Aldeburgh wives

[Libby Richardson]

The following are suggestions as to the identity of the wife of William de Aldeburgh [d1388] and that of his father Ivo de Aldeburgh.

William de Aldeburgh
In 2008 Douglas Richardson supplied details of the seal of Elizabeth, wife of William de Aldeburgh which determined that she was not a De L'Isle.

An angel, half-length, wearing an embroidered robe, supporting before him two small shields of arms: dex., a lion rampant, Aldeburgh (see previous seal), sin., a lion rampant. Within a carved gothic panel. Legend wanting." [Reference: Birch Cat. of Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 412 ; 6801. [A.D. 1368]. Red: fine but fragmentary, [Add. ch. 26,770.]

The description of the dexter side of the seal corresponds closely with that of Mowbray of Colton: Gules, a lion rampant argent within a bordure engrailed. Intriguingly, William, son of Ivo of Aldeburgh grants to John, son of William Moubray, and Margaret his wife my manor of Aldeburgh in Richmondshire [ 26 Edw 3; 1352/1353]
[Yorkshire Archaeological Journal vol 6 1881: p421]

The suggestion is that Elizabeth, wife of William de Aldeburgh is Elizabeth Mowbray a daughter of John Mowbray and Margaret Percy.

Ivo de Aldeburgh
On the National Archives website there is the following entry
I, Margery, who was the wife of Nich. Ward of Bubwyth hold for my life certain lands in Bubwyth of which the reversion belongs to Sir Wm. de Aldeburgh, chivaler & w. Eliz. which lands before this time I have attorned to the said Wm. & Eliz. by the concession of Ric. de Wateby, citizen of York. [1357-1358] DDTO K 23/19 1357/8; Lancashire Record Office.

The wife of William Mowbray of Colton , son of John Mowbray and Margaret Percy was Margaret Chaumont, whose mother Janette was the daughter of Richard de Wateby.

The suggestion is that Mary, wife of Ivo de Aldeburgh is Mary de Wateby , daughter of Richard de Wateby and Janette's sister.

[John Watson]

On Oct 19, 5:16 am, Libby Richardson <librichardson...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

Dear Libby,

Richard de Wateby, citizen of York (mayor in 1365) had a daughter;
Joan (not Janette) (d. 1427) who married firstly John de Chaumond of
Colton in Ainsty, secondly Richard de Hebden and thirdly William de
Neusom.

John de Chaumond and Joan de Wateby had two daughters, Margaret and
Joan. Margaret (d. ca 1419) married firstly William de Mowbray (d.
1391) secondly Walter Dallingridge and thirdly William Cheyne, her
sister Joan was a nun at the Priory of Chicksands in Bedfordshire.

It is extremely unlikely that Richard de Wateby who died about 1375,
had a daughter Mary who married Ives de Aldeburgh (died before 1347)
and was the mother of William de Aldeburgh (born about 1325) and that
Mary had a sister Joan who died in 1427.

Regards,

John

[Wjhonson]

Margaret died exactly in 1419 not about it.
Her M.I. at Hever states 23 Aug 1419

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[John Watson]

On Oct 19, 5:16 am, Libby Richardson <librichardson...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

Dear Libby,

I would just like to point out that John de Mowbray who married
Margaret de Percy, was not "of Colton". John de Mowbray was from Easby
in the Parish of Stokesley, and of Kirklington. John and Margaret's
son, William de Mowbray married Margaret de Chaumond (or Chaumont) of
Colton in Ainsty, near York, heiress of her great-grandfather, Sir
John de Chaumond. William de Mowbray was thus "of Colton" in right of
his wife. If Elizabeth, wife of William de Aldeburgh was his sister,
would why she carry the arms of Mowbray of Colton - she was not of
Colton.

Regards,

John

[Robert Bank]

In Testamentum Eboracum Vol. 1, are two wills:

116 – William Moubray Junior, dated 4th July, 1391
Footnote: Sir William Mowbray was son of John Mowbray, of Kirklington (great great grandson of Robert de Mowbray, younger brother of William de Mowbray, ancestor of Mowbray Duke of Norfolk,) by Margaret, sister of Sir Alexander Percy, of Kildale. He married Margaret, daughter and heir of John
Chaumont, who remarried Walter Dalingrige, and thirdly, William Cheyney. Sir William Mowbray left an only daughter, Alianor, who became the wife of
Thomas Ingleby, ancestor of the Inglebys of Ripley, &c.

132- William Moubray of Colton, dated Sunday before the feast of St Peter ad Vincula la'n le Roy Richard le secound quynzesme [30th July, 1391]
Footnote: Sir William Mowbray, of Colton, in the Ainsty, was the eldest son of Sir John Mowbray, of Kirklington, Justice of the Court of King's Bench, by Margaret, sister of Sir Alexander Percy, of Kildale, Knight, and was lineally descended from Robert de Mowbray, a younger brother of the ancestor of
Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk. The testator married first, Ellen, daughter of... and secondly Margaret, daughter and heir of John Chaumont, of Colton. He
left an only daughter, said to be by his second wife, Eleanor, who married Thomas Ingleby, of Ripley, and carried the estate of Colton to that family.

The editor of TE1 has obviously duplicated WMs. From the contents of each will, it is obvious that Will 132 is that of WM of Colton. So who is William Moubray junior?

[John Watson]

Dear Robert,

The editor of Testamentum Eboracensia, Part 1, has, as you say,
confused two different William Mowbrays. William Mowbray 'junior' was
of the family of Mowbray of Easby in Cleveland. He was the son of John
de Mowbray of Easby and his wife Agnes. He was the first cousin 1 x
removed of William Mowbray of Colton. William Mowbray 'junior' of
Easby was the father of George Mowbray, William Mowbray and Hawise
Mowbray. Hawise married firstly, William Selby, a wealthy citizen of
York, who died before 1427 and secondly, Roger Aske, son of Conan Aske
of Aske (see Test. Ebor. ii, 140-5).

Regards,

John

[Wjhonson]

"Eleanor" or Ellen was not the wife of William
She was the *widow* of his nephew Alex, which is why the confusion over her dower etc etc

[Wjhonson]

William was not his fathers eldest son
Alexander was. Alex inherited Kirklington, was knighted, and dead by Feb 1370, leaving a son Alexander and daughter Elizabeth who was the heiress of her brother Alexander who d.s.p. about 1380

Elizabeth married William Gascoigne of Gawthorpe sometime before 1388 and she died in or about 1396. William who was a lawyer in or by 1374, died 17 Dec 1419 testate

William Mowbray was the heir-male to his dead nephew Alexander

[TJ Booth]

Am on vacation and have not been following this thread much, but Mr
Johnson appears unaware of the following source which makes Alexander the
youngest not oldest son of Sir John Mowbray and Margaret Percy. Kirklington
came to Sir Alexander de Mowbray by marriage to Eliz Musters heir of her
father. Since Sir Alexander son d. young, Kirklington did not go to his
surviving heir Eliz de Mowbray m. Gascoigne, but to Eliz Musters' son by her
second husband, Sir John Wandesford.
Elizabeth de Mowbray was thus heir of her father but not her mother. But
her father Sir Alexander was not male heir of Sir John de Mowbray, William
was.- who m. Margaret de Chaumont heir of her father William. Glover's
Visitation of Yorkshire for Ingleby of Ripley - page 282 shows Eleanor as
dau of William and Margaret, she m. Thomas de Ingleby who Glover shows with
descendants.

G. Andrews Moriarty; "The Mowbrays of Kirklington"; NEHGR; Vol 120 (Jul
1966) page 173:
"Sir John [Mowbray] and Margaret [Percy] had issue: William of Barton and
a younger son Alexander who died v.p. in 1368/69. Alexander married, as her
first husband, Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir Henry Musters of
Kirklington; she married secondly, about 1370, John de Wandesford. John was
obviously named for his maternal uncle, Alexander de Percy of Ormesby.
This Alexander was the grandson of Sir John the Judge and died s.p. about
1380. His sister and heir was Elizabeth, the first wife of Sir William
Gascoigne, the Chief Justice, before Trinity, 15 Rich II (1391) (citing
Harrison's Notes from de Banco Rolls, MSS, Public Records Office, page 890).
Elizabeth was the mother of his heir, also Sir William Gascoigne,; she
appears to have died about 1396.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

[Wjhonson]

Yes the second part is correct, but the first part is wrong.
Alexander was the heir, Moriarty makes the claim that he was a younger son based on faulty records, Elizabeth did not inherit Kirklington from her father
Otherwise it's correct.

[John Higgins]

> > GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
> -------------------------------

> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> the message

Which specific records cited by Moriarty to support that Alexander was
the youngest son are faulty in your view? What specific evidence
supports your view to the contrary?

And if Alexander was the eldest (not the youngest) son of Sir John the
judge, how do you explain the descent of the manor of Barton to his
brother William rather than to him?

[Wjhonson]

Moriarty cites *no* records to support the claim, therefore all of them :(

-----Original Message-----
From: John Higgins <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 3:10 pm
Subject: Re: Aldeburgh wives

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[John Higgins]

Ummm...have you actually read the Moriarty article? Apparently not.

And the second question still remains unanswered: What specific

[John Higgins]

And the third questions as well: If Alexander was the eldest (not the

[Wjhonson]

William was the heir-male of his nephew, Alexander's son

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[John Higgins]

An interesting theory - but there's still no evidence presented here
regarding the birth order of the two sons William and Alexander - or
that the manor of Barton did indeed pass to [the younger] Alexander
before going to William.

[John Watson]

On Oct 23, 9:04 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Eleanor" or Ellen was not the wife of William
> She was the *widow* of his nephew Alex, which is why the confusion over her dower etc etc
>

Hi Will,

You are absolutely wrong here. William Mowbray of Colton had two
wives, Ellen who he mentions in his will and Margaret who survived
him. The wife of Alexander Mowbray was Elizabeth Musters, who was
later married to John Wandesford:

20 August 1355, Enrolment of indenture witnessing that whereas Sir
John de Musters has granted by charter to John son of William Moubray
and Alexander his son and to Elizabeth daughter of Henry de Musters,
now Alexander's wife, all his manor of Kirtelyngton and all his lands
in Syndreby, with the common of pasture which he had in Yarnewyk, to
hold to John, Alexander and Elizabeth and to the heirs of the bodies
of Alexander and Elizabeth of the grantor during his life, by the
service of 40 marks yearly and to hold of his heirs by the service of
a rose yearly, with the condition for entering and holding for life
the said manor and lands with the pasture for default of payment of
the 40 marks yearly, to wit if the rent be in arrear for 40 days after
any term of payment, Sir John, wishing to enlarge the estate of John
son of William, releases to him all his right and claim in the said
manor, lands and common, except the said 40 marks of rent which is now
a dry rent, and before it was a rent service, with the like condition
in default of payment. Dated Kirtelyngton, 20 August, 29 Edward III.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: volume 10: 1354-1360 (1908), pp.
228-239

6 February 1370, Commission of oyer and terminer to William Latymer,
John de Nevill, Henry Fitz Hugh, Thomas de Ingelby, William de
Fyncheden, Robert de Roos, William de Aldeburgh, John de Langeton,
William de Nesfeld and Richard de Richemond, on information that many
evildoers came to Kirtlyngton, co. York, in array of war, broke the
manse of the manor of John de Moubray, one of the justices of the
Bench, while he was in the king's protection, ravished and carried
away Elizabeth late the wife of Alexander Moubray, 'chivaler,' his
son, took away goods of the said John, and assaulted, wounded and
imprisoned his men and servants.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward 3, Vol. 14, p. 421

29 October 1370, Pardon to John de Wandesford of Westwyk of the king's
suit for the rape of Elizabeth late the wife of Alexander de Moubray,
'chivaler,' said to have been done before 26 May last, whereof he is
indicted or appealed, and of any consequent outlawry.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward 3, Vol. 15, p. 6

Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/289/55, number 186.
County: Yorkshire. Lincolnshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: One month from Easter, 12 Richard [II] [16 May 1389]. And
afterwards one week from Holy Trinity in the same year [20 June 1389].
Parties: William Moubray and Margaret, his wife, querents, and John
Bysshopton', deforciant.
Property: The manors of [Colton' and Stokton'] sup[er] Moram, 18
messuages, 23 bovates of land and 12 acres of meadow in Ebor', Hessay,
Steueton', Appilton', Acastre [Malbysh' and] Brian Askham in the
county of York and the manor of Spyrtlyngton' in the county of
Lincoln.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: [William and Margaret] have acknowledged the manors and
tenements to be the right of John, of which he has the manors of
Colton' and Spyrtlyngton' and 16 messuages, the land and 10 acres of
meadow of their gift.
For this: John has granted to William and Margaret the same manors
and [tenements] and has rendered them to them in the same court, to
hold to William and Margaret and the heirs of their bodies, of the
chief lords for ever. And besides John granted for himself and his
heirs that the manor of Stokton', 2 messuages and [2?] acres of meadow
in the vills of Ebor' and Acastre Malbysh' - which William de Neuwesum
and Joan, his wife, held for the life of Joan of the inheritance of
John on the day the agreement was made, and which after the decease of
Joan ought to revert to John and his heirs - [after the decease] of
Joan shall remain to William Moubray and Margaret and their aforesaid
heirs, to hold together with the aforesaid manors and tenements of the
chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders
(1) to William [Gascoigne and] Elizabeth, his wife, and the heirs of
the body of Elizabeth and (2) to the right heirs of the aforesaid
Margaret.

In the will of William Mowbray of Colton, dated at York on "le
dymangue prouchayn avant le fest de Saynt Petre ad vincula, la'n le
Roy Richard le secound quynzesme" [26 July 1391] he leaves alms to
pray for the souls of his father John Mowbray, Master John Mowbray his
brother and Ellen once his wife. He also mentions dame Margaret his
wife, dame Jane Chaumon, her sister, and Elizabeth Gascoigne.
Surtees Society, Vol. 4, Testamenta Eboracensia, Part I (London: 1836)
pp. 158 - 161

Regards,

John

[John Watson]

Hi Will,

I missed this one:
28 June 1429, To the escheator in Yorkshire. Order to give William
Ingilby, son of Eleanor daughter of William Moubray and of Margaret
his wife who was wife of William Cheyne knight, she being cousin and
heir of William Moubray and Margaret, seisin of all lands whereof the
said Margaret was seised in fee and in fee tail, and those of his
heritage which she held for life after the death of William Moubray;
as he has proved his age before the escheator, and the king has taken
his homage and fealty.
To the escheator in Lincolnshire. Like order, as William Ingilby has
proved his age before the escheator in Yorkshire.
Like writ to the mayor of the city of York, being escheator therein.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry VI: volume 1: 1422-1429 (1933), p. 441

Regards,

John

[Wjhonson]

Curious how John Watson tells me that *I* am wrong, when my source (after checking) is HIS own post here in 2010 :)

Subj: Re: Elizabeth Mowbray/William Gascoigne and Father Alexander Mowbray
Date: 3/3/2010 11:00:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: watso...@gmail.com <mailto:watso...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com <mailto:gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent from the Internet (Details) <aolmsg://0183ef78/inethdr/1>

from which I quote a snippet: "Alexander, the younger although married to Eleanor ?, died without heirs of his body sometime around 1380. His sister and heir was
Elizabeth the first wife of Sir William Gascoigne."

END OF QUOTE

Apparently John, you've changed your mind.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Watson <watso...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: Aldeburgh wives

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Bronwen Edwards]

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:00:43 PM UTC-8, wjhonson wrote:
> Curious how John Watson tells me that *I* am wrong, when my source (after checking) is HIS own post here in 2010 :)

Healthy adults are able to accept being incorrect when new information comes along, even when it contradicts a prior belief. The best evidence wins out - but only until better evidence shows up. You seem incapable of accepting any sort of correction and gracefully incorporating it into your compendia. Or whatever. Have you ever heard this one? "At 20 people strive to be like their peers and impress them, knowing that they are under constant scrutiny. At 40 they have had enough of this and throw caution to the wind; now they do not care what anyone thinks of them and proudly strut their nonconformity. At 60 they realize that no one was looking at them in the first place." Bronwen

[watso...@gmail.com]

Hi Will
Get back to you in a couple of days - travelling right now
Regards,
John
Sent from my iPhone

[Wjhonson]

Are usual Bronwen misses the boat.
John Watson is the one who stated it, and John Watson is the one who three years later said it was wrong.
How that is related to correcting *me* is quite beyond my powers to comprehend.
I am not the one who originally said it, I was only repeating what I was told from the person who later changed his mind.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bronwen Edwards <lostc...@yahoo.com>
To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; watsonjohnm <watso...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 9:09 pm
Subject: Re: Aldeburgh wives

[Wjhonson]

Thanks John for your productive and useful reply.

-----Original Message-----
From: watsonjohnm <watso...@gmail.com>
To: Bronwen Edwards <lostc...@yahoo.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 11:42 pm
Subject: Re: Aldeburgh wives

Hi Will
Get back to you in a couple of days - travelling right now
Regards,
John
Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Feb 2013, at 13:09, Bronwen Edwards <lostc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[John Watson]

Will,

I was going to try and explain where you were wrong, but since you are
being your usual obnoxious self, I won't bother.

John

On Feb 25, 11:56 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thanks John for your productive and useful reply.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----

> From: watsonjohnm <watsonjo...@gmail.com>
> To: Bronwen Edwards <lostcoo...@yahoo.com>
>
> Cc: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>; soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>

> Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 11:42 pm
> Subject: Re:Aldeburghwives
>
> Hi Will
> Get back to you in a couple of days - travelling right now
> Regards,
> John
> Sent from my iPhone
>

> On 25 Feb 2013, at 13:09, Bronwen Edwards <lostcoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:00:43 PM UTC-8, wjhonson wrote:
> >> Curious how John Watson tells me that *I* am wrong, when my source (after
> checking) is HIS own post here in 2010 :)
>
> > Healthy adults are able to accept being incorrect when new information comes
> along, even when it contradicts a prior belief. The best evidence wins out - but
> only until better evidence shows up. You seem incapable of accepting any sort of
> correction and gracefully incorporating it into your compendia. Or whatever.
> Have you ever heard this one? "At 20 people strive to be like their peers and
> impress them, knowing that they are under constant scrutiny. At 40 they have had
> enough of this and throw caution to the wind; now they do not care what anyone
> thinks of them and proudly strut their nonconformity. At 60 they realize that no
> one was looking at them in the first place." Bronwen
>
> -------------------------------

> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

[Robert Bank]

Hello John

I'm quite interested in this subject, as it is sideways relevant to a piece
I'm writing about the husbands of Joan Wateby.

Don't let one rotten apple spoil the barrel.

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: John Watson

[Wjhonson]

Uh.. I'm quoting you. So it's you who were wrong. and evidently changed your mind.
And now won't admit it :)

Have a mousy cheese day

-----Original Message-----
From: John Watson <watso...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 12:00 am
Subject: Re: Aldeburgh wives

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Wjhonson]

I'm not rotten just very very bitter at the rampant nonsense masquerading as research :)

Have a unripe green apple day.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Bank <robert...@homecall.co.uk>
To: John Watson <watso...@gmail.com>; MEDIEVAL ENQUIRIES <GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 27, 2013 2:42 am
Subject: Re: Aldeburgh wives

Hello John

I'm quite interested in this subject, as it is sideways relevant to a piece
I'm writing about the husbands of Joan Wateby.

Don't let one rotten apple spoil the barrel.

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: John Watson

Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 7:55 AM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Aldeburgh wives

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com