Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Parentage of Lucy Belet (living 1247), wife of Sir John Picot, of Doddington, Lincolnshire
254 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Jan 30, 2017, 5:40:49 PM1/30/17
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Back in 2010 and 2011, John Watson posted a series of messages here on the newsgroup concerning the parentage and extended ancestry of Lucy (living 1247), wife of Sir John Picot/Pycot, of Doddington and Thorpe, Lincolnshire.
I previously identified Lucy Picot as the daughter of Michael Belet in my books, Plantagenet Ancestry and Royal Ancestry. This identification is given in Cole, History of the Manor & Township of Doddington (1897): 11, 29 (Pigot ped.). See the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=jTEVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA11
Although not mentioned by Cole, John and Lucy Picot are known to have been engaged in lawsuits with Michael Belet's sister, Annora de Verdun, and other Belet heirs in 1247. See Lincolnshire Notes & Queries 4 (1896): 103–104, available at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=IaTkAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA103
Regardless Mr. Watson took the position that it was impossible for Michael Belet to have been Lucy Picot's father. In fact in 2011, he stated that Lucy was not a Belet at all, but her grandmother was once married to one. He proceeded to identify her as the daughter of a certain Warin Fitz Hugh and his wife, Alice de Beaumont [see copy of two of John Watson's posts below].
As it turns out, Lucy Picot was in fact the daughter of Michael Belet. Her parentage is proven by a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Michaelmas term 1305 which concerns the advowson of the church of Aunsby, Lincolnshire. The plaintiff in the lawsuit was the Prior of Wroxton. The defendant was Baldwin Picot, a grandson of Lucy (Belet) Picot.
The original lawsuit in Latin may be seen at the following weblink:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no153/aCP40no153fronts/IMG_0529.htm
At my request, Dr. Matthew Tompkins kindly provided the following English abstract of the lawsuit (some verbiage has been omitted):
"The prior of Wroxton was summoned to answer Baldwin Pycot in a plea that he should permit him to present to the church of Ounesby, which is vacant, and which the prior is unjustly impeding. Baldwin's attorney says one Michael Belet was seised of the manor of Ounesby, to which the advowson pertains, and in the time of Henry III presented one Robert ?Tespetin his clerk to the church, by whose death the church is now vacant. Michael gave the manor with the advowson to ... Pycot and Lucy, daughter of the same Michael, in free marriage ... ... from John and Lucy the manor and advowson descended to ... ... and heirs, and from the same Michael descended to Baldwin, who now claims as son and heir, and claims damages of £40.
The prior says the presentation belongs to him because, long before Michael Belet enfeoffed John Pycot of the manor, he (Michael) granted the advowson by charter to the prior and convent of Wrokestan in pure and perpetual alms, and he proffers the charter. By virtue of that gift a former prior, Prior Hugo, in the time of Henry III presented his clerk John de Wydyngton, who was admitted, and after his death Prior Richard de Deen presented Thomas de Foxle, who was admitted, and after his death the same Prior Richard presented, in the time of the present king, Thomas de Swenested, who was admitted, by whose death the church is now vacant.
Baldwin replies that Michael Belet enfeoffed John Pycot and Lucy of the manor with the advowson long before he made the charter giving the advowson to the prior. He and the prior agree that the matter should go to a jury." END OF ABSTRACT.
As we see above, Baldwin Picot claimed that Michael Belet granted both the manor and advowson of the church of Aunsby, Lincolnshire to John Belet and his wife, Lucy, daughter of the said Michael, in free marriage. The Prior of Wroxton, however, claimed that previous to this grant, the advowson of the church of Aunsby, Lincolnshire had been granted to the priory by the said Michael Belet. The prior's statement was correct. In the reign of King John (either 1200 or 1209 or even c.1218), Michael Belet founded a priory of canons regular at Wroxton, Oxfordshire. Included in the original foundation charter was the grant of the churches of Syston and Aunsby, Lincolnshire. An English transcript of the foundation charter can be found in Beesly, History of Banbury (1841): 79-80, at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=jXcHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA79
In a subsequent memoranda of Bishop Hugh Wells dated 1217-18 the founder of Wroxton Priory is further identified as Master Michael Belet, the son of Michael Belet. The following biographical information regarding Master Michael Belet, hereditary Butler of the king, is found in the book, Mantello and Goering, Letters of Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (2010): 83, footnote 2:
"Michael Belet was an administrator active in both ecclesiastical and secular affairs. He was a 'master' of laws, perhaps at Oxford, as early as 1201, held parochial benefices throughout England, served as guardian of the temporalities of the see of Coventry and Lichfield in 1224, was the hereditary butler to the king, and served as a clerk in the king's household and as a justice in eyre for Northamptonshire; see Emden, BRUO, 1: 159-60; 'Belet, Michael (d. in or before 1247),' in ODNB." END OF QUOTE.
Further information on Master Michael Belet can be found in Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, ed. L. C. Loyd and D. M. Stenton (Oxford 1950), 104-105. Also please see VCH Oxford 2 (1907): 101, available at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=WZo4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA101
As stated in the 1305 lawsuit, Baldwin Picot and the Prior of Wroxton agreed that the matter of the ownership of the advowson of the church of Aunsby, Lincolnshire should "go to jury." It seems that the jury duly decided in favor of Wroxton Priory, as on 16 January 1306, Baldwin Picot, "lord of Aunsby, Lincolshire," issued a quitclaim of the advowson of the church of Aunsby, Lincolnshire to the prior and canons of St. Mary of Wroxton. For a copy of the quitclaim of Baldwin Picot, styled "lord of Aunsby," see Beesly, History of Banbury (1841): 82, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=jXcHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA82
It should be noted that Baldwin Picot, the defendant in the above 1305 lawsuit, was the brother of Lora (Picot) Braybrook, whose grandson is the well known medieval prelate, Robert Braybrook (died 1404), Bishop of London, Chancellor of England. For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Lora (Picot) Braybrook:
Richard & William Bernard, Henry Fleete, Mary Launce, Anne Mauleverer, Henry & William Randolph, Hawte Wyatt.
In closing, I wish to thank Dr. Tompkins for providing an abstract of the 1305 Common Pleas lawsuit for use here on the newsgroup. His help as always is much appreciated.
Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + +
On Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 9:43:08 PM UTC-7, John Watson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Back in November 2010, I asked in this group if anyone was aware of
> the connection between Lucy, wife of John Picot of Doddington and the
> family of Belet. In 1246, Annora de Verdun, widow of Walter de Verdun,
> who was a sister of Magister Michael Belet was claiming land in
> Sydestan (Syston) Lincolnshire against John Picot and his wife Lucy.
> No answers were forthcoming at that time, but I have now worked out
> Lucy's ancestry - she was not a Belet, but her grandmother was once
> married to one. I can summarize the relationships below.
>
> The heirs of Sir Fulk d'Oyry III (died 1231) of Gedney, Lincolnshire
> were his three daughters, Ela, who married Robert Constable of
> Halsham, Emecina who married Ralph de Goushil and Alice who had two
> husbands. Alice married firstly John Belet, younger brother of
> Magister Michael Belet. John was dead in or before 1204. Alice seems
> to have had several suitors after that who paid fines to have her
> marriage and lands. She married secondly William de Beaumont who held
> lands in Fulking, Sussex and at Themelthorpe and Kerdiston in Norfolk
> of the honour of Warenne. [Note that he was not the same person as
> William de Beaumont of Drayton, Norfolk as alleged by Blomfield].
>
> From a Lincolnshire assize of mort d'ancestor in 1245, we find that
> the heirs of William de Beaumont and Alice were their three daughters:
> Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, Alice wife of Warin son of Hugh, and
> Ela, wife of Hervey de Stanhou [1]. Another Lincolnshire court record
> of a plea of warranty of charter in 1249, shows that Warin son of Hugh
> and Alice de Beaumont had two daughters, Ela married (at that time) to
> Godfrey de Millers and Lucy, married to John Picot [2]. John Picot and
> Lucy were probably the parents of Michael Picot of Doddington,
> Lincolnshire who married Joan Wake, heiress of one-ninth of the barony
> of Beauchamp of Bedford [3]. Alice Beaumont married secondly, before
> 1259, John son of John de Scales (Scalariis).
>
> Ela, daughter of Warin son of Hugh and Alice de Beaumont appears to
> have had three husbands. She married firstly Geoffrey de Oyly and
> secondly Lambert de Multon, as his second wife [4]. Lambert died in
> 1246 and she afterward married Geoffrey de Millers. This was rather
> unfortunate because Matthew Paris relates that Geoffrey de Millers was
> caught by a certain John le Breton sneaking into John's daughter's
> bedroom, whereupon John and his men removed certain parts of
> Geoffrey's anatomy. In December 1250, Ela and Geoffrey were in the
> process of being divorced. Whether she married again after this is not
> recorded.
>
> The lands in Syston which were the subject of a court case in 1246
> between Annora de Verdun, her daughter Burgia and John and Lucy Picot
> [5] appear to have been held in dower by Lucy's grandmother Alice
> d'Oyri as part the lands of her first husband John Belet. The Belets
> certainly held land in Syston and Magister Michael Belet gave the
> advowson of Syston to the priory of Wroxton, Oxfordshire when he
> founded it around 1217 [6]. How these dower lands came into the
> possession of Alice's granddaughter is not clear. There are several
> cases in the curia regis from 1204 to 1221 between various members of
> the Belet family and Alice d'Oyry but none of the records gives any
> details.
>
> Fulk d'Oyry
> I
> I
> -----------------------------------------
> Ela = Alice = Emecina =
> Robert Constable 1 John Belet Ralph Goushil
> 2 William Beaumont
> I
> ----------------------------------------
> I I I
> Joan Beaumont = Alice Beaumont = Ela Beaumont =
> 1 Reyner de Burgh 1 Warin Fitz-Hugh Hervey de Stanhow
> 2 John de Scales
> I
> ------------------------------
> I I
> Ela Fitz-Warin = Lucy Fitz-Warin =
> 1. Geoffrey de Oyly John Picot
> 2. Lambert de Multon
> 3. Godfrey Millers
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> References:
> 1. 'Final Concords for Lincs: 29 Henry III (Case 130, File 31)', Final
> Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 1-16. No. 21
> URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53619
> 2. 'Final Concords for Lincs: 34 Henry III (Case 130, File 34)', Final
> Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 51-63. No. 2
> URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53622
> 3. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2010-11/1288908381
> 4. Complete Peerage, IX:401-2 - Note that Ela's identity is not stated
> in CP.
> 5. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2010-11/1289121835
> 6. 'Houses of Augustinian canons: The priory of Wroxton', A History of
> the County of Oxford: Volume 2 (1907), pp. 101-102.
> URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40190
+ + + + + + + + +
On Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 4:06:21 PM UTC-6, John Watson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The parentage of Michael Picot of Doddington, (aka Doddington-Pigot)
> Lincolnshire who married Joan Wake, heiress of one-ninth of the barony
> of Beauchamp of Bedford is apparently unknown, at least in all of the
> works I have consulted (including those of Mr. Richardson).
>
> I recently came across an interesting "snippet" on Google books which
> gives the name of his father:
> "Ela Wake was succeeded by three daughters, (i) Joan, who married
> first Michael son of Robert Pycot, whence Baldwin Pycot, whence the
> said John Pycot, and second Ralph Paynel, whose surname she afterwards
> used..."
> Calendar of Memoranda Rolls (Exchequer): Michaelmas 1326-Michaelmas
> 1327 (HMSO: 1968) p. 166
>
> Apparently Michael Picot was the son of Robert Picot, although exactly
> who this Robert was is difficult to determine. He could possibly be
> the son of the Sir John Picot who presented Hugh Picot to the church
> of Doddington on 4 February 1273 [1]. A John son of Hugh Pygot occurs
> in a final concord in Lincolnshire in 1246 [2]. Earlier presentations
> to Doddington were made in 1222 and 1229 by Sir Hugh Picot [3].
> Between 1191 and 1200, William Postard, Abbot of Westminster, granted
> the manor of Doddington, in fee and inheritance, to "his knight
> William Picot" [4]. William Picot was disputing the advowsons of the
> churches of Doddington and Thorp [on the Hill] with the next Abbot of
> Westminster in 1205 [5], a case which he obviously won.
>
> Coming back to Michael Picot. He married Joan Wake some time after
> January 1267, when on the partition of the lands of John de Beauchamp
> between his heirs, Joan, Ida and Isabel (Elizabeth) daughters of Ela
> Wake are mentioned in the Close Rolls, but who were all apparently
> unmarried [6]. He had married Joan before 1275 when the inquisition
> post mortem of Hugh Gobion found that Hugh died holding Higham Gobion
> and Streatley in Bedfordshire (both Beauchamp manors) of Michael Pikot
> [7]. Michael was dead before 12 November 1278 when "Joan, late the
> wife of Michael Pycot" is mentioned in the Close Rolls [8]. She
> afterwards married Ralph Paynel who died shortly before 14 March 1318
> holding the manor of Cardington, Bedfordshire "by the courtesy of
> England of the inheritance of Joan sometime his wife" [9].
>
> Michael and Joan had three children, Baldwin (named after his maternal
> grandfather) and John (named after his paternal grandfather?) and a
> daughter Lora who married Gerard Braybrook (d. ca 1326). Baldwin was
> alive in 1303 when he is mentioned in the Patent Rolls in connection
> with the manor of Doddington [10] and possibly in 1305 when Baldwin
> Pygod of the county of Lincoln appears in the Fine Rolls [11]. Baldwin
> was succeeded by his son John who was born about 1290 (aged 24 at the
> i.p.m of his great aunt Elizabeth Wake in 1314 [12] and 27 at the
> i.p.m. of Ralph Paynel in 1318). John, son of Baldwin Picot died
> shortly before 24 March 1337, holding Doddington and Thorpe,
> Lincolnshire and Cardington, Bedfordshire and leaving a son John, aged
> 23 as his heir [13]. In 1315, John son of Baldwin Picot had demised
> the manor of Renhold, Bedfordshire to his uncle John [14].
>
> All of these relationships are shown in the foundation charter of a
> chantry in Renhold by John, son of Michael Picot in which many of his
> relatives (dead and alive) are mentioned [I have expanded the
> abbreviated text a bit]:
>
> 4 April 1336, Ordination of a Chantry by John Pycot, son of Michael
> Pycot, Kt., for the souls of King Edward, the said John and Michael
> his father, and Johan his mother, Baldwyn his brother, Johan his
> (founder's) wife, John Pycot his nephew (nepos), and Alianor his wife,
> Johan daughter of John Pycot and Matilda his wife, Sir John Wake, and
> John his son, Sir Thomas Wake, Elizabeth Wake, Elizabeth Latymer,
> William de Kyme, H. Picot, Isabella de Staunton, Lora de Braibrok,
> John Paynel de Gobion, Robert de Braibrok, Ralph Picot, John son of
> Adam Picot, John de Crungleford, of Southgevel, and William, late
> Vicar of Ronhall [15].
>
> I'd be grateful if anyone could add some more flesh to these bare
> bones of a Picot pedigree.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> Sources:
> 1. R. E. G. Cole, The Registers of Doddington-Pigot, co. Lincoln,
> 1562-1812 (London: 1898) p. viii
> 2. Final Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp.
> 33-51
> 3. Canterbury & York Society, Vol. 4, Rotuli Hugonis de Welles, Vol.
> III (London: 1907) p. 168
> 4. 'Charters of the abbots: William Postard (nos. 307-26)',
> Westminster Abbey Charters, 1066 - c.1214: London Record Society 25
> (1988), pp. 160-175
> 5. Curia Regis Rolls, Vol. 4, pp. 13, 45–6, 48
> 6. Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 13: 1264-1268 (1937),
> pp. 279-289
> 7. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 2, p. 78, No. 115 (Hugh
> Gobyun)
> 8. Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: volume 1: 1272-1279 (1900), p.
> 484
> 9. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 6, p. 68, No. 104 (Ralph
> Paynel)
> 10. Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward 1, Vol. 4, p. 190
> 11. Calendar of Fine Rolls, Vol. 1, p. 510
> 12. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 5, p. 243, No. 431
> (Elizabeth Wake)
> 13. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 8, p. 82, No. 137 (John
> son of Baldwin Pycot)
> 14. Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward 2, Vol. 2, p. 291
> 15. All Saints Church Renhold Website, citing: Lincoln Diocesan
> Registers by F. A. Page-Turner
Back in 2010 and 2011, John Watson posted a series of messages here on the newsgroup concerning the parentage and extended ancestry of Lucy (living 1247), wife of Sir John Picot/Pycot, of Doddington and Thorpe, Lincolnshire.
I previously identified Lucy Picot as the daughter of Michael Belet in my books, Plantagenet Ancestry and Royal Ancestry. This identification is given in Cole, History of the Manor & Township of Doddington (1897): 11, 29 (Pigot ped.). See the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=jTEVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA11
Although not mentioned by Cole, John and Lucy Picot are known to have been engaged in lawsuits with Michael Belet's sister, Annora de Verdun, and other Belet heirs in 1247. See Lincolnshire Notes & Queries 4 (1896): 103–104, available at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=IaTkAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA103
Regardless Mr. Watson took the position that it was impossible for Michael Belet to have been Lucy Picot's father. In fact in 2011, he stated that Lucy was not a Belet at all, but her grandmother was once married to one. He proceeded to identify her as the daughter of a certain Warin Fitz Hugh and his wife, Alice de Beaumont [see copy of two of John Watson's posts below].
As it turns out, Lucy Picot was in fact the daughter of Michael Belet. Her parentage is proven by a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Michaelmas term 1305 which concerns the advowson of the church of Aunsby, Lincolnshire. The plaintiff in the lawsuit was the Prior of Wroxton. The defendant was Baldwin Picot, a grandson of Lucy (Belet) Picot.
The original lawsuit in Latin may be seen at the following weblink:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no153/aCP40no153fronts/IMG_0529.htm
At my request, Dr. Matthew Tompkins kindly provided the following English abstract of the lawsuit (some verbiage has been omitted):
"The prior of Wroxton was summoned to answer Baldwin Pycot in a plea that he should permit him to present to the church of Ounesby, which is vacant, and which the prior is unjustly impeding. Baldwin's attorney says one Michael Belet was seised of the manor of Ounesby, to which the advowson pertains, and in the time of Henry III presented one Robert ?Tespetin his clerk to the church, by whose death the church is now vacant. Michael gave the manor with the advowson to ... Pycot and Lucy, daughter of the same Michael, in free marriage ... ... from John and Lucy the manor and advowson descended to ... ... and heirs, and from the same Michael descended to Baldwin, who now claims as son and heir, and claims damages of £40.
The prior says the presentation belongs to him because, long before Michael Belet enfeoffed John Pycot of the manor, he (Michael) granted the advowson by charter to the prior and convent of Wrokestan in pure and perpetual alms, and he proffers the charter. By virtue of that gift a former prior, Prior Hugo, in the time of Henry III presented his clerk John de Wydyngton, who was admitted, and after his death Prior Richard de Deen presented Thomas de Foxle, who was admitted, and after his death the same Prior Richard presented, in the time of the present king, Thomas de Swenested, who was admitted, by whose death the church is now vacant.
Baldwin replies that Michael Belet enfeoffed John Pycot and Lucy of the manor with the advowson long before he made the charter giving the advowson to the prior. He and the prior agree that the matter should go to a jury." END OF ABSTRACT.
As we see above, Baldwin Picot claimed that Michael Belet granted both the manor and advowson of the church of Aunsby, Lincolnshire to John Belet and his wife, Lucy, daughter of the said Michael, in free marriage. The Prior of Wroxton, however, claimed that previous to this grant, the advowson of the church of Aunsby, Lincolnshire had been granted to the priory by the said Michael Belet. The prior's statement was correct. In the reign of King John (either 1200 or 1209 or even c.1218), Michael Belet founded a priory of canons regular at Wroxton, Oxfordshire. Included in the original foundation charter was the grant of the churches of Syston and Aunsby, Lincolnshire. An English transcript of the foundation charter can be found in Beesly, History of Banbury (1841): 79-80, at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=jXcHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA79
In a subsequent memoranda of Bishop Hugh Wells dated 1217-18 the founder of Wroxton Priory is further identified as Master Michael Belet, the son of Michael Belet. The following biographical information regarding Master Michael Belet, hereditary Butler of the king, is found in the book, Mantello and Goering, Letters of Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (2010): 83, footnote 2:
"Michael Belet was an administrator active in both ecclesiastical and secular affairs. He was a 'master' of laws, perhaps at Oxford, as early as 1201, held parochial benefices throughout England, served as guardian of the temporalities of the see of Coventry and Lichfield in 1224, was the hereditary butler to the king, and served as a clerk in the king's household and as a justice in eyre for Northamptonshire; see Emden, BRUO, 1: 159-60; 'Belet, Michael (d. in or before 1247),' in ODNB." END OF QUOTE.
Further information on Master Michael Belet can be found in Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, ed. L. C. Loyd and D. M. Stenton (Oxford 1950), 104-105. Also please see VCH Oxford 2 (1907): 101, available at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=WZo4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA101
As stated in the 1305 lawsuit, Baldwin Picot and the Prior of Wroxton agreed that the matter of the ownership of the advowson of the church of Aunsby, Lincolnshire should "go to jury." It seems that the jury duly decided in favor of Wroxton Priory, as on 16 January 1306, Baldwin Picot, "lord of Aunsby, Lincolshire," issued a quitclaim of the advowson of the church of Aunsby, Lincolnshire to the prior and canons of St. Mary of Wroxton. For a copy of the quitclaim of Baldwin Picot, styled "lord of Aunsby," see Beesly, History of Banbury (1841): 82, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=jXcHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA82
It should be noted that Baldwin Picot, the defendant in the above 1305 lawsuit, was the brother of Lora (Picot) Braybrook, whose grandson is the well known medieval prelate, Robert Braybrook (died 1404), Bishop of London, Chancellor of England. For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Lora (Picot) Braybrook:
Richard & William Bernard, Henry Fleete, Mary Launce, Anne Mauleverer, Henry & William Randolph, Hawte Wyatt.
In closing, I wish to thank Dr. Tompkins for providing an abstract of the 1305 Common Pleas lawsuit for use here on the newsgroup. His help as always is much appreciated.
Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + +
On Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 9:43:08 PM UTC-7, John Watson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Back in November 2010, I asked in this group if anyone was aware of
> the connection between Lucy, wife of John Picot of Doddington and the
> family of Belet. In 1246, Annora de Verdun, widow of Walter de Verdun,
> who was a sister of Magister Michael Belet was claiming land in
> Sydestan (Syston) Lincolnshire against John Picot and his wife Lucy.
> No answers were forthcoming at that time, but I have now worked out
> Lucy's ancestry - she was not a Belet, but her grandmother was once
> married to one. I can summarize the relationships below.
>
> The heirs of Sir Fulk d'Oyry III (died 1231) of Gedney, Lincolnshire
> were his three daughters, Ela, who married Robert Constable of
> Halsham, Emecina who married Ralph de Goushil and Alice who had two
> husbands. Alice married firstly John Belet, younger brother of
> Magister Michael Belet. John was dead in or before 1204. Alice seems
> to have had several suitors after that who paid fines to have her
> marriage and lands. She married secondly William de Beaumont who held
> lands in Fulking, Sussex and at Themelthorpe and Kerdiston in Norfolk
> of the honour of Warenne. [Note that he was not the same person as
> William de Beaumont of Drayton, Norfolk as alleged by Blomfield].
>
> From a Lincolnshire assize of mort d'ancestor in 1245, we find that
> the heirs of William de Beaumont and Alice were their three daughters:
> Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, Alice wife of Warin son of Hugh, and
> Ela, wife of Hervey de Stanhou [1]. Another Lincolnshire court record
> of a plea of warranty of charter in 1249, shows that Warin son of Hugh
> and Alice de Beaumont had two daughters, Ela married (at that time) to
> Godfrey de Millers and Lucy, married to John Picot [2]. John Picot and
> Lucy were probably the parents of Michael Picot of Doddington,
> Lincolnshire who married Joan Wake, heiress of one-ninth of the barony
> of Beauchamp of Bedford [3]. Alice Beaumont married secondly, before
> 1259, John son of John de Scales (Scalariis).
>
> Ela, daughter of Warin son of Hugh and Alice de Beaumont appears to
> have had three husbands. She married firstly Geoffrey de Oyly and
> secondly Lambert de Multon, as his second wife [4]. Lambert died in
> 1246 and she afterward married Geoffrey de Millers. This was rather
> unfortunate because Matthew Paris relates that Geoffrey de Millers was
> caught by a certain John le Breton sneaking into John's daughter's
> bedroom, whereupon John and his men removed certain parts of
> Geoffrey's anatomy. In December 1250, Ela and Geoffrey were in the
> process of being divorced. Whether she married again after this is not
> recorded.
>
> The lands in Syston which were the subject of a court case in 1246
> between Annora de Verdun, her daughter Burgia and John and Lucy Picot
> [5] appear to have been held in dower by Lucy's grandmother Alice
> d'Oyri as part the lands of her first husband John Belet. The Belets
> certainly held land in Syston and Magister Michael Belet gave the
> advowson of Syston to the priory of Wroxton, Oxfordshire when he
> founded it around 1217 [6]. How these dower lands came into the
> possession of Alice's granddaughter is not clear. There are several
> cases in the curia regis from 1204 to 1221 between various members of
> the Belet family and Alice d'Oyry but none of the records gives any
> details.
>
> Fulk d'Oyry
> I
> I
> -----------------------------------------
> Ela = Alice = Emecina =
> Robert Constable 1 John Belet Ralph Goushil
> 2 William Beaumont
> I
> ----------------------------------------
> I I I
> Joan Beaumont = Alice Beaumont = Ela Beaumont =
> 1 Reyner de Burgh 1 Warin Fitz-Hugh Hervey de Stanhow
> 2 John de Scales
> I
> ------------------------------
> I I
> Ela Fitz-Warin = Lucy Fitz-Warin =
> 1. Geoffrey de Oyly John Picot
> 2. Lambert de Multon
> 3. Godfrey Millers
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> References:
> 1. 'Final Concords for Lincs: 29 Henry III (Case 130, File 31)', Final
> Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 1-16. No. 21
> URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53619
> 2. 'Final Concords for Lincs: 34 Henry III (Case 130, File 34)', Final
> Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 51-63. No. 2
> URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53622
> 3. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2010-11/1288908381
> 4. Complete Peerage, IX:401-2 - Note that Ela's identity is not stated
> in CP.
> 5. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2010-11/1289121835
> 6. 'Houses of Augustinian canons: The priory of Wroxton', A History of
> the County of Oxford: Volume 2 (1907), pp. 101-102.
> URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40190
+ + + + + + + + +
On Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 4:06:21 PM UTC-6, John Watson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The parentage of Michael Picot of Doddington, (aka Doddington-Pigot)
> Lincolnshire who married Joan Wake, heiress of one-ninth of the barony
> of Beauchamp of Bedford is apparently unknown, at least in all of the
> works I have consulted (including those of Mr. Richardson).
>
> I recently came across an interesting "snippet" on Google books which
> gives the name of his father:
> "Ela Wake was succeeded by three daughters, (i) Joan, who married
> first Michael son of Robert Pycot, whence Baldwin Pycot, whence the
> said John Pycot, and second Ralph Paynel, whose surname she afterwards
> used..."
> Calendar of Memoranda Rolls (Exchequer): Michaelmas 1326-Michaelmas
> 1327 (HMSO: 1968) p. 166
>
> Apparently Michael Picot was the son of Robert Picot, although exactly
> who this Robert was is difficult to determine. He could possibly be
> the son of the Sir John Picot who presented Hugh Picot to the church
> of Doddington on 4 February 1273 [1]. A John son of Hugh Pygot occurs
> in a final concord in Lincolnshire in 1246 [2]. Earlier presentations
> to Doddington were made in 1222 and 1229 by Sir Hugh Picot [3].
> Between 1191 and 1200, William Postard, Abbot of Westminster, granted
> the manor of Doddington, in fee and inheritance, to "his knight
> William Picot" [4]. William Picot was disputing the advowsons of the
> churches of Doddington and Thorp [on the Hill] with the next Abbot of
> Westminster in 1205 [5], a case which he obviously won.
>
> Coming back to Michael Picot. He married Joan Wake some time after
> January 1267, when on the partition of the lands of John de Beauchamp
> between his heirs, Joan, Ida and Isabel (Elizabeth) daughters of Ela
> Wake are mentioned in the Close Rolls, but who were all apparently
> unmarried [6]. He had married Joan before 1275 when the inquisition
> post mortem of Hugh Gobion found that Hugh died holding Higham Gobion
> and Streatley in Bedfordshire (both Beauchamp manors) of Michael Pikot
> [7]. Michael was dead before 12 November 1278 when "Joan, late the
> wife of Michael Pycot" is mentioned in the Close Rolls [8]. She
> afterwards married Ralph Paynel who died shortly before 14 March 1318
> holding the manor of Cardington, Bedfordshire "by the courtesy of
> England of the inheritance of Joan sometime his wife" [9].
>
> Michael and Joan had three children, Baldwin (named after his maternal
> grandfather) and John (named after his paternal grandfather?) and a
> daughter Lora who married Gerard Braybrook (d. ca 1326). Baldwin was
> alive in 1303 when he is mentioned in the Patent Rolls in connection
> with the manor of Doddington [10] and possibly in 1305 when Baldwin
> Pygod of the county of Lincoln appears in the Fine Rolls [11]. Baldwin
> was succeeded by his son John who was born about 1290 (aged 24 at the
> i.p.m of his great aunt Elizabeth Wake in 1314 [12] and 27 at the
> i.p.m. of Ralph Paynel in 1318). John, son of Baldwin Picot died
> shortly before 24 March 1337, holding Doddington and Thorpe,
> Lincolnshire and Cardington, Bedfordshire and leaving a son John, aged
> 23 as his heir [13]. In 1315, John son of Baldwin Picot had demised
> the manor of Renhold, Bedfordshire to his uncle John [14].
>
> All of these relationships are shown in the foundation charter of a
> chantry in Renhold by John, son of Michael Picot in which many of his
> relatives (dead and alive) are mentioned [I have expanded the
> abbreviated text a bit]:
>
> 4 April 1336, Ordination of a Chantry by John Pycot, son of Michael
> Pycot, Kt., for the souls of King Edward, the said John and Michael
> his father, and Johan his mother, Baldwyn his brother, Johan his
> (founder's) wife, John Pycot his nephew (nepos), and Alianor his wife,
> Johan daughter of John Pycot and Matilda his wife, Sir John Wake, and
> John his son, Sir Thomas Wake, Elizabeth Wake, Elizabeth Latymer,
> William de Kyme, H. Picot, Isabella de Staunton, Lora de Braibrok,
> John Paynel de Gobion, Robert de Braibrok, Ralph Picot, John son of
> Adam Picot, John de Crungleford, of Southgevel, and William, late
> Vicar of Ronhall [15].
>
> I'd be grateful if anyone could add some more flesh to these bare
> bones of a Picot pedigree.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> Sources:
> 1. R. E. G. Cole, The Registers of Doddington-Pigot, co. Lincoln,
> 1562-1812 (London: 1898) p. viii
> 2. Final Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp.
> 33-51
> 3. Canterbury & York Society, Vol. 4, Rotuli Hugonis de Welles, Vol.
> III (London: 1907) p. 168
> 4. 'Charters of the abbots: William Postard (nos. 307-26)',
> Westminster Abbey Charters, 1066 - c.1214: London Record Society 25
> (1988), pp. 160-175
> 5. Curia Regis Rolls, Vol. 4, pp. 13, 45–6, 48
> 6. Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 13: 1264-1268 (1937),
> pp. 279-289
> 7. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 2, p. 78, No. 115 (Hugh
> Gobyun)
> 8. Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: volume 1: 1272-1279 (1900), p.
> 484
> 9. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 6, p. 68, No. 104 (Ralph
> Paynel)
> 10. Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward 1, Vol. 4, p. 190
> 11. Calendar of Fine Rolls, Vol. 1, p. 510
> 12. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 5, p. 243, No. 431
> (Elizabeth Wake)
> 13. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 8, p. 82, No. 137 (John
> son of Baldwin Pycot)
> 14. Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward 2, Vol. 2, p. 291
> 15. All Saints Church Renhold Website, citing: Lincoln Diocesan
> Registers by F. A. Page-Turner
John Watson
Jan 30, 2017, 7:17:05 PM1/30/17
to
The story that Lucy was Michael Belet's daughter has been around for a long time, despite the fact that Michael was a clergyman and could not have legitimate children.
If Lucy was Michael's daughter, please explain how Lucy was holding part of the lands of Geoffrey son of Fulk de Oyri of Gedney who died about 1243, leaving his three sisters or their descendants as his heirs.
Lucy was the granddaughter of Alice de Oyri, one of the three sisters of Geoffrey. She married firstly John Belet, Michael Belet's brother, and secondly William de Beaumont.
Below are my notes on Lucy, her mother and grandmother. You make your mind up whether my explanation is correct or not, based on the contemporary evidence, or whether you believe a story presented in court some years later.
Best regards,
John
My notes for Alice de Oyri:-
In 1204, Ralph Ridell offered the king 50 marcs and 2 palfreys to have the daughter of Fulk de Oyri, who was the wife of John Belet [1].
1205, Linc'.— Assisa venit recognitura si Alicia que fuit uxor Johannis Belet injuste et sine judicio dissaisivit Emmam de Chesnei [Michael and John Belet's mother] de libero tenemento suo in Sideston' infra assisam. Juratores dicunt [2].
In 1205, Fulk de Oyri gave the king 100 marcs to have the marriage of Alice, his daughter, who was the wife of John Belet, together with her reasonable dower of the free tenements held by John, formerly her husband [3].
1206, Oxon'. Norhant'.— Alicia que fuit uxor Johannis Belet per Willelmum de Walsokne atornatum suum optulit se iiij. die versus magistrum Michaelem Belet de placito dotis, scilicet de tercia parte terre quam idem magister Michael tenet in Wroxton' et in Torp' : et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit; set quidam serviens suus protulit literas domini regis de protecdone generali. Et consideratum fuit quod non habeat pacem per breve illud eo quod in tantum processum fuit in loquela illa quod ipsa per atornatum suum vadiavit legem ad defendendum quod non fuit dotata de terra de Torp', sicut magister Michael ei objecit, et factum fuit inde judicium : et unde consideratum est quod tercia pars capiatur in manum domini regis, scilicet quam magister Michael Belet tenet in Wroxton', et tercia pars terre ejusdem de Torp' simili modo: et ipse summoneatur ad esse apud Westmonasterium a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies auditurus inde judicium suum. Et Emma de Kaineto, que tenet terram de Sidestan, unde eadem Alicia clamat terciam partem in dotem versus predictum Michaelem, summoneatur ad esse ad predictum terminum ibi ostensura quid ipsa clamat in terra de Sidestan, unde ipsa clamat etc [4].
1207, Linc'.— Emma Belet ponit loco suo Hervicum filium suum versus Aliciam filiam Fulconis de Oiri de faciendo cirographo et versus Robertum de Crec de placito assise etc.; et bene concedit concordiam prolocutam inter Michaelem Belet et predictam [5].
Aliciam.
1207, Linc'.— Emma Belet ponit loco suo Hervicum filium suum versus Aliciam filiam Fulconis de Oiri de faciendo cirographo et versus Robertum de Crec de placito assise etc.; et bene concedit concordiam prolocutam inter Michaelem Belet et predictam Aliciam [6].
In 1208, Thomas de Burgo gave 100 marcs and two palfreys to have the marriage of Alice who was the wife of John Belet with her reasonable dower of the free tenements held by John, formerly her husband [7].
1221, Easter 5 Henry III. Linc'.—[Magister] Michael Belet ponit loco suo Radulfum de Dunleg' vel Robertum Parvum versus Willelmum de Bello Monte et Aliciam uxorem ejus de placito dotis etc [8].
13 October 1255, At Westminster; from St. Michael in fifteen days, 39 Henry III. Between William le Conestable, plaintiff, and Roger de Thurkelby, tenant, of the third part of 72 acres of land in Geden', to wit, the third part of one piece of land which is called Calfholm, and the third part of another piece of land which is called Henehepes. Plea. William has quitclaimed from himself and his heirs to Roger and his heirs all the right and claim which he had in the third part, for ever. And for this Roger has granted to William and his heirs all the lands and tenements in Estwenn and Middelton which he ought to have of the grant of Alice de Bellomonte, which came to her in respect of the inheritance which was of Geoffrey de Oyri, her uncle, one of whose heirs she is [9].
Sources:
1. Thomas Duffus Hardy, Rotuli de Oblatís et Fíníbus in Turri Londinensi Asservati (1835) p. 226
2. Curia Regis Rolls, Vol. 4, p. 44
3. Thomas Duffus Hardy, Rotuli de Oblatís et Fíníbus in Turri Londinensi Asservati (1835) p. 287
4. Curia Regis Rolls, Vol. 4, p. 188
5. Curia Regis Rolls, Vol. 5, p. 6
6. Curia Regis Rolls, Vol. 5, p. 6
7. Thomas Duffus Hardy, Rotuli de Oblatís et Fíníbus in Turri Londinensi Asservati (1835) p. 440
8. Curia Regis Rolls, Vol. 10, p. 63
9. Final Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 99-112, No. 40
My notes for Alice de Beaumont, daughter of Alice de Oyri and mother of Lucy.
7 May 1245, At Lincoln; from Easter in three weeks, 29 Henry III. Between Reyner de Burgo and Joan his wife, Warin son of Hugh and Alice his wife, Hervey de Stanhou and Ela his wife, plaintiffs, by William Gambun put in the place of Hervey and Ela, and John de Oyry, tenant, of 38 acres of land in Gedeney. And between the same plaintiffs, by the said William Ganbun [sic] put in the place of Hervey and Ela, and the said John, whom Thomas rector of the church of Gedeney vouched to warrant, of 1½ acres of land in the same vill. Assize of mort d'ancestor. The plaintiffs have acknowledged all the land to be the right of John, as that which he has of the gift of William de Bello Monte, the father of Joan, Alice and Ela, whose heirs they are: to hold to John and his heirs of Reyner and Joan and the heirs of Joan for ever; rendering therefor yearly one pound of cumin at the Nativity of the Lord for all service, suit of court, custom and demand. Reyner and Joan and the heirs of Joan shall warrant the land to John and his heirs. For this John has given the plaintiffs 10 pounds sterling [1].
18 June, 1245, At Lincoln; in eight days of Trinity, 29 Henry III. Between Reyner de Burgeo and Joan his wife, by William Cheuere put in their place, Warin son of Hugh, and Alice his wife, by the same Warin put in the place of Alice, and Hervey de Stanho and Ela his wife, plaintiffs, by William Gambun put in their place, and Richard abbot of Croyland, tenant, of 1 messuage, 6 acres of meadow and 3 solidates of rent in Croyland. Assize of mort d'ancestor. The plaintiffs have remised and quitclaimed from themselves and the heirs of Joan, Alice and Ela to the abbot and his successors and his church all the right and claim which they had in the premises, for ever. For this the abbot has given them 15l. sterling [2].
November 1259, from Saint Michael in 15 days, 44 Henry III, John son of John de Scalariis and his wife Alice, released to Robert Aguilun all their rights in two-thirds of the manor of Fulking, Sussex, with the reversion, after the death of Lucy, of the remaining third, held by John Pycot and his wife Lucy as her dower of the inheritance of Alice [3].
22 April 1268, At Westminster; from Easter in fifteen days, 52 Henry III. Between Ralph abbot of Croylond, querent, and John de Scalariis and Alice his wife, deforciants, of 1 messuage, 180 acres of land, 40 acres of meadow and 100s. of rent in Gedene, Quappelade and Holebech, and the advowson of the third part of the church of Geden'. Plea of covenant. John and Alice have acknowledged the premises to be the right of the abbot and his church, as those which he and his church have of the gift of Walter de [T]hurkelby and of the grant and confirmation of John and Alice: to hold to the abbot and his successors in frank almoign, whereas John and Alice as the chief lords were, heretofore by the assignment of Walter de Thurkelby, wont to receive of the abbot and his church one pair of white gloves or 1d. yearly in respect of the premises. [Warranty.] And the abbot has received John and Alice and the heirs of Alice into all the benefits and prayers which shall henceforth be made in his church for ever [4].
Sources:
1. 'Final Concords for Lincs: 29 Henry III (Case 130, File 31)', Final Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 1-16, No. 21
2. 'Final Concords for Lincs: 29 Henry III (Case 130, File 32)', Final Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 16-33, No. 79
3. Sussex Record Society, Vol. 7, Abstract of the Feet of Fines Relating to the County of Sussex, 34 Hen III - 35 Edw. I (1908) p. 38, No. 643
4. 'Final Concords for Lincs: 49-55 Henry III (Case 132, File 47)', Final Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 223-240, No. 5
My notes for Lucy, daughter of Alice de Beaumont:-
29 May, 1250, At Westminster; in eight days of Trinity, 34 Henry III. Between Roger de Thurkelby, querent, and John Pikot and Lucy his wife, deforciants, of 60 acres of land in Gedeneye. Plea of covenant. John and Lucy have granted and demised the land to Roger, to wit, all the land and tenements which John and Lucy heretofore held as Lucy's dower in the vills of Gedeneye and Holebech with the appurtenances, as in demesnes, rents and services of free men, villeinages, meadows and pastures and all other things to the land belonging: to hold to Roger and his heirs of the chief lords of that fee for the life of Lucy without doing any service to John and Lucy; and doing therefor for John and Lucy all the services which to the land belong. [Warranty.] John and Lucy have granted for themselves that they will warrant, acquit and defend to Roger and his heirs all the land for Lucy's life; so, however, that after her death, John and his heirs shall not be bound to warrant, acquit or defend the land to Roger and his heirs against anyone, for ever. And for this Roger has given John and Lucy 60 marks of silver [1].
November 1259, from Saint Michael in 15 days, 44 Henry III, John son of John de Scalariis and his wife Alice, released to Robert Aguilun all their rights in two-thirds of the manor of Fulking, Sussex, with the reversion, after the death of Lucy, of the remaining third, held by John Pycot and his wife Lucy as her dower of the inheritance of Alice [2].
Sources:
1. Final Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 51-63, No. 3.
2. Abstract of the Feet of Fines Relating to the County of Sussex, 34 Hen III- 35 Edw. I, Sussex Record Society, 7 (1908), 38, No. 643
Hans Vogels
Jan 31, 2017, 2:26:44 AM1/31/17
to
Op maandag 30 januari 2017 23:40:49 UTC+1 schreef Douglas Richardson:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
[snip]
Hans Vogels
> Dear Newsgroup ~
[snip]
>
> "The prior of Wroxton was summoned to answer Baldwin Pycot in a plea that he should permit him to present to the church of Ounesby, which is vacant, and which the prior is unjustly impeding. Baldwin's attorney says one Michael Belet was seised of the manor of Ounesby, to which the advowson pertains, and in the time of Henry III presented one Robert ?Tespetin his clerk to the church, by whose death the church is now vacant. Michael gave the manor with the advowson to ... Pycot and Lucy, daughter of the same Michael, in free marriage ... ...
Could Lucy not be the goddaughter of magister Michael?
> "The prior of Wroxton was summoned to answer Baldwin Pycot in a plea that he should permit him to present to the church of Ounesby, which is vacant, and which the prior is unjustly impeding. Baldwin's attorney says one Michael Belet was seised of the manor of Ounesby, to which the advowson pertains, and in the time of Henry III presented one Robert ?Tespetin his clerk to the church, by whose death the church is now vacant. Michael gave the manor with the advowson to ... Pycot and Lucy, daughter of the same Michael, in free marriage ... ...
Hans Vogels
Hans Vogels
Jan 31, 2017, 2:34:21 AM1/31/17
to
Op dinsdag 31 januari 2017 01:17:05 UTC+1 schreef John Watson:
[snip]
(I can't recall one right away but those things are something one occasionally notices and archives as trivial information :-))
Hans Vogels
[snip]
>
> Dear Douglas,
>
> The story that Lucy was Michael Belet's daughter has been around for a long time, despite the fact that Michael was a clergyman and could not have legitimate children.
>
There are known examples of men who turned clergymen after the death of their dear wife. From their marriage, they did have legitimate children.
> Dear Douglas,
>
> The story that Lucy was Michael Belet's daughter has been around for a long time, despite the fact that Michael was a clergyman and could not have legitimate children.
>
(I can't recall one right away but those things are something one occasionally notices and archives as trivial information :-))
Hans Vogels
Douglas Richardson
Jan 31, 2017, 2:45:19 AM1/31/17
to
Dear John ~
In your series of posts, you kindly referenced two Lincolnshire fines which you asserted proved that Lucy, wife of John Picot, was the daughter of Hugh Fitz Warin and wife, Alice de Beaumont. We certainly know from other records that Alice de Beaumont, wife of Hugh Fitz Warin, was a grand-daughter and co-heiress of Fulk d'Oyry (living 1227), of Gedney, Lincolnshire.
The two fines in question actually prove something entirely different. In the first fine dated 1249 [see Fine No. 1 below], Hugh Fitz Warin and Alice his wife conveyed property in Gedney and Holbeach, Lincolnshire to Roger de Thurkelby. The fine specifically mentions land and tenements which Godfrey de Mylers and Ida his wife and John Pycot and Lucy his wife held as the dower of Ida and Lucy in the said vills, which property the said Ida and Lucy held of the inheritance of the said Alice. Alice grants the reversion of this property following the deaths of the said Ida and Lucy to the said Roger.
It is certain that Ida, wife of Godfrey de Mylers, was the widow of Alice de Beaumont's uncle, Geoffrey d'Oyry, who was living in 1230-5. We also know that Alice de Beaumont was one of Geoffrey d'Oyry's co-heirs [see Fine No. 5 below]. Since the property in this fine clearly involves d'Oyry family properties, it stands to reason to Lucy, wife of John Picot, in 1250, who also held her lands in right of a widow's dower, was the widow of yet another d'Oyry uncle.
In the second fine dated 1250 [see Fine No. 2 below], we see that John Picot and his wife, Lucy, conveyed lands in Gedney, Lincolnshire to the same Roger de Thurkelby. The fine specifically states that the land and tenements which John and Lucy heretofore held was part of Lucy's dower in the vills of Gedney and Holbeach, Lincolnshire. It was Lucy's dower rights from a previous marriage (not a right of inheritance) which was granted to the said Roger.
Hallam, Settlement & Society (1965): 32–33 provides the following additional information:
"In Gedney also there is a charter made about this time of the last reclamation, between 1236 and 1256. Sir John de Oyry granted Sir Roger de Thurkilby 25 acres of land in Gedney Fen, between the dyke of Sutton and Gedney and the great drove of Gedney, stretching from Leseygates (i.e., Leedsgate) to Suth-lee, and lying next the moor which Sir John gave William de Fressedyke." END OF QUOTE.
It is clear from a third and fourth fines copied below that the above mentioned John de Oyry, son of Fulk de Oyry, was living on 7 May 1245 and 5 November 1256. Elsewhere we know from a lawsuit that John Picot and Lucy his wife were married before Hilary term 1247. This means that Lucy was not the widow of Sir John de Oyry. But she might have been the widow of another brother or possibly his father. Or, she might have been the widow of Alice de Beaumont's otherwise unknown brother who died early leaving a young widow.
Whatever the case, Lucy, wife of John Picot, held lands in right of dower from an earlier marriage, which lands were part of the de Oyry inheritance of Alice de Beaumont, wife of Hugh Fitz Warin. In short, Lucy Picot was related to Alice de Beaumont by marriage, not by blood.
By the way, I never said that Lucy (Belet) Picot was the legitimate daughter of Master Michael Belet. In fact, I doubt that she was legitimate. As the founder of Wroxton Priory, Master Michael Belet was the patron of the priory. After his death, it is certain that the patronage was inherited by his sister, Annora de Verdun, not Lucy Picot. Had Lucy been legitimate, unless she was an heir of the half blood, she should have inherited the patronage, not her aunt. Since Lucy did not inherit the patronage, I assume she was either illegitimate or an heir of the half blood.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + +
Source: Final Concords of the County of Lincoln 1244-1272 (Lincoln Record Society) (1920), available on British History Online website.
Fine No. 1. At Westminster; from St. Martin in fifteen days, 34 Henry III, [25 November, 1249].
Between Roger de Thurkelby, querent, and Warin son of Hugh, and Alice his wife, impedients, of 1 messuage and 33 acres of land in Gedeneye, and of 7s. 6d. of rent in Quappelade and Holebech.
Plea of warranty of charter. Warin and Alice have acknowledged the land and rent with all their appurtenances, as in the advowson of the church, demesnes, rents, wards, reliefs, escheats, homages and services of free men, villeinages, meadows, pastures and marshes and all other things which to the said land and rent belong, to wit, whatsoever Warin and Alice heretofore held in the said vills, without any retainment, to be the right of Roger as those which he has of their gift: to hold to Roger and his heirs of Warin and Alice and the heirs of Alice for ever; rendering therefor yearly one pair of white gloves or one halfpenny at Easter; and doing therefor to the chief lords of that fee for Warin and Alice and the heirs of Alice the foreign service which to the tenements belong for all service and demand. And, moreover, Warin and Alice have granted for themselves and the heirs of Alice that all the land and tenements which Godfrey de Mylers and Ida his wife and John Pycot and Lucy his wife held as the dower of Ida and Lucy in the said vills on the day on which this concord was made, of the inheritance of Alice, and which, after the death of Ida and Lucy, ought to revert to Alice and her heirs as the purparty of Alice shall, after their death, remain to Roger and his heirs: to hold, together with the lands and tenements which remain to them by this concord, of Warin and Alice and the heirs of Alice by the said services, for ever. And Warin and Alice and the heirs of Alice shall warrant, acquit and defend to Roger and his heirs all the tenements for the said services against all men, excepting the earl of Albemarl and his heirs in respect of certain suit if it is due to them in respect of the tenements, for ever. And for this Roger has given Warin and Alice 100l. sterling.
Fine No. 2. At Westminster; in eight days of Trinity, 34 Henry III, [29 May, 1250].
Between Roger de Thurkelby, querent, and John Pikot and Lucy his wife, deforciants, of 60 acres of land in Gedeneye.
¶Plea of covenant. John and Lucy have granted and demised the land to Roger, to wit, all the land and tenements which John and Lucy heretofore held as Lucy's dower in the vills of Gedeneye and Holebech with the appurtenances, as in demesnes, rents and services of free men, villeinages, meadows and pastures and all other things to the land belonging: to hold to Roger and his heirs of the chief lords of that fee for the life of Lucy without doing any service to John and Lucy; and doing therefor for John and Lucy all the services which to the land belong. [Warranty.] John and Lucy have granted for themselves that they will warrant, acquit and defend to Roger and his heirs all the land for Lucy's life; so, however, that after her death, John and his heirs shall not be bound to warrant, acquit or defend the land to Roger and his heirs against anyone, for ever. And for this Roger has given John and Lucy 60 marks of silver.
Fine No. 3. At Lincoln; from Easter in three weeks, 29 Henry III, [7 May, 1245].
Between Reyner de Burgo and Joan his wife, Warin son of Hugh and Alice his wife, Hervey de Stanhou and Ela his wife, plaintiffs, by William Gambun put in the place of Hervey and Ela, and John de Oyry, tenant, of 38 acres of land in Gedeney. And between the same plaintiffs, by the said William Ganbun [sic] put in the place of Hervey and Ela, and the said John, whom Thomas rector of the church of Gedeney vouched to warrant, of 1½ acres of land in the same vill.
Assize of mort d'ancestor. The plaintiffs have acknowledged all the land to be the right of John, as that which he has of the gift of William de Bello Monte, the father of Joan, Alice and Ela, whose heirs they are: to hold to John and his heirs of Reyner and Joan and the heirs of Joan for ever; rendering therefor yearly one pound of cumin at the Nativity of the Lord for all service, suit of court, custom and demand. Reyner and Joan and the heirs of Joan shall warrant the land to John and his heirs. For this John has given the plaintiffs 10 pounds sterling.
Fine No. 4. At Lincoln; from St. Martin in fifteen days, 41 Henry III, [25 November, 1256].
Between William de Geyste, canon of the abbey of St. Mary of Crek', querent, and John de Ory, impedient, of 1 messuage, 1 windmill and 47 acres of land in Gedeney.
¶Plea of warranty of charter. John has acknowledged the messuage, windmill and land with the appurtenances, as in demesnes, meadows, pastures, waters, marshes, dikes, roads, paths and all other things to the premises belonging, excepting a certain part of the messuage which shall remain to John for his life, to be the right of William, as those which William has of John's gift for his maintenance to celebrate divine service in the chapel which is in the messuage, and to maintain five poor people there, for the souls of Fulk de Ory, John's father, Geoffrey de Ory, Roger de Thurkilby, William de Bello Monte and Alice his wife, and the said John and his ancestors and heirs; in such wise that he shall find every day for each of the poor people one loaf of the weight of fifty shillings, and drink, and one mess (ferculum) of flesh or fish or other food, according to what the season requires, between two of them; and every second year for each of them one tunic of cloth (panno) suitable for their use: to hold to William for his life, as is aforesaid, in frank almoign; so that after his death or cession the abbot and his successors shall present three fit canons of their abbey to the bishop of Lincoln for the time being, who shall, at his will, choose one of them, and put him in William's place to celebrate divine service in the chapel and maintain the poor people, as is aforesaid. And so successively, after the death or cession of each canon admitted by the bishop to the chapel, the abbots of Crek' shall present to the bishop of Lincoln for the chapel their canons, who shall celebrate divine service there and maintain the five poor people, as is aforesaid, for ever, without any subordination (subiectione) which the abbot or his successors shall be able to demand of William or his successors who shall serve the chapel, except only one competent lodging (hospitium) throughout the year for five horses, or half a mark at Pentecost if they will not have the lodging. And if, after the death or cession of any canon admitted to the chapel, the abbot or his successors shall put off presenting their canons to the bishop of Lincoln for the time being, then, after the lapse of forty days from the time at which the chapel became vacant, it shall be lawful for the bishop to confer the chapel upon any canon he pleases of the order of the abbey, saving to the abbot and his successors their right of presenting thereafter to the chapel, and likewise their right to the lodging or half a mark by the year, as is aforesaid, for ever. And for this William has granted to John the said part of the messuage, to wit, that part which is enclosed by the dike (fossato), at the drawbridge (ad pontem tractiuum), where the hall, chamber, kitchen and the said chapel are situate, together with the garden and dovecot of the messuage: to hold to John for his life of William and his successors; saving to William and his successors free ingress and egress, as necessity may require, to serve the chapel, for ever. And after John's death, the said part of the messuage, with the houses, buildings, and garden and all their appurtenances, shall wholly remain to William and his successors: to hold, together with the other part of the messuage and the mill and the land with their appurtenances in frank almoign, as is aforesaid, for ever. [Warranties.] And be it known that it shall not be lawful for William or his successors to give, sell, mortgage or otherwise to aliene any part of the messuage, mill or land; but all those tenements shall remain to maintain the celebration of divine service, and to support the said poor people, as is aforesaid, for ever.
Fine No. 5. At Westminster; from St. Michael in fifteen days, 39 Henry III, [13 October, 1255].
Between William le Conestable, plaintiff, and Roger de Thurkelby, tenant, of the third part of 72 acres of land in Geden', to wit, the third part of one piece of land which is called Calfholm, and the third part of another piece of land which is called Henehepes.
Plea. William has quitclaimed from himself and his heirs to Roger and his heirs all the right and claim which he had in the third part, for ever. And for this Roger has granted to William and his heirs all the lands and tenements in Estwenn and Middelton which he ought to have of the grant of Alice de Bellomonte, which came to her in respect of the inheritance which was of Geoffrey de Oyri, her uncle, one of whose heirs she is.
In your series of posts, you kindly referenced two Lincolnshire fines which you asserted proved that Lucy, wife of John Picot, was the daughter of Hugh Fitz Warin and wife, Alice de Beaumont. We certainly know from other records that Alice de Beaumont, wife of Hugh Fitz Warin, was a grand-daughter and co-heiress of Fulk d'Oyry (living 1227), of Gedney, Lincolnshire.
The two fines in question actually prove something entirely different. In the first fine dated 1249 [see Fine No. 1 below], Hugh Fitz Warin and Alice his wife conveyed property in Gedney and Holbeach, Lincolnshire to Roger de Thurkelby. The fine specifically mentions land and tenements which Godfrey de Mylers and Ida his wife and John Pycot and Lucy his wife held as the dower of Ida and Lucy in the said vills, which property the said Ida and Lucy held of the inheritance of the said Alice. Alice grants the reversion of this property following the deaths of the said Ida and Lucy to the said Roger.
It is certain that Ida, wife of Godfrey de Mylers, was the widow of Alice de Beaumont's uncle, Geoffrey d'Oyry, who was living in 1230-5. We also know that Alice de Beaumont was one of Geoffrey d'Oyry's co-heirs [see Fine No. 5 below]. Since the property in this fine clearly involves d'Oyry family properties, it stands to reason to Lucy, wife of John Picot, in 1250, who also held her lands in right of a widow's dower, was the widow of yet another d'Oyry uncle.
In the second fine dated 1250 [see Fine No. 2 below], we see that John Picot and his wife, Lucy, conveyed lands in Gedney, Lincolnshire to the same Roger de Thurkelby. The fine specifically states that the land and tenements which John and Lucy heretofore held was part of Lucy's dower in the vills of Gedney and Holbeach, Lincolnshire. It was Lucy's dower rights from a previous marriage (not a right of inheritance) which was granted to the said Roger.
Hallam, Settlement & Society (1965): 32–33 provides the following additional information:
"In Gedney also there is a charter made about this time of the last reclamation, between 1236 and 1256. Sir John de Oyry granted Sir Roger de Thurkilby 25 acres of land in Gedney Fen, between the dyke of Sutton and Gedney and the great drove of Gedney, stretching from Leseygates (i.e., Leedsgate) to Suth-lee, and lying next the moor which Sir John gave William de Fressedyke." END OF QUOTE.
It is clear from a third and fourth fines copied below that the above mentioned John de Oyry, son of Fulk de Oyry, was living on 7 May 1245 and 5 November 1256. Elsewhere we know from a lawsuit that John Picot and Lucy his wife were married before Hilary term 1247. This means that Lucy was not the widow of Sir John de Oyry. But she might have been the widow of another brother or possibly his father. Or, she might have been the widow of Alice de Beaumont's otherwise unknown brother who died early leaving a young widow.
Whatever the case, Lucy, wife of John Picot, held lands in right of dower from an earlier marriage, which lands were part of the de Oyry inheritance of Alice de Beaumont, wife of Hugh Fitz Warin. In short, Lucy Picot was related to Alice de Beaumont by marriage, not by blood.
By the way, I never said that Lucy (Belet) Picot was the legitimate daughter of Master Michael Belet. In fact, I doubt that she was legitimate. As the founder of Wroxton Priory, Master Michael Belet was the patron of the priory. After his death, it is certain that the patronage was inherited by his sister, Annora de Verdun, not Lucy Picot. Had Lucy been legitimate, unless she was an heir of the half blood, she should have inherited the patronage, not her aunt. Since Lucy did not inherit the patronage, I assume she was either illegitimate or an heir of the half blood.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + +
Source: Final Concords of the County of Lincoln 1244-1272 (Lincoln Record Society) (1920), available on British History Online website.
Fine No. 1. At Westminster; from St. Martin in fifteen days, 34 Henry III, [25 November, 1249].
Between Roger de Thurkelby, querent, and Warin son of Hugh, and Alice his wife, impedients, of 1 messuage and 33 acres of land in Gedeneye, and of 7s. 6d. of rent in Quappelade and Holebech.
Plea of warranty of charter. Warin and Alice have acknowledged the land and rent with all their appurtenances, as in the advowson of the church, demesnes, rents, wards, reliefs, escheats, homages and services of free men, villeinages, meadows, pastures and marshes and all other things which to the said land and rent belong, to wit, whatsoever Warin and Alice heretofore held in the said vills, without any retainment, to be the right of Roger as those which he has of their gift: to hold to Roger and his heirs of Warin and Alice and the heirs of Alice for ever; rendering therefor yearly one pair of white gloves or one halfpenny at Easter; and doing therefor to the chief lords of that fee for Warin and Alice and the heirs of Alice the foreign service which to the tenements belong for all service and demand. And, moreover, Warin and Alice have granted for themselves and the heirs of Alice that all the land and tenements which Godfrey de Mylers and Ida his wife and John Pycot and Lucy his wife held as the dower of Ida and Lucy in the said vills on the day on which this concord was made, of the inheritance of Alice, and which, after the death of Ida and Lucy, ought to revert to Alice and her heirs as the purparty of Alice shall, after their death, remain to Roger and his heirs: to hold, together with the lands and tenements which remain to them by this concord, of Warin and Alice and the heirs of Alice by the said services, for ever. And Warin and Alice and the heirs of Alice shall warrant, acquit and defend to Roger and his heirs all the tenements for the said services against all men, excepting the earl of Albemarl and his heirs in respect of certain suit if it is due to them in respect of the tenements, for ever. And for this Roger has given Warin and Alice 100l. sterling.
Fine No. 2. At Westminster; in eight days of Trinity, 34 Henry III, [29 May, 1250].
Between Roger de Thurkelby, querent, and John Pikot and Lucy his wife, deforciants, of 60 acres of land in Gedeneye.
Fine No. 3. At Lincoln; from Easter in three weeks, 29 Henry III, [7 May, 1245].
Between Reyner de Burgo and Joan his wife, Warin son of Hugh and Alice his wife, Hervey de Stanhou and Ela his wife, plaintiffs, by William Gambun put in the place of Hervey and Ela, and John de Oyry, tenant, of 38 acres of land in Gedeney. And between the same plaintiffs, by the said William Ganbun [sic] put in the place of Hervey and Ela, and the said John, whom Thomas rector of the church of Gedeney vouched to warrant, of 1½ acres of land in the same vill.
Fine No. 4. At Lincoln; from St. Martin in fifteen days, 41 Henry III, [25 November, 1256].
Between William de Geyste, canon of the abbey of St. Mary of Crek', querent, and John de Ory, impedient, of 1 messuage, 1 windmill and 47 acres of land in Gedeney.
¶Plea of warranty of charter. John has acknowledged the messuage, windmill and land with the appurtenances, as in demesnes, meadows, pastures, waters, marshes, dikes, roads, paths and all other things to the premises belonging, excepting a certain part of the messuage which shall remain to John for his life, to be the right of William, as those which William has of John's gift for his maintenance to celebrate divine service in the chapel which is in the messuage, and to maintain five poor people there, for the souls of Fulk de Ory, John's father, Geoffrey de Ory, Roger de Thurkilby, William de Bello Monte and Alice his wife, and the said John and his ancestors and heirs; in such wise that he shall find every day for each of the poor people one loaf of the weight of fifty shillings, and drink, and one mess (ferculum) of flesh or fish or other food, according to what the season requires, between two of them; and every second year for each of them one tunic of cloth (panno) suitable for their use: to hold to William for his life, as is aforesaid, in frank almoign; so that after his death or cession the abbot and his successors shall present three fit canons of their abbey to the bishop of Lincoln for the time being, who shall, at his will, choose one of them, and put him in William's place to celebrate divine service in the chapel and maintain the poor people, as is aforesaid. And so successively, after the death or cession of each canon admitted by the bishop to the chapel, the abbots of Crek' shall present to the bishop of Lincoln for the chapel their canons, who shall celebrate divine service there and maintain the five poor people, as is aforesaid, for ever, without any subordination (subiectione) which the abbot or his successors shall be able to demand of William or his successors who shall serve the chapel, except only one competent lodging (hospitium) throughout the year for five horses, or half a mark at Pentecost if they will not have the lodging. And if, after the death or cession of any canon admitted to the chapel, the abbot or his successors shall put off presenting their canons to the bishop of Lincoln for the time being, then, after the lapse of forty days from the time at which the chapel became vacant, it shall be lawful for the bishop to confer the chapel upon any canon he pleases of the order of the abbey, saving to the abbot and his successors their right of presenting thereafter to the chapel, and likewise their right to the lodging or half a mark by the year, as is aforesaid, for ever. And for this William has granted to John the said part of the messuage, to wit, that part which is enclosed by the dike (fossato), at the drawbridge (ad pontem tractiuum), where the hall, chamber, kitchen and the said chapel are situate, together with the garden and dovecot of the messuage: to hold to John for his life of William and his successors; saving to William and his successors free ingress and egress, as necessity may require, to serve the chapel, for ever. And after John's death, the said part of the messuage, with the houses, buildings, and garden and all their appurtenances, shall wholly remain to William and his successors: to hold, together with the other part of the messuage and the mill and the land with their appurtenances in frank almoign, as is aforesaid, for ever. [Warranties.] And be it known that it shall not be lawful for William or his successors to give, sell, mortgage or otherwise to aliene any part of the messuage, mill or land; but all those tenements shall remain to maintain the celebration of divine service, and to support the said poor people, as is aforesaid, for ever.
Fine No. 5. At Westminster; from St. Michael in fifteen days, 39 Henry III, [13 October, 1255].
Between William le Conestable, plaintiff, and Roger de Thurkelby, tenant, of the third part of 72 acres of land in Geden', to wit, the third part of one piece of land which is called Calfholm, and the third part of another piece of land which is called Henehepes.
John Watson
Jan 31, 2017, 5:40:03 PM1/31/17
to
I think that you are probably right. I also think I know the name of Lucy's mother:-
26 June 1238, In one month from Holy Trinity, 22 Henry III, between Master Michael Belet, plaintiff, and Lucy daughter of Salerna, tenant of the manor of Ounesby [Aunsby]. Lucy acknowledged the said manor to be the right of Michael, and for this Michael gave her 2 marks.
Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/129/27, number 12.
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/CP25%281%29/CP25%281%29129Lincs27/IMG_0015.htm
As you showed in your original post, in 1305 when Baldwin Pigot was disputing the advowson of the church of Aunsby with the prior of Wroxton it was stated that Michael Belet had enfeoffed John Picot and Lucy with the manor. It appears that Michael Belet had previously enfeoffed his lady friend with the manor and later gave it to her daughter and her (second?) husband.
Regards,
John
0 new messages