Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Correction: Isabel de Purton, wife of Robert de Welles [died 1265] and William de Vescy, Lord Vescy
83 views
Skip to first unread message
celticp...@gmail.com
Nov 23, 2018, 6:01:21 AM11/23/18
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 12(2) (1959): 438 (sub Welles) includes an account of Robert de Welle, died 1265, ancestor of the later Lord Welles.
Regarding his widow, Isabel de Purton, Complete Peerage states that Isabel married (2nd) after 25 July 1266 and before 1269 William (de Vescy), Lord Vescy.
Isabel was still single in Michaelmas term 1266, when Walter son of Robert de Alford and Maud his wife sued Isabel de Welles in the Court of Common Pleas regarding custody of 100 acres of land in Welle, Lincolnshire, as Robert de Welles held this land of them by knight service. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, KB26/176, image 22f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H3/KB26no176/aKB26no176fronts/IMG_0022.htm).
In Michaelmas term 1268 John son of Thomas de Riggeby sued Isabel, widow of Robert de Welles, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding custody of the third part of one knight’s fee in Well Auford, Lincolnshire; Isabel came into court and stated she held the said third part in the name of dower by the dotation of the said Robert de Well and called to warranty William the minor son and heir of the said Robert who was in the custody of John de Vaux. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, KB26/195, image 1184f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H3/KB26no195/aKB26no195fronts/IMG_1184.htm).
Thus it would appear that Isabel de Purton married (2nd) William de Vescy, Lord Vescy, after Michaelmas term 1268 and before 1269.
I should note that the second lawsuit above dated 1268 specifically states that Robert de Welles' minor son and heir was named William, whereas Complete Peerage interposes another son, Philip, ahead of William. Philip was apparently named as Robert de Welles' heir in the Hundred Rolls of 1275 and 1276 (as stated by C.P.), but I have seen the term heir used in this period to mean a younger child of the deceased, not necessarily the eldest son and heir. In this case, Philip can not have been the eldest son of Robert de Welles as Complete Peerage notes he was still living in 1298, when he occurs as a brother of Adam de Welles, who by that date had succeeded William the first born son as heir of the Welles family.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage 12(2) (1959): 438 (sub Welles) includes an account of Robert de Welle, died 1265, ancestor of the later Lord Welles.
Regarding his widow, Isabel de Purton, Complete Peerage states that Isabel married (2nd) after 25 July 1266 and before 1269 William (de Vescy), Lord Vescy.
Isabel was still single in Michaelmas term 1266, when Walter son of Robert de Alford and Maud his wife sued Isabel de Welles in the Court of Common Pleas regarding custody of 100 acres of land in Welle, Lincolnshire, as Robert de Welles held this land of them by knight service. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, KB26/176, image 22f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H3/KB26no176/aKB26no176fronts/IMG_0022.htm).
In Michaelmas term 1268 John son of Thomas de Riggeby sued Isabel, widow of Robert de Welles, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding custody of the third part of one knight’s fee in Well Auford, Lincolnshire; Isabel came into court and stated she held the said third part in the name of dower by the dotation of the said Robert de Well and called to warranty William the minor son and heir of the said Robert who was in the custody of John de Vaux. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, KB26/195, image 1184f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H3/KB26no195/aKB26no195fronts/IMG_1184.htm).
Thus it would appear that Isabel de Purton married (2nd) William de Vescy, Lord Vescy, after Michaelmas term 1268 and before 1269.
I should note that the second lawsuit above dated 1268 specifically states that Robert de Welles' minor son and heir was named William, whereas Complete Peerage interposes another son, Philip, ahead of William. Philip was apparently named as Robert de Welles' heir in the Hundred Rolls of 1275 and 1276 (as stated by C.P.), but I have seen the term heir used in this period to mean a younger child of the deceased, not necessarily the eldest son and heir. In this case, Philip can not have been the eldest son of Robert de Welles as Complete Peerage notes he was still living in 1298, when he occurs as a brother of Adam de Welles, who by that date had succeeded William the first born son as heir of the Welles family.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
0 new messages