Deincourt/Tibetot--CP error?
Cristopher Nash
my copies of discussions here a resolution to the puzzle re the
report in CP IV, 290 (sub Despencer) of the Margaret Deincourt who m.
Sir Robert de Tibetot as the "da. of Sir William Deincourt (s. and h.
ap. of Sir William Deincourt, of Blankney, co. Lincoln [Lord
Deincourt]", whereas widely received is that her fa. William is the
s. of John Deincourt. Is CP saying that the sequence is:
Sir William Deincourt & Milicent la Zouche
Sir William Deincourt & Margaret de Welle
Margaret Deincourt who m. Sir Robert de Tibetot
and can this be right? (In various scans of CP XIV I found no
change, but always forget to look closely for this one.) And if not,
is it one for/on your list, Chris (Phillips)?
I know, I should have brought this up years ago when we were working
our way through Deincourt/Neville and Tibetot/Despencer; take some
nuts from my stocking.
Cris
--
Nathaniel Taylor
(Cristopher Nash) wrote:
Er, perhaps a bit too risqué for present company?
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
Many Harvard men would do far, far worse ---- and emerge ridiculous.
It does lack real savoir-faire however.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-2112...@mid-tgn-npw-vty20.as.wcom.net...
cbe...@paradise.net.nz
The following evidence regarding the parentage of William Deincourt, father of
Margaret, leads to the conclusion that the information in CP is correct.
In a marriage settlement dated 9th Oct 1343, in which William Deincourt and
Margaret de Welles have settled on them, the manor of Blankney and 80 acres of
wood, William is described as eldest son of William Deincourt.
"Ceste endentre tesmoigne qe Acorde est enter Mons Adam de Welle & Mons
Willie de Dyncort que Willie leisne fitz le dit Mons Willie esposera Margarete la fille
le dit mons Adam a la pimere cressance a prs la feste de Nouwel pschein Avenir."
[The Genealogist v.31 p.57/58]
An inquisition was held 22 Dec 17 Edw III whether it was to the King's damage for
William Deyncourt to grant the Manor of Blankney, except the knights' fees and 80
acres of wood, to William son of William Deyncourt and Margaret daughter of Adam
de Welle, with reversion to himself and heirs (Inq ad quod damnum, file 266, no. 6)
The licence for the grant was made 16 Jan 1343/4 (Patent Roll 17 Edw III, p.2,
m.3)
William Deincourt the younger died during the life time of his father, William the
elder, who died in 1364. William the younger's son was also called William, born
about 1357 (described as 7 and 8 in 1364, IPM William Deyncourt the elder). The
latter was heir to William the elder.
William Deincourt (whether elder or younger, I cannot tell) had the custody of part of
the lands of Robert de Tibetot in 1362 shortly before Robert gave proof of age. The
eldest surviving child of Robert de Tibetot and Margaret Deincourt was Margaret
born about 1366 (thus making Margaret Deincourt born before 1351 and older than
her brother William).
Margaret is described as daughter of William Deincourt in the IPM of her husband.
The fact that the second surviving daughter of Margaret and Robert Tibetot was
called Milicent, is a good indicator of her ancestry. She was more than likely named
for her maternal grandmother Milicent la Zouche.
William Deincourt d.2 June 1364=Milicent la Zouche d.22 June 1379
\
William Deincourt d.v.p. 1357-1364=Margaret de Welles
\
Margaret Deincourt b bef 1351=Robert Tibetot b.c. 1341 d.13 April 1372
\
1.Margaret b.c.1366
2.Milicent b.c 1368
3.Elizabeth b.c.1370
Hope this is of some help to you.
Cheers
Rosie
On 21 Dec 2001 at 20:42, Cristopher Nash wrote:
Date forwarded: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:41:22 -0700
Date sent: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 20:42:41 +0000
From: Cristopher Nash <c...@windsong.u-net.com>
Subject: Deincourt/Tibetot--CP error?
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Forwarded by: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Kevan L. Barton
The Sothill Chronology was talked to last October. At that time, John
stated:
"I think a likely scenario would be, that for Joan FitzWilliam to fit into
the chronology of the FitzWilliams and the Soothills 'properly' she would be
the daughter of Sir John FitzWilliam of Emley and Sprotborough (d. 10 Aug
1349) and Jane de Reresby."
Brice provided the opening for that possibility with:
"It was suggested on Monday that Joan FitzWilliam, alleged wife of
Sir Henry Sothill, was daughter of Sir John FitzWilliam (d. 1349)
and his wife, Jane de Reresby.
According to Watney's "The Wallop Family" 2:333, that couple did
have a daughter Joan, who in 1334 married Sir Bryan Thornhill.
The very detailed biography of Sir Gerard Sothill in Roskell's
History of Parlimament 4:408 is agnostic as to the maiden name of
Sir Henry's wife, calling her only Joan."
And John then states,
"Thanks for the information re: Joan FitzWilliam and Brian de Thornhill -
It seems to leave the door open for a 2nd marriage for Joan to
Henry de Soothill [perhaps, even a FIRST marriage - ? ]. Certainly
the time frame would be right for a mother of Sir Gerard Soothill,...
or his older brother (or both)."
I was wondering if anything else has developed since these postings as I've
a
Sir Thomas Markenfield marriage to a Beatrice Sothill, the supposed d. of
Henry Sothill and Eleanor Moseley. This Henry is supposedly the son of the
above Henry Sothill and Joan Fitz William. Anyway, can you provide the
current status of the work on the Sothill/Fitz William controversy? And, can
anyone provide a clean connection between the Markenfield marriage with the
Sothill/Fitz William marriage?
By the way, the Yorkshire visitation also provides a Joane Fitzwilliam as a
dau. of Fitz William/Reresby. There is also a Joan in the next generation
as the dau. of FitzWilliam and Clinton. She apparently married 1) Thomas
Stapleton, and 2) John Felton. Interestingly, This visitation also provides
a marriage between a Fitz William daughter to Sir Bryan Thornehill, but this
daughter belongs to FitzWilliam/Clinton. It certainly does not discount
John's proposition, however.
Cheers,
Kevan
Cristopher Nash
>>Many thanks [SNIP] Incidentally, could you point me in the
>>direction of a source that gives the "widely received" version, to
>>get me started ...?
>
>Weis Anc Roots (7th, '92) is one -- I think it's Line 200 -- but
>there are lots of Deincourt (etc) threads in the Gen-Med archive
>(esp. '99 & 2000) reciting it, and I wanted to bring it up there
>just in case anyone wanted to review the issue there before striking
>out the CP version.
>
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>
>>>Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 20:42:41 +0000
>>>To: Gen-Medieval
>>>From: Cristopher Nash <<mailto:c...@windsong.u-net.com>c...@windsong.u-net.com>
>>>Subject: Deincourt/Tibetot--CP error?
>>>Cc:
>>>Bcc:
>>>X-Attachments:
>>>
>>I'm sorry to bother people with this, but I've been unable to find
>>in my copies of discussions here a resolution to the puzzle re the
>>report in CP IV, 290 (sub Despencer) of the Margaret Deincourt who
>>m. Sir Robert de Tibetot as the "da. of Sir William Deincourt (s.
>>and h. ap. of Sir William Deincourt, of Blankney, co. Lincoln [Lord
>>Deincourt]", whereas widely received is that her fa. William is the
>>s. of John Deincourt. Is CP saying that the sequence is:
>> Sir William Deincourt & Milicent la Zouche
>> Sir William Deincourt & Margaret de Welle
>> Margaret Deincourt who m. Sir Robert de Tibetot
>>and can this be right? (In various scans of CP XIV I found no
>>change, but always forget to look closely for this one.) And if
>>not, is it one for/on your list, Chris (Phillips)?
>>
>>I know, I should have brought this up years ago when we were
>>working our way through Deincourt/Neville and Tibetot/Despencer;
>>take some nuts from my stocking.
>>
>>Cris
But Rosie Bevan <cbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote on 30 Dec 01 --
It _is_ tremendously helpful, Rosie, and thank you equally hugely for
putting it together -- not only the 'straightening of the lines' but
the additional data on William the younger I-for-one certainly hadn't
had. Chris (Phillips), if you're as persuaded as I am by Rosie's
message, I think she's spared you the ordeal I almost got you into of
entering the CP article in your CP-gaffes collection, and saved us
all (us on Gen-Med as well as Weis Anc Roots fans) from perpetuating
on our books what appears to've been a fairly longstanding mistake.
Rosie, we owe you one (yet another one)! Thanks again, and a bright
good new year to you!
Cris
--
Douglas Richardson
Various visitation pedigrees show Joan Fitzwilliam, wife of Henry
Sothill (or Soothill), to be the daughter of Sir William Fitzwilliam.
Given the chronology involved, it would appear she is the daughter of
Sir William Fitzwilliam, of Sprotborough, co. York, died c. 1342, by
his wife, Isabel Deincourt. This couple definitely had a daughter
named Joan, as indicated by Isabel (Deincourt) Fitzwilliam's will.
Below please find my accounts of Sir William Fitzwilliam and of Henry
and Joan (Fitzwilliam) Sothill, which are taken from the forthcoming
book, Plantagenet Ancestry, 3rd edition. My sources are fully cited.
I trust this information has been helpful.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
I. WILLIAM FITZWILLIAM, Knt., of Sprotborough, Emley, Dalton (in
Kirkheaton), and Darrington, co. York, and Plumtree and Hucknall, co.
Nottingham, son and heir, born say 1270, adult before 1294. He
married ISABEL DEINCOURT, daughter of Edmund Deincourt, Knt., 1st Lord
Deincourt, of Blankney, co. Lincoln, by Isabel (descendant of
Charlemagne), daughter of Reynold de Mohun, Knt., of Dunster,
Somerset. They had three sons, William, John, Knt., and Thomas, and
four daughters, Margaret, Joan, Isabel and Agnes. He was an adherent
of the Earl of Lancaster. He was executor of his father's will in
1294. In 1296 Ellen widow of Adam Fitz Nicholas, clerk, released her
right of dower to a tenement and land in Emley held by her late
husband. In 1308 Maud widow of Roger de la Wodehall complained
against William Fitzwilliam, his brother, Edmund, and others for
trespass at la Woodhall near Wombwell. He was co-heir in 1312 to his
great uncle, Roger Bertram. In 1317 his father-in-law, Edmund
Deincourt, enfeoffed him with property in Elmeton, co. Derby in trust
for Edmund for life, with remainders in succession to his grandson,
Edmund's widow, Joan Clinton, and then to Edmund's
great-grandddaughter, Isabel Deincourt. He was summoned for military
service against the Scots on 5 Apr. 1327 by writ directed Willelmo
filio Willelmi. The same year, he, his son, John, and Brian de
Thornhill fled for the death of Richard de Plaiz, Knt., killed at
Helaw. SIR WILLIAM FITZWILLIAM was living 4 March 1338/9, but dead
before 1342. In 1342-3, John de Wombwell and others came to the manor
of Emley belonging to Isabel Fitzwilliam, seised her servants, raised
the bridges, kept the servants, and killed the plough-oxen with
arrows. His widow died testate shortly before 29 May 1348. Both are
buried at Sprotborough.
References:
Rev. Joseph Hunter South Yorkshire 2 (1831):92-94 (identifies wife as
"Maud, or Isabel Deincourt"). H.S.P. 19 (1884): 27-29 (1566 Vis.
Bedford) (Fitzwilliam pedigree: "Sir William ffitzwill'm of Emley
Knight sonne and heire = [Maude] daughter of [William Harl. MS. 5867]
Deyncourte"). Yorkshire Arch. Journal 12 (1893): 482. J.W. Clay
Yorkshire Church Notes (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser. 34) (1904):
135-137 (East and north windows of Sprotborough church both display
arms of Fitzwilliam and Deincourt). Ancestor 12 (1905): 111-117.
W.P. Baildon Baildon and the Baildons 1 (1912): 353-355 (invents
ficticious 1st wife Maud; miscontrues settlement dated 1324). C.P. 4
(1916): 118-120 (sub Deincourt), 5 (1926): 518-520 (sub Fitzwilliam).
Yorkshire Arch. Journal 27 (1924): 17; 29 (1929): 47, 53. Trevor
Foulds Thurgarton Cartulary pp. xcii-xcvii (re. Deincourt family).
II. JOAN FITZWILLIAM, born say 1305, married HENRY SOTHILL (or
SOOTHILL), Knt., of Soothill, co. York. They had seven sons, Henry,
James, John, Gerard, Knt., Robert, William, and Henry (second). SIR
HENRY SOTHILL was living 29 May 1369.
References:
Rev. Joseph Hunter South Yorkshire 2 (1831): 93 (Fitzwilliam
pedigree). H.S.P. 16 (1881): 122-124 (1563/4 Vis. Yorkshire)
(Fitzwilliam pedigree) ("Jane [Fitzwilliam] wyff to Sir Henry Sotell
of Sothall Hall"). Surtees Soc. 144 (1930): 74-76 (c. 1480-1500 Vis.
North) (Fitzwilliam pedigree) ("Iohanna [Fitzwilliam] nupta Henrico
Souhill"). J. W. Walker Yorkshire Pedigrees (H.S.P., vol. 95) (1943):
341-345 (Soothill pedigree) ("Sir Henry Soothill, Knt. = Joan, dau. of
Sir William Fitzwilliam, of Sprotborough, by Maud, dau. of Sir Ralph
Cromwell of Tatersall").
kevan...@adelphia.net (Kevan L. Barton) wrote in message news:<NCBBJKOAPKCOAKFHNCEL...@adelphia.net>...
Ed Crabtree
1292. Buried 1292 in Toddingham Priory,
England.
Where is this priory located?
Ed Crabtree - KCMO
familyh...@kc.rr.com
The...@aol.com
Good afternoon, Kevan (and good morning, Douglas),
Unfortunately, I have not found anything new to add to the Soothill
scenario - however, I will certainly advise when (if) anything 'new' should
arise. The Markenfield connection does not ring a bell, but I will look
through my Soothill notes soon to see ....
And, thank you Douglas, for sharing your correction of CP with regard
to Sir William FitzWilliam, Isabel Deincourt and their issue. Best wishes
for the continued progress, and success, of the new PA book.
Best wishes to you both (and to all) for a happy and healthy New Year.
Good luck, and good
hunting.
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Douglas Richardson
You have good eyes. Yes, the information in my post on the
Fitzwilliam and Sothill families contained a correction. Mr. Baildon
who contributed information for the material found in Complete Peerage
misinterpreted the meaning of a settlement involving the Fitzwilliam
family. As a result, he created a ficticious wife for Sir William
Fitzwilliam who married Isabel Deincourt. As far as I can tell,
Isabel Deincourt was Sir William's only wife.
As for Joan Fitzwilliam, wife of Henry Sothill, while she may well be
the child of Sir William Fitzwilliam who married Isabel Deincourt, the
visitations place her as a daughter of a later Sir William, which is
clearly impossible chronologically. Before I include her in the
Plantagenet book, I'd like to see better evidence as to what
generation she belongs. If anyone has any information which might
shed some light on this problem, I'd appreciate knowing about it.
In the meantime, best wishes to you and all the newsgroup for a great
2002!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royalan...@msn.com
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<39.2034386...@aol.com>...
Worth S. Anderson
Your basis for identifying Joan Fitzwilliam, wife of Henry Sothill, as the
Joan Fitzwilliam who was daughter of William Fitzwilliam and Isabel
Deincourt appears based on "the chronology involved." However, according to
a tabular pedigree in: Col. Saltmarsh, "Some Howdenshire Villages,"
Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, vol. XIII, pt. II
(1906), bet. pp. 160-161, FHL # 942.74, C4e, v. 13 pt. 2, "Sir Henry de
Sothill, 'son of Henry, son of Henry de de Sothill Chivaler,' claims against
William, son of Warsin de Scargill, 2 carucates in Sothill. Living 1375 and
1419. De Banco 49 E. III and 7 H. V."
This article also provides some dates for three of Sir Henry's sons: "John
Sothill, sen., of Sothill. Living 1475. Coram Rege 15 E. IV."
"Henry Sothill, of Stockfasten, "and brother of Sothill Hall." Vist. 1585.
Living 1464. Dead 3 E. IV." His wife "Anne. De Banco 18 E. IV."
"Sir Gerard Sothill, of Radbourne, co. Lincoln, '3rd son of Sir Henry de
Sothill." Vist. 1585. Lacy pedigree." His wife "Johanna, dau. of Sir
Gerard Salvin. Inq. p.m. 21 H. VI."
I have not checked the actual De Banco or Coram Rege rolls. However, it is
hard to accept, apparently solely on chronological grounds, that a woman
posited to be born about 1305 had a husband who was still active in 1419, or
sons who were alive in 1464 and 1475.
Perhaps I have missed something. I would be most appreciative if you could
explain why you have abandoned the identification, in "Yorkshire Pedigrees"
of the Joan Fitzwilliam who married Sir Henry Sothill as the daughter of
William and Maud (de Cromwell) Fitzwilliam.
Also, thank you for your valuable correction regarding Isabel Deincourt.
Worth S. Anderson
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.01123...@posting.google.com...
<snip>