Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Weyland family revisited
404 views
Skip to first unread message
jim....@nwintl.com
Oct 26, 2013, 4:14:51 PM10/26/13
to
Hello,
I have spent some time recently reviewing John Ravilious's posting of 30 May 2003, which gave the early descent of the Weyland family of Westerfield and Brandeston, Suffolk. John followed 'Manors of Suffolk' (Copinger) and 'Knights of Edward I' (Moor). I have some differences to point out.
First of all Blomefield (An Essay towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk) and Paul Brand's article in Oxford DNB on Chief Justice Thomas de Weyland differ on the parents of William and Thomas de Weyland. Blomefield and DNB state that their parents were Herbert de Weyland and Beatrice, with John being their eldest brother (who died without issue), while Ravilious, following Copinger (Manor of Suffolk) and to some extent Moor (Knights of Edw. I), stated that they were sons of John de Weyland, who was son of Nicholas and Beatrice. I don't know which is correct (as I don't have any original sources to differentiate between the two versions, which have in common that Beatrice was mother (or grandmother) of William & Thomas, but was she m. Herbert or Nicholas?). I would appreciate input on that question, the outcome of which does not materially affect the other parts of my argument.
All of the mentioned sources agree that William was the elder brother who was a justice of the common bench until his death in 1274, which happens to be the same year that Thomas became a justice and eventually a Chief Justice. John, whether as eldest brother who d. s.p. or as father of William and Thomas, was granted the lordship of Brandeston and Westerfield by Alan Brunell, lord of Acton Brunell, in 1259. Ravilious, according to his sources, must have assumed that William (the elder brother) d. s.p. because he stated that Thomas and his heirs held Brandeston and Westerfield. The DNB article does state that William did pass Chipping Sodbury to his brother Thomas at his death, but does not mention Brandeston or Westerfield. Blomefield indicates that the latter two manors were held by William and passed to his son Nicholas (this does not rule out Thomas having property in Westerfield and/or Brandeston, but he did not hold the lordship of the manors). That William had a son Nicholas is confirmed by an email I received from a Simon Young "Incidentally that Nicholas was the son of William is shown in the plea roll 1278-80 in which Robert Burnel granted to William de Vaylaind, Nicholas de Vaylaund, William's son and Juliana Nicholas's wife--etc." I don't have access to that document, but I assume its validity. Thus Blomefield is proved correct in that William had a son & heir named Nicholas. Blomefield states that Nicholas, son of William, m. Julian Burnell, dau. of Robert Burnell, and received Garboldesham (Norfolk) in marriage, and also Oxburgh (Oxboro/Oxborough), Norfolk, probably as an inheritance in right of his wife. Blomefield, in his family tree, indicates that Oxburgh, Westerfield, and Brandeston were passed to his son William (and since this William was contemporaneous with Thomas's son William, I think Copinger, Moor, and Ravilious were confused between them). I found in Blomefield's article on Garboldesham (Garboldisham) that the manor of Garboldesham was granted to Nicholas's son Robert in 1290 (which indicates that Robert was of age and b. <1269, which negates Nicholas being a son of the William son of Thomas as the latter William wasn't born until c1267). Blomefield also stated that Garboldesham eventually was included as part of Oxburgh/Oxborough and passed subsequently as one Manor, indicating that William, who Blomefield states was lord of Oxburgh in 1315, was probably his elder son (since Oxburgh was much larger than Garboldesham), and that either William or Robert (his sons) probably died without issue because the manors were later inherited as one.
Blomefield indicated that William had a son Robert, who m. Cecily de Baldock, but did so only in the family tree (without citing any contemporary document), thus I believe Blomefield did so based solely on the descent of the properties. I found the following entry in A2A, which indicates that a Robert son of Robert de Weyland was active in the area at the same time as Blomefield's supposed Robert son of William de Weyland:
Grant GBR/169 19 Dec 1344
These documents are held at Cambridge University, King's College Archive Centre
Former reference: Comp B114 bundle 2
1 item
parchment
Language: Latin
Contents:
Grant by Ralph Colthes of Bricett to Robert, son of Robert Weyland, of property in Ringshall, Bricett and Breseton.
NOTE: Ringshall and Bricett are within 15 miles of Westerfield, Suffolk and Briston (Breseton?) is within 15 miles of Oxborough, Norfolk.
Thus I think an argument can be made that the Robert who m. Cecily de Baldock was a son of Robert, son of Nicholas, rather than a son of William, son of Nicholas. William did grant Brandeston & Westerfield to Robert de Baldock, who then granted them to Robert de Weyland upon his marriage to his daughter Cecily; however the grant could have been to William's nephew (and heir), not his son. Regardless of which son of Nicholas had his grandchild Robert (who m. Cecily de Baldock & had issue), Blomefield cites an IPM that, when Robert's heirs through his son John died without issue 2 generations later, the descendants of Robert's daughters (Margaret & Katherine) were the heirs: Margaret brought the manors of Charsfield, Brandeston, Westerfield, and Oxborough (which included Garboldesham) to the Bedingfield family (Margaret had m. John Tudenham, and their son Robert Tudenham had a dau. & heir Margaret who m. Edmund Bedingfield). The combination of these manors going to the Bedingfields shows that the senior line of the Weyland family went through Nicholas, who added Oxborough to Brandeston, Westerield, and Charsfield; and Nicholas was a proven son of William, the elder brother of Thomas. BTW the lordships of Brandeston & Westerfield were granted to John de Weyland in 1259, but Copinger stated that the Weylands had property in those two villages for several generations before; similarly an A2A document (HD 1538/178/1, dated "13th century") stated that a "Nicholas de Weylaund, kt" purchased pasture land in Charsfield, and Robert was stated to be "of Charsfield" in his entry in Ancestral Roots. Robert's 2nd daughter Katherine brought the manor of Radwell to the Knyvet family, as she had m. John Botetourte, and had a dau. & heir, Joan, who m. John Knyvet). Blomefield stated that Radwell was in Somerset, which I could not find. However, I found a Radwell in Hertfordshire, which was coincidentally about 3 miles from a village named Baldock (so could Radwell have come through the marriage to Cecily de Baldock?).
The above does not change the descent of Thomas's son John, which was one of the main subjects of John Ravilious's post to SGM on 30 May 2003.
Following Blomefield for the 1st 2 generations and William's descendants (with my own input of Robert son of Robert), and John Ravilious for Thomas's descendants, I would sketch (without all children & extraneous marriages) the Weyland family line as:
1. Herbert de Weyland, d. <1259, m. Beatrice.
1.1. John de Weyland, d. s.p. 1259 (per DNB) m. Mary.
1.2. William de Weyland, d. 1274, m. Marsilia.
1.2.1. Nicholas de Weyland, d. <1315, m. Julian(a) dau. of Robert Burnell.
1.2.1.1. William de Weyland, d. s.p. 1327, m. Elizabeth dau. of Laurence de Ruston.
1.2.1.2. Robert de Weyland, b. <1269 (may have died before 1327 which may explain scarcity of contemporary records).
1.2.1.2.1. Robert de Weyland, d. >12 Dec 1344 (per A2A doc.), m. Cecily dau. of Thomas de Baldock.
1.2.1.2.1.1. John de Weyland m. Burga dau. of John Sparrow (line died out 2 generations later).
1.2.1.2.1.2. Margaret de Weyland, d. 1415, m. John Tudenham, d. 1392.
1.2.1.2.1.3. Katherine de Weyland, d. >1377, m. John Botetourte, d. 1377.
1.3. Thomas de Weyland, d. Jan 1297/98 (per DNB), m. Anne dau. of Richard de Coleville.
1.3.1. William de Weyland, d. 1327 (but this may be convoluted with William son of Nicholas above)
1.3.2. John de Weyland, d. <30 Oct 1312, m. Mary dau. of Richard de Brewse, d. >12 Dec 1312.
1.3.2.1. Richard de Weyland, d. <10 Apr 1319, m. Joan dau. of Robert d'Ufford (later Ravilious post: sister of Earl of Suffolk)
1.3.2.1.1. Cecily de Weyland, b. 10 Oct 1318, d. >Aug 1354, m. Bartholomew de Burghersh, d. 5 Apr 1369.
Not included in the above is Alice dau. of Nicholas de Weyland (who is likely 1.2.1 above) who m. Thomas de Wingfield (per BP). Also not included is a John de Weyland identified by Douglas Richardson (Magna Carta Ancestry) as licensed, 12 Dec 1328, to marry Joan widow of Robert FitzWalter & dau. of Thomas de Multon & Eleanor de Burgh. If John were in the above line, he might be a younger brother of Robert d. 1344 or Richard d. 1319. Also not included is Alice de Weyland, d. <Apr 1419, dau. of John son of William de Weyland (no idea where/whether they fit in the above line). Alice brought the manor of Baylham (Suffolk) to her marriage, <Feb 1407/08, to James Andrews, and to their son John Andrews, MP, who is written up in HoP.
Jim Weber
I have spent some time recently reviewing John Ravilious's posting of 30 May 2003, which gave the early descent of the Weyland family of Westerfield and Brandeston, Suffolk. John followed 'Manors of Suffolk' (Copinger) and 'Knights of Edward I' (Moor). I have some differences to point out.
First of all Blomefield (An Essay towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk) and Paul Brand's article in Oxford DNB on Chief Justice Thomas de Weyland differ on the parents of William and Thomas de Weyland. Blomefield and DNB state that their parents were Herbert de Weyland and Beatrice, with John being their eldest brother (who died without issue), while Ravilious, following Copinger (Manor of Suffolk) and to some extent Moor (Knights of Edw. I), stated that they were sons of John de Weyland, who was son of Nicholas and Beatrice. I don't know which is correct (as I don't have any original sources to differentiate between the two versions, which have in common that Beatrice was mother (or grandmother) of William & Thomas, but was she m. Herbert or Nicholas?). I would appreciate input on that question, the outcome of which does not materially affect the other parts of my argument.
All of the mentioned sources agree that William was the elder brother who was a justice of the common bench until his death in 1274, which happens to be the same year that Thomas became a justice and eventually a Chief Justice. John, whether as eldest brother who d. s.p. or as father of William and Thomas, was granted the lordship of Brandeston and Westerfield by Alan Brunell, lord of Acton Brunell, in 1259. Ravilious, according to his sources, must have assumed that William (the elder brother) d. s.p. because he stated that Thomas and his heirs held Brandeston and Westerfield. The DNB article does state that William did pass Chipping Sodbury to his brother Thomas at his death, but does not mention Brandeston or Westerfield. Blomefield indicates that the latter two manors were held by William and passed to his son Nicholas (this does not rule out Thomas having property in Westerfield and/or Brandeston, but he did not hold the lordship of the manors). That William had a son Nicholas is confirmed by an email I received from a Simon Young "Incidentally that Nicholas was the son of William is shown in the plea roll 1278-80 in which Robert Burnel granted to William de Vaylaind, Nicholas de Vaylaund, William's son and Juliana Nicholas's wife--etc." I don't have access to that document, but I assume its validity. Thus Blomefield is proved correct in that William had a son & heir named Nicholas. Blomefield states that Nicholas, son of William, m. Julian Burnell, dau. of Robert Burnell, and received Garboldesham (Norfolk) in marriage, and also Oxburgh (Oxboro/Oxborough), Norfolk, probably as an inheritance in right of his wife. Blomefield, in his family tree, indicates that Oxburgh, Westerfield, and Brandeston were passed to his son William (and since this William was contemporaneous with Thomas's son William, I think Copinger, Moor, and Ravilious were confused between them). I found in Blomefield's article on Garboldesham (Garboldisham) that the manor of Garboldesham was granted to Nicholas's son Robert in 1290 (which indicates that Robert was of age and b. <1269, which negates Nicholas being a son of the William son of Thomas as the latter William wasn't born until c1267). Blomefield also stated that Garboldesham eventually was included as part of Oxburgh/Oxborough and passed subsequently as one Manor, indicating that William, who Blomefield states was lord of Oxburgh in 1315, was probably his elder son (since Oxburgh was much larger than Garboldesham), and that either William or Robert (his sons) probably died without issue because the manors were later inherited as one.
Blomefield indicated that William had a son Robert, who m. Cecily de Baldock, but did so only in the family tree (without citing any contemporary document), thus I believe Blomefield did so based solely on the descent of the properties. I found the following entry in A2A, which indicates that a Robert son of Robert de Weyland was active in the area at the same time as Blomefield's supposed Robert son of William de Weyland:
Grant GBR/169 19 Dec 1344
These documents are held at Cambridge University, King's College Archive Centre
Former reference: Comp B114 bundle 2
1 item
parchment
Language: Latin
Contents:
Grant by Ralph Colthes of Bricett to Robert, son of Robert Weyland, of property in Ringshall, Bricett and Breseton.
NOTE: Ringshall and Bricett are within 15 miles of Westerfield, Suffolk and Briston (Breseton?) is within 15 miles of Oxborough, Norfolk.
Thus I think an argument can be made that the Robert who m. Cecily de Baldock was a son of Robert, son of Nicholas, rather than a son of William, son of Nicholas. William did grant Brandeston & Westerfield to Robert de Baldock, who then granted them to Robert de Weyland upon his marriage to his daughter Cecily; however the grant could have been to William's nephew (and heir), not his son. Regardless of which son of Nicholas had his grandchild Robert (who m. Cecily de Baldock & had issue), Blomefield cites an IPM that, when Robert's heirs through his son John died without issue 2 generations later, the descendants of Robert's daughters (Margaret & Katherine) were the heirs: Margaret brought the manors of Charsfield, Brandeston, Westerfield, and Oxborough (which included Garboldesham) to the Bedingfield family (Margaret had m. John Tudenham, and their son Robert Tudenham had a dau. & heir Margaret who m. Edmund Bedingfield). The combination of these manors going to the Bedingfields shows that the senior line of the Weyland family went through Nicholas, who added Oxborough to Brandeston, Westerield, and Charsfield; and Nicholas was a proven son of William, the elder brother of Thomas. BTW the lordships of Brandeston & Westerfield were granted to John de Weyland in 1259, but Copinger stated that the Weylands had property in those two villages for several generations before; similarly an A2A document (HD 1538/178/1, dated "13th century") stated that a "Nicholas de Weylaund, kt" purchased pasture land in Charsfield, and Robert was stated to be "of Charsfield" in his entry in Ancestral Roots. Robert's 2nd daughter Katherine brought the manor of Radwell to the Knyvet family, as she had m. John Botetourte, and had a dau. & heir, Joan, who m. John Knyvet). Blomefield stated that Radwell was in Somerset, which I could not find. However, I found a Radwell in Hertfordshire, which was coincidentally about 3 miles from a village named Baldock (so could Radwell have come through the marriage to Cecily de Baldock?).
The above does not change the descent of Thomas's son John, which was one of the main subjects of John Ravilious's post to SGM on 30 May 2003.
Following Blomefield for the 1st 2 generations and William's descendants (with my own input of Robert son of Robert), and John Ravilious for Thomas's descendants, I would sketch (without all children & extraneous marriages) the Weyland family line as:
1. Herbert de Weyland, d. <1259, m. Beatrice.
1.1. John de Weyland, d. s.p. 1259 (per DNB) m. Mary.
1.2. William de Weyland, d. 1274, m. Marsilia.
1.2.1. Nicholas de Weyland, d. <1315, m. Julian(a) dau. of Robert Burnell.
1.2.1.1. William de Weyland, d. s.p. 1327, m. Elizabeth dau. of Laurence de Ruston.
1.2.1.2. Robert de Weyland, b. <1269 (may have died before 1327 which may explain scarcity of contemporary records).
1.2.1.2.1. Robert de Weyland, d. >12 Dec 1344 (per A2A doc.), m. Cecily dau. of Thomas de Baldock.
1.2.1.2.1.1. John de Weyland m. Burga dau. of John Sparrow (line died out 2 generations later).
1.2.1.2.1.2. Margaret de Weyland, d. 1415, m. John Tudenham, d. 1392.
1.2.1.2.1.3. Katherine de Weyland, d. >1377, m. John Botetourte, d. 1377.
1.3. Thomas de Weyland, d. Jan 1297/98 (per DNB), m. Anne dau. of Richard de Coleville.
1.3.1. William de Weyland, d. 1327 (but this may be convoluted with William son of Nicholas above)
1.3.2. John de Weyland, d. <30 Oct 1312, m. Mary dau. of Richard de Brewse, d. >12 Dec 1312.
1.3.2.1. Richard de Weyland, d. <10 Apr 1319, m. Joan dau. of Robert d'Ufford (later Ravilious post: sister of Earl of Suffolk)
1.3.2.1.1. Cecily de Weyland, b. 10 Oct 1318, d. >Aug 1354, m. Bartholomew de Burghersh, d. 5 Apr 1369.
Not included in the above is Alice dau. of Nicholas de Weyland (who is likely 1.2.1 above) who m. Thomas de Wingfield (per BP). Also not included is a John de Weyland identified by Douglas Richardson (Magna Carta Ancestry) as licensed, 12 Dec 1328, to marry Joan widow of Robert FitzWalter & dau. of Thomas de Multon & Eleanor de Burgh. If John were in the above line, he might be a younger brother of Robert d. 1344 or Richard d. 1319. Also not included is Alice de Weyland, d. <Apr 1419, dau. of John son of William de Weyland (no idea where/whether they fit in the above line). Alice brought the manor of Baylham (Suffolk) to her marriage, <Feb 1407/08, to James Andrews, and to their son John Andrews, MP, who is written up in HoP.
Jim Weber
peter...@yahoo.ca
Aug 28, 2018, 3:01:42 PM8/28/18
to
I've had another look at Jim Weber's notes on the Weylands and there may have been two William de Weylands living at the same time both married to an Elizabeth. William, son of Nicholas, was married to Elizabeth de Ruston, daughter of Laurence. The other William, son of Thomas, was married to Elizabeth de Bathonia, daugher of Osbert. This seems to make the best sense of the information.
Bill
Aug 29, 2018, 9:01:31 AM8/29/18
to
Not otherwise identified, WA Shaw in "Knights of England", Vol. 1, p. 120, lists under Knights of the Bath, 1306, May 22, a Willelmus de Weilonde.
peter...@yahoo.ca
Aug 29, 2018, 9:26:56 AM8/29/18
to
Thanks for the reference. I am unfamiliar with that work, but see it is on the Internet Archive.
Bill
Aug 29, 2018, 10:13:16 AM8/29/18
to
lancast...@gmail.com
Sep 8, 2022, 4:55:40 AM9/8/22
to
On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 9:01:42 PM UTC+2, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> I've had another look at Jim Weber's notes on the Weylands and there may have been two William de Weylands living at the same time both married to an Elizabeth. William, son of Nicholas, was married to Elizabeth de Ruston, daughter of Laurence. The other William, son of Thomas, was married to Elizabeth de Bathonia, daugher of Osbert. This seems to make the best sense of the information.
This is another response to an old thread, because there are several which handle different Weylond questions. In the post I just sent, I explained why I doubt that there was any William Weylond who was a son of Thomas. This in turn leads me to doubt that there were two Williams with two different wives. We would no longer have any reason to suspect this .... apart from this matter with the wives.
> I've had another look at Jim Weber's notes on the Weylands and there may have been two William de Weylands living at the same time both married to an Elizabeth. William, son of Nicholas, was married to Elizabeth de Ruston, daughter of Laurence. The other William, son of Thomas, was married to Elizabeth de Bathonia, daugher of Osbert. This seems to make the best sense of the information.
Just looking at IPMs etc there was certainly a William who succeeded a Nicholas, and was father to a Robert, and he was clearly the husband of the Somerset heiress Elizabeth of Bath (de Bathonia). Robert and his successors continued to hold some of her lands. By the way, her father Osbert had an IPM naming those lands, and he is identified as the father of Elizabeth the wife of William de Weylond in the Fine Rolls in 1296.
So what is the evidence for a William who married an Elizabeth de Riston? I think it might come down to one Suffolk Fine. Rye's abstract is here: https://archive.org/details/acalendarfeetfi00histgoog/page/n154/mode/2up I have not looked up the fine to see if we can really be sure that Laurance de Riston in this fine is the father of Elizabeth, but I suspect, given the above, that he may not have been.
In any case Brandeston is a manor which was appears in the IPM of the same Robert who was holding Somerset lands of Elizabeth de Bathonia. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol7/pp33-41
0 new messages