Maud de Roos, wife of John de Welle(s), 3rd Lord Welles
Douglas Richardson
Another related problem involved the recent identification of Maud le
Scrope, wife of Baldwin de Freville, is the identification and
parentage of Maud le Scrope's maternal grandmother, Maud, wife of John
de Welle(s), 3rd Lord Welles.
Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441 sub Welles says of Maud, wife of
John de Welle(s), was "probably da. of William (de Ros), 2nd Lord Ros
(of Helmsley), by Margery, sister and coheiress of Giles (de
Badlesmere), 2nd Lord Badlesmere, lst da. of Bartholomew, lst Lord
Badlesmere." The evidence the editor cites for this parentage
consists solely of the fact that the wardship of John de Welle(s) was
granted 17 Mar. 1344/5, to his presumed mother-in-law, Margery, widow
of William de Ros [Reference: C.P., 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 441, footnote d,
citing Cal. Fine Rolls, vol. 5, pp. 412,417]. All of this seems like
rather skimpy evidence to me. As such, I've looked elsewhere to see
if a confirmation of Maud de Welles' parentage could be found. The
evidence I've located is presented below. It falls into three parts:
(lst) As with the Scrope-Welles marriage which I posted on yesterday,
there is heraldic evidence which indicates that a Welles-Roos marriage
took place. In 1935/37, Commander S.N. Smith published an interesting
article on the Delamare and Paulet Family Monuments found in the
church at Nunney, Somerset. At the tomb of Sir John Paulet and his
wife, Constance Poynings, there was formerly found a series of
heraldic shields which commemorated the various marital matches in the
ancestry of this couple. Among the shields placed at this tomb were
the arms of Poynings impaling Welles (for Constance's parents), the
arms of Welles impaling Mowbray (for Constance's maternal
grandparents), and the arms of Welles impaling Roos (evidently for
Constance's great-grandparents, John de Welle(s), 3rd Lord Welles, and
his wife, Maud de Roos) [Reference: Miscellanea Genealogica et
Heraldic, 5th ser., 9 (1935-1937): 84-87].
(2nd) There exists an ancient visitation pedigree of the Roos family
taken c. 1480-1500 in the Visitation of the North. This pedigree was
published in 1930, in Surtees Society, vol. 144, pp. 161-164. This
pedigree is reliable in most details. This pedigree lists four
children for William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos, and his wife, Margery de
Badlesmere, including a daughter, Maud. Unfortunately, no marriage is
provided for Maud. Evidence exists, however, to prove the existence
of the other three children named in this visitation record.
(3rd) Complete Peerage 10 (1945): 123-130 includes an interesting
account of the life of James Butler, 4th Earl of Ormond (died 1452),
which James' mother, Anne, was a daughter of John de Welle(s), 3rd
Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de Roos. The account in Complete
Peerage shows that in 1432 James Butler obtained a dispensation to
marry his second wife, Elizabeth Fitzgerald, daughter of Gerald
FitzGerald, lst Earl of Kildare, by his 2nd wife, Agnes Darcy.
As it turns out, James Butler and Elizabeth Fitzgerald were doubly
related. According to my notes of their dispensation, they were
related on their fathers' sides in the 3rd degree of kindred, and on
their mothers' sides in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kindred)
[Reference: Cal. Entries in the Papal Registers: Letters 8 (1909):
442-443]. Clearly, James and Elizabeth were closely related to one
another.
A good bet is that James and Elizabeth were related through the Darcy
family, as James Darcy' paternal grandmother was a Darcy and Elizabeth
Fitzgerald's mother was a Darcy. Assuming this was the 3rd and 3rd
degree kinship involves a common Darcy descent between the two
parties, then Elizabeth's mother, Agnes, would have to have been a
daughter of John Darcy, 2nd Lord Darcy, died 1356, by his wife,
Elizabeth Meinell. The kinship would be as follows:
John Darcy lst Lord Darcy
Elizabeth Darcy lst degree John 2nd Lord Darcy
* *
James Butler 2nd degree Agnes Darcy
* *
James Butler 3rd degree Elizabeth Fitzgerald
As for the other 3rd and 4th degrees kinship, this appears to have
come through James Butler's mother, Anne de Welles, and Elizabeth
Fitzgerald's grandmother, Elizabeth Meinell, both of whom share a
descent from the Roos family. The kinship would be as follows:
William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos
Maud de Roos 1st degree Alice de Roos
=John de Welle =Nicholas de Meinell
* *
Anne de Welles 2nd degree Elizabeth de Meinell
=James Butler =John Darcy, 2nd Lord Darcy
* *
James Butler 3rd degree Agnes Darcy
1=Urien Cokeshay
2= Gerald FitzGerald, lst Earl of
Kildare
*
4th degree Elizabeth FitzGerald
If the above pedigree is correct, then the identity of James Butler's
grandmother, Maud de Roos, is fully established. Maud's Roos'
placement as a daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley,
would make her grandson, James Butler, related to Elizabeth FitzGerald
in the 3rd and 4th degree of kindred.
CONCLUSION:
Although the evidence of Maud de Welles' parentage is slim, it is
certainly compelling. The grant of John Welles' wardship to Lady
Roos, the shield of arms, the visitation, and the dispensation all
provide good indication that John de Welles' wife, Maud, was a
daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley. While I would
certainly like to see better evidence for this affliation, given the
evidence in hand, I feel reasonably confident that the editor of C.P.
has correctly identified the parentage of Maud de Welles. Comments
are invited.
For interest sake, I've listed below the colonial immigrants who are
descended from John de Welles, 3rd Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de
Roos. The individual descents down to the immigrants will be found in
the forthcoming books, Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
- - - - - - - -
List of Colonial immigrants who descend from John de Welle(s), 3rd
Lord Welles, and his wife, Maud de Roos:
l. Robert Abell.
2. Dannett Abney.
3. William Asfordby.
4. Richard & William Bernard.
5. Essex Beville.
6. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.
7. Joseph Bolles.
8. Thomas Booth.
9. Nathaniel Browne.
10. Charles Calvert.
11. Edward Carleton (two descents).
12. Grace Chetwode (two descents).
13. Jeremy Clarke (two descents).
14. Henry Corbin.
15. John Davenport.
16. Gerard Fowke.
17. William Goddard.
18. Katherine Hamby.
19. Anne Humphrey (two descents).
20. Mary Launce (two descents).
21. Henry, Jane, & Nicholas Lowe.
22. Thomas Lunsford.
23. Anne Mauleverer.
24. Philip & Thomas Nelson.
25. Thomas Owsley.
26. Herbert Pelham (two descents).
27. George Reade.
28. Diana & Grey Skipwith.
29. Maria Johanna Somerset.
30. John Stockman.
31. Olive Welby.
33. John West (two descents).
34. Thomas Wingfield.
Chris Phillips
Thanks for that interesting post. The heraldic evidence certainly seems to
back up the stated parentage, but I'm not quite sure about the above
reconstruction of the consanguinity.
It seems that James and Elizabeth did have a different 3rd and 3rd degree
relationship, strictly on their fathers' sides:
James Butler, Earl of Ormond, was son of
James Butler, Earl of Ormond, and Anne Welles; this James was son of
James Butler, Earl of Ormond, and Elizabeth Darcy; this Elizabeth was
daughter of
Sir John Darcy of Knaith and ("presumably", says CP) Joan, widow of Thomas
FitzJohn, Earl of Kildare, and daughter of Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster.
Elizabeth FitzGerald was daughter of
Gerald FitzMaurice (FitzGerald), Earl of Kildare, and Agnes Darcy; this
Gerald was son of
Maurice FitzThomas (FitzGerald), Earl of Kildare, and Elizabeth de
Burghersh; this Maurice was son of
Thomas FitzJohn (FitzGerald) and Joan, daughter of Richard de Burgh, Earl of
Ulster.
So there is a common descent from Joan de Burgh on the fathers' side.
In that case there would seem to be two 3rd and 3rd degree relationships,
but I'm not clear about the evidence for Agnes Darcy's parentage (CP seems
to give nothing but her surname). Can it be correct that she was the
daughter of John Darcy and Elizabeth de Menille? Agnes's daughter was born
c.1398, and her marriage is put by CP at "before 18 Nov 1397". But John
Darcy and Elizabeth had dispensation to marry 1344/5, and John died 1355/6.
Is it possible Agnes should be placed a generation later? That would, I
think, give a 3rd and 4th degree relationship stemming from the common
descent from John Darcy (d.1347) - although it would be on James's father's
side and Elizabeth's mother's, not on both their mothers'. Or could Agnes
come from a difference Darcy family altogether?
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
I had the opportunity today to reexamine the dispensation for the
marriage of James Butler, Earl of Ormond, and Elizabeth Fitz Gerald.
This dispensation is recorded in Calendar of Entries in the Papal
Register: Letters, 8 (1909): 442-443.
The transcript of the dispensation reads as follows:
"... that on the side of the fathers of both of them they are related
in the third, and on the side of James' father and Elizabeth's mother
in the third and fourth degrees of kindred ..."
The original Latin text is also provided by the editor. It reads the
same as the English translation above.
In your post earlier today, you identified the first kinship mentioned
in the dispensation on the fathers' side in the 3rd degree as follows:
Thomas Fitz John (1) = Joan de Burgh (2nd) = John Darcy lst Lord
Darcy
Maurice Fitz Thomas lst degree Elizabeth Darcy
* =James Butler
* *
Gerald Fitz Maurice 2nd degree James Butler
* *
Elizabeth Fitz Maurice 3rd degree James Butler
As outlined by Chris, this descent would indicate that James Butler's
grandmother, Elizabeth Darcy, above was the daughter of Joan de Burgh.
As such, it represents a slight correction to Complete Peerage, 10
(1945): 121 (sub Ormond), where Elizabeth Darcy is called "presumably"
daughter of Joan de Burgh. It would seem the word "presumably" can
now be deleted from the Complete Peerage text.
As for the other 3rd and 4th degree kinship, the dispensation
specifically states that this kinship is through Elizabeth Fitz
Gerald's mother, Agnes Darcy. As such, it still seems to be a good
bet that the connection on James Butler's side of things would come
through his grandmother, Elizabeth Darcy.
Below is a revised reconstruction of how James Butler's father and
Elizabeth Fitz Gerald's mother might be related in the 3rd and 4th
degrees:
John Darcy lst Lord Darcy
Elizabeth Darcy lst degree John Darcy, 2nd Lord Darcy
* *
James Butler 2nd degree Philip Darcy, 3rd Lord Darcy
* *
James Butler 3rd degree Agnes Darcy
*
4th degree Elizabeth Fitz Gerald
J.W. Clay's Extinct and Dormant Peerages (1913), pp. 41-42 shows that
Philip Darcy, 3rd Lord Darcy (b. ca. 1352, died 1399) above had a
daughter named Agnes. She is not mentioned in her father's will dated
1399 but, according to Clay, she is mentioned in the will of her
mother dated in 1411. If this identification is correct, it would
provide a new addition to Complete Peerage sub Kildare. Presumably
Agnes was not in her father's will in 1399, as she was already married
and provisions had already been made for her. Clay does not identify
this Agnes Darcy's marriage.
This changed arrangement of the Darcy pedigree still makes James
Butler and Elizabeth Fitz Gerald related by common descent from the
Roos family, provided James Butler's great grandmother Maud de Welles
was in fact a Roos. However, the relationship would now be 4th and
5th degrees of kindred, which level of kinship I find is usually
overlooked in papal dispensations.
If the above two closer sets of kinship are correct, then the
dispensation of James Butler and Elizabeth Fitz Gerald provides NO
evidence that James Butler's great-grandmother Maud de Welles was a
Roos. So we have lost one piece of evidence which might have helped
prove that Maud de Welles was a Roos.
However, reviewing Clay's Extinct and Dormant Peerages, I see under
his account of the Roos family on pg. 183 that he lists a daughter
Maud for William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos, and his wife, Margery de
Badlesmere. He says this Maud de Roos married "John, 4th Lord
Welles." He doesn't give any source for Maud's marriage. But under
her sister, Margaret, he cites "Rievaulx Cart., pg. 361" which source
presumably has information on the Roos family. If correct, quite
possibly the Rievaulx Cartulary might provide some additional
documentation for Maud de Roos' existence and her marriage to John de
Welle(s).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote in message news:<002d01c21b08$66855e60$441786d9@oemcomputer>...
Douglas Richardson
Yesterday I had the opportunity to check the book, Cartularium
Abbathiae de Rievalle, edited by J.C. Atkinson, published in 1889, as
Surtees Society, vol. 83. On pages 358-362 is found a genealogy of
the Roos family taken from the original Rievaulx cartulary. The
genealogy states William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley, and his
wife, Margery de Baldlesmere, had a daughter, Maud. The following is
a specific quotation from that source:
"Willelmus de Roos, filius ejus, duxit in uxorem Margeriam de
Badilesmere, et genuit ex ea Willelmum, Thomam, Margaretam et
Matildim, et sepultus est apud Kirkham in mausoleo lapideo juxta
magnum altare, et parte australi."
This is now the second source which shows that William de Roos, 2nd
Lord Roos, had a daughter named Maud. The first source (which I have
already discussed) is the c.1480-1500 Visitation of the North
published in 1930 as Surtees Society, vol. 144.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.02062...@posting.google.com>...