Beatrice Neville m(2) Sir Henry Sothill - Part I
TJ Booth
They also addressed the wife(s) of Sir Henry Sothill (d. bef 1366), and looked to find the reason younger son Sir Gerard (d. 1 Aug 1410) was gifted Redbourne by John de Bekyngham and wife Beatrice. In a 2001 post http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2001-10/1003165612, Ravilious proposed that Beatrice was Sir Henry's 2nd wife and mother of Sir Gerard (her motherhood explaining the gift). But in a 2006 post, Ravilious agreed with the late Brice Clagett (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2006-01/1136331839) that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Beatrice was Sir Henry's wife.
Relying on Ravilious' records, with some additions, a reasonable case can be made that Beatrice de Neville was m. at least 3 times - 1st to Thomas de Lacy of Cromwelbothom (as his 2nd wife), 2ndly to Sir Henry Sothill, and lastly to John de Bekyngham. The suggestion of Beatrice's first marriage - and the added history it adds to her relationship with the Sothills - has not been discussed on SGM before. If accepted, this suggestion and its related history offers a credible explanation for why Sir Gerard and brother were gifted Sothill. But it would also eliminate Beatrice de Neville as the biological mother of Sir Gerard.
Ravilious kindly (presciently?) also provided a pedigree for Lacy of Cromwelbotham (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2006-06/1150407803 ). It shows that Thomas de Lacy of Cromwellbotham, son of John de Lascy and Margaret Eland (sister of Sir John Eland of 'Eland feud' fame) was b. abt 1301, d. by 1353, and m. 'Margaret'. She is elsewhere identified as Margaret dau of Richard de Tonge [1], with all sources indicating she was mother of Thomas' children and that her date of death is unknown.
John de Lascy inherited Cromwelbotham from his father Thomas in 1353 [2], with the witnesses including Sir Henry Sothill (d. 1366). This important record establishes that the Sir Henry Sothill and Thomas de Lascy families were well acquainted by that date.
Equally important to the 'thrice married' identity of Beatrice is that a Thomas de Lascy - in all likelihood the above Thomas based on the dates and location - left a widow named Beatrice who seems otherwise unknown except for a series of transactions that connects her with both a certain Stansfield property and with the Sothills :
In 1353/54, John Sothill (no doubt Sir Henry's brother who m. Helen de Moseley in 1325 [3], as there is no record for a John son of Sir Henry d. 1366), mortgaged a Stansfield property to 'Beatrice widow of Thomas de Lascy' [4]. John's father, the first Sir Henry (who d. abt 1352 when his son Sir Henry d. 1366 had seisin of his lands), had been granted Stansfield about 10 years earlier [5]
In 1357, four years later, 'Beatrice widow of Thomas de Lascy ' granted the Stansfield land back to Sir Henry Sothill (d. 1366) [6].
In 1359, still in this Sir Henry's lifetime, his son and heir Henry (not yet 'Sir') quit-claimed Stansfield for an annual rent [7].
While many SGM posters have sought to explain why Beatrice de Bekyngham should grant Redbourne to the Sothills, it is interesting that little attention has been given to explaining why the widow Beatrice de Lascy should have granted Stanfield to Sir Henry d. 1366.
Beginning in 1362/63, this Sir Henry began granting lands to his sons, first to perhaps his second oldest son James [8], and in 1363 to his oldest son and heir Henry [9]. There is no record that younger sons Gerard and Robert received any lands from him. Sir Henry was d. by 1366 per the appointment to deliver seisin of Soothill to his son Henry (brother of Sir Gerard), now designated knight [10].
Beatrice de Neville was not an independently wealthy woman when Thomas de Lascy d. in 1353. One of three children of Roger de Neville of Redbourne, her bro Peter was his father's prospective heir to the exclusion of Beatrice and her sister Phillippa (who m. Thomas de Neville of another line). But in 1369 - well after her suggested 2nd husband Sir Henry Sothill d. - both Beatrice and her sister's family were suddenly elevated to co-heirs when bro Peter d. (in 1366/67 per his IPM), and then Peter's sole heir Roger d. just 3 years later (in 1369 per his IPM). Since Beatrice's sister Phillippa and her husband had also d., Phillippa's half share in Redbourne went to her son, John de Neville of Faldyngworth. Beatrice and her (3rd) husband John de Bekyngham shared the other half [11].
Just a year later, on 13 Nov 1370, Bekyngham paid 5 marks for a license allowing John de Neville of Faldyngworth to grant his half share in Redbourne to Beatrice, himself and 'their heirs' [12][12A], which would thereby give the couple full ownership (except for a 1/3 dowry interest retained by Constance, widow of Beatrice's bro Peter).
Six months later, on 10 May 1371, John de Bekyngham and Beatrice paid 100s for a license to grant Redbourne (subject to dowry) to Gerard de Sothill and his younger brother Robert [13][13A]. This extra step suggests the brothers did not qualify as heirs.
Chronologically, the property transactions suggest that Sir Henry m. the widow de Lascy abt or shortly aft her 1357 grant of Stanfield. That grant - if related to a marriage - is thus easily explained. Since Sir Henry was d. bef 1366, Beatrice then had several years time before m (3) John de Bekyngham (the earliest record of her Bekyngham marriage being the 1369 IPM of Roger de Neville).
A related question addressed in prior posts was why Gerard and Robert received Redbourne, not Sir Gerard's older bro Sir Henry. Were Beatrice mother of Gerard and not Henry, it could be easily explained. But since she was not, it was suggested that Beatrice may simply have favored the Sothill sons who received no inheritance. There is also another possibility - not previously discussed - that Sir Gerard and his bro Robert were granted Redbourne simply because Sir Henry d. not only bef 1376 but bef the 1371 license [14].
Suggested revisions, additions or disproofs of the above are welcomed.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
PS. An added son for Thomas de Lacy d. 1353 can also be identified. Thomas 'son of Thomas' was involved in the locally colorful and infamous 'Eland feud', in which - according to a 124 stanza Ballad @ http://books.google.com/books?id=RfMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA59 - Sir John Eland was murdered by William de Lockwood, Adam de Beaumont and Thomas de Lacy (in supposed revenge for Eland's 'murder' of Beaumont's and Lockwood's fathers). While many have questioned the story, allegedly introduced by Hopkinson several centuries later, W Paley Baildon @ http://books.google.com/books?id=u0DWKV5pFLAC&pg=PA129 noted it held some truth, quoting from a PRO record "Thomas Molot de Wakefield captus pro quo manutenuit filium Thomas Lascy qui felonice Johannem de Eland Chivaler et de eo quod dedit eidem Thome filio Thome xl. solidos argenti post praedictam feloniam factam sciens ipsum fecisse dictam feloniam in manutencione praedicti Thome filii Thome." Baildon dated Sir John Eland's death to bef 1353 based on this record, but was apparently unaware that the Henry III C.P.R. holds many 1351 records - beginning on 9 Mar - in which the King qualifies all his pardons of crimes with 'the death of John de Eland, knight, only excepted'. There is also a July 1351 commission created by Henry III to investigate the events - see membrane 21d @ http://books.google.com/books?id=OiqLjhNFQccC&pg=PA156
Post too long for SGM - see Part II for SOURCES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -