Robert Mortimer m. Isabel Howard
brad verity
>
>Could Sir Robert Mortimer of Essex been a son of Sir Hugh Mortimer "of
>Mortimer's Hall" (d. 1460) - the elder son and heir?
Turns out he wasn't - see below.
>It would explain the "Mortimer's Hall" reference in both otherwise
>unrelated Mortimer branches. Though we still don't know which county
>it was in.
"Mortimer's Hall" was apparently a mistake for "Divers lands and tenements
in Harwiche and Dovercourte [Essex] called 'Mortimers', worth 5l., held of
the said Earl [of Oxford]." See below.
Jim Weber replied on 15-Oct-2003:
"On another tack, I had contacted The Richard III Foundation, which
maintains a Battle of Bosworth Field website, showing that Sir Robert
Mortimer of Thorpe le Soken was slain at the battle."
The Foundation was quite correct. Robert Mortimer (he was not a knight),
according to his IPM, died "22 Aug., 1 Hen. VII". See below.
"Jo Ann Ricca also stated that, looking on the internet, she found his
father to be named David. I have seen this on the internet too, but I
have found no source given for where the name "David" came from, so
FWIW."
His father was indeed David Mortimer - see below.
"I have tried several variations of the name Mortimer on PRO and A2A
and have not come up with anything related to Thorpe le Soken. Thorpe
le Soken may not have been a large holding, and Robert may well have
been "of Mortimer's Hall" (possibly in Hampshire; or in Stratfield
Mortimer, Berkshire, just across the border from Hampshire?)."
No Mortimer's Hall for Robert - someone got confused and the mistake has
been picked up in several sources. Thorpe le Soken's association with these
Mortimers is described in 1486: "Manor of Landymer Hall in the parish of
Thorp within the soke of St. Paul's, London, worth 10l., held of the Dean of
St. Paul's, as of his said soke, by fealty and suit of court." See below.
Not sure what a 'soke' is.
And now the mystery of 'Who was Robert Mortimer, husband of Isabel Howard?'
is solved, thanks to the beauty of IPMs. He was the son and heir of David
Mortimer, esquire, and of Isabel (aka Elizabeth), daughter of Elizias
Doreward (aka Durward), of Martel Hall and Great Bramley, Essex.
Here are the IPMs of Robert Mortimer and his father David Mortimer, as
printed in the CIPMs for Henry VII (Volume 1):
"100. ROBERT MORTYMER.
Com. 17 July, 1 Hen. VII; inq. 31 Oct., 2 Hen. VII.
One Isabel Durward was seised in fee of the under-mentioned manors of Martel
Hall, and Great Brumley, and of 200a. land in Dovercorte, and intermarried
with David Mortymer, esq., and had issue by him the said Robert. David
Mortymer survives, and is seised of the said manors and lands, as tenant by
the curtesy, with reversion to the said Robert and his heirs.
The said Robert died 22 Aug., 1 Hen. VII [1485 - killed at Bosworth with his
father-in-law John Howard, Duke of Norfolk], seised of the under-mentioned
manor of Landymer Hall, and lands called 'Badons', 'Folton Hall,' and
'Panteryse' in fee. Elyzabeth Mortymer, aged 10 and more, is his daughter
and heir.
ESSEX. The reversion of the manor of Martel Hall in Ardele, within the
hundred of Tendryng, worth 24l., held of the King, as of the duchy of
Lancaster, by 1/8 of a knight's fee.
The reversion of a moiety of the manor of Great Brumley, worth 20l., held of
the Earl of Oxford, as of Hedingham Castle, by fealty and suit of court.
The reversion of 200a. land, wood, meadow, and pasture in Dovercorte, worth
5l., held of the Earl of Notingham [William Berkeley, co-heir to the Mowbray
inheritance along with John Howard, Duke of Norfolk], as of the manor of
Dovercorte.
A messuage, 300a. land, wood, meadow, and pasture, and 3s. rent in Tendryng
and Manytre, called 'Badons', worth 8 marks, held of the King in chief, by
service of 1/2 of a knight's fee.
Manor of Landymer Hall in the parish of Thorp within the soke of St. Paul's,
London, worth 10l., held of the Dean of St. Paul's, as of his said soke, by
fealty and suit of court.
A messuage, and 200a. land, wood, meadow, and pasture in the parish of
Ramsey, called 'Folton Hall,' worth 100s., tenure unknown.
A messuage, and 100a. land, wood, meadow, and pasture in the parish of
Dovercorte, called 'Panteryse,' worth 4 marks, held of the said Earl of
Notingham, as of his said manor, by fealty and suit of court.
C. Series II. Vol. 1 (104.)"
Since the manor of Landymer Hall (in the Thorpe le Soken parish), plus the
lands called 'Badons', 'Folton Hall' and 'Panteryse' were held by Robert
Mortimer himself, and Robert died before his father, these lands must have
been given to him by his parents, and/or his father-in-law John Howard,
probably at his marriage to Isabel, eldest daughter of Howard.
This IPM tells us Robert's mother 'Isabel Durward' died before 1486. Also,
that Elizabeth Mortimer was the only surviving child of Robert Mortimer and
Isabel Howard, and was born around 1476. Since none of these Hen. VII CIPM
abstracts mention dower, we cannot be certain that Isabel Howard died before
her husband Robert - perhaps the Close, Fine or Patent Rolls of the 1480s
can shed further light.
"1006. DAVID MORTYMER.
Writ 7 April, 9 Hen. VII; inq. 16 Oct., 10 Hen. VII.
At the time of his death he held by the curtesy of England the
under-mentioned manor of Martels, a moiety of the manor of Bramley, the
advowson of the church of Bramley, and lands in Harwiche and Dovercourte, in
right of Elizabeth his wife, daughter and heir of Elizias Doreward.
He was seised of the other moiety of Great Bramley manor called 'Morleys' in
fee, and being so seised enfeoffed John Squiore, clk., thereof in fee to the
use of himself, David, and his heirs; and being so seised the said John
enfeoffed William Pykenam, clk., John Reifford, or Reisford, and Henry Teye,
esqs., and William Breton and William Teye, 'gentilmen,' thereof to the same
use.
He died 30 March last [1494]. Elizabeth Gylford, aged 18 and more, wife of
George Gylford, and daughter of Robert Mortymere, esq., is his cousin and
heir.
ESSEX. Manor of Martels in Ardelegh, worth 20 marks, held of the King, as
of the duchy of Lancaster, service unknown.
A moiety of the manor of Great Bramley, with the advowson of the church of
Bramley, worth 20 marks, held of John, Earl of Oxford, service unknown.
Divers lands and tenements in Harwiche and Dovercourte called 'Mortemers,'
worth 5l., held of the said Earl, service unknown.
A moiety of the manor of Great Bramley, called 'Morleys,' worth 20 marks,
held of the said Earl, service unknown.
C. Series II. Vol. 10 942.) E. Series II. File 292. (4.)"
The HOP bio of Sir John Guildford, the only son of Elizabeth Mortimer and
her husband George Guildford of Hemsted, Kent, has him "born by 1508". The
above IPM tells us that his parents Elizabeth and George were married by
Oct. 1494, and that Elizabeth was born around 1476, which matches her age in
her father's IPM eight years previous.
As to who were the parents of David Mortimer, esquire (d. 1494), we still
don't know. But I'm guessing that his granddaughter Elizabeth's marriage to
George Guildford (which David must've had a hand in arranging), the younger
brother of Sir Edward Guildford, who was married "by 1496" [HOP - bio of Sir
Edward Guildford] to Eleanor West, granddaughter of Sir Hugh Mortimer of
Mortimer's Hall, Hampshire, still suggests a connection to that family.
David Mortimer marrying an heiress in Essex and having no lands of his own
strongly suggests he was a younger son. Perhaps he was a younger son of a
Mortimer from Mortimer's Hall in Hampshire - is Hampshire near Essex?
At any rate, it's great to have some of the blanks filled in.
Cheers, ------Brad
Jim Weber
<snip, for brevity>
>
> As to who were the parents of David Mortimer, esquire (d. 1494), we still
> don't know. But I'm guessing that his granddaughter Elizabeth's marriage to
> George Guildford (which David must've had a hand in arranging), the younger
> brother of Sir Edward Guildford, who was married "by 1496" [HOP - bio of Sir
> Edward Guildford] to Eleanor West, granddaughter of Sir Hugh Mortimer of
> Mortimer's Hall, Hampshire, still suggests a connection to that family.
>
> David Mortimer marrying an heiress in Essex and having no lands of his own
> strongly suggests he was a younger son. Perhaps he was a younger son of a
> Mortimer from Mortimer's Hall in Hampshire - is Hampshire near Essex?
>
> At any rate, it's great to have some of the blanks filled in.
>
> Cheers, ------Brad
GOOD WORK, Brad.
I must have been out when you originally posted this, and just saw it
now. It certainly goes a long way toward finally giving some
substance to Robert, namely his holdings and his parents.
I have wondered what "soke" means as well. It is associated with
quite a few towns/hamlets in England.
By the way Essex isn't very far from Kent, and CP:IX:255-6, states
that the Mortimers of Tedstone Wafer had ancestral Mortimer lands in
Cliffe near Rochester [which is also near Dover]. CP believes that
John Mortimer of Tedstone Wafer, the great grandfather of Hugh
Mortimer of Mortimer's Hall (d. May 1460), was residing in Cliffe
while he was carrying on legal action concerning Tedstone Wafer and
other lands.
Thanks,
Jim Weber
Jim Weber
> according to his IPM, died "22 Aug., 1 Hen. VII". See below.
>
BRAD,
Your post reminded me: When I visited my daughter at school recently,
I took the chance to visit her university library and looked up the
book you had mentioned in an earlier post: 'The Household Books of
John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, 1462-71, 1481-83', with an Introduction
by A. Crawford (Stroud, 1992).
I looked up every instance of Mortymer/Mortimer in the index of the
book, where he is referred to, early on, as "Master Mortymer" (at
least it appears to be Robert), and later on as "Robert Mortymer",
with no mention of an earlier/elder Mortymer. By the way, I think it
is curious that there is no mention of Robert's father or any other
Mortymer/Mortimer in the accounts.
I saw several recordings of a muster of men for John Howard, and in
each muster, Robert is recorded with an "xviii" after his name (most
other people named in the muster had no number, but a few others had a
similar but smaller number). I also saw monies being dispersed to him
in the amounts of "xviii d." and "viii d." for the upkeep of his men.
I assume that the "xviii" is the number of men that he was expected to
bring to the muster. Were these just local men mustered from his
estates, or were they knights (ie. did he hold land equivalent to 18
knights' fees)?
Having never examined any such records before, I had trouble
interpreting what I was reading.
Jim Weber
Brad Verity
> <snip>
Jim, I'm glad you found the post and that it was helpful to you.
> Your post reminded me: When I visited my daughter at school recently,
> I took the chance to visit her university library and looked up the
> book you had mentioned in an earlier post: 'The Household Books of
> John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, 1462-71, 1481-83', with an Introduction
> by A. Crawford (Stroud, 1992).
It's really good.
> I looked up every instance of Mortymer/Mortimer in the index of the
> book, where he is referred to, early on, as "Master Mortymer" (at
> least it appears to be Robert), and later on as "Robert Mortymer",
> with no mention of an earlier/elder Mortymer. By the way, I think it
> is curious that there is no mention of Robert's father or any other
> Mortymer/Mortimer in the accounts.
Dr. Crawford responded that she had no info on Robert Mortymer other
than what was in the Household Books and that he held lands in Essex.
I've asked David Mowbray to forward my post with the two IPMs to Dr.
Crawford. Hopefully she'll have some observations as to how they fit
into Howard's pre-marriage to his daughter. They seemed to have held
some land from the Earl of Oxford, who had married Howard's cousin
Elizabeth, the heiress to most of the Howard family lands, so maybe
Oxford helped arrange the Mortimer marriage to Howard's eldest
daughter.
> I saw several recordings of a muster of men for John Howard, and in
> each muster, Robert is recorded with an "xviii" after his name (most
> other people named in the muster had no number, but a few others had a
> similar but smaller number). I also saw monies being dispersed to him
> in the amounts of "xviii d." and "viii d." for the upkeep of his men.
>
> I assume that the "xviii" is the number of men that he was expected to
> bring to the muster. Were these just local men mustered from his
> estates, or were they knights (ie. did he hold land equivalent to 18
> knights' fees)?
As Robert Mortimer himself wasn't a knight, my guess would be that
these were men-at-arms (soldiers) that he was expected to provide from
his lands.
His lands as listed in his IPM would not seem to be the equivalent of
18 knights' fees by a long shot, but I am quite the non-expert when it
comes to details of feudal obligation.
> Having never examined any such records before, I had trouble
> interpreting what I was reading.
I don't know for sure either. Maybe someone else on the List is more
familiar?
Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad
Jim Weber
Brad,
It is amazing how some good information can lead to more. I was
scanning google, researching the Martel Hall mentioned in the IPM
above, and found a website for the Ardleigh, Essex area which gave
some history on Martells Hall (I have also seen it referred to as
Martell's Hall).
The website is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~melanie/martells.htm
It uses as a reference: Grubb, R.H.(1905) 'A few Notes on the parish
of Ardleigh in Essex and it's Neighbourhood' Colchester; Wiles & Son,
Trinity Printing Works.
The history starts with Martells Hall being given to Geoffrey de
Mandeville, Earl of Essex, with the Martel family being under-tenants
of the Hall at Ardleigh (Ardeley as it was named then), as well as a
similarly-named Martells Hall in Rivenhall, Essex.
The following (I think spotty) individual descent was given:
1. William Martell founded the priory of Snapes 1155
2. William, d. 1252, m. Felicia
3. Ralph, d. 1259
4. John, d. 1307
5. William Martel, Esq m. Alice dau. of Benedict de Cokefield
6. Thomas, d. 26 Jun 1424 (apparently s.p.)
-- descent of male heirs breaks here --
7. Elias Dorewood (nephew of William Martel) suc. to Martells Hall, d.
1426
8. Elizabeth, d. 1452, (became heir after brother William d. 1438 at
age 14; also had a sister Margaret) m. David Mortimer.
9. Robert Mortimer, d. 22 Aug 1485, (had a younger brother David).
10. Elizabeth Mortimer, aged 10 at father's death, m. George Gilford.
Elizabeth sold the Hall in 1528 to William Mannock, Esq. of Gifford's
Hall, near Stoke-by-Nayland, Suffolk.
Note: #7 Elias was presumably nephew of #5 William Martel because
William's sister m. Elias' father named Dorewood. I don't think
however that either Elias' mother or William would have been born
before 1307 (#4 John Martel's death date), so there is apparently a
missing generation or two there.
I have seen some information on a Doreward/Durward/Dorewood family of
Bocking, Essex which seems contemporary with Elias/Elizias
Dorewood/Doreward. I wonder if there is some connection between the
two families.
Anyway, the above seems to confirm your findings and provides a few
more pieces to the puzzle.
Jim Weber
David Mowbray
<snip>
>Dr. Crawford responded that she had no info on Robert Mortymer other
>than what was in the Household Books and that he held lands in Essex.
>I've asked David Mowbray to forward my post with the two IPMs to Dr.
your e-mail address so she could respond directly if she chooses.
David
>Crawford. Hopefully she'll have some observations as to how they fit
>into Howard's pre-marriage to his daughter. They seemed to have held
>some land from the Earl of Oxford, who had married Howard's cousin
>Elizabeth, the heiress to most of the Howard family lands, so maybe
>Oxford helped arrange the Mortimer marriage to Howard's eldest
>daughter.
--
David Mowbray |Mowbray One-Name Study (GOONS 986) |
Cheltenham, UK |Also need HERBERT(GLS)+ TANK(STS) |
e-mail: mowbray(at)one-name(dot)org
web: www.mowfam.freeserve.co.uk
Cristopher Nash
>7. Elias Dorewood (nephew of William Martel) suc. to Martells Hall, d.
>1426
>
>8. Elizabeth, d. 1452, (became heir after brother William d. 1438 at
>age 14; also had a sister Margaret) m. David Mortimer.
>
>9. Robert Mortimer, d. 22 Aug 1485, (had a younger brother David).
>
>10. Elizabeth Mortimer, aged 10 at father's death, m. George Gilford.
>Elizabeth sold the Hall in 1528 to William Mannock, Esq. of Gifford's
>Hall, near Stoke-by-Nayland, Suffolk.
>
>Note: #7 Elias was presumably nephew of #5 William Martel because
>William's sister m. Elias' father named Dorewood. I don't think
>however that either Elias' mother or William would have been born
>before 1307 (#4 John Martel's death date), so there is apparently a
>missing generation or two there.
>
>I have seen some information on a Doreward/Durward/Dorewood family of
>Bocking, Essex which seems contemporary with Elias/Elizias
>Dorewood/Doreward. I wonder if there is some connection between the
>two families.
Jim, any chance of hearing more about this info's source? Or would
you mean simply old Morant/Copinger on this group?
The corner of my curiosity you've piqued is re the ancs. of --
William Doreward/Durward of Bocking, Essex.
| Joane Doreward/Durward
| & Sir William OR Richard Waldegrave
| d. by 20 Jun 1453 (ca. 1438-39?)
| | Sir Thomas Waldegrave
Thanks!
Cris
--
Jim Weber
>
> Jim, any chance of hearing more about this info's source? Or would
> you mean simply old Morant/Copinger on this group?
>
> The corner of my curiosity you've piqued is re the ancs. of --
>
> William Doreward/Durward of Bocking, Essex.
> | Joane Doreward/Durward
> | & Sir William OR Richard Waldegrave
> | d. by 20 Jun 1453 (ca. 1438-39?)
> | | Sir Thomas Waldegrave
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cris
>
> --
I didn't have any source, but those (William & Joane) are the very
people I had in mind. Looking on PRO, I find quite a bit of
information under the name Doreward, particularly on William of
Bocking & his son John Doreward, so further analysis may lead to a
better picture of the family.
I did find a little gem about Elias though:
"C 139/91/21, Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Henry VI,
dated 17 Henry VI
Doreward, William, son and heir of the said Elias, son of Walter, son
of Anne, sister of Thomas Martell, esq: Essex"
So apparently the information on Martells Hall is a little off (I
thought it was spotty). Walter is an extra generation between Elias &
the Martel family. William is presumably the heir who died at age 14,
and the date of 17 Hen VI (1438/39) would fit with William's death
date given earlier in the Martells Hall account.
I am continuing my searches.
Jim Weber
An. Archer
Sir Thomas Waldegrave married Elizabeth Fray (bn abt 1440) dau of Sir John
Fray and Dame Agnes Fray. Thomas and Elizabeth had 7 children. One daughter,
Catherine (bn abt 1469, d 22Aug 1541) married George Mannock, son of Thomas
Mannock. The Mannocks spent a lot of money on the church at Melford,
including windows depicting Dame Agnes and 2 of her daughters.
Adrian F. Fray
"Cristopher Nash" <c...@windsong.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:a05100301bc07999a3d65@[195.102.200.117]...
Brad Verity
> I did find a little gem about Elias though:
>
> "C 139/91/21, Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Henry VI,
> dated 17 Henry VI
>
> Doreward, William, son and heir of the said Elias, son of Walter, son
> of Anne, sister of Thomas Martell, esq: Essex"
>
> So apparently the information on Martells Hall is a little off (I
> thought it was spotty). Walter is an extra generation between Elias &
> the Martel family. William is presumably the heir who died at age 14,
> and the date of 17 Hen VI (1438/39) would fit with William's death
> date given earlier in the Martells Hall account.
>
> I am continuing my searches.
Jim,
Congratulations on this and your previous posts on the Dorewoods - all
great research for Robert Mortimer's pedigree.
When I return to the UCLA Library after the New Year (it's closed
until then), I'll look through the Chancery Rolls, especially the Fine
Rolls, to try and verify the 1452 date for Elizabeth Doreward
Mortimer's death, plus get a more specific 1438/39 death date for her
brother William through the writ of diem clausit extremum, and verify
the 1426 death date for their father Elias.
Cheers and Happy Holidays, ----Brad
R. Battle
<snip>
> Joan apparently died sometime
> after 25 June 1474, when Joan Waldegrave, grandmother of William
> Waldegrave, was to provide property per his marriage agreement with
> Margery Wentworth (PRO E 210/1564).
She was probably the Joan Walgrave, of Suffolk, widow, whose IPM was dated
21 Edward IV (1481-2); I have not seen this.
-Robert Battle
R. Battle
<snip>
> William Doreward/Durward of Bocking, Essex.
> | Joane Doreward/Durward
> | & Sir William OR Richard Waldegrave
> | d. by 20 Jun 1453 (ca. 1438-39?)
> | | Sir Thomas Waldegrave
<snip>
The husband of Joan was Sir *Richard* Waldegrave (not William--as far as
I can tell, the only source that gives him that name is the Harleian Soc.
edition of the 1558 visitation of Essex). Joan apparently died sometime
after 25 June 1474, when Joan Waldegrave, grandmother of William
Waldegrave, was to provide property per his marriage agreement with
Margery Wentworth (PRO E 210/1564).
-Robert Battle
Cristopher Nash
>I am continuing my searches
-- good, and keep us in touch?!
>Robert Battle wrote --
> > William Doreward/Durward of Bocking, Essex.
>> | Joane Doreward/Durward
> > | & Sir William OR Richard Waldegrave
>> | d. by 20 Jun 1453 (ca. 1438-39?)
>> | | Sir Thomas Waldegrave
><snip>
>
>The husband of Joan was Sir *Richard* Waldegrave (not William--as far as
>I can tell, the only source that gives him that name is the Harleian Soc.
>edition of the 1558 visitation of Essex). Joan apparently died sometime
>after 25 June 1474, when Joan Waldegrave, grandmother of William
>Waldegrave, was to provide property per his marriage agreement with
>Margery Wentworth (PRO E 210/1564).
I appreciate this! Thanks to Nat I was aware of your smart work on this
line and it's partly owing to your (unknowing) confirmation of my
doubts that I've kept this individual's name 'split' in this way
('Sir William OR Richard Waldegrave'). I.e. setting Richard
alongside the traditional and widely recited 'William' (e.g. per
Morant, Copinger, the 1558 Essex Visitation and, more recently,
Clopton).
My hesitation, as you'll probably've guessed, stemmed from the
apparent chronological hitch, where Sir Richard (s. of Sir Richard
who d. 1402) is often given as d. (variously) on 2 Mar or 2 May 1434
or in 1435, while acc. to e.g. VCH-Northants ('Walgrave'), 218, in
1428 a Richard de Waldegrave 'senior', married to "Joan (Doreward",
settles Walgrave & Twywell on his s. Richard & Alice his wife in
1437-8. (I felt there'd possibly been a sibling-dog-leg in the Sir
Richard (d. 1402)-->?-->Sir Thomas sequence.) But I've not checked
VCH's cited sources (Feet of Fines Northants. 16 Hen VI, no. 81, &
Chanc Inq p m 32 Hen Vi, no. 36), and I'm sure you have! The origin
of the William-&-Joan Doreward story remains a mystery to me.
Cheers,
Cris
--
Brad Verity
> I did find a little gem about Elias though:
>
> "C 139/91/21, Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series I, Henry VI,
> dated 17 Henry VI
>
> Doreward, William, son and heir of the said Elias, son of Walter, son
> of Anne, sister of Thomas Martell, esq: Essex"
Jim,
Here is what I've found so far on Robert Mortimer's maternal family.
From Fine Rolls: "20 Oct. 1426, Westminster. Writ of diem clausit
extremum to the escheator in the county of Essex after the death of
Ellis Doreward, esquire."
This confirms the 1426 death date for Elias Doreward, Robert
Mortimer's maternal grandfather.
From Fine Rolls: "6 July 1439, Westminster. Order to the escheator in
the county of Essex to take the fealty of David Mortymer, who has
taken to wife Elizabeth the sister and heir of William Doreward, the
son and heir of Ellis Doreward the son of Walter the son of Anne the
sister of Thomas Martell esquire, who held of the king in chief, and
kinsman and heir of the said Thomas,--the said Ellis son of Walter,
and the said William, having each lately died a minor in the king's
ward,--and to cause the said David and Elizabeth to have full seisin
of all the lands which the said Thomas held of the king in chief or
was seised of in his demesne as of fee on the day of his death, the
same having been taken into the king's hand by the death of the said
Thomas and by reason of the minority of the said Ellis son of Walter;
as the king for 6s. 8d. paid in the hanaper has respited until
Midsummer next the homage due from David by reason of his having issue
by Elizabeth."
So, Elias Doreward was under 21 at his Oct. 1426 death, and his
daughter Elizabeth was married to David Mortimer by 1438. I wonder if
their issue born by July 1439 was Robert Mortimer.
It's interesting that David Mortimer married Elizabeth Doreward before
she succeeded to the Martell inheritance. If her brother William had
lived to have issue of his own she would not have been an heiress.
> So apparently the information on Martells Hall is a little off (I
> thought it was spotty). Walter is an extra generation between Elias &
> the Martel family. William is presumably the heir who died at age 14,
> and the date of 17 Hen VI (1438/39) would fit with William's death
> date given earlier in the Martells Hall account.
Yes to the above.
Cheers, ----Brad
Jim Weber
>
> Cheers, ----Brad
Brad,
So this confirms some of the information from the website,
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~melanie/martells.htm.
I have also found a few PRO-CAT entries which reflect on the
information from the website.
For clarity, I repeat below, my original descent for the Martel family
of Martells Hall in Ardleigh, based on the information in the above
website, with the PRO-CAT entries interspersed:
>
> The following (I think spotty) individual descent was given:
>
> 1. William Martell founded the priory of Snapes 1155
"E 40/3262 Grant by William Martel, Albreda his wife, and Geoffrey
Maretel, their son and heir, in frank almoin, to the abbot and
monastery of Colchester of their manor of Snape and Aldeburc, the
abbot and chapter of Colchester placing there a prior and monks
according to the possibility of the place under their obedience, who
shall pay them half a marc yearly, and say two masses weekly for the
grantors. (Twelfth century)"
"E 40/3430 Confirmation by Geoffrey Martel, to the monks of St.
Mary's, Snaps, in frank almoin, of Burnstaneshage that Randulf de
Beeling' gave that church when he took the monk's habit there.
Witnesses:- Roger and William Martel, Robert de Valaines, and others
(named). (Twelfth century.)"
So there was a son and heir Geoffrey at this point, who is omitted by
the account of the Martel family of Martells Hall.
>
> 2. William, d. 1252, m. Felicia
>
> 3. Ralph, d. 1259
"E 326/3464 Grant by John de Bovill, son of William de Bovill, of
Ardlegh, to Ralph son of Walter de Sancta Ositha, for 100s., of all
the lands, &c., that Robert del Hel formerly held of the said William
in Ardlegh, and the bodies of Richard son of Robert del Hel, and Alice
his sister, with their issue and chattels, paying to him 8s. yearly,
to the ward of Rouecestr' 4 3/4d., to the sheriff's aid 3d., and
towards 'Wardpani' [Wardpeny] 2d. Witnesses:- Hugh Grosso, Ralph
Martel, and others (named): [Essex.] [Henry III.]"
>
> 4. John, d. 1307
>
> 5. William Martel, Esq m. Alice dau. of Benedict de Cokefield
>
> 6. Thomas, d. 26 Jun 1424 (apparently s.p.)
>
> -- descent of male heirs breaks here --
>
> 7. Elias Dorewood (nephew of William Martel) suc. to Martells Hall, d.
> 1426
The information you provided above indicates that Elias, d. bef 20 Oct
1426 (as a minor without suc.), was son of Walter (d. a minor), who
was nephew of Thomas, being son of Thomas' sister Anne.
>
> 8. Elizabeth, d. 1452, (became heir after brother William d. 1438 at
> age 14; also had a sister Margaret) m. David Mortimer.
As you have indicated in the past, David is a name which would seem to
come from the West of England/Wales, perhaps of the Tedstone Wafer,
co. Hereford family. And, in marrying a daughter who was not an
heiress at the time, would appear to have no large holdings in his own
right, perhaps being a younger son.
On another note, I have searched PRO-CAT and A2A for the Doreward
family with various spelling variations, in an attempt to tie the
Doreward of Martells Hall to the Doreward family of Bocking. Most of
the references came out on PRO-CAT in the Essex area under the name
Doreward. I have included some of the more relevant:
C 143/315/5, 28 EDWARD III (1354/5) - "William Doreward of Bocking and
Alexander Hauekyn, clerk, to grant messuages, cottages, land, and rent
in Bocking and Stisted, and the reversions of a messuage and land
there now held for life by John son of William Chapeleyn and Alexander
de Brynkesle, chaplain, to the prior and convent of Christ Church,
Canterbury."
C 143/395/23, 3 RICHARD II (1379/80) - "Robert Rikdon and John
Doreward of Rivenhall to grant a messuage and garden in Coggeshall to
the abbot and convent of Coggeshall. Essex." [I thought this was
interesting because Rivenhall was one of the areas where the Martel
family of Ardleigh held property. The date would make John a probable
contemporary of Anne, sister of Thomas Martel, perhaps being her
husband or son? The reference to Coggeshall suggests a tie with the
Dorewards of Bocking, in that they held lands in Coggeshall, according
to the following records.]
No way of knowing if the above John is the same John as the one below.
C 143/398/12, 4 RICHARD II (1380/1) - "John son of William Doreward,
Robert Knecheboll, Richard Upston, parson of the church of Shimpling
(Suffolk), Robert Hykedy, parson of the church of Burrough Green
(Camb.), Thomas Howelot, and John Redhed to grant a messuage and land
in Burnham and GreatDunmow to the prior and convent of Dunmow,
retaining land in Bocking, Stisted, Great Dunmow, and Little Rayne."
E 326/8464, 2 Hen. IV (1400/1) - "Parties: John son of William
Doreward, steward of the duke of Youk in co. Essex & Thomas Flemyng.
Place or Subject: Acknowledgement for homage due from the manor of
Sutton: Essex."
C 143/438/12, 8 HENRY IV (1406/7) - "John Doreward, Esq., and Richard
fitz Nicol to grant the manor of Tendring (except the advowson of its
church) to the abbot and convent of St. John, Colchester, retaining a
messuage, land, and rent in Great Yeldham and Gosfield. Essex."
C 143/451/23, 33 HENRY VI (1453/4) - "John Doreward the elder, Esq.,
to grant the manor of Tendring, except the advowson of its church, and
rent in the manors of Hawkwell, Harryes, and Bradfords, in the
townships of Bocking, Coggeshall, Hawkwell, and Olivers [in Stanway]
to the provost and poor men dwelling in the Maison-Dieu of Bocking;
and to charge all his lands in the county not held in chief with rent
in favour of the chaplain of the chantry of St."
E 40/834, Coggeshale, 10 November, 11 Henry VII (1495). Twelve seals
or portions of seals - "Demise by Henry Wentworth, John Hevenyngham,
and John Paston, knts., Philip Calthorppe, Henry Teye, Thomas Sampson,
Robert Tyrell, Thomas Huntyngdon, John Brewode, Thomas Hevenyngham,
John Loveday, Richard Botry, clerk John Paycok, of Coggeshale, the
younger, and Thomas Maldon, of Sudbury, mercer, to Margery Doreward,
late wife of John Doreward, of Coggeshale manor with appurtenances,
two water mills called 'Poyntell' and 'Esterford' mills, and all the
property of her late husband, in execution of his will; with
remainders to Ralph Chamberleyn, of Kyngston, Camb."
C 1/549/35, 1518-1529 - "Robert, prior of Norwich, John Cleydon and
Thomas Dey, clerks, executors of Margery Hubert. v. William Norys,
clerk, William Lovell and Robert Curraunt, executors of John Edenham
(Ednam), clerk.: Money late of John Doreward, esquire, husband of the
said Margery, whose executors she and the said Edenham were."
C 1/195/47, 1486-1529 - "Sir William Capell, knight. v. John Edenham,
clerk, and Thomas Malden, of Sudbury, mercer, and James Hubert, the
King's Attorney.: Reversion of the manor and advowson of Hakwell on
the death of Margery, late the wife of John Doreward, esquire.:
Essex."
The above suggests a progression in the Dorewards of Bocking of:
William, [possibly another John], John, John m. Margery.
Finally, I don't know what to make of this last one. It is well after
David Mortimer died in 1494 (but in addition to Robert, David had a
son named David), and it references the Manor of Martel in Rivenhall,
which ties back to the John Doreward of Rivenhall in the PRO-CAT
mentioned above:
C 1/377/52, 1515-1518 - "..... [Mortimer] v. Davy Mortemare, esquire,
and John ....: The manor of Martils in Ruenhale late of William
Doreward, whose widow Elizabeth married complainant.: [Essex]."
Regards,
Jim Weber
Brad Verity
jimw...@nwintl.com (Jim Weber) wrote in message news:
> > 8. Elizabeth, d. 1452, (became heir after brother William d. 1438 at
> > age 14; also had a sister Margaret) m. David Mortimer.
> As you have indicated in the past, David is a name which would seem to
> come from the West of England/Wales, perhaps of the Tedstone Wafer,
> co. Hereford family. And, in marrying a daughter who was not an
> heiress at the time, would appear to have no large holdings in his own
> right, perhaps being a younger son.
I was unable to verify 1452 as the date of death for Elizabeth
Doreward Mortimer, Robert's mother - there was no writ of diem clausit
extremum issued for her in the Fine Rolls. Nor was I able to discover
anything further on David Mortimer's parentage.
But I did determine that Elizabeth had died by April 1467, through a
document that I was quite surprised to find identified her mother
(Robert Mortimer's maternal grandmother)!
From Fine Rolls: "6 April 1467. Order to the escheator in the county
of Suffolk to take the fealty of Robert Mortymer, kinsman and heir of
George House (to wit, the son of Elizabeth the daughter of Joan the
sister of Walter the father of the said George), and cause him to have
full seisin of all the lands which the said George held of the king in
chief or was seised of in his demesne as of fee or in fee tail on the
day of his death, as the king for 1/2 mark paid in the hanaper has
respited his homage until Easter next."
So Robert Mortimer was at least age 21 in 1467, but if the IPM for
George House still survives, which I haven't had a chance yet to
check, it may provide a more specific age for Robert, George's heir.
> Finally, I don't know what to make of this last one. It is well after
> David Mortimer died in 1494 (but in addition to Robert, David had a
> son named David), and it references the Manor of Martel in Rivenhall,
> which ties back to the John Doreward of Rivenhall in the PRO-CAT
> mentioned above:
>
> C 1/377/52, 1515-1518 - "..... [Mortimer] v. Davy Mortemare, esquire,
> and John ....: The manor of Martils in Ruenhale late of William
> Doreward, whose widow Elizabeth married complainant.: [Essex]."
I'm sorry I'm not any help with the other Dorewards of Essex, but this
last entry is very interesting, and I think you're right in that the
David Mortimer mentioned was probably the younger brother of Robert.
I wonder what Robert Mortimer did with the House inheritance in
Suffolk from his grandmother's family. It's curious there is no
Suffolk IPM for him in 1485 (or at least not one that survived). I'll
try and check if there was any writ to the escheator in Suffolk after
Robert's death.
Cheers, -----Brad
rosie bevan
From Brad's last message I have been able to take the research a few steps
further.
From the IPM of George House and Joan his wife, [Calendarium Inquisitionum
Post Mortem (Record Commission, 1828), vol 4 p. 334], it says that George
House, armiger, and Joan his wife were holding Ashfield Magna manor, and
messuages and lands in Ashfield Parva, Bardwell, Hunterston, and Walsham,
all in
Suffolk.
George was the son and heir of Walter House, armiger, who died in 1457. The
same land holdings as above are recorded in his inquisition, except the
various messuages and lands are described as 2 messuages, 2 carucates of
land, 20 acres of meadow, 40 acres of pasture, 200 acres of woods
[Calendarium Inquisitionum Post Mortem (Record Commission, 1828), vol 4 p.
277].
Walter was the son and heir of Thomas House, armiger, who died in 1418 and
whose IPM is published in the recent CIPM vol. XXI (to which I don't have
access). From the old Calendarium consulted above on p.33, however, as well
as the land holdings recorded above, he was in possession of tenements in
Essex which don't appear to have passed down the family, or at least are not
recorded later. They were in 'Fulton Bernes', Dovercourt and Tendring.
The manor of Ashfield is covered in W.A Copinger, 'Manors of Suffolk',
(London, 1905), vol. 1 p.256-259. Its descent can be traced from Robert le
Blund at Domesday, down via the Criketot family to a female heir called Joan
who was married to Richard de Pakenham. In 1379 the latter enfeoffed the
lands, with a remainder to John, son of Sir Richard Fyliol [Fillol,Filiol],
John de Rokewode, Roger de Wolfreston and John Rokele in fee. Richard
Pakenham died in 1383 and the manor passed to John Fylliol. He died seised
in 1390 when the manor passed in two moieties to his daughters, Joan, wife
of Thomas House and Anna who died in 1397 without issue as a minor [CIPM
XVII, no.1016]. Thomas House died seised of the whole estate in 1418.
consisting of Ashfield manor and its tenements in Ashfield Parva, Bardwell,
Hunterston and Walsham. It was inherited by his son and heir Walter House of
Thorpe, Essex, d.1457, and passed on to his son and heir George House,
d.1466. Robert Mortimer, recorded as next heir aged 24 (being great grandson
of Thomas House and Joan Filliol) was next heir. On his death the manor went
to his widow, Isabella, who died in 1507, and then it passed to Elizabeth
wife of George Guildeforde. Elizabeth was the next heir of Robert Mortimer
aged 28 years and more in 1507 as recorded in Isabel's inquisition [CIPM 2nd
series v.III, no.207].
The following is the full IPM for Isabel
"ISABEL MORTIMER, widow.
Writ 14 June 21 Henry VII; inquisition 10 November, 22 Henry VII.
On the day of her death she held the undermentioned manor and lands in her
demesne as of free tenement, to her and her assigns, for the term of her
life, by the demise and grant thereof made by Jamed Hubert, who was seised
thereof in fee, to Robert Mortymer and the said Isabel, then his wife, with
the king's licence; except the rooms, buildings, lands, and rents specified
below as being held in dower by Joan late the wife of George House,
deceased, by assignment of Thomas Playter, late escheator, by virtue of a
writ of Edward IV directed to him. By virtue of the said demise and grant
she and the said Robert were seised of the said manor & c (except as before
excepted) in their demesne as of free tenement, and on Robert's death she
was sole seised thereof by survivorship, with reversion expectant to the
said James Hubert and his heirs.
She died 7 July last. Elizabeth wife of George Guldeford, esquire, ages 28
years and more, is next heir of the said Robert Mortymer.
SUFFOLK. manor of Asshfield with its appurtenances in Great Asshfield, and 2
messuages, 200 (recte 2) carucates of land, 20 a. meadow, 40 a. pasture and
200a. wood, parcel of the said manor, in Little Asshefield, Badewell,
Hunterston and Walsham. The said manor of Great Asshefield is held of the
king in chief by service of one knight's fee, and is worth (apart from the
exceptions below) 53s. 8d. The premises in Little Asshefield & c are held of
the abbot of Bury St Edmunds, service unknown, and are worth (apart from the
exceptions below) 4l.
The lands assigned to Joan late the wife of george House are as follows:
In the manor of Asshefield, a parlour and a small buttery at the north end
of the parlour, and a sollar built over them, at the end of the messuage
within the moat of the manor; a tiled stable and a small chamber with a
sollar over it at the south end of the stable within the manor; the third
part of a 'shepcote' next 'le Chirche Grene' within the manor, to wit, 2 1/2
perches in length at the west end of the 'shepecote'; 160a. of land in a
close called 'le Parke feld' in the town of Asshfeld; closes of land called
'le Brookclos' 'Pollerdiswent' 'Wymblycloos' and and 'le Chirchcrofte' in
the same town; and a furlong called 'le Parkyatewent' in the same town.
4a. meadow in Hunterston abutting on land of the prior of Ixworth towards
the south; 5r. meadow in the same town abutting on the highway from Badwell
to Bury St Edmunds; 3 r. meadow in the same town abutting on the meadow of
John Asshefield, esquire, towards the south, and upon the meadow of John
Parker of Hunston towards the north; and 1a meadow and pasture lying in
Hunston aforesaid and abutting on land of the said John Asshefeld towards
the south.
18 a. enclosed wood called 'Talbottiswode' in Badwell.
14a wood in a close called 'Hursowode' in Asshefeld; 16 a wood in a close
called Dunnokyshawe' in Asshefeld; and 20 a. wood called 'le Barnelete' in
the great wode called 'Asshefeld Parke' on the east side of it, abutting on
the manor of Asshefeld towards the north and upon the close called 'Old
Appultons' towards the south.
A rent of 10s. 11d. from William Bekene and his heirs free tenants of the
said manor.
A rent of 7s. 5d. from Thomas Marsham and his heirs, free tenants of the
said manor.
A rent of 6s. 11d. from lands &c formerly Thomas Badwell's.
A rent of 2s. 10d. from the prior of Ixworth, free tenant of the manor
aforesaid, for lands of the same prior called 'Pakenham Hall'.
C. Series II, Vol 20 (16)"
This inquisition does not explicitly say that Isabel was mother of
Elizabeth, wife of George Guilford. The phrase "then his wife" could,
(though doesn't necessarily), mean that Robert Mortimer was married
previously. Also the statement regarding the heir does not say that Isabel
was Elizabeth's mother nor that Robert is Elizabeth's father, so this record
alone cannot be considered proof of such a relationship. Hopefully other
evidence exists to document it.
I hope this is of use.
Cheers
Rosie
Jim Weber
Great find Rosie. Once again you come through with the goods. This
begins to tie into an ever enlarging ancestry on David Moritmer's
maternal side. Does your Copinger book on the "Manors of Suffolk"
give the details of the Blund (Blount?)/Criketot/Pakenham descent?
And was there a marriage relationship between Richard Pakenham and
John Fylliol/Filiol (ie. Richard's daughter)?
I am quite curious about the James Hubert mentioned in Isabel
Mortimer's IPM below. I found several references to a James
Hubert/Hobard when I was looking through the Doreward entries on
PRO-CAT. He was apparently the 2nd husband of Margery, widow of John
Doreward/Durward. I had a couple of them in my post of a few days
ago, but I will include all three entries below:
C 1/371/63, undated - "John Wyngfeld, clerk v. John Edenham, clerk,
feoffee to uses.: The manor of Sturmere, late of John Durward.
(Annexed is an interpleader by Margery, wife of James Hobard, knight,
and formerly the wife of the said Durward.): Essex."
C 1/195/47, 1486-1529 - "Sir William Capell, knight. v. John Edenham,
clerk, and Thomas Malden, of Sudbury, mercer, and James Hubert, the
King's Attorney.: Reversion of the manor and advowson of Hakwell on
the death of Margery, late the wife of John Doreward, esquire.:
Essex."
C 1/549/35, 1518-1529 - "Robert, prior of Norwich, John Cleydon and
Thomas Dey, clerks, executors of Margery Hubert. v. William Norys,
clerk, William Lovell and Robert Curraunt, executors of John Edenham
(Ednam), clerk.: Money late of John Doreward, esquire, husband of the
said Margery, whose executors she and the said Edenham were."
He is called James Hubert or Hobard (maybe even Hobart? - BP,
106th/1999 edition has an entry for a James Hobart, d. 23 Feb 1516/7,
who was associated with Monks Eleigh & Leyham in Suffolk and
supposedly he married a Margery). Even if Margery's husband John
Doreward were the nearest relative of Elias Doreward (a great nephew,
etc.), I don't see how her 2nd husband or their offspring would
inherit, but there might be something there.
Regards,
Jim Weber
rbe...@paradise.net.nz (rosie bevan) wrote in message news:<015901c3da49$845c11c0$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
> Hi Brad and Jim
>
<snip>
>
> The following is the full IPM for Isabel
>
> "ISABEL MORTIMER, widow.
> Writ 14 June 21 Henry VII; inquisition 10 November, 22 Henry VII.
> On the day of her death she held the undermentioned manor and lands in her
> demesne as of free tenement, to her and her assigns, for the term of her
> life, by the demise and grant thereof made by Jamed Hubert, who was seised
> thereof in fee, to Robert Mortymer and the said Isabel, then his wife, with
> the king's licence; except the rooms, buildings, lands, and rents specified
> below as being held in dower by Joan late the wife of George House,
> deceased, by assignment of Thomas Playter, late escheator, by virtue of a
> writ of Edward IV directed to him. By virtue of the said demise and grant
> she and the said Robert were seised of the said manor & c (except as before
> excepted) in their demesne as of free tenement, and on Robert's death she
> was sole seised thereof by survivorship, with reversion expectant to the
> said James Hubert and his heirs.
>
<snip>
Brad Verity
You found the IPM of Isabel Mortimer, eldest daughter of the 1st Duke
of Norfolk! It is a tremendous help - thank you for posting it, and
for the information on the House family of Ashfield manor, Suffolk.
We've gone from not knowing anything about Robert Mortimer's ancestry
just two months ago, to filling in a large portion of his maternal
ancestry. We still don't know anything about David Mortimer's
ancestry, but with all we've found in the past two months, the book
may not be closed on that, either.
rbe...@paradise.net.nz (rosie bevan) wrote in message news:
[snip of all the great information]
> This inquisition does not explicitly say that Isabel was mother of
> Elizabeth, wife of George Guilford. The phrase "then his wife" could,
> (though doesn't necessarily), mean that Robert Mortimer was married
> previously. Also the statement regarding the heir does not say that Isabel
> was Elizabeth's mother nor that Robert is Elizabeth's father, so this record
> alone cannot be considered proof of such a relationship. Hopefully other
> evidence exists to document it.
From Robert Mortimer's Oct. 1485 IPM: "Elyzabeth Mortymer, aged 10 and
more, is his daughter and heir."
From David Mortimer's Oct. 1494 IPM: "Elizabeth Gylford, aged 18 and
more, wife of George Gylford, and daughter of Robert Mortymere, esq.,
is his cousin and heir."
So we know that Elizabeth Mortimer Guildford was definitely the
daughter of Robert Mortimer, and that she was born about 1475/6. She
was returned as 28 years and more in the Nov. 1506 IPM of Isabel
Mortimer, which works out to a birthdate of about 1478. Interesting
that as the years went on, she kept getting a year or two younger -
just like my mother.
From the 1466 IPM of George House, we know that Robert Mortimer was
returned as age 24, so born about 1442. Historian Anne Crawford, in
her Introduction to the Howard Household Books, surmises that during
the 1460s, Sir John Howard arranged the marriages of his four
daughters by his first wife. As Isabel was living at home with her
father in 1461, we can assume her marriage to Robert Mortimer took
place at some point after that. So there does not seem to have been
time for Robert Mortimer to have been married before Isabel.
Is the Isabel Mortimer who died in 1506 the same Isabel Howard? It
would seem so, for the odds of Robert taking another wife named Isabel
before his own death at Bosworth aged about 43 is not too good, plus
Dr. Crawford says that Robert "appears in the second set of [Howard]
memoranda on a number of occasions".
I think it's safe to say that Isabel Howard married about 1462-65,
Robert Mortimer, of Martel's Hall, Essex, who was born about 1442, and
was killed at Bosworth 22 Aug. 1485. She died before 14 June 1506 [21
Henry VII], leaving issue, one daughter.
> I hope this is of use.
Very much so.
Thanks and Cheers, -------Brad
Brad Verity
and Isabel Howard. She plans on writing a full biography of John
Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk, once she has completed her book on the
Yorkist dynasty, so all of this research has been helpful to her as
well.
"Random thoughts on Robert Mortimer and Isabel Howard:
The selection of Robert Mortimer by John Howard for
his eldest daughter is not really surprising -
references to Mortimer property in Tendring Hundred
means that it lay very close to Stoke-by-Nayland,
there were also Howard connections with Dovercourt and
of course some Mortimer property was held of the earl
of Oxford, who was married to a Howard heiress. The
marriage of daughters at gentry level was usually to
create links with other local gentry families. In
previous generations the Howards had not been prolific
and therefore probably had fewer such links than many
other families.
The date of Isabel’s birth is hard to determine
exactly. Her brother Thomas, we know, was born in
1443, when their father could not have been more than
20, and her brother Nicholas was a few years younger.
In 1465, when their mother died, Thomas, Nicholas and
Isabel were all given 3 yards of black cloth for
mourning, while the other girls got lesser amounts.
My guess therefore is that Isabel came between the two
boys and was therefore born about 1445, though it is
not totally impossible that she was the eldest. She
was certainly still single and living at home in 1465,
according to her father’s household accounts, one set
of which run to 1467. There is no mention of Mortimer
in this set, so although they may have been betrothed
when young, it is slightly surprising that they were
not married sooner, especially if you are right and he
was born c. 1442. It looks as though they probably
married in 1467, when he came into his House lands,
since couples tended not to marry until they were in a
position to support themselves, either by inheritance
or family gift. Although Howard was pretty wealthy by
this time, he was not land rich and I suspect Isabel
would have had a cash dowry rather than land. It is
also slightly odd that their only child was not born
until 1476, though there may have been other babies
who died."
Cheers, -------Brad
Jim Weber
I almost missed it, but the reference to "Walter House of Thorpe,
Essex" in Rosie's post below finally explains how the Richard III
Foundation website on the Battle of Bosworth came up with "Robert de
Mortimer of Thorpe-le-Soken", which (with my questions concerning)
started this whole thread. This explains how Thorpe got into
Robert's hands, which was missing in Brad's earlier IPMs.
Jim Weber
rbe...@paradise.net.nz (rosie bevan) wrote in message news:<015901c3da49$845c11c0$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
>
<snip>
rosie bevan
The following is the descent of the manor of Ashfield as given by Copinger
from Robert le Blund to John Fyliol.
Robert le Blund - Domesday
:
:
William le Blund d.s.p. 1264
:
:
Agnes, his sister wife of William Criketot of Ousden d.1299 [CIPM 3 no.537]
|
Wm de Criketot d.c. 1307=[Mary da. Gilbert Peche]
|
Wm de Criketot d.c.1310 [CIPM V no.216]=Joan
|
Wm de Criketot b.1292-d.c.1343 [CIPM 8 no. 453]=[1. Isabella Bracebrigge]
|
Wm de Criketot d.1354 [CIPM 10 no.83]= Joan Poynings
|
Wm de Criketot b.c 1347 d.s.p.
:
:
Joan=Richard de Pakenham d. 1383 [CIPM XVI no.2]
:
:
John, son of Sir Richard Fyliol
The manor of Ashfield appears to have been originally the caput of a barony
of 12 knight's fees, but during king Stephen's time it was reduced to 7 fees
[Sanders p.3].
The genealogical descent from Robert le Blund is the following
1.Robert le Blund of Ixworth
+Gundred de Ferrers dau. of Earl Ferrers
2.Gilbert le Blund d. bef 1166
+Alicia de Colekirke
3.William le Blund d.c.1169
+Sarah de Monchensi
4.Hubert le Blund (c1165-c1188)
+Agnes L'Isle
5.William le Blund
+Cecilia de Vere
6.William le Blund d.s.p 1264
+Alice de Copella
6.Agnes le Blund
+William I de Criketot (see above)
6.Rohese le Blund
+Robert de Valoynes d.1264
7.Robert de Valoynes d.1282 [CIPM 2 no. 432]
+ Eve (Criketot?) widow of Nicholas Tregoz, and
"kinswoman of the king" d.1292 [CIPM III no. 150]
8. Rohese de Valoynes c.1280-1353 [CIPM X
no.111]
+ Edmund de Pakenham d.1332
9.Edmund de Pakenham d 1351 [CIPM IX
no.641]
+ Mary, dau John Comyn, d.1361 [CIPM XI
no.154]
10. Thomas de Pakenham d 1361 [CIPM XI
no.155]
+(Second husband of Rohese de V) Hugh de Saxham
8. Cecily de Valoynes c1281-
+ Robert de Ufford >Earls of Suffolk
At the death of Thomas de Pakenham in 1361 his IPM records that his uncle
Hervey de Pakenham was his heir in a moiety of the advowson of the church of
Ixworth priory and 1d yearly rent in Berdewell and other properties are not
mentioned at all. Hervey de Pakenham's inquisition appears immediately
afterwards [CIPM XI 156], saying that the heir to the moiety of the advowson
and the 1d rent, was Robert de Ufford, earl of Suffolk, his kinsman. Again
no other properties are mentioned. The assumption is that Rohese's line
failed because of the grant of her properties to the abbey of St Edmunds.
Richard de Pakenham appears to have been a descendant of one of Sir Edmund
Pakenham's brothers for he had interests in Ixworthe Thorpe which had been
purchased by Edmund's father, Sir William Pakenham, from William Criketot,
and on succeeding to the Pakenham estates, Edmund granted this manor to his
brother, Thomas in 1304. In 1370 Richard was a feoffee of the Criketot
moiety of the manor of Ixworth with his wife, Joan fitz Ralph.
PRO C 143/371/8
Joan fitz Rauf, Ralph de Walsham, Richard de Pakenham, Simon Longe, Roger de
Wolferston, Robert de Asshefeld, Thomas de Flicham, Henry Knot, vicar of the
church of Soham, John Coue, parson of the church of Bardwell, William Neve,
parson of the church of Stanton, and John atte Chambre and Robert Serjaunt,
chaplains, to retain half the manor of Ixworth, with the advowson of half
the priory there, acquired from William de Criketot, knight.
44 EDWARD III.
At Richard's death in 1383, he was holding a substantial part of the Blund
inheritance of the Criketots, namely the manor of Great Ashfield and lands
in Little Ashfield and Wetherden. Joan fitz Ralph, his wife had already died
in 1381 (will Consistory Court of Norwich, 1370-1550. 186 Haydon). Richard
left a daughter, Anne, aged 11 his heir, but Ashfield had already been
settled with a remainder to John Filliol before this time in 1379 as
recorded in
Richard's inquisition, "He held the under-mentioned manor of Asshefeld for
life of the gift of John Cove, parson of the church of Berdewell, and John
Martell to him and Joan, sometime his wife, for their lives, with remainder
to John son of Richard Filiol, knight, John de Rookewode, Roger de
Wolfreston and John Rokele and
their heirs." The latter released their rights in 1387 to John Filiol.
Where the Criketot/Fitz Ralph connection occurs is not obvious, but it is
clear from the above that the Filliols were not descendants of Richard and
Joan de Pakenham. A trawl through the rolls might unearth more on this.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Weber" <jimw...@nwintl.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Robert Mortimer m. Isabel Howard
rosie bevan
Being a king's attorney and later attorney-general to Henry VII, James
Hubert was an influential feoffee and arbitrator in Norfolk, notably to the
Fastolfs (to whom the Howards were also feoffees) [CCR 1476-1485, no.202].
He also acted as a 'friend' of Anne Harling d.1479, great-granddaughter and
coheir of Robert Mortimer of Attleborough, wife consecutively of Sir William
Chamberlain, and Sir Robert Wingfield [CCR 1476-1485, no.479]. Anne's
great-grandmother, Mary Park, was married secondly to John Fastolf and they
were the parents of Sir John Fastolf, the famous soldier.
Margery Mortimer, one of the three grand daughters and coheirs of Sir Robert
Mortimer d. 1387 was married to John fitz Ralph, the elder, and the eldest
daughter, Sibyl, was married secondly to Henry Pakenham who was a feoffee of
Robert Mortimer. Sir Roger Chamberlain's daughter, Anne, was married to John
fitz Ralph, son of John fitz Ralph whose feoffee was Roger Mortimer. John
the younger's daughter and heir, Elizabeth, was by another wife Alice
Whalesburgh. Elizabeth was married to Sir Robert Chamberlain of Gedding,
Suffolk.
With the names of Hubert, Pakenham, fitz Ralph, and Mortimer occurring
together in conjunction with other Norfolk families (Howard, Fastolf,
Wingfield), I cannot help wondering if David Mortimer was a member of the
family of Mortimer of Attlebrough. The family is discussed in CP IX
p.243-250, though there is no mention of a David.
A resume of the relationships just mentioned might be helpful at this point.
1. Sir Constantine de Mortimer of Attleborough, Norfolk b abt 1280-d.1355
[CP IX, 248]
+ Agnes
2. Sir Robert Mortimer b abt 1310-d.1387 [CP IX, 250]
+ 1st wife Margery Fastolf d.s.p.1341 [CP IX, 250]
+ 2nd wife Margery d aft 1387
3. Sir Thomas Mortimer d. abt 1378 [CP IX, 250] [Blomefield, v.XI,
p.207]
+ Mary, da of Nicholas Park d 1406.
(Mary's second husband was John Fastolf and they were the parents of
Sir John Fastolf) [CP IX, 249] [Blomefield, v.XI, p.207] [Fastolf's will
1459]
4. Sybil Mortimer
+ Sir Ralph Bigod d.1406
+ Henry Pakenham
+Thomas Manning
4.Cicely Mortimer
+ Sir John Harling
5.Sir Robert de Harling
+Jane Gunville
6.Anne Harling d.1479
+ Sir William Chamberlain
+ Sir Robert Wingfield
+(2) Sir John Radcliffe
4.Margery Mortimer
+ John fitz Ralph
5. John fitz Ralph
+ Ann Chamberlain
+ Alice Whalesbrough
6. Elizabeth fitz Ralph
+ Sir Robert Chamberlain of Gidding, Suffolk
Again I would imagine a comprehensive search of various rolls would unearth
more information.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Weber" <jimw...@nwintl.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Robert Mortimer m. Isabel Howard
rosie bevan
I note that Keats-Rohan in DD p.179 says "Before 1173 Geoffrey Ridel gave
his kinswoman ('cognata') Galiena, daughter of William Blund, in marriage to
Robert de Insula, with land in Exning (Foedera, i, 42)."
As often happened in medieval times, there may have been a double alliance
within the same generation of siblings between the two families. In this
case that would mean Robert de Insula (L'Isle) husband of Galiena was
brother or some near relation of Agnes. This was probably the same Robert de
Insula, seneschal of the honour of Eye from 1194-1196, who occcurs in the
Eye cartulary [V. Brown (ed.), Eye Priory Cartulary and Charters (Suffolk
Records Society, 1992)]. He also occurs in CP VIII p.69 note (e).
Any further than that I cannot say.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Kirkemo" <kir...@comcast.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 5:01 PM
Subject: RE: Robert Mortimer m. Isabel Howard
> Rosie,
>
> Thanks very much for posting the two descents in your message to Jim. I'm
> wondering if you, or someone else, might know the ancestry of Agnes
L'Isle,
> identified by you below as the wife of Hubert le Blund? I checked CP
VIII,
> pp.39-80, and DD to no avail. I have several references from Burke
> regarding Hubert marrying her, but nothing regarding her parentage. Can
you
> tell me where she might fit?
>
> Thanks,
> Gordon Kirkemo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rosie bevan [mailto:rbe...@paradise.net.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:29 AM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Robert Mortimer m. Isabel Howard
>
> Dear Jim
>
> <snip>
>
> The genealogical descent from Robert le Blund is the following
>
> 1.Robert le Blund of Ixworth
> +Gundred de Ferrers dau. of Earl Ferrers
> 2.Gilbert le Blund d. bef 1166
> +Alicia de Colekirke
> 3.William le Blund d.c.1169
> +Sarah de Monchensi
> 4.Hubert le Blund (c1165-c1188)
> +Agnes L'Isle
> <snip>
>
> ______________________________
>
>
>
Gordon Kirkemo
Thanks for posting this; I found it very helpful. However, as you can
expect, it raises some additional questions that I'm hoping you, or someone
else, can answer.
1. I am surprised to find that I cannot connect Cecilia de Vere, wife of
William le Blund (#5 below), to a family line. Does she connect to the de
Veres of Oxford, or is there another de Vere line to which I am unfamiliar?
2. I am very curious about Eve (Criketot?) identified as the wife of Robert
de Valoynes (#7 below) d.1282. I note she is identified as "kinswoman of
the king." Is anything further known regarding her identity? I do not see
an obvious connection to the Criketots identified by you below, as there
would seem to be consanguinity issues. I wonder if Doug Richardson, or
others, might have information about her royal kinship?
3. Finally, you show Robert de Valoynes (d.1264), father of the Robert cited
above, married to Rohese le Blund. Do you know if he is descended from any
of the Valoynes listed in DD on pages 757-760? He seems to be about one or
two generations removed.
Thanks for any assistance that can be provided.
Gordon Kirkemo
-----Original Message-----
From: rosie bevan [mailto:rbe...@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:29 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Dear Jim
<snip>
Cheers
Rosie
______________________________
Cristopher Nash
>The manor of Ashfield is covered in W.A Copinger, 'Manors of Suffolk',
>(London, 1905), vol. 1 p.256-259. Its descent can be traced from Robert le
>Blund at Domesday, down via the Criketot family
and
>William le Blund d.s.p. 1264
>:
>:
>Agnes, his sister wife of William Criketot of Ousden d.1299 [CIPM 3 no.537]
>|
>Wm de Criketot d.c. 1307=[Mary da. Gilbert Peche]
[SNIP]
> 6.William le Blund d.s.p 1264
> +Alice de Copella
> 6.Agnes le Blund
> +William I de Criketot (see above)
> 6.Rohese le Blund
> +Robert de Valoynes d.1264
> 7.Robert de Valoynes d.1282 [CIPM 2 no. 432]
> + Eve (Criketot?) widow of Nicholas Tregoz, and
>"kinswoman of the king" d.1292 [CIPM III no. 150]
Rosie, I haven't looked at Copinger in this connection, and don't
know whether this line has been of research - or just of passing -
interest to you, but imagine you've thought its documentation
persuasive on this line (or maybe you've looked further into it
yourself). I don't wanta push you into sthg not up your alley, but if
it's not too much trouble, have I got the following right?
These are siblings:
(a) William le Blund (d.s.p. 1264)
(b) Agnes le Blund (m. William Criketot of Ousden who d. 1299)
(c) Rohese le Blund (m. Robert de Valoines who d.1264).
Sir Robert de Valoines (d. 1282), son of (c), thus married a close
cousin (Eve/Eva) unless the general view that she is also of the
Criketots of Ousden (per e.g. CP XII, pt. 2, 150) is mistaken.
BTW --
>Eve (Criketot?) ... "kinswoman of the king"
-- you don't happen to have looked into how this came about, have
you? Or have I missed something?
Cheers!
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
>BTW --
>
>>Eve (Criketot?) ... "kinswoman of the king"
>
>-- you don't happen to have looked into how this came about, have
>you? Or have I missed something?
Or -- dare I add -
>1.Robert le Blund of Ixworth
>+Gundred de Ferrers dau. of Earl Ferrers
-- which generation/earl this was thought to be?
Sorry!
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
Dorewards/Durwards of Bocking, to which I've responded with unhelpful
general warmth before without recalling the sequence offered by
Morant, vol. II. I've been swamped in other work, and this has
probably already been well-noted, but in case not, it looks pretty
much like --
Alwine Doreward, reign of Hen III
| Roger Doreward of Bocking
| | Ralph Doreward
| | & Cecily (---)
| | | William Doreward, of Bocking
| | | & Joane Oliver (da. of John Oliver of Stanway)
| | | | John Doreward, of 'Olivers', etc, Essex,
| | | | d. 12 Nov 1420
| | | | & (1) Catherine (---)
| | | | | Alinor/Elianor Doreward
| | | | | & Thomas Knyvet
| | | | | d. 1458/1459
| | | | | |
| | | | | [etc]
| | | | & (2) Isabella, da. of John Baynard, w/o issue
-- and I'd much enjoy any thoughts as to what happens where it
collides with your views. (I suspect that insofar as Morant may be
right at any point, the difference arises simply/largely from his
version's considering a different 'William', etc.? His lack of early
dates is as always frustrating.) Forgive my vagueness here -- I'm
writing from a position well out of the loop and probably should keep
my mouth/computer shut.
Best,
Cris
--
Rosie Bevan
Please see comments below
1.According to the IPM of William le Blund [CIPM I no. 585] he was holding
the "land of Lenehey(?)' of the Earl of Oxford by free marriage. So the
indication is that he was married to a comital Vere - perhaps a daughter of
Hugh de Vere and Hawise de Quincy. Cecily might be a name that would appear
in the de Vere family as it was the name of Hugh's great grandmother.
2.The evidence about Eve's kinship to the king comes from the inquisition of
her husband [CIPM 2 no. 432].
"Mandate to W. de Odiham and A. de Berton marvelling that they have returnes
the extents sent to them without making assignment of dower to Lady Eva, the
king's cousin, pretending that it was not fully evident to them what the
king wished, and commanding that not what pleases him, but what is in
accordance with right by these extents should be done. They need not write
about the manors of Toleshunte and Blunteshale, the king having formerly
commanded the manor of Toleshunte to be delivered to her"
Eve's inquisition [CIPM III no. 150] says that she and her first husband,
Nicholas Tregoz, had been granted the manors for life by Robert Burnel
bishop of Bath and Wells, with remainder to the heirs of Nicholas.
It is unlikely that Eve was a Criketot, on the grounds of consanguinity -
unless she was a daughter of William de Criketot by a previous wife to Agnes
Blund.
3.. The following is the descent of the Valoines of Parham, Suffolk
1.Hamo de Valoines, tenant of Count Alan in Parham and other lands in
Suffolk [EYC V 234; DP 242]
2.Theobald de Valoines, lord of Parham. Father of Bertha, wife of Ranulph de
Glanville, and Matilda, wife of Hervey Walter. Living 1135. Married to
Helewise [EYC V 234; DD755]
3. Robert de Valoines , holding 7 fees of the castle guard of Richmond, dead
by 1178. Married to Alice [EYC V 234 ; DD754* see note below]
4. Theobald de Valoine held 5 ½ fees in Parham, Suffolk, 1 fee in Hickling
Norfolk and 3 fees in Ditton, Cambs. In return for castle guard at Richmond.
Founder of Hickling priory d. bef 1209. Married to Avice. [EYC V 234; DD
754; Monasticon Anglicanum vol VI p.476]
5. Thomas de Valoines, holding 7 fees of the honour of Richmond, including 3
fees in Ditton. Involved in a suit over land in Parham in 1220. Married to
Isabel de Creake [EYC V 234; CRR IX p.24, 31; CIPM 4 no. 392; HKF III
p.428].
6. Robert de Valoines . Held the manor of Parham of John de Vaux of the
honour of Richmond. Married to Roese Blund, sister and coh of William Blund
d.s.p. 1264 [ HKF III p.428; CIPM I no. 585].
7. Robert de Valoines b. c 1247. In the custody of Robert Burnell, bishop of
Bath and Wells during his minority. Holding 3 fees in Cambs. (Wood Ditton
aka Ditton Valence) and 2 fees in Hickling, Norfolk (no return for Suffolk)
of the honour of Richmond (of Peter de Savoy) for castle guard. Married to
Eve, widow of Nicholas Tregoz. She died in 1292 [CIPM II no.381; CIPM II no.
432; CIPM III, no.125; HKF III p.428].
8. Rose de Valoines b.1280 married Sir Edmund de Pakenham. At her death in
1353 she was holding the manor of Ditton Valoyns, held of the earl of
Richmond for 3 knights fees and 37s. yearly [CIPM X no. 111]
8. Cecily de Valoines b.1281 married to Robert de Ufford who was granted
free warren in his lands in Parham in 1304. At her death in 1325, Cecily was
holding in dower the manor of Hickling of John of Brittany, earl of
Richmond, by service of a knight's fee and 10s. for the guard of the castle
of Richmond, and the manor of Parham of Petronilla de Nerford, by service of
55s. for the guard of the castle of Richmond.
Note. Keats-Rohan DD 754 is clearly in error on chronological grounds for
attributing Rose Blund as wife of the Robert (generation 3) described as
dead by 1178.
I hope this has been of some help.
Cheers
Rosie
Gordon Kirkemo
Thank you very much for sharing this information with me. It is very
helpful and very much appreciated.
I can only hope that the identity of Eve, wife of Robert Valoines (#7
below), might proof intriguing enough to catch the eye of some of the other
researchers. It seems there may be an, as yet, unidentified royal
connection to be worked out. It will be interesting to see what clues may
turn up that will lead to that connection.
I know you are busy with many tasks, so thanks again for taking the time to
respond.
Sincerely,
Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosie Bevan [mailto:rbe...@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:57 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Robert Mortimer m. Isabel Howard
> Rosie et al,
>
> Thanks for posting this; I found it very helpful. However, as you can
> expect, it raises some additional questions that I'm hoping you, or
someone
> else, can answer.
Dear Gordon
Please see comments below
<snip>
4. Theobald de Valoine held 5 1/2 fees in Parham, Suffolk, 1 fee in Hickling
Cheers
Rosie
______________________________
Cristopher Nash
from my last) I do feel that the Eva Criketot theory may present a
consanguinuity problem unless she was a daughter of William de
Criketot by a wife previous to Agnes Blund.
I'd just like to verify with you &/or others here that 5 below is
Thomas de Valoines. I'm thinking of previous discussions here (e.g.
<Re: Peter de Valonies family>, Apr 2002) and of CP XII, pt 2,150,
note e, where the assumption was (without hesitation and accompanied
by Close & Fine Rolls citations etc) that the paternal great-grandmo.
of Cecily (your 8) was Isabel de Creke w. of John de Valoines.
Offhand it looks as though different people have been looking at
different and possibly equally creditable contemporaneous sources,
and I'm wondering how far back an uncertainty as to who married
Isabel de Cre(a)ke may go. Of course there's always the chance that,
in the spirit of egalitarian free(or fore)play, the seed yielding her
son Robert may have Sprung from 2 sets of Va-loines. A funky if not
Maculate Conception, but you can't have too much of a good thing.
Cheers!
Cris
Rosie wrote February 19, 2004 --
--
Jay
>
> 2.The evidence about Eve's kinship to the king comes from the inquisition of
> her husband [CIPM 2 no. 432].
Not sure exactly when this inquistion occurred from this reference.
Is the king in Question Henry III or Edward I??
Thanks!
-Jay
Jay
had not found any information on certain persons and was wondering if
anyone know about these folks.
> marks information snipped from Gordon's post
* marks my questions
>
> The genealogical descent from Robert le Blund is the following
>
> 1.Robert le Blund of Ixworth
> +Gundred de Ferrers dau. of Earl Ferrers
* Any information on which Earl Ferrers?
> 2.Gilbert le Blund d. bef 1166
> +Alicia de Colekirke
*Any information on the Colekirke's?
> 3.William le Blund d.c.1169
> +Sarah de Monchensi
*Anyone have information on Sarah's parents?
> 4.Hubert le Blund (c1165-c1188)
> +Agnes L'Isle
*Anyone have any information on Agnes, was she related to the de
Insulas?
> 5.William le Blund
> +Cecilia de Vere
* I beleive Rosie gave some information on why there is some evidence
that William married a de Vere, but what is the source of the Cecilia
part? Rosie has offered the suggestion that the parents might have
been Hugh de Vere (4th earl of Oxford) and Hawise Quincy whose
children I have (not necessarily accurately) as: Robert, Aubrey,
Richard, Margaret, Laura and Isabel. Are these listed children
correct? Did they have other children?
Jay
all...@pacbell.net
Original Message:
-----------------
From: heli...@yahoo.com (Jay)
Date: 20 Feb 2004 12:22:19 -0800
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Blund (Blount) of Ixworth line (was Re: Robert Mortimer m. Isabel
Howard)
Gordon Krikemo gave the following line, and checking the archives I
had not found any information on certain persons and was wondering if
anyone know about these folks.
> marks information snipped from Gordon's post
* marks my questions
>
> The genealogical descent from Robert le Blund is the following
>
> 1.Robert le Blund of Ixworth
> +Gundred de Ferrers dau. of Earl Ferrers
* Any information on which Earl Ferrers?
No. Neither Moriarty or Sheppard mention her.
> 2.Gilbert le Blund d. bef 1166
> +Alicia de Colekirke
*Any information on the Colekirke's?
Not yet.
> 3.William le Blund d.c.1169
> +Sarah de Monchensi
*Anyone have information on Sarah's parents?
Supposedly daughter of Hubert of Edwardstone, d. c. 1157.
> 4.Hubert le Blund (c1165-c1188)
> +Agnes L'Isle
*Anyone have any information on Agnes, was she related to the de
Insulas?
?
Hope this helps.
K
Jay
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Rosie Bevan
If I have interpreted your question correctly, you are asking what evidence
there is about the husband of Isabel Creake. I took the information from W.
Farrer, Honors and Knight's Fees v.3 429/430.
"Roger Fitz-Osbert died in 1306 holding the Crec inheritance by the courtesy
of England. His own heirs were his sister, Isabel de Walpole, late the wife
of Walter Gernegan, and John de Noyon, son of Alice, another sister, by her
husband Ralph de Noyon. At Roger's death the Crek inheritance [Note 34 The
partition was recorded with great minuteness of detail. It occupies 9 pages
of the Cal. Close R. 1306, 113, p.462-70] was divided between the
heirs-at-law of Sarah his wife, viz, John de Thorpe, son of Robert son of
John de Thorpe by his wife Margaret, sister of Bartholomew de Crec ; and
Edmund de Pakenham and Rose his wife, and Robert de Ufford (father of Robert
de Ufford created earl of Suffolk in 1337) and Cecily his wife, which Rose
and Cecily were the daughters and coheirs of Robert de Valoines of Hickling,
Norfolk, son of Robert son of Thomas de Valoignes [Note. Cf R. L. Claus i.
334 et pass] by Mabel his wife, another sister of Bartholomew de Crec. Three
other sisters of Bartholomew, Agnes, Dionisia, and Joan (?prioress of
Campsey), had died without issue. A pedigree of the heirs general of Crec
will be found in 'The Genealogist, N.S. x. 135."
I don't know where the name John came from, and it is not obvious from the
references given in CP. Copinger is not to be trusted for his account of the
family (v.5 p.151-152 (descent of Parham) which is particularly garbled as
he tried to graft this particular Valognes family onto the family of
Valognes of Bennington. Many pedigrees attempt to do the same thing. As Hamo
de Valognes was holding at Parham of Count Alan at Domesday, the line is
either totally unrelated, as suggested by Keats-Rohan, or a collateral one.
I keep an open mind over this, particularly as one of the witnesses to the
foundation charter of Binham priory (founded by Peter de Valognes) is
"Hamone nepote Petri" [Monasticon Anglicanum, v.3 p.347]. Keats-Rohan, DD
1050, identifies this individual as Haimo dapifer, ancestor of the Valognes
family of Tilsey, Surrey.
In the descent given in my post, generations 1-5 are discussed by Farrer in
EYC in the volume treating the honour of Richmond. My post also attempted to
draw together evidence of the descent of Parham, Hickling and Ditton, which
were held for service of castle guard at Richmond, passing down this line. I
did not find any evidence of a John in connection with this Valognes fee.
Cheers
Rosie
Rosie Bevan
The king at the time of Robert de Valognes death in 1282 was Edward I.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Gordon Kirkemo
For the record, this line was originally posted by Rosie Bevan 28 Jan 2004.
I simply raised some questions, and Rosie was kind of enough to respond.
Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay [mailto:heli...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:22 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Blund (Blount) of Ixworth line (was Re: Robert Mortimer m. Isabel
Howard)
Jay
______________________________
all...@pacbell.net
It seems I must rouse my self from from grief-induced depression to bail
you out (as
you, undoubtedly knew I would). :-)
The Genealogist, unknown issue(also found in Gen. Wrottesley's _Peds from
Plea
Rolls_) De Banco. Easter. 4. E.2. m.223 Suffolk:
1. Isabella, sister of Bartholomew and Margaret de Creyke and co-h. of
Sarra,
Bartholomew's dtr.
2. Robert de Valoynes.
3. Robert
4. Cecilia
5.Robert de Ufford, the defendant.
4. Roes, who = Edmund de Pakenham
The Genealogist NS10:240-241 (also to be found in Wrottesley) :
De Banco. Mich.(aelmas) 25 E. 3. m. 261 Norfolk
1. Isabella, sister of Bartholomew, Margaret, Agnes, Dionisia, and
Joan[latter 3 dsp.]
de Crek, and co-h. to Sarra as above.
2. Robert.
3. Robert.
4. Roes, Plaintiff.
4. Cecil, Roes' sister.
5. Robert de Ufford, Earl of Suffolk.
G. Andrews Moriarty Vol.XVIII:65 [at NEHGS] gives:
1, Cecily.
2.Robert
3. Eve Cricktot W.L. Sheppard in his Carleton-Newton MS gives Eve
Cricketot ?,
presumed of family of Ousden, Suffolk. My query is this the same Cricetot
family
who had the Blund marriage? Sheppard also notices her as the widoe of
Nicholas
Tregoz.
Then Moriarty makes it the Theobald who married Isabella de Crek.
Sheppard gives the Robert who married Roes Blund
8.Thomas.
9. Isabella de Crek
16.Theobald, d.1209.
The above are also from Sheppard.
32. Robert d.1178
64. Theobald of Parham.
65. --- de Ros of Darenton
128. Hamo, d. before 1130
130. Ansketil de Ros of Darenton
These from Moriaty, above cited.
Hope this is of help.
K
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Cristopher Nash c...@windsong.u-net.com
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:03:11 +0000
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Cheers!
Cris
>2.The evidence about Eve's kinship to the king comes from the inquisition
of
>her husband [CIPM 2 no. 432].
>
--
Douglas Richardson
If I had to venture a guess, I would think a good bet is that Eve,
wife of Nicholas Tregoz and Robert de Valoines, was probably the
daughter of Gilbert Pecche (died 1291) by his 1st wife, Maud de
Hastings, which Maud was a possible daughter of Henry de Hastings, by
Ada of Huntingdon. If so, the Hastings-Huntingdon connection would
explain the later intermarriage between the Valoines and Comyn
families. The Comyn family was Scottish, as was Ada de Huntingdon's
family.
I read someplace that Gilbert Pecche (died 1291) was styled "king's
kinsman," which statement is probably true. Unfortunately, I haven't
found the specific citation to verify this allegation. Gilbert's
mother, also named Eve, was a foreigner. My guess is that Eve was a
near kinswoman of King Henry III of England. If correct, then it
would explain why Gilbert Pecche was called "king's kinsman" and why
Eve (_____) (Tregoz) de Valoines was called "king's cousin." These
suggested kinships should be labelled mere speculation until further
records can be consulted.
I've always assumed that Eve, mother of Gilbert Pecche, was French.
However, I suppose it's possible that she could be Scottish. Andrew
MacEwen, the great Scottish scholar, has has proven that Fergus of
Galloway was the paternal grandfather of Eve Fitz Uchtred, wife of
Walter de Berkeley, of Red Castle, co. Forfar, Chamberlain of
Scotland. The Galloway family are known kinsfolk of the English royal
family.
For interest's sake, I might point out that Gary Boyd Roberts' new RD
600 book, shows that Gilbert Pecche (died 1291) is ancestral to three
colonial immigrants, Jane (Lawrence) Giddings, Judith (Everard)
Appleton, and Margaret (Halsnode) Denne. If Gilbert Pecche is the
father of Eve (_____) (Tregoz) de Valoines, he would further be
ancestral to many more colonial immigrants.
This matter require further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
heli...@yahoo.com (Jay) wrote in message news:<d51b1746.04022...@posting.google.com>...
Rosie Bevan
The Valoines family had Scottish connections long before the marriage with
the Comyn family. Philip de Valoines, son of Roger de Valoines of
Bennington, was made chamberlain to William (I) king of Scotland in the
1170s and given the barony of Panmure. His son William married Lora de
Quincy and left three heiresses. One of the daughters, Isabel, was married
to David Comyn of Kilbride by 1234. I doubt that the Huntingdon/Hastings
alliance had any influence on this marriage as it occurred about the same
time.
Apart from which we are talking about two completely different Valoines
families.
As Robert Burnell, bishop of Bath and Wells and Edward I's chancellor, had
the custody of the younger Robert de Valoines of Hickling, and the honour of
Richmond was held by Peter of Savoy, I would suggest you look for a French
connection rather than a Scottish one.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> > Rosie Bevan wrote:
> > >
> > > 2.The evidence about Eve's kinship to the king comes from the
inquisition of
> > > her husband [CIPM 2 no. 432].
> >
> > Not sure exactly when this inquistion occurred from this reference.
> > Is the king in Question Henry III or Edward I??
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Jay
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com>
To: "Rosie Bevan" <rbe...@paradise.net.nz>
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: Eve widow of Nicholas Tregoz, the king's cousin
> >Dear Jay
> >
> >The king at the time of Robert de Valognes death in 1282 was Edward I.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Rosie
> >
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Jay Kotliar
>
Jay
> Dear, dear Cris,
>
> It seems I must rouse my self from from grief-induced depression to bail
> you out (as
> you, undoubtedly knew I would). :-)
>
> The Genealogist, unknown issue(also found in Gen. Wrottesley's _Peds from
> Plea
> Rolls_) De Banco. Easter. 4. E.2. m.223 Suffolk:
>
> 1. Isabella, sister of Bartholomew and Margaret de Creyke and co-h. of
> Sarra,
> Bartholomew's dtr.
>
> 2. Robert de Valoynes.
>
> 3. Robert
>
> 4. Cecilia
>
> 5.Robert de Ufford, the defendant.
>
> 4. Roes, who = Edmund de Pakenham
>
> The Genealogist NS10:240-241 (also to be found in Wrottesley) :
>
> De Banco. Mich.(aelmas) 25 E. 3. m. 261 Norfolk
>
> 1. Isabella, sister of Bartholomew, Margaret, Agnes, Dionisia, and
> Joan[latter 3 dsp.]
> de Crek, and co-h. to Sarra as above.
>
Crec/Crek/Creake siblings is known?
Jay
Jay
baffled, why Douglas would think Eva would have to be scottish?
Edward I and Henry III had overwelmingly French and Norman connections
as far as I can tell. Even if the Gilbert Pecce connection turns out
to be the actual link, I do not know why his mother could not be
French AND kinsmen to King Henry III. In fact it seems more likely
that if she was close kin to King Henry III (making the other Eva,her
granddaughter cousin to Edward I) she would be as you say more likely
French.
Douglas, am I missing something, but where is a CLOSE kin connection
between Henry III and any Scot? His aunt Joan married Alexander II of
Scotland, but had no children. His daughter Margaret married King
Alexander III but all his heirs died leaving the grand competition for
the throne of Scotland. Essentially Matilida of Scotland wife of
Henry I is the most recent connection I see, and given that she had
two children, one of whom died d.s.p. one would have to skip back a
generation to Malcolm III and then through David I or Mary. I just
don't see much opportunities in this direction unless as I say I have
overlooked something.
Jay
rbe...@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<031b01c3f82f$99035670$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
Steven C. Perkins
Abbey in Norfolk?
Thanks,
Steven C. Perkins
On 20 Feb 2004 at 23:32, Jay wrote:
Date forwarded: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 04:15:14 -0700
Date sent: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:32:51 -0800
Forwarded by: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
From: heli...@yahoo.com (Jay)
Subject: de Creake [was Re: Robert Mortimer m. Isabel Howard]
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Douglas Richardson
In order to find the family name of Eve, wife of Nicholas Tregoz and
Robert de Valoines, one must first look for a family of the same
social rank as the Valoines family who is also known to be related to
the king. It would also help if the given name Eve ran in the family.
The fact that there is a Scottish connection would be incidental.
The Pecche family happens to succeed on all four counts. The Pecche
family was also located in the same vicinity of England as the
Valoines family. So far, so good.
Furthermore, if Maud de Hastings was the mother of Eve (_____)
(Tregoz) de Valoines, and if Maud was the daughter of Ada of
Huntingdon, Eve would be related on at least one side in the 5th
degree to King Edward I of England by common descent from King Henry I
of England. One couldn't ask for a better fit.
This matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
kir...@comcast.net ("Gordon Kirkemo") wrote in message news:<JNEBIPBDPPDCGBKMKH...@comcast.net>...
Douglas Richardson
To further the interest in finding the identity of Eve (______)
(Tregoz) de Valoines (died 1292), it would probably help if we had a
list of the colonial immigrants who have Eve de Valoines in their
ancestry. As shown below, my files indicate a whopping 50-plus
colonial immigrants are descended from this woman.
Be sure to check the list to see if your colonial ancestor is
included.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
List of Colonial Immigrants descended from Eve (_____) (Tregoz) de
Valoines (died 1292).
l. Elizabeth Alsop.
2. Henry, Thomas & William Batte.
3. Anne Baynton.
4. William Bladen.
5. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.
6. Thomas Booth.
7. Elizabeth Bosvile.
8. George, Giles & Robert Brent.
9. Obadiah Bruen.
10. Stephen Bull.
11. Nathaniel Burrough.
12. Elizabeth Butler.
13. Charles Calvert.
14. Edward Carleton.
15. Kenelm Cheseldine.
16. Grace Chetwode.
17. Jeremy Clarke.
18. William Clopton.
19. St. Leger Codd.
20. Francis Dade.
21. Anne Derehaugh.
22. Edward Digges.
23. Thomas Dudley.
24. John Fenwick.
25. Henry Fleete.
26. Muriel Gurdon.
27. Jane Haviland.
28. Warham Horsmanden.
29. Anne Humphrey.
30. Edmund Jennings.
31. Edmund, Edward, Richard, & Matthew Kempe.
32. Roger & Thomas Mallory.
33. Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield.
34. Anne & Katherine Marbury.
35. Elizabeth Marshall.
36. Anne Mauleverer.
37. Philip & Thomas Nelson.
39. Ellen Newton.
40. Thomas Owsley.
41. John Oxenbridge.
42. Herbert Pelham.
43. Henry & William Randolph.
44. Thomas Rudyard.
45. Katherine Saint Leger.
46. Maria Johanna Somerset.
47. John Stockman.
48. Jemima Waldegrave.
49. John West.
50. Thomas Wingfield.
51. Hawte Wyatt.
JKent...@aol.com
>it would probably help if we had a
>list of the colonial immigrants who have Eve de Valoines in their
>ancestry. As shown below, my files indicate a whopping 50-plus
>colonial immigrants are descended from this woman.
How does Haute Wiatt connect to Eve de Valoines?
Jno
Douglas Richardson
You're not missing anything. You just need to adjust your definition
of near kinsman/kinswoman. By medieval standards, a near related
person was anyone related within at least the 5th degree on one side
(that is, 4th cousins). This is the point, by the way, at which
marriage was prohibited between two related parties due to
consanguinity.
King Henry III stood 4 generations away from Maud of Scotland, wife of
King Henry I of England. As such, anyone descended from one of Maud
of Scotland's siblings would be considered his near kinsfolk. If Eve
Pecche was such a person, her son, Gilbert Pecche, would have been
considered a near kinsman to King Henry III.
If Eve (______) (Tregoz) de Valoines was the daughter of Gilbert
Pecche and his 1st wife, Maud de Hastings, and if Maud de Hastings was
the daughter of Ada of Huntingdon, then Eve would have another kinship
to King Edward I (son of King Henry III) by virtue of their common
descent from King Henry I. King Edward I stood 4 generations away
from Maud of England (daugher of King Henry I). As such, anyone
descended from one of Maud of England's siblings would be Edward I's
near kinsfolk.
As for why Eve Pecche might be Scottish? The name Eve appears among
high born nobility in Scotland, some of which families are known to be
related to the English kings. Incidentally, I believe it was Mr.
Powicke, a historian, who claimed that Gilbert Pecche, Eve's son, was
styled "king's kinsman." Mr. Powicke sifted through a lot of records
in his research on this time period. If he says Gilbert Pecche was
styled "king's kinsman," I would take his word for it. I assume
Gilbert Pecche was related to the king through his mother, Eve, who
was definitely foreign born.
As it stands, Eve Pecche could be either Scottish or French. King
Henry III of England had many relatives in both countries. Both
possibilities should be considered.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
heli...@yahoo.com (Jay) wrote in message news:<d51b1746.04022...@posting.google.com>...
Jay
> Dear Gordon, Jay, etc. ~
>
> In order to find the family name of Eve, wife of Nicholas Tregoz and
> Robert de Valoines, one must first look for a family of the same
> social rank as the Valoines family who is also known to be related to
> the king. It would also help if the given name Eve ran in the family.
> The fact that there is a Scottish connection would be incidental.
> The Pecche family happens to succeed on all four counts. The Pecche
> family was also located in the same vicinity of England as the
> Valoines family. So far, so good.
Ok but if Gilbert Peche (and I guess you mean the one who died in
1291 of Great Thurlow?_) was the father of Eve (_____) (Tregoz) de
Valoines, wouldn't the mother of Eve be Joan de Creye and not Maud de
Hastings? Was Gilbert married to a Maud de Hastings as well as Joan
de Creye? Are we talking about the same Gilbert-or have I got my
Gilberts jumbled. Are we postulating a royal connection for Eve m.
Nicholas Tregoz through both her father AND her mother?
Was the Gilbert in question (whoever he may be) definitively married
to a Maud Hastings...or is the even existence of the said Maud
Hastings whatever her parentage itself subject to debate? Just want
to get a handle of how loosy goosy we are at each stage of the line at
this point. I understand that this is just a musing at this point
and not yet a serious postulation of a line.
>
> Furthermore, if Maud de Hastings was the mother of Eve (_____)
> (Tregoz) de Valoines, and if Maud was the daughter of Ada of
> Huntingdon, Eve would be related on at least one side in the 5th
> degree to King Edward I of England by common descent from King Henry I
> of England. One couldn't ask for a better fit.
5th degree isn't particularly close, so I imagine you mean that we are
unlikely to find a closer fit for a heretofore undocumented royal
cousin to Edward I?
Still I think we can't rule out a French connection for Gilbert's
mother. It would provide a royal connection and Gilbert and would not
preclude the remarks you made about his good fit.
Sorry I am so confused on this.
Jay
Douglas Richardson
heli...@yahoo.com (Jay) wrote in message news:<d51b1746.04022...@posting.google.com>...
> royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.04022...@posting.google.com>...
> > Dear Gordon, Jay, etc. ~
> >
> > In order to find the family name of Eve, wife of Nicholas Tregoz and
> > Robert de Valoines, one must first look for a family of the same
> > social rank as the Valoines family who is also known to be related to
> > the king. It would also help if the given name Eve ran in the family.
> > The fact that there is a Scottish connection would be incidental.
> > The Pecche family happens to succeed on all four counts. The Pecche
> > family was also located in the same vicinity of England as the
> > Valoines family. So far, so good.
>
> Ok but if Gilbert Peche (and I guess you mean the one who died in
> 1291 of Great Thurlow?_) was the father of Eve (_____) (Tregoz) de
> Valoines, wouldn't the mother of Eve be Joan de Creye and not Maud de
> Hastings? Was Gilbert married to a Maud de Hastings as well as Joan
> de Creye? Are we talking about the same Gilbert-or have I got my
> Gilberts jumbled. Are we postulating a royal connection for Eve m.
> Nicholas Tregoz through both her father AND her mother?
Complete Peerage, 10 (1945), pages 335 to 336 (sub Pecche) indicates
that Gilbert Pecche (died 1291), of Great Thurlow, Suffolk, had livery
of his father's lands in 1241. From this, we know he was born in or
before 1220. Gilbert married (1st) Maud de Hastings, reportedly "of
illustrious birth," who died in 1264 or 1265. He had two sons by this
1st marriage, John and Edmund, whom he reportedly disinherited.
Gilbert married (2nd) Joan de Creye, daughter of Simon de Creye, by
whom he had four known sons, Gilbert, William, Simon, and John. He
died in 1291.
If Gilbert Pecche is the father of Eve (_____) (Tregoz) de Valoines, I
believe the chronology would dictate that she was the child of his 1st
wife, Maud de Hastings, who was stated to be "of illustrious birth."
> Was the Gilbert in question (whoever he may be) definitively married
> to a Maud Hastings...or is the even existence of the said Maud
> Hastings whatever her parentage itself subject to debate? Just want
> to get a handle of how loosy goosy we are at each stage of the line at
> this point. I understand that this is just a musing at this point
> and not yet a serious postulation of a line.
The editor of Complete Peerage gives his reasons for thinking that
Maud de Hastings was the daughter of Henry de Hastings (died 1250), by
his wife, Ada of Huntingdon. The evidence is suggestive but not
conclusive.
> > Furthermore, if Maud de Hastings was the mother of Eve (_____)
> > (Tregoz) de Valoines, and if Maud was the daughter of Ada of
> > Huntingdon, Eve would be related on at least one side in the 5th
> > degree to King Edward I of England by common descent from King Henry I
> > of England. One couldn't ask for a better fit.
>
> 5th degree isn't particularly close, so I imagine you mean that we are
> unlikely to find a closer fit for a heretofore undocumented royal
> cousin to Edward I?
Anything is possible.
> Still I think we can't rule out a French connection for Gilbert's
> mother. It would provide a royal connection and Gilbert and would not
> preclude the remarks you made about his good fit.
Yes, that is correct.
> Sorry I am so confused on this.
You're not confused at all. You're actually pretty much right on the
money. You ask excellent questions, by the way.
> Jay
Jay
>
> To further the interest in finding the identity of Eve (______)
> (Tregoz) de Valoines (died 1292), it would probably help if we had a
> list of the colonial immigrants who have Eve de Valoines in their
> ancestry. As shown below, my files indicate a whopping 50-plus
> colonial immigrants are descended from this woman.
>
> Be sure to check the list to see if your colonial ancestor is
> included.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thanks Douglas:
See Douglas does play nice if you don't hurl invectives at him and
spew vitriol as if he had committed genocide. He provides some
interesting topics of discussion and some helpful information.
Sometimes he does toss out teasers or is slow to provide lines of
evidence-perhaps to promote his book, however nothing he has done
warrants the volumes of nastiness and personal attacks cast on him by
certain parties, including individuals who pride themselves on being
"non-judgemental". Critques of methodology, lines of evidence, etc.
are perfectly legitimate, but in no means warant such recriminations.
Sometimes I have been frustrated by Douglas answers, but he has on
many occassions been helpful to me and many other individuals. This
should count for something!!!! It does with me. This isn't the
arab-israeli crisis, it is genealogy. Nobody dies if someone makes an
error, the folks we study are already dead. The interest in getting
the best information we can is a noble pursuit, so let us keep it that
way.
Jay
[See note below]
> 2. Henry, Thomas & William Batte.
[The line to these fellows I see as the following, if anyone knows of
alternative lines I would be interested.]
1.Eva
2. Cecily de Valoines
3. Robert de Ufford
4. Cecily de Ufford
5. Robert 4th Baron Willoughby
6. William 5th Baron Willoughby
7. Margery Willoughby
8. Lora Fitz Hugh=Sir John Conbstable
9. Joan Constable=Sir William Mallory
10. Sir John Mallory=Margaret Thwyates
11. Sir William Mallory=Jane Norton
12. Sir William Mallory= Ursala Gale
13. Rev. Thomas Mallory=Elizabeth Vaughan
14. Katherine "Martha" Mallory= Captain John Batte
15: Gen of: Henry Batte, Thomas and William Batte
Jay
Jay
which I was confused.
Jay
Jay
> that Gilbert Pecche (died 1291), of Great Thurlow, Suffolk, had livery
> of his father's lands in 1241. From this, we know he was born in or
> before 1220. Gilbert married (1st) Maud de Hastings, reportedly "of
> illustrious birth," who died in 1264 or 1265. He had two sons by this
> 1st marriage, John and Edmund, whom he reportedly disinherited.
> Gilbert married (2nd) Joan de Creye, daughter of Simon de Creye, by
> whom he had four known sons, Gilbert, William, Simon, and John. He
> died in 1291.
I have in my notes that Gilbert had a daughter Margery by his second
wife Joan de Creye. Does anyone have a confirmtion on this?
Eva would certainly seem to have been born before 1265 if she was
married to Nicholas Tregoz before 1278, so it seems reasonable that
Maud de Hastings would be her mother if Gilbert Peche was her father.
So essentially we have two links to prove 1. Gilbert Peche was her
father 2. Maud Hastings father was Henry de Hastings
Jay
Jay
Rosie Bevan
It may be useful to point out that Eve, wife of Hamon Peche, was from the
continent, not Scotland, as she originated from overseas, according to the
footnote in CP X p.335 note(b) ["De partibus transmarinus oriundam"]. If
Gilbert de Peche (d. 1291) was a king's kinsman, then it would seem logical
that the kinship came via his parents, and more particularly his French
mother.
Douglas seems to have forgotten to mention this from his examination of CP.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: Possible identity of Eve wife of Nicholas Tregoz and Robert de
Valoines
Leo van de Pas
See in between
<snip>
From Douglas Richardson :
> >
> > To further the interest in finding the identity of Eve (______)
> > (Tregoz) de Valoines (died 1292), it would probably help if we had a
> > list of the colonial immigrants who have Eve de Valoines in their
> > ancestry.
=====Huh? Helpful in what way? Knowing her colonial immigrant descendants
does that help us establish who her parents are?
As shown below, my files indicate a whopping 50-plus
> > colonial immigrants are descended from this woman.
> >
> > Be sure to check the list to see if your colonial ancestor is
> > included.
> >
> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Thanks Douglas:
>
> See Douglas does play nice if you don't hurl invectives at him and
> spew vitriol as if he had committed genocide. He provides some
> interesting topics of discussion and some helpful information.
====He is also fishing for extra or new information.
> Sometimes he does toss out teasers or is slow to provide lines of
> evidence-perhaps to promote his book, however nothing he has done
> warrants the volumes of nastiness and personal attacks cast on him by
> certain parties, including individuals who pride themselves on being
> "non-judgemental".
====I always thought that commercialism, advertising of one's own for sale
book, was not acceptable on gen-med. And as this has been said to Douglas
Richardson many a time over, is it now two or three years?, he deserves all
the "nastiness" he is getting. But then, as he has said, as a professionally
trained genealogist and historian, he knows better.
Personally I am pleased when the availability of a book is made known, but
that should be done when it is known when a book is "really"available. But
the "availability" of Douglas's book has become a moveable feast, has anyone
heard "for certain" when his book is out and printed? Wasn't it to be in the
mail before Christmas? Was that Christmas 2003 or was it 2002?
Critques of methodology, lines of evidence, etc.
> are perfectly legitimate, but in no means warant such recriminations.
> Sometimes I have been frustrated by Douglas answers,
=== You are lucky, if you get a frustrating answer, many a time he doesn't
answer questions at all, especially when they are awkward for him.
but he has on
> many occassions been helpful to me and many other individuals. This
> should count for something!!!! It does with me. This isn't the
> arab-israeli crisis, it is genealogy. Nobody dies if someone makes an
> error, the folks we study are already dead. The interest in getting
> the best information we can is a noble pursuit, so let us keep it that
> way.
==== Dear Jay, the people may be dead several hundreds of years but, sadly,
bad genealogy can also have a long life. Anneke Jans, how old is her
fraudulent descent from William the Silent? And there are several more.
Douglas Richardson has placed himself on a pedestal, only he did this,
nobody else, and therefor his words should count for something, but often he
is wrong and then doesn't acknowledge his mistakes (Amy de Gaveston for
one).
Douglas has placed himself in a glass house and now is reaping the stones
thrown at him.
Rabid dog is really a nice term to use, but never mind he is always polite
and pleasant, at least according to some.
Best wishes, as always,
Leo van de Pas
Doug McDonald
>
> Dear Jay,
> See in between
>
> <snip>
> From Douglas Richardson :
> > >
> > > To further the interest in finding the identity of Eve (______)
> > > (Tregoz) de Valoines (died 1292), it would probably help if we had a
> > > list of the colonial immigrants who have Eve de Valoines in their
> > > ancestry.
>
> =====Huh? Helpful in what way? Knowing her colonial immigrant descendants
> does that help us establish who her parents are?
>
In just the way the man said "further the interest" .... it
is indeed helpful in furthering the interest in finding her
identity.
I am getting absolutely disgusted with the attacks on Richardson.
Sure, you can blather about how late his book is .... but so
was GBR's book! Let us wait until it actually appears
and then the cognoscenti can pick it apart whereever it deserves.
As for GBR's book, I posted the first review here, and doubted
one of his "improved" lines. A recent look in a 20th century book
of papers of a 18th century genealogist and cousin of the
person in question, Robert Rose of VA., leads me to the
exact same bothersome place I have always seen. The postulated
line needs a good look at the (extant!) papers of the
old genealogists concerned. Some day I will go to Scotland
and take a peek. In the meantime, I get more and more satisfied
that the alternate line to Robert III (and Edward III) that I found
is sound.
Doug McDonald
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> I am getting absolutely disgusted with the attacks on Richardson.
>
> Sure, you can blather about how late his book is .... but so
> was GBR's book! Let us wait until it actually appears
> and then the cognoscenti can pick it apart whereever it deserves.
This is the Freddie Kruger bogey of defensive tactics - no matter how
tedious, stupid & repetitious, it just keeps coming back.
Bits of the book HAVE APPEARED according to its AUTHOR's plain
statements. Public criticisms of its findings and/or methodology are the
only way to improve it and at the same time to correct any wrong or
misleading impressions created for SGM readers by extracts posted here.
People who wish to see the study of medieval genealogy progress are NOT
going to sit back and wait for others to outlay their money & time on
the finished book before venturing to criticise any shoddy work that is
revealed.
It's at best disingenuous to keep on with this inane chorus about
waiting for the whole before commenting on a part.
Furthermore, SGM is not designed solely for the comfort & delectation of
Doug McDonald. Other people might be "absolutely disgusted" with the
lousy defences mounted for Douglas Richardson, including his.
Peter Stewart
Doug McDonald
The problem with attacking a book unread is that you may be rendered
foolish-looking.
I have no idea whether this will be true .... don't attack
me if it DOES indeed conatin rubbish.
BUT ... while you have indeed seen a portion of the line
containing Stradling, you have not seen the WHOLE of it.
It may indeed be there in his book with no qualification
about validity ... BUT he may qualify it in some way.
TIME WILL TELL.
Doug McDonald
Peter Stewart
> From: Doug McDonald [mailto:mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:51 AM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Possible identity of Eve wife of Nicholas Tregoz
> and Robert deValoines
>
>
This argument is going from bad to worse - of course the Stradling
line when published may (indeed should) be improved over the material
posted by Douglas Richardson, and that is at least half the point of
discussing it on SGM.
We know that Richardson is still tinkering with the "manuscript", and
naturally that allows him to pick up or qualify references and to
modify his stance when he has been publicly wrong-footed. BUT he first
announced "new research" establishing Katherine's legitimacy and
maternity, and then TOTALLY failed to substantiate this. So if the
finished book is different from the post, either he will have changed
the text (with or without proper acknowledgement) or he was
dissembling when he claimed to have posted the relevant extract in the
first place. The adventure will be strange indeed if he was
withholding some crucial evidence - and on past showing it's unlikely
that he would recognise such anyway.
Either way, it won't be his critics on SGM who are left looking
foolish: the posted stuff on Katherine was WORTHLESS for his purposes
- or didn't you read Brad Verity and Louise Staley, among others, on
this subject?
As I have already said, putting out teasers on this matter suggests
that he thinks some people may actually buy the book just for the
Stradling line, which in turn provides a motive to him (and Gary Boyd
Roberts) for over-hastily revising it.
Richardson sometimes plays dumb on this newsgroup, unscrupulously, in
order to gather information & corrections, a sign of his disrespect
for us (most members who haven't tumbled to that, or who can't see it
even when highlighted, don't choose to publicise their obtuseness). He
often uses the forum to get difficult parts of his work done for him
by more generous people who volunteer full details, and doesn't appear
to worry that he is frequently left looking the fool here. He may
think that a printed book will outlast ephemeral discourse on the
internet - but if so he is overlooking the ripple effect from this
newsgroup out to the wider potential readership of PA3, including
reviewers. Reputation is a delicate thing, a "bubble" indeed, and once
spoiled it can't be easily reconstituted. Try asking Roderick Stuart,
if you have a ouija board handy, what happens to "authors" who haven't
personally checked every work in their bibliographies, and who can't
even bother to learn the languages in which some of the secondary
works - much less most of the primary sources - were written.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Dear Jay ~
>
> If I had to venture a guess, I would think a good bet is that Eve,
> wife of Nicholas Tregoz and Robert de Valoines, was probably the
> daughter of Gilbert Pecche (died 1291) by his 1st wife, Maud de
> Hastings, which Maud was a possible daughter of Henry de Hastings, by
> Ada of Huntingdon.
Since you have researched this line, can you briefly fill in the
background to the disinheriting of Gilbert Peche's issue by Maud de
Hastings, when he gave his barony to the king in return for lands worth
124 pounds a year, after settling other lands on his his son John and
his second wife Joan in 1284?
From the Calendar of Close Rolls it appears that he died shortly before
20 January 1292. Where does your certainty about 1291 come from?
Peter Stewart
Sutliff
forum to perceive your use of Gary Boyd Roberts' long illness and incapacity
to publish as justification for Richardson's behavior? You have every right
to defend Richardson as you wish, but it is extremely offensive to many here
to see Roberts' health problems compared to Richardson's delays.
Henry Sutliff
"Doug McDonald" <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:403A0964...@scs.uiuc.edu...
<snip>>
>
> I am getting absolutely disgusted with the attacks on Richardson.
>
> Sure, you can blather about how late his book is .... but so
> was GBR's book! Let us wait until it actually appears
> and then the cognoscenti can pick it apart whereever it deserves.
<snip>>
> Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
>
> You may find the attacks on Richardson to be disgusting, but how is the
> forum to perceive your use of Gary Boyd Roberts' long illness and incapacity
> to publish as justification for Richardson's behavior? You have every right
> to defend Richardson as you wish, but it is extremely offensive to many here
> to see Roberts' health problems compared to Richardson's delays.
>
I have no idea why Roberts was so late. None whatsoever.
He simply was. That's all I know.
But it's basically a nice book .... since there are no dates,
and precious few connections, it's basically just a key to
people who have royal lines. Hopefully PA3 will be, like
its predecessor, a much more valuable resource.
Doug McDonald
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_s...@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:59 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Possible identity of Eve wife of Nicholas Tregoz and Robert de
Valoines
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Jay ~
>
> If I had to venture a guess, I would think a good bet is that Eve,
> wife of Nicholas Tregoz and Robert de Valoines, was probably the
> daughter of Gilbert Pecche (died 1291) by his 1st wife, Maud de
> Hastings, which Maud was a possible daughter of Henry de Hastings, by
> Ada of Huntingdon.
Since you have researched this line, can you briefly fill in the
background to the disinheriting of Gilbert Peche's issue by Maud de
Hastings, when he gave his barony to the king in return for lands worth
124 pounds a year, after settling other lands on his his son John and
his second wife Joan in 1284?
From the Calendar of Close Rolls it appears that he died shortly before
20 January 1292. Where does your certainty about 1291 come from?
Peter Stewart
I believe Complete Peerage X:335-6 lists Gilbert's death date as 25 May
1291.
Hal Bradley
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Hal - CP X:336 gives this date, citing _Liber memorandorum
ecclesie de Bernewelle_ edited by JW Clark (Cambridge, 1907), p 86.
I haven't seen this. The record from Barnwell priory may be as
defniite & specific as represented, or just possibly it may not: such
sources are occasionally misinterpreted (though not usually by CP)
when they are only noting a memorial date that could be common to
several related benefactors, and often they don't give both date and
year anyway.
The Close Roll entry may only reflect a lag - but a longish one - in
recognising the facts & according to Gilbert's widow Joan her full
rights.
Can anyone tell us what the Barnwell record actually says about
Gilbert's death, and perhaps even elucidate what led him to disinherit
the issue of his first marriage (which according to CP is not clear
from the Barnwell account)?
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
As it turns out I can answer my own request, at least in part - I was
sent a copy of the relevant Barnwell priory record today.
The text was written in 1295-1296. This is the gist of the information
about Gilbert Peche and his family, pp 48-50:
"Pater eius uocabatur Hamon Pecche, et vxor eius Eua de transmarinis
partibus oriunda. Ex hijs processerunt sex filij, scilicet: Gilbertus
primogenitus, Hamon, Hugo, Robertus, Thomas et Willelmus....Pater uero
eorum mortuus est in terra sancta...Predictus dominus Gilbertus Pecche
duas habuit vxores: vnam que uocabatur Matildis de Hastings...et
habuerunt filios et filias. Que London defuncta est....Post hec accepit
dictus Gilbertus aliam uxorem filiam domini Symonis de Creye; que
uocabatur Johanna. Hanc quidem dilexit et honorauit multum, eo quod
pulcherima esset et bona; de hac quidem genuit filios et filias, et ob
amorem matris magis cepit diligere pueros secunde uxoris quam
prime....Johannem uero Pecche primogenitum suum et Eadmundum fratrem
suum, filios prime uxoris, quasi fere dimisit inanes, nam nescio quo
spiritu uel consilio ductus, dominum Regem Eadwardum filium Regis
Henrici et Reginam Alianoram de residuo Baronie sue suos fecit heredes."
(His father was named Hamon Peche, and his [i.e. the father's] wife Eve
came from overseas. From them came six sons, to wit: Gilbert the
firstborn, Hamon, Hugo, Robert, Thomas and William....Their father died
in the Holy Land...The aforesaid Gilbert Peche had two wives: one who
was named Matilda de Hastings...and they had sons and daughters. She
died in London...After this Gilbert married another wife, daughter of
the lord Simon de Creye, who was named Joan. Her indeed he loved and
honoured greatly, because she was beautiful and good; from her he begot
sons and daughters, and from love of their mother he preferred the
children of his second wife over those of the first....John Peche his
firstborn and Edmund his brother, sons of the first wife, he set aside
altogether as if they were nobodies, but whether guided by impulse or
deliberation I don't know; he made the lord King Edward, son of King
Henry, and Queen Alienor the heirs of the remainder of his barony.)
The death of Gilbert is reported in the narrative, and not as an item in
an obituary list, as follows (p 86):
"Anno regni regis Eadwardi .XIXo. obijt dominus Gilbertus Pecche die
Sancti Vrbani pape, scilicet in fine Maij" (In the 19th year of King
Edwrad's reign the lord Gilbert Peche died on St Urban's day, that is at
the end of May).
19 Edward I began in November 1290, and St Urban's day was 25 May -
included in the calendar kept at Barnwell, op cit p 7.
So Joan had to wait eight months, until 20 January 1292 as in the Close
Roll, to gain her full property rights, a small enough price to pay for
her comeliness and the favouritism shown to her children.
Peter Stewart
Hal Bradley
Thank you for following through so fully with this and for the transcription
of the Latin.
The CP article for Gilbert Pecche indicates that his first wife died circa
1264/5. Assuming he married his second wife, Joan de Creye, shortly
thereafter, then Gilbert & Joan's oldest child could not have been born
prior to, say 1266.
The CP article for Nicholas de Criol (III: 542) states his wife was Margery,
daughter of Gilbert Peche without indicating her mother (IIRC). I believe
her mother is supposed to be Gilbert's second wife, Joan. If she was the
oldest child of Gilbert's second marriage, she would have been born circa
1266/7 and married prior to 10 Feb. 1272/3 (CP III: 542), indicating a child
marriage at age 6 or 7.
Does any one have evidence bearing on the maternity of Margery Pecche? Are
any of the other children (besides John & Edmund, named as sons of Gilbert's
first wife, Maud) assigned respectively to his two wives in the "Liber
Memorandorum..."? Thank you.
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_s...@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:20 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Gilbert Peche [was Re: Possible identity of Eve wife of Nicholas
Tregoz and Robert de Valoines]
Peter Stewart wrote:
> hw.br...@verizon.net ("Hal Bradley") wrote in message
news:<000601c3fafd$50ab7670$edbb2e04@scandiamjn924p>...
>
snip
Peter Stewart
> Peter,
>
> Thank you for following through so fully with this and for the transcription
> of the Latin.
>
> The CP article for Gilbert Pecche indicates that his first wife died circa
> 1264/5. Assuming he married his second wife, Joan de Creye, shortly
> thereafter, then Gilbert & Joan's oldest child could not have been born
> prior to, say 1266.
>
> The CP article for Nicholas de Criol (III: 542) states his wife was Margery,
> daughter of Gilbert Peche without indicating her mother (IIRC). I believe
> her mother is supposed to be Gilbert's second wife, Joan. If she was the
> oldest child of Gilbert's second marriage, she would have been born circa
> 1266/7 and married prior to 10 Feb. 1272/3 (CP III: 542), indicating a child
> marriage at age 6 or 7.
>
> Does any one have evidence bearing on the maternity of Margery Pecche? Are
> any of the other children (besides John & Edmund, named as sons of Gilbert's
> first wife, Maud) assigned respectively to his two wives in the "Liber
> Memorandorum..."? Thank you.
No, Gilbert's other children are not named, just referred to as quoted
in my previous post - that is, he had both sons and daughters by each wife.
The author's interest in Gilbert's descendants was negligible, from a
rather practical cause: he stated (op cit, p 48) that Gilbert himself
"fuit de isto stipite vltimus noster patronus" (was our last patron from
this stock).
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
As a followup to my earlier post, I thought I'd post an example for
you which demonstrates how people viewed kinship relationships in
medieval times.
This past week I located a record which shows that Humphrey de Bohun,
Earl of Hereford and Essex (died 1322), was styled "kinsman" by John
de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1347) [Reference: Report of the
Deputy Keeper, vol. 35 (1874), pg. 5]. These two men were triply
related: (1st) by common descent from Hamelin, 5th Earl of Surrey
(bastard son of Geoffrey Plantagenet); (2nd) by common descent from
William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke (died 1219); and (3rd) by common
descent from the Lusignan family. I've charted the first kinship
relationship below which shows the two men were related in the 4th and
6th degrees of kindred (that is, 3rd cousins, twice removed) by common
descent from Earl Hamelin:
Hamelin, 5th Earl of Surrey (died 1202)
_______________/_________________
/ /
William de Warenne, Maud de Warenne
6th Earl of Surrey, =Henry, Count of Eu
= Maud Marshal /
/ /
John de Warenne, Alice of Eu
7th Earl of Surrey, = Raoul de Lusignan
= Alice de Lusignan /
/ /
William de Warenne, Knt. Maud of Eu
=Joan de Vere =Humphrey de Bohun
/ /
John de Warenne (died 1347) Humphrey de Bohun
8th Earl of Surrey = Eleanor de Brewes
/
Humphrey de Bohun
= Maud de Fiennes
/
Humphrey de Bohun (died 1322)
Earl of Hereford & Essex
I find that the closest kinship between Earl Humphrey de Bohun and
Earl John de Warenne was 4th and 4th degrees (that is, 3rd cousins) by
their common descent from William Marshal. While these two men were
not "closely" related as we would term it today, they were clearly
aware of their more distant kinship and acknowledged it publicly.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0402...@posting.google.com>...
Jay
probably closer than a 4th or Sixth cousin even though they may be the
"same degree" in genetic relationship. However I really don't know if
this is true hunch for this or any period of medieval britain.
Clearly extended kinship was a factor, but I wonder just how far the
scope of medieval "kinship" really played. Clearly there was a
conception in terms of prohibted degrees of marriage, but that really
doesn't tell me if they were conceived of in as kinsmen in other
senses. I just don't know enough about medieval kinship conceptions
among medieval gentry and nobility to be able to judge.
-Jay
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Nor do I have any idea how the people of that time actually regarded
their distant cousins. But what comes through loud and clear in
Burke's volumes is the enormous value the people held for descent from
or companionship with William the Conqueror. This implies to me that
they considered it important to be on the Norman side as these were the
master race. In the 1613 Visitation of Cheshire, page 91, on Dutton,
there is the following incredible bit of apparently racist diatribe:
"TO ALL MANNER OF MEN that these letters pattentes shall see or heare
we Lawrence Warren John Sauage Edward of Wever Lawrence Fitton John of
Carington & John Mayneringe Knightes Hughe Venables Handkyn Mayneringe
William Venables George of WeuerJohn Sauage John of Dutton Esquires
Henrey of Hooten Wm of Dutton Richard of Dutton Piers Bumvylle John
Goldsonne Richard Torfot Hugh of Weuer Gentillmen SENDEN GREETING in
God Almighty FOR AS MUCH AS WEE bynne enformed that oure welbeloued
Alye William Dutton of Denbighe is vexed grevouslye in the said towne
of Denbighe by maliciouse suggestions surmettinge that the saide
William should be welshe and his ancestors welshe and of welshe byrthe
And in euerie Case it is bothe Almes and Nedefull to beare witnesse of
truthe, WE by these our letters pattens recorden that wee have hard
this matter wele examined by men of worshippe and ancient men of the
Countye of Chester by which examination we fynden wele that the said
William is comen of oune Hankee of Dutton the which was Englishe and
brother lawfully to Sr Hughe of Dutton some tyme lord of Dutton the
which Hankee had a sonne Henry otherwysse called Heilyn the whiche
Henry had a sonne called Richard the whiche Richard had yssue this
William and so is the saide William comen out of the house of Dutton
and of the ancestry of Dutton In witnes of whiche thinge to these
letters patentes we haue sett our seales, Gyven the Wensday next after
the feaste of St Lucye the vergyn in the yeare of the raygne of our
soueigne lord the Kinge Henrey the sixte after the conquest the
elleventhe [1482]"
And when they refer to some of their number as 'Gentillmen', it is
perhaps worth remembering that this may have its root in the latin wprd
'gens' meaning race.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
iain wallace
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
news:d883728...@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
> In message of 27 Feb, heli...@yahoo.com (Jay) wrote:
>
> > I would think socially a 3rd cousin twice or thrice removed is
> > probably closer than a 4th or Sixth cousin even though they may be the
> > "same degree" in genetic relationship. However I really don't know if
> > this is true hunch for this or any period of medieval britain.
Not so much an illustration of the Norman master race, rather of Anglo Welsh
friction in a market town much frequented by Welsh traders. Of course it
cuts both ways, I came across an old Welsh poem which bitterly lamented how
the living of artistic Welsh harpers in Chester was harmed by coarse English
bagpipers. English bagpipers - now there is a forgotten aspect of medieval
history.
Ian.