William Son of William la Zouche of Harringworth and Avice de Bellers his wife

[John Watson]

Dear all,

Complete Peerage, has a detailed biography of William, son of Eon la Zouche of Harringworth and Bulwick, Northamptonshire and Totnes, Devon, who was born in December 1276 at Harringworth. He married before February 1296, Maud, daughter of John Lovel, first Lord Lovel of Titchmarsh, by his first wife, Isabel sister and (in her issue) heir of William de Bois of Thorpe Arnold, Leicestershire and Weston-in-Arden, Warwickshire, daughter of Arnold de Bois. She, who was said to be aged 30 and more in 1310 and by whom he had at least 10 children, died before 1346. He died on 11 or 12 March 1352, aged 75. [1]

His son and heir apparent was Eon la Zouche, born about 1297-8. In January 1326, Eon was indicted for the murder of Roger Bellers, of Kirby Bellars, Leicestershire. He fled abroad to France and died in Paris on 24 April 1326, aged about 28.

As well as his son and heir, Eon, William la Zouche had nine other children who are named in a royal licence dated 26 March 1326, for him to grant the castle of Totnes and the manor of Cornworthy, Devon, the manor of Calstone and the hundred of Calne, Wiltshire, the manor of Meole Brace, Shropshire, and the manor of Haygrove and two parts of the manor of Bridgwater, Somerset, to Ralph Cosyn with successive remainders in fee tail to his sons William, John, Roger, Thomas, John and Edmund, William Deincourt and Millicent his wife, daughter of the said William la Zouche, Isabel her sister, and Thomasina her sister. [2]

It has been claimed that William la Zouche, second son of William la Zouche of Harringworth, was the same person as William la Zouche, Archbishop of York who died on 19 July 1352, but there is ample evidence from contemporary documents, mainly feet of fines, given below, to show that that this claim is completely unfounded. The ODNB entry for Archbishop la Zouche states that he was most likely a son of the Roger la Zouche who died in 1302 holding the manor of Lubbesthorpe in Leicestershire. [3]

William, son of William la Zouche of Harringworth was probably born about 1300. He first appears in contemporary documents in a fine dated 24 April 1317, when William, John and Roger, sons of William la Zouche of Harringworth, all under age, were granted the manor of Thorpe Arnold, Leicestershire by their father. [4]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_124_50.shtml#141

In a fine dated 20 January 1325, by royal licence, his father granted William the manors of Eaton Bray, Houghton Regis, Thornbury (in Houghton Regis), and Totternhoe, Bedfordshire. [5]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_4_49.shtml#20

By a fine dated 21 April 1325, his father granted him the reversions of the manors of Ham (in Waddesdon), Buckinghamshire and Claybrooke, Leicestershire. [6]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_286_32.shtml#246

By a fine dated 9 June 1325, his father granted William son of William la Zouche and Avice his wife and their heirs, the reversion of the manor of Harringworth, Northamptonshire after the death of William the father. [7]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_176_71.shtml#463

By a fine dated 12 November 1325, William la Zouche of Harringworth granted the manors of Bulwick, Ferrels Wood, Henwick (both in Bulwick), and the reversion of rents in Rothwell, Northamptonshire to William son of William la Zouche of Harringworth and Avice his wife and the heirs of their bodies. [8]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_176_71.shtml#479.

On 23 July 1331, William son of William la Zouche, knight, as patron, presented Master Roger la Zouche, acolyte to the church of Bulwick, Northamtonshire. [9]

By a fine dated 3 May 1332, William son of William la Zouche, knight, quitclaimed the manors of Eaton Bray, Houghton Regis, and Thornbury (in Houghton Regis), Bedfordshire to his father. [10]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_4_53.shtml#15

This is the last record that I can find for William, son of William la Zouche of Harringworth. He was dead before 24 April 1338, when Ralph de Cromwell knight, son of Ralph de Cromwell knight instituted John de Cromwell acolyte to the church of Bulwick, vacant by the death of Master Roger la Zouche. [11]

On 20 March 1344, Thomasia de Verdon had licence surrender the manor of Basford, Nottinghamshire, said to be held in chief, which she held for life of the inheritance of William la Zouche of Harringworth, and for the said William to enfeoff Ralph de Cromwell and Avice, his wife, of the manor. [12] Was Thomasia the daughter of William la Zouche?

On 13 October 1344, William la Zouche of Harringworth came to an agreement with Ralph de Cromwell and Avice, concerning the manor of Harringworth and land in Bulwick. [13]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_177_77.shtml#279

By a fine dated 6 October 1344, Ralph de Cromwell and Avice granted the manor of Hucknall Torkard, Nottinghamshire to Alexander de Gonalston and Alice his wife, with reversion to Ulkerus (don’t ask me) son of Ralph and Avice. [14]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_185_30.shtml#249

By a fine dated 20 January 1351, Ralph de Cromwell and Avice his wife granted land and rent in Basford, Nottinghamshire to Ralph, son of Ralph de Cromwell and Maud [Bernake] his wife. [15]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_185_31.shtml#297

In October 1351, William la Zouche of Harringworth granted the manors of Harringworth, Bulwick, Fairhill, and rent in Rothwell Northamptonshire and the manor of Clipsham, Rutland, to trustees, with reversion to William son of Eon la Zouche (his grandson). The manor of Bulwick and the rent in Rothwell were held for life by Avice, wife of Ralph de Cromwell, doubtless as dower from her first husband. [16]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_177_79.shtml#380

Ralph de Cromwell died before 14 July 1356, when a commission of oyer and terminer was ordered on complaint by John son of Thomas Elys of Lambley that Avice late the wife of Ralph de Cromwell, knight, and others, assaulted him at Lambley, Nottinghamshire, and carried away his goods. [17]

Avice was living on 28 October 1364 when Ralph de Neville, keeper of the king’s forest beyond Trent was ordered to replevy to Avice (Amice) who was wife of Ralph de Cromwell land in Lambley, Nottinghamshire which had been taken into the king’s hand for forest trespasses. [18]

The identity of Avice is confirmed by an entry in the Fine Rolls dated 12 May 1382, when it was reported that an inquisition found that Ralph de Cromwell, knight was the son of Avice the sister of Roger Bellers. [19] This Roger Bellers who died on 8 October 1380 was the son of Roger Bellers who was murdered on 19 January 1326 by Eon, the son and heir apparent of William la Zouche of Harringworth. Was this murder the result of a family feud?

In conclusion, I believe I have shown that Avice, daughter of Roger de Bellers (died 1326) and his wife Alice, married firstly before 9 June 1325, Sir William son of William la Zouche of Harringworth who was living on 3 May 1332. She married secondly, before 24 April 1338, Sir Ralph de Cromwell of West Hallam, Derbyshire who died before 14 July 1356.

Whether Avice and William la Zouche had any children is difficult to determine, but a good candidate for their son must be William son of William la Zouche of Totnes, Devon, who on 13 October 1351 was granted the reversion of Brafield on the Green and Little Houghton, Northamptonshire by William la Zouche of Harringworth. [20]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_177_79.shtml#377

On the same date, William la Zouche of Totnes was also granted the reversion of Ham (in Waddesdon), Buckinghamshire by William la Zouche of Harringworth. [21]
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_20_91.shtml#1

Under the terms of the royal licence dated 26 March 1326 (see above), the castle of Totnes was granted to William son of William la Zouche, in fee tail, so it is most likely that William la Zouche of Totnes in 1351, was the son of William son of William la Zouche of Harringworth.

Regards,

John

[1] Complete Peerage, vol. 12, part 2 (London, 1959), 938-940.
[2] Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward II, vol. 5: 1324-1327 (1904), 254.
[3] Nicholas Bennett, ‘Zouche, William (d. 1352)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004.
[4] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/124/50, number 141.
[5] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/4/49, number 20.
[6] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/286/32, number 246.
[7] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/176/71, number 463.
[8] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/176/71, number 479.
[9] Nicholas H. Bennett, The Beneficed Clergy in the Diocese of Lincoln during the Episcopate of Henry Burghersh: 1320-1340, PhD. Thesis, University of York (1989), 156.
[10] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/4/53, number 15.
[11] Nicholas H. Bennett, The Beneficed Clergy in the Diocese of Lincoln during the Episcopate of Henry Burghersh: 1320-1340, PhD. Thesis, University of York (1989), 175.
[12] Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, vol. 6: 1343-1345 (1902), 223.
[13] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/177/77, number 279.
[14] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/185/30, number 249.
[15] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/185/31, number 297.
[16] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/177/79, number 380.
[17] Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, vol. 10: 1354-1358 (1909), 449.
[18] Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: vol. 12: 1364-1369 (1910), 37.
[19] Calendar of Fine Rolls, vol. 9, Richard II: 1377-1383 (1926), 295.
[20] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/177/79, number 377.
[21] Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/20/91, number 1.

[John Watson]

Correction: William la Zouche of Totnes Devon, (c. 1340 - 13 May 1396) was the great-grandson of William la Zouche of Harringworth, not a son of William son of William la Zouche and Avice, as I conjectured. I should read Complete Peerage more carefully.

Regards,

John

[Douglas Richardson]

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 5:57:42 PM UTC-6, John Watson wrote:

< By a fine dated 6 October 1344, Ralph de Cromwell and Avice granted the manor < of Hucknall Torkard, Nottinghamshire to Alexander de Gonalston and Alice his
< wife, with reversion to Ulkerus (don’t ask me) son of Ralph and Avice. [14]
< http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_185_30.shtml#249

Dear John ~

Great post. Very well done.

I can confirm that Sir Ralph de Cromwell [died 1364] and his wife, Avice Belers, did in fact have a younger son named Ulker de Cromwell. The three documents below are taken from the online Discovery catalogue and concern the Cromwell family manor of Hucknall Torkard, Nottinghamshire. The first one specifically mentions "Vlkerius" de Cromwell, brother of Ralph de Cromwell, Knt., 1st Lord Cromwell [died 1398], who was holding the manor of Hucknall Torkard, Nottinghamshire for life in 1369.

In addition to the son, Ulker, Sir Ralph de Cromwell [died 1364] and his wife, Avice Belers, also had a daughter, Margaret, who married Sir Nicholas Monboucher, Knt., of Swinhope, Lincolnshire, and Haughton (in Bothamsall), Nottinghamshire. Evidence for Margaret's maiden name is afforded by the fact that her son, George Monboucher, was styled “nephew" [nepos] of Ralph de Crumwell in 1384 [Reference: Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1381–1385 (1897): 487]. For additional details on Margaret and Sir Nicholas Monboucher and their descendants, please see my book, Royal Ancestry [5 volume set]. I believe Margaret's great-grandson, Richard Billesby, has modern descendants.

Lastly, I might add that Avice Belers, widow of Sir Ralph de Cromwell, was last known to be living on 21 April 1367, when she presented to the church of Lambley, Nottinghamshire. Avice often occurs in published secondary works as Amice, but Amice is simply a misreading of the name Avice.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + +

1. Reference: E 326/1668
Description:
Grant by Ralph de Crombwell, knight, lord of Tatershale co. Lincoln, to Richard de Chestrefeld and Robert de Tissynton, clerks, William de Wakebrugge and John de la Pole, of Assheburne, of the reversion, upon the death of the grantor's brother Vlkerius, of the manor of Hokenale Torkard (Hucknall-Torquard), with all its services, &c. Notts.
Note: Seal
Date: Thursday after St. Barnabas the Apostle, 43 Edward III [14 June 1369].

2. Reference: E 211/483/B
Description:
Final Concord Parties: Sir Ralph de Crombwell kt., Lord of Tattershall, Lincs.; Richard de Chestrefeld clerk, Richard de Tyssyngton clerk, William de Bakebrugg and John de la Pole of Ashburn. Places or Subjects: Hucknall Torkard, County Notts.
Date: 43 Ed.III

3. Reference: E 211/483/A
Description:
Grant in reversion Parties: Sir Ralph de Crombwell kt., Lord of Tattershall, Lincs.; Richard de Chestrefeld clerk, Richard de Tyssyngton clerk, William de Bakebrugg and John de la Pole of Ashburn. Places or Subjects: Hucknall Torkard, County Notts.
Date: 43 Ed.III

[John Watson]

Hi Douglas,

Ulker, or Ulkerus is a strange and possibly unique name. Have you come across it anywhere else?

On one small point - the death date of Sir Ralph de Cromwell, husband of Avice. CP states that he died before 28 October 1364, which is based on an an entry in the Close Rolls, although CP does not give its source: -

28 October 1364, To Ralph de Neville keeper of the king's forest beyond Trent, or to his representative in Shirwode forest. Order to cause the wood of Lamleye within the bounds of that forest, which is of Amice who was wife of Ralph de Cromwell and is taken into the king's hand for divers trespasses against the assize of the forest therein committed, it is said, if replevisable according to the said assize, to be replevied to the said Amice until the coming of the king's justices for pleas of the forest in that county.

Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III: vol. 12: 1364-1369 (1910), 37.

But, as I showed in my post, CP had missed an earlier entry in the Patent Rolls which shows that Ralph died before July 1356: -

14 July 1356, Commission of over and terminer to Richard de Wylughby, William de Skipwith, Thomas de Novo Mercato, and Geoffrey de Staunton, on complaint by John son of Thomas Elys of Lameleye that Avice late the wife of Ralph de Crumwell, knight, William Symondsone Huwetsone de Lameleye, Richard le Ussher of Lameleye, John Letmogh of Wodeburgh, Robert 'Jonesservant Letmogh,' William del Hill of Lameleye, Robert, his son, Nicholas in the Wroo of Lameleye, William Forester of Lameleye, Nicholas de Wynstre of Lameleye and others, assaulted, him at Lameleye, co. Nottingham, and carried away his goods.

Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, vol. 10: 1354-1358 (1909), 449.

and this one: -

15 October 1356, To the sheriff of Nottingham. Order to cause a verderer for the forest of Shirewod to be elected in place of Ralph de Crombewell, deceased.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III, vol. 10: 1354-1360 (1908), 280.

Regards,

John

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Hello John,
William the Archbishop is not the son of Eudo and Millicent. He may have been a son of Eudo by an earlier marriage since this Lubbesthorpe line is still in question. I do not have an Avice in my database. After the death of Matilda Lovell, William la Zouche married Richarda de la Bise.
Ivo la Zouche, son of William of Haryngsworth was born about 1298 and married Joan Inge (He of the Bellers affair)
William, his son b. 1321, married Elizabeth de Ros
IPM William la Zouche or Souche of Haryngworth, knight
Writ 26 April 5 RII [1382]
William la Zouche of Bramfeld, knight age 40 years and more is his son and heir. He married Agnes Greene and died in 1396.
However, as you have cited, we have a William Zouche making a fine in 1321whose children: William, John, Roger, thomas, John, Edmund, Millicent, Isabel and Thomasina are already born.
I can’t justify the dating.
Pat

> -------------------------------
> 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]

Dear Pat,

As I stated in my post, the ODNB entry for Archbishop la Zouche states that he was most likely a son of the Roger la Zouche who died in 1302 holding the manor of Lubbesthorpe in Leicestershire.

The Lubbesthorpe line is as follows:

1. William la Zouche (died c. 1272), younger brother of Alan la Zouche (died 1270), of Ashby, Leicestershire, son of Roger la Zouche by his wife Margaret Biset. He married Joan.

2. Roger la Zouche (died 1302) was granted the manor of Lubbesthorpe by Milicent de Cauntelo, wife of his uncle Eon la Zouche (died 1279). He married Julian. They had three sons, Roger, born about 1292, Ralph and William, Archbishop of York (died 19 July 1352).

3. Sir Roger la Zouche (died 1353), mentioned in the will of his brother Archbishop la Zouche. He and his brother Ralph were implicated in the murder of Roger Bellers in 1326. He was later pardoned. He was sheriff of Warwickshire and Leicestershire in 1338. He married firstly Maud and secondly Felice.

4. Sir William la Zouche (died after July 1361) son and heir by first wife. He had sisters Julian who married John St. Andrew, Margaret who married William de Bredon, and Joan (probably daughter of Felice) who married Marmaduke Constable of Flamborough, Yorkshire (died 21 May 1378).

Sir William must have died without heirs of his body and Lubbesthorpe was divided between his three sisters. The share of Margaret appears to have come into the possession of a family called Ashby. In 1406, Lubbesthorpe was held in thirds by Robert St. Andrew, Thomas Ashby and Robert Constable of Flamborough.

Regards,

John

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

Regarding the death date of Sir Ralph de Cromwell (husband of Avice Belers), it appears that he was living 1 June 1354, and died shortly before 12 June 1356. This is indicated by an item concerning a debt found in the online Discovery catalogue which is copied below.

As you have already noted, on 14 July 1356 John son of Thomas Elys, of Lambley, Nottinghamshire, complained that Avice widow of Ralph de Crumwell and many others assaulted him at Lambley and carried away his goods.

The online Discovery catalogue indicates that soon afterwards on 30 July 1356 William Deyncourt, Knt., lord of Granby, arbitrated with Alice [sic], widow of Sir Ralph, regarding the freedom of John son of Thomas Elys, of Lambley, Nottinghamshire, who Alice claimed as her neif for life. Reference: Sheffield City Archives: Estate papers of the Copley Family, Baronets, of Sprotborough, CD/378 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

Reference: C 131/10/2
Description:
Debtor: Richard de Goldsborough, knight.
Creditor: Ralph de Cromwell, knight [deceased].
Amount: 1000m.
Before whom: Chancery.
When taken: 20/05/1354
First term: 01/06/1354
Last term: 01/06/1354
Writ to: Sheriff of Yorks
Sent by: Chancery.
Endorsement: Reply of Peter de Nuttele, Sheriff of Yorks: Richard de Goldsborough, knight, has no goods or chattels in Yorks., but he has extended his lands as in the attached extent, and given half to the executors of Ralph de Cromwell, knight.
Note: Inquisition and return: Date for return before the Justices at Westminster: 06/10/1356. M.2: Extent made at Goldsborough [Claro Wapentake, W.R., Yorks.], 12/06/1356. Richard de Goldsborough had on 20/05/1354 at Goldsborough a capital messuage worth nothing after expenses; 2 dovecots worth 4s.; 2 apple orchards and 2 gardens worth 6s. 8d.; a demesne of 180 acres of arable worth £4 10s. at 6d. an acre a year; 8 acres of meadow worth 10s. 8d. at 16d. an acre; a wood and pasturage worth 40d.; a separate pasture next to the wood worth 13s. 4d. Rents worth £17 2d. from tenements in Goldsborough. Total value: £23 8s. 2d. He pays to the chief lord of the fee, William de Acon, 6s. 8d. a year for customs and services, leaving £23 18d. clear, of which half was given to the executors. Cp. the valuation of his property as it stood on 18/09/1351 [No.3, following].
Date: 1356 May 12
Held by: The National Archives, Kew

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

The shifting death date of Sir Ralph de Cromwell, husband of Avice Belers, brings attention to the previously alleged death date of his father, also named Sir Ralph de Cromwell, who married Joan de la Mare.

A review of available records shows the following five items concerning the later part of the life of the elder Sir Ralph de Cromwell:

1. In 1340–1, as “Ralph de Crumbewell, the elder,” he had license to grant a messuage and rent in Lambley, Nottinghamshire to a chaplain in the church of the Holy Trinity there, retaining land and rent in Lambley and Cromwell, Nottinghamshire. Reference: Reference: National Archives, C 143/254/1 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

2. As “Ralph de Crumbwell, Knt., the elder,” he was named “kinsman and heir” of John de Crumbwell, Knt. in a lawsuit dated Easter term 1341. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/326, image 194f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no326/aCP40no326fronts/IMG_0194.htm).

3. In Michaelmas term 1344, as “Ralph de Crumwelle, the elder,” he sued Robert le Walker, of Kettleby, Lincolnshire, and Agnes his wife and William their son in the Court of Common Pleas in respect of 10s. rent in Kettleby, Lincolnshire. Reference: Pike, Year Books of Edward III: Years XVIII–XIX 12 (Rolls Ser. 31b) (1905): 254–257.

4. Sometime c.1345 Ralph and Joan his wife, John and Mabel de Folvill, and Hugh and Maud de Crescy brought an assize of novel disseisin against Cecily Gerberge and others concerning lands in Lincolnshire which formerly belonged to Geoffrey de la Mare, father of the said Joan, Mabel and Maud. Reference: National Archives, Ancient Petitions, SC 8/193/9645, available at the following weblink: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9295531

5. The elder Ralph de Cromwell was evidently still living as late as 7 December 1348, when his son witnessed a quiclaim as "Sir Ralph de Cromwell the younger."
See abstract of the quitclaim document below.

Reviewing above, it is appears that Sir Ralph de Cromwell (husband of Joan de la Mare) occurs in 1340-41, 1341, 1344, and c.1345. He was living as late as 7 December 1348, when his son is styled "Sir Ralph de Cromwell the younger." He presumably died soon after this date.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

Source: Online Discovery catalogue
Reference: DD/SK/34/3
Description:
Deed Poll, Quitclaim:

(1) Richard Damper of Notchekelsay

(2) Richard de Strelley of Wodeborough

(1) to (2) claim to land and buildings with rents and services, once held by John de Waldeschef a relative of (1), in Oxton and Epperstone.

Warranty clause.

Witnesses:- Lord Ralph de Cromwell, jnr.; John of Louda(m); Robert of Strelley, knts.; John of Sutton, Lord of Averham; Robert of Calverton, Nicholas Bernak, Adam of the Crouche, John of Saltesleby, William of le Rodes and others.

Tag and seal.

Parch., Latin.
Date: 7 Dec 1348
Held by: Nottinghamshire Archives, not available at The National Archives

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Hello John,
The William la Zouche, brother of Alan, married Maude Hobridge by whom he had a daughter Joyce who married de Mortimer and the line became Zouche de Mortimer.
Which begs the question again of where the Lubbesthorpe line fits. I still hold to the opinion that Eudo la Zouche, brother of Alan, married first an unknown and then Millicent Montalto. I know that Douglas found a document which places de Quinci property with Eudo but remain unconvinced.
Pat

[John Watson]

On Friday, 30 June 2017 14:03:06 UTC+1, Patricia A. Junkin wrote:
> Hello John,

> The William la Zouche, brother of Alan, married Maude Hobridge by whom he had a daughter Joyce who married de Mortimer and the line became Zouche de Mortimer.
> Which begs the question again of where the Lubbesthorpe line fits. I still hold to the opinion that Eudo la Zouche, brother of Alan, married first an unknown and then Millicent Montalto. I know that Douglas found a document which places de Quinci property with Eudo but remain unconvinced.
> Pat

Dear Pat,

William la Zouche, brother of Alan had a daughter Joyce, AND a son named Roger who died in 1302.

The two documents below show that Roger's father was Sir William la Zouche: -

1289-1296. Charter of Milisent de Montealto, in her widowhood, enfeoffing Richard [recte Roger] la Zouche, son of Sir William la Zouche in her manor of Lubesthorp, rendering therefor to her and her heirs, on June 29 annually, a chaplet of roses to be placed on the head of the image of St. Peter in the church of Lubesthorp in her name. Witnesses : Roger la Zouche, Alan la Zouche, Robert Neyville, Alexander de Harecourt, Andrew de Estoleye, Peter son of Roger, John Fitz Peter, Henry de Notyngham, John de Folevyle, knights; master Henry de Brandeston, and Sirs (domini) Hugh de Brandeston, and John la Zouche.
Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of Rutland, vol. 4, Historical Manuscripts Commission (London, 1905), 10.

5 April 1302, Licence, in consideration of a fine made before John de Drokenesford, king's clerk, supplying the place of the treasurer, by Roger la Zousche, for the alienation in mortmain by him of a messuage, 30 acres of land, 4 acres of meadow, and 26s. 8d. of rent in Lubesthorp, and two cartloads of brushwood (busce) in his wood of Lubesthorpe, to a chaplain to celebrate divine service in the chapel of St. Peter there daily for the souls of the said Roger, William la Zousche, his father, and Eudo la Zousche and Milicent his wife, and all the faithful departed.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward I, vol. 4: 1301-1307 (1898), 27.

Regards,

John

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Dear John,
I agree that Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe’s (d. 1303) father was a William and that Millicent Montalto gave Lubbesthorpe to him in 1268. However, he is not to be confused with the brother of Alan la Zouche b. ca 1195 who married Elena de Quinci. Alan’s brother, William married Maud Howbridge. Roger la Zouche and Margaret Bisset had: Alan, William. Euro, Alice (m. Wm. Harcourt) and Lora (m. Gilbert Sanford.) You may want to refer to a lengthy discussion of the Lubbesthorpe line on this list some time ago. Millicent died ca. 1299 when her son William was 22.
Pat

[John Watson]

Dear Pat,

Now that I have had tome to look more closely into the chronology, I accept that Sir William la Zouche, brother of Alan and Eon married Maud de Howbridge, daughter and coheir of William de Howbridge (d. 1218) of Howbridge, Essex and his wife Agnes Picot. Maud was married firstly to William de Pitchford, who died before July 1240, secondly to John de Trailly, who died before July 1242 and thirdly about 1242-3, to Sir William la Zouche. Sir William la Zouche died in late 1271 and the custody of his lands and heir, and the marriage of the heir were granted to Imbert de Montferrand on 2 January 1272. His heir was Joyce la Zouche who married Robert de Mortimer of Richard's Castle, probably about 1272-3, since her son and heir Hugh de Mortimer was born about 1274.

Maud de Howbridge pre-deceased her husband William la Zouche, and I had previously assumed that he married secondly a lady called Joan (I can't now figure out where I found this information) and they were the parents of Roger la Zouche who was later granted the manor of Lubbesthorpe by Milicent de Cauntelo, widow of Eon la Zouche. Round gives the date of this grant as 1289 to 1296, but that can't be right, because Roger was holding Lubbesthorpe at the time of Kirkby's Inquest in 1284-5. The grant should properly be dated between 1279 when Eon died and 1285.

If Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe was an adult in 1284-5, then he must have been born before 1264. Unfortunately we do not know when Maud de Howbridge died.

I am not all that clear on medieval inheritance laws and customs, but would the son of a second marriage inherit nothing and the daughter of a first marriage inherit all her father's lands? (e.g. King's Nympton, Devon).

Maybe if someone more knowledgeable could answer this question, it might clarify my assumption that Roger was the son of Sir William's second marriage.

Regards,

John

[taf]

On Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 8:13:00 AM UTC-7, John Watson wrote:

> I am not all that clear on medieval inheritance laws and customs, but would
> the son of a second marriage inherit nothing and the daughter of a first
> marriage inherit all her father's lands? (e.g. King's Nympton, Devon).

Any son, born to any marriage, would take precedence over a daughter. The only way Joyce could be an heiress with a paternal half-brother would be if she was heiress to Maud, and hence heiress to William with respect to any lands he held as widower of Maud. A son born to a second wife would still be heir to any other holdings of William.

About the only counter-intuitive quirk regarding half-siblings is that they would not be heirs of each other.

> Maybe if someone more knowledgeable could answer this question, it might
> clarify my assumption that Roger was the son of Sir William's second
> marriage.

If Joyce really was William's heir and not just Maud's, then William had no sons, and no other daughters (surviving).

taf

[John Watson]

Hi Todd,

Thank you for clarifying that.

So we are left with two possibilities: (a) that Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe was the illegitimate son of the Sir William la Zouche who married Maud de Howbridge, or (b) that he was the son of a different Sir William la Zouche.

I don't see any possible candidates for a second Sir William la Zouche in the right time frame, but I'll keep looking.

Regards,

John

[John Watson]

Correction:

"William de Howbridge (d. 1218) of Howbridge, Essex and his wife Agnes Picot." should read William de Howbridge (died before May 1238) of Howbridge, Essex and his wife Agnes Picot.

5 May 1238, The king has taken the homage of Roger of Huntingfield and William of Pitchford , who have two of the daughters and heiresses of William of Howbridge to wife, for the lands which the aforesaid William held of the king in chief and which fall to the aforesaid wives by inheritance, on condition that if Hilary, William’s third daughter, who is reputed to be at Campsey Ash in the religious habit, will come [to claim] her share of the aforesaid lands, Roger and William will render her rightful share to her without contention. Order to the sheriff of Cambridgeshire to take security from them for 50s. and [two] palfreys for this promise.
Calendar of Fine Rolls 22 Henry III, No. 20.

4 July 1240, Essex. Matilda, who was the wife of William of Pitchford, gives 1 m. for having a writ of ingress. Order to the sheriff of Essex etc.
Calendar of Fine Rolls 24 Henry III, No. 143.

24 December 1240, Hertfordshire. Matilda of Howbridge, Roger of Huntingfield and Joan, his wife, give 2 m. for having a precipe for summoning H. earl of Hereford from the county court of Hertfordshire before the justices at Newport Pagnell in the octaves of Hilary. Order to the sheriff of Hertfordshire etc.
Calendar of Fine Rolls 25 Henry III, No. 109.

Regards,

John

[taf]

On Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-7, John Watson wrote:

> So we are left with two possibilities: (a) that Roger la Zouche of
> Lubbesthorpe was the illegitimate son of the Sir William la Zouche
> who married Maud de Howbridge, or (b) that he was the son of a
> different Sir William la Zouche.
>
> I don't see any possible candidates for a second Sir William la
> Zouche in the right time frame, but I'll keep looking.

And in this we are retreading the path walked by Walter Lee Sheppard decades ago. In his article on Zouche of Lubbesthorpe (The American Genealogist, 49:1-12) he laid out as possibilities:

1) that Roger was younger legitimate son of William of Black Torrington (dubious chronology)
2) that Roger was illegitimate son of William of King's Nympton
3) that Roger was illegitimate son of William of Black Torrington
4) that Roger was son of an otherwise undocumented William, illegitimate son of one of the Zouche brothers (Alan, Eudes or William)
5) that Roger's father William represented some hypothetical more distant branch of the family

taf

[Patricia A. Junkin]

We simply cannot dismiss the fact that Eudo, son of Roger and Margaret was married before a marriage to Millicent. In either case, we cannot assume Eudo, brother of Alan had no children. If elder Eudo was born circa 1220, then there would have been ample time for him to have had a William adult in 1268.
The Black Torrington line was for William son of Alan and Eleana. He had a son, Almaric and possibly others. Alaric married a Thomasina.
There were two children by Joyce la Zouche and de Mortimer: William and Hugh. Hugh kept the de Mortimer name. If tracing land, when Alan la Zouche died in 1313, many of his properties went to the de Mortimer line.
Pat

[John Watson]

Thanks for that - I have not seen this article. I had considered some of these possiblities, but the main problem is that the father of Roger la Zouche is named in more than one contemporary document as a knight. William of King's Nympton is the Sir William la Zouche who married Maud de Howbridge so he must be the main contender for Roger's father. I have not seen any document showing that William la Zouche of Black Torrington was a knight, but that does not mean too much.

In order to be a knight he must have been holding a certain amount of land, either by inheritance, grant from someone or, marriage to an heiress. Land holdings are usually recorded somewhere and I have been through the Book of Fees and the Rotuli Hundredorum looking for likely suspects, but haven't come across anyone other than William of King's Nympton and William of Black Torrington, so I think that possibilities 4 and 5 can be ruled out.

Regards,
John

[Patricia Junkin]

John,
I have the Blaktorrington well fleshed out and that William is a knight. His son Almeric was born 1269, if I remember. Different generation than the William of Lubbesthorpe. We must look to the elder Eudo and the possibility there may have been a Cantilope connection.
So many lines are not researched. Who were Nicholas and Thomas at Baseford 1313 ca. I have just discovered another line in Sussex.
Pat

Sent from my iPhone

[John Watson]

Hi Pat,

I'm not sure about Nicholas, but Thomas la Zouche was one of the younger sons of William la Zouche of Harringworth and his wife Maud Lovel. Basford, Nottinghamshire was one of the manors brought by Milicent de Cantelowe to the Zouche of Harringworth family.

According to Thoroton, Thomas was holding Basford in 17 Edward II - 1323-4 (History of Nottinghamshire, ii, 227). Thomas died before March 1344 when William la Zouche granted Basford to Ralph de Cromwell and Avice his wife. (CPR, 1343-1345, 223).

Regards,

John

[John Watson]

On looking further into this, Thomas la Zouche was a younger son of Eon la Zouche and Milicent de Cauntelo. See Moore, Knights of Edward I, vol. 5, 225.

Regards,

John

[Patricia A. Junkin]

John.

it is doubtful that Philip is the son of Eudo and Millicent. From all records I have seen, they had William and three girls. There are simply too many unknown lines, to try and fit all the la Zouches in one line of the next. Eudo and Millicent were married by 1273 when Millicent’s brother George Cantilupo died leaving her as one of his heirs

Millicent was the wife of John de Montealto sometime before 1255 the time at which her father died. He had given property to Montalto with his daughter. Between 1255 and 1267 Montalto died. So let’s assume Millicent was between 16 and 18 when she married, she would have been born possibly 1237 and in her 40’s when she had her son and heir William.

All this begs the question of why Millicent is giving interests in Lubbesthorpe and Basford to other la Zouches. I remain open to children of Eudo by a first marriage. If as Douglas has suggested Eudo is indeed the son of Alan and elena de Quinci we might explain why in 1314, Philip la Zouche has interest in Brackley and Shalstone.

And, who is the John identified in the following:
In 1292, a suit took place between William de [Bosco}, plaintiff, and Peter Helewell and John la Zuche, defendants, concrning the manors of Thorp Ernauld, Brentingby, Bushby, Belgrave and Stretton and two knights fees in Great Peatling, Aylmerthorpe, Kyleby, and Croston co. Leiscester, and divers lands in Weston, Wibtoft &c. co. Warwick; Which ended in a settlement of the whole on William de Bois for life with the remainder to William Zuch and Maud his wife, and their heirs; remainder to the heirs of Maud; and then right heirs of William de Bois.

I think there must be more work on dating.
Pat

[John Watson]

On Sunday, 2 July 2017 21:57:11 UTC+1, Patricia A. Junkin wrote:
> John.
>
> it is doubtful that Philip is the son of Eudo and Millicent. From all records I have seen, they had William and three girls. There are simply too many unknown lines, to try and fit all the la Zouches in one line of the next. Eudo and Millicent were married by 1273 when Millicent’s brother George Cantilupo died leaving her as one of his heirs
>
> Millicent was the wife of John de Montealto sometime before 1255 the time at which her father died. He had given property to Montalto with his daughter. Between 1255 and 1267 Montalto died. So let’s assume Millicent was between 16 and 18 when she married, she would have been born possibly 1237 and in her 40’s when she had her son and heir William.
>
> All this begs the question of why Millicent is giving interests in Lubbesthorpe and Basford to other la Zouches. I remain open to children of Eudo by a first marriage. If as Douglas has suggested Eudo is indeed the son of Alan and elena de Quinci we might explain why in 1314, Philip la Zouche has interest in Brackley and Shalstone.
>
> And, who is the John identified in the following:
> In 1292, a suit took place between William de [Bosco}, plaintiff, and Peter Helewell and John la Zuche, defendants, concrning the manors of Thorp Ernauld, Brentingby, Bushby, Belgrave and Stretton and two knights fees in Great Peatling, Aylmerthorpe, Kyleby, and Croston co. Leiscester, and divers lands in Weston, Wibtoft &c. co. Warwick; Which ended in a settlement of the whole on William de Bois for life with the remainder to William Zuch and Maud his wife, and their heirs; remainder to the heirs of Maud; and then right heirs of William de Bois.
>
> I think there must be more work on dating.
> Pat
>

Hi Pat,

Philip? do you mean Thomas? The Thomas who was holding land in Basford was the son of Eon: -

5 June 1307, Master William de Bosco [Bois] acknowledges that he owes to Thomas son of Eudo la Zusche 100 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Northampton.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I, vol. 5: 1302-1307 (1908), 536.

12 March 1324, Pardon to Thomas la Zousche for acquiring for life without licence of Edward I, 5 messuages and 11 virgates of land in Baseford, co. Nottingham, from William la Zousche, who held them in chief as of the honour of Peverel, as appears by inquisition made by John de Bolingbrok, escheator in the counties of Leicester, Warwick, Nottingham, Derby and Lancaster; and grant that he may keep the same. By fine of 40s.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward II, vol. 4: 1321-1324 (1904), 393.

He had been holding this land during the reign of Edward I, so before 1307. Basford, Nottinghamshire was one of the manors held by Milicent de Countelo. Thomas had been granted the land by William son of Eon, who was Milicent's heir. It is quite obvious that Thomas was William's younger brother.

As for your other question regarding Thorpe Arnold, Leicestershire, etc. Are you sure that the date is 1292? Arnold de Bois IV died in 1277, leaving a son and heir John (younger brother of another Arnold). He died in 1295 and his brother and heir William enfeoffed Milicent de Mohaut of a moiety of his manors for Milicent to grant them to himself for life with remainder to Maud daughter of his sister Isabel by John, Lord Lovel, and her husband William la Zouche of Harringworth, Milicent's son. William de Bois died shortly before 6 March 1313, when Thorpe Arnold and the other manors came to Isabel de Bois and her husband William la Zouche of Harringworth.
See: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/northants/vol4/pp266-270

See also: Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/123/41, number 257.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_123_41.shtml#257

The John la Zouche involved in these transactions was most probably another son of Eon and Milicent. I believe he was a clergyman.

Philip was also probably a son of Eon and Milicent since he was in possession of Shalstone, Bedfordshire in 1301 and Shalstone was also one of the manors that Milicent brought to the Zouches.

Milicent's younger brother George was born in 1251, and Milicent may have been born in the late 1240's and married to John de Mohaut when she was very young. We don't know when Milicent and Eon were married because the death date of her first husband, John de Mohaut is unknown. The last record I have for him is in October 1265. Milicent may have been in her early 20's when she married Eon la Zouche.

Regards,
John

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 2:57:11 PM UTC-6, Patricia A. Junkin wrote:

< it is doubtful that Philip is the son of Eudo and Millicent. From all records < I have seen, they had William and three girls. There are simply too many
< unknown lines, to try and fit all the la Zouches in one line of the next. Eudo < and Millicent were married by 1273 when Millicent’s brother George Cantilupo
< died leaving her as one of his heirs

Sir Eon la Zouche and Milicent de Cantelowe were married before Easter term 1269 (date of lawsuit), and probably earlier than that date.

There was no surname Cantilupo. Cantilupo is simply the Latin form of the surname Cantelowe.

Milicent's husband's name was neither Eudo or Ivo [Latin forms] or Eudes or Ive. His later descendant who had the same given name was known as Eon la Zouche. John Watson has evidently decided to call Milicent's husband, Eon. That's fine with me.

< Millicent was the wife of John de Montealto sometime before 1255 the time at
< which her father died. He had given property to Montalto with his daughter.
< Between 1255 and 1267 Montalto died.

Milicent de Cantelowe's first husband, John de Mohaut, died in 1258. See my post on the matter in the archives.

<So let’s assume Millicent was between 16 and 18 when she married, she would
< have been born possibly 1237 and in her 40’s when she had her son and heir
< William.

William la Zouche was born in 1276, when his mother was probably in her late 30's.

< All this begs the question of why Millicent is giving interests in
< Lubbesthorpe and Basford to other la Zouches. I remain open to children of
< Eudo by a first marriage.

We know that Milicent de Cantelowe granted her husband's nephew, Roger la Zouche, the manor of Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire, which was part of her own inheritance. Roger was not the son of Sir Eon la Zouche by an unknown first marriage as you suggest. Rather, Roger was the son of Sir Eon la Zouche's known brother, Sir William la Zouche, who died in 1272, by his 2nd wife, Joan. There is no question that Roger's father's name was William.

Roger la Zouche was not his father's heir, however, as he had an older half-brother, William la Zouche, who survived their father. The younger William la Zouche dying without issue, the family estates went to Roger's half-sister, Joyce la Zouche, wife of Nicholas de Whelton and Robert de Mortimer.

For evidence that Joyce had a full brother named William la Zouche, see the following Common Pleas lawsuit which sets it all out:

Court of Common Pleas, CP40/115, image 300d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no115/aCP40no115fronts/IMG_0300.htm).

This lawsuit, by the way, corrects Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 263–264 (sub Mortimer), which treats Joyce la Zouche as the direct heir of her father. The lawsuit cited above indicates that Joyce's full brother, William la Zouche, was the heir of their father and that when he died without issue, Joyce was her brother's heir. My impression is that the two William la Zouche's died within a matter of days of each other and that the younger William died before he had seisin of his father's lands.

Moreover, Roger la Zouche, of Lubbesthorpe, being an heir of the half-blood, he would have been automatically excluded from inheriting any of the family estates. The law concerning the exclusion of heirs of the half blood from inheritance has been discussed here on the newsgroup many times.

< If as Douglas has suggested Eudo is indeed the son of Alan and elena de Quinci < we might explain why in 1314, Philip la Zouche has interest in Brackley and
< Shalstone.

Sometime in the past, I considered the possibility that Sir Eon la Zouche (husband of Milicent de Cantelowe) was the son of Sir Alan la Zouche [died 1270], by his wife, Ellen de Quincy. However, upon careful review of all of the evidence and the chronology, I came to the firm conclusion that Sir Eon la Zouche was Sir Alan's known brother of that name. This is the same position that Complete Peerage adopted.

For extensive material on the Zouche, Cantelowe, and Mortimer families, please see my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), available for purchase on Amazon or Ebay.

< I think there must be more work on dating.
< Pat

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Dear Douglas,
I will follow your pattern and intersperse my comments. I do find your conclusions a bit confusing.

> On Jul 2, 2017, at 9:28 PM, Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 2:57:11 PM UTC-6, Patricia A. Junkin wrote:
>
> < it is doubtful that Philip is the son of Eudo and Millicent. From all records < I have seen, they had William and three girls. There are simply too many
> < unknown lines, to try and fit all the la Zouches in one line of the next. Eudo < and Millicent were married by 1273 when Millicent’s brother George Cantilupo
> < died leaving her as one of his heirs
>

> Sir Eon la Zouche and Millicent de Cantelowe were married before Easter term 1269 (date of lawsuit), and probably earlier than that date.
What lawsuit do you cite? I have no great issue with the marriage date, since I know they were married before 1273.

>
> There was no surname Cantilupo. Cantilupo is simply the Latin form of the surname Cantelowe.

I have noticed your attempt to conform the name to Cantelowe, however, should we go back father to William de Kalna? And to whom does “Registrum Thome de Cantilupo” refer? I think we accept that there are many variations in spelling that we must take into consideration.

>
> Milicent's husband's name was neither Eudo or Ivo [Latin forms] or Eudes or Ive. His later descendant who had the same given name was known as Eon la Zouche. John Watson has evidently decided to call Milicent's husband, Eon. That’s fine with me.

I cannot agree on this as so many references refer to him as Eudo or Eudes, as well as Ivo.

>
> < Millicent was the wife of John de Montealto sometime before 1255 the time at
> < which her father died. He had given property to Montalto with his daughter.
> < Between 1255 and 1267 Montalto died.
>
> Milicent de Cantelowe's first husband, John de Mohaut, died in 1258. See my post on the matter in the archives.

I will look at this.

>
> <So let’s assume Millicent was between 16 and 18 when she married, she would
> < have been born possibly 1237 and in her 40’s when she had her son and heir
> < William.
>
> William la Zouche was born in 1276, when his mother was probably in her late 30’s.

With this, I also have no problem. I thought more probably 40.

>
> < All this begs the question of why Millicent is giving interests in
> < Lubbesthorpe and Basford to other la Zouches.

> I remain open to children of Eudo by an earlier marriage.

>
> We know that Milicent de Cantelowe granted her husband's nephew, Roger la Zouche, the manor of Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire, which was part of her own inheritance. Roger was not the son of Sir Eon la Zouche by an unknown first marriage as you suggest. Rather, Roger was the son of Sir Eon la Zouche's known brother, Sir William la Zouche, who died in 1272, by his 2nd wife, Joan. There is no question that Roger’s father's name was William.

This is confusing. You seem to be saying that Eudo (Eon) had a brother, William. And, yes, the brother of Eudo, brother of alan had a brother William who married Maud Howbridge and Eudo who was the son of Alan and elena de Quinci had a brother William.

If we consider William, son of Roger and Margaret Biset, you seem to be making the case for William and Maud Howbridge to have had a son, William who died without issue and that his half-brother, Roger was the son of William by another wife. I find no proof that the William in this scenario had a wife Joan. there is some evidence that Roger of Lubbesthorpe’s father William was still alive in 1302.

>
> Roger la Zouche was not his father's heir, however, as he had an older half-brother, William la Zouche, who survived their father. The younger William la Zouche dying without issue, the family estates went to Roger's half-sister, Joyce la Zouche, wife of Nicholas de Whelton and Robert de Mortimer.
>
> For evidence that Joyce had a full brother named William la Zouche, see the following Common Pleas lawsuit which sets it all out:
>
> Court of Common Pleas, CP40/115, image 300d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no115/aCP40no115fronts/IMG_0300.htm).

It will take me a while to decipher this document but thank you.

>
> This lawsuit, by the way, corrects Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 263–264 (sub Mortimer), which treats Joyce la Zouche as the direct heir of her father. The lawsuit cited above indicates that Joyce's full brother, William la Zouche, was the heir of their father and that when he died without issue, Joyce was her brother's heir. My impression is that the two William la Zouche's died within a matter of days of each other and that the younger William died before he had seisin of his father's lands.
>
> Moreover, Roger la Zouche, of Lubbesthorpe, being an heir of the half-blood, he would have been automatically excluded from inheriting any of the family estates. The law concerning the exclusion of heirs of the half blood from inheritance has been discussed here on the newsgroup many times.
>
> < If as Douglas has suggested Eudo is indeed the son of Alan and elena de Quinci < we might explain why in 1314, Philip la Zouche has interest in Brackley and
> < Shalstone.
>
> Sometime in the past, I considered the possibility that Sir Eon la Zouche (husband of Milicent de Cantelowe) was the son of Sir Alan la Zouche [died 1270], by his wife, Ellen de Quincy. However, upon careful review of all of the evidence and the chronology, I came to the firm conclusion that Sir Eon la Zouche was Sir Alan's known brother of that name. This is the same position that Complete Peerage adopted.

I agree with this and was an early advocate, if you look at the archives.

>
> For extensive material on the Zouche, Cantelowe, and Mortimer families, please see my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), available for purchase on Amazon or Ebay.
>
> < I think there must be more work on dating.
> < Pat
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Thank you for the discussion.
Pat

[John Watson]

Dear Douglas,

Thank you for clarifying a long-standing genealogical puzzle regarding the parentage of Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, which has caused a lot of head scratching over the years and for providing a link to the evidence. (Court of Common Pleas, Michaelmas term, 25 Edward III, CP 40/115, m. 139.)

Where people appear in Complete Peerage, I tend to use CP's form of their name, for consistency and to minimise misunderstanding. e.g. the husband of Millicent de Cauntelo is called Eon la Zouche in CP. Similarly CP gives his wife's family name as Cauntelo, not Cantelowe. There are no "correct" forms of medieval names, but we should try to be consistent.

Best regards,

John

[John Watson]

On Monday, 3 July 2017 09:53:47 UTC+1, John Watson wrote:

> Dear Douglas,
>
> Thank you for clarifying a long-standing genealogical puzzle regarding the parentage of Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, which has caused a lot of head scratching over the years and for providing a link to the evidence. (Court of Common Pleas, Michaelmas term, 25 Edward III, CP 40/115, m. 139.)
>
> Where people appear in Complete Peerage, I tend to use CP's form of their name, for consistency and to minimise misunderstanding. e.g. the husband of Millicent de Cauntelo is called Eon la Zouche in CP. Similarly CP gives his wife's family name as Cauntelo, not Cantelowe. There are no "correct" forms of medieval names, but we should try to be consistent.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John

Here is a translation of the Common Pleas lawsuit which shows that Joyce, daughter of William la Zouche of Harringworth, and mother of Hugh de Mortimer, had a brother named William who was the heir of William la Zouche her father: -
1295, Michaelmas term, 24 Edward III, Northampton. Hugh de Mortimer sued Felicia formerly wife of Philip de Monte Gomery for two parts of the manor of Whelton, by a writ of right, which John Wake the capital landlord remitted to the King's Court, and he pleaded that one William his ancestor was seised of the tenements in demesne in the time of King Henry the King's father, and from William the right descended to another William as son and heir, and from this William who died s.p. to Jocosa his sister and heir, and from Jocosa to Hugh the plaintiff as son and heir. Felicia denied the seisin of the original ancestor, and appealed to a great assize, and a day is given to the parties at three weeks from Easter.
Court of Common Pleas, Michaelmas term, 24 Edward III, CP 40/115, m. 139.

Regards,

John

[John Watson]

Now this entry in the Patent Rolls makes more sense. It was William the son of William la Zouche who was unmarried at the time of his father's death in late 1271, not Joyce.

2 January 1272, Grant to Imbert de Muntferrant of that which pertains to the king of the wardship of the lands of William la Zuche, who held in chief, to hold to him or his assigns with the marriage of the heir.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry III, vol. 6: 1266-1272 (1913), 614.

Regards,
John

[John Watson]

On Monday, 3 July 2017 10:52:04 UTC+1, John Watson wrote:

A translated report of the subsequent case in the Court of Common Pleas in 1299, Easter term, 27 Edward I, (CP 40/127, m. 131.) which gives the same pedigree, can be seen online here:
Collections for a History of Staffordshire, vol. 7, The William Salt Archaeological Society (1886) 53.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/staffs-hist-collection/vol7/pt1/pp50-65

Regards,

John

[Patricia A. Junkin]

John,
Sorry about that. Was thinking of Phillip de la Zouche of Shalstone.

So let’s re-examine what we think we know. you have brought a good point. If in 1307, Thomas is called the son of Eudo la Zouche and is collecting payment from Master William de Bosco, we have a conundrum. It was Eudo’s son by Millicent, William la Zouche who married Maud Lovell that has a connection to the de Boscos. Maud Lovell’s mother was Isabel de Bosco.

Millicent Cantaloupe was married to John de Montaldt before 1255. You will also find that she keeps the Montaldt name in most records. We do not know when John dies but you say you have a record of him in 1268.

By 1273, Eudo and Millicent are married, reflected in IPM of George Cantilupe. William la Zouche, her heir born about 1276. In 1279 Eudo and Millicent receive protection for two years in Ireland. I believe Eudo died sometime prior to 1285.

1283 Assignment to Eleanor, the king’s mother, in lieu of the fees of Richemund, of 14 1/2 knight’s fees and one sixth of a knight’s fee of the honor of Peverell in Loudon in the counties of Essex and Hertford to wit:- Of Milisent de Cantilupo, in Basseford (Basford) 1/4.[1][1] CPR. Edw. I. Vol. 2. 1281-92. p. 87.

In 1285 Millicent conveyed properties in Wiltshire to her daughters, Eve and Elizabeth. Brigmerston and Milston (Wilts.) came to Maurice (III) Lord Berkeley in 1289 with his wife Eve la Zouche.

In 1292, there was a suit between John de la Zouche and William de Bosco , concerning the manors of Thorp Ernauld, Brentingby, Bushby, Belgrave and Stretton and two knights fees in Great Peatling, Aylmerthorpe, Kyleby, and Croston co. Leicester, and divers lands in Weston, Wibtoft &c. co. Warwick; which ended in a settlement of the whole on William de Bois for life with the remainder to William Zuch and Maud his wife, and their heirs; remainder to the heirs of Maud; and then right heirs of William de Bois. [Dugdale] p. 366 H&AL. p.366. Lic. for Wm, de Bosco to enfeoff Millicent de Montealto of Manors of Thorp-Ernaud, Leic., Wesson, Warw., Bromfeld and Hoghton, Northants., Ebrighton and Farnecote, Glou., Tubbeneye and Stanelak, Oxon., and Esyngton, Suff., she to regrant a moiety thereof to said William for life, remainder to her s. Wm. la Z. and w. Matilda and heirs corp., and finally to right heirs of Matilda, 15 Feb. 1296 (P.R.). I believe this is in preparation for the marriage of Maud Lovell to her son, William.

1299 IPM of Millicent, there is no mention of a Thomas. Her heir is her son William, aged 22 (b. 1276-7). If Thomas was the son of Eudo, then he must have been from another marriage.

1316. Nottingham. Baseford (Basford) respondet pro villa integra: Nicholaus de la Zouche and Johannes de Orreby.[1][1] Inquisitions and Assessments Related to Feudal Aids. Vol. IV. London. HMSO. 1899. p.110

1324 Mar. 12. Pardon to Thomas la Zouche for acquiring for life without license of Edward I, 5 messuages and 11 virgates of land in Baseford (Basford), co. Nottingham, from William la Zousche, who held them in chief as of the honorof Peverell, as appears by inquisition made by John de Bolingbrok, escheator in the counties of Leicester, Warwick, Nottingham, Derby and Lancaster and grant that he may keep the same.[1] C 143/163/3 Thomas la Zousche to retain messuages and land in Basford acquired for life from William la Zousche. Notts.17 EDWARD II. [1] Lyte, H. C. Maxwell, CPR. Edw. II. Vol. 4, 1321-24. p. 393.

1328-9 Jan. 15. Notification by Wiliam la Zouche of Haringworthe that he has inspected and confirmed the charter of Milicent his mother to Roger son of William la Zouche for (de) the manor of Lubesthorp, as follows: 1289-96—Charter of Milicent de Montealto in her widowhood, enfeoffing Richard la Zouche son of Sir William la Zouche in her manor of Lubesthrop, rendering therefore to her and her heirs on June 29 annually, a chaplet of roses to be placed on the head of the image of St. Peter in the church of Lubesthorp in her name.Witnesses: Roger la Zouche, Alan la Zouche, Robert Neyville, Alexander de Harcourt, Andrew Estoleye, Peter son of Roger Fitz Peter, Henry de Notyngham, John de Folevyle, knights; master Henry de Braudeston and Sirs (domini) Hugh de Brandeston and John la Zouche. Witnesses to Inspeximus: Robert Burdet, William Moton the younger, Robert Champayn, Nicholas Charneyl, Ralph Malure, knights and (3others). Lubesthorp. Sunday after St. Hilaary. 2 Edw. III. Armorial: Zouche with a canton.[1] Manuscripts of His Graace the Duke of Rutland. P. 10

Pat

[John Watson]

Dear Pat and Douglas,

I have found a record which shows that Eon la Zouche and Millicent were married before Michaelmas term 1261. It references a previous plea, which must have taken place before then. So I would say that they were married by early 1261, if not before.

1261, Michaelmas, 45/46 Henry III. Leicester. Eudo la Zuche and Milisent his wife v. Anketill de Martivaus. steward of S. de Montfort, earl of Leicester, Walter de Wiltes and Peter de Baggewurth in a plea wherefore, since Eudo and Milisent lately, in the king's court at Canterbury, recovered against the said earl free power of giving and taking estover in a certain wood of Eudo and Milisent in Lubbestorp by an assize of novel disseisin before the justices at Leycester between the said Eudo and Milisent and the said earl there taken and by consideration of the said court, the said Anketil and the others impede Eudo and Milisent in carrying out this verdict. Anketil is attached by John le Franceys of Nouseley and Richard son of Reginald of the same.
Court of Common Pleas, KB 26/171 m. 19d.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044090392457;view=1up;seq=300

Best regards,

John

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Dear John,

This is quite a find and puts things in a very different perspective. I think that it is highly unlikely that Eudo and Millicent failed to have a male heir for the next some 15 years. We are missing something.

I know that they were not married in 1253 when Eudo had a grant of marriage from the King to Agatha de Ferrers. I believe the Agatha was the daughter of William de Ferrers who married Sybil Marshall and Margaret de Quinci, sister of Elena de Quinci Zouche.

1255 July 24. Mandate to Agnes de Vescy to deliver Agatha de Ferariis, her sister, who ws committed to her keeping by the queen and R. earl of Cornwall when the king was in Gascony, and who holds of the king inchief, and whose marriage the King granted to Eudo la Zuche, to Hugh son of Ralph de Mortuo Mari, to whom the said Hugh has transferred it. Lyte. CPR, Hen III, Vol. 4, 1247-58. p. 419.

1257 Eudo la Zuche with John de Langgetoft, Sir William Wylton, John parson of Uffinton witness a notification of suit by Robert son of William le Espicer son of Walter le Frankeleyn of Paddewrth vs. Henry le Abbe and Alice Lille of Radingg in mort d’ ancestor.[ Lyte. CPR. Hen. III, Vol. 4, 1247-58. p. 589.

1260, October: Pro Thoma Boterel.—Rex ad instanciam Eudonis la Zusche dedit Thome Boterel respectum de se milite faciendo donec a rege inde speciale receperit mandatum. Et mandatum est vicecomiti Salop' et Stafford' quod ipsum Thomam interim ad arma militaria capienda non distringat. Et, si quam ei fecerit districcionem occasione predicta, illam interim relaxet. Teste ut supra.[1] Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 11: 1259-1261 122-136

1262, 25 December ... the king is sending Alan la Zuche [s/o Roger and Margaret], justice of the forest on this side Trent, to the said march commands the justice [Orreby] to deliver the castles of Edward, the king's son, to wit, Chester, Beston and Shotwik, to Eudo la Zuche brother of the said Alan, without delay to keep in the name of the said Alan until his arrival. [Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1258-66, p.238: 47 Henry III - Part 1, m.19]

1265 After the Battle of Evesham: Nicholas de Chicel, servant of Eudo la Ruche received the Michaelmas rent of 6 1/2d. Was this not Nicholas de Charnels of Elmsthorpe whose family was a tenant of Ernald de Bois who in 1195 granted Elmsthorp to William Charnell.

1268 Millicent de Cantilupo de Montaldt grants William la Zouche, Lobesthorp. “service of third of knight's fee of the gift of Millicent de Montealto in 52 Hen III." This William must have reached maturity, therefore born circa 1245-50.

I work in timelines, so this indicates that Thomas, Nicholas and perhaps Philip could be sons of Eudo and Millicent, William of Lubbesthorpe seems to be born before we can establish a union between Eudo and Millicent but does not reject the theory that Eudo could have been married before Millicent. It does not explain why William of Harryngsworth in 1299 is Millicent’s heir and not other sons.

Thank you for shedding more light on our puzzle.
Pat

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:36:58 PM UTC-7, Patricia A. Junkin wrote:
> Dear John,
>
> This is quite a find and puts things in a very different perspective. I
> think that it is highly unlikely that Eudo and Millicent failed to have
> a male heir for the next some 15 years. We are missing something.
>

It is not quite as early as 1261. The abstractor of those records was sloppy in his assignment of volumes. He has a long grouping under the heading KB 26/171 then goes straight to /175, but if you look at the roll at AALT, not all of the entries in between are on 171. Starting in the middle of p. 179, they actually switch to /172 without it being labeled in the article. Then on p. 180, starting with the William Payn suit he does the same thing, moving to /173. Worse, he gets either really sloppy, or extremely selective, missing at least 4 Leics suits among the dorses and failing to record that that the 'Felicia' suit on p. 181 is found at 3d. The Zouche suit is KB 26/173 m. 19d.

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H3/KB26no173/bKB26no173dorses/IMG_0106.htm

If I am reading this right, it is Trinity term, 47 Hen III (1263).

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

Thanks for the new information. Much appreciated. I was virtually certain that Sir Eon la Zouche and Milicent de Cantelowe's marriage was earlier than the previous 1269 date that I recently located. I'd been looking for an earlier lawsuit. The new lawsuit you found confirms that they were in fact married by Michaelmas 1261. This date also fits well with Milicent having been widowed by her first husband, John de Mohaut, in 1258.

As to other possible children of Sir Eon's brother, Sir William la Zouche, the following two records may concern a possible widow, Maud, and a son, John, for William:

1. In 1273–4 William de Brochurst [Brockhurst] arraigned an assize of novel disseisin against Maud de la Zuche, etc., touching a tenement in Lurgashall, Sussex. Reference: Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 43 (1882): 486.

2. In 1274–5 Robert de Mortimer and his wife, Joyce [la Zouche], arraigned an assize of mort d’ancestor against John son of William la Zusche touching possessions in Petworth and Lurgashall, Sussex. Reference: Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 44 (1883): 212.

Theoretically John son of William la Zouche could be another half-brother of Joyce la Zouche, wife of Robert de Mortimer. Whatever the case, Joyce la Zouche was surely near related to John la Zouche.

I might add that Joyce's father, Sir William la Zouche [died 1272] presumably had property in Surrey or Sussex, as I note that he was Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex in 1261–3. Sheriffs almost always had property in the county in which they served as sheriff.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 5:34:33 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:The Zouche suit is KB 26/173 m. 19d.

>
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H3/KB26no173/bKB26no173dorses/IMG_0106.htm
>
> If I am reading this right, it is Trinity term, 47 Hen III (1263).
>
> taf

Taf ~

You're quite correct that the lawsuit for Sir Eon la Zouche and his wife, Milicent, is actually dated Trinity 1263, not Michaelmas 1261. Thanks for finding the original lawsuit and posting a weblink to it. Much appreciated.

[John Watson]

Hi Todd,

Thank you very much for the correction. That explains why I could not find the suit on A-ALT.

As Pat says, it's a bit odd that Eon and Millicent were married in 1263, but their eldest son and heir William was not born until December 1276.

Best regards,

John

[Douglas Richardson]

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 3:01:20 AM UTC-6, John Watson wrote:

> As Pat says, it's a bit odd that Eon and Millicent were married in 1263, but their eldest son and heir William was not born until December 1276.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John

You think it's a bit odd? Really? Ever hear of high infant mortality in the medieval period? Guess not.

Ever hear of King Edward I and his wife, Eleanor of Castile? They were married in 1254. They had 15 or 16 children. Their only surviving son, Edward, was born in 1284, 30 years after their marriage.

Young Edward was preceded by three older brothers, John, Henry, and Alphonse, all of whom died in childhood, and a veritable raft of older sisters, only five of whom survived.

Six children out of 15 or 16 children survived infancy in the royal nursery. Sounds rather normal to me. Or are we talking about your fantasy medieval period, where medieval infant mortality rates are the same as modern ones. Do you really want us to judge the medieval period using modern medical and family standards?

Sir Eon la Zouche and his wife, Milicent, were married in or before 1263. Their eldest surviving son, William, was born in 1276. This is absolutely normal. Nothing odd or a bit odd about it. Nothing at all.

[John Higgins]

Setting aside DR's florid (even Trump-ish) rhetoric about infant mortality, there's another - and simpler - possibility here. Perhaps the couple in question just had a string of daughters before their son William was born in 1276. Elder daughters might well have had no reason to be mentioned in the rather sparse selection of legal transactions that have been discussed here.

[Patricia A. Junkin]

All,

I think that the two years difference in the transcription is not significant to the fact that if Millicent and Eudo were married by 1260, it is improbable that they had no children for so many years and no male heir before 1276. This must be addressed.

The conclusion that Eudo and Millicent may have had several children before their son, William was born is subjective. We cannot know whether this was true. A further investigation into the ages of the three daughters would be helpful. Elizabeth (m. Nicholas de Poyntz b.c. 1278), Eleanor (received Bingley) and Eve. This is probably not precise but speaks to the ability of Millicent to suddenly have four successful pregnancies.

I am still a bit uncertain of your hypothesis concerning the Zouche de Mortimer line. You illustrate that Joyce had a brother William who died without heirs about the time of his father. And, I believe you are suggesting that Roger is a son by another marriage of William of Essex. John de Trailly died in 1235, leaving Maud Howbridge, his widow. She had married William la Zouche by 1242 when he is styled Lord of Quy. On William’s death in 1272, QUY reverted to Maud’s son by Trailly. I do not have a death date for Maud but think it unlikely she is the Maud mentioned in Sussex, since the Writ to sheriff of Essex: to enquire into the lands, heir etc of William la Zouche and Matilda his wife indicates they are both dead.

It would be helpful to know when Maud Howbridge died. Even if William la Zouche had married a second time, why would a son from that marriage not be entitled to an inheritance? I read the gift of Millicent to Roger, son of William in 1268 to be a gift on the birth of that son. We must back date, then to a William born in 1248 or before.

William of Essex was Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex in the 1260’s 1261 Commission for William la Zuche , Surrey and Sussex, to deliver the counties and castle of Gildford and mandate John de Wauton to deliver them.Re-comission of John de Wauton of Surrey and Sussex with Guilford Castle; as William la Zouche to whom the King gave the commission is ill, indicating that William had at sometime prior been the Sheriff. 1262-3 Hundred of Bullingfield XXIII- William la Zouche (Suche) the Sheriff, took , by Exchequer summons 40 s. from the vill of Buckfield (Cokkefeld) and did not quit the debtors.

I have found no possession in Surrey for William of Essex. That is not to say, there is none but the Zouches clearly held interest in Sussex.

In 12thc. Alan la Scuche and Alice de Belmeis his wife to William de Alta Ripa for homage and on remission to (a) of the right which (b) had in (a)’s woods (nemoribus) of Forsistnd’ (sic)[Forestside Sussex near Petworth , Nutborn and Stephan, West Sussex?] These Sussex properties were held by the Zouches of the de Percis and rights held by the male heirs of the Zouche line. 1264 Alan la Zouche had free warren in Nutborne,[Unknown A1] 48 Hen III (1264)and from the Testa de Nevel we learn Alan la Zouche held one fee in Nutborn of the Honor of Arundel. In the Inquisition held on the death of William la Zouche of Mortimer, it is stated that the Manor was held of Isabella, Queen of England as of the honor of Mohunt/Mahant by the service of the knights fee. 1275 IPM: Robert de Monte Alto: Nutburn, Wulbedingg [alias Wolbeddyng] and Merston. 3 fees held by Roger de Chuche [alias la Zuche]

It would seem several the descendants of Alan and Alice claimed rights in Petworth and surrounding areas. Almericic, son of William of Black Torrington had interest in Nutborn n 1316 and when Alan la Zouche died in 1313, he granted the William la Zouche of Mortimer line, his interests in this area of Sussex.
Alan la Zouche’s IPM:
Treve. The manor with the advowson of the chapel 12l. yearly in rent in ye, and the advowson of the church in Childyngton, held for lifee of the git and grant of William Poor of Swaveseye, chaplain bu fine levied in the kings court, with remainders to William la Zouche of Richard’s Castle and the heirs of his body, and to the right heirs of the said Alan. The manor of Treve with the advowson of the chapel are held of Henry de Percy in chief by service of 5 knights fees nd 12l rent in Nutburne and the advowson of the church of Childyngton are held in chief of Robert de Mount, Roger de Sumery and the heirs of Robert de Tatteshale by knight’s service.

William la Zouche of Blaketorinton would also have been of age to be the father of Roger to whom Millicent gave Lubbesthorpe. However, I remain open to a son of Eudo la Zuche born ca. 1200-10, brother of Alan. Consider that he would have been 50 or so years old when he married Millicent. Is it reasonable to think he had not married until that time?

Pat

[Chris Hampson]

The compromise between William la Zouche and Roger de Whelton relating to the manor of Whilton, made in 1267, certainly suggests that William had no male heir. CR, 1264-1268, p. 368

[Patricia A. Junkin]

I posted this yesterday but have not seen it, so thought I would repost to add my comments to this discussion.

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Does anyone have access to the Drax Chartulary? Apparently it is at the Bodleian but there is a microfilm at the West Yorkshire Archives Finding Number ZM10.
Thank you,
Pat

> On Jul 6, 2017, at 7:31 PM, Chris Hampson <cpha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The compromise between William la Zouche and Roger de Whelton relating to the manor of Whilton, made in 1267, certainly suggests that William had no male heir. CR, 1264-1268, p. 368
>

[Patricia A. Junkin]

A couple of comments regarding Eudo. I have just found a reference to Eudo severing as an attorney for Ascelina de Alnini (wife of Robert St. Amand) in 1239.

Drax Chartulary would enlighten us about a grant by Eudo witnessed by three Mahauts.

In 1276, an inquisition found that Eudo had not allowed access to Bingley for 30 years. Back dating would put this at 1246, before he married Millicent.This appears in the Hundred Rolls of Edward !. I would like to find that.

Pat

[Jan Wolfe]

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:33:58 AM UTC-4, Patricia A. Junkin wrote:
> A couple of comments regarding Eudo. I have just found a reference to Eudo severing as an attorney for Ascelina de Alnini (wife of Robert St. Amand) in 1239.
>

...
> Pat
...
In MCA, Douglas states that Alan la Zouche was born about 1217. If that date is correct and Eudo la Zouche was Alan's younger brother, wouldn't Eudo have been somewhat young to be serving as an attorney in 1239?

[Patricia Junkin]

Sorry about the typo. It is Albini. I cannot speak to Douglas' birthdate for Alan because, I have earlier dates for that generation. This reference to Eudo is
1239, probably born 1215. Until we have more information, we cannot conclude that he did not marry until his marriage to Millicent who was about 10 when she married Montelto.

Pat

Sent from my iPhone

[John Watson]

On Monday, 10 July 2017 16:33:58 UTC+1, Patricia Junkin wrote:
> A couple of comments regarding Eudo. I have just found a reference to Eudo severing as an attorney for Ascelina de Alnini (wife of Robert St. Amand) in 1239.
>
> Drax Chartulary would enlighten us about a grant by Eudo witnessed by three Mahauts.
>
> In 1276, an inquisition found that Eudo had not allowed access to Bingley for 30 years. Back dating would put this at 1246, before he married Millicent.This appears in the Hundred Rolls of Edward !. I would like to find that.
>
> Pat

Seek and ye shall find ...

24 April 1239, St. Bride, London. Bedfordshire, A month from Easter, 23 Henry III. Ralph de Sancto Amando and Ascelina his wife, by Ivo la Zuche, attorney of Ascelina, against Wymarca, Abbess of Aluestowe, by Morice le Porter, her attorney. Concerning this, that the Abbess should cause to be thrown down a certain hedge in Cotes and a dyke in Wilchamstede, which the said Abbess raised after that Robert son of Robert de Albaniaco, brother of Isabella de Houton', of Johanna de Albaniaco wife of Geoffrey de Bello Campo, and of the said Ascelina, whose heirs they are, was under age. They quitclaimed from themselves and the heirs of Ascelina to the Abbess and her successors, so far as belonged to them, all their right in the common of wood and pasture of Wilshamstede and Scratteye.
Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/1/17, number 10.
https://archive.org/stream/publicationsofbe06bedf#page/109/mode/1up

4 Edward I (1272-3), inquisition into lands held of the king, the jurors in Skyrack wapentake, Yorkshire, say that Eudo la Zuche and the archbishop of York have not permitted the ministers of the king access to Bingley for the last 30 years and to Otley for 4 years.
Rotuli Hundredorum, temp. Hen. III & Edw.I in Tur' Lond' vol. 1, Record Commission (1812), 105.
https://books.google.com/books?id=_BtDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA105#v=onepage&q&f=false

Regards,

John

[Jan Wolfe]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:56:15 AM UTC-4, John Watson wrote:
...

> Seek and ye shall find ...
>
> 24 April 1239, St. Bride, London. Bedfordshire, A month from Easter, 23 Henry III. Ralph de Sancto Amando and Ascelina his wife, by Ivo la Zuche, attorney of Ascelina, against Wymarca, Abbess of Aluestowe, by Morice le Porter, her attorney. Concerning this, that the Abbess should cause to be thrown down a certain hedge in Cotes and a dyke in Wilchamstede, which the said Abbess raised after that Robert son of Robert de Albaniaco, brother of Isabella de Houton', of Johanna de Albaniaco wife of Geoffrey de Bello Campo, and of the said Ascelina, whose heirs they are, was under age. They quitclaimed from themselves and the heirs of Ascelina to the Abbess and her successors, so far as belonged to them, all their right in the common of wood and pasture of Wilshamstede and Scratteye.
> Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/1/17, number 10.
> https://archive.org/stream/publicationsofbe06bedf#page/109/mode/1up

...

Here is the image on AALT, http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_1_16-18/IMG_0058.htm

[taf]

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:56:15 PM UTC-7, John Watson wrote:

> 4 Edward I (1272-3), inquisition into lands held of the king, the jurors in
> Skyrack wapentake, Yorkshire, say that Eudo la Zuche and the archbishop of
> York have not permitted the ministers of the king access to Bingley for the
> last 30 years and to Otley for 4 years.

This should probably not be interpreted as precisely 30 years. It could be employed here to represent nothing more precise than 'several decades'.

taf

[Patricia Junkin]

Thank you, John. I should have included those references. There is another document where Eudo grants his land with consent of his wife in Bingley. I am working on getting information from the Drax Cartulary. We know that Eudo had a son Thomas and must try to work out his birthdate.

Pat

Sent from my iPhone

[Patricia Junkin]

Even if it was only 20 years, it would be before his marriage to Millicent. He had interest in Bingley and Drax before he would have been granted the maritagium.

Pat

Sent from my iPhone

[John Watson]

Pat,

The inquisition post mortem of George de Cauntelo, shows that he was holding Bingley when he died on 18 October 1273. Millicent inherited the manor from him, so Eon la Zouche (in right of his wife) had only been holding the manor for a few weeks not 30 years, unless he had a prior grant from George.

Millicent granted the manor to her daughter Eleanor on 9 April 1285. On the same day she also granted property in Wiltshire to her other two daughters, Eve and Elizabeth: -

9 April 1285, Yorkshire, at Westminster, Quindene of Easter, 13 Edward I, Between Eleanor la Souche, querent, and Milisant de Monte Alto, deforciant, of the manor of Byngel' [Bingley]. Covenant. Eleanor's right as of Milisant’s gift. Eleanor and the heirs of her body to hold of Milisant and her heirs at a yearly rent during Milisant’s life of 40 marks of silver, a moiety at Michaelmas and a moiety at Easter; after Milisant’s death Eleanor and her heirs to be quit of that rent and to render 1d yearly to Milisant's heirs at Easter, doing also services to the chief lords, etc.
Milisant and her heirs to warrant. Reversion to Milisant and her heirs to hold of the chief lords, etc.
Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/267/62, number 13.

9 April 1285, Wiltshire, at Westminster, Quindene of Easter, 13 Edward I, Eve la Zuche, plaintiff, Millicent de Monte Alto, deforciant. Manors of Bricchemerestone [Brigmerston] and Mildestone [Milston]. Plaintiff and the heirs of her body to hold of deforciant, rendering yearly during the life of deforciant, £30 in moieties at Michaelmas and Easter. After the death of deforciant, plaintiff shall render yearly to the heirs of deforciant 1d. at Easter. (Warranty). Reversion to deforciant to hold of chief lords.
Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/252/25, number 30.

9 April 1285, Wiltshire, at Westminster, Quindene of Easter, 13 Edward I, Elizabeth de la Souche, plaintiff, Millicent de Monte Alto, deforciant. Manor of Rokeley [Rockley]. Plaintiff and the heirs of her body to hold of deforciant, rendering yearly during the life of deforciant £20 in moieties at Michaelmas and Easter. After the death of deforciant, plaintiff shall render yearly to the heirs of deforciant 1d. at Easter. (Warranty). Reversion to deforciant to hold of chief lords.
Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/252/25, number 31.

I'm guessing that all three girls were very young as they didn't marry until 1288-90.

Regards,

John

[Patricia Junkin]

Hi John,
I believe that Simon Montaldt held Bingley before the Cantelowes. And, Eudo had
Interest there before his marriage to Millicent. All other in this posts are what I have. I think clearly Eudo had interests for 30 or so years before the inquisition which predates his marriage to Millicent. Finding the original would help. We might also define what parts of Bingley the Cantalowes had.

Pat

Sent from my iPhone

[John Watson]

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 11:30:33 UTC+1, Patricia Junkin wrote:
> Hi John,
> I believe that Simon Montaldt held Bingley before the Cantelowes. And, Eudo had
> Interest there before his marriage to Millicent. All other in this posts are what I have. I think clearly Eudo had interests for 30 or so years before the inquisition which predates his marriage to Millicent. Finding the original would help. We might also define what parts of Bingley the Cantalowes had.
> Pat
>
> Sent from my iPhone

Hi Pat,

I just had a quick look through "West Yorkshire an Archaeological Survey to A.D. 1500," vol. 2, which has about 6 pages on medieval land holdings in and around Bingley. As in most places, the land holdings are quite complicated. The boundaries of the medieval manor of Bingley were not the same as the medieval parish of Bingley, so there were various other parcels of land within the parish which were not part of the manor. There were also other surrounding manors which may have been partly in the parish of Bingley. Knight's fees could also have different boundaries from the manor. It's far too complex to deal with here, but what I can say is that the Zouche family are not mentioned once (except Eon as husband of Millicent in a footnote).

Eon la Zouche (at some unknown date) gave land "of the fee of Bingley" to Drax priory, which is mentioned in the king's confirmation to Drax in 1311. See CPR, 1307-1313, p. 347. But without seeing the original Drax charter we can't tell if this was in his own right or on behalf of his wife.

Regards,

John

[Matt Tompkins]

I posted this about 11 hours ago by an email to the rootsweb list, but it hasn't appeared yet, so I'll post it again here on Google Groups:

>>> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:56:15 PM UTC-7, John Watson wrote:
>>> 4 Edward I (1272-3), inquisition into lands held of the king, the jurors in
>>> Skyrack wapentake, Yorkshire, say that Eudo la Zuche and the archbishop of
>>> York have not permitted the ministers of the king access to Bingley for the
>>> last 30 years and to Otley for 4 years.
>>

>> On Jul 11, 2017, at 11:50 AM, taf wrote:
>> This should probably not be interpreted as precisely 30 years. It could be employed here to represent nothing more precise than 'several decades'.
>> taf
>

>From: Patricia Junkin
>Sent: 11 July 2017 18:20
>Even if it was only 20 years, it would be before his marriage to Millicent. He had interest in Bingley and Drax before he would have been granted the maritagium.
>Pat
>

________________________
His interest was not in the manor of Bingley, however, but in legal jurisdictions which overlay the manor (or manors – in later years at least there were more than one). What the 1272-4 Hundred Rolls (vol. 1, p. 105) actually say, in translation, is:

‘The archbishop of York at Otley [and] Eon la Zuche at Bingley hold pleas of vee de naam.‘

‘The archbishop of York at Otley has had the sheriff’s tourn these past four years.’

‘Eon la Zuche and the archbishop of York have not permitted the king’s officials to enter Bingley these past thirty years nor Otley these past four years to perform their offices and Eon has held the sheriff’s tourn for the same period.’

Pleas of vee de naam were lawcourts where disputes over distraint of goods were determined. The sheriff’s tourn was the a lawcourt held in each hundred by the sheriff (a royal official). One of the questions put to the 1274 jurors was whether anyone was exercising legal jurisdictions, such as vee de naam and the sheriff’s tourn, which were normally exercised by the crown through its officials, and for how long.

So Eon had a legal jurisdiction, not a manor. The jurisdiction might have been appurtenant to a manor, but also might not – and if it were, it need not have been to a manor in Bingley.

Matt Tompkins

[John Watson]

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 11:30:33 UTC+1, Patricia Junkin wrote:

Dear Pat,

For the Mohaut family of Riddlesden in the parish of Bingley, see Early Yorkshire Families, p. 60.
https://books.google.com/books?id=VRfxelohUfoC&pg=PA60

Regards,

John

[Matt Tompkins]

>>> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:56:15 PM UTC-7, John Watson wrote:
>>> 4 Edward I (1272-3), inquisition into lands held of the king, the jurors
in
>>> Skyrack wapentake, Yorkshire, say that Eudo la Zuche and the archbishop
of
>>> York have not permitted the ministers of the king access to Bingley for
the
>>> last 30 years and to Otley for 4 years.
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2017, at 11:50 AM, taf <taf.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This should probably not be interpreted as precisely 30 years. It could
be employed here to represent nothing more precise than 'several decades'.
>> taf
>

>From: Patricia Junkin <paju...@bellsouth.net>
>Sent: 11 July 2017 18:20

>Even if it was only 20 years, it would be before his marriage to Millicent.
He had interest in Bingley and Drax before he would have been granted the
maritagium.
>Pat
>

________________________

His interest was not in the manor of Bingley, however, but in legal

jurisdictions which overlay the manor (or manors - in later years at least

there were more than one). What the 1272-4 Hundred Rolls (vol. 1, p. 105)
actually say, in translation, is:



'The archbishop of York at Otley [and] Eon la Zuche at Bingley hold pleas of
vee de naam.'



'The archbishop of York at Otley has had the sheriff's tourn these past four
years.'

'Eon la Zuche and the archbishop of York have not permitted the king's

officials to enter Bingley these past thirty years nor Otley these past four
years to perform their offices and Eon has held the sheriff's tourn for the
same period.'



Pleas of vee de naam were lawcourts where disputes over distraint of goods
were determined. The sheriff's tourn was the a lawcourt held in each
hundred by the sheriff (a royal official). One of the questions put to the
1274 jurors was whether anyone was exercising legal jurisdictions, such as
vee de naam and the sheriff's tourn, which were normally exercised by the
crown through its officials, and for how long.

Matt Tompkins

[Patricia Junkin]

Thanks Matt,
At the moment I am away from my documents but Eudo granted three "Rodes" in Bingley to Drax and one was "Emmmotrode", I think. I also read that he held tourn there. Another instrument by Eudo was witnessed by three Montaldts.

Pat

Sent from my iPhone