CP Problem: Felton of Litcham

[John Watson]

Dear all,

I have come across a chronological impossibility in Complete Peerage. According to CP vol. 12/1, pp. 352-2, as amended by CP, vol. 14, p. 596, Sir John Lestrange V, of Knockin, married, firstly, between 13 October 1275 and 1 June 1276, Alianore daughter and heir of Eble de Montz, Constable of Windsor Castle.

CP vol. 5, 289-90, as amended by CP, vol. 14, p. 319, states that Robert de Felton of Litcham, Norfolk, married Hawise, daughter of Sir John Lestraunge, [1st Lord Strange of Knockin], Salop, by Alianore, daughter of Eble de Montz.

From an entry in the Supplementary Close Rolls, we know that Robert de Felton and Hawise had a son named John.
16 May 1303, Robert de Felton has like letters to Robert de Retford and Henry Spygurnel, justices in co. Norfolk, for an assize of novel disseisin that Richard Durdent arramed against him and Hawis, his wife, and John, their son, concerning a tenement in Leccham, in that county.
Calendar of Various Chancery Rolls: 1277-1326 (1912), 68.
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924026113880#page/n81/mode/1up

The chronological problem arises because Sir John de Felton, son of Robert and Hawise was already an adult and knighted in September 1305 according to this Certificate of Statute Merchant:

Reference: C 241/49/233
Description:
Debtor: John de Felton, knight, son of Robert de Felton [of Pimhill Hundred, Salop.], knight.
Creditor: John Baldwin of Shrewsbury [in the Liberty of Shrewsbury, Salop.], merchant.
Amount: £6.
Before whom: Thomas Colle; Thomas de Bicton, Clerk; at Shrewsbury.
First term: 29/09/1305
Last term: 29/09/1305
Writ to: Sheriff of Salop
Sent by: Thomas Colle; Alexander de Norton, Clerk; at Shrewsbury.
Date: 1305
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9686582

If Sir John de Felton was an adult in 1305, then he must have been born in or before 1284, when his mother Hawise was, at the most, only eight years old, if her parents were married in 1275-6.

Anyone have any ideas?

Regards,
John

[Andrew Lancaster]

John

I had a look at the Le Strange side. It does indeed look like you might be on to something.

First, it is interesting that from the beginning there were always two Le Strange families in Norfolk, obviously likely to be closely related. The main one, later also marcher lords, is associated with Hunstanton but there was another family specifically in Litcham. A convenient summary can be found in Carthew's Launditch Vol. 1: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/yale.39002040741580?urlappend=%3Bseq=168

By the way here is his Felton tree (note the footnote c): http://hdl.handle.net/2027/yale.39002040741580?urlappend=%3Bseq=178

I am not saying this is the family involved, but I mention it as a starting point because I suppose there will have been generations where there were Lestranges of both lines with similar names.

Another branch which may well be relevant is the one in Walton d'Eiville and the manor spelled sometimes as "Middle". This was covered in a short note of 1946, by Cecil L'Estrange Ewen. I think it can only be found online behind paywalls. I suppose you will know this is a subject of a CP correction here: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/strangeofknokyn.shtml

This branch descended from the same John Lestrange (V of Knockin) we are discussing, but through a second wife Maud. Confusingly, he had two sons named John, one from each wife. Maud was the heiress of Walton d'Eiville and her son John is that start of that line, whereas Elianor de Montz' son John became John IV in the main Knockin line.

One obvious thing to check is the birth year estimations of John Lestrange V of Knockin. A convenient collection of information is here, in Hamon LeStrange's book about the family: https://archive.org/stream/lestrangerecords00lond#page/184/mode/2up

(It is old enough that it still struggles with the identity of his two wives, but that is not relevant here.)

It says he was 22 when his father drowned in the Severn in 1275. That sounds like his estimated birth year of 1253 is a fact people have checked, and could check, so I will leave that there. It means he will not have conceived legitimate children normally before say 1270, but more likely after 1275 and his father's death.

Cecil L'Estrange Ewen's article clarifies the wives, and shows also roughly when the marriage must have occurred. Again the CP summary seems correct concerning that. So there seems no problem with John's birth and marriage dates. Indeed the CP correction cited above indicates that Eleanor probably had her children in the 1280s.

We have to ask what evidence ever led to Felton being specifically married to a daughter of John V of Knockin and Eleanor. It does not seem clear.

Hamon LeStrange does not place this Felton marriage in the Knockin tree, as will be seen at that page, but he does mention Robert Felton in several places, including once on a page facing his version of the Litcham tree:
https://archive.org/stream/lestrangerecords00lond#page/52/mode/2up

He also mentions Felton in connection with legal cases also associated with Thomas Hastang, who Hamon LeStrange (and Eyton) could not explain well. For example:
https://archive.org/stream/lestrangerecords00lond#page/268/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/lestrangerecords00lond#page/308/mode/2up

The later article by L'Estrange Ewen clarifies who Thomas Hastang was: he remarried to Maud the heiress of Walton d'Eiville after the death of John V of Knockin. Therefore John Lestrange of Muddle, the king's yeoman mentioned in some of these references, is John Lestrange of Walton, the son and heir of Maud.

I have already cited Carthew above who raised more or less exactly your question. "Lord Arthur Hervey does not give his authority for inserting the name of John le Strange as the father of Matilda."

Here is a suggestion Carthew makes about a possible line of investigation:-

"There was a possible derivation of the Feltons from Le Strange to be found in Mr. Eyton's work which may be mentioned here.
"One of the Le Stranges named Hugh, with his brother John, were witnesses to a charter of Guy le Strange in 1174.
"Hugh was dead in 1240, and his inheritance in Shropshire divided amongst females, being held under John le Strange of the Fitz Alan fief.
"In 1255 the persons representing these females, but whether sons or husbands of four cohieresses of Hugh le Strange is not known, were —
"1. Richard de Drayton ;
"2. William Fitz Alan, or son of Alan de Drayton ;
"3. John Fitz Phillip ;
"4. Philip de Hungefort.
"Richard de Drayton was dead before 1292, and Thomas de Felton was his heir.
"Stephen, son and heir of Thomas de Felton and Sibil his wife, was born in 1281.
"But neither these Draytons or Feltons seem to belong to Norfolk."

But I don't find this lead very promising?

Best Regards
Andrew

[John Higgins]

Can you provide a citation for the article by Cecil L'Estrange Ewen?

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 6:25:41 PM UTC+2, John Higgins wrote:
>
> Can you provide a citation for the article by Cecil L'Estrange Ewen?

Yes, it is for example given at the CP correction link I gave: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/strangeofknokyn.shtml

C. L'Estrange Ewen, Observations on the Stranges, 1946, pp. 4-8

I think it was published as a pamphlet and not in a journal. I know of one scan behind a paywall at World Vital Records and there are probably more, but it is not on Google.books, Archive.org, or Hathitrust.org.

[theope...@gmail.com]

Cecil L'Estrange Ewen's article is online without charge here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20030609064055/http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Stage/7818/lestrange/refb1.htm

[Andrew Lancaster]

I should mention that Richardson in Royal Ancestry (V, p.61 under STRANGE; II, p.555 under FELTON) puts this Hawise in the quite logical position of being sister to John Lestrange of Knockin V, rather than daughter. Unfortunately the sourcing does not make clear whether this is just a reasonable proposal. (It is the most obvious likely scenario to suggest I suppose.) My concern is however that there clearly were lots of other lines associating with the main line, so if there was no clear evidence, it seems important to distinguish this as a reasonable guess.

Perhaps Douglas will pitch in to say whether there is any specific information he is aware of in this regard.

[Andrew Lancaster]

I also note that the CP corrections webpage does not mention the proposal of Richardson that the wife of Ebal de Montz was born a Bohun, and not a Peche as mentioned in CP.

Douglas described this in the past on this list, for example: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2014-03/1394225515

And one more interesting fact: the family of Montz has a very simple article on the French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_des_Monts I mention this not because it looks authoritative but because it indicates this family need not be seen as a dead end for genealogy. (I personally find it difficult to follow leads to the continent, partly because there are fewer resources online, but it is fascinating when it is possible.)

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 2:13:29 PM UTC+2, Andrew Lancaster wrote:

> First, it is interesting that from the beginning there were always two Le Strange families in Norfolk, obviously likely to be closely related. The main one, later also marcher lords, is associated with Hunstanton but there was another family specifically in Litcham. A convenient summary can be found in Carthew's Launditch Vol. 1: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/yale.39002040741580?urlappend=%3Bseq=168
>
> By the way here is his Felton tree (note the footnote c): http://hdl.handle.net/2027/yale.39002040741580?urlappend=%3Bseq=178
>
> I am not saying this is the family involved, but I mention it as a starting point because I suppose there will have been generations where there were Lestranges of both lines with similar names.

Update on this. Certainly if you look at Blomefield's chapter on Litcham he sees a continuity between the Lestranges of Litcham and the Feltons. The Lestranges of "le Marche" (based in Knockin) were overlords.

Francis Blomefield, 'Launditch Hundred: Litcham', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 10 (London, 1809), pp. 9-14. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol10/pp9-14 [accessed 18 September 2016].

Under Netherhall Manor.
"Of this family [Lestrange of Litcham] was Alice, daughter of Sir John L'Strange, to whom Sir John Gedding sold, for 63 marks, all the messuages, lands, homages, rents, &c. in this town, by deed sans date.
"After this I find it in the family of De Felton,"

But who was Alice? Might this even be the same person as Hawise? I am not sure what primary documents exist for Hawise.

Best Regards
Andrew

[John Watson]

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for all of your work on this puzzle.

The primary records for Hawise, wife of John Lestrange are very meagre - in fact only two where she is called Hawise, and one where she is called Maud:

16 May 1303, Mandate to make letters patent of protection, until Michaelmas next, for Robert de Felton, staying on the king's service in Scotland, and letters of respite of pleas of novel disseisin for him and Hawise his wife and John his son for the same time.
Calendar of Chancery Warrants: 1244-1326 (1927), 175.

16 May 1303, Robert de Felton has like letters to Robert de Retford and Henry Spygurnel, justices in co. Norfolk, for an assize of novel disseisin that Richard Durdent arramed against him and Hawis, his wife, and John, their son, concerning a tenement in Leccham, in that county.
Calendar of Various Chancery Rolls: 1277-1326 (1912), 68.

Note the difference though: "John his son," and *John their son."

The record where she is called Maud is the inquisition post mortem for Thomas de Felton for Norfolk, taken on Wednesday in Whitsun week, 4 Richard II [5 June 1381]. "He held the under-mentioned manor and advowson of Lucham to him and the heirs male of his body. The reversion belongs to Roger Lestraunge, lord of Knokyn, by virtue of a gift which John Lestraunge, Roger’s ancestor, made to Robert de Felton and Maud, his wife, and the heirs male of their bodies, from whom the manor and advowson descended to John de Felton as their son and heir, and from John to Hamo de Felton as his son and heir, and from Hamo (who died without heir male of his body) to the said Thomas de Felton as his brother and heir. The said Roger Lestraunge is son and heir of Roger Lestraunge son and heir of John Lestraunge son and heir of the aforesaid John Lestraunge who gave the manor and advowson as aforesaid; and the reversion belongs to him because Thomas de Felton died without heir male of his body."
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol. 15, 1-7 Richard II (1970), 141, No. 342.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol15/pp134-149

I have no doubt that Robert de Felton's wife was of the family of Lestrange, but I am considering two possibilities:

a) That she was a sister of John Lestrange V, which would make more sense chronologically.
b) That she was named Maud and that Hawise was the second wife of Robert de Felton.
c) That John Lestrange V and Eleanor de Montz were married before the date range given in CP 12/1 of 13 October 1275 and 1 June 1276.

The final date comes from this record:
June 1276, Trinity Term, 4 Edward I, Joan de Somerye acknowledges that she gave to John le Estraunge and Alianora, his wife, her daughter, the manor of Middleton and the advowson of the church to hold to them and the heirs of the body of Alianora, etc.
Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi Asservatorum Abbreviato, Record Commission (1811), 190b.

Trinity Term, 4 Edward I began on 1 June 1276, but where does the date of 13 October 1275 come from?

Regards,
John

[Andrew Lancaster]

The 1275 date sounds like one connected to the time of John's father's death (John IV). Maybe the IPM?

The sequence John, John, Roger, Roger, would indeed mean John V of Knockin was the first John, but after so many generations I suppose that there could have been a miscount of the Johns?

It all looks a bit uncertain so far, but it looks like the kind of case where there might be an answer around somewhere!

Andrew

[John Watson]

Dear all,

I think that I have found an answer to the Felton puzle. A History of Northumberland, vol. 12, p. 273 contains a revised pedigree of Felton of Nafferton and Edlingham (revised from vol. 7, p. 121).
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015086651836;view=1up;seq=353

Please note that most of this pedigree is incorrect and should not be relied on, particularly regarding the wives and children of Sir William de Felton.
see: http://johnmwatson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-family-of-william-de-felton-i.html

The pedigree shows that Sir William de Felton I bore arms: "gules two lions passant silver, a baton gobony gold and azure. The shield is that of L'Estrange differenced."

If Robert de Felton was married to Hawise Lestrange, why would his brother William carry a version of the Lestrange arms? This does not make sense to me.

It would make sense though, if his mother was a Lestrange. I conjecture that Sir Robert de Felton and his brother Sir William de Felton I were sons of Robert de Felton and Maud Lestrange. Maud being a daughter of John Lestrange V and Joan de Somery. This seems to fit in with the statements made concerning the manor of Litcham at the inquisition post mortem for Thomas de Felton in June 1381 which states that Litcham was given to Robert de Felton and Maud his wife by John Lestrange.

According to the Reverend C. Moor (Knights of Edward I, vol. 2, Harleian Society, 81 (1929), p. 9) Sir Robert de Felton bore gules two lions passant ermine, which is another variant of the Lestrange arms. Sir Roger de Felton, who I take to be a brother of Robert and William also bore similar arms with a difference.

Robert de Felton = Maud Lestrange
I
------------------------------------
I I I
Sir Robert Sir William Sir Roger

Regards,
John

[Andrew Lancaster]

John

Some interesting arms from the time of Edward II: https://books.google.be/books?id=salVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA130

Interesting how many close variations of the Lestrange arms there were, and more than one Felton in that list.

Regards
Andrew

[davidlyn...@gmail.com]

Hello everyone, Just came across this working on my 22nd generation grands. Would like to thank you for trying to make a semblance of sense on this cluster.....