Mortimer of Tedstone Wafer
Chris Phillips
The descent of the Mortimers of Tedstone Wafer from Roger Mortimer of Chirk
(d. 1326) was discussed here by Jim Weber and Brice Clagett in
October/November last year.
Roger's descendants were originally traced this far in the 2nd edition of
Complete Peerage, in an article "revised and largely documented" by Ethel
Stokes [vol. 9, pp. 254-256]:
1. Roger de Mortimer of Chirk (d. 1326) = Lucy la Wafre (d. shortly before
Aug.
1324)
2. Roger de Mortimer, s. and h. by Lucy (d. before Oct. 1333) = Juliane
3. John de Mortimer, s. and h. by Juliane (living 1333, 1336)
4. John, s. and h. (living 1359, 1361)
(CP went on to suggest tentatively that these Mortimers might be identified
with the one that held the manor of Mortimers in Cliffe, near Rochester,
Kent - although it isn't clear how the manor was supposed to have come to
the descendants of Roger de Mortimer of Chirk from the Mortimers who held it
in
the mid-13th century,as given by CP. This suggestion was removed in CP vol.
14.)
Although the family never regained Chirk, which had been forfeited by Roger
in 1322, evidently they did continue to hold the inheritance of Lucy la
Wafre, and this enabled their later descendants to be traced.
As Brice pointed out, CP vol. 14 added further details, which were credited
to Neil D. Thompson. These included a presentation to the living of Tedstone
Wafer by John Mortimer in 1367 (a John Mortimer having earlier presented in
1347), and then a connected pedigree starting with a late-14th-century
Roger:
i. Roger de Mortimer, presented to Tedstone Wafer in 1395/6, died 13 Dec.
1402 = Maud Herle
ii John de Mortimer, s. and h., b. 13 Dec. 1388
And the line - not given by CP vol. 14 but outlined in Brice's post -
continues down to John Mortimer (d. 1504), whose sister and (in her issue)
heir had married Thomas (West), Lord la Warre (d. 1525).
CP vol. 14 identifies Roger (d. 1402) as the son of the younger John,
although chronologically there seem to be few precise indications between
the birth of Sir Roger of Chirk, probably in the mid 1250s, and the birth of
John son of Roger, in 1388. It's not clear how many generations we should
look for between these two. Perhaps 5 (thus CP vol. 14), but perhaps 6?
The "Complete Works of Charles Evans", recently published by the Foundation
for Medieval Genealogy, also includes a discussion of this problem, entitled
"Two Mortimer Notes" (NEHGR, vol. 116, pp. 13-17, 1962). It adds a few more
pieces of evidence not included in the CP accounts in vols 9 and 14:
(a) 8 January 1341 and again 25 September 1343, Henry de Mortimer, staying
in England, had letters nominating Roger de Mortimer, son of Roger de
Mortimer
of Chirk, as his attorney in Ireland [citing Calendar of Patent Rolls].
(b) 18 August 1349, Juliane, widow of Roger, presented to Hampton Wafre, and
5 April 1350, Juliane presented to Hampton Wafre as lady of Hampton [citing
Register of John de Trillek, Canterbury and York Society, vol. 8, pp. 379,
382].
(c) 21 April 1378, Roger de Mortimer presented to Hampton Wafre [citing
Register of John Gilbert, Canterbury and York Society, vol. 17, p. 115].
(e) 20 July 1397 Roger Mortimer, of Edvin, Herefordshire, with his sons
Richard and Roger, were summoned for felonious assault at Kyre Wyard,
Worcestershire [citing Proceedings before the Justices of the Peace in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, The Ames Foundation (1938)].
(d) 26 August 1398, Roger de Mortimer, of Tedstone Wafre, obtained livery of
the manors of Martley and Kyre Wyard, Worcestershire [citing Calendar of
Close Rolls].
Evans suggests it is possible that there were two Roger Mortimers in
succession, and it does seem difficult to identify the Roger who was
summoned in 1397, together with his sons Richard and Roger, with the Roger
who died in 1402 to be succeeded by a son John, born as late as 1388.
Perhaps instead the Roger who died in 1402 was the younger Roger who occurs
in 1397? Even if so, that would still leave unresolved the exact
relationship with the younger John, of 1361. It seems more work is needed to
be sure of the relationship between the earlier and later descendants of
Roger de Mortimer of Chirk.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> (e) 20 July 1397 Roger Mortimer, of Edvin, Herefordshire, with his sons
> Richard and Roger, were summoned for felonious assault at Kyre Wyard,
> Worcestershire [citing Proceedings before the Justices of the Peace in the
> fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, The Ames Foundation (1938)].
> Evans suggests it is possible that there were two Roger Mortimers in
> succession, and it does seem difficult to identify the Roger who was
> summoned in 1397, together with his sons Richard and Roger, with the Roger
> who died in 1402 to be succeeded by a son John, born as late as 1388.
> Perhaps instead the Roger who died in 1402 was the younger Roger who
occurs
> in 1397? Even if so, that would still leave unresolved the exact
> relationship with the younger John, of 1361. It seems more work is needed
to
> be sure of the relationship between the earlier and later descendants of
> Roger de Mortimer of Chirk.
I have started to look at some of the references given by Evans and others.
It's interesting to note that John, the son of Roger by his deceased wife
Maud, was returned as one of the heirs of Maud's mother Elizabeth, wife of
Sir John Herle, in 1398 [Cal. Inq. p. m. vol. 17, no 1059 (p. 386)]. So it's
very unlikely that Roger could have had older sons Richard and Roger by
Maud, who were living in 1397. Also, land in "Edvin" does seem to have been
held by the Mortimers separately from the Herle marriage [VCH Worcestershire
vol. 4, p. 273 has a carucate in Edvin Loach conveyed to Roger Mortimer in
1393 by Hugh de Hawkesley, together with Tedstone Wafer, though confusingly
it goes on to claim that the estate at Edvin in the 1402 IPM of Roger
Mortimer was in Edvin Ralph, not Edvin Loach. This is not borne out by the
published abstract of the Herefordshire inquisition [Cal. Inq. p. m. vol.
18, no 1094 (p. 373)], which refers to a carucate in Edvin Loach.].
On the other hand, another statement in the Herefordshire inquisition may
indicate an alternative explanation of the puzzle of Roger's sons, Richard
and Roger, who occur in 1397. The inquisition notes that Roger's son and
heir, John, was a minor, and lists various people who were holding Roger's
lands, "title unknown". Among these is "John Mortymer, bastard son of
Roger". If John had an elder illegitimate son named John, perhaps he could
have had other illegitimate sons as well - maybe this could explain the
occurrence of Richard and Roger in 1397.
Chris Phillips