Berkeley of Dursley, co. Glocs. and the Lords Everingham
The...@aol.com
Hello All,
In seeking to find additional information of the family of William
Walerand (or Waleraund) of Longford, co. Wilts. & c. (ancestral to the later
Everinghams of Laxton), I found reference in the CP account of Plugenet to
the Berkeleys of Dursley, co. Glocs. Thanks to the details in this account
provided in this account (see cites below), the connection between Berkeley,
Plugenet, Walerand and Everingham appears as follows:
Roger de Berkeley = ? (first wife -
of Dursley, co. Glocs. I Hawise ?)
I
______________________I_____________
I I
1) Thomas de = Isabel de = 2) Sir William Henry de
Rocheford I Berkeley I Walerand Berkeley
__________I __________I____________ I______
I I I I I
Alice de Robert William Cecily = Robert de V
Rocheford = Walerand Walerand I la Hyde
Alan de d. bef 1281 I
Plugenet __________I____
I I I
I Sir Robert = Alice Joan = Bewes de
V de Everingham I I Knovill
I I
from whom, V V
Lords Plugenet from whom,
Lords Everingham
Based upon the foregoing, I have placed below the descent I have
reconstructed from Roger de Berkeley, tenant of Dursley, Siston, co. Gloucs.
& c. in 1086, to Margaret de Everingham, daughter of Adam, Lord Everingham
and wife of Hugh de Hastings (d. 1369). By this marriage, Margaret de
Everingham is ancestress to a wide-ranging group of descendants (re: which,
see CP under Hastings; also PA 2nd edition, under Elsing).
Should anyone of the list have added details or documentation beyond that
presented, please advise. As always, your comments and criticism are invited.
Good luck, and good hunting to all.
John *
____________________________
1 Roger de Berkeley
----------------------------------------
Death: 1093, St. Peter's, Gloucester (d. a monk)[1],[2]
provost of the manor of Berkeley, co. Gloucs. (from 1068/71) under
Earl William Fitz-Osbern
took the name of de Berkeley from his residence there, and was confirmed
in his office by the King about 1080
Berkeley was farmed by him from the Crown at Domesday Book, 1086
held Dursley, Cubberley, Dodington, &c., co. Gloucs. in chief
'(not improbably) was identical with "Roger," farmer of Barton Regis,
Bristol'[1]
resigned his lands on 17 January 1091 and became a monk of St. Peter's,
Gloucester[1],[2]
Children: Roger (-<1132)
1.1 Roger de Berkeley
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1132[1],[2]
of Dursley, Cubberley, Dodington and Berkeley, co. Gloucs.
Children: Roger (-ca1170)
1.1.1 Roger de Berkeley
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1170[1]
Occ: lord of Dursley
of Dursley, Cubberley, Dodington and Berkeley, co. Gloucs.
lord of Berkeley
dispossessed of lands of Berkeley by Robert fitz Harding[1]
'He was deprived of the Manor of Berkeley, &c., about 1152, apparently
for refusing to recognize the authority of either party [that of Henry
of Anjou or of King Stephen], through he was soon afterwards restored
to the Honour of Dursley' (CP Vol II -Berkeley, p. 124)[1],[2]
Children:
Alice
Robert (-1208)
1.1.1.1 Robert de Berkeley
----------------------------------------
Death: 12 Jan 1208[3]
of Dursley, co. Gloucester
he is held to have been married to Helena, daughter of Robert fitz Harding
(lord of Berkeley) at the same time as his sister was married to Robert's
son Maurice:
'To Robert his son and heir was married, temp. Henry II. at his father's
house at Bristowe, Helena, eldest daughter of the above Robert
Fitzharding. She brought to her husband, amongst others, the Manor of
Dursley in fee, as part of her marriage portion; and for her dower had
assigned her, by her husband's father, the Manor of Siston. '[3]
Spouse: Helena 'filia Roberti'
Father: Robert fitz Harding (-1170)
Mother: Eve (-1170)
Marr: Nov 1153, date of marriage contract[1],[3]
Children: Roger
1.1.1.1.1 Roger de Berkeley
----------------------------------------
of Dursley, co. Gloucs.[1],[3]
' Roger = Hawise, first wife ' (Smyth's Lives, p. 8, and chart)[3]
Spouse: Hawise
Children:
Isabel
Henry de Berkeley, of Dursley, co. Gloucs.
1.1.1.1.1.1a Isabel de Berkeley*
----------------------------------------
her maritagium was the manor of Siston, co. Glocs. and also a rent in
Cubberley (CP Vol X -Plugenet, p. 552 note (a); cites Curia Regis Rolls,
vol. iv, p. 298 and vii, p. 294; Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i, p. 640; and
Cal. Inq.p.m. no. 148 (p. 72))[1]
she m. lstly Thomas de Rocheford,
2ndly Sir William Walerand
her maritagium was brought to her 2nd marriage (see below, under son
William)[1]
Spouse: Sir William Walerand, of Longford, Wilts., and Frampton Cotterell,
co. Glocs.
Marr: bef 1207[1]
Children:
Robert (-<1281)
Sir William
Cecily
Other Spouses Thomas de Rocheford (2nd husband)
1.1.1.1.1.1a.1 Cecily Walerand[1]
----------------------------------------
identified as 'da. of Sir William Walerand, of Longford, Wilts., Siston
and Frampton Cotterell, co. Gloucester, &c.'
(CP Vol. V-Everingham, p. 186)[1]
Spouse: Robert de la Hyde[1]
Children:
Alice (->1326)
Joan
1.1.1.1.1.1a.1.1 Alice de la Hyde[1]
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 1 Apr 1326[1]
coheiress of her mother, as documented in a fine levied ca. 1280 in which
Walter de la Hyde quitclaimed 62 acres of land in Eglinton, co. Hereford
and other property to Robert de Everingham and Alice his wife (CP, Vol V
(Everingham), p. 185-186 note (f), cites Close Roll, 15 Edw. I, m. 3[1])
'In the Inq.p.m. on John Waleraund (Ch., Edw. II, files, 11 12) and in
the Coram Rege Roll, Mich. 3 Edw. II, m. 126, Alice de Everingham occurs
as da. and coh. of Cecily, a da. of William Waleraund.'
(CP Vol. V-Everingham, p. 185, note (f))[1]
had lands in La Hide and Wodemanton, co. Hereford as her maritagium (granted
to Sir Walter de Helyun for 300 marks, 18 Oct 1279)[4]
she had a grant from her uncle.of a moiety of the manor of Garthorp, co.
Leicester:
'By his charter Robert Walerand granted to Alice de la Hyde the reversion
of one-third of the manor of Garthorp, co. Leicester, expectant on the
death of Denise, wife of William Gaugy, who held the same in dower.
(Ch. Misc. Inq., file 66, no. 14).' (CP, vol. V, p. 186 note (f) -
continued from p. 185)[1]
had dower assigned 11 Sept 1287, including Everingham, Fairburn, Shirburn
and Kipling Cotes, and lands at Beverley and Etton, co. Yorks., as well
as stewardship of Sherwood Forest[4]
Spouse: Sir Robert de Everingham, of Laxton, co. Notts. & c.
Birth: bef 9 Feb 1256[1]
Death: bef 21 Jul 1287[1]
Father: Sir Adam de Everingham (-1280)
Mother: NN
Marr: ca 1271[1]
Children:
Sir Adam (1279-<1341)
Robert (-1316)
Thomas (->1312)
1.1.1.1.1.1a.1.1.1a Sir Adam de Everingham*
----------------------------------------
Birth: 29 Aug 1279, Sherburn, co. York[1]
Death: bef 8 May 1341[1]
Occ: Lord Everingham
knight, of Laxton, Notts., Everingham, Kipling Cotes and Sherburn, co.
York, and Westborough, co. Lincoln[1]
known as Adam de Everingham of Laxton [to distinguish from cousin Adam of
Birkin, an adherent of the Earl of Lancaster in 1322[1] ]
knighted by the Prince of Wales at Westminster, 22 May 1306; summoned to
Parliament from 4 May 1308/09 to 16 Oct 1315 by writs directed 'Ade de
Everingham', held thereby to have become Lord Everingham
Spouse: Clarice (possibly La Warre ?)[1],[5],[6] - first wife
Death: aft 25 Aug 1321[1]
Father: (conjectured) Sir Roger la Warre (-1320)
Mother: (conjectured) Clarice de Tregoz (-<1300)
Marr: bef 12 Jan 1307[1]
Children:
Adam (ca1307-1387)
John
William
Sibyl
Other Spouses Margaret
1.1.1.1.1.1a.1.1.1a.1 Adam de Everingham[7]
----------------------------------------
Birth: ca 1307[1]
Death: 8 Feb 1387, Laxton, Notts.[1]
Occ: Lord Everingham
of Laxton, Notts., Everingham, Kipling Cotes and Sherburn, co. York, & c.;
2nd Lord Everingham
fought at Halidon Hill, 19 Jul 1333; the battle of Sluys, 24 Jun 1340;
Tournai, July 1340; had livery of his fathers lands, 13 June 1341.
captured in France before 14 May 1342, ransomed for 200 mks in gold.
Summoned to Parliament from 8 Jan 1370/71 by writ directed 'Ade de
Everyngham de Laxton'[1]
marriage to Joan Deiville prob. part of marriage arrangement between his
father and her mother (see above)
Spouse: Joan Deiville
Death: ca 1378[1]
Father: Sir John Deiville (-ca1325), of Egmanton, co. Notts. & c.
Mother: Margaret (-<1341)
Marr: bef 16 May 1332[7]
Children:
Margaret (->1375)
Sir William (-<1369)
Reginald (->1389)
1.1.1.1.1.1a.1.1.1a.1.1 Margaret de Everingham[7]
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 25 Nov 1375[1]
identification indicated in epitaph of great-grandson John Lord Hastings,
1477 (see #351 below)[1]
clearly shown as daughter of Adam de Everingham in pedigree of Hastings,
Visitation of Yorkshire (1612)[7]
Spouse: Hugh de Hastings[7], of Elsing and Weasenham, Norfolk
Death: 1369, near Calais (d.v.f.)[1]
Birth: aft 1328[1]
Father: Sir Hugh de Hastings (~1310-1347)
Mother: Margery Foliot (<1313-1349)
Children:
Sir Hugh (-1386), of Gressenhall and Elsing, Norfolk
John
Joan (-<1384), wife of Thomas Morley, Lord Morley
Elizabeth
Margaret, wife of Sir John Wingfield of Letheringham
1.1.1.1.1.1a.1.1.1b Sir Adam de Everingham* (See above)
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Margaret[1] - 2nd wife (widow of John Deiville)
Death: bef 8 May 1341[1]
Marr: 1326[1]
Children:
Robert (<1330-)
Edmund (<1330-)
Alexander (<1330-)
Nicholas
Other Spouses Clarice La Warre (?)
1.1.1.1.1.1b Isabel de Berkeley* (See above)
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Thomas de Rocheford
Children: Alice
Other Spouses Sir William Walerand
1. "The Complete Peerage," G. E. Cokayne, 1910 -
The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the
United Kingdom. Vol. V (Everingham), p. 186; Vol. X (Plugenet), p.
552, note (a)
2. Kevin Miller, "Berkeley - Part 1," Jan 25, 2001, (paper copy: library of
John Ravilious, cites CP Vol II (Berkeley), p. 123 et seq.
3. "Abstracts And Extracts from Smyth's Lives of the Berkeley Family, MS,"
published at http://www.infosources.co.uk/berkl/abstrax1.htm
4. "Knights of Edward I," Rev. Charles Moor, D.D., F.S.A., Pubs. of the
Harleian Society, 1929-1930, 3 Vols. (Vols. 80-83 in series).
5. John P. Ravilious, "A Possible Everingham Solution: Clarice La Warre,"
June 14, 2002, paper copy: library of John P. Ravilious.
6. John P. Ravilious, "A Possible Everingham Solution: Clarice La Warre,
Pt. II," Sept. 1, 2002, paper copy: library of John P. Ravilious.
7. "The Visitation of Yorkshire," Harleian Soc., William Flower, Esquire,
Norroy King of Arms, Harleian Series, Vol. 16, Mitchell and Hughes,
Printers, London, 1881.
____________________________
* John P. Ravilious
Kevan Barton
1. Very interesting. Though Cecily was a Walerand, the relationship to
Isabel de Berkeley has to answer the Plugenet fraud. In CP X:552, sub.a, it
states that the relationship between the Plugenet and Walerands "enabled
Lord Plugenet's son in 1309 to seize from the rightful heirs the estates of
Isabel's last Walerand grandson by her 2nd marriage, on the pretence that
his grandmother Alice was not Alice de Rocheford, but a daughter - and the
only daughter - of the Walerand marriage." We know that Alice was indeed a
Rocheford, but the fraud was based on her being the only daughter of the
Walerand/Berkeley match. Where was our Cecily de Walerand, the proposed
true daughter of the Walerand/Berkeley match, in all this muddle? I'd like
to know the identities of those "rightful heirs" of the last
Walerand/Berkeley grandson that the Plugenet's ripped off.
Perhaps Cecily was from William de Walerand, but by a different wife? Did
Cecily receive any of the property brought into the marriage by Isabel de
Berkeley? You identify her father as "of Siston", maritagium of Isabel, but
can you show that our Cecily benefited? I'd suggest that we still do not
know who Cecily's mom is. The successful grab of the Plugenets on the
Walerand/Berkeley property infers that Cecily and family were not of the
Burke leys. We need to see what lands the Plugenets successfully stole from
the Walerands.
2. I'm intrigued by another entry:
Spouse: Clarice (possibly La Warre ?)[1],[5],[6] - first wife
Death: aft 25 Aug 1321[1]
Father: (conjectured) Sir Roger la Warre (-1320)
Mother: (conjectured) Clarice de Tregoz (-<1300)
Marr: bef 12 Jan 1307[1]
How firm is this conjecture?
Cheers,
Kevan
The...@aol.com
Dear Kevan,
It is an interesting family situation, and I'd be interested to
know as well how (and who) the fraud aspect was discovered and/or
documented.
I have attached to the end of this message the one reference I
find on the web to the 'Plugenet Fraud' (and the subsequent 'de la
Bere' followup). I note there are at least two errors in
describing the situation: the statement that Cecily [whom I call
Walerand] married one 'John de Everingham', an obvious confusion
with her daughter Alice marrying Robert de Everingham; also the
contention that de Rocheford was the third husband, and Walerand
the second, of Isabel de Berkeley. Interestingly, this
version states that Cecily was a daughter of Isabel de Berkeley:
but, with Thomas de Rocheford as her father. If this were true,
A. Cecily was not a Walerand, but rather Cecily de Rocheford.
She then was an aunt (not of the half-blood) of Alan de
Plugenet, and not herself an heir of Robert Walerand or
his nephew.
B. This would make Cecily's daughter Alice a niece (of the
half-blood) of Robert Walerand, which still works with
the relationship - he was generous to her, even if more
so to his nephew (of the half-blood) Alan, later lst Lord
Plugenet.
We have this site (sources yet to be identified) stating that
Cecily was a daughter of Isabel de Berkeley; we also have the
unambiguous statement from CP's sources concerning Cecily,
including the following which I cited before:
' In the Inq.p.m. on John Waleraund (Ch., Edw. II, files
11 12) and in the Coram Rege Roll, Mich. 3 Edw. II, m. 126,
Alice de Everingham occurs as da. and coh. of Cecily, a da.
of William Waleraund.'(CP Vol. V-Everingham, p. 185, note (f))
I think we can safely say the Rocheford paternity claim is
unfounded. If we can perhaps find out what was published
concerning the Plugenet fraud itself, this may set out the evidence
for the existence (and identities) of the 'true heirs' in 1309, of
which it would seem Alice (de la Hyde) de Everingham would have
been one. At the same time, as the Walerand inheritance was at
issue, it would seem the maternity of the issue of Sir William
Walerand (whether by Isabel de Berkeley, or by some other as yet
unknown wife) may not be dealt with in detail.
Finding a death date for Isabel de Berkeley may help resolve the
question. Since we have the generations and the birth dates for
the Everingham line, the chronology supports (but does not prove)
Isabel as the mother of Cecily:
Sir William Walerand m. Isabel de Berkeley, before
Michaelmas 1206 (CP)
I
Cecily Walerand m. Robert de la Hyde
born say 1210-1225 ? I
I
Alice de la Hyde m. Sir Robert de Everingham,
born say 1245-1255 ? I circa 1271 (CP)
I
Sir Adam de Everingham
b. 29 Aug 1279 (CP)
If a subsequent wife of Sir William Walerand were found, that
would need to be explored. The generations indicated make it most
improbable a wife earlier than Isabel de Berkeley would have been
the great-grandmother of Sir Adam de Everingham. If it were found
that Isabel died after, say 1230/1235, that together with the
documents cited by CP would sufficiently prove the descent.
It may be that the holding of Garthorp, co. Leicester will hold
the key (Robert Walerand made a grant to Alice de la Hyde, as I
mentioned in my post, of the reversion of 1/3 of the manor). While
likely a Walerand holding, if a Berkeley connection to Garthorp is
found this would be helpful.
~ Re: the question concerning my conjecture on the 'de la
Warr' front, I will respond to that separately....
Good luck, and good hunting.
John *
_____________________________
NOTE: the following is for 'your' information, and is neither
sourced nor verified by the author of this post.
_____________________________
from 'David Nash Ford's "A'Bear Family History"
http://www.mayfamilyhistory.co.uk/abear/delabere/walerond.html
Greed, Lies & the Walerond Inheritance:
Intrigue in De La Bere Family
During the mid fourteenth century the Royal Commissioners heard an
on-going court case which proves that at least one branch of the De
la Bere family managed to get a foothold into Herefordshire at an
early period. The case concerns the estate of Robert Walerond, Lord
of Kilpeck Castle, and those who claimed to be his heirs.
Robert Walerond died in 1272, seized of vast estates all over the
country centred on Kilpeck in Herefordshire. His lands were
inherited successively by his nephews, Robert and then John, but by
the end of the thirteenth century the two boys were dead, and the
path of the inheritance was unclear.
Robert Senior was the son of Sir William Walerond and Isabel
daughter of Roger De Berkeley. Though the father of his two
nephews, William, was his only full sibling, he did have at least
three half-sisters through his mother. Sybil, the eldest, (wife of
both Hugh De Plugenet and Andrew De la Bere) was daughter of
Isabel's first husband, Josce De Dinan. Alice (wife of both Alan De
Plugenet (grandson of Hugh) and John De Eddeworth) and Cecily (wife
of John De Everingham) were daughters of Isabel's third husband,
Thomas De Rocheford.
At the death of the young John Walerond, his guardian, Alan, Baron
De Plugenet, son of the above mentioned Alan and Alice (De
Rocheford) De Plugenet, not only claimed his rightful inheritance
passed down from his grandmother, but also the Walerond inheritance
of her second husband! This should not have been possible, but
Baron De Plugenet deceived the inheritance courts into believing
that his mother was in fact a daughter of Lady Isabel and Sir
William Walerond, and not of Thomas De Rocheford! Though his son,
Alan, 2nd Baron De Plugenet, was sued (unsuccessfully) for his
fraudulent claims by Richard De la Bere (great grandson of Andrew
and Sybil (De Dinan) De la Bere), the 1st Baron De Plugenet lived a
long and prosperous life at Kilpeck Castle.
The Walerond estates were not to remain forever in De Plugenet
hands, however. The 2nd Baron De Plugenet was the last of the male
line, dying in 1325; and his sister, Joan, wife of Henry De Bohun,
Earl of Hereford, died childless two years later. So Richard De la
Bere evidently decided it was his turn to try a little fraud. After
all, it had worked so well for his cousins.
On the death of the Countess of Hereford in 1327, her lands
reverted to the King; but it wasn't long before Richard came
forward to claim his supposed rights. He asserted, in court, that
he was not descended from Andrew De la Bere and his wife Sybil De
Dinan. Instead he claimed that Andrew's wife had been Alice De
Walerond (alias De Rocheford), and that Alan, 1st Baron De
Plugenet, was a bastard son of Andrew, born while Alice was still
married to Alan De Plugenet Senior! And he got away with it! In
1331, Edward III turned the Walerond lands over to Richard De la
Bere. He took up residence at Kilpeck Castle and lived happily ever
after.
Life, however, was not so jolly for Richard’s son and eventual
heir, Thomas. Twenty-six years later, in 1353, Sybil, the widow of
Alan, 2nd Baron De Plugenet finally died. She had been holding half
of her husband’s estates in dower, so this ought to have been a
happy occasion for the man who was now to inherit all of the
Walerond lands. However, something went wrong. The crown set up an
enquiry into the rights of the De la Bere family over Kilpeck,
Hazelbury Plucknet and the other etsates. Thomas, like his father
insisted that he was the great grandson of a brother “of the whole
blood” of Alan, 1st Baron De Plugenet, and thus entitled to the
inheritance of his ancestor, Sir William Walerond. Although the
exact ruling of the commissioners is unknown, they certainly did
not look favourably on Thomas’s claims, for he never regained his
lands, and Kilpeck Castle was granted to the Countess of Hereford's
step-son.
Thomas then disappears from the records, and nothing else is known
about him or his family. His grandfather, Richard, may well be the
man who retired to the manor of Westcote, near Binstead, in North
Hampshire. He died there in 1333, and his striking effigy,
recording his alias of Richard De Westcote, can still be seen in
the parish church. References to his will, dated 11th November
1332, in the Records of London’s Husting Court show that he owned
land in the Capital. To his daughter, Joan, he left some “houses
lately built by me in Phelipes Lane for life”. It is not even clear
from where this branch of the De la Bere family stem. It is
possible Andrew De la Bere was uncle to Simon De la Bere of
Thornham.
_____________________________
* John P. Ravilious
Kay Allen AG
Cecilia/Cecily who married Peter de Helion and Matilda le Brut or le Bret.
Peds. from Plea Rolls, p.535-6.
Alice de Rocheford married firstly Andrew de la Bere, leaving male issue.
G. Andrews Moriarty, "The Family of de la Bere", _The Genealogists' Magazine_,
10:412 etseq.
Kay Allen AG
pleadings in pedigree form.
There are two Cecilies. One the dtr. of Isabella and Walraund and the
other her dtr.
_Abbreviatio Placitorum_, p. 310 also illustrates this issue through
another suit.
The rightful heirs would have been the issue of Cecily as William and
Robert, as males would have cut Alice's issue out of the running, thus
leaving Cecily's issue still standing, so to speak.
Kay Allen AG
The...@aol.com wrote:
> blood�€* of Alan, 1st Baron De Plugenet, and thus entitled to the
> inheritance of his ancestor, Sir William Walerond. Although the
> exact ruling of the commissioners is unknown, they certainly did
> not look favourably on Thomas’s claims, for he never regained his
> lands, and Kilpeck Castle was granted to the Countess of Hereford's
> step-son.
>
> Thomas then disappears from the records, and nothing else is known
> about him or his family. His grandfather, Richard, may well be the
> man who retired to the manor of Westcote, near Binstead, in North
> Hampshire. He died there in 1333, and his striking effigy,
> recording his alias of Richard De Westcote, can still be seen in
> the parish church. References to his will, dated 11th November
> 1332, in the Records of London’s Husting Court show that he owned
> land in the Capital. To his daughter, Joan, he left some “houses
> lately built by me in Phelipes Lane for life�€*. It is not even clear
Kay Allen AG
teeth that he was the right heir, when he wasn't, legally, even in the running.
K
The...@aol.com
Dear Kay,
Thanks for the two posts of this morning.
I take it your records also show Cecily (the elder) as a
full sister of Robert and William Walerand ? It sounds like
the 'rightful heirs' cut out by Lord Plugenet were in fact
her descendants.
Two individuals I have not yet place:
1. Walter de la Hyde, who quitclaimed the land in
Eglinton, co. Hereford to Alice (de la Hyde) and
her husband Robert de Everingham in 1278/9 -
I had assumed her brother, but evidently not...
2. Walter de 'Heliun' and Alice his wife, with whom
Alice and Robert de Everingham exchanged rights by
a fine in 7 Edw. I (1278/9) in La Hyde and
Wodemanton (CP Vol V, p. 186 note (f) - continued
from p. 185).
Many thanks.
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Kay Allen AG
of Robert who married Cecily the elder.
Walter Helion is father of Peter who married Cecily the yngr.
K
Doug Smith
> John,
>
> The early Berkeley generations are very confusing DD and CP and Smyth do not match (see Chris Phillip's post about DD and CP). I am tring to sort through this and will try to post a reconstruction of the early Berkeleys soon.
Doug
Doug Smith
Well something like this maybe.......
Descendants of
Roger I de BERKELEY Provost of the Manor of Berkeley and Rissa (---)
1. Roger I de1 BERKELEY Provost of the Manor of Berkeley, died 1093,
son of NN de BERKELEY. He married Rissa (---).
Notes for Roger I de BERKELEY Provost of the Manor of Berkeley
DP I: 401.
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
DD 321.
CP I: 118-139.
Roger de Berkeley, reeve of Berkeley. Became a monk of Gloucester in
1091. Large holdings in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. Brother Ralph,
had holdings in Glous., and was under-tenant in Somerset.
Children of Roger I de BERKELEY Provost of the Manor of Berkeley and
Rissa (---) were as follows:
+ 2 i Roger II de2 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley, Gloucestershire.
3 ii Eustace2 de BERKELEY of Nympesfield.
4 iii NN de Berkeley
Generation 2
2. Roger II de2 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley, Gloucestershire (Roger I
de1), died abt 1131. He married Rissa (---).
Notes for Roger II de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley, Gloucestershire
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
Burke, P&B, pps 232-233.
The Peerage, Baronetage, and Knightage of the British Empire, pps
70-71.
DD, 321.
DD calls William his nephew, not his son.
4 NN de Berkeley
Children of NN de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley, Gloucestershire and
Rissa (---) were as follows:
+ 5 i William de3 BERKELEY.
Generation 3
5. William de3 BERKELEY (Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died aft 1141.
He married Racendis? (---).
Notes for William de BERKELEY
DD, 321.
Children of William de BERKELEY and Racendis? (---) were as follows:
+ 5a i Roger III de4 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley.
Generation 4
5a. Roger III de4 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley (William de3, Roger II de2,
Roger I de1), died aft 1177. He married Hawise PAYNEL of Dudley.
Notes for Roger III de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
CP II p 124.
Burke, P&B, pps 232-233.
The Peerage, Baronetage, and Knightage of the British Empire, pps
70-71.
DD, 321.
Children of Roger III de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley and Hawise PAYNEL
of Dudley were as follows:
+ 6 i Alice de5 BERKELEY.
+ 7 ii Roger IV de5 BERKELEY.
+ 8 iii Letitia de5 BERKELEY.
Generation 5
6. Alice de5 BERKELEY (Roger III de4, William de3, Roger II de2, Roger
I de1), died 19 Mar 1170/71. She married abt 1153 Maurice de BERKELEY
Lord Berkeley, born abt 1120; died 18 Jun 1190, son of Robert fitz
HARDING Lord of Berkeley and Eve fitz ESTMOND.
Notes for Maurice de BERKELEY Lord Berkeley
Burke, P&B, pps 232-233.
The Peerage, Baronetage, and Knightage of the British Empire, pps
70-71.
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, p 13.
DD 321.
Children of Alice de BERKELEY and Maurice de BERKELEY Lord Berkeley
were as follows:
9 i Robert de6 BERKELEY Lord Berkeley, born abt 1154; died 13 May
1219 (dsp). He married (1) Juliana de PONT-DE-L'ARCH, died 22 Nov
1217; (2) Lucy (---). Notes: B P & B. Sanders, I. J. , English
Baronies: A Study of their Origin and Descent, Oxford, 1960, p 13. DD,
p 852.
10 ii Richard de6 BERKELEY.
11 iii William de6 BERKELEY.
12 iv Henry de6 BERKELEY.
13 v Maurice de6 BERKELEY. Notes: DD, p 852.
+ 14 vi Maud de6 BERKELEY.
+ 15 vii Thomas "the Observor" de6 BERKELEY Lord Berkeley.
7. Roger IV de5 BERKELEY (Roger III de4, William de3, Roger II de2,
Roger I de1), died 1190. He married (1) Helen fitz ROBERT fitz
Harding, daughter of Robert fitz HARDING Lord of Berkeley and Eve fitz
ESTMOND..
Notes for Roger IV de BERKELEY
B P & B.
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
DD 321.
Children of Roger IV de BERKELEY and Helen fitz ROBERT were as
follows:
+ 16 i Roger V de6 BERKELEY.
8. Letitia de5 BERKELEY (Roger III de4, William de3, Roger II de2,
Roger I de1), born abt 1148. She married Richard de CLIFFORD Lord
Frampton of Severn, born abt 1143 Of Frampton, Gloucestershire,
England; died 1213 in Frampton-on-Severn, Gloucestershire, England,
son of Walter I FitzRichard de CLIFFORD Lord Clifford and Margaret de
TOENI.
Notes for Richard de CLIFFORD Lord Frampton of Severn
The Victoria County History of Gloucester 10:143-144.
Hugh Clifford, The House of Clifford.
Children of Letitia de BERKELEY and Richard de CLIFFORD Lord Frampton
of Severn were as follows:
+ 17 i Sir Hugh de6 CLIFFORD.
+ 18 ii Henry de6 CLIFFORD.
Generation 6
14. Maud de6 BERKELEY (Alice de5 BERKELEY, Roger III de4, William de3,
Roger II de2, Roger I de1), born abt 1168. She married Elias III
GIFFARD, born abt 1150; died 1190, son of Elias II GIFFARD Lord of
Elston and Berta FitzRichard de CLIFFORD.
Notes for Elias III GIFFARD
DEP, p 231.
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 115-116.
DD, p 994.
Children of Maud de BERKELEY and Elias III GIFFARD were as follows:
+ 19 i Thomas7 GIFFARD.
15. Thomas "the Observor" de6 BERKELEY Lord Berkeley (Alice de5
BERKELEY, Roger III de4, William de3, Roger II de2, Roger I de1), born
abt 1170; died 6 Dec 1243. He married abt 1217 Joan de SOMERY, born
abt 1195 Of Gloucestershire, England; died 29 May 1276, daughter of
Ralph de SOMERY Lord of Campden, Gloucester, Lord of Dudley and
Margaret MARSHALL. [not continued here]
16. Roger V de6 BERKELEY (Roger IV de5, Roger III de4, William de3,
Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died 1220. He married unknown.
Notes for Roger V de BERKELEY
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
DD, p 321.
Children of Roger V de BERKELEY were as follows:
+ 27 i Henry I de7 BERKELEY.
Generation 7
27. Henry I de7 BERKELEY (Roger V de6, Roger IV de5, Roger III de4,
William de3, Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died 1221. He married
unknown.
Notes for Henry I de BERKELEY
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
Children of Henry I de BERKELEY were as follows:
+ 40 i John de8 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley.
Generation 8
40. John de8 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley (Henry I de7, Roger V de6, Roger
IV de5, Roger III de4, William de3, Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died
1245. He married unknown.
Notes for John de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
Children of John de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley were as follows:
+ 54 i Henry II de9 BERKELEY.
Generation 9
54. Henry II de9 BERKELEY (John de8, Henry I de7, Roger V de6, Roger
IV de5, Roger III de4, William de3, Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died
1287. He married unknown.
Notes for Henry II de BERKELEY
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
Children of Henry II de BERKELEY were as follows:
+ 75 i William de10 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley.
Generation 10
75. William de10 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley (Henry II de9, John de8,
Henry I de7, Roger V de6, Roger IV de5, Roger III de4, William de3,
Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died 1300. He married unknown.
Notes for William de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
Children of William de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley were as follows:
107 i Henry III de11 BERKELEY, died abt 1314 (dsp).
108 ii John de11 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley, died 1349.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
The...@aol.com wrote:
Just for interest, and to show that these transcriptions from Smyth have
their problems, the actual words, Vol I, p. 55, are:
"6. Helena eldest daughter of this Lord Robert, was accordinge to the
sayd agreemt at Bristoll maryed to Robertt sonne and heire of the sayd
Roger of Berkeley in the tyme of Kinge Henrye the second at her fathers
house in Bristowe, Shee brought to her husband (amongst other) the
Manor of Duresley in Fee as part of her marriage portion, And, for her
dower, had assigned by her husbands Father, the Manors [sic plural] of
Siston accordinge to the said Articles of Agreement."
(I have put 's' for the old style half 'f's, and the capital 'F' for
'ff'.)
You can see that this site is half abstract and half transcript.
>
> Spouse: Helena 'filia Roberti'
> Father: Robert fitz Harding (-1170)
> Mother: Eve (-1170)
> Marr: Nov 1153, date of marriage contract[1],[3]
>
> Children: Roger
>
> 1.1.1.1.1 Roger de Berkeley
> ----------------------------------------
>
> of Dursley, co. Gloucs.[1],[3]
>
> ' Roger = Hawise, first wife ' (Smyth's Lives, p. 8, and chart)[3]
This is not "page 8" but "Folio 8" of Smyth's original manuscripts.
It is on page 4 of Vol I of the edition I have and quotes the text of
the marriage agreement. This edition has Smyth's folio numbers in the
margin.
The chart is on Vol I, page 20 and is by A S Ellis in the late 19th
century; Ellis made the chart to correct the manifest errors in Smyth's
first chapter on Harding's ancestry. The long footnote on page 19
describes the problems with Smyth's account.
That Roger married Hawise is also on p. 55 of Vol I,.
>
> Spouse: Hawise
>
> Children:
> Isabel
> Henry de Berkeley, of Dursley, co. Gloucs.
Smyth gives elder brothers to Henry of William and John but both dsp.
Smyth does not list Isabel, curiously in view of her maritagium of
Siston.
>
> 1.1.1.1.1.1a Isabel de Berkeley*
> ----------------------------------------
>
> her maritagium was the manor of Siston, co. Glocs. and also a rent in
> Cubberley (CP Vol X -Plugenet, p. 552 note (a); cites Curia Regis
> Rolls, vol. iv, p. 298 and vii, p. 294; Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i, p.
> 640; and Cal. Inq.p.m. no. 148 (p. 72))[1]
>
> she m. lstly Thomas de Rocheford,
> 2ndly Sir William Walerand
>
> her maritagium was brought to her 2nd marriage (see below, under son
> William)[1]
>
> Spouse: Sir William Walerand, of Longford, Wilts., and Frampton Cotterell,
> co. Glocs.
> Marr: bef 1207[1]
>
> Children:
> Robert (-<1281)
> Sir William
> Cecily
>
> Other Spouses Thomas de Rocheford (2nd husband)
<snip of valuable stuff that is nowhere near Smyth>
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Doug Smith
> John,
>
Doug
The...@aol.com
Dear Kay,
Thanks again for your efforts in watching our Hydes.
I hope the study of the Two Cecilies can be brought to
closure without resorting to Bourbon (they tried that in
Italy, but they made a real Messina the place...).
Grazie,
Mardi Carter
this discussion. They descend from Waleran Venator of West Dean, co.
Wiltshire. Does anyone know if there is a connection between the two
families. It seems possible as they are both in Wiltshire.
1. Waleran Venator d bef. 1129/30
2. William FitzWaleran d bef. 1131
3. Waleran FitzWilliam fl 1130/1
4. Walter Waleran perhaps son
5. Walter de Waleran d. 1200/1 (he may be son or
grandson of Waleran FitzWilliam (#3)
6. Aubrey de Waleran
+ Robert de Pole d.s.p.
+ John de Ingham
+ William Botreaux
6. Isabel
+ Sir William de Nevil d aft. Jun 1220
6. Cecily
+ John Monmouth d.s.p.
Mardi
John Ravilious
Dear Tim,
Many thanks for comparing my post and sources to the actual (unwebbed)
Smyth. A major assist in making this as accurate as possible.
[Snips below are of material not otherwise shown as corrected by Tim]
Good luck, and good continued hunting!
John
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:<469c45c...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SNIP <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mardi Carter
I am only transcribing the part regarding Fyfhyde Verdon which
clarifies the family relationlships.
The said John Walraund held 2 carucates of land in Fyfhyde Verdon next
Lavyntone of the Earl of Arundel, and the manor is worth per annum,
clear, £15, 6s. 10 1/2d.
He also held 20s. 7d. of yearly rent in Fyshertone of Aucher son of
Henry, and the said Aucher of the Earl of Lincoln in chief, by what
services the jurors know not: of the which tenements and rents Alice
de Everyngham, one of the daughters of Cecilia, one of the aunts of
the said John; Bogo de Cnovill, son of Joan de Cnovill, another of the
caughters of the said Cecilia; Matilda, who was the wife of Richard le
Bret, and Joan de Helyon, daughter of Cecilia, third daughter of the
said Cecilia, are the kinsfolk and next heirs of the said John
Walraund of the said inheritance happening to him on behalf of William
Walraund, father of the said John: the said Alice is aged 40 years,
the said Bogo de Cnovill 30 years, the said Matilda 35 years, and the
said Joan de Halyon 36 years.
Sum of the extent of the manor of Fyfhyde, £15 6s. 10 1/2d.
Sum of the extent of Fischerton, 20s 7d.
Chan. Inq. p.m., 2 Edward Ii, no. 80
This John is the son of William Walraund and Isabel Kilpec, and
grandson of William Walraund and Isabel Berkeley.
Mardi Carter
Walraund inquisitions. I hope you can find the other one and tie them
together.
IPM of John Walraund. This IPM is very lengthy detailing tenements in
Fyfhyd Verdown "of the which Robert Walraund, uncle of the said John,
was seised in his demesne as of fee on the day that he died: the said
tenements are held of the earl of Arundel by the service of half a
knight's fee." I am transcribing only the last paragraph which
details family relationships.
"John de Eddesworth, son of Ales', one of the aunts of the said John
Walraund, Bogo de Knovill, son of Joan de Knovill, one of the
daughters of Cecilia, another of the aunts of the said John, Alice de
Everingham, another of the daughters of the said kCecilia, and
Matilda, who was the wife of Richard le Bryt and Cecilia de Helion
whom Peter de Helion married, daughters of Cecilia, third daughter of
the siad Cecilia, are the kinsfolk and next heirs of the said John
Walraund: the said John de Eddesworth is aged 40 years, Matilda, wife
of Richard le Bryt, 26 years, and Cecilia de Helion 25 years.
"Robert Walraund, uncle of the said John Walraund, had a third sister,
Alice named Plugenet, of whose issue the jurors do not know, because
she did not dwell in the parts of Wiltshire."
Chan. Inq. p.m., 2 Edward II, No. 68.
Cussans in "History of Hertfordshire" sub Weston, shows Alice (sister
of Cecilia and Robert) as married to NN de Edworth and Andrew de
Plugenet with issue from both marriages i.e. John de Edworth and Alan
de Plugenet.
Another Inquisition re: John Walraund:
"Alan de Plugenet, son and heir of Alan de Plugenet, son and heir of
Alice, sister of William Walraund, father of the said John, of the
whole blood, and aunt of the said John, is the next heir of the saie
John Walraund: the said Alan is aged 28 years and more.
Chan. Inq.p.m., 2 Edward II, No. 80.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
al...@mindspring.com (Doug Smith) wrote:
> > John,
>
> Well something like this maybe.......
<snip of early Berkeley generations>
Here's what I can find in Smyth, suitably interspersed:
Smyth says that the order of the children were:
Robert - heir
Thomas - heir to Robert
Maurice - had a son Thomas who dsp
William - received the manor of Portbury
Henry }
Richard } both given lands in Scotland by Henry II
plus
a unnamed daughter married to Osbert Gifford
(Vol I, pp. 74-6)
>
> 7. Roger IV de5 BERKELEY (Roger III de4, William de3, Roger II de2,
> Roger I de1), died 1190. He married (1) Helen fitz ROBERT
I cannot think it right to refer to "Helen fitz Robert" - Helen son of
Robert. Would 'Filia' be nearer the word of the time?
Smyth: He "may be called, Thomas the observer or temporiser." (Vol I, p.
125)
> de6 BERKELEY Lord Berkeley (Alice de5
> BERKELEY, Roger III de4, William de3, Roger II de2, Roger I de1), born
> abt 1170; died 6 Dec 1243. He married abt 1217 Joan de SOMERY, born
> abt 1195 Of Gloucestershire, England; died 29 May 1276, daughter of
> Ralph de SOMERY Lord of Campden, Gloucester, Lord of Dudley and
> Margaret MARSHALL. [not continued here]
Smyth: "Jone daughter of Sr Ralph de Somery lord of Campden in
Gloucestershire (called Sr Ralph Gomer in many old Pedegrees, but
falsly,) neece to Willm Marshall Earle of Pembrooke..." ... "shee
deceased on the xxijth daye of May about the fourth yeare of the raigne
of King Edward the first." (Vol I, pp. 117-9)
>
>
> 16. Roger V de6 BERKELEY (Roger IV de5, Roger III de4, William de3,
> Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died 1220. He married unknown.
Smyth: His wife was Hawisia. (Vol I, p. 55)
>
> Notes for Roger V de BERKELEY
> Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
> Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
> DD, p 321.
>
> Children of Roger V de BERKELEY were as follows:
> + 27 i Henry I de7 BERKELEY.
>
>
> Generation 7
>
>
> 27. Henry I de7 BERKELEY (Roger V de6, Roger IV de5, Roger III de4,
> William de3, Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died 1221. He married
> unknown.
Smyth: His wife was Agnes (Vol I, p. 55)
>
> Notes for Henry I de BERKELEY
> Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
> Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
>
> Children of Henry I de BERKELEY were as follows:
> + 40 i John de8 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley.
>
>
> Generation 8
>
> 40. John de8 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley (Henry I de7, Roger V de6, Roger
> IV de5, Roger III de4, William de3, Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died
> 1245. He married unknown.
Smyth: His wife was Sybill (Vol I, p. 55)
>
> Notes for John de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley
> Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
> Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
>
> Children of John de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley were as follows:
> + 54 i Henry II de9 BERKELEY.
Smyth: Plus William and John, elder brothers, but who both dsp. (Vol I,
p. 55)
But on note 2 on Vol I, p.55, the Editor (John Maclean) says that Smyth
was inaccurate and that William had two sons but they both dsp.
> Generation 9
>
>
> 54. Henry II de9 BERKELEY (John de8, Henry I de7, Roger V de6, Roger
> IV de5, Roger III de4, William de3, Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died
> 1287. He married unknown.
>
Smyth: Gives no mention of Henry's wife.
> Notes for Henry II de BERKELEY
> Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
> Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
>
> Children of Henry II de BERKELEY were as follows:
> + 75 i William de10 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley.
>
>
> Generation 10
>
> 75. William de10 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley (Henry II de9, John de8,
> Henry I de7, Roger V de6, Roger IV de5, Roger III de4, William de3,
> Roger II de2, Roger I de1), died 1300. He married unknown.
Maclean in the above note (Vol I, p. 55, note 2) gives no wife either.
>
> Notes for William de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley
> Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
> Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 114-115.
>
> Children of William de BERKELEY Lord of Dursley were as follows:
> 107 i Henry III de11 BERKELEY, died abt 1314 (dsp).
> 108 ii John de11 BERKELEY Lord of Dursley, died 1349.
Maclean in the above note (Vol I, p. 55, note 2) says John was the elder
and married c. 1313 Hawisa, daughter of Thoma de Tinworth of Bratton,
near Okehampton Devon but she dsp. before Michs. John dsp. in 1316 and
was succeeded by his brother Henry who d. (sp?) in 1344.
Smyth goes on to report (Vol I, pp. 55-6) that Henry. younger brother of
"75. William" had a son John who married Hawisia and had Nicholas and
Mawd. Nicholas m. Cicely sister and heire of Sr John de la More sonne of
William de la More of Bitton. Nicholas dsp in 1382 ending the male line
of these Berkeleys of Dursley.
Doug Smith
> > John,
>
> Well something like this maybe.......
>
>
Doug
Anyone got any evidence?
Doug Smith
> > John,
It is pretty clear that CP, DD, Sanders, and Smyth have major
differences in a number of different areas. I will try to keep track
and send a revised post at least listing the various discrepancies.
Thanks to Tim for inserting the Smyth information! I have just done
that and note that Smyth and Sanders have major differences in the
descent from the William who died about 1300 (gen. 10 previous post
number 75).
> Doug
Pennie Manderson
TGB
Curia Regis Rolls, IV, 7-8 Joh, p.300: Michaelmas Term 1206 Glouc' - Robertus de Rocheford ponit loco suo Willelmum de Bedeberg' versus Willelmum Walram et Ysabellam uxorem suam et heredem et versus Aliciam filiam et heredem Thome de Rochef' quam ipse Robertus vocavit ad warantum versus eosdem Willelmum et Ysabellam de placito dotis; et ponit eundem versus Rogerum de Berkelay de placito escambii advocationis ecclesie de Oselwrthe; et amovit Thebbaldum de Reinevill', quem prius posuerat etc.
Fine Roll Hen III Vol II p.252: 41 Hen III 1257 D' fine auri]- Will's Walerand qui p'mogenitam filiam & altam hedem Hug' de Kilpek' duxit in uxem dat R. tres marc auri p balia Haye Hereford & de bosco de Coyttemor ....
Abstracts of the Feet of Fines of Gloucestershire, I, p.123 No.619: 8 July 1258 Westminster. William Walerand and Isabel his wife quer; Philip Marmion and Joan his wife def. The manor of Kilpeck [Herefs], 1 ploughland in Tohinton [Tockington, Glous?] and the advowson of Norbury [Salop]. (Covenant). Grant of the manor, land and advowson as in demesnes, homages, rents, services, knights' fees, serjeantries, socages, wards, reliefs, escheats and all else to Isabel as her purparty of the inheritance of Hugh de Kilpeck father of Isabel and Joan, whose heirs they are. To hold to William and Isabel and Isabel's heirs. And remise and quitclaim, specifying Joan's heirs, to William and Isabel and Isabel's heirs of the manor of Rockley [Wilts]. For this, grant to Philip and Joan of the manors of Fernts, Bradford on Avon [Wilts], Castres [Castle Church (Staffs)?], Norbury and Pulverbatch [Salop], and the advowson of the church of Pulverbatch, except the advowson of Norbury, as the purpatry of Joan. To hold to Philip and Joan and Joan's heirs as in demesnes, homages, rents, services, knights' fees, serjeantries, socages, wards, reliefs, escheats and all else. When William and Isabel are is seisin of the manor of Rockley they will pay 42s 6d a year from the manor at Michaelmas to Philip and Joan and Joan's heirs. And if William or Isabel or Isabel's heirs at any time should remise their claim in the manor of Rockley, they are to pay to Philip and Joan and Joan's heirs the 42s 6d of annual rent from the manor of Kilpeck.