The Grey sisters of Heton
Rosie Bevan
The entry for William, Lord Heron of Ford, Northumberland d.1379 in
Complete Peerage, VI p.486, note (i), states that his wife's name was
Isabel, parentage unknown, "but it appears from De Banco R., 411 m.218, that
she was aunt and coheir of William de Grey, dead by 1362. Margaret, wife of
Sir John de Eure, was another aunt and coheir and other coheirs were Sir
John Salvayn and Sir William de Felton. The claimant was Sir Thomas de Grey
in respect of the manor of Hundburton, (a hamlet now called Humberton), near
Stamford Bridge, Yorks."
The heirs of William de Grey were his four aunts, in themselves or their
issue. From a petition made to the escheator in 1325, evidence appears that
their father was Thomas de Grey. His request was for the wardship and
marriage of the heir of John de Eure, as the king had promised to help
Thomas marry off one of his daughters. At the same time he also made a
petition for the lease of the manor of Duffield at a nominal rent until the
majority of the heir, who had married his daughter. The text is as follows
"A nostre seingniur le Rois si luy plest pri le soen bachelor Thomas Grey qe
ile woyle graunter a Johan de Ewry ses teris qe sount sese en la meine le
Roy sicum mon seigniur me premist eide de marier une de mes feylis: vous pri
sire pur lamur de dieu de vostre grace qi ile poet auoir ses teris deliuyrs
hors de la meine des eschetours.
A nostre seigniur le Roys pri le son bachelor Thomas Grey qile luy lesser le
maner le Duffelde qe fust en la meine sire William de Ermyn pur le estent
rendaunt taunqe a le age le lenffaunt purceo sire qe lenffaunt ade espuse ma
feile."
[C.M.Fraser ed., 'Ancient petitions relating to Northumberland'. Surtees
Society Publication no. 176. 1966. p.]
The result of this plea was that Thomas Grey was granted the wardship of the
lands with the marriage and heir of John de Eure, tenant in chief, on 25
March 1326 [CPR 1324-27, p.254]. However, his petition for the manor of
Duffield, Yorkshire, the inheritance of his son in law, was turned down.
Gerard Salvayn, the heir to the manor of Duffield, was then aged about 17
(12 in 1320 on his father's death) [CIPM VI p.132-3]. He was also heir of
his uncle Gerard of Herswell, his father's elder brother.
In the only pedigree I have been able to locate of the Salvains [Salvin of
Croxdale pedigree, Robert Surtees, History and Antiquities of the County
Palatine of Durham, v.4 p.117], this heir of Duffield is identified as Sir
Gerard Salvayn of North Duffield and Herswell, son and heir of John Salvayn
and Margaret, da of Robert de Ros of Wark, aged 12 in 13 Edward II when he
was found heir to his grandfather Gerard. He proved his age in 3 Edw III,
was High Sheriff of Yorkshire 24 Edw III; and died 43 Edw III. His son and
heir was John Salvayn, the coheir of the Grey inheritence. However, the
Surtees pedigree shows John's mother to be Agnes da. of Sir Robert
Maleverer, fl 1347. As John Salvayn was coheir of William de Grey through
his mother, the Maleverer identification looks erroneous.
Curiously, in Tonge's Visitation of Yorkshire in1530, the pedigree of "Sir
Rauff Salven, knyght, of Newbegynge" starts with "Syr John Salven maried the
doughter of Graye of Heton, of Northumberland." So a Salvayn/Grey of Heton
marriage was known to have occurred at some point at that time.
The identity of the Thomas de Grey in the petition, is Sir Thomas de Grey of
Heton who died in 1343/4. Between 1343 and 1354 Thomas de Grey II of Heton,
and his brother in law, John de Eure, were given joint custody of Darras
Hall in Callerton Darras, as the heir was a minor aged 9 years old
[C.M.Fraser ed., 'Ancient petitions relating to Northumberland'. Surtees
Society Publication no. 176. 1966. p.]. In 1311 the escheator north of the
Trent had confiscated the lands of John de Grey, son and heir of Juliane de
Grey (widow of Sir Robert Grey), in Heton and Norham "par la reson des
ordenances feist reprendre en sa meyn le manoir de Heton et un toft et treis
acres de terre en Norham el Contee de Northumbr, qe furent a Juliane de Grey
et qe par lenemyte et la rebellete Johan fiuz et heir la dite Juliane sicome
eschete a la meyn le Roy devyndrent..."[C.M.Fraser ed., 'Ancient petitions
relating to Northumberland'. Surtees Society Publication no. 176. 1966.
p.23]. It may be significant that the wording implies that the Heton
inheritance had come via Juliane de Grey as John was described as her son
and heir, not her husband's. He is not even mentioned. The lands were
restored in 1312 when Bishop Kellawe formally put Sir Thomas Grey and his
wife Agnes in possession of the manor of Heton on 28 October 1312. [Reg.
Pal.Dun I 77-78 II 1170-1]. Sir Thomas was most likely a younger son of Sir
Robert Grey and Juliane. Like his antecedents, Thomas de Grey was Constable
of Norham Castle, Northumberland, one of the two castles of the Palatinate
of Durham, on the Scottish border, and he defended it from the Scots in
1318, 1319, 1322 and 1327.
(PRO C 148/128 Subject: Memorandum that Sir Thomas de Grey, Constable of
Norham Castle, has undertaken to find men for defence of the castle besides
those provided by the Bishop of Durham. (Cal. of Documents relating to
Scotland, III, 772) County Northumberland 16 Edw II )
Supporting evidence for the Grey/Heron/Eure family connection is to be found
in the will, dated 1378, of second coheir, Lady Margaret Eure, widow of Sir
John Eure of Whitton Castle, in which she left bequests (unfortunately
without identifying her exact relationship), to: brother (as in religious
order) Robert Heron, who was also an executor of, and witness to, her will,
and probably her nephew (William Heron and Isabel are known to have had a
fifth son called Robert ); Robert, son of John Gray; Katherine Gray his
sister ; Alice Gray. Lady Margaret was previously thought to be a member of
the Lumley family owing to bequests to two people of that name. [Wills and
Inventories Illustrative of the History, Manners, Language, Statistics etc
of the Northern Counties of England from the 11th century Downwards, part 1.
Surtees Soc., 1835].
Sir William de Felton, mentioned as fourth coheir, can be no other than the
son of Sir William Felton of Edlingham, Northumberland who died in 1358. The
elder Sir William has an entry in CP V : 294. No wife is attributed to him,
but in his will he refers to his wife Isabella who survived him. She clearly
was not mother of the younger William, otherwise she would have been named
as William de Grey's heir, not Sir William de Felton. She and the younger,
Sir William de Felton, were the executors of the will. [Wills and
Inventories Illustrative of the History, Manners, Language, Statistics etc
of the Northern Counties of England from the 11th century Downwards, part 1.
Surtees Soc., 1835]. CP states that the younger William was aged 30 years
and more at his father's death i.e. born before 1328.
The manor of Hundburton appears to have been inherited by the sisters as a
result of terms of a settlement which excluded Sir Thomas de Grey. This may
imply that they had different mothers, or that a later settlement determined
the order of those to whom the manor was to come with the intention of
providing for the sisters. It is possible that, as it was not a de Grey
property at the time when Agnes and Thomas de Grey were having children, it
descended from the maternal line
A construction of the proposed genealogy would go something like this.
1.Sir Thomas de Grey d. prior to 12 March 1343/4
+ Agnes? fl 13 Sept 1322 [History of Northumberland, v.14 p.328 1935 via
Post of Don Stone to SGM 19 Jul 1998]
2.Sir Thomas de Grey b. bef 1323 d. prior to 22 Oct 1369
+ Margaret Pressene
3.Sir Thomas de Grey b. abt 1359 (10 years in 1369), d.1400
3.Jane de Grey
3.Elizabeth de Grey
+ Philip, Lord Darcy of Knaith
3.Agnes de Grey
2. NN de Grey
3.William de Grey d.s.p. bef 1362
2. Isabel de Grey
+ William Lord Heron d.1379
3.Sir Roger Heron
+Margaret Hastings
3.Thomas Heron
3.William Heron
3.Robert Heron
3.Andrew Heron
3.Elizabeth Heron
2.Margaret de Grey d.1378 married abt. 1325
+ John de Eure d.1363
3.Ralph de Eure
4.Ralph de Eure
4.Margaret de Eure
2. ? de Grey d. bef 1362 married before 1325
+ Sir Gerard de Salvayn b. abt 1308 d.1370 of North Duffield and
Herswell, Yorks.
3.John de Salvayn
2.? de Grey d.bef 1362
+ Sir William de Felton d.1358
3.Sir William de Felton b.c.1328
The manor of Hundburton, Yorks., to which the Grey sisters were heirs, was
held in chief by the Mowbray family as is documented in the IPM of Roger de
Mowbray in 1300 [CIPM v.3, no.472]. Roger's tenant is named as John Pecche
who held three carucates assessed at a quarter of a knight's fee. In 1296 an
inquisition into the lands of Philip le Lou and Margery his wife, held in
chief from the king, stated that William de Arderne held the land in
Hundburton of Roger de Mowbray. His heir was his brother Richard, an idiot,
who had died, and so the king released the land jointly to Philip le Lou and
Margery his wife, John Pecche, and John le Lou and Amicia his wife, who were
the rightful heirs of William and Richard de Arderne. The heirs were
presumably sisters or aunts of William and Richard de Arderne.
"Quidam Willielmus de Arderne terras tenuit in Hundeburton de Rogero de
Moubray, qui tempore mortis dicti Willielmi fuit infra aetatem ; ratione
cujus minoris aetatis Rex seisavit terras dicti Willielmi in manum suam,
quia Ricardus de Arderne frater et haeres ejus aetatis triginta annorum,
nunc defunctus, idiota fuit : et postea liberavit terras illas praefato
Philippo et Margeria uxori ejus, Johanni Pecche, et Johanni Le Lou at
Amiciae uxori ejus, tanquam propinquioribus haeredibus dictorum Willielmi et
Ricardi" [Calendarium Genealogicum v.2, p.544]
In 1313 John Pecche settled by fine the manor of Hundeburton on Philip le
Lou (or Lugh) and Margery and the heirs of Margery to warrant. [M. Roper ed.
'Feet of Fines for the County of York, 1300-1314'. YAS, 1965, p.100]. In the
Nomina Villarum of 9 Edw II, 1315, the holder of Hudbarton (sic) was
recorded as Johannes Paches. Without knowing anything further on the descent
of the manor, it is possible that we are looking at Arderne ancestry for the
Grey sisters. Unfortunately I don't have access to the relevant Feet of
Fines for Yorkshire which might reveal more about how the manor ended up in
the hands of the Grey sisters. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers
Rosie
Chris Phillips
digested anything like all of it, but I did have a comment on one particular
part.
> The entry for William, Lord Heron of Ford, Northumberland d.1379 in
> Complete Peerage, VI p.486, note (i), states that his wife's name was
> Isabel, parentage unknown, "but it appears from De Banco R., 411 m.218,
that
> she was aunt and coheir of William de Grey, dead by 1362. Margaret, wife
of
> Sir John de Eure, was another aunt and coheir and other coheirs were Sir
> John Salvayn and Sir William de Felton. The claimant was Sir Thomas de
Grey
> in respect of the manor of Hundburton, (a hamlet now called Humberton),
near
> Stamford Bridge, Yorks."
...
> Sir William de Felton, mentioned as fourth coheir, can be no other than
the
> son of Sir William Felton of Edlingham, Northumberland who died in 1358.
The
> elder Sir William has an entry in CP V : 294. No wife is attributed to
him,
> but in his will he refers to his wife Isabella who survived him. She
clearly
> was not mother of the younger William, otherwise she would have been named
> as William de Grey's heir, not Sir William de Felton. She and the younger,
> Sir William de Felton, were the executors of the will. [Wills and
> Inventories Illustrative of the History, Manners, Language, Statistics etc
> of the Northern Counties of England from the 11th century Downwards, part
1.
> Surtees Soc., 1835]. CP states that the younger William was aged 30 years
> and more at his father's death i.e. born before 1328.
Douglas Richardson posted a few weeks ago about this Isabella, pointing out
that Sir Thomas Gray's "Scalachronica" identifies her as the daughter of
Duncan, Earl of Fife (often said to have been the wife of Sir William
Ramsay), and referring to a detailed account of the the Feltons in the
"History of Northumberland", vol.7 (1904), pp.116ff, with a chart pedigree
on p.122.
As well as the point you make, that if Isabella had been the mother of the
younger William de Felton, she would have been the coheir rather than he, it
is clear from the Felton records that Sir William de Felton did have a
previous wife, who was the younger William's mother.
This is clear because some of the Felton lands were entailed on the male
heirs. The result was that on the death without issue of the younger
William, his heirs were found to be his full-blood sisters, but there was
also a half-brother, John (identified in an inquisition post mortem as the
son of Isabella), who inherited the entailed lands.
I'm a bit tied up this week, but I'll have a look through my notes to see if
there's any hint of information about the first wife.
On the chronology, Isabella's son John de Felton would appear to have been
born around 1341, but if the "Scalachronica" account is correct, Isabella
would have been married to Sir William several years before that.
Scalachronica says that Isabella "was in England and was to be married to
Robert the Steward of Scotland; but she took for her husband from love
William de Feltoun, a knight of Northumberland, who
had her in ward at the time". This presumably implies she was married before
Robert the Steward (the future Robert II of Scotland), which would place her
marriage before about 1337, when Robert's eldest son seems to ahve been
born.
Chris Phillips
malinda
Northumberland" ?
The Wrights of VA have Feltons in their line via the Disney lineage...
Lucy de Felton (1377- ) married Sir William Disney (1373- ) s/o
Sir William Disney and Mary de Grey (d/o Roger John de Grey of
Ruthyn & Elizabeth de Hastings)
~malinda
leo van de pas
I am trying to digest all this wonderful information and I stumbled across a
question.
Sir Thomas de Grey, died porior to 12 March 1343/4
father of
NN de Grey, who married Sir Gerard de Salvayn, of North Duffield and
Herswell, he was born about 1308 and died 1370
parents of
John de Salvayn
Gerald Paget gives us as ancestors of Prince Charles
Sir Gerard Salvain, of North Duffield
father of
Muriel Salvain, she died 1441/2
married Gerard Sothill, of Redbourne
Is John de Salvayn perhaps the father of Sir Gerard Salvain?
With many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Rosie Bevan
I am going by the pedigree of Salvain in Robert Surtees, 'History and
Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham', v.4 p.117.which shows that
what you suggest is correct.
Sir Gerald, son and heir of John Salvayn (who died v.p.), was found to be
heir of his grandfather in 47 Edw III (1373). He was aged 16 at that time.
Presumably this information is taken from an IPM which I don't have.
If you would like a copy of the pedigree let me know.
Cheers
Rosie
leo van de pas
would like to add a little to her information.
Sir Thomas de Grey, died prior to 12 March 1343/4
so far I have found only two gateway descendants to the USA
Mary Launce 1625-1710, and Major Richard Saltonstall 1610-1694
BUT he is also an ancestor (without bringing the Salvain link into action)
of
HM Queen Elizabeth II
Lady Diana Spencer
Sarah Ferguson
Aga Khan IV
Prince Rainier III of Monaco
King Michael of Roumania
King Albert II of Belgium
Sir Winston Churchill
Henri, Grand Duke of Luxemburg
Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
Cayetana, Duchess of Alba
Best wishes
The...@aol.com
Dear Rosie (and Leo),
I have the Salvain/Salvayn pedigree, which is a composite of:
1. CP [Ros of Wark]
2. Burke's Commoners
3. Rev. Charles Moor's The Knights of Edward I [Harleian
series]
4. The Visitation of Yorkshire [Harleian series:
pedigree of Soothill of Soothill]
From Burke's, I have the wife of Sir Gerard Salvain (d.ca. 1370) and
mother of John as Agnes [aka Anne] Mauleverer.
Would you post the pedigree from Surtees, when you have the chance?
Leo, the Salvain family is ancestral to the emigrant William Farrar;
might I ask, what the connection is to the Salvains that provides a descent
to Prince Charles?
Thanks,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Don Stone
> I think Rosie Bevan's contribution is one of the best for a long time. I
> would like to add a little to her information.
>
> Sir Thomas de Grey, died prior to 12 March 1343/4
> so far I have found only two gateway descendants to the USA
>
> Mary Launce 1625-1710, and Major Richard Saltonstall 1610-1694
Sir Thomas Gray, d. 1369, the _Scala Cronica_ author, is the son of the above Sir
Thomas and is the father of the Sir Thomas who married Jane Mowbray, Gray lineage,
generation 10 in PA2. American immigrants descended from this latter couple are
(according to Faris) Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, William Bladen, John
Fenwick, Philip & Thomas Nelson, George Reade, and Olive Welby.
-- Don Stone
Chris Phillips
on the Grey heiresses, and I'm finding a couple of points about their
suggested placement in the Grey family of Heton a bit puzzling.
According to Rosie's reconstruction, which has the four daughters and a son
(the father of William de Grey, d. before 1362, whose heirs the four
daughters or their representatives were) being children of Sir Thomas de
Grey who d.1343/4.
(1) Complete Peerage (vol.6, p.136, footnote) shows a male line of descent
from Sir Thomas de Grey to the Greys of Powys, passing through Sir Thomas's
son, Thomas II, to his grandson Thomas III, born c.1359. On the other hand
we apparently have Thomas II's sisters marrying/having children in the
1320s.
(2) On this reconstruction, for the aunts to be heirs of their nephew
William, presumably William's father and the aunts would have to be children
by a subsequent wife of Thomas I after Agnes, the mother of Thomas II - as
that would explain the exclusion of William's uncle Thomas II as a
half-blood relative. But that would make the aunts definitely younger than
Thomas II. I think this makes the chronological problem in (1) very
difficult (maybe it could have been explained if Thomas II had been much
_younger_ than his four sisters).
It sounds as though the identification hinges on the identification of
Thomas II as the brother-in-law of John de Eure, from a document dated
"between 1343 and 1354". I wonder if it's possible that the Thomas mentioned
is really Thomas I, immediately before his death? I don't know whether that
would fit the rest of the facts, but the chronology would be a lot more
natural, with Thomas II and his first cousins being born in the 1320s.
As far as I can see this would mean Thomas I was the son of another Thomas,
not of Sir Robert as tentatively suggested, and this new "Thomas 0" would
still have to have been married twice to leave the four daughters as
coheirs.
Perhaps I'm completely off-track and there's other evidence that makes this
clearly wrong. But I do think the chronology is very difficult if Thomas II
is brother of the four sisters.
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan
Thank you for your reply and the considerable thought you have put into your
comments. I have added a few of mine to yours below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: The Grey sisters of Heton
> I've been looking a little more at Rosie Bevan's long and interesting post
> on the Grey heiresses, and I'm finding a couple of points about their
> suggested placement in the Grey family of Heton a bit puzzling.
>
> According to Rosie's reconstruction, which has the four daughters and a
son
> (the father of William de Grey, d. before 1362, whose heirs the four
> daughters or their representatives were) being children of Sir Thomas de
> Grey who d.1343/4.
>
> (1) Complete Peerage (vol.6, p.136, footnote) shows a male line of descent
> from Sir Thomas de Grey to the Greys of Powys, passing through Sir
Thomas's
> son, Thomas II, to his grandson Thomas III, born c.1359. On the other hand
> we apparently have Thomas II's sisters marrying/having children in the
> 1320s.
I will try to see if it is possible to pin down the dates more specifically.
NN, wife of Sir Gerard Salvayn was married by 1325 at the time of the
petition. Her husband was 17 at the time and I would guess she was 12-15
herself. This puts her birth between 1311-1313.
MARGARET was married after March 1326 to Sir John Eure. When the marriage
took place in unknown. She died in 1378. At a guess she has already reached
12 years old in 1326 and was born about 1314
NN who married Sir William de Felton gave birth to William about 1328. She
would have been born around 1306-12
ISABEL, I suspect, was the youngest as Thomas de Grey in 1325 mentions that
the king promised to help him marry his daughters (note the plural), and as
the Felton and Salvayn daughter were taken care of by then, this leaves
Isabel. (There is the possibility that other daughters were born who did not
leave issue). However, her husband died in 1379 which is late and she was
still alive in 1363. Assuming she is the youngest daughter, I would say she
was born about 1316.
THOMAS II de Grey succeeded to his father's estates in 1344. If he had
seisin of those estates immediately, as he appears to have done, he was of
age and born at least by 1323. He certainly fought at the battle of Nevill's
Cross in 1346. This means that when his son and heir was born, Thomas was at
least 36 and more likely in his forties. We don't know why his son and heir
was born relatively late in his life - a conjectural explanation for this
could be that he had a first marriage which was childless, and remarried
after his first wife's death. He died in 1369. Two of the sisters were known
to have died young, one was possibly still alive (still alive in 1363), and
one survived him until 1378.
As the smallest identifiable age gap is only 7 years, My conclusion is that
Thomas de Grey II and the four sisters were contemporaries.
Moreover, Agnes and Thomas de Grey, the reputed parents of Thomas de Grey II
are mentioned as early as 1312 when the Bishop Kellawe of Durham put them in
possession of the manor of Heton.
One of the factors which troubles me about this case is the identification
of the people mentioned in Margaret de Eure's will. Unfortunately we
generally know next to nothing about the female and younger male siblings in
generations at this time. Could there have been another prominent Grey
family in Northumberland in the early 1300's?
> (2) On this reconstruction, for the aunts to be heirs of their nephew
> William, presumably William's father and the aunts would have to be
children
> by a subsequent wife of Thomas I after Agnes, the mother of Thomas II - as
> that would explain the exclusion of William's uncle Thomas II as a
> half-blood relative. But that would make the aunts definitely younger than
> Thomas II. I think this makes the chronological problem in (1) very
> difficult (maybe it could have been explained if Thomas II had been much
> _younger_ than his four sisters).
>
> It sounds as though the identification hinges on the identification of
> Thomas II as the brother-in-law of John de Eure, from a document dated
> "between 1343 and 1354". I wonder if it's possible that the Thomas
mentioned
> is really Thomas I, immediately before his death? I don't know whether
that
> would fit the rest of the facts, but the chronology would be a lot more
> natural, with Thomas II and his first cousins being born in the 1320s.
To look more deeply into the litigation in which Sir John de Eure was
involved concerning the manor of Callerton Darreyns, he had joint custody of
the 9 year old heir of Sir Robert Darreyns who died on 3 April 1344 with Sir
Thomas de Grey. This date would identify Thomas as Thomas II because Thomas
I died prior to 12 March 1344. John de Eure initiated the litigation to
reclaim the manor under terms of a mortgage which Sir Robert Darreyns father
had made to the father of Sir John de Eure. This was finally won by Eure in
1359. [C.M.Fraser ed., 'Ancient petitions relating to Northumberland'.
Surtees Society Publication no. 176. 1966. p.42].
Thomas de Grey clearly thought he had rights to the manor of Hundburton
himself, which, if it came from a maternal source, would indicate that they
shared the same maternity. That is why I am very keen to establish if there
were further fines relating to the manor after the one in 1313. It would
also be very good to see the text of De Banco R., 411 m.218. which outlines
the original case.
> As far as I can see this would mean Thomas I was the son of another
Thomas,
> not of Sir Robert as tentatively suggested, and this new "Thomas 0" would
> still have to have been married twice to leave the four daughters as
> coheirs.
>
> Perhaps I'm completely off-track and there's other evidence that makes
this
> clearly wrong. But I do think the chronology is very difficult if Thomas
II
> is brother of the four sisters.
These are certainly possible scenarios, and had occurred to me while
grappling with the evidence. We have to consider everything to arrive at the
truth. Many thanks again for taking the time for the analysis, especially as
I know you are busy with other matters right now.
Cheers
Rosie
Rick Eaton
Unfortunately, I have not seen Rosie's original posting, but
I was caught by the name, Heton. It was the Rev. R.W. Eyton,
I believe, in his "Antiquities of Shropshire...," who
referred to Heton as a "vulgar pronunciation" of Eyton
(Eaton) and all of its permutations.
Vulgar, by his Victorian definition, was meant to describe
an "untutored" way of saying and spelling the name.
I am guessing that this comment is not only small, but
completely off point, However, I thought it might be
valuable to someone researching that family (Heton, which --
with the Greys/Grays, is also Hetton). You will find, if you
look hard enough, a direct connection between the Powys
princes and the Eytons (a.k.a. de Eytons) of Shropshire,
Cheshire, Denbighshire and, I think, but cannot yet prove,
Montgomeryshire. Also the Eatons of Kent and Etons and
Eatons of Cheshire (nee Pulford and later, Grosvenor).
Possibly Eaton of Buckinghamshire. It is interesting that
there is a place name, Eaton Grey, in Warwickshire, where
some of the Shropshire Eytons ended up.
The point is, and I could offer many more "connections"
(such as Neville, Brereton, etc.) to support the guess that
this is, as a British friends says, "one big mafia." But a
look at the pedigrees at this web site will probably be more
productive:
http://dav4is.8m.com/Families/GRAY.htm
Rick Eaton
Voice: 203.453.6261 Fax:203.453.0076
----------
>From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: The Grey sisters of Heton
>Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2002, 10:19 AM
>
> I've been looking a little more at Rosie Bevan's long and
> interesting post
> on the Grey heiresses, and I'm finding a couple of points about
> their
> suggested placement in the Grey family of Heton a bit puzzling.
>
> According to Rosie's reconstruction, which has the four daughters
> and a son
> (the father of William de Grey, d. before 1362, whose heirs the
> four
> daughters or their representatives were) being children of Sir
> Thomas de
> Grey who d.1343/4.
>
> (1) Complete Peerage (vol.6, p.136, footnote) shows a male line of
> descent
> from Sir Thomas de Grey to the Greys of Powys, passing through Sir
> Thomas's
> son, Thomas II, to his grandson Thomas III, born c.1359. On the
> other hand
> we apparently have Thomas II's sisters marrying/having children in
> the
> 1320s.
>
> As far as I can see this would mean Thomas I was the son of
another
> Thomas,
> not of Sir Robert as tentatively suggested, and this new "Thomas
0"
> would
> still have to have been married twice to leave the four daughters
> as
> coheirs.
>
> Perhaps I'm completely off-track and there's other evidence that
> makes this
> clearly wrong. But I do think the chronology is very difficult if
> Thomas II
> is brother of the four sisters.
>
> Chris Phillips
>
>
>
Rosie Bevan
Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I think there is a statue of a Lord Grey in the town
square in Newcastle.
Incidentally, Newcastle is where Lady Margaret de Eure wrote her will and
requested to buried in a church there.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Eaton" <eaton...@cshore.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
MWelch8442
First I would like to say I had my doubts about Rosie's find but now I have to
agree with her.
In 1411/12 there was a Papal Dispensation for Elizabeth Ogle and William Heron
of Ford Northumberland this is how they were cousins to save space will list
only the relavant parent.
Elizabeth Ogle = William Heron
Maud Gray William Heron
Thomas Gray III Roger Heron
Thomas Gray II Isabel Gray
Thomas Gray I Thomas Gray I
Elizabeth and William Heron said they were related in the 4th degree. If this
holds and I think it will great job Rosie and nice find. That so many
overlooked before
Sincerely yours and Best Wishes
Michael Welch
Rosie Bevan
Thank you very much for contributing this information. It is certainly very
good corroborative evidence. Would you mind citing the source for it?
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "MWelch8442" <mwelc...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: The Grey sisters of Heton
Chris Phillips
for the dispensation evidence.
I see that dispensation is referred to in the Complete Peerage article on
Heron (vol. 6, p.488). If the descent given by Michael Welch is the one that
explains the consanguinity, my suggestion of the "coheirs" being sisters of
Thomas I, not Thomas II, has to be discarded, as it would leave the parties
outside the prohibited degrees, as far as I can see. (I suppose we can't
rule out the possibility that the consanguinity could come through a
different route - CP leaves a fair amount of the ancestry "unknown".)
One question - I wasn't quite clear from the original post whether Sir John
de Eure and Sir Thomas de Grey (II) are explicitly called brothers-in-law in
the records from the 1340s, or whether that was interpretation?
The chronological problem doesn't seem insurmountable, but I'm puzzled by
how the 4 sisters could be coheirs of William, to the exclusion of Sir
Thomas II, if the sisters were older than Sir Thomas. I wonder whether this
could be a case where the description of the 4 sisters as coheirs could be
interpretation on the part of CP that goes beyond the record (like the
interpretation of two VCH volumes that Margery Clifford and her two
daughters were coheirs?). Perhaps they were just successors of William de
Grey rather than heirs in the strict sense?
Chris Phillips
MWelch8442
that Thomas had two marriages. Also looking at my notes of Elizabeth/Anne Ogle
and William Heron there is no line that would match the degree that would
require a dispensation. Hope this helps
Sincerely yours
Michael Welch
Rosie Bevan
Following Mike's helpful input, I pulled out the text of the abstract of the
dispensation today to see if there was anything which might push us along a
bit, but sadly, no. Here it is.
"1411-12, Jan 13. Dispensation for William Heron and Elizabeth, daughter of
Robert Ogle, knt, to marry. Related in the 4th degree."
[Testamenta Eboracensia : a selection of wills from the Registry at York"
v.3. Surtees Society, 1865.p.321]
Like Chris, I'm a little uneasy about accepting a dispensation as absolute
'proof' of a connection, but think this is a step in the right direction.
I don't believe that Thomas II was necessarily younger than the sisters - we
can prove from dates that he was at least a close contemporary.
Unfortunately, not having the date of his birth, or a record of a former
marriage, and an heir born late in life, tends to obscure his exact age. We
have seen that Thomas I and Agnes were already married at the time that they
were given seisin of the manor of Heton in 1312 and, assuming it is the same
Agnes, she is recorded as still alive in 1322. So I think it is not against
the odds that Thomas II was born during this timeframe.
The interpretation that John de Eure and Thomas de Grey were
brothers-in-law, was that of the editor of 'Ancient petitions relating to
Northumberland' whose name is C.M Fraser. It is not clear how he made this
assumption.
Further evidence may come from the CPR 1324-27, p.254 which is the record of
the grant of wardship of John de Eure to Thomas de Grey I. Unfortunately I
don't have access to this so if anyone does, a lookup would be very helpful.
I agree that the succession of the manor of Hundburton as described in CP is
something of a puzzle. Usually a habendum clause of a settlement, would
contain successive remainders, not simultaneous ones. Perhaps, as Chris
says, this is what the author actually meant when he was describing the
fine.
Incidentally, if descent of Heton was via Juliana de Grey, and not her
husband, then there is a good chance that Thomas de Grey was either her son
or grandson, as he claimed the manor by hereditary right - " Et puys parmy
luy et hors de sa seisine sire Thomas de Grey les est entree et les issues
emprent, en priudice du dit nostre seigneur le Roy : car il cleime droit en
meismes les tenementz par descente deritage." Petition by "Robert de
Wodehouse, lately escheator north of the Trent, for a resolution of the
problem caused by the forfeiture by John de Grey of lands at Heton within
the franchise of Norham and their subsequent resumption from the grantee
following the Ordinances of 1311." [C.M.Fraser ed., 'Ancient petitions
relating to Northumberland'. Surtees Society Publication no. 176. 1966.
p.24] As mentioned previously, John de Grey was son and heir of Juliana.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: The Grey sisters of Heton
MWelch8442
cousin
1.Elzabeth Heron b.1422 m.11 Jul 1438 to her Cousin Sir John Heron slain at
Towton
2.William Heron
3.Elizabeth Ogle
4.William Heron
5.Isabel Scot
6.Sir Robert Ogle
7.Maud Gray/Grey
8.Roger Heron
9.Margaret Hastings
10.Richard Scot
12.Robert Ogle
13.Joan Heton
14.Thomas Gray/Grey
15.Joan Mowbray
16.William Heron
17.Isabel Grey/Gray identify by Rosie Bevan
18.Ralph de Hastings
19.Isabel de Sadington
20.Richard Scot
24.Robert Ogle
25.Elena Bertram
26.Alan de Heton
27.Constance Lilburn
28.Thomas de Gray/Grey
29.Margaret Pressen
30.John de Mowbray
31.Elizabeth de Segrave
32.Roger Heron
33.Elizabeth de Swinburne
34.Thomas de Gray/Grey
35.Agnes
36.Sir Ralph Hastings
37.Margaret Herle
38.Robert de Sadington
40.John Scot
48.Sir Robert Ogle
49.Joan Hepple
50.Sir Robert Bertram
51.Margaret Felton
52.Sir Thomas Heton
53.Agnes
54.Sir John Lilburn
55.Constance
56.Same as #34
57.Same as #35
58.William Pressen
60.John Mowbray
61.Joan of Lancaster
62.John de Segrave
63.Margaret of Brotherton Duchess of Norfolk
Sources:
Complete Peerage's Vol.VI pages 486-488
for the Heron family.
Clay152-153 and if I remember right which is corrected by the Surtees Society
of Durham Publications which states disp. 13 Jan 1411/12 which permits
Elizabeth dau of Robert Ogle to marry her cousin William Heron.
Gerald Paget with a pedigree chart which shows the line back to the early
Heron's of Ford.
Visitation of the North 1480
Ogles of Bothal by Sir Henry Ogle
Sincerely Yours
Michael Welch
D. Spencer Hines
It's not a Table or Chart.
It's an _Ahnenreihe_ or an _Ahnenlist_. <g>
Deus Vult.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"MWelch8442" <mwelc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020503172832...@mb-mq.aol.com...
MWelch8442
Sincerely Yours
Michael Welch
U...@aol.com
leov...@bigpond.com writes:
> I think Rosie Bevan's contribution is one of the best for a long time. I
> would like to add a little to her information.
>
> Sir Thomas de Grey, died prior to 12 March 1343/4
> so far I have found only two gateway descendants to the USA
>
> Mary Launce 1625-1710, and Major Richard Saltonstall 1610-1694
>
>
Direct Descendants of Thomas de Grey
1 Thomas de Grey b: in Of Heton and Islandshire d: Abt. 12 March
1343/44
.... +Agnes
2 Thomas Gray b: in of Heton, NTH, ENG d: Abt. 22 October 1369
.... +Margaret de Pressene
3 Elizabeth Gray d: 11 August 1412
.... +Philip Darcy b: 21 May 1352 in House of Friars Preachers, York
d: 24 April 1399 Burial: Priory of Heynings, LIN, ENG
4 John Darcy b: Abt. 1376 d: 09 December 1411
.... +Margaret Grey m: Bef. 1397 d: 01 June 1454
5 John Darcy b: Abt. 1400 d: 1458
.... +Joan Greystoke m: Bef. 1424 d: Aft. 1472
6 Richard Darcy b: Abt. 1424 d: Bef. 1458
.... +Eleanor Le Scrope m: Bef. 1443
7 William Darcy b: 1443 d: 30 May 1488
.... +Eupheme Langton m: Bef. 1467
8 Thomas Darcy b: Abt. 1467 d: 30 June 1537 in Tower Hill,
London, ENG Burial: St. Botolph's, Aldgate, ENG
.... +Dowsabel Tempest m: Bef. 1505
9 Arthur Darcy, Hon. b: Abt. 1505 d: 03 April 1561 Burial:
St. Botolph's, Aldgate, ENG
.... +Mary Carew
10 Edward Darcy b: Abt. 1543 d: 28 October 1612 Burial:
St. Botolph's, Aldgate, ENG
.... +Elizabeth Astley
11 Isabel Darcy d: 1669 in London, ENG
.... +John Launce b: Abt. 1597 in of Penneare in St. Clement's,
Cornwall m: Abt. 1619
12 Mary Launce b: Bef. 1625 in ENG d: 19 November 1710 in
Watertown, MA
Direct Descendants of Thomas de Grey
1 Thomas de Grey b: in Of Heton and Islandshire d: Abt. 12 March
1343/44
.... +Agnes
2 Thomas Gray b: in of Heton, NTH, ENG d: Abt. 22 October 1369
.... +Margaret de Pressene
3 Elizabeth Gray d: 11 August 1412
.... +Philip Darcy b: 21 May 1352 in House of Friars Preachers, York
d: 24 April 1399 Burial: Priory of Heynings, LIN, ENG
4 John Darcy b: Abt. 1376 d: 09 December 1411
.... +Margaret Grey m: Bef. 1397 d: 01 June 1454
5 Phillip Darcy b: Abt. 1398 d: Bef. 01 September 1418
.... +Eleanor FitzHugh m: Bef. 28 October 1412 d: 30 September
1457 in Newington, MDX, ENG
6 Margery Darcy b: 01 September 1418 in Ravensworth d: Bet. 20
March 1468/69 - 20 April 1469
.... +John Conyers, Sir b: in of Hornby, North Riding, YKS, ENG m:
Bef. 20 November 1431 d: 14 March 1489/90 Burial: Hornby, North Riding,
YKS, ENG
7 Alianor Conyers d: 05 June 1493 Burial: North transept of
Ripon Cathedral, West Riding, YKS, ENG
.... +Thomas Markenfield d: Bef. 20 June 1497 Burial: North
transept of Ripon Cathedral, West Riding, YKS, ENG
8 Ninian Markenfield b: in Of Markenfield Hall, Ripon, YKS, ENG
d: 25 March 1528
.... +Dorothy Gascoigne d: 04 March 1485/86
9 Alice Markenfield d: Bet. 04 - 07 March 1552/53
.... +Robert Mauleverer m: Abt. 01 December 1524 d: 1541
Burial: 31 January 1540/41 Bardsay
10 Dorothy Mauleverer b: Abt. 1528
.... +John Kaye b: Abt. 1528 in of Woodsome, YKS, ENG m: 21 January
1542/43 in Bardsay d: Aft. 1585
11 Robert Kaye b: in of Woodsome, YKS, ENG d: Aft. 1612
.... +Anne Flower
12 Grace Kaye Burial: 27 June 1625 Wragby, LIN, ENG
.... +Richard Saltonstall, Sir b: Bef. 04 April 1586 in Halifax,
YKS, ENG m: 28 November 1609 in Almondbury, YKS, ENG d: Abt. 25 October
1661 in Crayford, KEN, ENG
13 Richard Saltonstall, Maj. b: Bef. 01 October 1610 in
Almondbury, YKS, ENG d: 29 April 1694 in Hulme, ENG
Always optimistic--Dave
Chris Phillips
> Further evidence may come from the CPR 1324-27, p.254 which is the record
of
> the grant of wardship of John de Eure to Thomas de Grey I. Unfortunately I
> don't have access to this so if anyone does, a lookup would be very
helpful.
Two grants to Thomas de Grey are noted on this page, both dated 25 March
1326 at Kenilworth:
(1) To Thomas de Grey for life, of "all the lands in Houwyk late of William
de Benley, forfeited to the king by reason of the adherence of the said
William to the Scots."
(2) To the said Thomas of "the custody during the minority of the heir of
the lands late of John de Evre, tenant in chief, with the marriage of the
heir. By K.
Mandate to Simon de Grymesby, escheator in the counties of York,
Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmoreland, to deliver the said lands to
him."
I also had a browse through some of the other published public records
around the time of the dispute in 1362 for a mention of the William de Grey
said to have died by then leaving as heirs his four aunts.
The only possibly relevant reference I came across was this:
1358 August 1 Westminster
Commitment to William son of Thomas Gray of the keeping of certain lands in
Estherle*, co Northumberland, which have been taken into the king's hand for
certain causes by William de Nessefeld, escheator in the said county ...
[Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1356-68, p.74]
*Indexed as Little Harle, in Kirkwhelpington.
Whether this is the right William or not, I think it does suggest a possible
solution that is a minor modification of the one proposed by Rosie Bevan.
Rosie suggested that William was the son of a younger brother of Thomas de
Grey (d.1369). In this case William's aunts, rather than Thomas, could have
been his coheirs if they and William's father had one mother, and Thomas had
another. The difficulty was that the chronology suggested the aunts were
probably older than Thomas, so that they would be the issue of the first
marriage. But this would make their full brother, William's father, older
than Thomas - however, it was Thomas who succeeded his father.
The alternative possibility is that William was actually a son, not a
nephew, of Thomas (d.1369). I think I'm right in saying that in medieval
English law, a father could not be the heir of a son who predeceased him. So
if William died without any full-blood siblings, legally his aunts could be
his coheirs (odd though it seems in modern eyes). (Any comments from legal
experts will be welcomed!)
We know that Thomas (d.1369) was succeeded by a son Thomas, apparently born
about 1358. On this theory, William and Thomas (b.c.1358) would be
half-brothers, William being much older.
A volume of Northumberland feet of fines for the early 14th century has been
published, but unfortunately wasn't on the shelf when I looked.
However, I did find a couple more Yorkshire fines concerning Humberton,
which may contain some clues about how it came to the Greys, although I
can't see how it works:
(1) York. Quindene of Easter, 10 Edw. III, 1336
Richard de Aldeburgh and Joan his wife and Richard, son of the said Richard,
quer., Humfrey de Aldeburgh, parson of the church of Aberford, def., of the
manor of HUNDBURTON [Humberton]: to hold to Richard [the elder] and Joan and
Richard [the younger] and the heirs of the body of Richard [the younger]:
remainders in succession to William, Anthony, and Humfrey, sons of Richard
[the elder]: remainder to the right heirs of Richard [the elder].
[Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series 42 (1910), p.100]
(2) Westminster. Three weeks of Easter, 16 Edw. III, 1342
Richard de Aldeburgh, chivaler, quer., William de Slyngesby & Joan h.w.,
def., of 4 messuages, 8 tofts, 3 carucates of land, & 10 acres of meadow, in
HUNDEBURTON & MILDEBY [Milby]: to hold to Richard and his heirs; he gave 100
marks. Quitclaim by the deforciants for themselves and the heirs of Joan.
[Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series 42 (1910), p.155]
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan
Thank you very much for the trouble you have gone to in finding these
records. You have found some interesting items.
I take it that you are suggesting that William was son and heir of Thomas
II, but predeceased him, and that it was the birth of Thomas' II's second
son and heir which precipitated the action in claiming Estherle (which I
take to mean East Herle or Harle Parva ) on his younger son's behalf, as he
was now the rightful heir toWilliam, not Thomas II's four aunts. That would
not only be a neat solution to the problem of the precise relationships, but
give a more precise date for the birth of Thomas III. It would also indicate
that Thomas II had contracted a previous marriage and was indeed a
contemporary of his sisters. If William had been holding property in 1358,
he would have been of age and therefore born before 1337. This would make
Thomas II born about the same time as his sisters.
I have had a look to see if there is any mention of Herle/Harle in any other
records. John Rydall in 36 Hen III (1251) was given free warren in his lands
in Denton, Harle and Nenham, Northumberland and in 3 Edw II (1310)Robert
fitz Roger (de Clavering) was holding Denton, and lands in Herle, Kirkherle,
and Chevernale in Harle. In 18 Edw II (1324) Robert de Umfraville and Lucy
his wife was holding Herle Parva manor, and Westherle. However, nothing can
be assumed from these per se. If anyone has access to the History of
Northumberland, a look up on Harle to see if there are any references to
Thomas Grey, would be much appreciated.
There doesn't appear to be an immediate link to the Greys in the Hundburton
fines. This may require more probing.
Thanks again, Chris, for your valuable input.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: The Grey sisters of Heton
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> I take it that you are suggesting that William was son and heir of Thomas
> II, but predeceased him, and that it was the birth of Thomas' II's second
> son and heir which precipitated the action in claiming Estherle (which I
> take to mean East Herle or Harle Parva ) on his younger son's behalf, as
he
> was now the rightful heir toWilliam, not Thomas II's four aunts. That
would
> not only be a neat solution to the problem of the precise relationships,
but
> give a more precise date for the birth of Thomas III. It would also
indicate
> that Thomas II had contracted a previous marriage and was indeed a
> contemporary of his sisters. If William had been holding property in 1358,
> he would have been of age and therefore born before 1337. This would make
> Thomas II born about the same time as his sisters.
Yes, essentially, but I hadn't got as far as a theory whether the claim was
on behalf of Thomas II's son, or Thomas II himself. I'd imagine that in
either case, the aunts could have made a claim as the legal heirs, in
preference to Thomas II as father of William, and to Thomas III, either as a
half brother, or as an unborn full brother (perhaps less likely to have been
a full brother, chronologically). And in either case, depending on the
history of the lands in question, Thomas II would have been equally unhappy
with the state of affairs.
From what the Complete Peerage says, it looks as though the dispute between
Thomas and William's aunts was over the manor of Humberton, not Harle. But
if we could find out something more about the later history of Harle, it
might indicate whether this William son of Thomas is that same that was dead
by 1362.
Chris Phillips