Part I, the Shropshire Visitation
To start, I will give the account of the family found in the 1623
Visitation of Shropshire. It gets a bit convoluted as it goes.
I will reserve comment until after presenting the entire
1. William de St. Peter temp. R 1
2. John, temp John
3. Urian anno 1 H 3 m. Idonea de Malpas
a. Johanna wife of Hugh son of Thomas Dutton
4. John d.v.p 18 E 1 m. Katherine daughter of Thomas Dutton
5. John, son and heir
a. John, rector of Bunbury
c. David (second child)
d. Robert (third)
6. Urian m. Isolda
7. John m. Isabella dau. William Trussel knt
8. Urian m. Agnes, dau. John Brusse, knt, son of Peter de Braose,
son of William
a. Urian, m. Joan, sister of Sir Roger de Acton
-a. William Sampford
-ii. Agnes m. David Brayles
-a. Elizabeth m. Thomas Raues (? Raves)
=ii. Agnes m. Roger Cheverell
-a. Alicia m. William Prestland
b. Urian m. Isabella
-i. Isabella, d & coh, m. Walter Cocksey, knt
-a. Walter m. Matilda dau Thomas Harcourt
=i. Hugh, d.s.p.
=ii. Joyce m. John Grevill
=a. John Grevill m. Anna
=dau William Vampage
i. Thomas Grevill
-b. Maria m. Thomas Lekhampton, d.s.p.
-c. Elizabeth, dau. & heiress m.1 Thomas
Cassey m.2 Thomas Raues (Raves) m.3
=i. Agnes m. Walter Huddington
=a. Thomas m. Jane
i. Agnes m. John
ii. Joan m. Roger
=ii. Margaret m. Mainwaring
-ii. Eleanor m. John Egerton of Caldecote
-iii. Goditha m. Galfridus Yonge
=i. John Yonge, Somerset Herald
c. Helena m. William Brereton (followed by 4 more Wms)
-i. Alicia m. Roger Horton, Justice of Chester
-a. William Presland
i. Richard, Vis.
-iii. (next page that I didn't copy)
There are numerous aspects of this pedigree that do not match the
historical record, the relevant ones will be addressed as I
summarize Ormerod's presentatio. However, some not directly
relevant bear comment.
While there is not a perfect match, Elizabeth St. Peter, wife of
Thomas Raues (8.a.-ii.-a.) and Elizabeth Cocksey, wife of Thomas
Raues (9.b.-i.-c.) appear to represent the same person. The
second of these is clearly misplaced, as she is called daughter
and heiress, and yet her brother Walter had descendants, and the
eventual heir of his line was not Elizabeth's family, but the
Yonges and Hortons.
It would not surprise me if the two Prestland marriages
(8.b.-1.-a, 9.d.-ii.) also represent duplicate versions of the
same relationship. The second placement is problematic, as her
line would then have been coheirs with the Hortons. The
Visitation of Chester shows the Prestland bride named Alicia,
daughter of Urian (brother of John), son of Robert, son of David,
which doesn't match this Shropshire pedigree, but can be
harmonized with the true Horton pedigree (see below).
The marriage of #8 to the heiress of John, son of Peter de Braose
is problematic, as (and here I am going from memory, since I no
longer have access to the sources I used to compile my account of
the Braoses in 1996) Peter's eventual sole heir was his daughter,
the Countess of Norfolk. Perhaps the husband here was a younger
son who d.s.p., or Agnes was a second wife of one of the known
The marriage of Helena St. Peter to William Brereton skips a
generation - Elen, daughter of John de St. Peter married Philip
Egerton, and by him was father of Helena, wife of William
Brereton. This Philip Egerton was first cousin of John Egerton
of Caldecote, who married Ellen St. Peter (9.b.-ii.), having as
descendents the Egertons of Dunham, co. Norfolk. She could then
not be sister of Margaret, wife of Geoffrey Yonge, or else these
Egertons would be coheirs with the Yonges. Ormerod, in his
Egerton of Caldecote pedigree calls her daughter of Urian de St.
Peter, so perhaps she is one generation further removed.
The Mainwaring string of names is reminiscent of the descent of
Peover, where we have Margaret, William, John, John. However,
that Margaret was Margaret Delves.
Part II, The St. Peter inheritance.
In 13 Henry VII (ca. 1496) Thomas Grevill alias Cocksey died, the
sole representative of the St. Peter inheritance. An inquisition
found his next heir to be Roger de Horton, being son of William
(Horton), son of Alice (St. Peter), daughter of John, son of
Robert, son of David, son of John, father of Urian, father of
John, father of Urian, father of Isabella (St. Peter), mother of
Walter (de Cocksey) father of Joyce, mother of John (Grevill),
father of said Thomas. However, on 21 Henry VII, John Yonge
alias Somersett was pardoned for entering the estates, and the
following year, a second inquisition determined that John Yonge
was the actual heir, being more closely related, as descendant
(Ormerod adds "that is, son") of Thomas, son of Margaret,
daughter of John de St. Pierre, father of (Ormerod adds "Urian,
father of") Isabelle, mother of Walter, ancestor of Sir Thomas
The first thing to address is Ormerod's editorial changes - and
specifically the second (I will get back to the first). The
extra generation at that point is supported by the earlier
inquisition nominating Horton as heir, but likewise, the
Cokeseys held the entire St. Peter 1/4 of the Malpas inheritance,
suggesting that they stood as sole, and not coheirs.
Given that, we can lay out the descents.
Urian Margaret John Urian
| | | |
Isabelle Thomas Alice Alice
| : | |
Walter : William Richard
| John | de Prestland
Joyce Yonge Roger
| de Horton
Thomas de Cocksey
Now, it should be noted that while the Horton descent varies
significantly from that in the Visitation pedigree, it parallels
nicely with the Prestland Visitation pedigree, only diverging in
the last St. Peter generation, where Prestland comes from Urian,
younger brother of John, and thus would not be coheirs. The
generation difference between Horton and Cocksey is a little
disconcerting, but considering that Cocksey had two daughters
(usually giving shorter generations) while Horton descends from a
younger son, and that they are separated by 6 + generations,
allowing a degree of drift, it is not out of the question. Even
worse is the Cocksey/Yonge difference - 3 vs. 6 generations if we
accept Ormerod's connection (not original to him), which also
appears on the Shropshire Yonge pedigree. Do address these
concerns, it is necessary to fit this into a chronological
context, which also will be required to fit this pedigree, with
its alternating Johns and Urians, into a historical context with
the known men of these names and their wives. Fortunately, the
passage of the Malpas moiety through the Cocksey line is well
documented in inquisitions.
> Last week (?) I summarized a St. Peter/Yonge descent based on my
> notes from Ormerod, and my account, as was pointed out, differed
> from the St. Peter pedigree in the Shropshire Visitation. I have
> dug through my notes, and got my electronic Ormerod up and
> running, so now I can provide more details.
Please, where is the electronic Ormerod available??? And what is the best
way to get at Cal. Inq. P. M., Cal. Fine Rolls, etc., for someone in the
eastern US? Thanks.
Ormerod is on CD at a fairly reasonable price. Sources like the CIPM, CFR,
CPR, CCR, etc., are frequently available in larger university libraries. As
many of these libraries now have online catalogues, you might check once near
you. Some of this has also been microfilmed by the FHL (but for some reason
they never microfilmed the CIPM!).
Scanned text, on CD, from the Family History Society of Cheshire
(it ran somewhere in the $25-$30 range, but can't be more
precise, as it was a gift).
> And what is the best
> way to get at Cal. Inq. P. M., Cal. Fine Rolls, etc., for someone in the
> eastern US? Thanks.
Nearest larger university library (i.e. Penn State, Ohio State,
and I think Pitt have them); Library of Congress; New York,
Cleveland, and probably Boston Public Libraries - where in the
She and her second husband, William Venables of Bradwell, sued
the crown (on behalf of her minor son Peter) for the presentation
to Thornton, in 1296, and he was still under age in 1301.
Katherine sued Peter directly in 1313/4, when he would have been
an adult. This places his birth in a range contemporary with
Urian, b. 1280 (he was certainly not grandson of that Urian), and
apparently, like him, a grandson of Urian and Idonea, as you have
But the Ormerod CD does include the reasonably satisfactory index of the
original, and the images are easily magnifiable using the features of
Acrobat. If you're looking for a particular family that IS covered by
Ormerod (not all Cheshire families are), it's pretty easy to locate, view
and print information - and there is a wealth of information there....
To be fair, these criticisms are also true of the original book
(you all remember those - the heavy paper things?), but at least
you don't run the risk of throwing out your back carrying the CD