Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first wife Ada le Brun
Tim Cartmell
I came across these entries, which are very interesting. Does anyone know the family dynamics on how these two individuals were cousins?
Ada le Brun was the sister of Sir Richard le Brun, Knt. who died in March, 1313. (Cal. Fines Rolls, 1310, pg. 57) Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, "Bowness on Solway", pg. 173. Richard was descended of the le Bruns of Burgh, lords of Bothel in Torpenhow, Bowness-on-Solway, Beaumont, and Brunscaythe in Cumberland.
I believe this Richard le Brun, was the son of Patrick le Brun, lord of Bothel. See the attached web-link.
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/records.asp?cat=024-wdry&cid=42-25
Hubert de Multon was the son of Sir Thomas II Multon, baron of Gilsland. He inherited Isell in Cumberland, which passed through to his granddaughter Margaret de Multon, and then onto her son Sir William Leigh Knt.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=7&CATID=-4577843
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=7&CATID=-4367148
Any help on the how these two were cousins, would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Timothy J. Cartmell
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
Tim Cartmell
WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
Hubert de Multon was the son of Sir Thomas II Multon, baron of Gilsland. He inherited Isell in Cumberland, which passed through to his granddaughter Margaret de Multon, and then onto her son Sir William Leigh Knt. >>
I note that thepeerage.com doesn't have any parents listed for him
Regarding your question about my sources:
1). T.H.B. Graham, F.S.A., wrote in his article, 'The Multons of Gilsland', "Thomas de Multon, surnamed of Moulton Lincolnshire, was patriarch of the family; he was the father of Lambert de Multon of the Egremont branch; father of Alan de Multon (de Lucy) of the Cockermouth branch, and by a later marriage father of Thomas de Multon who founded the Gilsland branch, .......etc. He died in 1240. At this time his youngest son Thomas had already married Matilda de Vallibus [Maud de Vaux], daughter of Hubert de Vallibus, and sole heiress of the barony Gilsland. (Cal. Close Rolls, 24 Henry III, pg. 188). In 1241, Thomas had livery of his father's lands (Pipe Roll, Cumberland)......ect. He predeceased his wife Matilda. The writ for the inquisition of his lands in Cumberland was issued on January 14th, 1270-71. His lands passed to his son Thomas who was of full age (Cal. inq. p. m. 55 Hen. III, pg. 246). Matilda his mother however, held Gilsland in sole possession of that
barony. Matilda de Multon was summomed to Parliament on April 16th, 1291, together with Thomas de Multon senior, and junior (Report on the dignity of a peer, Appendix no. i, pg. 54). Thomas senior was Thomas of the barony Egremont, while Thomas junior was, Matilda's son, of the barony Burgh. Thomas junior died in his mother's lifetime, and subsequently held no interest in Gilsland. The writ for inquisition is dated March 1st, 1292-1293. His son and heir was found to be Thomas de Multon, aged 26 and more. (Cal. inq. p. m. 21 Edw. I, pg. 69), but later in the same year a Suffolk jury declared that the same Thomas was 30 years or more. The death of Matilda occurred some three months after that of her son Thomas. Writs directing inquisitiones post mortem were issued on May 28th, 1293, and they were accordingly made concerning her manors of Sevenhampton (Seavington) and Ayshule (Ashill) Somerset, held of her son James for life; her manor of Surlingham, Norfolk, held of
her son Hubert for life; and her manor of Denham, Suffolk, held of dominus Roger Bygod, Earl of Norfolk. In the last instance, Thomas aged 30 years or more, was found to be her heir (Cal. inq. p.m. 21 Edw. I, pg. 64)." Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, pgs. 157-166.
See also the attached web-links for other published works, including the 'Knights of King Edward I', which specifically names Thomas fil Thomas de Multon's sons, Edmund and Hubert regarding Isell & Blendcrake.
2). http://books.google.com/books?id=3kouAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA467&dq=hubert+de+multon#PPA467,M1
3). http://books.google.com/books?id=mhMNAAAAIAAJ&q=hubert+de+multon&dq=hubert+de+multon&pgis=1
Regards,
Timothy J. Cartmell
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
WJhonson
He died in 1240. At this time his youngest son Thomas had already married Matilda de Vallibus [Maud de Vaux], daughter of Hubert de Vallibus, and sole heiress of the barony Gilsland. (Cal. Close Rolls, 24 Henry III, pg. 188). >>
This would be interesting to quote exactly as
"A Genealogical and Historical Account of the Throckmorton family in England and the United States", by C Wickliffe Throckmorton. Old Dominion Press, Richmond VA. 1930
makes a line connecting Vaux of Bottisham back to Vaux of Harrowden then back to
Oliver de Vaux "living in the time of John"; "Accompanied John to Ireland in 1203", died after 1244 and then back three more steps to a certain Robert de /Vaux/ , Lord of Gillesland who died "in the time of Henry II"
This same Robert de Vaux is supposed to be that same Robert de Vaux who m Ada d'Engaine, Heiress of Burgh-on-Sand (or by Sands), Cumberland
However I cannot see how, if there is a male-line, that Maux would be "sole heiress of the barony Gilsland" unless one of these males is illegitimate, which I did not note, but which may be the case.
At any rate, a quote from the Close Rolls would illuminate the topic.
Will Johnson
WJhonson
Speaking of the Close Rolls, I've just done a new search and found two of these on Google Books covering 1296-1302 and 1313-1318. Hopefully some industrious scanner is busy at work on the rest of them ?
I've put the links to these two up on my site
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources#England
Will Johnson
WJhonson
Why could not "Thomas Junior" be in fact Thomas Sr's son, i.e. Matilda's grandson ? He was aged 26 or 30 in 1292 and so old enough to be summoned.
WJhonson
---------------
I don't whether this first site is very careful with its sources but there are a few things it says and doesn't say which are important in this context.
The Manor of Surlingham, Suffolk is the subject partly of an earlier post here with header as follows
Subj: Richard de Breuse aka de Braose
Date: 11/17/05 8:53:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: paul.ma...@ozemail.com.au (Paul Mackenzie)
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
----------------
*Within* this posting Paul states, contrary to the above Google Book that CP shows that Maud's father was named Hubert, not John and that Hubert d.v.p. while his father Robert had died 1234. So it could not be that "John her father" endowed her with the Manor *in or about* 1250.
Rather what seems to be the case most likely, after the squabbling between Maud's mother Aline and herself and new husband *whom she had married BY 1240* not *in* 1250 as your source, but see CP stating 1240 citing Assize Roll 818, m 19d.
In that year, 1240 as Paul states, Maud AND her husband Thomas Multon claimed the manor of Denham against Maud's mother Aline and Aline's second husband Geoffrey de Say. Paul also cites Curia Regis Rolls, etc.
It seems to me that *if* a certain John de Vaux did lay the Manor on her in 1250 it must have been after Alice or Geoffrey or both had died and this was some sort of after effect, or it was the result of the lawsuits with which they were involved.
Will Johnson
WJhonson
What are the primary source/sources for this publication you quote, regarding the Oliver Vaux line relating to Gilsland? >>
--------------
Sorry Tim, I don't know. I extracted just this line they were claiming, as I wasn't so much interested in the Vaux at the time. The book I cited, may be available in snippet form or even full view for all I know, on Google Books.
I'm fairly sure, baring that, that the LDS has filmed it.
Will
wjhonson
After playing with the years and names a bit, I may have solved my own
dilemna.
I had asked how Maud could be sole heiress to Gilsland if there were
another male line. I had partly traced a Vaux line, and then picked
up a connection that is most likely wrong, at least it has no source.
After manipulating the line a bit, I think that it's entirely possible
that this could occur in the following way.
Robert de Vaux, Lord of Gilsland "in the time of Henry II" is said to
have married Ada d'Engaine, Heiress of Burgh-on-Sands and widow of
Simon de Morville.
The work I cited on the Family of Throckmorton claims a line from this
couple that then goes:
Robert de Vaux of Gilsland died temp Henry II
his son William de Vaux "temp Henry II" [thus sometime in the range
1154/89]
his son Robert de Vaux also temp Henry II
his son Sir Oliver de Vaux "accompanied John to Ireland in 1203"
and so on.
To squeeze such a line into the known life of Robert de Vaux who m Ada
d'Engaine would necessitate that Sir Oliver de Vaux was a minor
perhaps ward to John when they went to Ireland. The chronology would
be
Sir Oliver de Vaux born 1191/1200
his father Robert de Vaux born 1173/82
his father William de Vaux born 1155/64
his father Robert de Vaux, Lord of Gilsland died sometime between 1154
and 1189
However, we know that Simon de Morville did not die until 1167 as
MichaelAnne Guido posting here on Dec 8, 2005 citing Pipe Roll 13H2 p
177
If this is the same Simon, then the above William de Vaux cannot be
the son of Ada d'Engaine. If we allow Robert de Vaux, Lord of
Gilsland to have a prior wife, then we can make Robert Vaux of
Gilsland his son born as the eldest son as early as 1154 and as late
as 1163.
We would then get a descent as
Robert de Vaux, Lord of Gilsland
his son Robert Vaux of Gilsland born 1154/63
his son Hubert Vaux, Baron of Gilsland born 1172/88 married Aline
two children:
1. John de Vaux who gave his sister the Manor of Surlingham in 1250
and who married unknown wife, but d.s.p.
2. Maud de Vaux, eventual heir of all her parents and brothers
properties; married Thomas de Multon
So in this way, all sources may be correct, just disjoint, and there
may be more details to find, currently unknown.
One main point would be to show that such a John de Vaux *did* or *did
not* exist.
Will Johnson
Tim Cartmell
WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote: <<In a message dated 07/24/07 11:22:11 Pacific Standard Time, inve...@yahoo.ca writes:
Matilda his mother however, held Gilsland in sole possession of that barony. Matilda de Multon was summomed to Parliament on April 16th, 1291, together with Thomas de Multon senior, and junior (Report on the dignity of a peer, Appendix no. i, pg. 54). Thomas senior was Thomas of the barony Egremont, while Thomas junior was, Matilda's son, of the barony Burgh. Thomas junior died in his mother's lifetime, and subsequently held no interest in Gilsland. The writ for inquisition is dated March 1st, 1292-1293. His son and heir was found to be Thomas de Multon, aged 26 and more. (Cal. inq. p. m. 21 Edw. I, pg. 69), but later in the same year a Suffolk jury declared that the same Thomas was 30 years or more. >>
Why could not "Thomas Junior" be in fact Thomas Sr's son, i.e. Matilda's grandson ? He was aged 26 or 30 in 1292 and so old enough to be summoned.
I'm attaching the web-link for the de Multon family pedigree chart so as to avoid confusion, located at the British History online website.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/image.aspx?compid=49472&filename=fig1.gif&pubid=399
I don't know what the primary sources quoted in the article state, as I don't have publications for the said records.
However, Mr. Graham's article & pedigree states/shows: Thomas secundus of Holbeach in Lincolnshire, died Feb. 12, 1292-3. And the article states, "The writ for the inquistion concerning his manor of Holbeach is dated March, 1, 1292-3. The inquistion relating to his barony of Burgh is missing, but on March 27th, 1293, the escheator was ordered to deliver to Thomas tertius, his father's lands (Cal. Fine Rolls, 21 Ed. I, pg. 320)."
If the father Thomas secundas was alive on April 16th, 1291, and the senior representative of that family branch, wouldn't he be the required one summoned to Parliament representing the barony. The grandson Thomas tertius didn't actually have possession of the barony of Burgh until March 27th, 1293. What was the Medieval protocol at that time?
In the published book, CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry', "Vaux of Gilsland, states that Hubert was succeeded by his daughter and heir Maud, who married Thomas de Multon (d. before 12 Jan. 1270-1)." Their source, 'The Complete Peerage,' 1910-1959. See, CWAAS, Cumberland Families and Heraldry, by Roy Hudleston, and R.S. Boumphrey and J. Hughes, published 1978, pg. 351.
Thanks for pointing out the mistakes in the one Google Books publication.
Tim Cartmell
Tim Cartmell
WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
<<In a message dated 07/24/07 11:22:11 Pacific Standard Time, inve...@yahoo.ca writes:
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.
WJhonson
If the father Thomas secundas was alive on April 16th, 1291, and the senior representative of that family branch, wouldn't he be the required one summoned to Parliament representing the barony. The grandson Thomas tertius didn't actually have possession of the barony of Burgh until March 27th, 1293. What was the Medieval protocol at that time? >>
Father and son can both be in Parliament if they are there under different claims. If the son had married, for example an heiress himself, he could be summoned as well.
Since he lived to at least 30, who did he marry?
Paul Mackenzie
See also references 45 to 50 of my article entitled
"Review of the Ancestry of
Richard de Brewes, husband of
Alice le Rus"
on Doug Thompson De Braose Web Site
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/family/richard.html.
These may be of some help.
Regards
Paul.