Inquisitions Post Mortem

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

Hi everyone,
Could anyone tell me if IPMs for the years 1426 and 1464 are available
online or in print? I am trying to determine whether Willelma, the second
wife of Henry Fulford (died 1420), was the daughter of John Langdon and
the heiress of FitzUrse of Williton, Somerset as stated in many
undocumented pedigrees. I tried to find some information in the VCH
Somerset volumes on BHO, but found nothing. One website does have
citations, and there Willelma is shown by two IPMs to have been the
daughter of Nicholas Morton. The IPMs were:

William Bigbury, IPM 14 Dec. 1426, No. 50
Baldwin Fulford, Chancery IPM 3 Oct. 1464.

This is all the information that is given. I'm sorry that I can't give
full citations. . It can be found at Errol Bevan's site:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db+bevangenealogy&id=112474

I would be very grateful for any information/guidance. Thanks so much!

Nancy

[taf]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:40:09 PM UTC-7, Nancy Piccirilli via wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Could anyone tell me if IPMs for the years 1426 and 1464 are available
> online or in print? I am trying to determine whether Willelma, the second
> wife of Henry Fulford (died 1420), was the daughter of John Langdon and
> the heiress of FitzUrse of Williton, Somerset as stated in many
> undocumented pedigrees. I tried to find some information in the VCH
> Somerset volumes on BHO, but found nothing. One website does have
> citations, and there Willelma is shown by two IPMs to have been the
> daughter of Nicholas Morton. The IPMs were:
>
> William Bigbury, IPM 14 Dec. 1426, No. 50

This was published in volume 22, William de Bikebery, ipm #771 (Devon) and 772 (Cornwall), but I see no reference to Nicholas Morton or Willelma or Fulford (none appear in volume index).

taf

[taf]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:40:09 PM UTC-7, Nancy Piccirilli via wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> Could anyone tell me if IPMs for the years 1426 and 1464 are available
> online or in print?

>The IPMs were:

> Baldwin Fulford, Chancery IPM 3 Oct. 1464.

The relevant text from this page taken from the Tapley-Soper collection of Devon and Cornwall IPMs, is quoted on this page:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=zella&id=I13613

as follows:

"William Durneforde was seised of the manors of Durneford, Hokeh... and.... [and has issue Nichola] who married Henry Fulford; and gave those manors to the said Henry and Nichola and their heirs; they had issue Alice, who married William Bykebury, they had issue Elizabeth. Alice and William died; Elizabeth married Robert Burton, and they had issue Elizabeth. Nichola afterwards died and Henry Fulford married Willelma daughter of Nicholas Morton; they ahd issue Baldwin Fulford aforesaid; Henry and Willelma are dead. Robert Burton and Elizabeth his wife were seised of the said manors: the said Elizabeth died and her daughter Elizabeth died without issue; Robert is yet living, and holds the same, with reversion to said Baldwin."

taf

[taf]

By the way, here's a link to the transcript:

http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/22-771/

taf

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

Hi Todd,
Thank you so much for your help! I guess the Fulford IPM is pretty good
evidence that Willelma was not a Langdon or the heiress to Williton. I had
hoped the VCH Somerset would have the descent of the manor. Is there a
likely site or book that I should look at for that? Thanks so much.
Nancy

[taf]

It looks like the antiquarians made a hash of this family. While Westcote, following Pole, shows the Langton marriage, Burke's give Henry's wife simply as daughter of Fitz Urse. Vivian shows Henry married to Willmot (a name popular locally, perhaps what Willelma was trying to render), daughter of Philip Bryan, while giving a marriage to a 'Mourton' daughter two generations earlier, while showing the Fitz Urse marriage way back the pedigree.

I note that Henry Charles Maxwell Lyte discusses the descent of Williton in his Historical Notes on Some Somerset Manors Formerly Connected with the Honour of Dunster, pp. 197-198 but I have only found Google Books snippets, so I can't give details. Collinson's History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, vol. 3, p. 488, shows it passing directly from Fitz Urse to Fulford by a marriage to an unnamed Fulford to an unnamed daughter of Sir Ralph Fitz Urse, d. 35 Edw III. Hard to place this generationally, but likely two or more generations prior to Henry de Fulford.

taf

[Richard Smith]

On 02 April 2016 at 23:57, taf wrote:

> I note that Henry Charles Maxwell Lyte discusses the descent of
> Williton in his Historical Notes on Some Somerset Manors Formerly
> Connected with the Honour of Dunster, pp. 197-198 but I have only
> found Google Books snippets, so I can't give details.

Hopefully this link will work: http://goo.gl/SQyfnq

Richard

[taf]

Not for me - Limited search only.

taf

[Peter Stewart via]

Very unusual - for me in Australia this 1931 book is in full view at
Hathi Trust.

Needless to say, it's not one that for my own needs I would have looked
for...

Peter Stewart

[taf]

An article on the FitzUrse family that appeared in Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 1923, (which again I only see as snippets) includes the following:

"The Fitzurse estate in Somerset was thereupon divided between the coheirs of Sir Ralph. One moiety went to his grandson, James Durborough, son of his daughter Hawis, aged over thirty. The other moiety fell to his two great-grandchildren, Willelma, aged six, and Joan, aged five, daughters of a certain John, son of his younger daughter, Joan. Inasmuch as the overlord of Williton was himself under age, the wardship of these two girls passed to the king, who granted it to Robert Hill the younger and Mabel his wife. They are stated to have been daughters of John Langdon. Willelma eventually married Henry Fulford."

There are citations given, but I can't see them.

taf

[taf]

In the US, Haithi uses a strict 1922 cutoff, with only very rare exceptions. This cutoff legally applies only to those books for which the copyright was renewed after the first copyright term ran its course, which was rarely done except for those works with an anticipated further market. Still, it is used as default by both Haithi and Google. Apparently Haith have a current project to distinguish which works were renewed, which would probably open up a lot of useful texts, but until then we will have to go to Australia to see them, I guess.

taf

[Peter Stewart via]

For this one book perhaps, but it seems to be an oversight on the part
of Hathi Trust because I normally have to use a proxy server in the US
to view books published well before 1922 - I'm not sure when the Hathi
Trust cut-off is for Australia (and I assume the rest of the world), but
it seems to be well back in the 19th century (perhaps as with Google
Books, mostly unavailable here after ca 1870s).

This is an extremely pestiferous kind of laziness and/or scholarly
chauvinism, indeed xenophobia, on their part as most of the world does
not have copyright law different enough from the USA's to justify it.

Donald Trump would be pleased with their approach, no doubt - if he
could read.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

According to Maxwell Lyte, loc cit:

'By that date [1388], both the daughters of Sir Ralph Fitzurse were dead. Hawis, the elder of them, had left a son, James Durburgh, who was then over thirty years of age, and Joan, her sister, was represented by two grand-daughters, Willelma, aged six, and Joan, aged five, both of whom were wards of Robert Hill the younger and Mabel his wife [IPM 12 Ric. II 19]. They are stated to have been the daughters of John Langdon [Pole's *Devon*, p. 247; Rogers's *Sepulchral Effigies, p. 175; CFR vol x p. 301]. The second of them appears to have died young. The elder one eventually married Henry Fulford, of Fulford, co. Devon [*Cal. Papal Letters*, vol vi p. 19]. ... Willelma Fulford died in 1416 or 1417. A fine cited at the inquisition after her death, and a fine still extant, suggest that she was nearly related to the family of Keynes [IPM 4 Henry V 69; FF Devon, 3 Henry V].'

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 6:12:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote:
> For this one book perhaps, but it seems to be an oversight on the part
> of Hathi Trust because I normally have to use a proxy server in the US
> to view books published well before 1922 - I'm not sure when the Hathi
> Trust cut-off is for Australia (and I assume the rest of the world), but
> it seems to be well back in the 19th century (perhaps as with Google
> Books, mostly unavailable here after ca 1870s).
>
> This is an extremely pestiferous kind of laziness and/or scholarly
> chauvinism, indeed xenophobia, on their part as most of the world does
> not have copyright law different enough from the USA's to justify it.

While a little off topic, this may help some members understand what is going on. Historically the US used strict 'publication date plus x years' and while the number of years post-publication might be extended, it was a straightforward chronological formula. The UK (and commonwealth) from as early as 1842, used 'author's life plus x years', and they have continued to use this as their primary criteria, making it much harder to determine the date any book leaves copyright.

The US and UK synchronized in the 1990s, both adopting life plus 70 years, but with one critical difference - the UK made theirs retroactive, while the US only applied this to works published after the date of the change - a pub date-plus formula still applies to earlier works, and those already in the public domain remain so.

In the US, this means 1922 represents a 'safe' cutoff, because all works published before then would have become open independent of whether copyright was extended or not. The majority of works published before 1950 have left US copyright because an extension was required to receive a second 28 years, but rather than look into the status of each work, most sites simply assume everything was extended unless they have evidence otherwise. The way the law is written with regard to older works, this date should be shifting every year, with one more year's worth opened up, but a couple of lucrative works were published the next year (one movie in which a particular character first appeared, and one popular song), and every time anything new is due to open up, the families holding those copyrights throw a lot of money at Congress to modify the law to extend the period covered after publication for earlier works. We are just a few years away from when next the passage of time catches up with the latest extension (current law for early works is publication date plus 95 years), and even though Google is likely to weigh in against another extension, the other side is still a powerful force - you don't mess with 'the mouse' (Disney).

In the UK, the current metric of life plus 70 applies to all works, and since figuring out when an author died requires individual research for each work, most sites figure that no author is likely to live more than 70 years after their publication date, so 70+70 gives you 140 years. Thus a date in the mid-1870s is often used as a 'safe' cutoff.

taf

[taf]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 6:35:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> According to Maxwell Lyte, loc cit:
>

> 'Willelma Fulford died in 1416 or 1417. A fine cited at the inquisition after

> her death, and a fine still extant, suggest that she was nearly related to the
> family of Keynes [IPM 4 Henry V 69; FF Devon, 3 Henry V].'

I am not finding an inquisition for Willelma, but an ipm for John Keynes, senior records such a fine involving Willelma. THe Cornwall record seems to place her death prior to 1 Jan. 1417.

http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/21-323/326

Willelma also appears in that of John Keynes junior

http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/21-583/586

taf

[Peter Stewart via]

On 3/04/2016 12:52 PM, taf via wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 6:12:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote:
>> For this one book perhaps, but it seems to be an oversight on the part
>> of Hathi Trust because I normally have to use a proxy server in the US
>> to view books published well before 1922 - I'm not sure when the Hathi
>> Trust cut-off is for Australia (and I assume the rest of the world), but
>> it seems to be well back in the 19th century (perhaps as with Google
>> Books, mostly unavailable here after ca 1870s).
>>
>> This is an extremely pestiferous kind of laziness and/or scholarly
>> chauvinism, indeed xenophobia, on their part as most of the world does
>> not have copyright law different enough from the USA's to justify it.
> While a little off topic, this may help some members understand what is going on. Historically the US used strict 'publication date plus x years' and while the number of years post-publication might be extended, it was a straightforward chronological formula. The UK (and commonwealth) from as early as 1842, used 'author's life plus x years', and they have continued to use this as their primary criteria, making it much harder to determine the date any book leaves copyright.
>
> The US and UK synchronized in the 1990s, both adopting life plus 70 years, but with one critical difference - the UK made theirs retroactive, while the US only applied this to works published after the date of the change - a pub date-plus formula still applies to earlier works, and those already in the public domain remain so.
>

> In the US, this means 1922 represents a 'safe' cutoff, because all works published before then would have become open independent of whether copyright was extended or not. The majority of works published before 1950 have left US copyright because an extension was required to receive a second 28 years, but rather than look into the status of each work, most sites simply assume everything was extended unless they have evidence otherwise. The way the law is written with regard to older works, this date should be shifting every year, with one more year's worth opened up, but a couple of lucrative works were published the next year (one movie in which a particular character first appeared, and one popular song), and every time anything new is due to open up, the families holding those copyrights throw a lot of money at Congress to modify the law to extend the period covered after publication for earlier works. We are just a few years away from when next the passage of time cat!

> ches up with the latest extension (current law for early works is publication date plus 95 years), and even though Google is likely to weigh in against another extension, the other side is still a powerful force - you don't mess with 'the mouse' (Disney).
>
> In the UK, the current metric of life plus 70 applies to all works, and since figuring out when an author died requires individual research for each work, most sites figure that no author is likely to live more than 70 years after their publication date, so 70+70 gives you 140 years. Thus a date in the mid-1870s is often used as a 'safe' cutoff.
>
>

None of this even begins to explain the careless practice of Google
Books - for instance, currently the cut-off for periodicals in full view
appears to be 1909, but whatever it is has not changed over the past 3
years. Lazy, at best.

As for the deaths of authors, most if not all libraries that partner
with Google Books have the lifespans of authors in their catalogues. So,
far from needing individual human research for each work, it ought to be
a simple matter of setting up an automated interrogation of the database
as each book is digitised. In cases of doubt 1922 would be fair enough,
but certainly not for all.

However, that straightforward step was too much trouble for Google Books
in their initial rush, and they have not corrected their negligence
since. Why? Either extreme laziness or chauvinistic disregard of users
outside the USA are the most obvious explanations.

Often they don't even bother to attach essential bibliographic
information such as volume numbers - though Internet Archive is now a
worse offender in this regard, as Google Books have partly responded to
complaints from at least their US users.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 8:30:24 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote:

> Often they don't even bother to attach essential bibliographic
> information such as volume numbers - though Internet Archive is now a
> worse offender in this regard, as Google Books have partly responded to
> complaints from at least their US users.

Google Books has since taken off the tool that let random readers report such errors, and even when you could report issues the chances of it getting changed weren't high. I reported an instance where a book was attributed to the wrong author, and they failed to fix it - now some yahoo has printed it off of Google Books using that incorrect author's name, and that book is entered into all of the Bibliographic databases, enshrining the error for all time.

taf

[Peter Stewart via]

On 3/04/2016 1:27 PM, taf via wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 6:35:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>> According to Maxwell Lyte, loc cit:
>>
>> 'Willelma Fulford died in 1416 or 1417. A fine cited at the inquisition after
>> her death, and a fine still extant, suggest that she was nearly related to the
>> family of Keynes [IPM 4 Henry V 69; FF Devon, 3 Henry V].'
> I am not finding an inquisition for Willelma, but an ipm for John Keynes, senior records such a fine involving Willelma. THe Cornwall record seems to place her death prior to 1 Jan. 1417.

If the record is dated 1 Jan. 1417, isn't this 1 Jan. 1418 new style?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart via]

They have taken some trouble to fix problems that made the project look
obviously incompetent - for example, there are now many fewer images of
gloved hands or wedding ringed fingers, etc. But addressing problems
that actually make a big difference rather than just a minor nuisance to
users seems to be beyond their remit. Perhaps this is a ploy for a job
in dumbing down the US further than it is managing for itself (if that
were possible) - maybe Ted Cruz is looking to appoint the director of
Google Books to run his non-Department of Education.

Peter Stewart

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

Hello everyone,
Thanks to Todd, Richard and Peter for your posts. I have a copy of the
article by Sir Henry C. Maxwell Lyte (Proceedings of the Somersetshire
Archaeological Society, volume 68 (1922). On pp. 100-2 he discusses Sir
Ralph FitzUrse of Williton:

Sir Ralph, first seen in 1324, died Feb. 1350. He married Maud, daughter of
Sir Baldwin Malet. She survived till Oct. 1388, and her IPM was taken in
May 1389 (C Rich. II no. 19). It was in this Inquisition that Sir Ralph's
heirs were named. Their younger daughter Joan FitzUrse, aged over 16 in
1350, was grandmother of two heiresses, Willelma (aged 6 in 1389) and Joan
(aged 5 in 1389). Willelma "later married Henry Fulford." What became
of her sister Joan is not mentioned.
The parentage of Willelma is not clear. She was said to have been daughter
of John Langdon, but this is not from any primary source, rather from Pole
and Westcote. Nicholas Morton, who was mentioned as Willelma's father in
the IPM of Sir Baldwin Fulford, is not mentioned in this article.

I have a suggestion as to how Baldwin Fulford inherited Williton:

Joan FitzUrse, born ca. 1334, was dead in 1389. She married the mysterious
John Langdon, and their daughter married Nicholas Morton, who was the
father of Willelma. Of course this is guesswork, but I thought I would ask
if anyone thinks it may be a possible solution.

Again, thanks so much for the information and the interesting discussion of
Google Books and Hathi Trust.
Nancy

[taf]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-7, Nancy Piccirilli via wrote:

> I have a suggestion as to how Baldwin Fulford inherited Williton:
>
> Joan FitzUrse, born ca. 1334, was dead in 1389. She married the mysterious
> John Langdon, and their daughter married Nicholas Morton, who was the
> father of Willelma. Of course this is guesswork, but I thought I would ask
> if anyone thinks it may be a possible solution.

My concern over this is the account given in the ipm of Maud Fitz Urse, which was related in the PSANHS article mentioned earlier

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101074352582;view=1up;seq=803

This is of Maud, step-mother of Joan Fitz Urse (as Maud Fysers):

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009518308;view=1up;seq=308

and relates that Willelma and Joan, aged 6 & 5, are "daughters of John son of Joan the other daughter of the said Ralph" [FitzUrse].

The PSANHS article also relates that their wardship was granted by the king to Robert Hill the younger of Devon and his wife Mabel (citing Escheators' Enrolled Accounts, 10, m. 26). This is clearly the Robert Hulle who with adult coheir James Durborough was sharing the issues of Maud's former lands in the ipm, the Robert Hulle the younger and wife Mabel against whom the king called for an inquisition regarding the manor of Wiliton in 1391(?), and is at least akin and perhaps identical to the Robert Hulle, 'the elder' who participated in a fine with Henry Foleford and Willelma in 1405 and 1406:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_290_61.shtml

and also the Robert Hulle the elder who was named in the ipm of John Keynes the elder that also names Henry and Willelma.


It is hard to harmonize the Fulford IPM naming Nicholas Morton with this document without positing some error. Once you conclude an error has occurred, other possibilities open up: that the John without give surname was actually John Morton rather than Langdon, or that Nicholas Moreton was really maternal grandfather of Willelma, rather than father, or even that the quoted ipm has displaced the Morton marriage, that the Morton bride was Willelma's mother in law. All you can do is collect as much as you can on these people and see what drops out.

taf

[al...@mindspring.com]

There is more here but I don't have a subscription:

Close Rolls, Richard II: May 1391

Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II: Volume 4, 1389-1392

from snippet:

against Robert Hulle the younger and Mabel his wife to answer for the issues ... and Mabel, which was sent for debate before the king, was debated or no,

Doug Smith

[taf]

I was relating from some poor OCR scans of this, but have now found images:

https://archive.org/stream/calendarofclo04grea#page/246/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/calendarofclo04grea#page/348/mode/2up

taf

[gera...@earthlink.net]

p.348: "To the treasurer and the barons of the exchequer. Writ of supersedeas until the quinzaine of Michaelmas next in respect of their demand against Robert Hulle the younger and Mabel his wife to answer for the issues of the manor of Wiliton taken since 12 July 13 Richard II, that meantime debate may be had whether the manor and such issues ought to pertain to the king or to them; as on that date the king committed to them by a mainprise the keeping of that manor, taken into his hand by Roger Manyngforde then escheator in Somerset, and the issues thereof taken, until such debate should be had in the king's court, so that they should answer at the exchequer for such issues and for all thenceforward arising if it should be adjudged that that the same ought to pertain to the king, keeping the manor without waste, and bearing all charges so long as they should have the keeping thereof, and lately the king commanded Walter Clopton, the chief justice appointed to hold pleas before the king, to certify [p.349] in chancery whether the plea there pending between the king and the said Robert and Mabel , which was sent for debate before the king, was debated or no, and it is yet pending without debate, as he has certified."

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

Hello, everyone, and thanks to Gerald and Doug.
As I understand the IPM of Maud FitzUrse or "Fysors", taken in 1389, Maud
the wife of Sir Ralph FitzUrse was a second wife and not mother of his
daughter Joan FitzUrse. She must certainly have been elderly when she died
in 1388, and her Inquisition names Sir Ralph's heirs but not Maud's. But am
I correct that Willelma was the heiress of Williton no matter who her
parents were?
At any rate, I am enjoying an education in medieval records.
Thanks,
Nancy

[taf]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 2:16:31 PM UTC-7, Lynnette Eldredge via wrote:
> Hello, everyone, and thanks to Gerald and Doug.
> As I understand the IPM of Maud FitzUrse or "Fysors", taken in 1389, Maud
> the wife of Sir Ralph FitzUrse was a second wife and not mother of his
> daughter Joan FitzUrse. She must certainly have been elderly when she died
> in 1388, and her Inquisition names Sir Ralph's heirs but not Maud's.

That was my first read, that because it calls them heirs of Ralph (not of Maud, or of Ralph and Maud) it would seem to imply that Hawis and Joan were not the daughters of Ralph by Maud. Still, it does say that Maud was holding due to a grant to Ralph and Maud and the heirs of Ralph, so whether they were Maud's heirs was not entirely relevant, only that they were Ralph's. I don't know that we can assume Maud's age, particularly if she was not the mother of Ralph's children. Since Ralph's great-granddaughters were born in the early 1380s, it seems to put Ralph's birth in the neighborhood of 1290-1310, but Maud could have been a much younger second wife.

> But am
> I correct that Willelma was the heiress of Williton no matter who her
> parents were?

This seems to be the case (although it would have been as coheiress, not sole heiress)- she was heir to Ralph, and Ralph held Williton by grant with remainder to his heirs. Further Robert Hulle, Willelma's guardian, was called on the carpet over the income he was taking from Williton.

Do you know if the Fulfords ever held a share of Brompton Ralph, Fitz Urse's other manor? If not, then perhaps the two families did a swap, half-share of Williton for half-share of Brompton.

taf

[al...@mindspring.com]

A bit more on the Durboroughs and Withycombe in draft chapter of VCH:

at VCH draft at http://www.victoriacountyhistory.ac.uk/sites/default/files/work-in-progress/withycombe_landownership_0.pdf.

Doug Smith

[Douglas Richardson]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 3:16:31 PM UTC-6, Nancy Piccirilli via wrote:

<But am I correct that Willelma was the heiress of Williton no matter who her <parents were?

Dear Nancy,

You are correct.

In 1404 Henry Fulford and his wife, Willelma, sued Richard Knouston, clerk, and William Cheyny, clerk, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a moiety of the manor of Williton, Somerset, which they claimed should descend to the said Willelma, she being a co-heiress of Ralph Fitzurs, Knt., her great-grandfather [proavi]. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/572, image 1555d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H4/CP40no572/bCP40no572dorses/IMG_1555.htm).

James Durburgh another heir of Ralph Fitz Urse is also named in this lawsuit.

Insofar as the connection to the Morton family is concerned, I believe that Willelma Fulford was the heiress of Moreton (in Launcells), Cornwall, which property I assume was her paternal inheritance. Have you tracked the history of this manor?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

Hello everyone,
Thank you, Douglas, and also Todd, Doug and everyone for all your help (and
expertise). I am overwhelmed by your kindness.
I have not tried to trace the manor of Moreton, but I certainly will.
I was unable to find any indication that Sir Baldwin Fulford had anything
to do with Brompton Ralph, but according to Collinson's Somerset,
two-thirds of a knight's fee in Brompton Ralph was held by Ralph FitzUrse
in 14 Ed. I.
The other third was held by Thomas de Tymmeworth and Lucy his wife. In 20
Ed. I the whole manor was held by Ralph FitzUrse's son Ralph, who died 24
Ed. III seised of this manor and that of Williton.
By an Inquisition taken 20 Ric. II, "it appears that Sir John Willington
died possessed of the manor" (Brompton Ralph). He was succeeded by his son
John, who died 13 Henry IV. His heir was his daughter, Elizabeth the wife
of Sir John Palton. "From him it came again to the name of Fulford, the
descendants of a branch of the old possessors of that appellation, and 32
Henry VI both manor and advowson were held by William Fulford, father of
Humphrey Fulford, who presented several times to the church, the latest of
which was 1505." (History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, Vol. 3
, pp. 487-8, 505,
John Collinson and Edmund Rack.)
Does this mean that Sir John Willington purchased the manor of Brompton
Ralph, or that he inherited it?
For what it's worth, the Fulfords quartered their arms with FitzUrse
second, Moreton third. Is there any significance to the order in which
they were quartered? They did not quarter Langdon.
Again, I thank you all.
Nancy

[Douglas Richardson]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:12:15 PM UTC-6, Douglas Richardson wrote:

< Insofar as the connection to the Morton family is concerned, I believe that <Willelma Fulford was the heiress of Moreton (in Launcells), Cornwall, which <property I assume was her paternal inheritance. Have you tracked the history <of this manor?

For further evidence that Willelma, wife of Henry Fulford, was indeed a Morton heiress, I should point out that Devon Notes and Queries 1 (1901): 1-4, 45 includes a discusssion of an ancient shield of Fulford arms over the gateway of Great Fulford House, Devon, there being nine quarterings in this shield, namely the arms of Fulford [Gules a chevron argent], Fitzurse [Argent on a bend sable, 3 bears' heads erased of the first, muzzled of the second], Moreton [Argent a chevron sable between 3 moorcocks of the second], Belston [Or on a bend gules 3 crosses molines (or formée)], Bozom [Azure 3 birdbolts argent], St. George, etc.), 5-6 (Fulford monument in Dunsford, Devon has eleven shields of arms, among them Fulford arms [Gules a chevron argent] impaled with ten other arms, including Bampfield, Fitzurse [Argent on a bend sable three bears' heads erased of the first, muzzled of the second]; Courtenay [Or three torteaux]; Moreton [Argent a sable sable between three moorcocks of the second]; Belston, Bozom, and St. George.

A similar set of Fulford quarterings is published in Misc. Gen. et Heraldica 2nd Ser. 2 (1888): 76-78.

The arms of Bozom and Saint George came to the Fulford family by the marriage of Sir Baldwin Fulford (died 1461) and his wife, Elizabeth Bosom.

This would suggest that the Fulford, Moreton, and Belston arms came to the Fulford family through the marriage of Henry Fulford, Gent. (living 1420) and his wife, Willelma, or by earlier Fulford family marriages.

Given what else we know of this family, the above heraldic evidence implies that Willelma Fulford was a Morton/Moreton heiress. There is no quartering, for instance, for the Langdon family.

As to the Moreton family inheritance, they surely included the following Cornish lands which were settled by fine by Henry Fulford and his wife, Willelma, in 1405:

17 messuages, lands, and rent in Pigsdon (in Launcells and Week St. Mary), Lopthorne (in Kilkhampton), Limsworthy (in Kilkhampton), Shorstone (in Morwenstow), Great Moreton (in Launcells), etc., Cornwall.

A similar settlement was made in 1412 of other Cornish lands which which also part of Willelma's inheritance:

30 messuages, 5 tofts, 1 mill, 1 dove-cot, 13 carucates and 20 acres of land, 80 acres of meadow, 120 acres of pasture, 120 acres of moor, 4 pounds of rent and a rent of 1 pound of wax and 3 cloves and 1 knight's fee in Great Moreton (in Launcells), Moreton Mill (in Launcells), Pigsdon (in Launcells and Week St. Mary), Lopthorne (in Kilkhampton), Limsworthy (in Kilkhampton), [Dodecote] [Darracote], Aldercombe, Froxwater, Wrasford, Upcott, Rowdon, Shorstone, Stursdon (in Morwenstow), Kilkhampton, Thorne (in Whitstone), Estwode, Marhamchurch, Oak (in Whitstone), Dunsdon (in Pancrasweek), Trencreek and Dizard (both in St Gennys).

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

Thank you, Douglas!
It would seem the proper (modern) spelling of Willelma's surname would be
Moreton?
Nancy

[taf]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 3:41:44 PM UTC-7, Nancy Piccirilli via wrote:

> Does this mean that Sir John Willington purchased the manor of Brompton
> Ralph, or that he inherited it?

There are several scenarios. He could have purchased it, then sold it to the Fulfords, but what I suspect happened is that he was granted a lease that then reverted to the Fulfords after the term of the lease. For that matter, he could have represented the 'other third' that was not held by Ralph FitzUrse, and Collinson failed to realize that he was seeing Willington as representative of one moiety, but Fulford as holders of a different moiety.

Note that the inheritance of Brompton Ralph was discussed by Maxwell Lyte:
https://books.google.com/books?id=KddCAQAAMAAJ&q=fulford+brompton+Ralph

again, I have only snippet view, but it looks like Durborough was holding a moiety at the same time as Willington.

> For what it's worth, the Fulfords quartered their arms with FitzUrse
> second, Moreton third. Is there any significance to the order in which
> they were quartered? They did not quarter Langdon.

In a perfect world, yes, it matters (and in a scenario where Fulford married a Morton (or Langton) daughter who represented the Fitz Urse inheritance, you would expect that other family to come before Fitz Urse. However, in the later funerary monuments on which these arms occur, liberties were sometimes taken, plus the pedigree might have gotten confused in the interim - you cannot take these complex Devon arms as being an authentic representation of the inheritance pattern.

taf

[taf]

I am not sure there is a single 'proper' representation of the name, even if 'Moreton' is the modern form of the town's name - (of course, assuming she was a Moreton at all).

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Nancy ~

As indicated in my earlier post, the Morton family arms were quartered by the Fulford family on a shield at Great Fulford, Devon. They are described as "Argent a chevron sable between 3 moorcocks of the second."

A similar set of arms were employed by the Morton family seated at Sithians, Cornwall, as indicated by Vivian's Visitations of Cornwall, pg. 333, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=t0U7AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA333

As such, we have a direct link between the Morton family arms quartered by the Fulford family and the Morton family seated in Cornwall.

As indicated earlier, the 1412 fine involving Henry Fulford and his wife, Willelma, indicates the following lands were part of Willelma's inheritance. It may be assumed that the chief property was at Great Moreton (in Launcells), Cornwall, as it is the first property listed in the fine. We can also be certain that these lands were Willelma's own inheritance as the 1412 fine specifically settled these lands on Henry and Willelma and the heirs of the body of Willelma, and, in default of such heirs, remainder to the right heirs of Willelma.

30 messuages, 5 tofts, 1 mill, 1 dove-cot, 13 carucates and 20 acres of land, 80 acres of meadow, 120 acres of pasture, 120 acres of moor, 4 pounds of rent and a rent of 1 pound of wax and 3 cloves and 1 knight's fee in Great Moreton (in Launcells), Moreton Mill (in Launcells), Pigsdon (in Launcells and Week St. Mary), Lopthorne (in Kilkhampton), Limsworthy (in Kilkhampton), [Dodecote] [Darracote], Aldercombe, Froxwater, Wrasford, Upcott, Rowdon, Shorstone, Stursdon (in Morwenstow), Kilkhampton, Thorne (in Whitstone), Estwode, Marhamchurch, Oak (in Whitstone), Dunsdon (in Pancrasweek), Trencreek and Dizard (both in St Gennys).

That Willelma Fulford inherited a significant estate at Morton, Cornwall is further evidenced by the fact that in 1402 Henry Fulford and his wife, Wilhelmena, were granted a license to have divine services performed in their mansions of Fulford, Devon and Morton, Cornwall. Reference: Hingeston-Randolph, Register of Edmund Stafford (1886): 274, available at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FoI_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA274

I might further note that in 1464 following the reversal of the attainder of Henry and Willelma Fulford's son and heir, Sir Baldwin Fulford (who was executed in 1461), the king granted Sir Baldwin's son and heir, Thomas Fulford, the lordship and manor of Marwynchurch [Marhamchurch], Cornwall, the reversion of lordship and manor of Great Morton, Cornwall, with its members, as well as various other lands previously held by Sir Baldwin Fulford. Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1461-1467 (1897): 372, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=iukLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA372

Given these many pieces of evidence, it is apparent that Willelma, wife of Henry Fulford, was indeed a Morton and that she was heiress of the manor of Great Moreton (in Launcells), Cornwall, with its members. We have also presented concrete contemporary evidence that Willelma was the great-granddaughter and co-heiress of Sir Ralph Fitz Urse (died 1350), of Brompton Ralph, Somerset.

[taf]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 7:14:55 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:

> Given these many pieces of evidence, it is apparent that Willelma, wife
> of Henry Fulford, was indeed a Morton and that she was heiress of the
> manor of Great Moreton (in Launcells), Cornwall, with its members.

Only the latter. It seems clear she was a Morton heiress, yet we have a conflict in the naming of her father, and while this could be dismissed as a simple mistake, e.g. that her father was actually John Moreton, it is likewise possible that she was heiress of both FitzUrse and Moreton, without being daughter of either.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 4:10:03 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:

> This would suggest that the Fulford, Moreton, and Belston arms came to
> the Fulford family through the marriage of Henry Fulford, Gent. (living
> 1420) and his wife, Willelma, or by earlier Fulford family marriages.

Belston (with Merrshe) is named in their 1412 fine, with remainder to the right heirs of Henry, so it likely was brought to the marriage by Henry and had come to the Fulfords earlier.

This would be further evidence that the arms are disordered (at best), as by traditional representation an earlier Belston marriage should result in their arms coming before Fitz Urse in the quartering. It makes me wonder if these aren't intended to represent the family's land holdings in heraldic form, as other Devon monuments sometimes do, rather than following the standard rules of heraldry (in other words, the absence of Langdon in the reordered arms could simply mean they didn't inherit any Langdon land, rather than that they didn't inherit any Langdon blood).

taf

[taf]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 4:47:36 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> Note that the inheritance of Brompton Ralph was discussed by Maxwell Lyte:

I see now that Henry and Willelma held (a moiety of) the advowson of Brompton Ralph, as well as lands there:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ddyQaa72xLoC&pg=PA20

Brompton is also named in one of the the Cornwall fines, there specifically reported as a moiety.

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

Todd ~

It's entirely possible that Willelma Morton's grandmother, Joan Fitz Urse, was married to a John Langdon, and that they had a daughter who married Nicholas Morton. If John Langdon had male issue by another wife, then Willelma (Morton) Fulford and her descendants would not be entitled to quarter the Langdon arms. But Willelma and her descendants would be duly entitled to quarter the Morton arms (as heir of her father) and the Fitzurse arms (as heir of her great-grandfather, Ralph Fitz Urse).

Such a scenario would explain why the Fulford family quartered the Morton and Fitzurse arms, but not Langdon.

DR

[taf]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 11:16:17 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:

> It's entirely possible that Willelma Morton's grandmother, Joan Fitz
> Urse, was married to a John Langdon, and that they had a daughter who
> married Nicholas Morton.

Possible, yes, but such a scenario flies in the face of the direct testimony of the ipm of Maud Fysors, which gives the descent as Joan-John-Willelma.

> If John Langdon had male issue by another wife, then Willelma (Morton)
> Fulford and her descendants would not be entitled to quarter the Langdon
> arms.

If we start picking and choosing which contemporary documents to include in our reconstruction, there is no end to the possibilities. Such a scenario would result in Moreton before FitzUrse in the quarters. Likewise, it has been argued that in order to quarter an arms as heir, a family needed to quarter the conduit families even if not their heirs - there is not universal agreement that your scenario would eliminate the need for Langdon.

That all being said, what does your reconstruction have over the converse? Joan marries Nicholas Moreton and by him had a daughter who married John Langton, who then had Willelma but also sons by a different wife - that would give identical heraldry to your scenario, but Willelma would not be a Moreton. Even were you to admit that the ipm pedigree turned a daughter into a son you have no basis on which to resolve the order of the marriages and thereby proclaim unambiguously that Willelma was a Moreton.

> Such a scenario would explain why the Fulford family quartered the
> Morton and Fitzurse arms, but not Langdon.

Given how confused some Devon memorials are (e.g. the Chudleigh ones show arms for families from whom they purchased land, and include arms of a woman who was second wife of the uncle of the eventual heirs) then you might want to reign in your enthusiasm over a reconstruction that favors a non-contemporary arms over a contemporary ipm, particularly when there is every reason to believe the monument has misplaced the Belston arms, and hence may be flawed in any number of other ways.

We are stuck with a scenario where the two primary records are in conflict, and that makes it very difficult to resolve with any level of certainty. To try to find a way to interpret a flawed non-contemporary memorial so as to favor the less contemporary record is a fool's errand subject to significant confirmation bias. When you decide what the answer is then look for a way to make the memorial match that answer, you are likely to be able to come up with such a scenario, but that doesn't mean you have found the true answer.

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:49:17 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:

< We are stuck with a scenario where the two primary records are in conflict, <and that makes it very difficult to resolve with any level of certainty.

Actually we know from heraldic and property inheritance that Willelma Fulford was a Morton/Moreton of Cornwall. We know from available inquisitions post mortem that her father was either Nicholas Morton or John [no surname], son of Joan Fitz Urse. We also know from Willelma's own statement that Sir Ralph Fitz Urse was her great-grandfather. Willelma's place as the great-grandfather of Sir Ralph Fitz Urse is elsewhere confirmed by the inquisition post mortem of Sir Ralph Fitz Urse's widow, Maud.

Given that the inquisition of Maud Fitz Urse states that Willelma's father was the son of Joan Fitz Urse and given that Willelma's father was a Morton of Cornwall, this would in turn mean that Willelma Fulford's grandmother, Joan Fitz Urse, was married to a Morton.

What we are missing here is direct evidence as to the names of the owners of the manor of Great Moreton (in Launcells), Cornwall in the period, 1350-1390. This property was clearly Willelma Fulford's paternal inheritance and was subsequently inherited by her son, Sir Baldwin Fulford. There appears to be little information in print regarding the history of this manor. Svensson, Saxon Place-Names in East Cornwall (1987): 39 states only that Great Moreton was "once the demesne farm of the large manor of Mitchell-Morton."

Insofar as the inclusion of the Belston arms on the Fulford shield is concerned, these arms appear to have come into the Fulford family by way of the marriage of Marion de Belstone (living 1240), wife of William de Fulford, which Marion was the daughter and co-heiress of Baldwin de Belstone [Reference: Report and Trans. of the Devonshire Association, 3rd Ser. 4 (1912): 336, available at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Xd05AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA336

One last matter: Procs. of Somersetshire Arch. & Nat. History Society 68 (1923): 102 indicates that Robert Hill (or Hulle), the younger, of Devon, and his wife, Mabel, were granted custody of Willelma Fulford and her sister, Joan. Since wives were seldom included in such grants of custody, it strikes me as being likely that Mabel, wife of Robert Hill, was the remarried mother of Willelma and her sister, Joan.

The source for the grant of the custody is allegedly Escheators' Enrolled Accounts, 10, m. 26. The original record of this grant should name the father of Willelma (Morton) Fulford.

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

Hi Douglas,
Thank you for your continuing hard work on the Moretons. I never imagined
my simple question would blossom into such a learned and informative
thread. Thanks to everyone who took an interest.
Nancy

[taf]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 1:30:08 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:49:17 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:
>
> < We are stuck with a scenario where the two primary records are in conflict, <and that makes it very difficult to resolve with any level of certainty.
>
> Actually we know from heraldic and property inheritance that Willelma
> Fulford was a Morton/Moreton of Cornwall.

No, we don't, unless you arbitrarily decide to reject the testimony of the most contemporary source in favor of a later one.

> We know from available inquisitions post mortem that her father was either
> Nicholas Morton or John [no surname], son of Joan Fitz Urse.

It is likely that it is one of the two, but when faced with conflicting sources, one has to be open to the possibility that this was more than just a scribal error - that there was some confusion about this issue. Basically, each of your possible solutions is rendered untrustworthy by the other.

> We also know from Willelma's own statement that Sir Ralph Fitz Urse was
> her great-grandfather. Willelma's place as the great-grandfather of Sir
> Ralph Fitz Urse is elsewhere confirmed by the inquisition post mortem of
> Sir Ralph Fitz Urse's widow, Maud.

Willelma'ss place as 'great-granddaughter', obviously, but yes.

> Given that the inquisition of Maud Fitz Urse states that Willelma's father
> was the son of Joan Fitz Urse and given that Willelma's father was a Morton
> of Cornwall, this would in turn mean that Willelma Fulford's grandmother,
> Joan Fitz Urse, was married to a Morton.

And here is where it goes off the rails. It is not 'given' that Willelma's father was a Morton. The source we have states that her father was Nicholas Morton. This cannot be harmonized with the other ipm indicating her father was named John. One of them must be wrong, but in what way:

It is possible that the Maud FytzUrse ipm got the father's name wrong, and that Willelma was indeed daughter of Nicholas Morton.

It is possible that Maud's ipm got it right, while the later ipm got the surname right, as you are taking for granted, and that the father was John Morton.

It is likewise possible that it is not the name that is wrong in the later ipm at all, but the precise relationship - i.e. Willelma could have been heiress of Nicholas Morton, rather than specifically his daughter. Were this the case, the connection need not have been paternal (although this too is possible), and a maternal relationship would mean it was not Nicholas.

This is the problem - we know something is wrong, but we don't know what, and you can't take any one of these as 'given' without begging the question.

> Insofar as the inclusion of the Belston arms on the Fulford shield is
> concerned, these arms appear to have come into the Fulford family by
> way of the marriage of Marion de Belstone (living 1240), wife of William
> de Fulford, which Marion was the daughter and co-heiress of Baldwin de

> Belstone.

Yes, assuming this is accurate. Hence by standard quartering, it should have come before FitzUrse, not after. This strongly implies that the arms did not follow standard practice, meaning one must be careful about conclusions as to what relationships the non-traditional arms was trying to portray.

> One last matter: Procs. of Somersetshire Arch. & Nat. History Society 68
> (1923): 102 indicates that Robert Hill (or Hulle), the younger, of Devon,
> and his wife, Mabel, were granted custody of Willelma Fulford and her
> sister, Joan. Since wives were seldom included in such grants of custody,
> it strikes me as being likely that Mabel, wife of Robert Hill, was the
> remarried mother of Willelma and her sister, Joan.

Mabel appears along with Robert in other transactions where one wouldn't necessarily expect a wife, but if your guess is correct, one would expect Mabel to be holding a portion of the Morton inheritance during her life. Any evidence of Hulle associated with Moreton?

taf

[taf]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:17:27 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> It is likewise possible that it is not the name that is wrong in the later ipm at all, but the precise relationship - i.e. Willelma could have been heiress of Nicholas Morton, rather than specifically his daughter. Were this the case, the connection need not have been paternal (although this too is possible), and a maternal relationship would mean it was not Nicholas.
>

Sorry, brain lapse - I meant to say that a maternal relationship would mean it (her surname) was not Morton.

taf