually, this part of the pedigree numbers all of the
> children, including daughters. If you don't have a copy of this
> publication (A Visitation of the North of England, 1480-1500) you can
> download it from:
> http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/choosefamily.html
> [Lots of good stuff on this site]
>
> Regards,
> John
Thanks for this link, John. It is interesting that the pedigree appears to list the birth order of the children, including that of the daughters. A birth year of about 1407 for "Alice"/Joan (4 years after eldest son Henry), would mean she was in her early 30s when her eldest (surviving) son Thomas was born (if she was indeed the wife of Thomas Barnardiston as stated by Crisp. The abstract of her husband's will suggests that there was at least one other son (Christopher, one of his executors).
> Normally visitation pedigrees only give the order of the sons, but
> rather unusually, this part of the pedigree numbers all of the
> children, including daughters. If you don't have a copy of this
> publication (A Visitation of the North of England, 1480-1500) you can
> download it from:
> http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/choosefamily.html
> [Lots of good stuff on this site]
>
> Regards,
> John
In her will, Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour named Henry, then John, then Margaret to receive specific items and then said the rest of her goods should be divided equally among her children (pueros) John, Elizabeth, and Joan. One might think the order in the will suggests that Margaret was the oldest daughter and Joan the youngest.
Jan
Feb 14, 2013, 12:29:29 AM2/14/13
to
Here is some evidence supporting the claim that the given name of the wife of Thomas Barnardiston (d. 1461) was Joan:
http://recall.archive.org/stream/reportspapersofa14asso#page/164/mode/2up
At St. Nicholas parish church in Great Coates, "according to Jervase Holles there were in his time five memorials commemorating various members of the Barnardston [Barnardiston] family … A slab bearing this inscription, viz.---'Hic Jacet Dom Johanna Barnardston, de Magna Cotes. Ano. Dni. 1453.'" There was also "a high monument, as Holles calls it, or an altar tomb, bearing Barnardston impaling, Sable, a bend between 2 cotises fleury Or, and the same impaling Or a fess Sable dauncy.---Vavasour."
http://recall.archive.org/stream/reportspapersofa14asso#page/164/mode/2up
At St. Nicholas parish church in Great Coates, "according to Jervase Holles there were in his time five memorials commemorating various members of the Barnardston [Barnardiston] family … A slab bearing this inscription, viz.---'Hic Jacet Dom Johanna Barnardston, de Magna Cotes. Ano. Dni. 1453.'" There was also "a high monument, as Holles calls it, or an altar tomb, bearing Barnardston impaling, Sable, a bend between 2 cotises fleury Or, and the same impaling Or a fess Sable dauncy.---Vavasour."
Colin B. Withers
Feb 14, 2013, 4:08:05 AM2/14/13
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I have been researching over the years the origin of the Blanchard family in Lincolnshire, from Domesday onwards.
One of the manors they held was Clixby, and in the medieval chapel there is a floor memorial to Robert Blanchard, a priest.
I have only a few notes concerning this priest, but while revisiting them after many years I wonder if I may have overlooked something.
If you take a look at this photograph of the memorial<http://www.rodcollins.com/wordpress/clixby-church-and-village-history>, and the accompanying text, the author notes that the inscription (which I have transcribed and translated) is Lombardic.
I had never considered the font used (the typeface here I mean).
Is there any significance in the use of Lombardic inscriptions?
Thanks for any insights,
Cheers
Wibs
One of the manors they held was Clixby, and in the medieval chapel there is a floor memorial to Robert Blanchard, a priest.
I have only a few notes concerning this priest, but while revisiting them after many years I wonder if I may have overlooked something.
If you take a look at this photograph of the memorial<http://www.rodcollins.com/wordpress/clixby-church-and-village-history>, and the accompanying text, the author notes that the inscription (which I have transcribed and translated) is Lombardic.
I had never considered the font used (the typeface here I mean).
Is there any significance in the use of Lombardic inscriptions?
Thanks for any insights,
Cheers
Wibs
Matt Tompkins
Feb 14, 2013, 5:11:48 AM2/14/13
to
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:03:57 PM UTC-5, John Watson wrote:
> > Normally visitation pedigrees only give the order of the sons, but
> > rather unusually, this part of the pedigree numbers all of the
> > children, including daughters. If you don't have a copy of this
> > publication (A Visitation of the North of England, 1480-1500) you can
> > download it from:
> >http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/choosefamily.html
> > [Lots of good stuff on this site]
>
> > Regards,
> > John
>
> > Normally visitation pedigrees only give the order of the sons, but
> > rather unusually, this part of the pedigree numbers all of the
> > children, including daughters. If you don't have a copy of this
> > publication (A Visitation of the North of England, 1480-1500) you can
> > download it from:
> >http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/choosefamily.html
> > [Lots of good stuff on this site]
>
> > Regards,
> > John
>
On Feb 13, 4:39 am, Jan <janwo...@umich.edu> wrote:
> Thanks for this link, John. It is interesting that the pedigree appears to list the birth order of the children, including that of the daughters. A birth year of about 1407 for "Alice"/Joan (4 years after eldest son Henry), would mean she was in her early 30s when her eldest (surviving) son Thomas was born (if she was indeed the wife of Thomas Barnardiston as stated by Crisp. The abstract of her husband's will suggests that there was at least one other son (Christopher, one of his executors).
>
> In her will, Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour named Henry, then John, then Margaret to receive specific items and then said the rest of her goods should be divided equally among her children (pueros) John, Elizabeth, and Joan. One might think the order in the will suggests that Margaret was the oldest daughter and Joan the youngest.
Another record pointing towards the birth order being 1. Margaret, 2.
> Thanks for this link, John. It is interesting that the pedigree appears to list the birth order of the children, including that of the daughters. A birth year of about 1407 for "Alice"/Joan (4 years after eldest son Henry), would mean she was in her early 30s when her eldest (surviving) son Thomas was born (if she was indeed the wife of Thomas Barnardiston as stated by Crisp. The abstract of her husband's will suggests that there was at least one other son (Christopher, one of his executors).
>
> In her will, Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour named Henry, then John, then Margaret to receive specific items and then said the rest of her goods should be divided equally among her children (pueros) John, Elizabeth, and Joan. One might think the order in the will suggests that Margaret was the oldest daughter and Joan the youngest.
Elizabeth, 3. Jane (and confirming that the third daughter was called
Jane or Joan, not Alice) can be found in CIPM xx, inq. 465 on p. 145,
which is the assignment of dower to Margaret, widow of Henry
Vavasour's. Dated 23 Oct 1415, it recites a deed dated 13 Jan 1414 by
which the manor of East Halton, Lincs, was granted to feoffees to hold
for Margaret during her life, with remainders to John, son of Henry
Vavasour, then Henry brother of John, then successively Margaret,
Elizabeth and Jane, daughters of Henry and Margaret Vavasour, then to
Patrick de Skypwyth, Margaret’s brother. The order of the daughters’
reversions probably reflected their seniority in age.
Incidentally, CIPM xxii: 1-5 Henry VI (1422-27), inq. 350 is an
inquisition, held on 13 May 1424, pursuant to a writ of melius
inquirendo requiring further information on Henry Vavasour’s manor of
Eastburn which mentions that his widow Margaret was dead by then, and
inq. 362 is the proof of age of their second son Henry, held on 12
June 1424, which says he was born at Hazelwood and baptised in the
church there on 8 April 1402 (a day on which an impressive variety of
accidents befell the twelve jurors).
Jan, you asked "Have the IPMs taken during the reign of Edward IV been
published? It would be interesting to read the IPM of this Joan
Barnardiston, dated 28 October 1480." Unfortunately, as I mentioned
recently in a post in Peter Dale’s thread about 'Durant, Plessis and
Wrotham families of Somerset and Middlesex', the IPMs from 1447 to
1485 have not been published. The TNA reference of Joan's IPM is C
140/79/14 (it is indexed under Berneston alias Bernardston) and
relates to the manor and advowson of Great Coates in Lincolnshire.
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
Feb 14, 2013, 6:22:17 AM2/14/13
to
On Feb 14, 9:08 am, "Colin B. Withers" <Colin.With...@eumetsat.int>
wrote:
Not really - Lombardic was the usual script for monuments until the
14th century, when it began to be replaced by Black Letter, though it
was still sometimes used in monuments and stained glass right through
till the 16th century.
Matt Tompkins
wrote:
14th century, when it began to be replaced by Black Letter, though it
was still sometimes used in monuments and stained glass right through
till the 16th century.
Matt Tompkins
Colin B. Withers
Feb 14, 2013, 8:53:35 AM2/14/13
to Matt Tompkins, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I see, so just the 'Times New Roman' of the day :)
Thanks Matt
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Matt Tompkins
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:22 PM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Significance of Lombardic Inscriptions
On Feb 14, 9:08�am, "Colin B. Withers" <Colin.With...@eumetsat.int>
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Thanks Matt
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Matt Tompkins
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:22 PM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Significance of Lombardic Inscriptions
On Feb 14, 9:08�am, "Colin B. Withers" <Colin.With...@eumetsat.int>
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Jan
Feb 14, 2013, 4:13:49 PM2/14/13
to
Thanks for posting the 1415 CIPM item suggesting a birth order for the Vavasour daughters. It is also interesting that the 1424 proof of age inquisition says that Henry was the second son. I suppose the first son must have died before his father as the son Henry was the son and heir in his father's IPM in 1413. If Henry Vavasour and Margaret Skipwith were married about 1399, and a son was born before their son Henry was born in 1402, it seems likely that the three daughters were born after Henry.
Regarding C 140/79/14, the IPM for Joan Berneston alias Bernardston, widow of Lincolnshire, how do you know that it relates to the manor and advowson of Great Coates in Lincolnshire? The online TNA catalogue just says
Reference: C 140/79/14
Description: Berneston, alias Bernardston, Joan, widow Lincs
Date: 21 Edw IV
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Is there a more complete summary elsewhere?
Jan
John Watson
Feb 15, 2013, 1:28:13 AM2/15/13
to
Does inq. 362 actually say that Henry was the second son, or is that
your interpretation? Henry the younger was definitely the elder
Henry's heir. I have the younger son John as ancestor of the Vavasours
of Spaldington, but his placement in the pedigree is difficult because
different writers and different visitation pedigrees give him
different parents.
Regards,
John
John Watson
Feb 15, 2013, 2:08:13 AM2/15/13
to
How is the project going to digitize all the IPMs and put them on
line? The IPMs project web page has not been updated for a couple of
years at least.
Regards,
John
Matt Tompkins
Feb 15, 2013, 6:26:49 AM2/15/13
to
descriptions can be found in J. Caley and J. Bayley's Calendarium
Inquisitionum post Mortem sive Escaetarum series, printed in the 1820s
- vol. 4 covers 1413-1485. These give the same information as the TNA
Catalogue (though with a number of errors which have been corrected in
the latter), plus brief details of the landholdings mentioned in the
inquisition. They can be found on-line in the Brigham Young
University archive - there's a link to it in Chris Phillip's Medieval
English Genealogy webpages (http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/
sources/ipm.shtml).
They were also mentioned in my recent post about IPMs in reply to one
of Peter Dale's queries. It might be useful if I re-post that with a
more informative Subject line.
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
Feb 15, 2013, 6:33:20 AM2/15/13
to
have been unusual if it had) - that was my unthinking assumption,
based on the order of the remainders in the 1414 deed (John first,
then Henry, then the three girls). If Henry was in fact the first-
born, yet came second in the remainders, then I suppose that rather
undermines my suggestion that the order in which the three girls are
named in the deed points towards their birth order - but I think not
completely, because daughters were treated differently from sons.
Matt
Matt Tompkins
Feb 15, 2013, 7:00:12 AM2/15/13
to
On Feb 15, 7:08 am, John Watson <watsonjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi again Matt,
>
> How is the project going to digitize all the IPMs and put them on
> line? The IPMs project web page has not been updated for a couple of
> years at least.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
The project (which I only joined last month) has had a lengthy
> Hi again Matt,
>
> How is the project going to digitize all the IPMs and put them on
> line? The IPMs project web page has not been updated for a couple of
> years at least.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
gestation but is just now starting work on the actual digitisation.
I'm afraid it will be some time before anything appears on line - at
least a year, I think - but it should be completely up and running by
the end of 2014. At that point the published Calendars covering
1399-1447, and those covering 1483-1509, some with extra previously
unpublished information added, will all be available as a single fully
searchable on-line resource.
The 'Inquisitions Post-Mortem Project' pages in the University of
Winchester History Department (here:
http://www.winchester.ac.uk/academicdepartments/history/research/inquisitions/Pages/TheInquisitionsPost-MortemProject.aspx
)
have been certainly been updated recently (they must have, as they
mention me!), though it is true that the greater part has not changed
for some time. That is because they have been largely superseded by
the new 'Mapping the Medieval Countryside' pages (here:
http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/ ), which are updated
frequently.
Matt
Jan
Feb 15, 2013, 9:03:12 AM2/15/13
to
On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:33:20 AM UTC-5, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> Yes, sorry, the Proof of Age doesn't state Henry's seniority (it would
> have been unusual if it had) - that was my unthinking assumption,
> based on the order of the remainders in the 1414 deed (John first,
> then Henry, then the three girls). If Henry was in fact the first-
> born, yet came second in the remainders, then I suppose that rather
> undermines my suggestion that the order in which the three girls are
> named in the deed points towards their birth order - but I think not
> completely, because daughters were treated differently from sons.
>
> Matt
Margaret's 1415 IPM recites a deed dated January 1414, after her husband Henry's death, and just before Margaret wrote her will. Perhaps she and her family were making arrangements for the younger children. The son Henry was already son and heir of his father, so this piece of property was to go to John, then to his brother Henry, then the three daughters. The wording of the phrase about the three daughters made me wonder if the property would have gone to the three of them in coparceny if the two boys had died. It stills seems reasonable to suppose the three girls were named in their birth order (oldest first). The property in question was Skipwith property, perhaps Margaret's marriage settlement held in trust? Margaret's husband Henry may have intended to make property arrangements for his younger children, but he died right after he wrote his will which does not mention the children.
> Yes, sorry, the Proof of Age doesn't state Henry's seniority (it would
> have been unusual if it had) - that was my unthinking assumption,
> based on the order of the remainders in the 1414 deed (John first,
> then Henry, then the three girls). If Henry was in fact the first-
> born, yet came second in the remainders, then I suppose that rather
> undermines my suggestion that the order in which the three girls are
> named in the deed points towards their birth order - but I think not
> completely, because daughters were treated differently from sons.
>
> Matt
Here is the text of the 1415 IPM (notice that the heir for the rest of the property is still the son Henry, either 13+ or 12+ years old now--age 13 or more would agree with the later proof of age inquisition--while he was just 9 or more in April and May of 1413):
Margaret Widow of Henry Vavasour
465 Writ 16 July 1415
Lincoln. Inquisition. Caistor, 23 Oct.
Henry Melton of Yorkshire held the manor of East Halton in his demesne as of fee, and by his deed, dated at Halton on 13 Jan. 1414, witnessed by Edmund Gastrike, William atte Well and Robert North, and shown to the jurors, granted it with all his holdings in East Halton and Killingholme, which were formerly held by William son of William de Skypwyth, knight, to Thomas duke of Clarence, John the king’s son, Margaret widow of Henry Vavasour, knight, Robert Waterton, John Waterton, John Normanvile, Nicholas Tournay and John Skypwyth, to them and their heirs and assigns to hold during the life of Margaret of the chief lords of the fees, with successive remainders after her death to John son of Henry Vavasour and the heirs of his body, Henry, brother of John, and the heirs of his body, Margaret, Elizabeth, and Jane, daughters of Henry and Margaret and the heirs of their bodies and Patrick de Skypwyth, brother of Margaret, and his heirs. The manor is held of Robert Hilton of the manor of Fulstow, service unknown, annual value 20 marks.
Henry Vavasour, knight, held the manor of Cockerington in his demense as of fee, and granted it by his deed, also shown to the jurors, dated at Cockerington on 16 Oct. 1408 and witnessed by Henry de Retford, Walter Taileboise, Thomas Hawlay, Richard Aunsard, knights, and Robert Eland, to Master John Neweton, treasurer of St. Peter’s, York, William Anthorp, parson of Kirk Deighton, John son of William de Skypwyth, knight, Richard de Norton, John son of John de Aske, Nicholas Gascoigne, Robert de Norton, John son of John de Aske, Nicolas Gascoigne, Robert Barry and Robert Rawedaon of Aberford, to hold to them and their heirs and assigns. By their charter, dated at Cockerington on 20 Oct. 1408 and witnessed by the same persons, they regranted the manor to Henry and Margaret his wife to hold for their lives with reversion to themselves. It is held of the king of the duchy of Lancaster, service unknown, annual value £20.
She died on 1 July last. Henry her son and heir was aged 13 years and more.
466 Writ 16 July 1415.
York. Inquisiton. York Castle. 3 Oct. 1415.
All findings as in the inquisition on Henry Vavasour, knight, her husband, above [no. 27].
Date of death and heir, aged 12 years and more, as above.
C 138/16 no. 52, E 149/105 no. 24”
{J.L. Kirby, ed., Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. XX, 1-5 Henry V (1413-1418) (London, HMSO, 1995), 144–5.}
Derek Howard
Feb 15, 2013, 12:24:57 PM2/15/13
to
On Friday, February 15, 2013 3:03:12 PM UTC+1, Jan wrote:
> Margaret's 1415 IPM recites a deed dated January 1414, after her husband Henry's death, and just before Margaret wrote her will. Perhaps she and her family were making arrangements for the younger children. The son Henry was already son and heir of his father, so this piece of property was to go to John, then to his brother Henry, then the three daughters. The wording of the phrase about the three daughters made me wonder if the property would have gone to the three of them in coparceny if the two boys had died. It stills seems reasonable to suppose the three girls were named in their birth order (oldest first). The property in question was Skipwith property, perhaps Margaret's marriage settlement held in trust? Margaret's husband Henry may have intended to make property arrangements for his younger children, but he died right after he wrote his will which does not mention the children.
>
> Here is the text of the 1415 IPM (notice that the heir for the rest of the property is still the son Henry, either 13+ or 12+ years old now--age 13 or more would agree with the later proof of age inquisition--while he was just 9 or more in April and May of 1413):
>
> Margaret Widow of Henry Vavasour
> 465 Writ 16 July 1415
> Lincoln. Inquisition. Caistor, 23 Oct.
> Henry Melton of Yorkshire held the manor of East Halton in his demesne as of fee, and by his deed, dated at Halton on 13 Jan. 1414, witnessed by Edmund Gastrike, William atte Well and Robert North, and shown to the jurors, granted it with all his holdings in East Halton and Killingholme, which were formerly held by William son of William de Skypwyth, knight, to Thomas duke of Clarence, John the king’s son, Margaret widow of Henry Vavasour, knight, Robert Waterton, John Waterton, John Normanvile, Nicholas Tournay and John Skypwyth, to them and their heirs and assigns to hold during the life of Margaret of the chief lords of the fees, with successive remainders after her death to John son of Henry Vavasour and the heirs of his body, Henry, brother of John, and the heirs of his body, Margaret, Elizabeth, and Jane, daughters of Henry and Margaret and the heirs of their bodies and Patrick de Skypwyth, brother of Margaret, and his heirs. The manor is held of Robert Hilton of the manor of Fulstow, service unknown, annual value 20 marks.
>
> Henry Vavasour, knight, held the manor of Cockerington in his demense as of fee, and granted it by his deed, also shown to the jurors, dated at Cockerington on 16 Oct. 1408 and witnessed by Henry de Retford, Walter Taileboise, Thomas Hawlay, Richard Aunsard, knights, and Robert Eland, to Master John Neweton, treasurer of St. Peter’s, York, William Anthorp, parson of Kirk Deighton, John son of William de Skypwyth, knight, Richard de Norton, John son of John de Aske, Nicholas Gascoigne, Robert de Norton, John son of John de Aske, Nicolas Gascoigne, Robert Barry and Robert Rawedaon of Aberford, to hold to them and their heirs and assigns. By their charter, dated at Cockerington on 20 Oct. 1408 and witnessed by the same persons, they regranted the manor to Henry and Margaret his wife to hold for their lives with reversion to themselves. It is held of the king of the duchy of Lancaster, service unknown, annual value £20.
>
> She died on 1 July last. Henry her son and heir was aged 13 years and more.
> 466 Writ 16 July 1415.
> York. Inquisiton. York Castle. 3 Oct. 1415.
> All findings as in the inquisition on Henry Vavasour, knight, her husband, above [no. 27].
> Date of death and heir, aged 12 years and more, as above.
> C 138/16 no. 52, E 149/105 no. 24”
> {J.L. Kirby, ed., Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. XX, 1-5 Henry V (1413-1418) (London, HMSO, 1995), 144–5.}
The IPM for Margaret, wife of Henry Vavasour, chivaler, taken at York on Thursday after Michaelmas 3 Henry V, ie 3 Oct 1415, can be found in "Inquisitions Post Mortem relating to Yorkshire of the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V", ed. Paley Baildon and Clay, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series vol 59, - 1918, pp 113-4. Her son and heir – and her husband’s - Henry is there stated to be aged 20 years and more.
> Margaret's 1415 IPM recites a deed dated January 1414, after her husband Henry's death, and just before Margaret wrote her will. Perhaps she and her family were making arrangements for the younger children. The son Henry was already son and heir of his father, so this piece of property was to go to John, then to his brother Henry, then the three daughters. The wording of the phrase about the three daughters made me wonder if the property would have gone to the three of them in coparceny if the two boys had died. It stills seems reasonable to suppose the three girls were named in their birth order (oldest first). The property in question was Skipwith property, perhaps Margaret's marriage settlement held in trust? Margaret's husband Henry may have intended to make property arrangements for his younger children, but he died right after he wrote his will which does not mention the children.
>
> Here is the text of the 1415 IPM (notice that the heir for the rest of the property is still the son Henry, either 13+ or 12+ years old now--age 13 or more would agree with the later proof of age inquisition--while he was just 9 or more in April and May of 1413):
>
> Margaret Widow of Henry Vavasour
> 465 Writ 16 July 1415
> Lincoln. Inquisition. Caistor, 23 Oct.
> Henry Melton of Yorkshire held the manor of East Halton in his demesne as of fee, and by his deed, dated at Halton on 13 Jan. 1414, witnessed by Edmund Gastrike, William atte Well and Robert North, and shown to the jurors, granted it with all his holdings in East Halton and Killingholme, which were formerly held by William son of William de Skypwyth, knight, to Thomas duke of Clarence, John the king’s son, Margaret widow of Henry Vavasour, knight, Robert Waterton, John Waterton, John Normanvile, Nicholas Tournay and John Skypwyth, to them and their heirs and assigns to hold during the life of Margaret of the chief lords of the fees, with successive remainders after her death to John son of Henry Vavasour and the heirs of his body, Henry, brother of John, and the heirs of his body, Margaret, Elizabeth, and Jane, daughters of Henry and Margaret and the heirs of their bodies and Patrick de Skypwyth, brother of Margaret, and his heirs. The manor is held of Robert Hilton of the manor of Fulstow, service unknown, annual value 20 marks.
>
> Henry Vavasour, knight, held the manor of Cockerington in his demense as of fee, and granted it by his deed, also shown to the jurors, dated at Cockerington on 16 Oct. 1408 and witnessed by Henry de Retford, Walter Taileboise, Thomas Hawlay, Richard Aunsard, knights, and Robert Eland, to Master John Neweton, treasurer of St. Peter’s, York, William Anthorp, parson of Kirk Deighton, John son of William de Skypwyth, knight, Richard de Norton, John son of John de Aske, Nicholas Gascoigne, Robert de Norton, John son of John de Aske, Nicolas Gascoigne, Robert Barry and Robert Rawedaon of Aberford, to hold to them and their heirs and assigns. By their charter, dated at Cockerington on 20 Oct. 1408 and witnessed by the same persons, they regranted the manor to Henry and Margaret his wife to hold for their lives with reversion to themselves. It is held of the king of the duchy of Lancaster, service unknown, annual value £20.
>
> She died on 1 July last. Henry her son and heir was aged 13 years and more.
> 466 Writ 16 July 1415.
> York. Inquisiton. York Castle. 3 Oct. 1415.
> All findings as in the inquisition on Henry Vavasour, knight, her husband, above [no. 27].
> Date of death and heir, aged 12 years and more, as above.
> C 138/16 no. 52, E 149/105 no. 24”
> {J.L. Kirby, ed., Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. XX, 1-5 Henry V (1413-1418) (London, HMSO, 1995), 144–5.}
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924084250624#page/n123/
So we can see that the details are not as in her Lincolnshire IPM.
That of her husband Henry Vavasour of Wednesday in Easter week 1 Henry V, ie 19 Apr 1413, is on pp 97-8 of the Yorkshire Inquisitions. There his son and heir Henry is said to be aged 9 years and more. There is somewhat of a rapid aging of the son between 1413 and 1415!
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924084250624#page/n107/
Derek Howard
Jan
Feb 15, 2013, 3:26:43 PM2/15/13
to
On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:24:57 PM UTC-5, Derek Howard wrote:
>
> The IPM for Margaret, wife of Henry Vavasour, chivaler, taken at York on Thursday after Michaelmas 3 Henry V, ie 3 Oct 1415, can be found in "Inquisitions Post Mortem relating to Yorkshire of the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V", ed. Paley Baildon and Clay, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series vol 59, - 1918, pp 113-4. Her son and heir – and her husband’s - Henry is there stated to be aged 20 years and more.
> http://archive.org/stream/cu31924084250624#page/n123/
>
> So we can see that the details are not as in her Lincolnshire IPM.
>
> That of her husband Henry Vavasour of Wednesday in Easter week 1 Henry V, ie 19 Apr 1413, is on pp 97-8 of the Yorkshire Inquisitions. There his son and heir Henry is said to be aged 9 years and more. There is somewhat of a rapid aging of the son between 1413 and 1415!
> http://archive.org/stream/cu31924084250624#page/n107/
>
> Derek Howard
Thanks for posting the link to the Yorkshire IPMs, Derek. The details of Henry's Yorkshire IPM are in the other source (CIPM, vol. 20, Henry V), too (no. 27). The CIPM book did not repeat the details in the presentation of Margaret's IPM as it said they were the same as in Henry's. I think the age of son Henry must be stated incorrectly as 20 years or more in the Yorkshire IPM book. That would make Henry's birth well before the dates given in the dispensation for the marriage of Henry and Margaret and during the time when Margaret was presumably married to her first husband. The corresponding abstract in the CIPM book states son Henry's age as 12 years or more. Without seeing the image of the IPM, it's hard to know whether the error was in the original or in one of the transcriptions.
>
> The IPM for Margaret, wife of Henry Vavasour, chivaler, taken at York on Thursday after Michaelmas 3 Henry V, ie 3 Oct 1415, can be found in "Inquisitions Post Mortem relating to Yorkshire of the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V", ed. Paley Baildon and Clay, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series vol 59, - 1918, pp 113-4. Her son and heir – and her husband’s - Henry is there stated to be aged 20 years and more.
> http://archive.org/stream/cu31924084250624#page/n123/
>
> So we can see that the details are not as in her Lincolnshire IPM.
>
> That of her husband Henry Vavasour of Wednesday in Easter week 1 Henry V, ie 19 Apr 1413, is on pp 97-8 of the Yorkshire Inquisitions. There his son and heir Henry is said to be aged 9 years and more. There is somewhat of a rapid aging of the son between 1413 and 1415!
> http://archive.org/stream/cu31924084250624#page/n107/
>
> Derek Howard
After Margaret died in 1415, the marriage and custody of heir Henry was assigned to John, duke of Bedford:
1415 "July 20. Westminster. Grant to the king's brother John, duke of Bedford, of the keeping of all lands late of Henry Vavasour, 'chivaler,' and Margaret his wife, tenants in chief by knight service, within the town and lordship of Estbourne and elsewhere in the county of York during the minority of Henry their son and heir to the value of 40l. yearly, with his marriage without disparagement, without rendering anything to the king, so that he find a competent maintenance for the heir, maintain the houses, buildings, woods, enclosures and gardens without waste and support all charges. By p.s." {Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry V, Vol. 1 (London: HMSO, 1910), 359.}
CE Wood
Feb 15, 2013, 5:20:17 PM2/15/13
to
Why is it reasonable to conclude that William and Alice Hiltoft did not have a son named Thomas? Om addition to the Lincolnshire Pedigrees themselves, the quote from Gibbons states:
"The manors of Covenham and Calthorp were secured to him and his wife Alice and her heirs by a fine in 1366; and the manors of North and South Hiltoft in Ingoldmells also came to him in right of his wife.
He had issue by her, five sons, William, John, Stephen, Patrick, and Thomas, and two daughters, Alice wife to Robert fourth Baron Willoughby de Eresby, and Margaret wife to Sir Henry Vavasour knt. Stephen de Skipwith was Rector of the church of S. Peter of Ingoldemels, being presented by his father in 1391."
CE Wood
"The manors of Covenham and Calthorp were secured to him and his wife Alice and her heirs by a fine in 1366; and the manors of North and South Hiltoft in Ingoldmells also came to him in right of his wife.
He had issue by her, five sons, William, John, Stephen, Patrick, and Thomas, and two daughters, Alice wife to Robert fourth Baron Willoughby de Eresby, and Margaret wife to Sir Henry Vavasour knt. Stephen de Skipwith was Rector of the church of S. Peter of Ingoldemels, being presented by his father in 1391."
CE Wood
Jan
Feb 15, 2013, 11:27:37 PM2/15/13
to
I meant that John Watson's conclusion--that Margaret Skipwith, wife of Henry Vavasour, was the daughter of William's son John Skipwith rather than of William--seems plausible based on the other evidence cited even if both William and John had sons named Thomas.
Wjhonson
Feb 16, 2013, 11:53:24 AM2/16/13
to janw...@umich.edu, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
To whom was Henry made ward ?
Wjhonson
Feb 16, 2013, 12:49:17 PM2/16/13
to janw...@umich.edu, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
The widow was seized of Great Coates when she died per Linc Ped in 1481/2
http://www.archive.org/stream/lincolnshirepedi01madd#page/n214/mode/1up
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan <janw...@umich.edu>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 13, 2013 9:31 pm
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
http://www.archive.org/stream/lincolnshirepedi01madd#page/n214/mode/1up
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan <janw...@umich.edu>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 13, 2013 9:31 pm
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Wjhonson
Feb 16, 2013, 12:53:36 PM2/16/13
to ml...@le.ac.uk, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
It was stated in this thread that Margaret's will was proved 6 Aug 1415 and now you are stating assignment of dower two months later when she was known to be dead.
Something.... amiss.....?
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 2:15 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Something.... amiss.....?
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 2:15 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Wjhonson
Feb 16, 2013, 12:56:49 PM2/16/13
to ml...@le.ac.uk, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Matt you say "second son" (proof of age) but does not the IPM state that Henry was their heir aged 9 and more ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 2:15 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 2:15 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Wjhonson
Feb 16, 2013, 1:03:51 PM2/16/13
to ml...@le.ac.uk, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
My thought is that this was rather specifically to provide for JOHN as a younger son.
So his heir male would be the elder son Henry, and then the three daughters should be in order as you assumed. So I think that part was right.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 3:35 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
So his heir male would be the elder son Henry, and then the three daughters should be in order as you assumed. So I think that part was right.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 3:35 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Wjhonson
Feb 16, 2013, 1:09:54 PM2/16/13
to dho...@skynet.be, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Is it possible that someone has misread "xii" as "xx" ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Derek Howard <dho...@skynet.be>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 9:28 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
-----Original Message-----
From: Derek Howard <dho...@skynet.be>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 9:28 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Jan
Feb 16, 2013, 1:13:58 PM2/16/13
to janw...@umich.edu, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:49:17 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
> The widow was seized of Great Coates when she died per Linc Ped in 1481/2
> http://www.archive.org/stream/lincolnshirepedi01madd#page/n214/mode/1up
Yes, that is exactly the IPM I want to read when it gets digitized in the coming year or two! The tentative story is that Thomas Barnardiston married (1) Joan Vavasour, daughter of Henry and Margaret (Skipwith) Vavasour and (2) Joan Waterton(?) who died 20 years after Thomas. Joan (Vavasour) Barnardiston may be the person for whom a slab at Great Coates gives a death year of 1453. Where all the pedigrees and other secondary sources got the name Alice for this woman (Barnardiston's first wife) is a mystery.
> The widow was seized of Great Coates when she died per Linc Ped in 1481/2
> http://www.archive.org/stream/lincolnshirepedi01madd#page/n214/mode/1up
Jan
Feb 16, 2013, 1:17:40 PM2/16/13
to dho...@skynet.be, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 1:09:54 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
> Is it possible that someone has misread "xii" as "xx" ?
Could be (or perhaps xij as xx).
> Is it possible that someone has misread "xii" as "xx" ?
Some of the other questions you posed in recent messages are discussed elsewhere in the thread, but I'm pleased you are looking at each step carefully.
Jan
Feb 16, 2013, 1:21:50 PM2/16/13
to ml...@le.ac.uk, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:53:36 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
> It was stated in this thread that Margaret's will was proved 6 Aug 1415 and now you are stating assignment of dower two months later when she was known to be dead.
>
> Something.... amiss.....?
The don't think the item two months later was her assignment of dower, just her IPM. The deeds recited may have been related to her dower as well as provision for the younger children.
> It was stated in this thread that Margaret's will was proved 6 Aug 1415 and now you are stating assignment of dower two months later when she was known to be dead.
>
> Something.... amiss.....?
Regarding the assignment of dower:
1413 "June 10. Westminster. To Robert de Morton escheator in Yorkshire. Order to take the fealty of Margaret late the wife of Henry Vavasour knight, and to give her livery of the manors, lands, etc. hereinafter mentioned, and the issues thereof taken; as the king has learned by inquisition, taken by the escheator, that at his death Henry Vavasour held as jointly enfeoffed with her the manor of Estburne by grant of Ralph earl of Westmerland, made with licence of the late king to them for their lives and to the said Henry's heirs, likewise the manors of Hesilwode, Wodhall, Stubbes Waldyng, Fryston and Adyngham, 40 acres of land, 20 acres of meadow, 20s. of rent in Cokkesforth and Stutton, 100 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow, 100s. of rent in Wymersley, Great Smeton, Little Smeton, Pykburne, Fenton and Sarcroft, and 40 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow and 100s. of rent in Sylyngalle and Kerby by gift of Master John Newton treasurer of the church of St. Peter York and others to them for their lives with reversion to the grantors, and that the manor of Estburne is held in chief by knight service, the other manors etc. of others than the king." {Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry V, Vol. 1: 1413-1419 (1929), 17-19, www.british-history.ac.uk}
1413 "July 7. Westminster. To John de Fulnetby escheator in Lincolnshire. Order to remove the king's hand and meddle no further with the manor of Halton, delivering to Henry de Bello Monte lord of Lyndwode, Robert Waterton, Hugh Cressy of Oulkecostes, John Normanvylle and Henry de Melton any issues thereof taken; as the king has learned by inquisition, taken by the escheator, that Henry Vavasour knight at his death held no lands in that county in chief, but held that manor, being jointly enfeoffed with them, by gift of John Lascels of Escryke to them and George Monboucher esquire deceased, their heirs and assigns, and that it is held of another than the king.
" {Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry V, Vol 1: 1413-1419 (1929), 20-28, www.british-history.ac.uk}
Wjhonson
Feb 16, 2013, 1:25:52 PM2/16/13
to janw...@umich.edu, soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
http://books.google.com/books?id=E9NL-QkROVsC&dq=%22cotes%20magna%22&pg=PA404#v=onepage&q=%22cotes%20magna%22&f=true
Joh'a (so a woman, Johanna most likely) and also marked vidua (widow)
the manor of cotes magna
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan <janw...@umich.edu>
To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 10:15 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Joh'a (so a woman, Johanna most likely) and also marked vidua (widow)
the manor of cotes magna
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan <janw...@umich.edu>
To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 10:15 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Wjhonson
Feb 16, 2013, 1:43:58 PM2/16/13
to woo...@msn.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I think rather than conclude that they did *not* have a son named Thomas, we can simply say that if they did, it's not relevant to this issue that John Skipwith and Alice Tilney had a son named Thomas and this is the parentage where Margaret (Skipwith) 1Cressy 2Vavasour really belongs.
I'm now in agreement with this placement, it makes more sense that what I had had.
I'm not yet happy with the biography of William Skipwith and the idea that perhaps some details of his career and his sons (and for that matter his fathers) all named William are getting mixed together.
I'm now in agreement with this placement, it makes more sense that what I had had.
I'm not yet happy with the biography of William Skipwith and the idea that perhaps some details of his career and his sons (and for that matter his fathers) all named William are getting mixed together.
Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 2:26 pm
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Jan
Feb 16, 2013, 2:04:31 PM2/16/13
to janw...@umich.edu, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 1:25:52 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=E9NL-QkROVsC&dq=%22cotes%20magna%22&pg=PA404#v=onepage&q=%22cotes%20magna%22&f=true
>
> Joh'a (so a woman, Johanna most likely) and also marked vidua (widow)
> the manor of cotes magna
Yes, I think that is the IPM that Matt mentioned and the one I'd like to read.
> http://books.google.com/books?id=E9NL-QkROVsC&dq=%22cotes%20magna%22&pg=PA404#v=onepage&q=%22cotes%20magna%22&f=true
>
> Joh'a (so a woman, Johanna most likely) and also marked vidua (widow)
> the manor of cotes magna
Crisp says that Thomas Barnardiston, age 40 and more, was found to be the heir of his step-mother Joan Barnardiston on 28 October 1480. {Frederick Arthur Crisp, ed., Visitation of England and Wales, Notes, vol. 7, (Privately Printed, 1907), 170.} He must be referring to the IPM cited in this calendar. This Thomas Barnardiston is the one who married Elizabeth Newport and died in 1503.
Here is the abstract of the will of the Thomas Barnardiston's who died in 1461: http://archive.org/stream/earlylincolnwil00gibbgoog#page/n191/mode/2up (starts on the bottom of p. 179).
Thomas Barnardiston names his son Christopher as one of his executors, perhaps suggesting that Christoper was of age and the oldest son. If in 1480 Thomas was the oldest surviving son and then age 40 or more, a birth date for Christopher and Thomas' supposed mother Joan Vavasour about 1407-1413 doesn't seem implausible.
Wjhonson
Feb 16, 2013, 9:53:47 PM2/16/13
to janw...@umich.edu, soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I think the point of this particular entry goes to your question of whether it is possible that this widow existed. So it at least points out there there was a widow with a name something like Johanna who was holding the manor in that year, at her death.
Whether or not it is clear on her being his *step* mother (a phrase probably unlikely to appear), or the man exactly of whom she remained his widow (sources might be *assuming* it was this one)... that's all open. But she existed, and was holding.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan <janw...@umich.edu>
To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 11:04 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Whether or not it is clear on her being his *step* mother (a phrase probably unlikely to appear), or the man exactly of whom she remained his widow (sources might be *assuming* it was this one)... that's all open. But she existed, and was holding.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan <janw...@umich.edu>
To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 11:04 am
Subject: Re: Two Margaret Skipwiths Revisited
Jan
Feb 16, 2013, 10:41:47 PM2/16/13
to janw...@umich.edu, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 9:53:47 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
> I think the point of this particular entry goes to your question of whether it is possible that this widow existed. So it at least points out there there was a widow with a name something like Johanna who was holding the manor in that year, at her death.
>
> Whether or not it is clear on her being his *step* mother (a phrase probably unlikely to appear), or the man exactly of whom she remained his widow (sources might be *assuming* it was this one)... that's all open. But she existed, and was holding.
Yes, I want to see if the wording of this IPM supports the relationship suggested by Crisp in any way (e.g., if it says she was the widow of a Thomas Barnardiston and the heir was his son).
> I think the point of this particular entry goes to your question of whether it is possible that this widow existed. So it at least points out there there was a widow with a name something like Johanna who was holding the manor in that year, at her death.
>
> Whether or not it is clear on her being his *step* mother (a phrase probably unlikely to appear), or the man exactly of whom she remained his widow (sources might be *assuming* it was this one)... that's all open. But she existed, and was holding.
0 new messages