Yet Another Complete Peerage Correction: Aton-Conyers
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 1 (1910): 325-326 (sub Aton) has a good account of
the life and history of Sir William Aton, Lord Aton (died 1389). We
have previously seen that Complete Peerage erred in stating that
William de Aton's youngest daughter, Elizabeth, was the ancestress of
the Place family of Halnaby, Yorkshire. In truth, Elizabeth de Aton's
son, Sir William Playce, died without issue and the heir to her lands
was her son by her second marriage, Robert Conyers, Esquire.
The book, History and Antiquities of Durham, by Robert Surtees, vol. 3
(1823), pages 247–248 presents a well prepared pedigree of the Conyers
family. It shows that Sir John Conyers, of Sockburn, Durham, married
Elizabeth de Aton, widow of Sir William Playce, 3rd dau. and coheir of
William de Aton, the 2d Baron de Aton, by Isabel his wife, daughter of
Henry Percy. It further states that Elizabeth Conyers's inquisition
post mortem is dated "8 May, 14 Langley, 1419" and that her son,
Robert Conyers, had livery of her lands in 1420. 14 Langley would be
the 14th year of the ecclesiastical office of Bishop Langley.
Complete Peerage, 1: 326 states that Elizabeth Conyers died "shortly
before 8 May 1402, citing Durham Inquistions as its source. This is
surely the same document that Robert Surtees used in preparing his
Conyers pedigree. In this instance, Robert Surtees appears to have
correctly dated Elizabeth Conyers' inquisition as being in 1419.
Bishop Langley became Bishop of Durham in 1406. As such, the 14th
year of his office would fall in 1419-1420. The fact that Robert
Conyers had livery of his mother's lands in 1420 would also suggest
that his mother, Elizabeth, died shortly before 8 May 1419, not 8 May
1402.
For interest sake, the following American colonial immigrants descend
from Elizabeth (de Aton) (Playce) Conyers:
1. William Asfordby.
2. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.
3. Joseph Bolles.
4. Henry Corbin.
5. George Reade.
6. Diana & Grey Skipwith.
The descents down to these immigrants can be found in my forthcoming
book, Plantagenet Ancestry, which should be available for shipping
sometime in April 2004.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Rosie Bevan
suffering from an ingrown toenail?
Really Douglas, anyone who has spent time with inquisitions post mortem
would have realised that inquisitions were not always taken immediately
after death, especially when there was a long period of minority.
Apart from that, the great superiority in CP lies in its reliance on
predominantly primary evidence. If you thought your suspicions might be
correct, why didn't you check bishop Langley's registers instead of
subjecting the newsgroup to yet another false statement base on a faulty
assumption?
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 7:10 PM
Subject: Yet Another Complete Peerage Correction: Aton-Conyers
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage, 1 (1910): 325-326 (sub Aton) has a good account of
> the life and history of Sir William Aton, Lord Aton (died 1389). We
> have previously seen that Complete Peerage erred in stating that
> William de Aton's youngest daughter, Elizabeth, was the ancestress of
> the Place family of Halnaby, Yorkshire. In truth, Elizabeth de Aton's
> son, Sir William Playce, died without issue and the heir to her lands
> was her son by her second marriage, Robert Conyers, Esquire.
>
> The book, History and Antiquities of Durham, by Robert Surtees, vol. 3
> (1823), pages 247-248 presents a well prepared pedigree of the Conyers
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your cordial response.
The published Langley episcopal register contains no reference
whatsoever to Elizabeth (Aton) (Playce) Conyers, or to her
inquisition, or the assignment of her lands to her son, Robert
Conyers. As a matter of fact, I had already gone through the entire Langley
Register some time ago. The register does contain a transcript of
Elizabeth's son Robert Conyers' will dated and proved in 1431, and a
transcript of the 1432 dispensation for the marriage of his son,
Christopher Conyers, and Maud Eure. There is also a record of the
license dated 1433 for Christopher and Maud to marry at her father's
property, Witton Castle, Durham.
As such, it would seem that the answer to Elizabeth (Aton) (Playce)
Conyers' death date must be found elsewhere than where you kindly have
suggested. In this case, Complete Peerage cites as its source for the
death dates of Elizabeth Aton and her 2nd husband, Sir John Conyers,
the following records: Cursitor's Records, no. ii, ff.124, 140d.
These presumably are references to inquisitions taken at the time of
their repective deaths.
Checking Chris Phillips' website, I determined that there is a
Calendar of the Cursitor's Records for Durham published in several
Deputy Keeper Reports. Today I checked the 33rd Annual Report
published in 1872, which according to Chris contains the relevant part
of the calendar (1388-1437). By all indications, the calendar should
have contained the relevant references to Elizabeth (Aton) (Playce)
Conyers' inquisition and that of her 2nd husband.
Interestingly, I found no references to anything in the calendar for
Bishop Langley, which is the time period in which Robert Surtees
claimed these records were created. Rather, I found the following two
records in the part of the calendar for the previous Bishop of Durham
named Skirlaw:
pg. 49 Date: 8 Skirlaw. Elizabeth Conyers, widow of John Conyers: "To
have dower out of the lands &c., of her late husband.
pg. 50 Date: 14 Skirlaw. Robert Conyers, son and heir of John,
knight: "To have seisin of the lands, &c., of his said father held by
Elizabeth his widow in dower."
The date of the first document (8 Skirlaw) falls between 3 Apr. 1395
and 3 Apr. 1396, as Bishop Skirlaw's epicopacy is stated in the Report
as having commenced on 3 April 1388. Therefore, Complete Peerage
appears to be correct in stating that Sir John Conyers died in March
1396, which date falls within the date range for 8 Skirlaw. The above
record concerns the assignment of his wife's dower, not the
inquisition which may have followed his death.
The date of the second document (14 Skirlaw) falls between 3 April
1401 and 3 April 1402. This document records that Robert Conyers had
seisin of his father's lands which his mother previously held in
dower. This is surely the record to which Robert Surtees made
reference when he stated that Robert Conyers had seisin of his
mother's lands in 1420. In this instances, Surtees was only off by
18-19 years and it was Robert's father's lands which were involved,
not his mother's.
If I have correctly dated this document, it would appear that
Elizabeth (Aton) (Playce) Conyers must have died sometime between 3
April 1401 and 3 April 1402. This would appear to correct Complete
Peerage's statement that Elizabeth died shortly before 8 May 1402, as
that date would fall in 15 Skirlaw, not 14 Skirlaw. Indeed, Robert
Surtees states that Elizabeth's inquisition is dated 14 Langley, which
in this case I feel is surely a mistake for 14 Skirlaw. So, it
appears we still have a correction for Complete Peerage, albeit not as
major as Surtees would have us believe.
In closing, I wish to thank Chris Phillips for taking the time and
trouble to post the contents of the relevant Deputy Keeper Reports on
his website. His website continues to be an inspiration to all of us.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
rbe...@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<06b401c3fac2$6bbd18a0$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
Rosie Bevan
Thank you for your reply - I'm so pleased that I was able to guide you to
the correct year for Elizabeth Aton's death. Your thanks are acknowledged.
Incidentally, as you seem to be unaware of it, her will was published in
James Raine (ed.) 'Testamenta Eboracensia', part I (Surtees Society
Publication, v.4) p.294.
Douglas Richardson
In my post yesterday, I inadvertedly referred to Sir Christopher
Conyers' wife as Maud Eure. Her correct name is Margery Eure, not
Maud Eure. I guess I had the name, Maud, on the brain. I had just
looked at Margery's mother's will. The mother's name was Maud. My
apologies if I caused anyone a flutter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.04022...@posting.google.com>...
David Paul Meyer
Thank you for posting the information on the Conyers. This has been a very interesting thread.
I am particularly interested in the dispensation transcript in the Langley Episcopal Register for the marriage of Sir Christopher Conyers to Margery Eure, the daughter of William Eure of Witton Castle, Durham.
My work on the Conyers would indicate that Christopher had a second cousin, Robert Conyers, d. 1432, of Ormesby, Sneaton and Coatham who had a son, John Conyers, d. bef. 14 Jul 1438, that married Isabel Eure, the daughter of Ralph Eure.
Is there a relationship between William and Ralph Eure that would be the reason for the dispensation?
Thank you!
Yours truly,
David, on the central coast, California, USA
At 01:03 AM 02/26/2004 -0800, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>Dear Newsgroup ~
>
>In my post yesterday, I inadvertedly referred to Sir Christopher
>Conyers' wife as Maud Eure. Her correct name is Margery Eure, not
>Maud Eure.
<Snip>