Re: Neville of Scotton / Cauntelo/ Ros of Ingmanthorpe/ de la Haye of Arlington
Jwc...@aol.com
manor of Trianstone, Kent was held by knight service in the time of William I
by a certain Trian who was succeeded by his son Hugh and Hugh`s son
Robert Trian without any adverse claim until the time of King John. Evidently
Robert took up the cause of his lord the Earl of Winchester for which his
lands were escheated by the King and Robert was banished from England.
The foregoing Robert Trian is almost
certainly the brother of Eustache, wife of Robert de Neville of Scotton and
Ralph de la Haye of Burewel. if so ,the father was possibly named Hugh
rather than William Trian. Robert`s mother was a daughter of Eustache namesake
grandmother, Eustache Fitz ralph alias de Gresley who married 1st
Nicholas de Cauntelo / Cantelou/ Cantilupe and 2nd William de Roos / Ros of
Ingmanthorpe.. In Richardson`s Magna Carta Ancestry under Botreaux lists the
children of Sir William Ros of Ingmanthorpe by Eustache Fitz ralph naming a
daughter Margaret without mention of a marriage. if She were the unidentified
wife of Hugh (or William ?) de Trian that would account for ' uncle'
Philip d`Aubigny although he was in fact two or three times great uncle to
Philip de Neville.
This whole thread does not appear to hold up. Eustache fitz Ralph appears
to still be having children in the last decades of the thirteenth century.
her supposed granddaughter Eustache de Trian died in the early to mid
thirteenth century.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
John Watson
Hi James,
There is a case in the Curia Regis Rolls in 1204, concerning Robert
Trian, who was at the time, underage and in the custody of Philip
d'Aubigny and Joan his wife. Robert Trian's father's name is given as
William Trian (who must have died before 1204). The case concerned
tenements in Bramton [Chapel Brampton, Northamptonshire] and in
Northampton. The lands in Brampton are mentioned in the ipm of Ralph
de la Haye, as part of the inheritance of Eustacha his late wife.This
William Trian is most probably the one who was holding Oxenton,
Gloucestershire in 1176.
It seems therefore that the Trian family of Gloucestershire and
Northampton are not the same as the family in Kent.
Regards,
John
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/8/2009 9:21:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
watso...@gmail.com writes:
There is a case in the Curia Regis Rolls in 1204, concerning Robert
Trian, who was at the time, underage and in the custody of Philip
d'Aubigny and Joan his wife. Robert Trian's father's name is given as
William Trian (who must have died before 1204).>>
Screams.
I think very likely there is no Robert the son. That Eustache is simply
the heir of her father the above Robert Trian, who was a minor in 1204, took
the wrong side, was banished and lands escheated in 1214, left a wife
Hugolina and this daughter Eustache, herself a minor in 1214.
So throw out the son Robert Trian. Right? Good?
Or...
Will Johnson
wjhonson
Notice that the cited Tenures of Kent, goes, in three generations from
William I to King John. However that is at least 115 years, if not
150 (depending on exactly when).
We've seen that the Manor of Oxenton for example, was held by the king
and then given in 1214.
Consider that the Tenures of Kent might be wrong in such a long span
and that the actual descent goes like this:
Trian father of
Hugh of Trianstone manor father of
Robert of Trianstone manor father of
1. William Trian
2. Julian Trian wife of Philip de Haudenby
William father of
Robert Trian of Oxendon banished in or just before 1214 and husband of
Hugelina
parents of Eustache Trian who with her husband acquired Oxendon in
1214.
If Robert, the father of William and Julian had given as a maritagium
lands in Haudenby to Julian and heirs of her body with a reversion to
the heirs of his son William, then it would make perfect sense that
William, holding Oxendon in 1176, but dead by 1204 when his son Robert
is a minor, would then end up in lawsuit once Robert comes to age in
or about 1211 and claims the lands from his aunt Julian.
Robert then within a few years, picks the wrong side, is banished and
his lands escheated and end up with his heir Eustache by 1214!
That's all!
Does it work.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
thread of the exact same title) is this work
http://books.google.com/books?id=krcLAAAAYAAJ
Contrary to the belief that Robert Trian was the son of a William
Trian, we also have the statement on page 107 that "Robert Trian is a
witness to a certificate of the Bishop of Worcester (1178)" citing
Madox. Form. Angl. p.3
This same page 107 repeats the claim that "A Tryan had Tryaneston,
Kent, immediately after the Conquest. Hugh, son and heir, was father
of Robert, expelled by King John" citing Cal. Gen. 1., 47
John told me privately that his statement that Robert was a minor in
1204, should really have read 1207. And the statement that Eustache
was "daughter of Robert" from the Curia Regis, should actually read
"sister" as the word used in that primary source is "sorore",
evidently misread by this 1892 Work called "Landboc sive
Registrum...." cited.
That eases the chronological problem a bit. I still do not believe we
can get from the Conquest to King John in only three generations. So
I'm still supporting my earlier contention that there is at least one
if not two missing names in this descent.
Will Johnson
Jwc...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/2009 6:36:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, WJhonson
writes:
In a message dated 12/10/2009 3:24:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870
writes:
That is correct. I was mistaken about their relationship.. still am a bit.
I re-read a post by Douglas Richardson which stated and John
Ravilious apparently holds the same view evidently that Eustache Trian of 1214 was
the mother by Ralph iV de la Haye of Burewel (son of Robert not Ralph III
de la Haye by Sarah de Burwell. Ralph III was apparently father of Robert
de la Haye) of Joan de la Haye who married Sir Ralph Fitz hugh of Gresley
rather than a daughter of Sir John and Margaret (de Harcourt) de la Haye and
so Eustache Trian`s granddaughter the said John de la Haye dying without
issue.. Eustache Fitz ralph therefore being 1st cousin to Sir Robert de
Neville of Scotton (died abt 1316) who married Angharad ferch Gruffuydd.>>
I don't think so.
Eustache Trian was heiress of her brother Robert, we just saw that
"sorore" (sister).
Apparently that Robert who was banished by King John (or so we say at the
moment).
Some sort of legal right to Oxenton Manor came to Philip de Neville of
Enderby when he quitclaimed it in 1251 to John de la Haye. The simplest sense
would be that Eustache was twice married and gave her Manor of Oxenton to
which she was heiress to a younger son John. Perhaps when she did, she had
not gotten Philip OK to do so, and so he later does the quitclaim to clear
the title.
So Philip de Neville would be her son, by her first husband Robert de
Neville of Scotton, while John de la Haye would be a son by Eustache's second
husband Ralph de la Haye.
I haven't seen anything so far which would dispute that construction, have
you?
Will
No. I don`t dispute that Philip de Neville was brother to Sir John de la
Haye who died in 1251 but he and wife Margaret de Harcourt dsp . I don`t
know if Oxenton reverted to Philip de Neville (died 1274) who passed it on
to his son Robert (died 1316) or John`s sister Joan de la Haye who married
Sir Ralph Fitz hugh of Gresley. Joan was mother to the Eustache Fitz
ralph also called de Gresley who married Nicholas de Cauntelo and afterward
William de Roos of Ingmanthorpe
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/2009 4:19:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870
writes:
No. I don`t dispute that Philip de Neville was brother to Sir John de la
Haye who died in 1251 but he and wife Margaret de Harcourt dsp . I don`t
know if Oxenton reverted to Philip de Neville (died 1274) who passed it on to
his son Robert (died 1316) or John`s sister Joan de la Haye who married
Sir Ralph Fitz hugh of Gresley. Joan was mother to the Eustache Fitz ralph
also called de Gresley who married Nicholas de Cauntelo and afterward
William de Roos of Ingmanthorpe>>
When Sir John de la Haye who did not die in 1251 (because in 1254 he was
"aged 30"), did die, or perhaps a bit after, there was a writ diem clausit
extremum dated 19 Jul 1274.
John de la Haye the heir was "aged 20" at that time.
This John himself has a writ diem clausit extremum dated 27 Dec 1292.
This John (the younger) had a brother Peter de la Haye who evidently d.s.p.
in or by 1292
Will Johnson
Jwc...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/2009 7:24:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, WJhonson
writes:
Dear Will,
John de la Haye the younger`s widow Joan was given
the manors of Middleton and Burewel by the escheator this side of the
Trent Malcolm de Harlegh at Westminister May 19, 1293 (21 Edward I) by order
of the king she being discovered to have been enfeoffed of said manors
jointly with her husband. (Calendar Close Rolls (Edward I) p 283.