The identity of Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings
Rosie Bevan
any earlier IPMs for Ralph Hastings and found this one.
"Ralph Hastynges, knight
540 Writs, ordering the inquisition below to be sent to chancery, 20 and 22
June 1401
[Endorsed] The escheator received the writs at Richmond on 2 July and
despatched them with the inquisition on the following day.
Another writ, ordering release of the lands, 15 Oct 1401 [CCR 1399-1402,
p.428]
York. Inquisition ex officio. Slingsby.23 June.
Ralph de Hastynges, knight, of Slingsby held in his demesne as of fee of
Thomas son and heir of Thomas duke of Norfolk, of his manor of Thirsk by
knight service, the castle and manor of Slingsby with its members in
Slingsby, Coulton and howthorpe. The castle and manor of Slingsby are worth
16 annually, payable by equal parts at Martinmas and Whitsun, Coulton 40s.,
and Howthorpe 8, both payable at the same terms.
He died on 27 Oct 1397 Richard de Hastynges, knight his son and heir, will
be 20 years of age on 24 Aug next."
[CIPM v.XVIII no.540]
Having just seen this inquisition, (unless there is any other information
not yet uncovered), it is evident that Richard Hastings was the eldest son
and heir of Ralph Hastings because he received the patrimony of Slingsby. It
would appear that he was born in August 1381 and that his lands were
released to him before attaining majority.
From Ralph the younger's IPM, it looks like he was the second son and had
the Sutton-in-Holderness lands, a third of which was held as dower by his
mother Maud, who was still alive in 1407. Richard Hastings received Ralph's
forfeited estate, and when he died without issue in 1437, all the properties
passed to Leonard Hastings their younger brother whose IPM records their
combined holdings.
Richard was knighted by 1401, and married secondly in 1427, Elizabeth,
daughter of Henry, Lord Beaumont, and widow of William, Lord D'Eincourt. Of
significance, CP IV 126 records that a dispensation was required for this
marriage because William Deincourt and Richard Hastings were related in the
2nd and 3rd degree of consanguinity. It is my belief that this relationship
was through Richard's mother, Maud, and the Greys of Rotherfield.
As can be seen from Ralph Hasting's IPM posted yesterday, Sutton in
Holderness was held of the manor of Beverley of the archbishopric of York.
Walter de Grey was archbishop when he died in 1255 and was well known for
his nepotic distribution of archbishopric lands to his family. The Greys of
Rotherfield, were descendants of Walter de Grey, nephew and namesake of the
Archbishop.
The following PRO abstract provides proof of the Grey family's interest in
Sutton-in-Holderness.
E 210/416
Grant by Robert de Gray of Retherfeld, to John de Nevill, knight, lord
of Raby, of the reversion of the manor of Sculcotes and of ten messuages,
with land and rent, in Bisshopburton and Sutton in Holdernesse, and of the
reversion of the advowson of the church of Sculcotes : [ York.
Kyngeston-on-Hull, 6 January, 49 [ Edward ] III.
As noted in Sir Ralph's will, one of the sons of Sir Ralph and Maud Hastings
was named Bartholomew, and there is an instance of this name appearing in
the Grey family from about 1350 to 1375. Bartholomew de Grey of
Rotherfield d. 1375, was second son and heir of Sir John Grey d.1375, and
Maud de Burghersh, daughter of Bartholomew de Burghersh the elder [CP VI
147]. They had three sons - Bartholomew, Robert and Richard, who are
documented in Robert de Grey's 1388 IPM [CIPM xvi no.582]. Richard de Grey
was the heir male of his elder brother, Robert, and it would seem likely
Richard Hastings was named for him as chronologically Maud, wife of Ralph
Hastings seems to be a full sister.
The following illustrates the second and third degree consanguinity
1.John de Grey of Rotherfield=Maud Burghersh
2. Robert Grey
3.Joan de Grey
4. William Deincourt
2.Maud de Grey
3.Richard Hastings
I would be interested in what people think.
Cheers
Rosie
Rosie Bevan
Lord Grey of Rotherfield was married to John de Botetort d.v.p. 1369.
Looking at the IPM of his father in 1385 [CIPM xvi no.205], it appears that
Maud was then married to Sir Thomas Harcourt.
Unless there were two daughters named Maud, it seems unlikely the solution I
gave was the correct one. I still think, however, that there is enough
circumstantial evidence to point to the Greys as the solution to this
puzzle.
Cheers
Rosie
DadG...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/2/03 3:37:12 AM, rbe...@paradise.net.nz writes:
<< Tim has contacted me to say that Maud de Grey, daughter of John Grey 2nd
Lord Grey of Rotherfield was married to John de Botetort d.v.p. 1369.
Looking at the IPM of his father in 1385 [CIPM xvi no.205], it appears that
Maud was then married to Sir Thomas Harcourt.
Unless there were two daughters named Maud, it seems unlikely the solution I
gave was the correct one. I still think, however, that there is enough
circumstantial evidence to point to the Greys as the solution to this
puzzle.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosie Bevan" <rbe...@paradise.net.nz>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:53 PM
Subject: The identity of Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings
[snip of interesting details leading to below hypothesis]
>
> The following illustrates the second and third degree consanguinity
>
> 1.John de Grey of Rotherfield=Maud Burghersh
> 2. Robert Grey
> 3.Joan de Grey
> 4. William Deincourt
> 2.Maud de Grey
> 3.Richard Hastings
>
> I would be interested in what people think.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosie >>
Rosie, Tim et al,
From earlier postings on this and related topics, I had gotten the impression
that the Maud de Grey who married Botetort and then Harcourt was the daughter
of John de Grey, Lord Grey of Rotherfield (died 1359) and his second wife,
Avice Marmion. I also thought that the John de Grey, Lord Grey of Rotherfield,
(died 1375) who married Maud (possibly Burghersh) was the son of John (died
1359) and his first wife, Catherine FitzAlan.
If those impressions are correct, it would seem that the hypothesis that
Maud, wife of Ralph Hastings, might be Maud de Grey, daughter of John (died 1375)
could still be in play.
Have I got something muddled here? Any clarfication would be appreciated.
Thanks,
John Stuart
DadG...@aol.com
Doug Smith
Based on my notes, I think the John de Grey who d. 1359, married to
Catherine FitzAlan were parents of the Maud who married John de
Botetourte and Sir Thomas Harcourt.
This John had a son John who died 4 June 1375 who was married to Maud
Burghersh and may have been the parents of your Maud.
Doug Smith
> Hi Rosie
>
> Based on my notes, I think the John de Grey who d. 1359, married to
> Catherine FitzAlan were parents of the Maud who married John de
> Botetourte and Sir Thomas Harcourt.
>
> This John had a son John who died 4 June 1375 who was married to Maud
Doug
MOre complete as follows:
1. Sir John II de1 GREY 1st Lord Grey of Rotherfield, KG, born 9 Oct
1300 in Rotherfield, Oxfordshire; died 1 Sep 1359 in Rotherfield,
Oxfordshire, son of Sir John I de GREY of Rotherfield and Margaret de
ODDINGSELLES. He married (1) bef 1 Mar 1311/12 Catherine FITZALAN,
died bef 1342 in Rotherfield, Oxfordshire, daughter of Sir Bryan III
FITZALAN Lord of Bedale and Maud (---); (2) abt 1342 Avice MARMION,
born abt 1309 of Tanfield, Yorkshire, England; died aft 20 Mar 1378,
daughter of Sir John de MARMION 2nd Baron Marmion and Maud de
FURNIVAL.
Notes for Sir John II de GREY 1st Lord Grey of Rotherfield, KG
Clay, pps 92-93, 131-132.
CP VI Pedigree of Grey.
CP VI pps 145-147.
AR 6; 219.
RD 500, p 325.
Banks, Baronies in Fee, Vol. I: 308.
CP II: 233-236.
Children of Sir John II de GREY 1st Lord Grey of Rotherfield, KG and
Catherine FITZALAN were as follows:
+ 2 i Sir John III de2 GREY 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield, born 1319;
died 4 Jun 1375. He married Maud de BURGHERSH.
+ 3 ii Matilda de2 GREY, born abt 1320. She married John de
BOTETOURTE 2nd Lord Botetourte.
Children of Sir John II de GREY 1st Lord Grey of Rotherfield, KG and
Avice MARMION were as follows:
4 i John (de Grey)2 MARMION, born 1343 of Rotherfield, Oxfordshire,
England; died 25 Feb 1367/8 (dsp) in Spain. He married Elizabeth de
SAINT QUENTIN, born abt 1340 in Brandensburton, Dorset, England,
daughter of Sir Herbert de SAINT QUENTIN and Margery de LISLE.
Notes: Clay, pps 131-132. Banks, Baronies in Fee, Vol. I: 308.
+ 5 ii Sir Robert (Marmion) de2 GREY, born abt 1345 in Ravensworth,
Yorkshire; died Bef 30 Nov 1367 (dspm). He married Lora de SAINT
QUENTIN.
+ 6 iii Maud de2 GREY, born abt 1346 of Rotherfield, Oxfordshire; died
30 Jan 1391. She married (1) John II de BOTETOURTE of Weoley, co.
Worcs.; (2) Sir Thomas de HARCOURT of Stanton-Harcourt.
7 iv Joan de2 GREY. She married Richard QUATREMAIN.
Generation 2
2. Sir John III de2 GREY 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield (John II de1),
born 1319; died 4 Jun 1375. He married Maud de BURGHERSH.
Notes for Sir John III de GREY 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield
Clay, pps 92-93.
Children of Sir John III de GREY 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield and
Maud de BURGHERSH were as follows:
+ 8 i John de3 GREY, born abt 1343; died bef 1373. He married
Elizabeth de POYNINGS.
9 ii Bartholomew de3 GREY 3rd Lord Grey of Rotherfield, died 1376.
+ 10 iii Sir Robert3 GREY 4th Lord Grey of Rotherfield, died 12 Jan
1387. He married Elizabeth de la PLAUNCHE.
11 iv Sir Richard3 GREY of Warwick, died abt 1399.
3. Matilda de2 GREY (John II de1), born abt 1320. She married John de
BOTETOURTE 2nd Lord Botetourte, born 1318; died 1385 in Weobley
Castle, Worchestershire, son of Thomas de BOTETOURTE and Joan de
SOMERY.
Notes for John de BOTETOURTE 2nd Lord Botetourte
RD 500, p 361, 352.
DEP, p 64.
AR 6: 216.
Sanders, I. J. , English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and
Descent, Oxford, 1960, pps 10-12, 114.
Clay, pps 92-93.
CP II: 233-236.
Children of Matilda de GREY and John de BOTETOURTE 2nd Lord
Botetourte were as follows:
12 i Alice de3 BOTETOURTE, born 1339. She married John KYRIEL of
Eynesford, Kent.
5. Sir Robert (Marmion) de2 GREY (John II de1), born abt 1345 in
Ravensworth, Yorkshire; died Bef 30 Nov 1367 (dspm). He married Lora
de SAINT QUENTIN, born 1342 in Wiltshire, England; died 1369 in
Brandsburton, Yorkshire, England, daughter of Sir Herbert de SAINT
QUENTIN and Margery de LISLE.
Notes for Sir Robert (Marmion) de GREY
Clay, pps 131-132.
RD 500, p 313.
Banks, Baronies in Fee, Vol. I: 308.
CP V: 416-435.
Children of Sir Robert (Marmion) de GREY and Lora de SAINT QUENTIN
were as follows:
+ 13 i Elizabeth de3 GREY de Marmion, born abt 1365 in Ravensworth,
Ravensworth, Yorkshire, England; died in Rotherfield, Oxfordshire,
England. She married Henry, Lord FITZHUGH 3rd Lord FitzHugh, KG.
6. Maud de2 GREY (John II de1), born abt 1346 of Rotherfield,
Oxfordshire; died 30 Jan 1391. She married (1) abt 1365 John II de
BOTETOURTE of Weoley, co. Worcs., born abt 1345; died abt 1370, son of
John de BOTETOURTE 2nd Lord Botetourte and Joyce la ZOUCHE de
Mortimer; (2) abt 1374 Sir Thomas de HARCOURT of Stanton-Harcourt,
born abt 1323; died abt 12 Apr 1417, son of Sir William III de
HARCOURT of Stanton-Harcourt and Jane (Joan) de GREY.
Notes for Sir Thomas de HARCOURT of Stanton-Harcourt
CP V: 85-90.
MC 5: 146.
AR 6: 50.
Children of Maud de GREY and John II de BOTETOURTE of Weoley, co.
Worcs. were as follows:
14 i John III de3 BOTETOURTE, died bef 1385.
15 ii Joyce de3 BOTETOURTE suo jure Baroness Botetourte, died 1406
(dsp). She married bef 22 May 1386 Sir Hugh BURNELL 3rd Lord Burnell,
born of Holdgate, Salop; died 27 Nov 1420, son of Nicholas de HAUNDLO
alias Burnell, 2nd Lord Burnell and Mary (---).
Children of Maud de GREY and Sir Thomas de HARCOURT of
Stanton-Harcourt were as follows:
+ 16 i Thomas II de3 HARCOURT, born 1377 of Bosworth, Leicestershire;
died 1420. He married Joan FRAUNCEYS.
+ 17 ii Anne de3 HARCOURT. She married Thomas de ERDINGTON.
Generation 3
8. John de3 GREY (John III de2, John II de1), born abt 1343; died bef
1373. He married Elizabeth de POYNINGS, daughter of Michael de
POYNINGS 1st Baron Poynings and Joane (---).
Children of John de GREY and Elizabeth de POYNINGS were as follows:
18 i Robert de4 GREY 5th Baron Grey of Rotherfield, born abt 1364 in
Rotherfield; died 1387.
10. Sir Robert3 GREY 4th Lord Grey of Rotherfield (John III de2, John
II de1), died 12 Jan 1387. He married Elizabeth de la PLAUNCHE, born
abt 1347; died aft 1 Sep 1423 (dsp), daughter of William de la
PLAUNCHE of Haversham, co. Bucks. and Elizabeth HILLARY.
Notes for Sir Robert GREY 4th Lord Grey of Rotherfield
Clay, pps 92-93.
Children of Sir Robert GREY 4th Lord Grey of Rotherfield and
Elizabeth de la PLAUNCHE were as follows:
19 i Joan4 GREY, died 10 Nov 1408.
>
>
Rosie Bevan
wife of John Botetout d.v.p. 1369
CP II 235 gives the following descent, but being the first volume in the
series does not give much in the way of primary citations to support
statements. Spencer informs me that CP XIV does not contain any additions.
1.John Botetourt
+ Maud de Grey dau John 1st Lord Grey of Rotherfield.
2. Issue
+ Joyce Mortimer
2. John de Botetourt d.v.p. 1369
+ Maud de Grey dau John 2nd Lord Grey, married secondly Sir Thomas
Harcourt.
3. Joyce Mortimer
One thing is certain, and that is Maud de Grey was widow of John Botetourt
the younger d.v.p. 1369 and wife of Sir Thomas Harcourt. The evidence for
this is found in John Botetourt the elder's inquisition in 1385.
"John Buttetourt, knight
207 Buckingham. Inq. taken at Neuport Paynel, Wednesday before Easter, 9
Richard II
He held the undermentioned manor for life by grant of Thomas Shirryf, parson
of the church of Sheldesleye, and Henry de Haukeserd, chaplain to him and
Joyce his wife for their lives, with remainder to John their son and Maud
daughter of John de Grey of Retherfield (who is still living and married to
Thomas Harecourt, knight) and the heirs of their bodies, by a fine levied in
the king's court with the king's licence.
Neuport Paynell. The manor held of the king in chief by knight's service.
Heir as above, daughter of the aforesaid John son of John and Maud."
[CIPM xvi no. 207]
Unfortunately there is no indication as to which Lord Grey was the father of
Maud from the inquisition.
Dr Faris in PA2 has Maud wife of John Botetourt the younger as daughter of
the first Lord Grey and Avice Marmion. On what evidence it is difficult to
tell from the difficult nature of the referencing. Joyce was born in 1363
(22 in 1385) which places Maud's birth around the 1340s. Unfortunately this
is very close to 1350-1360 when John 2nd Lord Grey was fathering his family.
It would be useful to settle the conflict as there is further evidence in
support of the Hastings/Grey marriage.
In Roskell's History of Parliament v.2 p.86, a section dealing with the
biography of Robert Ashcombe links Maud (Burghersh) Grey, Robert and Richard
Grey and Ralph Hastings together in an attack against Robert Ashcombe.
"Also at this time, in May 1379, Ashcombe was himself named as defendant in
two suits concerning the ownership of a tenement in the parish of St.
Michael, Wood Street. It is by no means certain, however, that he owned the
property, which probably belonged to Sir John Kyriel with Ashcombe acting as
his feoffee. The final verdict is not recorded, and the parties may well
have settled amicably out of court. This was certainly not the case with
Maud, the widow of John, Lord Grey of Rotherfield, who in November 1384 was
pardoned her outlawry for failing to appear when sued by Ashcombe for a debt
of £40. Ashcombe, a persistent and unrelenting litigant, probably continued
to press his suit, which became a source of considerable friction between
him and the Greys. On 21 Nov. 1386, Maud's sons, Robert, Lord Grey of
Rotherfield, and Richard Grey, undertook to pay Ashcombe 100 marks should
the servant of his kinsman, John Ashcombe, be permanently maimed 'by the
hurt which was lately done him at Pykerynge'. Together with Ralph Hastings,
they entered into further recognizances in £1,000 not to molest Ashcombe
himself in any manner."
It is unlikely that Ralph Hastings would have undertaken such a
recognizance, nor have been involved in the attack without being a close
family member.
Louise Staley contacted me today to say she had been looking at the Hastings
kinship relationships unearthed by Douglas Richardson in the context of a
Grey connection. Inasmuch as kinship statements of this type have limited
use for genealogical purposes considering the amount of intermarriage that
had occurred by the 1400s, it would seem that a few of may be explained by a
relationship to Grey of Rotherfield. With Louise's permission I am posting
them below.
"William Hastings styled "kinsman" by John Lovel, Lord Lovel and Holand, in
1461). C. Hatton Book of Seals (1950): 21
2nd cousin twice removed from Sir John Grey 2nd Baron Grey of Rotherfield
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1467-1477 (1900): 460 (William Hastings
styled "king's kinsman).
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1476-1485 (1901): 152, 154 (instances of
Sir William Hastings and his brother, Richard Hastings, Lord Welles,
styled "king's kinsmen").
Report on the Manuscripts of the late Reginald R. Hastings (Hist.
Mss. Comm. 78) (1928): xiii-xv, 302 (William styled "kinsman" by
George [Plantagenet], Duke of Clarence.
3rd cousin once removed through Elizabeth Mortimer
Indenture dated 1464 mentions the "love and kind cosinage" shown by
William, Lord Hastings, to Henry Grey, Lord Grey of Codnor [Reference:
W.H. Dunham, Lord Hastings' Indentured Retainers, 1461-1483 (Trans.
Connecticut Academy of Arts & Sciences 39) (1955): 133].
The closest I can get is 1/2 fourth cousins once removed starting from
Theobald Verdun, again the Hastings line goes through Maud Burghersh
and Maud Grey
William Hastings styled "cousin" by John Blount, Lord Mountjoy
[Reference: W.H. Dunham, Lord Hastings' Indentured Retainers,
1461-1483 (Trans. Connecticut Academy of Arts & Sciences 39) (1955):
133-134].
This one is difficult. The Blount wives do not appear to offer much hope.
The five Blount wives ancestral to Sir John, 3rd Lord Mountjoy are:
Helena/Ellen Byron, Margaret Gresley, Sancha de Ayala, Isolde Mountjoy and
Joan Sodington."
Mardi Carter has forwarded some information from Poulson and it appears that
the de Melsa/Meaux landholdings may have been different to the ones the
Hastings family held, and after the weekend I will follow this up.
Thank you to all those who have provided information or have made
suggestions.
Douglas Richardson
> al...@mindspring.com (Doug Smith) wrote in message news:<4fad4bf0.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> Generation 2
>
> 2. Sir John III de2 GREY 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield (John II de1),
> born 1319; died 4 Jun 1375. He married Maud de BURGHERSH.
>
> Notes for Sir John III de GREY 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield
> Clay, pps 92-93.
>
> 5. Sir Robert (Marmion) de2 GREY (John II de1), born abt 1345 in
> Ravensworth, Yorkshire; died Bef 30 Nov 1367 (dspm). He married Lora
> de SAINT QUENTIN, born 1342 in Wiltshire, England; died 1369 in
> Brandsburton, Yorkshire, England, daughter of Sir Herbert de SAINT
> QUENTIN and Margery de LISLE.
Dear Doug ~
With respect to your statement that John de Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of
Rotherfield (died 1375), married Maud de Burghersh, I know of no
evidence which suggests that Maud was a member of the Burghersh
family. As such, some time ago, I removed Maud's identication as a
Burghersh from the manuscript of my forthcoming book, Plantagenet
Ancestry. I presently show a blank for her maiden name. If you have
any evidence which might indicate Maud's family name, I'd certainly
appreciate knowing about it.
As for your statement that John de Grey's half-brother, Robert, was
known as "Robert (Marmion) de Grey," I have found a few records of
this Robert in contemporary medieval records. In all of them he is
simply called Robert de Grey, never Robert Marmion. As such, it
appears to be an error to call him Robert Marmion.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Jim Weber
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: The identity of Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings
<01be01c388d1$4e083910$cd00a8c0@rosie>
<01b201c38973$5ef27c20$cd00a8c0@rosie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.200.223.130
rbe...@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<01b201c38973$5ef27c20$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
Dear Rosie, et al.
I have been following all of the devlopments, but have had all-day
meetings the last two days (along with "social" dinners at night), so
haven't had any time to do anything but look.
The only hint I have for a source on Maud being daughter of John 1st
Lord Grey by his 2nd wife Avice Marmion, comes from Ancestral Roots,
line 30-31. AR gives "Dudley Pedigree, Herald's College, 28 Jan 1937,
approved by A.T. Butler, Windsor Herald" as the source for Maud de
Grey's generation. MCS line 50-6, agrees with AR line 30-31, but says
nothing about its source.
I confirm CP II:235's reference to Maud as daughter of John 2nd Lord
Grey (and volume XIV's not correcting it). However in my copy of
Faris' Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd Edition, 1999, I can find no
reference to John Botetourte, the younger, or to Maud de Grey, or her
parents John 1st Lord Grey & Avice Marmion. Are you sure you are not
referring to the 1st edition?
Jim Weber
Jim Weber
Dear Douglas,
I have seen references (among them AR 219-32) that Robert took the
name of Marmion. However CP VIII:522 and CP VI:147 note (a) indicate
that it was his elder full-brother John who took the name Marmion. In
note (a) CP states:
(a) By her [Avice Marmion] he [John de Grey] had two sons. (1) Sir
John de Grey, who assumed the name of Marmion was aged 16 and more in
1359, and was heir to West and East Tanfield, etc., in co. York, and
Quentin, co. Gloucester (Chan. Inq.p.m. 25 Oct 33 Edward II [1360], on
Sir John de Grey, and Excheq. Inq.p.m. 33 Edward III, 14 (18)). (2)
Sir Robert de Grey, who d. bef. 30 Nov 1367, s.p.m., when the manor of
Wilcote (Oxford) reverted by settlement to his half-brother Sir John
de Grey (Lord Grey) 30 Nov 1367. His daughter and heir Elizabeth m.
Henry, Lord FitzHugh, and became heir of her uncle the said Sir John
Marmion and of her mother, Lora, younger daughter and coheir of Sir
Herbert de St. Quentin. [Complete Peerage VI:147 note (a)]
Obviously Robert's father had two sons named John, one born c1319 or
c1329 (aged 30+ or 40+ in 1359 - father's death), by his first wife;
and the one mentioned in note (a) above b. c1343.
This probably explains the confusion about Robert taking the name
Marmion.
Jim Weber
Rosie Bevan
Thanks for your message. What I should have said yesterday, was that Maud de
Grey, wife of Thomas Harcourt, is given as daughter of the John, first Lord
Grey and Avice Marmion. This is given on PA2 p.251 and 325.
I showed yesterday from the inquisition that Maud de Grey, widow of John
Botetourt the younger, was the wife of Thomas Harcourt. So there is no doubt
she is the one and same person. The problem is knowing what the exact source
for the information for her placement in the Grey family is in the volume.
Thanks for the reference from AR7. It sounds like a College of Arms document
which is probably not easily accessible. If anyone has access to this
document, it would be worth a look to see what evidence is given with it.
Cheers
Rosie
Douglas Richardson
>
> I have seen references (among them AR 219-32) that Robert took the
> name of Marmion. However CP VIII:522 and CP VI:147 note (a) indicate
> that it was his elder full-brother John who took the name Marmion. In
> note (a) CP states:
>
> (a) By her [Avice Marmion] he [John de Grey] had two sons. (1) Sir
> John de Grey, who assumed the name of Marmion was aged 16 and more in
> 1359, and was heir to West and East Tanfield, etc., in co. York, and
> Quentin, co. Gloucester (Chan. Inq.p.m. 25 Oct 33 Edward II [1360], on
> Sir John de Grey, and Excheq. Inq.p.m. 33 Edward III, 14 (18)). (2)
> Sir Robert de Grey, who d. bef. 30 Nov 1367, s.p.m., when the manor of
> Wilcote (Oxford) reverted by settlement to his half-brother Sir John
> de Grey (Lord Grey) 30 Nov 1367. His daughter and heir Elizabeth m.
> Henry, Lord FitzHugh, and became heir of her uncle the said Sir John
> Marmion and of her mother, Lora, younger daughter and coheir of Sir
> Herbert de St. Quentin. [Complete Peerage VI:147 note (a)]
>
> Obviously Robert's father had two sons named John, one born c1319 or
> c1329 (aged 30+ or 40+ in 1359 - father's death), by his first wife;
> and the one mentioned in note (a) above b. c1343.
>
> This probably explains the confusion about Robert taking the name
> Marmion.
>
> Jim Weber
Dear Jim ~
Thank you for your good post.
As I stated in my earlier post, as far as I can tell, Robert de Grey
never used the Marmion surname. This man has many descendants.
Rosie Bevan
Maud as a Berghersh, I think certain evidence tells us to keep an open mind
about it.
Apart from the name of Bartholomew for the second son, which must be treated
as of some significance, CP VI 147 (k) records
"Sir Bartholomew de Burghersh petitioned [the Pope] (Papal Reg. Kal Aug.
1366) on behalf of Sir John Grey of Rotherfield and Maud his wife and others
for plenary remission at the hour of death....Maud de Grey was probably
sister of the petitioner."
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Weber" <jimw...@nwintl.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Rosie Bevan
For PA2 please read Royal Descents by Gary Boyd Roberts. They look so alike
on the bookshelf, that I often mistake them for each other.
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
As you noted in your post, Bartholomew de Burghersh petitioned the
Pope in 1366 on behalf of John and Maud de Grey. If you examine the
published papal register, however (which I've done), you'll see that
Bartholomew also petitioned the Pope on behalf of several other
parties at the same time. There is NO evidence that Bartholomew de
Burghersh was related to ANY of these people, much less to John and
Maud de Grey. Unless you can show evidence to suggest kinship between
these various parties, it is irresponsible to continue to advance the
theory that Maud was a Burgersh based on the papal petition alone.
Petitioning the Pope on behalf of someone does NOT indicate kinship in
and of itself.
In sharp contrast, I've secured more than abundant evidence to prove
that another contemporary of these same people, namely Joan, wife of
John de Mohun, was a member of the Burghersh family. In fact, I found
yet another piece of evidence just last night to prove Joan's identity
as a Burgersh. While the evidence continues to mount that Joan de
Mohun was a Burghersh, insofar as Maud de Grey is concerned, there is
NO evidence at this point to suggest Maud was a Burghersh OR anything
else. We simply don't know Maud's identity at this point. Hopefully,
if we keep digging for answers, the truth will eventually emerge.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
rbe...@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<007601c389f2$4c450af0$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
Rosie Bevan
Thank you for your interesting post. Perhaps when you have time, you might
like to post, for our interest, the names of the other people for whom Sir
Bartholomew de Burghersh petitioned. You will often find family clusters in
such petitions, and while it does not mean that all were related, it would
be foolish to dismiss them as not related at all. You will note that I did
not say such a petition was genealogical proof, but it was best to keep an
open mind, especially with the name Bartholomew given to their third son.
I am very pleased for you that you have found information on Joan, wife of
John de Mohun, (BTW, her Burghersh identity is set out in CP IX p.23-24 and
CP V p. 479).
On the topic of this thread, I wonder if you would mind giving us the proof
of the following connection, which I quote from one of your sgm posts as
being included in your imminent publication. It would be so helpful to
establish which Maud was daughter to which John de Grey and your
contribution would be invaluable.
6. JOHN DE GREY, Knt., K.G., 1st Lord Grey of Rotherfield, married AVICE
MARMION.
7. MAUD GREY, married THOMAS HARCOURT, Knt., of Stanton Harcourt, co. Oxford
And it is heartening to see that you have set yourself such a high standard
of genealogical proof. Does this now mean you will be dropping those lines
which include Wiiliam Longespee, Earl of Salisbury as father of Ida wife of
Robert fitz Walter?
Many thanks
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
M.Delano Warner
> MARMION.
> 7. MAUD GREY, married THOMAS HARCOURT, Knt., of Stanton Harcourt, co. Oxford
I do not want to be a stick in the mud but in looking at my data base
on the Grey family of Rotherfield of Oxford I find that the John Grey
that married the Da. ond co-heir of Lord John Marmion was in fact,
stated to be John Grey 2nd. Baron Rotherfield. The line goes as
follows;
Lord Robert De Grey, 4th son of Henery De Grey of Thurroc who obtained
from his brother Walter de Grey the archbishop of York, a major part
of the lordship of Rotherfield, to his son:
Lord Walter de Grey, who died 52 year of the reign of Henry III, to
his son:
Lord Robert de Grey who married Avice de St. Lis da. of William, [ or
Joan de Valognes??], to his son:
John de Grey who was summoned to parliament as the 1st. Baron Grey of
Rotherfield, to his son:
John De Grey, 2nd. Baron Rotherfield who married first Margaret de
Odingsells, and 2nd. Avice Marmion.
If this information is in error please reply.
Cheers,
M.Delano Warner
Rosie Bevan
have not yet appeared I am posting them again, condensed into one
post, directly to sgm.
I thought it would be useful to examine statements in Poulson's
History of Holderness that Ralph Hastings married Alice de
Melsa/Meaux, and Dugdale that Ralph Hastings had married a Sutton
heiress. By looking at the devolution of Sutton in Holderness in the
East Riding of Yorkshire, it has been possible to cast doubt on one
theory, disprove the other and lend support to the possibility that
Ralph de Hastings the elder was married to Maud de Grey. I apologise
for the length of the post but hope that it helps clear up some
questions without too much confusion.
From Ralph the younger's inquisition in 1407 we have a description of
the Sutton-in-Holderness possession.
"216. Writ , melius sciri, as it was found by an inquisition before
Richard Redmane that Ralph Hastyngs, who rebelled on 1 May 1405 and
was condemned at Durham on 20 July, held certain tenements in Sutton
in Holderness, but his estate in them was not stated, 3 March 1407.
York. Inquisition. York Castle. 1 April
William Gower and William Gibson, clerks and John Hastynges of Burnby
and Robert de Thorneton, esquires, held 1 messuage, 16 cottages, 6
bovates, 29 1/2 acre meadow and 30s rent in Sutton in Holderness, and
gave them to Ralph and so they descended to Ralph as son and heir. He
assigned a third part to Maud widow of the elder Ralph in dower. She
lives and still holds it. He held two parts all his life with the
reversion of the third part. ALL ARE HELD OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK OF
HIS MANOR OF BEVERLEY BY RENT OF ONE GRAIN OF PEPPER." [My capitals]
[CIPM XIX no.216]
The manor of Beverley and its demesne lands was given by Athelstan,
and confirmed by Edward the Confessor, to the Archbishop of York
before 1064 and the gift was later confirmed by kings William I, Henry
I and Stephen [EYC III pp.85-96]. Unfortunately the lands pertaining
to the manor of Beverley are not specified in the charters, but they
are in the Domesday Book. Under the Yorkshire survey, listing the
Archbishop's lands, the landholding in Sutton appears under the
heading 'Berewicks in Beverley and Holderness belonging to the
Archbishop', as consisting of 9 bovates of land, and having one free
man and 3 villans with one and a half ploughs. A bovate amounted to 15
acres depending on the terrain, which at 135 acres compares equitably
with the land described in Ralph Hastings' inquisition, over 300 years
later.
Mention of Holderness lands being associated with the Grey family
comes from the inquistion post mortem of Robert de Grey, 1295 [CIPM
III no.284]. Amongst holdings in several places of the Archbishop of
York, by knight's service, Robert held in Sculcotes, a capital
messuage, 12 bovates of land, 4 cottages, 30a. meadow, 60a. several
pasture, and a ferry worth 4s., and in Hutton [sic- this should
probably be Sutton], 3 bovates of land and 2 cottages. Of John de
Melsa [Meaux] he held another 4 bovates of land in Sculcotes.
An undated PRO document records a marriage between a Robert de Gray
and Amice (de Sculcotes?) which may point to the origin of the Grey
holdings.
E 210/1497
Benedict de Sculecot to Robert de Gray (in marriage with Amice,
grantor's niece) : Manor and advowson of Sculcoates ( Sculecot ) : (
Yorks E.R. )
John de Grey of Rotherfield (d.1311), son of Robert de Grey d.1295, is
recorded as holding similar but apparently not identical possessions
[CIPM V no.345].
"[York] Inq taken at Kyngeston upon Hull on Sunday after St Martin, 5
Edw. II
Scolcotes. A capital messuage, 12 bovates of land, and the advowson of
the church, jointly held by the said John with Margaret his wife, to
them and the heirs of the said John, of the archbishop of York by
homage only; and 4 bovates land jointly held, as above of the heir of
Godfrey de Melsa, who is in the king's wardship, by homage, and
service of 4d. yearly for wapentake fines."
"Sutton and Dripol in Hold(erness). A toft, 1 bovate land, 60s rent of
assize, 30a., meadow, a plot of meadow called Hedoncroft, and pasture
in 'le Somergang,' jointly held, as above, of the said archbishop by
service of 1d. yearly"
The inquisition for Godfrey de Meaux [CIPM V no.266], who had died a
year previously in 1310, describes (amongst 22 other Yorkshire
holdings) his tenancy in Sutton
"Sutton in Holdreness. A capital messuage, 5 bovates of land, a
fishery, a windmill, 2 sheepfolds with 2 closes containing 18a. land,
with common of pasture in le Somergang"..held in demesne of the
archbishop of York."
and
"Dripoel. 1 bovate land."
How long the de Meaux family had been holding the land in Sutton is
unclear but in 1166 a John de Meaux was holding of the Archbishop an
eighth of a knight's fee [Red Book of the Exchequer p.415]. Poulson
(p 327) also relates that "in the reign of Edward I, a writ of Quo
Warranto was issued to enquire by what right John de Melsa claimed to
have wayf, the assize of bread and ale, &c. and quitance from suit in
the county court without permission, and he answers, &c. that he
claimed these rights, &c. in Sutton, in Holderness, as Holding it of
the archbishop of York (Plac. Q.W. Ed. I. p.196)."
Poulson's account of the Meaux family is flawed in the last four
generations as he has placed the last male of the line, Sir John de
Meaux, who died without issue in 1377, as great grandson of the above
Godfrey de Meaux. In fact Sir John was the son of Godfrey de Meaux,
being aged 6-7 months when his father died in 1310. John is mentioned
in his mother's inquisition post mortem in 1354 as being 40 and more
(he was actually 44) [CIPM X no,185].
While Sir John mentions an Alice in his brief will [Surtees Soc, v. 4
p100], her name is Alice Chapman, she was residing in Aldburgh and he
left her many of his personal possessions. There is no mention of a
Ralph Hastings, and as stated in a previous post, the lack of mention
of any Alice in Sir Ralph Hastings' will, despite requesting prayers
to be said for the souls of his dead wife Isabel and living wife Maud,
would indicate that he was never married to an Alice.
Before and after the death of Sir John de Meaux a number of
settlements were made with his lands.
C 143/306/12
John de Melsa, knight, to grant the manor of Levisham to William
Percehay, Isabel his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, with
remainder to the right heirs of the said William, retaining a messuage
and land in Newton, the manor of Bewick [in Aldbrough], and tenements
in Halsham, Willerby, and Midgley.
26 Edward III
C 143/338/16
John de Meaux, knight, to grant the manor of Willerby, with land
there, to the prior and convent of Haltemprice, retaining the manors
of Bewick, Sutton, East Halsham, and Little Weighton. York.
35 EDWARD III.
E 40/359
Release by Thomas de Meaux, knt., to Sir Thomas Ughtred, knt., of the
manor of Lepyngton, and all lands and other possessions formerly
belonging to Sir John de Meaux, knt., son and heir of Sir Godfrey de
Meaux, knt., deceased, in Gouthorp, Barthorp, Levenyng, Akclom,
Fankefosse, York, Midgeleye, Sutton-in-Holderness, Dripehull,
Stanfrey, and Lopholme.
Lepyngton, Tuesday in the second week of Lent, 2 R[ic II]
E 40/334
Release by Antony de Spanby to Sir Thomas Ughtred, knt., of the manor
of Lepyngton, and all lands, &c., formerly belonging to Sir John de
Meaux, chivaler, son and heir of Sir Godfrey de Meaux, chivaler,
deceased, in Gouthorp, Barthorp, Levenyng, Akclom, Fankefosse, York,
Sutton-in-Holderness, Dryphull, Stanfery, and Lopholm
E 40/374
Release by John de le Ryver, of Brandesby, John Fayfax, clerk, Thomas
de Etton, the elder, Antony Seyntquyntyn, clerk, Robert Boulot, Alan
de Kyrkeby, chaplain, and Geoffrey de Brandesby, to Thomas Ughtred,
knt., of the manors of Lepyngton and Migelay, and lands in Sutton in
Holderness, Levenyng, Acclom, Barthorp, Gouthorp, Fangfosse, and York,
and in Stanfery, Dripole, and Topholme, which formerly belonged to Sir
John de Meux, of Bewyk, knt
Lepyngton, 30 September, 2 Richard II
The release made by the feoffees of Sir John de Meaux indicates that
his cousin, Sir Thomas Ughtred, was his heir.
In 1375 Robert de Grey, the last of the Greys of Rotherfield granted
the reversion of his claim to John de Nevill who appears to have
granted it shortly afterwards to Michael de la Pole.
E 210/416
Grant by Robert de Gray of Retherfeld, to John de Nevill, knight, lord
of Raby, of the reversion of the manor of Sculcotes and of ten
messuages, with land and rent, in Bisshopburton and Sutton in
Holdernesse, and of the reversion of the advowson of the church of
Sculcotes : [ York Kyngeston-on Hull, 6 January, 49 [ Edward ] III.
(1375)
C 143/393/15
Michael de la Pole, knight, to grant a messuage called `le Maysendeu'
by Hull, late part of the manor of Myton, messuages in North Cave, the
advowsons of the churches of North Cave, Sculcoates, and Foston, with
the reversion of the manor of Sculcoates, and of messuages, land, and
rent in Bishop-Burton and Sutton in Holderness, now held by Thomas
Banyarde, clerk, for his life and one year longer, to the Carthusian
prior and monks of the house of St.
1 Ric II (1377)
From what we can tell from the above, there appear to have been about
three layers of tenancy in the Sutton land to which the Hastings
family had an interest by 1375, and this would support the notion that
Ralph Hastings' mother was a Grey.
1.. Archbishop of York
2.. The Meaux family
3.. The Grey family > Hastings family
The Meaux family also held the manor of Bewick in Aldburgh, which
found its way into Hastings' possession. Godfrey's inquisition
describes it thus -
"Bewick in Holdreness. A part of the manor, 3 carucates of land,
whereof 48 carucates make I knight's fee and each carucate contains 8
bovates, 2 warrens, and a wind mill, with 10 bovates land in Aldburgh,
and 1 carucate land in Walkington, members of the said manor, held of
the king in chief as of the honour of Albemarle, by homage and
knight's service, and doing suit at the king's wapentake of
Holdreness; and the other part of the manor, 2 bovates of land, and a
plot called Thorpcroftes, and 4 bovates land in in Walkington, a
member of the said manor, held of the provostry of Beverley by homage,
knight's service and doing suit at the court of the provostry."
Whether Bewick found its way into the Hastings family by grant,
purchase or inheritance remains obscure, but it appears signficant
that when Godfrey de Meaux died without issue in 1377, Sir Ralph
Hastings was sheriff of Yorkshire for that year. It could be that he
used his position to obtain Bewick by purchase. Poulson p. 22 quotes
its description in Richard Hastings IPM in 1436
"It was found by the jurors upon oath, that Richard Hastings, knt, was
in possession, the day in which he died, (inter alia) of the manor of
Bewyk, with its appurtenances. Which said manor is within the vill of
Aldburgh, in which the said manor is a certain site with a house built
upon it, worth nothing per annum above re-payment ; 40 acres of land,
of which are worth &c 2s. per acre, and 12 acres of meadow, each acre
worth 2s. and a messuage within the vill of Aldburgh, which said
messuage is worth 3s. per and 2 virgates of land worth 10s each, and
one windmill worth 6s 8d and that the said manor is held of Ann,
Countess of Stafford, as of her manor of Burstwyk, doing suit at the
court every 3 weeks, and that Leonard Hastings is brother and heir".
To go back to the other Sutton-in-Holderness property; in 1086, the
other holding consisted of two carucates of the manor of Burstwick
held of Drogo de la Beuvriere, whose lands were forfeited shortly
afterwards and given to Adelaide of Aumale and her husband Eudo of
Champagne. This land descended with the Aumale fee and was the manor
that the Suttons held. The Yorkshire inquisition of William de
Fortibus in 1286 reports that Saer de Sutton was holding 34 ½ bovates
- 17 in demesne and 17 ½ in service (about 515 acres).
De Sutton IPMs confirm this.
Saer de Sutton [CIPM III, no.6] (1291)
"Sutton. A capital messuage, a fishery, 20 ¼ bovates of land, a
windmill and 49s. rent in Sutton, Conningeston, Gagensted, Hull and
elsewhere, with the dower of Christiana late the wife of the said
Saer, all held of Lady Isabel de Fortibus, countess of Albemarle, by
knight's service, which she holds as dower of the escheat of
Albemarle; 2lbs pepper and 1lb cumin rent."
Alina de Sutton [CIPM XI no. 531] (1353)
"Sutton. The manor, held jointly with John de Sutton, knight, her
husband now deceased, by gift of William de Medislay and John de Akres
to them and the heirs of their bodies. The manor is held of Isabel the
king's daughter, as of her manor of Brustwyk, as of the honor of
Aumale, by knight's service and by the service of doing suit to her
wapentake of Holderness every three weeks."
There was frequent litigation between the Suttons "and the occupants
of the
archiepiscopal see, as to their respective rights in the river and
port of Hull. Sayer de Sutton is said to have cut the present channel
of the river Hull from Sculcoates Gote to the Humber, for the purpose
of draining the marshes within his lordship; and he appears to have
exacted toll from vessels entering the former river. This claim was
contested by Archbishop Gray, and the jury before whom the case was
tried, found that the said Sayer de Sutton never had, at any time, in
the same river, any manner of franchise, except only weirs"
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Suttononhull/Suttononhull92.html
When the male line ended, a division of the Sutton property was made
between the female coheirs and is outlined in CP XII/I p.275. None of
the heiresses married Sir Ralph Hastings as supposed by Dugdale,
although one of them married Sir Edmund Hastings of Roxby, a cousin of
Sir Ralph.
Brad kindly sought out the IPM of John, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield
d.1375, to which I did not have access, and informed me that there was
no mention of Sutton (whereas it had been included in his father and
grandfather's inquisitions). This would indicate that it passed out of
family hands during his tenure, which is certainly indicated by the
fact that by January 1376, Robert, Lord Grey, only had claim to its
reversion.
Further it appears from VCH East Riding of Yorkshire v.7 p.13, that
Sir Ralph Hastings purchased the manor of Bewick from the heirs of Sir
John Melsa in 1379. Sources supporting this are given as Cal. Close,
1377-81, 245, 247. John de la River also conveyed land in the manor
comprising 1/7 knight's fee to Sir Ralph.
Brad also pointed out the 1397 inquisition for Sir Ralph Hastings for
the manor of Styford in Northumberland, which says that Ralph, "aged
18 years and more" was his son and heir [CIPM XVII no. 1057]. This
makes Ralph born about 1379 and before. The statement concerning the
heir conflicts with the IPM quoted in a previous post from CIPM
v.XVIII no.540, which said Richard, born in August 1381, was his son
and heir, but he was clearly the younger son and
it must mean he was the heir to the Slingsby property under a
settlement, but terms of any settlement are nowhere mentioned. Leonard
the third son was said to be 40 years and more ("xl annorum et
amplius") at Richard's inquisition in 1436 [CP IV p.126 note (f)]. I
would imagine that Leonard was considerably older than 40 years and
born within five years of Richard.
At this stage it might be useful to summarise the circumstantial
evidence which points to Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings, being a
Grey of Rotherfield.
1. The dispensation needed because William Deincourt and Richard
Hastings were related in the 2nd and 3rd degree of consanguinity,
means that their common ancestry in the 2nd degree must have been via
one of the four following families - Deincourt, Neville, Grey, or de
la Plaunche. In the third degree it must have been from the following
eight familes - Deincourt, Welle, Percy, Neville, Grey, the family of
the unidentified Maud, Hillary, or de la Plaunche.
Placing Maud as daughter of John, 2nd lord Grey, as indicated by the
chronology and evidence, gives the exact 2nd and 3rd degree
consanguinous relationship.
2. The Sutton-in-Holderness property held by Ralph Hastings the
younger at his death, was held previously by the Grey family and had
passed out of their hands by 1375.
3. The name Bartholomew was given to the fourth son of Sir Ralph
Hastings. Bartholomew was the name of the third lord Grey of
Rotherfield and putative brother of Maud.
4. In 1386 Robert, Lord Grey, Richard Grey and Ralph Hastings entered
a recognisance of £1000 not to molest Robert Ashcombe who had been
pursuing a debt of £40 against Maud, Lady Grey.
All we need now is direct evidence, but knowing where to look makes
the task easier.
Many thanks to Brad and Mardi for their help.
Cheers
Rosie
Brad Verity
> I thought it would be useful to examine statements in Poulson's
> History of Holderness that Ralph Hastings married Alice de
> Melsa/Meaux, and Dugdale that Ralph Hastings had married a Sutton
> heiress. By looking at the devolution of Sutton in Holderness in the
> East Riding of Yorkshire, it has been possible to cast doubt on one
> theory, disprove the other and lend support to the possibility that
> Ralph de Hastings the elder was married to Maud de Grey. I apologise
> for the length of the post but hope that it helps clear up some
> questions without too much confusion.
[snip]
> All we need now is direct evidence, but knowing where to look makes
> the task easier.
Rosie,
You have put together a detailed, thorough, well thought out, and (to
me at least) compelling case for the identity of Sir Ralph Hastings'
wife Maud. Congratulations on piecing together a none-too-easy
genealogical puzzle. It was a pleasure to help you with the very
simple task you needed.
I'm certain more evidence will turn up with you leading the hunt. Let
me know if there's anything further I can do.
Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad
Terry Mair
Thanks
Terry
Rosie Bevan
Rotherfield and Maud (who is evidently related to Sir Bartholomew Burghersh,
but most likely a daughter of Margery de Badlesmere and William de Ros.)
Cheers
Rosie
Terry Mair
So this John De Grey was not married to Maud de Burghersh?
Douglas Richardson
rbe...@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<accbf2a2.03101...@posting.google.com>...
<SNIP>
> At this stage it might be useful to summarise the circumstantial
> evidence which points to Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings, being a
> Grey of Rotherfield.
>
> 1. The dispensation needed because William Deincourt and Richard
> Hastings were related in the 2nd and 3rd degree of consanguinity,
> means that their common ancestry in the 2nd degree must have been via
> one of the four following families - Deincourt, Neville, Grey, or de
> la Plaunche. In the third degree it must have been from the following
> eight familes - Deincourt, Welle, Percy, Neville, Grey, the family of
> the unidentified Maud, Hillary, or de la Plaunche.
As a general rule, when people went to the trouble of obtaining a
dispensation, they married "up" to the best family they had in common.
Otherwise, there would be no motive involved for them to go to the
expense and trouble of getting a dispensation. These people didn't
marry for love. You have listed eight possible families, the Grey
family being one of them. I believe some of the other families
outranked the Grey family. If so, I recommend you look at the better
families first before considering the Grey family. You must also
consider the possibility that the degrees of affinity/consanguinity
stated in the dispensation are slightly off. On occasion, I find the
degrees were incorrectly stated.
> Placing Maud as daughter of John, 2nd lord Grey, as indicated by the
> chronology and evidence, gives the exact 2nd and 3rd degree
> consanguinous relationship.
Yes, it does, except that John, 2nd Lord Grey, already has a daughter
named Maud whose marriages are well documented. Is there some reason
why you are ignoring the known daughter? I recommend you examine the
evidence for the other Maud de Grey before you create a second one.
Have you done this? If the other Maud de Grey doesn't fit your
theory, then perhaps there's something wrong with your theory. You
need to disprove the other Maud de Grey's existence before you put
another Maud in her place.
> 2. The Sutton-in-Holderness property held by Ralph Hastings the
> younger at his death, was held previously by the Grey family and had
> passed out of their hands by 1376.
You state that Robert de Grey, Lord Grey, held the "reversion" in
1376. If so, this property was still very much among the Grey family
holdings. It had not passed out of the Grey family at all. Do you
understand the meaning of the word reversion?
> 3. The name Bartholomew was given to the fourth son of Sir Ralph
> Hastings. Bartholomew was the name of the third lord Grey of
> Rotherfield and putative brother of Maud.
The name Bartholomew is common enough in this time period. To
suggest that two families are related simply because they both used a
common given name is inappropriate.
> 4. In 1386 Robert, Lord Grey, Richard Grey and Ralph Hastings entered
> a recognisance of £1000 not to molest Robert Ashcombe who had been
> pursuing a debt of £40 against Maud, Lady Grey.
Recognizance bonds sometimes involved people who were related to each.
It seems that they most often involve relatives when when the parties
were required to offer security to spring someone from jail. The bond
you have cited may or may not be such an instance. All the same, this
is an interesting piece of evidence.
> All we need now is direct evidence, but knowing where to look makes
> the task easier.
You have more legwork to do before you can draw any conclusions. For
starters, I recommend you reexamine the list of the parties who
claimed kinship to Sir William Hastings. Louise Staley has claimed
she knows how all of these people are related to Sir William Hastings
but she has not yet posted her findings. Perhaps Louise would be kind
enough to post her evidence. Do any of the people on the list of
kinsman of Sir William Hastings descend from one of the eight families
you have listed above? If so, that might be a good clue for you to
follow.
Lastly, have you considered the possibility that Maud, wife of John de
Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield (died 1375), was a Hastings?
Maud's identity is presently unknown. Ralph Hastings' appearance in
the recognizance bond you have cited might be due to his own kinship
to the Grey family, rather than his wife's. Just a thought.
> Cheers
>
> Rosie
Douglas Richardson
I know of no evidence which suggests that Maud, wife of John de Grey,
2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield, was a Burghersh. If you have evidence
for such a statement, please post it. Otherwise stop making this
claim. Wanting something to be so doesn't make it so.
If Maud was truly a Burghersh, either she or her sons would surely
have been styled "kinsfolk" by King Richard II of England who shared
common ancestry with Barthololomew de Burghersh's wife, Elizabeth de
Verdun.
In sharp contrast, here are a few instances of Bartholomew de
Burghersh's proven daughter, Joan de Mohun, being styled "king's
kinswoman":
l. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1388–1392 (1902): 253 (Joan styled
"king's kinswoman").
2. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1399–1401 (1903): 509 (Joan styled
"king's kinswoman").
3. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1391–1396 (1905): 317 (Joan styled
"king's kinswoman").
4. H.C.M. Lyte, Hist. of Dunster 1 (1909): 43–58 (Joan styled "King's
cousin").
5. J. Ward, Women of the English Nobility and Gentry 1066–1500 (1995):
113–116 (Joan styled "dearest kinswoman" by King Richard II).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
rbe...@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<11ee01c39474$b5356b40$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
Douglas Richardson
I appear to have made an error in my post earlier this morning. I
stated that John de Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield, already had a
proven daughter, Maud. This Maud married John Botetourt and Thomas
Harcourt. Reviewing my files, I see that Maud Grey was actually a
half-sister of John, 2nd Lord Grey, not his daughter. I also find
that you acknowledged this fact in an earlier post in this thread. My
apologies if I caused any confusion over the placement of Maud (Grey)
(Botetourt) Harcourt.
At the present time, John de Grey, 2nd Lord Grey, has only one proven
daughter, Juliane, wife of Edmund Missenden, Knt., and Thomas Shelley,
Knt. I've posted a copy of an earlier post I made in 2001 regarding
Juliane Grey's identity below.
Since my original post in 2001, I've concluded that Maud, wife of John
de Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield, was not a Burghersh.
Good luck in your sleuthing.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
<Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
<>Subject: Parentage of Juliane Grey, wife of Edmund Missenden Was
Re: <Seeking >Parent is rather Grey!
>Date: 23 Dec 2001 04:49:52 -0800
<Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Dec 2001 12:49:52 GMT
<
<Dear Kevan and Hap:
<
<The parentage of Juliane Grey, wife of Edmund Missenden, is fully
<proven. Below please find an account of Edmund and Juliane, and of
<Juliane'e father, Sir John de Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield.
<My sources are fully cited below. This information adds to the Grey
account <in volume 6 of Complete Peerage, which overlooked Juliane's
existence.
<
<Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
<
<E-mail: royala...@msn.com
<
<- - - - - - - - -
<GREY-MUSSENDEN INFORMATION
<
<I. JOHN DE GREY, of Rotherfield, Cogges, and Somerton, co. Oxford,
<Shabbington and Claydon, co. Buckingham, and Duston, co. Northampton,
<son and heir by his father's 1st marriage, born about 1319 (aged 40
at
<his father's death). He married MAUD _____, daughter, possibly, of
<Bartholomew de Burgersh [3rd Lord Burgersh], by Elizabeth, daughter
<and co-heiress of Theobald de Verdon, Knt. [see BURGERSH 13 for her
<possible ancestry]. They had five sons, John, Bartholomew, Brian,
<Robert, and Richard, and one daughter, Juliane. He was in the Crécy
<campaign in the first division. He was summoned to Parliament from
20
<Nov. 1360 by writs directed Johanni de Grey or Johanni de Grey de
<Rotherfeld. SIR JOHN DE GREY, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield, died 4
<June 1375. His widow died 23 Jan. 1386/7.
<
<References:
<
<Baker 1:140. Lipscomb 1 (1847):159-163. C.P. 6 (1926):147-149. VCH
<Warwick 4 (1947):220-221.
<
<10. JULIANE GREY, married (1st) before 1370 EDMUND MISSENDEN (or
<MUSSENDEN), Knt., of Missenden and Quainton, co. Buckingham, Farley
<Chamberlayne, co. Hants, and Brackenborough and Kelsten, co. Lincoln,
<Knight of the Shire for Buckinghamshire, coroner for Buckinghamshire,
<son and heir of Thomas Missenden (otherwise de Cophouse), Knt., of
<Missenden, Quainton, etc., king's yeoman, butler to King Edward III,
<Knight of the Shire for Buckinghamshire, by Isabel, daughter of John
<Brocas, of Windsor, co. Berks. They had one son, Bernard. SIR
EDMUND
<MISSENDEN died 12 Oct. 1394. His widow married (2nd) THOMAS SHELLEY,
<Knt. (executed for treason 27 Jan. 1400), of Aylesbury, co.
<Buckingham, King's esquire, steward of the household of John Holand,
<Earl of Huntingdon, steward of the Duchy of Cornwall, Knight of the
<Shire.
<
<References:
<
<Lipscomb 1 (1847):395; 2 (1847):365,382. Cal. Fine Rolls 9
<(1926):284. Cal. Fine Rolls 11 (1929):130,153. Cal. Fine Rolls 12
<(1931):57,159,203-204. Cal. Fine Rolls 13 (1933):78,80. Cal. IPM 17
<(1988):203-204. Roskell 3 (1992):740-741; 4 (1992):353-355. List of
<Inquisitions ad Quod Damnum Part 2 (Lists and Indexes, No. 22)
<(settlement of manor of Brakenborough, co. Lincoln, dated 1369/70,
<specifically names Edmund's wife as "Juliana daughter of John de Grey
<of Rotherfield, Knt.").
Reedpcgen
>Do you
>understand the meaning of the word reversion?
>
This sort of snide remark, to a highly knowledgeable participant of this group
(knowledge of sources and this period as publicly demonstrated many times in
the past), is
NOT collegial in the least, and an example of why people take Doug's calls for
collegiality to be hypocritical.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
Further, his calls for _collegiality_ are not only hypocritical but also
deeply manipulative, false, conniving and insincere.
His snide comments are also incredibly patronizing to a valued member of
this newsgroup, Rosie Bevan, who sets very high standards.
DSH
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031017142015...@mb-m26.aol.com...
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Yes, it does, except that John, 2nd Lord Grey, already has a daughter
> named Maud whose marriages are well documented. Is there some reason
> why you are ignoring the known daughter? I recommend you examine the
> evidence for the other Maud de Grey before you create a second one.
> Have you done this? If the other Maud de Grey doesn't fit your
> theory, then perhaps there's something wrong with your theory. You
> need to disprove the other Maud de Grey's existence before you put
> another Maud in her place.
This was discussed earlier in the thread, and the situation seems quite
confused, with CP claiming two successive John Botetourts marrying two
Mauds, daughters of John, Lords Grey, which would normally make me very
suspicious. As far as I can see, the only source anyone suggested which
might tie down which John Grey was the father-in-law of the younger John
Botetourt was a 20th-century pedigree at the College of Arms.
If anyone does know of evidence bearing on this question, I'd be grateful to
hear of it.
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
>might tie down which John Grey was the father-in-law of the younger John
>Botetourt was a 20th-century pedigree at the College of Arms.
>
But in this case, it would be the child of the marriage of one spouse marrying
the step-child of another, wouldn't it? That was a much more frequent
occurence in arranged marriages (that type of arranged marriage was one of the
major findings in Scott Waugh's dissertation and book, on English wardship,
wasn't it?).
Paul
Reedpcgen
>marrying
>the step-child of another, wouldn't it?
Did I describe that correctly? I meant one spouse has a child. Then that
parent marries again, arranging the marriage of their child to the offspring of
the new spouse. The children are therefore in close proximity, but unrelated
(within a prohibited degree).
For instance, in Waugh's book _The Lordship of England: Royal Wardship and
Marriages..._, in figure 1.6 ["Linkage through Widows and Half-blood
Marriages"], we have Gladys [Ddu] having a child Roger by her second husband
Ralph de Mortimer. Roger de Mortimer is given as marrying Maud de Braose,
daughter of Gwladys's first husband Reginald de Braose by his first wife.
To complicate arrangements, Isabel de Brasoe, daughter of Reginald by his first
wife, married (1230)Gwladys's brother david (son of Llewelyn ap Iorwerth).
Paul
Rosie Bevan
How very kind of you to take time away from your busy schedule to take such
an interest in my research. I have likewise made some comments intersperced
[sic] below in response to yours.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
How very interesting. My impression that the reason people went to all the
expense and trouble to gain a dispensation for a marriage was to legitimise
it in the eyes of the church and law, so that any children born of the union
would then not be challenged on their right to inherit property. But I am
always open to novel interpretations. However, I think your interpretation
of the situation is slightly off - the consanguinity was between William
Deincourt and Richard Hastings and, as far as I'm aware, they had no
intention of getting married.
>
> > Placing Maud as daughter of John, 2nd lord Grey, as indicated by the
> > chronology and evidence, gives the exact 2nd and 3rd degree
> > consanguinous relationship.
>
> Yes, it does, except that John, 2nd Lord Grey, already has a daughter
> named Maud whose marriages are well documented. Is there some reason
> why you are ignoring the known daughter? I recommend you examine the
> evidence for the other Maud de Grey before you create a second one.
> Have you done this? If the other Maud de Grey doesn't fit your
> theory, then perhaps there's something wrong with your theory. You
> need to disprove the other Maud de Grey's existence before you put
> another Maud in her place.
You are obviously confused again at this point, and in a following post I
see you realise your mistake.
>
> > 2. The Sutton-in-Holderness property held by Ralph Hastings the
> > younger at his death, was held previously by the Grey family and had
> > passed out of their hands by 1376.
>
> You state that Robert de Grey, Lord Grey, held the "reversion" in
> 1376. If so, this property was still very much among the Grey family
> holdings. It had not passed out of the Grey family at all. Do you
> understand the meaning of the word reversion?
Holding a reversion means that you have a vested interest, but not actual
possession of a property. Do you have a more novel interpretation?
>
> > 3. The name Bartholomew was given to the fourth son of Sir Ralph
> > Hastings. Bartholomew was the name of the third lord Grey of
> > Rotherfield and putative brother of Maud.
>
> The name Bartholomew is common enough in this time period. To
> suggest that two families are related simply because they both used a
> common given name is inappropriate.
Simply? I suggest you read my post in its entirety again.
>
> > 4. In 1386 Robert, Lord Grey, Richard Grey and Ralph Hastings entered
> > a recognisance of £1000 not to molest Robert Ashcombe who had been
> > pursuing a debt of £40 against Maud, Lady Grey.
>
> Recognizance bonds sometimes involved people who were related to each.
> It seems that they most often involve relatives when when the parties
> were required to offer security to spring someone from jail. The bond
> you have cited may or may not be such an instance. All the same, this
> is an interesting piece of evidence.
Yes, thank you. It is an interesting piece of evidence, isn't it?
Significant even.
>
> > All we need now is direct evidence, but knowing where to look makes
> > the task easier.
>
> You have more legwork to do before you can draw any conclusions. For
> starters, I recommend you reexamine the list of the parties who
> claimed kinship to Sir William Hastings. Louise Staley has claimed
> she knows how all of these people are related to Sir William Hastings
> but she has not yet posted her findings. Perhaps Louise would be kind
> enough to post her evidence. Do any of the people on the list of
> kinsman of Sir William Hastings descend from one of the eight families
> you have listed above? If so, that might be a good clue for you to
> follow.
Personally, I think you are a litle over dependent on such kinship
statements made during this period. I think many of the relationships are
quite obvious, Douglas - might I suggest that you invest in a genealogical
software package to aid your research?
> Lastly, have you considered the possibility that Maud, wife of John de
> Grey, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield (died 1375), was a Hastings?
> Maud's identity is presently unknown. Ralph Hastings' appearance in
> the recognizance bond you have cited might be due to his own kinship
> to the Grey family, rather than his wife's. Just a thought.
I have seen nothing which suggests this, but if you come across anything, do
let us know about it.
Cheers
Rosie
Rosie Bevan
Thank your for continuing to take such a keen interest in my research.
However, again, you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. Reading
comprehension really does not seem to be your forte, does it?
Best wishes
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: The identity of Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings
> Dear Rosie ~
>
> I know of no evidence which suggests that Maud, wife of John de Grey,
> 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield, was a Burghersh. If you have evidence
> for such a statement, please post it. Otherwise stop making this
> claim. Wanting something to be so doesn't make it so.
>
> If Maud was truly a Burghersh, either she or her sons would surely
> have been styled "kinsfolk" by King Richard II of England who shared
> common ancestry with Barthololomew de Burghersh's wife, Elizabeth de
> Verdun.
>
> In sharp contrast, here are a few instances of Bartholomew de
> Burghersh's proven daughter, Joan de Mohun, being styled "king's
> kinswoman":
>
> l. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1388-1392 (1902): 253 (Joan styled
> "king's kinswoman").
>
> 2. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1399-1401 (1903): 509 (Joan styled
> "king's kinswoman").
>
> 3. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1391-1396 (1905): 317 (Joan styled
> "king's kinswoman").
>
> 4. H.C.M. Lyte, Hist. of Dunster 1 (1909): 43-58 (Joan styled "King's
> cousin").
>
> 5. J. Ward, Women of the English Nobility and Gentry 1066-1500 (1995):
> 113-116 (Joan styled "dearest kinswoman" by King Richard II).
Rosie Bevan
Your apologies are accepted - although I think you were probably the only
one to be confused.
Yes, I am aware of Juliana's existence - her identity is mentioned in
Lipscomb, Burrows, and Roskell's History of Parliament, with PRO C
143/368/7 providing contemporary evidence.
"Thomas de Mussendon and Isabel his wife to grant the manor of Kelstern to
Edmund son of the said Thomas, Juliana daughter of John de Grey of
Rotherfield, knight, and the heirs of their bodies, retaining the manor of
Brackenborough. Lincoln.
43 EDWARD III. "
It would still be very useful to know what evidence you give for Maud wife
of John de Botetourt and Thomas de Harcourt, being daughter of John, 1st
Lord Grey as she appears to be a contemporary of John 2nd Lord Grey's
children. Is this based on firm evidence or guesswork?
Incidentally, you have missed out a son in your precis of John, 2nd Lord
Grey of Rotherfield. He had two eldest sons, both named John, who
predeceased him.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Chris Phillips
> >But in this case, it would be the child of the marriage of one spouse
> >marrying
> >the step-child of another, wouldn't it?
>
> Did I describe that correctly? I meant one spouse has a child. Then that
> parent marries again, arranging the marriage of their child to the
offspring of
> the new spouse. The children are therefore in close proximity, but
unrelated
> (within a prohibited degree).
If I understand correctly, what's suggested by the CP account is that a
daughter of the husband's subsequent marriage is married to the wife's niece
(brother's daughter).
Really I was just struck by the fact that the husband', wives' and
fathers'-in-law names are the same for both the stated marriages, so perhaps
there is scope for confusion. It's unfortunate that CP doesn't cite any
sources for any of this (being one of the earliest volumes), although it
does specify that the elder John Botetourt had issue by both marriages.
If Gary Boyd Roberts (cited by Rosie) and Douglas Richardson's post
yesterday are correct in making the younger John Botetourt's wife a daughter
of the elder John Grey, then that does leave a problem over the elder John
Botetourt's first wife.
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
>If Gary Boyd Roberts (cited by Rosie)
>and Douglas Richardson's post
>yesterday are correct in making the
>younger John Botetourt's wife a
>daughter of the elder John Grey, then
>that does leave a problem over the elder
>John Botetourt's first wife.
>
I know Gary VERY well, and he would claim no expertise here. He would quickly
defer to others who have looked at the details carefully, and would look again
at what they present to evaluate it. More than once Doug has suggested a "new"
novel connection (e.g., Joan Holand; Amie being daughter of Margaret de Clare)
on the basis of which Gary changed charts and descents in his working copy,
only to have to later again discard them and reorder all the arrangement.
I have to freely admit that I was at first very skeptical of the proposed
connection, as it is not common that there is such a duplication of names. I
had to chart it out.
If we IGNORE the given names John and Maud, which have nothing to do with
anything here except an odd coincidence, we have Botetourt marrying a first
wife, and then having him fathering a son named John BY A SECOND.
That son by the second wife is subsequently married to the niece of his first
wife. THAT therefore is not a problem.
The problem is our initial instinct (yours and mine) to wonder if someone had a
slip of the eye in a pedigree and attributed the same marriage to two
succeeding generations (because someone was confused when they saw the names).
CP does not normally follow such an error, when it is based solely on a source
such as a visitation error ("is said to have been...").
In fact, in this case, we see where someone might have slipped in the other
direction (as he just did in a post today) and confused the names. Doug
posted, snidely chastising Rosie, and then had to post an apology after he
realized he committed a factual error that would be caught and could not be
overlooked.
Paul
Chris Phillips
> I have to freely admit that I was at first very skeptical of the proposed
> connection, as it is not common that there is such a duplication of names.
I
> had to chart it out.
>
> If we IGNORE the given names John and Maud, which have nothing to do with
> anything here except an odd coincidence, we have Botetourt marrying a
first
> wife, and then having him fathering a son named John BY A SECOND.
>
> That son by the second wife is subsequently married to the niece of his
first
> wife. THAT therefore is not a problem.
>
> The problem is our initial instinct (yours and mine) to wonder if someone
had a
> slip of the eye in a pedigree and attributed the same marriage to two
> succeeding generations (because someone was confused when they saw the
names).
Yes - I do agree there's no problem of consanguinity, or affinity, or
anything like that, and that it's only the coincidence of names that gives
rise to suspicion.
Unfortunately, it is a slight difficulty for Rosie's suggestion - for which
the circumstantial evidence seems strong - if there is a documented Maud,
daughter of the younger John Grey (although of course he could have had two
daughters named Maud).
It's just a shame that CP doesn't make it easy for us to go back and check
things up in these early volumes.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
> Dear Douglas
> > Incidentally, you have missed out a son in your precis of John, 2nd Lord
> Grey of Rotherfield. He had two eldest sons, both named John, who
> predeceased him.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosie
Dear Rosie ~
Complete Peerage sub Grey of Rotherfield states John de Grey, 2nd Lord
Grey of Rotherfield (died 1375), had four sons, John, Bartholomew,
Robert, and Richard [see Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 147, footnote j].
He also had a 5th son, Brian, who is mentioned as one of the
administrators of his estate. The editor makes no mention whatsoever
of a second son named John who died early. In fact, Complete Peerage
specifically identifies Bartholomew as the "2nd but 1st surviving
son." Where did you find a second son named John?
Reedpcgen
>Yes - I do agree there's no problem of consanguinity, or affinity, or
>anything like that, and that it's only the coincidence of names that gives
>rise to suspicion.
>
In this case, we even have the daughter and heir of the second John (Joyce)
being named after the second wife of the first John.
>Unfortunately, it is a slight difficulty for Rosie's suggestion - for which
>the circumstantial evidence seems strong - if there is a documented Maud,
>daughter of the younger John Grey (although of course he could have had two
>daughters named Maud).
>
But in this case, as there is a Maud in the first generation, naming patterns
would suggest the likelihood of a Maud in the second generation. That migh
help support such a theoretical conclusion.
>It's just a shame that CP doesn't make it easy for us to go back and check
>things up in these early volumes.
>
>Chris Phillips
>
I've wondered what religious institutions these families might be inclined to
make donations to. In the case wit hthe 1st John, Lord Grey of Rotherfield, we
have both of his wives being coheiresses, possibly expanding the political and
family ties, and making the match even more desirable.
Also, the political ties and motivations that lead to the arranged marriage
between Maud, daughter of the 1st Lord, to the elder John, may have led to
another arranged marriage between the families as the first Maud was not mother
of John's heir. If the Grey family wanted a permanent tie to the Botetourt
family for political reaons, they'd likely try again.
(For readers following along, we have a first John Botetourt, m. (1) Maud de
Grey, daughter of John de Grey, m. (2) Joyce le Zouche. By Joyce, he was
father of a second John Botetourt [who died within his father's lifetime, and
therefore had his marriage arranged by his father], married to Maud, who CP
says was daughter of the 2nd Lord Grey, brother of the elder Maud. By the
second Maud, the second John was father of a daughter and heir Joyce.)
Paul
Rosie Bevan
As you have some information I would like, and I have a piece of information
you would like, how about we do a trade?
I have already twice made a request, (and Chris has also requested
information), for a collegial response as to what proof you have that Maud,
wife of John de Botetourt and Thomas Harcourt, was the daughter of John, 1st
Lord Grey of Rotherfield. I am of course assuming that as you intend to
publish the line in PA3, you have not lifted it wholesale from RD500, but
have researched her placement thoroughly with citations of your own for her
identification.
If you could collegially present the evidence, then I will be more than
happy to collegially provide you with the necessary information for you to
update your biography of John, 2nd Lord Grey.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: The identity of Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings
Rosie Bevan
Thank you for your comments.
Finding a religious foundation which the Greys of Rotherfield patronised
hasn't been easy. The early Greys were associated with Oseney, and CP
mentions a gift to the Friar Minors at Oxford in 1337. I've checked Healaugh
cartulary (FitzAlans) with no luck, but see that Brian Fitzalan founded a
chantry at Bedale which was appropriated to Jervaulx abbey, which may be
worth following up. His widow, Maud, donated land to the convent at
Egglestone for prayers to be said for the souls of Brian fitz Alan and John
de Grey of Rotherfield [CP V 394-395]. The Marmions appear to have been
associated with Fountains abbey, the cartulary of which has been published
in part by the Surtees Society.
In the IPM, [CIPM XIX no.261-267], of Joyce Burnell, her heirs are stated to
be her five aunts or their issue. Three of these aunts figure in the tabular
pedigree on CP II p.234, but the pedigree does not mention that John de
Botetourt (d. 1369) had two other sisters - Maud, a nun at Polesworth,
Warks., and Agnes a nun at Elstow, Beds. Perhaps something may be found in
the cartularies of these institutions, though looking at the British Library
online catalogue, I can't see any listed. CP II p.235 says that John de
Botetourt the elder left issue by both wives, but which were the daughter(s)
by Maud dau. John 1st Lord Grey, I can't tell.
I agree that there is no problem of consanguinity or affinity, but we have
the odd situation that if the younger Maud is dau of John 1st Lord Grey and
Avice Marmion, then John de Botetourt the younger married the half aunt of
his half sister(s), (but no blood kinship), or under the CP scheme he
married the niece of his father's first wife, also the cousin of his half
sister(s) (again no blood kinship). It is very likely that John 1st Lord
Grey could have had two daughters called Maud as both his mothers-in-law had
that name.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: The identity of Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings
> >
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> In the IPM, [CIPM XIX no.261-267], of Joyce Burnell, her heirs are stated
to
> be her five aunts or their issue. Three of these aunts figure in the
tabular
> pedigree on CP II p.234, but the pedigree does not mention that John de
> Botetourt (d. 1369) had two other sisters - Maud, a nun at Polesworth,
> Warks., and Agnes a nun at Elstow, Beds. Perhaps something may be found in
> the cartularies of these institutions, though looking at the British
Library
> online catalogue, I can't see any listed. CP II p.235 says that John de
> Botetourt the elder left issue by both wives, but which were the
daughter(s)
> by Maud dau. John 1st Lord Grey, I can't tell.
Thanks for that additional information.
If the five sisters were named as coheirs, doesn't that imply they were full
sisters of Joyce's father, rather than half-blood, and therefore daughters
of Joyce Zouche?
If the IPM specifies ages for the coheirs, it would be interesting to see
what they imply for the chronology of the marriages of John de Botetourt
senior. If, as CP says, he did have a previous marriage to Maud Grey, it
seems that it must have been fairly short-lived. John senior was born c.
1318 and (from information posted previously by Rosie) his granddaughter was
born 1363, placing the birth of John junior presumably around the early
1340s. So John senior would have been fairly young at his marriage to Joyce
Zouche, particularly if some of his daughters were born before his son.
(Tim Powys-Lybbe's excellent online Berkeley database, based on Smyth's
"Lives of the Berkeleys", has one of these daughters, Katharine, married to
Sir Thomas Berkeley [not Maurice as in the CP chart], whose birth it puts
around 1334, and whose son and heir was born about 1358.)
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan
Thanks again for your comments and leads.
The properties in question in Joyce's IPM appear to be Botetourt land and
not land inherited from Hugh la Zouche of Mortimer, and was held jointly by
Joyce and Hugh Burnell under settlements and fines made in 1386, (the year
of the death of John de Botetourt the elder who died on 4 April), so I think
the heirs would depend on the provenance of the land, who made the
settlement, and what those terms might be. I haven't seen the fines so don't
know.
I'm afraid the ages given in Joyce's IPM are not wonderfully accurate and do
not help pin down the chronology. The following is the statement concerning
heirs from her 1407 inquisition.
"Joyce wife of Adam de Peeshale, knight, Maud Buttetourt, Agnes Buttetourt,
Maurice de Berkeley and Agnes and Joyce Wykes, daughters of Joan late the
wife of John de Wykes, are next heirs. Joyce Peeshale, Maud and Agnes
Buttetourt are sisters of John, father of Joyce Burnell, Maud being a nun
professed in the abbey of Polesworth, Warwickshire, and Agnes in the abbey
of Elstow, Bedfordshire. Maurice de Berkeley is the son of Maurice, son of
Katherine sister of John Buttetourt, father of Joyce. Agnes and Joyce Wykes
are daughters of Joan, daughter of Alice Kiryell, sister of John Buttetourt.
Joyce Peeshale, Maud and Agnes are aged 40 years and more, Maurice de
Berkeley 7 years and more, Agnes Wykes 9 years and more, and Joyce Wykes 7
years and more."
[CIPM XIX, nos.261-267]
Looking at Tim's data, he mentions that Katherine married secondly Sir John
de Thorp and she died in 11 Ric II (1388). Her inquisitions [CIPM XVI nos.
638-641] record her as former wife of Thomas Berkeley of Iwele/Ule (Uley,
Glos.), and that her son and heir is Maurice aged 28 and more. If this is
reasonably accurate, then Maurice was born around 1360, meaning Katherine
would have been born around 1340-1343, if she gave birth to Maurice by the
time she was 20. From an onomastic point of view, it is possible that her
name could come via Maud de Grey as daughter of Katherine FitzAlan.
CP's treatment of Joyce, Baroness Burnell (CP XII/2 p. 962), gives her
mother as Maud, dau. of John 2nd Lord Grey, again without anything to
support the statement. Joyce was "aged 30 and more" at the death of her
kinsman Sir Hugh la Zouche in 1399 [CIPM XVIII nos.53-55]. This would make
her mother born before about 1352. John, 2nd Lord Grey and Maud started
producing their family about the early 1340s (Bartholomew was born in 1347
and was the third son). Avice Marmion second wife of John, 1st Lord Grey,
was also producing her children at this time for her firstborn son, John,
was born around 1343 (16 and more in 1369) [CP VI p.147 note (a)].
As to some background information on the Grey and Zouche families, there was
intense hatred between John 1st Lord Grey and William la Zouche de Mortimer
resulting from William's abduction of John's intended bride in January 1329.
She was Eleanor de Clare, widow of Hugh le Despenser and sister and coh. of
Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford. The marriage would have
been a tremendous boost for the Greys of Rotherfield, but most likely a
denigrating marriage for Eleanor. Both William and John were imprisoned
briefly for failing to keep the peace in the Parliament of 1331, when they
argued in front of the king, and John de Grey was still pressing his claims
to Eleanor in 1333. What seems curious is that John de Botetourt married
both a daughter of Sir John de Grey and William la Zouche de Mortimer. The
continued attempt in the next generation, remarked on by Paul, may not have
been to unite Grey and Botetourt blood, so much as to unite Zouche and Grey
blood, in an attempt to resolve the animosity between the two families, but
I'm not sure why it was done indirectly via the Botetourt family.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: The identity of Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings
>
Louise Staley
I have NEVER claimed to know how these people are related. All I have said
is if I make Maud a Grey and her mother a Burghersh then these are the
relationships I get. As I said in my last post on this subject when I
offered to calculate the relationships "Which assumptions do you want me to
make?" I have tried to carefully enter all the known relationships of the 8
people you have claimed are referred to as kinsfolk of Sir William
Hastings, namely Sir Simon Montfort, Sir John Blount 3rd Lord Mountjoy,
John Lovel 8th Lord Lovel, John Paston, Edward IV, Richard III, George,
Duke of Clarence and Sir Henry Grey 7th Lord Grey of Condor. The only three
whose ancestry is completely known to the fifth generation are Edward IV,
Richard III and George, Duke of Clarence. When you suggested that what was
needed was all the relationships being identified to the fifth generation
and Todd Farmerie agreed and suggested you do that, I thought I would have
a go. What I found, as would be expected given the degree of intermarriage,
was that there are relationships. I posted the closest I could come up with
given the constraints of insufficient information.
As an example, here is what I have on the requested 5 generations for John
Paston. Perhaps you might like to help me fill in the 44 blanks, and
confirm I am looking at the right John Paston, so I could help answer your
question to Rosie as to whether any of the 8 men identified as kinsmen of
Sir William Hastings descend from any of the eight families Rosie has
identified in the Deincourt/Hastings dispensation.
1. John Paston, died in 1503.
2. John Paston, was born on 10 Oct 1421 and died on 22 May 1466.
3. Margaret Mauteby heiress, died on 4 Nov 1484.
4. William Paston, was born in 1378 and died on 14 Aug 1444.
5. Agnes Berry died about 18 Aug 1479.
6. John Mauteby, died in 1438.
7. Margaret Berney, died in 1446.
8. Clement Paston died on 21 Sep 1388.
9. Beatrice Somerton.
10.
11.
12. Sir Robert Mauteby, died in 1434.
13. Margaret Beauchamp.
14. John Berney died in 1440.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24. Sir John Mauteby died in 1403.
25. Eleanor Clifton.
26. Roger Beauchamp 2nd Lord Beauchamp of Bletsoe, died v.p.
27. Joan Clopton died in 1404.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50. Adam Clifton of Buckenham Castle, NFK.
51. Eleanor Mortimer.
52. Roger Beauchamp 1st Lord Beauchamp of Bletsoe, died on 3 Jan 1380.
53. Sibyl Patteshull.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
Louise
> Douglas Richardson wrote in message ...
Chris Phillips
Botetourt-Grey marriage.
Douglas Richardson kindly sent me some extracts from his manuscript,
including a list of references for the entry for Maud de Grey and her
husband Thomas de Harcourt. I had a chance to check up on some of these
today. Unfortunately none of the information is really conclusive, but I
think it does shed a bit more light on things.
I think the only contemporary records directly bearing on the parentage of
Maud, wife of the younger John de Botetourt are 3 entries on the Patent
Roll, dated 28 November 1358. These relate to settlements to be made by John
Buttetourt of Weeley/Weoleye, knight on himself, Joyce his wife, John his
son, Maud the daughter of John de Grey of Retherfeld/Rotherfeld and the
heirs of the bodies of John and Maud. Perhaps it can be argued that the
natural interpretation is that this is the John de Grey who died the
following year (i.e. the elder of the Johns we've been discussing).
Maud was commemorated by what the Victoria County History of Oxfordshire
(vol. 12, pp. 275, 293) describes as "an elaborate tomb" in Stanton Harcourt
church. I failed to find any further details of this, except that from the
Oxfordshire volume of Pevsner's "Buildings of England" series, it seems that
the tomb now has only modern heraldry painted on it. That's a shame, because
if the arms included those of her mother, that would tell us whether she was
a child of the elder John de Grey by his second wife, or of he younger John
de Grey. (It's just possible that details of the tomb were recorded before
the original heraldry was lost.)
As far as older secondary sources go, several versions are given. Most place
Maud de Grey as the wife of the younger John de Botetourt, and omit the Maud
de Grey whom CP places as the first wife of the elder John de Botetourt. The
exception is Blore's History of Rutland, which in its first Botetourt
pedigree (p. 90) places her as the first wife of the elder John de Botetourt
(as CP does), and leaves the younger John with a wife "Alice ... " who
remarried to Thomas de Harcourt (as in reality his wife Maud de Grey did).
For full measure of confusion, later on Blore has a different Botetourt
pedigree (p. 209), in which the elder John de Botetourt married only Joyce,
and the younger John married Maud de Grey.
The secondary sources include every possibility for Maud de Grey's
parentage - the elder John de Grey, by each of his two wives, and the
younger John de Grey - as well as an impossibility - that she was the
daughter of a Robert de Grey.
Although these secondary sources are obviously unreliable, I think it is
probably significant that none of them shows more than one Grey wife in the
Botetourt pedigree. This strengthens my suspicion that the CP account (which
appears to have been lifted without revision from the first edition of CP)
has arrived at its two Maud de Greys by combining two inconsistent accounts
of the family. Possibly one of the accounts used could have been Blore's
first one, as this does split up the elder John's known daughters between
his two alleged wives, giving him issue by both marriages, just as CP says.
On this point, and going back to firmer ground, I think the 5 known
daughters of the elder John de Botetourt must all be by his marriage to
Joyce (whether or not he had an earlier marriage). These daughters - or
their issue - are named as heirs of John's granddaughter Joyce, and the
inquisitions include cases where Joyce was found to hold no land, and one in
which land is said explicitly to have been settled with remainder to "the
heirs of Joyce". So I think these really must be her legal heirs, not the
designated successors under some particular settlement, and so the aunts
must be the full sisters of Joyce's father, and therefore daughters of Joyce
Zouche. In this respect at least, Blore's pedigree must be wrong in
assigning two of the daughters to an earlier marriage.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> Douglas Richardson kindly sent me some extracts from his manuscript,
> including a list of references for the entry for Maud de Grey and her
> husband Thomas de Harcourt. I had a chance to check up on some of these
> today. Unfortunately none of the information is really conclusive, but I
> think it does shed a bit more light on things.
I meant to add that the one I didn't see was this one:
G. Paget Baronage of England (1957) 271: 2
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
>G. Paget Baronage of England (1957) 271: 2
>
I've seen it, and will post in just a bit.
Paul
Reedpcgen
On a hunch, I had checked Paget's typescript Baronage before I had any idea
Chris would make a post. The Botetourt account is just a hand drawn pedigree
chart, which states John de Botetourt, d. 1385, m. c. 28 Nov. 1358, Maud de
Grey, daughter of John de Grey, citing "Pat. 23 Edw 3 p. 2. m. 13" and that by
her John was father of two daughters, Elizabeth, and Joyce [who Paget says m.
(1) Baldwin Freville, and (2) Adam de Peshal] Paget also states that John (d.
1385) m. (2) Joyce le Zouche, by whom he was father of John de Botetourt (d.
1369, who married Maud de Grey, daughter of John of Rothersfield), and four
other daughters, Maud, abbess of Poleswick, Agnes, a nun at Elstow, Alice, m.
John Keyriel (family account #160 and Catherine, m. Maurice de Berkeley.
[Note that each family is assigned a number. This would be the first number
referred to by Faris, the second number after the colon being the volume of the
typescript series.]
In the section of Grey of Rothersfield, however, under the first Lord Grey,
Paget gives the daughter Maud, wife of John de Botetourt, as afterwards married
to Thomas Harcourt. No Maud is given as daughter of the 2nd Lord John.
I did not find any documentary evidence that the elder John de Botetourt
married a first wife. He definitely married Joyce by 31 May 1347 (CPR Edw. III
7:351), and she was also called his wife 28 May 1353 (CPR 9:445), 6 July 1355
(CPR 10:259) and 28 Nov. 1358.
BUT, CP WAS AWARE of the 1347 marriage date, so apparently whatever was seen by
CP did not cause a doubt in the editor's mind.
There was a Maud who was wife of John de Botetourt, father of Thomas, father of
John who married Joyce, but it is obvious - as she was heir to the running of
the dies and mint at the Tower of London, which she granted to William le
Latymer the elder in 1329, which was confirmed in 1373 (CPR Edw. III 1:391, 23
May 1329, where she is called Matilda and CPR 15:363 where she is called Maud -
that she was Maud/Matilda Fitz Otes, whose ancestry was traced in an
interesting article which appeared in TAG.
John de Botetourt was a minor in 1338, but given livery anyway, which means he
was born after 1317. It is easily believable that he married before 1347 (by
which time he was husband of Joyce). The question would be, how much earlier
than 1347 was John married to Joyce, and if not much earlier, was he married
before?
Joyce's son John de Botetourt was father of John who was born 1362. John son
of Joyce died 1369.
On 6 Jan. 1326 (CPR 5 Edw. II, p. 207) John son of John Buttetourt received
license to celebrate masses for the soul of John, and of Maud, late the wife of
John, concerning Belchamp William, Essex, and on 8 January 1326 license to Maud
late wife of John de Botetourt to grant in fee tail land and advowson of
Belchamp Otes to John son of John de Botetourt with remainder to Robert and
Otes his brothers. The Essex lands descended to John, younger brother of
Thomas de Botetourt.
The 1358 marriage settlement of Maud de Grey, daughter of John de Grey of
Rotherfeld [sic] to John de Botetourt, son of John, obviously concerned the son
of Joyce (as his father was son of Thomas, and the youngest John was not born
until 1362). This Maud involved in 1358 was the one who then married Thomas
Harcourt after John de Botetourt's death.
CPR Edw. III 6:334 3 Aug. 1344 John son of John de Grey of Rotherfield going
beyond the seas. CP attributes this to the younger John.
CPR 8:221 5 Dec. 1348, Gerard Salvayn of Herswell, grandson and heir of Robert
de Roos of Werk had license confirming what he had recovered from Miles de
Stapleton of Cotherston and John son of John de Grey of Rothersfield, heirs of
Brian Fitz Alan and his wife Maud. He succeeded by judgement [sic] rendered on
verdict of the great assize by writ of right in court of Queen Philippa of Werk
in Tyndale.
CPR Edw. III, 1358-1361, 11:125:
28 Nov. 1358 "Licence for John Buttetourt of Weoleye, knight, and Joyce, his
wife, to grant to John son of the said John and Maud, daughter of John de Grey
of Rotherfeld and the heirs of their bodies, the manor of Little Lynnesford,
co. Buckingham, held in chief. By K."
11:127, 28 Nov. 1358: "Licence for John Buttetourt of Weeleye, knight, to grant
to his son John and Maud daughter of John de Grey of Rotherfeld, in tail the
manors of Lynneford and Wouketon, co. Buckingham, held in chief, with reversion
to the grantor and his heirs. By K. [Vacated because otherwise below.]"
11:274, 25 Sep. 1359, "Protection, for the good service done by John de Grey of
Rotherfeld, late steward of the household, for Avice late the wife of John de
Grey of Rotherfeld, Ralph Restwold and John de Ludham, executors of the will of
the said John, and for his goods, that the execution of the will be not
impeded. By K."
I checked the entries in the years earlier, and though Grey of Rothersfield was
a barony by writ, he was never styled "baron" or lord, so the lack of such a
STATEMENT means nothing.
John de Grey of Rothersfield, who became 1st Lord Grey, was a minor until 1322
(his lands were held in wardship by Hugh Despenser the elder), which means he
was born about 1301. He died 1359, and was steward of the King's household.
His son and heir John would have been born not that many years after 1322,
given the birthdate of his son's daughter by 1368. John, 1st Lord Grey,
married (1) Catherine Fitz Alan, and (2) Avice Marmion, which Avis was still
alive in 1379, having survived the son of the first wife, and that son's son,
and the lather's daughter.
John de Grey, 2nd Lord, succeeded his father in 1359, and in 1361 entailed the
manor of Somerton on his son John, and that son's intended wife Elizabeth de
Poynings. This youngest John was dead by 1368, when his widow Elizabeth was
allowed the manor with her daughter, but by 1375, Somerton was granted as dower
to Maud, wife of John 2nd Lord who died in 1375. Somerton is covered in VCH
Oxford. 6:291-2. Fringford, VCH Oxford 6:127 also comes into play, and had
been part of the dower of Joan de Valoines (d. 1312), widow of Robert de Grey
who d. 1295 (parents of John, who d. 1311, father of John, 1st Lord).
In 1358, the manor and advowson of Woughton, Bucks., was settled by John de
Botetourt and Joyce on their son John on the occasion of his marriage to Maud,
daughter of John de Grey of Rothersfield. VCH Bucks. 4:516 citing CPR, p. 127,
and "Feet of F. case 20, file 94, no. 14". CIPM Edw. III found that John de
Botetourt, jr., died in 1369 seised of the manor of Woughton, his son John was
aged seven and his heir (b. abt. 1362). But Maud survived and married Thomas
Harcourt, holding the manor in dower until her death in January 1393/4, CIPM 17
Rich. II, no. 32. It found [according to VCH Bucks.] that her son John was
already dead, her heir was her daughter Joyce, wife of Hugh Burnell, who had
already made a settlement in favor of Thomas Harcourt in 1386. "Feet of F.
Div. Co. 10 Rich. II, no. 149."
Thomas Harcourt also held an interest in the manors of Little Linford (VCH
Bucks. 4:393) and Newport Paganel (VCH Bucks. 4:415), which had been settled on
John de Botetourt and Maud in 1358.
CCR Rich. II, 1392-6, 5:197-8, 22 Feb. 1394, orders the escheator to give Hugh
Burnell, knight, and Joyce his wife livery of the manors of Neuport Paynell and
Little Lynford, as the king has learned by inquisition that Maud who was wife
of Thomas Harcourt knight at her death held the manor of Neuport Paynell by
virtue of a fine levied at Westminster the quinzaine of St. Hilary 33 Edw. III
between John Bottourt of Weoley knight and Joyce his wife plaintiffs and Thomas
Shyrref parson of Sheldesley and Henry Haukeserd chaplain deforciants,
remainder of grant to John son of the said John, and to Maud daughter of John
de Grey of Retherfylde [sic] and the heirs of their bodies, and that Maud
daughter of John de Grey is the same Maud who was wife of Thomas de Harcourt,
that she held the manor of Little Lynford by virtue of a fine levied three
weeks after Michaelmas 32 Edw. III between John son of John Bottourrt and the
said Maud plaintiffs, and the said John Bottourt and Joyce deforciants, granted
to the plaintiffs, the heirs of their bodies, that John Bottourt, Joyce [his
wife] and John the son are now dead, that with the king's licence a fine was
likewise levied on the morrow of the Ascension 9 Rich. II, the said Hugh and
Joyce deforciants, reversion after Maud's death to the deforciants and the
heirs of Joyce, wife of Hugh. Other manors and mentioned later concerning Hugh
if he should outlive her.
John de Botetourt was married to Joyce by 1347, but CP knew that. If there was
a previous marriage to Maud de Grey, that Maud/Matilda would be at least age
12, or born by 1335, if not more likely before 1325. As John de Grey was dead
in 1311, and his son and heir John de Grey, who became 1st Lord Grey, was
apparently born about 1301, and attained majority in 1322, it would make sense
based on chronological grounds that any Maud of that generation would be his
daughter.
The younger John de Botetourt was son of Joyce, and died in 1369, leaving a son
John who was born in 1362, and a daughter Joyce who eventually succeeded and
was likely born between the marriage in 1358 and 1361.
But if this Maud de Grey was fairly young at the arranged marriage which did
not take place before 1358, by Doug's usual reasoning she should have been
close to age 12 (not much older), or born about 1346.
More likely she was of childbearing age, or born by about 1340-2. John de
Grey, who became 2nd Lord Grey, was the one who received letters of protection
in 1344 according to CP. His THIRD surviving son Bartholomew [this is a
correction to CP] was born about 1351, or possibly 4 years earlier according to
one out of five IPMs for his father. Bartholomew's eldest brother John was to
be married about 1361, so presumably at least age 14, or born by 1347. As I
noted above, he'd fathered a daughter by Elizabeth de Poynings before his death
which occurred by 8 Feb. 1367/8.
The Maud de Grey who was married in 1358 to the John de Botetourt who was born
in the period about 1340-44, would likely be a little younger, and thus indeed
born about 1342-6.
That would place her, by deduction, as (1) daughter of John de Grey of
Rothersfield who was 2nd Lord Grey, or (2) son of the 1st lord by his 2nd wife
Avice Marmion, as Avice's son John de Grey was aged 16 or more in 1359, or born
about 1343.
But note that John de Grey, 1st Lord Grey, had two sons named John, both being
heirs of each wife, so what would prevent a Maud by both wives? The 2nd John
de Grey also had a first and second son named John, presumably by the same
wife. The John who was going beyond the seas in 1344 and became 2nd Lord Grey
had a wife named Maud, so he would be expected to have a daughter named Maud.
All that being said, we turn to Blore's _History of Rutland_, 90, 167 and 209.
In the first chart of the Botetourt family (p. 90), He gives "Matilda, dau. of
John de Grey Baron Grey, of Rotherfield' as first wife of the elder John de
Bottetourt [sic], mother of two daughters, "Elizabeth, mar. 27 Edw. 3 to
Baldwin Freville, of Tamworth Castle, Knt. or perhaps was only contracted to
him.--VIDE DUGDALE'S WARWICKSHIRE, UNDER TAMWORTH [emphasis added]" and "Joyce,
married first to B[aldwin]. Freville, and aft. to A. Peshale, and was coheir in
blood of her father (Esc. [i.e., IPM] 8 Hen. 4, n. 64)-ob. 8 Hen. 5."
On page 209, the second "Bottetourt Pedigree," Blore makes reference to the
account on p. 90: "Some errors having occurred in the statement of the pedigree
of this family ... the descent of the Barony of Bottetourt is here given from
most authentic documents...."
In this account, Joyce is given as only wife of the elder John. "Matilda, dau.
of John Grey, Baron Grey, of Rotherfield" is given only as wife of the younger
John, with Elizabeth and Joyce as her daughters, with the other siblings. More
surprisingly, in the Grey account (p. 167), Blore gives Matilda, wife of John
de Botetourt, as daughter of John de Grey by HIS FIRST WIFE Catherine Fitz
Alan, not daughter of Avice Marmion. No Maud/Matilda is given in the next
generation, but the second son John is also missed.
I cannot conceive that CP had not seen Blore, but CP would also have been aware
of all of the pedigrees in Blore. I have not checked Dugdale yet to see what
he said.
I could conclude that Doug, as he has done many times in the past, followed
Paget in placing Maud as daughter of the 1st Lord Grey of Rothersfield.
However, given the errors in Paget and other sources, and taking an independent
look at original sources, at this point I'm inclined to think Maud de Grey,
wife of the younger John de Botetourt, was daughter of the 2nd Lord Grey by his
wife Maud, rather than daughter of Avice Marmion. I'd like to see evidence
otherwise.
Also, I could not see any source that would give the elaborate tomb of Maud (de
Grey) (de Botetourt) de Harcourt in the north wall of the church at Stanton
Harcourt. The heraldry on that tomb, as Chris rightly observed, would likely
give us the identity of her mother, and thus her parents.
Paul
Douglas Richardson
> Thanks to Rosie Bevan for another informative post on the question of the
> Botetourt-Grey marriage.
>
> Douglas Richardson kindly sent me some extracts from his manuscript,
> including a list of references for the entry for Maud de Grey and her
> husband Thomas de Harcourt. I had a chance to check up on some of these
> today. Unfortunately none of the information is really conclusive, but I
> think it does shed a bit more light on things.
> Maud de Grey as the wife of the younger John de Botetourt, and omit the Maud
> de Grey whom CP places as the first wife of the elder John de Botetourt. The
> exception is Blore's History of Rutland, which in its first Botetourt
> pedigree (p. 90) places her as the first wife of the elder John de Botetourt
> (as CP does), and leaves the younger John with a wife "Alice ... " who
> remarried to Thomas de Harcourt (as in reality his wife Maud de Grey did).
> For full measure of confusion, later on Blore has a different Botetourt
> pedigree (p. 209), in which the elder John de Botetourt married only Joyce,
> and the younger John married Maud de Grey.
> > Chris Phillips
Dear Chris ~
Thank you for checking the literature concerning Maud de Grey, wife of
John Botetourt and Thomas Harcourt. Much appreciated. I believe I
can identify the source of Blore's statement that Maud de Grey's name
was Alice. This appears to come from an old Harcourt pedigree found
in Ronton Chartulary:
"De dicto Ricardo [Harcourt] descendit jus Thomæ [Harcourt], fratri
Ricardi, ut heredi masculo, qui desponsavit Aliciam, filiam Domini de
Grey de Rothurfelde." [Reference: Colls. Hist. Staffs. 4) (1883):
271–272 (Harcourt pedigree)].
The Harcourt pedigree in the Ronton Chartulary is quite accurate.
Other than this one mistake regarding Maud's given name, it seems very
reliable.
Chris Phillips
Paul Reed wrote:
> On a hunch, I had checked Paget's typescript Baronage before I had any
idea
> Chris would make a post. The Botetourt account is just a hand drawn
pedigree
> chart, which states John de Botetourt, d. 1385, m. c. 28 Nov. 1358, Maud
de
> Grey, daughter of John de Grey, citing "Pat. 23 Edw 3 p. 2. m. 13" and
that by
> her John was father of two daughters, Elizabeth, and Joyce [who Paget says
m.
> (1) Baldwin Freville, and (2) Adam de Peshal] Paget also states that John
(d.
> 1385) m. (2) Joyce le Zouche, by whom he was father of John de Botetourt
(d.
> 1369, who married Maud de Grey, daughter of John of Rothersfield), and
four
> other daughters, Maud, abbess of Poleswick, Agnes, a nun at Elstow, Alice,
m.
> John Keyriel (family account #160 and Catherine, m. Maurice de Berkeley.
Thanks for that excellent analysis of the records and chronology of the
Botetourts and Greys.
I must admit that I had missed Blore's statement that his second Botetourt
pedigree was a correction of his first. I believe the first pedigree was the
only secondary source I saw that gave the elder John de Botetourt a first
wife Maud de Grey. As its own author later corrected it, I think we can
assume that this claim (repeated by CP) is an error unless some evidence
emerges to support it.
> Also, I could not see any source that would give the elaborate tomb of
Maud (de
> Grey) (de Botetourt) de Harcourt in the north wall of the church at
Stanton
> Harcourt. The heraldry on that tomb, as Chris rightly observed, would
likely
> give us the identity of her mother, and thus her parents.
I didn't have a chance yesterday to check any of the general collections
like Gough. If it was particularly elaborate perhaps there's a chance it may
have caught someone's attention before the original heraldry was lost.
There is a collection of Oxfordshire church notes made by Richard Lee in
1574, known as the "Gatherings of Oxfordshire" and published by the Harleian
Society (vol. 5, 1871), which may be worth a look.
More obscurely, Anderson's "Book of British Topography" lists "An account of
the Church and Remains of the Manor House of Stanton Harcourt, in the County
of Oxford", by G. S. Harcourt (1808).
I'll make a note to try to check these, but if anyone else wants to look at
them before I have a chance, they're welcome to do so.
> I could conclude that Doug, as he has done many times in the past,
followed
> Paget in placing Maud as daughter of the 1st Lord Grey of Rothersfield.
> However, given the errors in Paget and other sources, and taking an
independent
> look at original sources, at this point I'm inclined to think Maud de
Grey,
> wife of the younger John de Botetourt, was daughter of the 2nd Lord Grey
by his
> wife Maud, rather than daughter of Avice Marmion. I'd like to see
evidence
> otherwise.
I was leaning weakly towards her being a daughter of the elder John de
Botetourt by Avice, but only because I thought that was perhaps a slightly
more natural reading of the 1358 Patent Roll entries. But it is only a weak
indication, and the chronology doesn't give much help. It would be nice to
have a solid indication either way.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> I was leaning weakly towards her being a daughter of the elder John de
> Botetourt by Avice,
Sorry - I meant the elder John de Grey, of course!
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
>can identify the source of Blore's statement that Maud de Grey's name
>was Alice. This appears to come from an old Harcourt pedigree found
>in Ronton Chartulary:
>"De dicto Ricardo [Harcourt] descendit jus Thomæ [Harcourt], fratri
>Ricardi, ut heredi masculo, qui desponsavit Aliciam, filiam Domini de
>Grey de Rothurfelde." [Reference: Colls. Hist. Staffs. 4) (1883):
>271–272 (Harcourt pedigree)].
Doug,
You may have found a source that states (in error) she was Alice, but I think
you are in error that yours was Blore's source.
Wasn't Blore published about 1840 (I don't have that in front of me)?
It would be FAR more likely that he saw Bridges' Collins' Peerage, 1812 ed.,
which at 4:436 says of Sir Thomas Harcourt, MP for Oxford in 1376:
"He married Maud (or Alice, according to the Monasticon (or Eleanore, according
to the Visitation of Staffordshire), daughter to RObert, Lord Grey of
Rotherfield, and widow of Sir John Botetourt, of Woody, Lord Botetourt;
and by her was father of two sons, and three daughters; viz. Thomas, his heir;
Sir Richard Harcourt; Joan, the wife of Thomas Erdington, of Erdington, in
Warwickshire; Catherine; and Isabel."
I think Blore more likely used Bridges' Collins' Peerage or Monasticon
Anglicanum as his source for Alice, don't you?
Paul
Chris Phillips
> Wasn't Blore published about 1840 (I don't have that in front of me)?
>
> It would be FAR more likely that he saw Bridges' Collins' Peerage, 1812
ed.,
> which at 4:436 says of Sir Thomas Harcourt, MP for Oxford in 1376:
>
> "He married Maud (or Alice, according to the Monasticon (or Eleanore,
according
> to the Visitation of Staffordshire), daughter to RObert, Lord Grey of
> Rotherfield, and widow of Sir John Botetourt, of Woody, Lord Botetourt;
>
> and by her was father of two sons, and three daughters; viz. Thomas, his
heir;
> Sir Richard Harcourt; Joan, the wife of Thomas Erdington, of Erdington, in
> Warwickshire; Catherine; and Isabel."
>
> I think Blore more likely used Bridges' Collins' Peerage or Monasticon
> Anglicanum as his source for Alice, don't you?
I think Blore's History was published in 1811.
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
>I think Blore's History was published in 1811.
>
>Chris Phillips
You're right. I haven't checked Collins' Peerage (what preceeded Bridges'
edition) to see what it says, but Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum was published
much earlier, and stated her name as Alice, my point being that is where Blore
got his information for that statement.
The second Botetourt pedigree in Blore corrects "Alice" to Matilda, citing IPM
17 Rich. II, Bucks. Note that CP did not call the younger John de Botetourt's
wife Alice, which makes me wonder if they knew another source for the double
Maud attribution.
Another thing that made me wonder, Avice Marmion, second wife of Lord John de
Grey, survived so long, with ample dower and inheritance, I'd think she would
have endowed a number of religious houses, naming daughters, sons, etc.
Avice was mother of (1) John de Grey who took the name Marmion, who died s.p.
1387; and (2) Robert de Grey, who died before 30 Nov. 1367, leaving a daughter
and heiress Elizabeth who married Henry, Lord FitzHugh;
but do we know if Avice had any daughters?
Paul
Rosie Bevan
Hastings' wife was Maud, daughter of John de Grey of Rotherfield,
circumstantial evidence has come to light that she remarried Sir Ralph
Botreaux and that she was still living in 1413.
Sir Ralph Botreaux (d.s.p.1433) of Linkinhorne, Trevery and Sewenna,
Cornwall, was the third son of William, Lord Botreaux d.1391 of Boscastle
and his wife Elizabeth Daubeny da. of Ralph, Lord Daubeny of South
Petherton, Somerset by his second wife Katherine, dau. of Marmaduke, Lord
Thweng [CP II p.242]. According to HOP 1386-1421 v.2, p.313, Sir Ralph's
wife name is given as Maud but her identity unknown.
The first record below intimating that Sir Ralph Botreaux was husband of
Maud, widow of Sir Ralph Hastings is an agreement between Sir Ralph Botreaux
and Leonard Hastings that the latter would not interfere with the collection
of rent from the manors of Slingsby and Bewick which Sir Ralph was holding
by right of his wife, Maud. This would indicate that the manors had been
settled on Maud for life, and as Richard Hastings, Maud's son was holding
both the manors Slingsby and Bewick on his death in 1436, Maud had
evidently died before then.
Nottinghamshire Archives: Portland of Welbeck (6th Deposit): Deeds and
Estate Papers [DD/P/6/1/1 - DD/P/6/6/34] Reference: DD/P/6/1/1/18
Creation dates: [4 Dec 1413]
Scope and Content
Covenants between Sir Ralph Betreaux who holds Leonard Hastynggs, esq, to an
obligation of 50m not to interfere with the collection of rents etc from the
Manors of Bewyk and Slyngesby [YN] by Sir Ralph who holds them by right of
his wife Matilda.
Dated at Slyngsby.
Latin; Seal.
The other undated document from the PRO is a suit by Sir Ralph Botreaux
against Richard Hastings, Edmund Grey, Anthony St Quintin, clerk, and
William "Lyvelay" over the manor of Bewick. It is interesting that the name
Grey crops up in this context.
C 1/6/38
Ralph Botreaux, knt. v. (Rich)ard Hastyng, Edmund Gray, Anthony Seint
Quynteyn, clerk, and William Lyvelay.: Manor of Bewik: [.....].
1386-1486
I have ordered this last document from the PRO and will report back with its
contents in due course.
In my initial post was an error, which Louise Staley kindly pointed out to
me, stating that William Deincourt and Richard Hastings shared Hillary, or
de la Plaunche ancestry. They didn't, of course, as Elizabeth de la Plaunche
died without issue.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosie Bevan" <rbe...@paradise.net.nz>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: The identity of Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings
> I made a couple of posts via GEN-MEDIEVAL during the week but as they
> have not yet appeared I am posting them again, condensed into one
> post, directly to sgm.
>
> I thought it would be useful to examine statements in Poulson's
> History of Holderness that Ralph Hastings married Alice de
> Melsa/Meaux, and Dugdale that Ralph Hastings had married a Sutton
> heiress. By looking at the devolution of Sutton in Holderness in the
> East Riding of Yorkshire, it has been possible to cast doubt on one
> theory, disprove the other and lend support to the possibility that
> Ralph de Hastings the elder was married to Maud de Grey. I apologise
> for the length of the post but hope that it helps clear up some
> questions without too much confusion.
>
> From Ralph the younger's inquisition in 1407 we have a description of
> the Sutton-in-Holderness possession.
> "216. Writ , melius sciri, as it was found by an inquisition before
> Richard Redmane that Ralph Hastyngs, who rebelled on 1 May 1405 and
> was condemned at Durham on 20 July, held certain tenements in Sutton
> in Holderness, but his estate in them was not stated, 3 March 1407.
>
> York. Inquisition. York Castle. 1 April
> William Gower and William Gibson, clerks and John Hastynges of Burnby
> and Robert de Thorneton, esquires, held 1 messuage, 16 cottages, 6
> bovates, 29 1/2 acre meadow and 30s rent in Sutton in Holderness, and
> gave them to Ralph and so they descended to Ralph as son and heir. He
> assigned a third part to Maud widow of the elder Ralph in dower. She
> lives and still holds it. He held two parts all his life with the
> reversion of the third part. ALL ARE HELD OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK OF
> HIS MANOR OF BEVERLEY BY RENT OF ONE GRAIN OF PEPPER." [My capitals]
> [CIPM XIX no.216]
>
> The manor of Beverley and its demesne lands was given by Athelstan,
> and confirmed by Edward the Confessor, to the Archbishop of York
> before 1064 and the gift was later confirmed by kings William I, Henry
> I and Stephen [EYC III pp.85-96]. Unfortunately the lands pertaining
> to the manor of Beverley are not specified in the charters, but they
> are in the Domesday Book. Under the Yorkshire survey, listing the
> Archbishop's lands, the landholding in Sutton appears under the
> heading 'Berewicks in Beverley and Holderness belonging to the
> Archbishop', as consisting of 9 bovates of land, and having one free
> man and 3 villans with one and a half ploughs. A bovate amounted to 15
> acres depending on the terrain, which at 135 acres compares equitably
> with the land described in Ralph Hastings' inquisition, over 300 years
> later.
>
> Mention of Holderness lands being associated with the Grey family
> comes from the inquistion post mortem of Robert de Grey, 1295 [CIPM
> III no.284]. Amongst holdings in several places of the Archbishop of
> York, by knight's service, Robert held in Sculcotes, a capital
> messuage, 12 bovates of land, 4 cottages, 30a. meadow, 60a. several
> pasture, and a ferry worth 4s., and in Hutton [sic- this should
> probably be Sutton], 3 bovates of land and 2 cottages. Of John de
> Melsa [Meaux] he held another 4 bovates of land in Sculcotes.
>
> An undated PRO document records a marriage between a Robert de Gray
> and Amice (de Sculcotes?) which may point to the origin of the Grey
> holdings.
>
> E 210/1497
> Benedict de Sculecot to Robert de Gray (in marriage with Amice,
> grantor's niece) : Manor and advowson of Sculcoates ( Sculecot ) : (
> Yorks E.R. )
>
>
> John de Grey of Rotherfield (d.1311), son of Robert de Grey d.1295, is
> recorded as holding similar but apparently not identical possessions
> [CIPM V no.345].
>
> "[York] Inq taken at Kyngeston upon Hull on Sunday after St Martin, 5
> Edw. II
> Scolcotes. A capital messuage, 12 bovates of land, and the advowson of
> the church, jointly held by the said John with Margaret his wife, to
> them and the heirs of the said John, of the archbishop of York by
> homage only; and 4 bovates land jointly held, as above of the heir of
> Godfrey de Melsa, who is in the king's wardship, by homage, and
> service of 4d. yearly for wapentake fines."
>
> "Sutton and Dripol in Hold(erness). A toft, 1 bovate land, 60s rent of
> assize, 30a., meadow, a plot of meadow called Hedoncroft, and pasture
> in 'le Somergang,' jointly held, as above, of the said archbishop by
> service of 1d. yearly"
>
> The inquisition for Godfrey de Meaux [CIPM V no.266], who had died a
> year previously in 1310, describes (amongst 22 other Yorkshire
> holdings) his tenancy in Sutton
>
> "Sutton in Holdreness. A capital messuage, 5 bovates of land, a
> fishery, a windmill, 2 sheepfolds with 2 closes containing 18a. land,
> with common of pasture in le Somergang"..held in demesne of the
> archbishop of York."
>
> and
>
> "Dripoel. 1 bovate land."
>
> How long the de Meaux family had been holding the land in Sutton is
> unclear but in 1166 a John de Meaux was holding of the Archbishop an
> eighth of a knight's fee [Red Book of the Exchequer p.415]. Poulson
> (p 327) also relates that "in the reign of Edward I, a writ of Quo
> Warranto was issued to enquire by what right John de Melsa claimed to
> have wayf, the assize of bread and ale, &c. and quitance from suit in
> the county court without permission, and he answers, &c. that he
> claimed these rights, &c. in Sutton, in Holderness, as Holding it of
> the archbishop of York (Plac. Q.W. Ed. I. p.196)."
>
> Poulson's account of the Meaux family is flawed in the last four
> generations as he has placed the last male of the line, Sir John de
> Meaux, who died without issue in 1377, as great grandson of the above
> Godfrey de Meaux. In fact Sir John was the son of Godfrey de Meaux,
> being aged 6-7 months when his father died in 1310. John is mentioned
> in his mother's inquisition post mortem in 1354 as being 40 and more
> (he was actually 44) [CIPM X no,185].
>
> While Sir John mentions an Alice in his brief will [Surtees Soc, v. 4
> p100], her name is Alice Chapman, she was residing in Aldburgh and he
> left her many of his personal possessions. There is no mention of a
> Ralph Hastings, and as stated in a previous post, the lack of mention
> of any Alice in Sir Ralph Hastings' will, despite requesting prayers
> to be said for the souls of his dead wife Isabel and living wife Maud,
> would indicate that he was never married to an Alice.
>
> Before and after the death of Sir John de Meaux a number of
> settlements were made with his lands.
>
> C 143/306/12
> John de Melsa, knight, to grant the manor of Levisham to William
> Percehay, Isabel his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, with
> remainder to the right heirs of the said William, retaining a messuage
> and land in Newton, the manor of Bewick [in Aldbrough], and tenements
> in Halsham, Willerby, and Midgley.
> 26 Edward III
>
> C 143/338/16
> John de Meaux, knight, to grant the manor of Willerby, with land
> there, to the prior and convent of Haltemprice, retaining the manors
> of Bewick, Sutton, East Halsham, and Little Weighton. York.
> 35 EDWARD III.
>
> E 40/359
> Release by Thomas de Meaux, knt., to Sir Thomas Ughtred, knt., of the
> manor of Lepyngton, and all lands and other possessions formerly
> belonging to Sir John de Meaux, knt., son and heir of Sir Godfrey de
> Meaux, knt., deceased, in Gouthorp, Barthorp, Levenyng, Akclom,
> Fankefosse, York, Midgeleye, Sutton-in-Holderness, Dripehull,
> Stanfrey, and Lopholme.
> Lepyngton, Tuesday in the second week of Lent, 2 R[ic II]
>
> E 40/334
> Release by Antony de Spanby to Sir Thomas Ughtred, knt., of the manor
> of Lepyngton, and all lands, &c., formerly belonging to Sir John de
> Meaux, chivaler, son and heir of Sir Godfrey de Meaux, chivaler,
> deceased, in Gouthorp, Barthorp, Levenyng, Akclom, Fankefosse, York,
> Sutton-in-Holderness, Dryphull, Stanfery, and Lopholm
>
> E 40/374
> Release by John de le Ryver, of Brandesby, John Fayfax, clerk, Thomas
> de Etton, the elder, Antony Seyntquyntyn, clerk, Robert Boulot, Alan
> de Kyrkeby, chaplain, and Geoffrey de Brandesby, to Thomas Ughtred,
> knt., of the manors of Lepyngton and Migelay, and lands in Sutton in
> Holderness, Levenyng, Acclom, Barthorp, Gouthorp, Fangfosse, and York,
> and in Stanfery, Dripole, and Topholme, which formerly belonged to Sir
> John de Meux, of Bewyk, knt
> Lepyngton, 30 September, 2 Richard II
>
> The release made by the feoffees of Sir John de Meaux indicates that
> his cousin, Sir Thomas Ughtred, was his heir.
>
> In 1375 Robert de Grey, the last of the Greys of Rotherfield granted
> the reversion of his claim to John de Nevill who appears to have
> granted it shortly afterwards to Michael de la Pole.
>
> E 210/416
> Grant by Robert de Gray of Retherfeld, to John de Nevill, knight, lord
> of Raby, of the reversion of the manor of Sculcotes and of ten
> messuages, with land and rent, in Bisshopburton and Sutton in
> Holdernesse, and of the reversion of the advowson of the church of
> Sculcotes : [ York Kyngeston-on Hull, 6 January, 49 [ Edward ] III.
> (1375)
>
> C 143/393/15
> Michael de la Pole, knight, to grant a messuage called `le Maysendeu'
> by Hull, late part of the manor of Myton, messuages in North Cave, the
> advowsons of the churches of North Cave, Sculcoates, and Foston, with
> the reversion of the manor of Sculcoates, and of messuages, land, and
> rent in Bishop-Burton and Sutton in Holderness, now held by Thomas
> Banyarde, clerk, for his life and one year longer, to the Carthusian
> prior and monks of the house of St.
> 1 Ric II (1377)
>
> From what we can tell from the above, there appear to have been about
> three layers of tenancy in the Sutton land to which the Hastings
> family had an interest by 1375, and this would support the notion that
> Ralph Hastings' mother was a Grey.
>
> 1.. Archbishop of York
> 2.. The Meaux family
> 3.. The Grey family > Hastings family
>
>
> The Meaux family also held the manor of Bewick in Aldburgh, which
> found its way into Hastings' possession. Godfrey's inquisition
> describes it thus -
>
> "Bewick in Holdreness. A part of the manor, 3 carucates of land,
> whereof 48 carucates make I knight's fee and each carucate contains 8
> bovates, 2 warrens, and a wind mill, with 10 bovates land in Aldburgh,
> and 1 carucate land in Walkington, members of the said manor, held of
> the king in chief as of the honour of Albemarle, by homage and
> knight's service, and doing suit at the king's wapentake of
> Holdreness; and the other part of the manor, 2 bovates of land, and a
> plot called Thorpcroftes, and 4 bovates land in in Walkington, a
> member of the said manor, held of the provostry of Beverley by homage,
> knight's service and doing suit at the court of the provostry."
>
> Whether Bewick found its way into the Hastings family by grant,
> purchase or inheritance remains obscure, but it appears signficant
> that when Godfrey de Meaux died without issue in 1377, Sir Ralph
> Hastings was sheriff of Yorkshire for that year. It could be that he
> used his position to obtain Bewick by purchase. Poulson p. 22 quotes
> its description in Richard Hastings IPM in 1436
>
> "It was found by the jurors upon oath, that Richard Hastings, knt, was
> in possession, the day in which he died, (inter alia) of the manor of
> Bewyk, with its appurtenances. Which said manor is within the vill of
> Aldburgh, in which the said manor is a certain site with a house built
> upon it, worth nothing per annum above re-payment ; 40 acres of land,
> of which are worth &c 2s. per acre, and 12 acres of meadow, each acre
> worth 2s. and a messuage within the vill of Aldburgh, which said
> messuage is worth 3s. per and 2 virgates of land worth 10s each, and
> one windmill worth 6s 8d and that the said manor is held of Ann,
> Countess of Stafford, as of her manor of Burstwyk, doing suit at the
> court every 3 weeks, and that Leonard Hastings is brother and heir".
>
> To go back to the other Sutton-in-Holderness property; in 1086, the
> other holding consisted of two carucates of the manor of Burstwick
> held of Drogo de la Beuvriere, whose lands were forfeited shortly
> afterwards and given to Adelaide of Aumale and her husband Eudo of
> Champagne. This land descended with the Aumale fee and was the manor
> that the Suttons held. The Yorkshire inquisition of William de
> Fortibus in 1286 reports that Saer de Sutton was holding 34 ½ bovates
> - 17 in demesne and 17 ½ in service (about 515 acres).
>
> De Sutton IPMs confirm this.
>
> Saer de Sutton [CIPM III, no.6] (1291)
> "Sutton. A capital messuage, a fishery, 20 ¼ bovates of land, a
> windmill and 49s. rent in Sutton, Conningeston, Gagensted, Hull and
> elsewhere, with the dower of Christiana late the wife of the said
> Saer, all held of Lady Isabel de Fortibus, countess of Albemarle, by
> knight's service, which she holds as dower of the escheat of
> Albemarle; 2lbs pepper and 1lb cumin rent."
>
> Alina de Sutton [CIPM XI no. 531] (1353)
> "Sutton. The manor, held jointly with John de Sutton, knight, her
> husband now deceased, by gift of William de Medislay and John de Akres
> to them and the heirs of their bodies. The manor is held of Isabel the
> king's daughter, as of her manor of Brustwyk, as of the honor of
> Aumale, by knight's service and by the service of doing suit to her
> wapentake of Holderness every three weeks."
>
> There was frequent litigation between the Suttons "and the occupants
> of the
> archiepiscopal see, as to their respective rights in the river and
> port of Hull. Sayer de Sutton is said to have cut the present channel
> of the river Hull from Sculcoates Gote to the Humber, for the purpose
> of draining the marshes within his lordship; and he appears to have
> exacted toll from vessels entering the former river. This claim was
> contested by Archbishop Gray, and the jury before whom the case was
> tried, found that the said Sayer de Sutton never had, at any time, in
> the same river, any manner of franchise, except only weirs"
> http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Suttononhull/Suttononhull92.html
>
> When the male line ended, a division of the Sutton property was made
> between the female coheirs and is outlined in CP XII/I p.275. None of
> the heiresses married Sir Ralph Hastings as supposed by Dugdale,
> although one of them married Sir Edmund Hastings of Roxby, a cousin of
> Sir Ralph.
>
> Brad kindly sought out the IPM of John, 2nd Lord Grey of Rotherfield
> d.1375, to which I did not have access, and informed me that there was
> no mention of Sutton (whereas it had been included in his father and
> grandfather's inquisitions). This would indicate that it passed out of
> family hands during his tenure, which is certainly indicated by the
> fact that by January 1376, Robert, Lord Grey, only had claim to its
> reversion.
>
> Further it appears from VCH East Riding of Yorkshire v.7 p.13, that
> Sir Ralph Hastings purchased the manor of Bewick from the heirs of Sir
> John Melsa in 1379. Sources supporting this are given as Cal. Close,
> 1377-81, 245, 247. John de la River also conveyed land in the manor
> comprising 1/7 knight's fee to Sir Ralph.
>
> Brad also pointed out the 1397 inquisition for Sir Ralph Hastings for
> the manor of Styford in Northumberland, which says that Ralph, "aged
> 18 years and more" was his son and heir [CIPM XVII no. 1057]. This
> makes Ralph born about 1379 and before. The statement concerning the
> heir conflicts with the IPM quoted in a previous post from CIPM
> v.XVIII no.540, which said Richard, born in August 1381, was his son
> and heir, but he was clearly the younger son and
> it must mean he was the heir to the Slingsby property under a
> settlement, but terms of any settlement are nowhere mentioned. Leonard
> the third son was said to be 40 years and more ("xl annorum et
> amplius") at Richard's inquisition in 1436 [CP IV p.126 note (f)]. I
> would imagine that Leonard was considerably older than 40 years and
> born within five years of Richard.
>
> At this stage it might be useful to summarise the circumstantial
> evidence which points to Maud, wife of Sir Ralph Hastings, being a
> Grey of Rotherfield.
>
> 1. The dispensation needed because William Deincourt and Richard
> Hastings were related in the 2nd and 3rd degree of consanguinity,
> means that their common ancestry in the 2nd degree must have been via
> one of the four following families - Deincourt, Neville, Grey, or de
> la Plaunche. In the third degree it must have been from the following
> eight familes - Deincourt, Welle, Percy, Neville, Grey, the family of
> the unidentified Maud, Hillary, or de la Plaunche.
>
> Placing Maud as daughter of John, 2nd lord Grey, as indicated by the
> chronology and evidence, gives the exact 2nd and 3rd degree
> consanguinous relationship.
>
> 2. The Sutton-in-Holderness property held by Ralph Hastings the
> younger at his death, was held previously by the Grey family and had
> passed out of their hands by 1375.
>
> 3. The name Bartholomew was given to the fourth son of Sir Ralph
> Hastings. Bartholomew was the name of the third lord Grey of
> Rotherfield and putative brother of Maud.
>
> 4. In 1386 Robert, Lord Grey, Richard Grey and Ralph Hastings entered
> a recognisance of £1000 not to molest Robert Ashcombe who had been
> pursuing a debt of £40 against Maud, Lady Grey.
>
> All we need now is direct evidence, but knowing where to look makes
> the task easier.
>
> Many thanks to Brad and Mardi for their help.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosie
>
>