Thomas de Aston (d. abt. 1412) and His Wife Or Wives: Are There Too Many Elizabeths?

[Polly]

I am again confused. Here is an old exchange I found in the archives:


-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Allen AG [mailto:all...@pacbell.net]
Sent: 16 November 1999 18:17
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Wife of Sir Thomas Aston of Haywood, d. 1412/3

Conventional sources give the wife of Sir Thomas Aston as being
Elizabeth Leigh. However, Roskell's Commons gives her as Elizabeth
Cloddeshall, widow of Sir Wiliam Devereux of Bodenham. Did he have two
wives? And if so, which is the mother of his son Sir Roger?

Thanks much.

Kay Allen AG

>From the Historical Collection for Staffordshire 1917-18 P. 128 I have -
Thomas is mentioned with Hawise his wife in 1360 (SC XIII 4) but by 1388 he
with Elizabeth Cloddeshall his wife and John de Aston of Salt and John de
Aston of Longedon are pardoned at the application of Sir John Bagot for a
murder at Jeddefen Herefordshire [PR] [Calendar of Parent Rolls] and in 1397
and 1410 he is named as married to Elizabeth, widow of Sir William Devereux,
she being a sister and co-heiress of Reynold de Legh. Thomas was born c.
1345 and was Member of Parliament for Staffordshire in 1380, 1384, 1388,
1393, 1399 and 1406. He was knighted between 1370 and 1380. He was Sheriff
of Staffordshire in 1409/10 and probably died soon after 1412.

Sir Thomas Aston therefore appears to have been married 3 times. His son
Sir Roger Aston, who became Constable of the Tower of London in 1420, was
born c. 1380. He would therefore be the son either of Hawise or Elizabeth
Cloddeshall.
Hope this is of some use.

Peter Sutton

In HOP, this Elizabeth Cloddeshall, NOT Elizabeth de Legh, is identified as the widow of Sir William Devereux: "Aston's marriage to Elizabeth Cloddeshale, the widow of Sir William Devereux, sometime sheriff and subsequently coroner of Herefordshire, took place shortly before Michaelmas 1385 and led to his indictment on a charge of accessory to murder. He and his wife were accused of complicity in the death of Thomas Yeddefen, an esquire of the King, who was killed by Elizabeth's two stepsons, William and John Devereux. All four were eventually pardoned in 1388. . ." (note to self: so many of these upperclass folks seem to have been pretty much gangsters!) There is no mention in HOP of any wife for Sir Thomas other than Elizabeth Cloddeshall, and she is called the widow of William Devereux. So, does anyone have further information? How does Elizabeth de Legh get into the mix, and is there a confusion about which Elizabeth is actually the widow of William Devereux? HOP's details about her Devereux stepsons suggests that Elizabeth Cloddeshall is the widow. Could she have been Elizabeth de Legh, m. Cloddeshall, m. Devereux, then m. Thomas Aston? (Unfortunately HOP hasn't yet put up the details for William Devereux or Sir Thomas's son Roger). Is there any information since 1999 available? Thanks again, Polly

[Stewart Baldwin via]

Elizabeth Clodeshall, widow of William Devereux (d. ca. 1384), married Sir Thomas Aston, but his son Roger was almost certainly by an earlier marriage. I have not tried to research Thomas Aston's earlier marriage(s), but I see no reason to identify Elizabeth Leigh with Elizabeth Clodeshall.

Stewart Baldwin

>In HOP, this Elizabeth Cloddeshall, NOT Elizabeth de Legh, is identified as the widow of Sir William Devereux: "Aston's marriage to Elizabeth Cloddeshale, the widow of Sir William Devereux, sometime sheriff and subsequently coroner of Herefordshire, took place shortly before Michaelmas 1385 and led to his indictment on a charge of accessory to murder. He and his wife were accused of complicity in the death of Thomas Yeddefen, an esquire of the King, who was killed by Elizabeth's two stepsons, William and John Devereux. All four were eventually pardoned in 1388. . ." (note to self: so many of these upperclass folks seem to have been pretty much gangsters!) There is no mention in HOP of any wife for Sir Thomas other than Elizabeth Cloddeshall, and she is called the widow of William Devereux. So, does anyone have further information? How does Elizabeth de Legh get into the mix, and is there a confusion about which Elizabeth is actually the widow of William Devereux? HOP's!
!

> details about her Devereux stepsons suggests that Elizabeth Cloddeshall is the widow. Could she have been Elizabeth de Legh, m. Cloddeshall, m. Devereux, then m. Thomas Aston? (Unfortunately HOP hasn't yet put up the details for William Devereux or Sir Thomas's son Roger). Is there any information since 1999 available? Thanks again, Polly
>

>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[taf]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 10:58:02 AM UTC-8, Stewart Baldwin via wrote:
> Elizabeth Clodeshall, widow of William Devereux (d. ca. 1384), married Sir
> Thomas Aston, but his son Roger was almost certainly by an earlier marriage.
> I have not tried to research Thomas Aston's earlier marriage(s), but I see no
> reason to identify Elizabeth Leigh with Elizabeth Clodeshall.
>

The references to Hawise and to Elizabeth, widow of William Devereux, seem to have come from primary documentation. I don't know the basis for this Elizabeth being a Clodeshall. The reference to a wife Elizabeth, sister of Reynold de Leigh, derives from Harwood's additions to Erdeswick's Survey of Staffordshire, and no source is given, so I am hesitant to even accept it as authentic.

One should be very careful in accepting all of these different wives and trying to harmonize what may be conflicting information, references to distinct wives, wives of distinct men, the result of confusion or even invention. Still, given what Stewart said about the son's age, it looks like Hawise is the best bet for his mother.

taf

[willac...@yahoo.co.uk]

I can offer two other sources which support the identification of one of Thomas Aston's wives as Elizabeth Leigh (or Lee etc). This Lee family was originally of Hughley, Shropshire (Constable calls this place 'High Leigh') and had inherited the lands of the Leigh family of Leigh, Staffordshire through an heiress in the 1200s:

'A Topographical and Historical Description of the Parish of Tixall', p. 199, by Sir Thomas Hugh Constable, 1st Bt (1817):

"LEIGH. The parish of Leigh was a dependency of the abbey of Burton upon Trent, and was held by Robertus Filius Veneti, in the reign of Henry I. in fee farm, paying 4l. per ann. to the abbot. His great grandson Philip de Leigh had a son Robert, who was sheriff of Stafford, 12 Hen. 3,; but died without issue. His estates were then divided among the three sisters of his father Philip. Helen, the second, married Hugo of High Leigh, co. Salop, and had a third part of Leigh for her portion. Their great grandson Richard de Leigh, (11 Edw. 3.) had a son Reginald, who died s. p. and two daughters, coheiresses: Elizabeth, who married Sir Thos. Aston, and had a third part of Leigh, and the mansion of Park-hall, co. Stafford; and Joan, who married Thos. De Gattacre, co. Salop, and inherited High Leigh. Elizabeth bore for High Leigh, Argent, a fess with two pellets in chief, sable. For Leigh, Gules, fretty of ten pieces or, a fess sable. This latter coat of arms is blazoned in the highest pane of the great west window of Leigh church. In consequence of this marriage the Astons resided much at Park-hall, till they became possessors of Tixall. The old mansion does not now exist; a farmhouse appears to have been erected on the scite, and is surrounded by a moat, over which is thrown a handsome stone-bridge. In the windows of this house are preserved a few panes of stained glass belonging to the old mansion, exhibiting ancient coats of arms of the Aston family, with their early quarterings."


http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098554/00001/71j
'Visitation of Staffordshire 1583', p. 37
"Rogerus* Aston, miles, obijt 1447.
...
*According to Lord Hatherton's MS., this Roger was the son of Thomas de Aston, Kt., by Elizabeth, sister and coheir of Reginald Lee, which Thomas was son of Roger, and grandson of another Roger de Aston, living 19 E. 1, and 35 E. 3."


Peter Sutton suggested that Thomas Aston had 3 wives in a message to the group on 18/11/1999 ('Wife of Sir Thomas Aston of Haywood, d. 1412/3'). His suggestion that Thomas' third wife was Elizabeth Lee and that she was not the mother of his heir Roger does not sit well with me as the Astons certainly inherited the Lee/Leigh family's lands in Staffordshire. If Elizabeth Lee did not have children then surely Leigh would have passed to the Gatacre family.


William Acton

[taf]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-8, willac...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> I can offer two other sources which support the identification of one of
> Thomas Aston's wives as Elizabeth Leigh (or Lee etc).

> 'A Topographical and Historical Description of the Parish of Tixall', p.
> 199, by Sir Thomas Hugh Constable, 1st Bt (1817):

Yeah, I came upon this right after posting my last.

> Their great grandson Richard de Leigh, (11 Edw. 3.) had a son Reginald, who
> died s. p. and two daughters, coheiresses: Elizabeth, who married Sir Thos.
> Aston, and had a third part of Leigh, and the mansion of Park-hall, co.
> Stafford; and Joan, who married Thos. De Gattacre, co. Salop, and inherited
> High Leigh.

> 'Visitation of Staffordshire 1583', p. 37
> "Rogerus* Aston, miles, obijt 1447.
> ...
> *According to Lord Hatherton's MS., this Roger was the son of Thomas de
> Aston, Kt., by Elizabeth, sister and coheir of Reginald Lee, which Thomas
> was son of Roger, and grandson of another Roger de Aston, living 19 E. 1,
> and 35 E. 3."

Note that the Hatherton MS is a copy of the visitation, with additions, dating from the 17th century at the earliest. It is always difficult to evaluate the validity of such late additions, unless as is frequently the case they are demonstrably wrong. It is perhaps noteworthy that they didn't quarter Leigh.

> His suggestion that Thomas' third wife was Elizabeth Lee and that she was
> not the mother of his heir Roger does not sit well with me as the Astons
> certainly inherited the Lee/Leigh family's lands in Staffordshire. If
> Elizabeth Lee did not have children then surely Leigh would have passed to
> the Gatacre family.

But do we know they 'certainly' inherited the property? There is an unfortunate longstanding practice of assuming that if two families held property in succession, one must have inherited it from the other, even to the degree where the existence of a fine transferring land at market value is sometimes (with unrecognized irony) put forward as evidence of a relationship between the two parties. Likewise infeudation can sometimes appear like inheritance - do we know the Astons were holding in succession as Leigh heirs, and not under the Leigh heirs. If the Astons were not holding Leigh lands as heirs, any argument based on a lack of reversion doesn't apply.

Is there anything from the reign of Edward III or Richard II that explicitly points to the relationship?

taf

[Polly]

So, right now, given the valuable input from Steward Baldwin, TAF, and William Acton, is it fair to say that it was Elizabeth (Cloddeshall?), and not the putative Elizabeth de Legh, who was the widow of Sir William Devereux, and that the issue of an Acton-Legh marriage is still awaiting more data? Thanks, Polly

[Stewart Baldwin via]

>So, right now, given the valuable input from Steward Baldwin,
>TAF, and William Acton, is it fair to say that it was Elizabeth
>(Cloddeshall?), and not the putative Elizabeth de Legh, who was
>the widow of Sir William Devereux, and that the issue of an
>Acton-Legh marriage is still awaiting more data?

The marriage of Thomas de Aston to to Elizabeth Clodeshale, widow of William Devereux (Deverose) is clearly documented by the following two entries in the Patent Rolls [Cal. Pat. Rolls Ric. II, vol. 3 (1385-9)]:

p. 45: 25 October 9 Ric. II [1385], Westminster. Grant in fee simple, to Simon de Bureley, under-chamberlain, of the manor of Chastelfrome, co. Hereford, the inheritance of Elizabeth Clodeshale, late the wife of William Deverose, knight, of the yearly value of 40 marks, which has been seised into the king's hands because she covined with others to murder Thomas Zeduyn, the king's esquire, and absconded. (Similar entry, p. 197, 26 June 10 Ric. II [1386])

p. 435: 17 March 11 Ric. II [1387], Westminster
Pardon, at the supplication of William Bagot, knight, to Thomas de Aston, knight, of the county of Stafford, and Elizabeth Cloddeshale, his wife, for the murder of Thomas Jeddefen of the county of Hereford, at Jeddefen on Wednesday after Michaelmas 9 Richard II.

This indicates that Thomas and Elizabeth married between 1385 and 1387. From the following Worcestershire fine, it would appear that Thomas and Elizabeth were still married in 1410:

CP 25/1/260/26, number 23.
Link: Image of document at AALT
County: Worcestershire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: One month from St Michael, 12 Henry [IV] [27 October 1410].
Parties: Richard Braz and Margaret, his wife, querents, and Thomas Aston', knight, and Elizabeth, his wife, deforciants.
Property: The manor of Wodecote.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: Thomas and Elizabeth have granted to Richard and Margaret the manor and have rendered it to them in the court, to hold to Richard and Margaret and the heirs of their bodies, of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, remainder to the right heirs of Margaret.
For this: Richard and Margaret have given them 100 marks of silver.
[http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/worcestershire.shtml]

Wodecote was a Clodeshale possession, suggesting that this was still Elizabeth Clodeshale, and not a putative later wife Elizabeth de Legh. Visitation pedigrees make Margaret Braz/Brace a daughter of William Devereux and Elizabeth Clodeshale, but a later record appears to make Margaret a sister of Elizabeth:

Cal. Close Rolls Edw. IV, vol. 2 (1471-3), p. 243 (#895):
Walter Arderne of the Logge esquire, of the parish of Aston co. Warwick, to Elizabeth Unet, one of the daughters of Margaret Brace, and Roger Monnyngton, and Margaret his wife another daughter of the aforesaid Margaret, their heirs and assigns. Gift with warranty against the prior of Canwall co. Stafford and his successors, of all his rights in the manor of Wodecote, and in default of heirs to the said Elizabeth and Margaret with remainder to the right heirs of Margaret Brace, daughter and heir of Richard Clodsale and Joan his wife. Dated 2 May, 12 Edward IV.

My main interest in all of this is my attempt to narrow down the chronology of the Brace family, from which I descend. The records of that family are difficult to interpret, but unless they are very misleading, Richard Braz/Brace (not my ancestor, but quite possibly a brother of an ancestor) was born between ca. 1380 and ca. 1390 (with not a whole lot of wiggle room on either end). Thus, Margaret seems to be about a generation later than Elizabeth, suggesting that the visitation was right and that the Close Rolls accidentally omitted a generation (although Margaret could have been a much younger sister of Elizabeth).

Having looked at this more carefully, I can see that I have no conclusive proof of my earlier statement that Roger de Aston was not a son of Elizabeth Clodeshale, but if so, he would have to have been born in 1385 or later. If not, he would have to be by an earlier wife. As Todd has pointed out, the evidence for Elizabeth de Legh mentioned so far is less than stellar. One additional thing worth pointing out is that the History of Parliament, in the sketch of Thomas de Aston, makes no mention of his supposed wife Elizabeth de Legh.

Stewart Baldwin

[taf]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 2:54:31 PM UTC-8, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

> The marriage of Thomas de Aston to to Elizabeth Clodeshale, widow of
> William Devereux (Deverose) is clearly documented by the following two
> entries in the Patent Rolls [Cal. Pat. Rolls Ric. II, vol. 3 (1385-9)]:

Good, that's one fewer open question.

> Wodecote was a Clodeshale possession, suggesting that this was still
> Elizabeth Clodeshale, and not a putative later wife Elizabeth de Legh.

I will just point out that if the accounts of the acquisition of the Legh inheritance are to be believed, that the later Astons descended from this marriage to Elizabeth de Legh, I think she would have to have been an earlier wife, and not a later one, given how late you show Aston still with Elizabeth Clodeshale Devereux. That is not to say she existed, but if she did, I think she has to come before.

taf