New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
Douglas Richardson
In recent time, I've worked out several new royal lines for three 17th
Century New World immigrants, namely Frances, Jane, and Katherine
Deighton, each of whom has modern descendants. The first line
featured below is through King John's alleged illegitimate daughter,
Isabel, wife of Richard Fitz Ives. I use the word "alleged" here as
neither King John or any of his immediate successors appear to have
acknowledged Isabel or her issue as royal kinsfolk. However, Isabel
is styled daughter of King John ["filie Regis Joh’is"] in an ancient
obit of her recorded in Cornwall records [see Herald & Genealogist 7
(1873): 229–231].
Besides the Fitz Ives line, I've dredged up three additional
Plantagenet descents for the Deighton sisters, interestingly all being
lines from illegitimate children of various kings.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
1. John, King of England, by an unknown mistress, _____.
2. Isabel Fitz Roy, illegitimate daughter, married Richard Fitz Ives,
Knt., of Degembris (in Newlyn East), Cornwall.
3. William Fitz Richard, Knt., of Lanisley [in Gulival], Cornwall,
married Rose Bevyle.
4. Isabel Fitz William, married Stephen de Beaupré, Knt., of Kelynack
(in St. Just), Cornwall.
5. Ralph de Beaupré, Knt., of Trenoweth-with-Trewithgy (in Probus),
Cornwall, married Margaret de Furneaux.
6. Isabel de Beaupré, married John de Longland (or Langelonde), Esq.,
of Grove (in South Brent), Somerset.
7. Agnes Longland, married John Farway (or Fareway), of Penhallam (in
Jacobstow), Cornwall.
8. Margaret Farway, married John Seymour.
9. Elizabeth Seymour, married Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset.
10. Cecily Berkeley, married James Ashe.
11. Richard Ashe, married Margaret _____.
12. John Ashe, Esq., married Isabel Rudhale.
13. Jane Ashe, married William Basset, Esq., of Uley, Gloucestershire.
14. Edward Basset, Gent., of Uley, Gloucestershire, married Elizabeth
Ligon.
15. Jane Basset, married John Deighton, Gent., of St. Nicholas,
Gloucester, Gloucestershire, surgeon.
Children of Jane Basset, by John Deighton, Gent.:
i. Jane Deighton, married (1st) John Lugg; (2nd) Jonathan Negus, of
Boston, Massachusetts
ii. Frances Deighton, married Richard Williams, of Taunton,
Massachusetts.
iii. Katherine Deighton, married (1st) Samuel Hackburne (or
Hagborne), of Roxbury, Massachusetts; (2nd) [Gov.] Thomas Dudley;
(3rd) [Rev.] John Allin, of Dedham, Massachusetts.
Line 2
1. John, King of England, by a mistress, [Isabel?] de Warenne.
2. Richard Fitz John, Knt., of Chilham, Kent, married Rose de Dover.
3. Isabel de Dover, married Maurice de Berkeley, Knt., of Berkeley,
Gloucestershire.
4. Thomas de Berkeley, Knt., 1st Lord Berkeley, married Joan de
Ferrers.
5. Maurice de Berkeley, Knt., 2nd Lord Berkeley, married Eve la
Zouche.
6. Thomas de Berkeley, Knt., 3rd Lord Berkeley, married Katherine de
Clivedon.
7. John Berkeley, Knt., of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, married
Elizabeth Betteshorne.
8. Maurice Berkeley, Knt., of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, married
Lora Fitz Hugh.
9. Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset, married Elizabeth Seymour
[see Line 1, Gen. 9 above].
Line 3.
1. Henry II, King of England, by a mistress, Ida de Tony.
2. William Longespeé, Knt., Earl of Salisbury, married Ela of
Salisbury.
3. Ida Longespeé, married Walter Fitz Robert, Knt., of Little Dunmow,
Essex.
4. Ela Fitz Walter, married William de Oddingseles, Knt., of Solihull,
Warwickshire.
5. Margaret de Oddingseles, married John de Grey, Knt., of
Rotherfield, Oxfordshire.
6. John de Grey, K.G., 1st Lord Grey of Rotherfield, married Avice
Marmion.
7. Robert de Grey, Knt., of Wilcote, Oxfordshire, married Lora de
Saint Quintin.
8. Elizabeth Grey, married Henry Fitz Hugh, K.G., 3rd Lord Fitz Hugh
9. Lora Fitz Hugh, married Maurice Berkeley, Knt., of Beverstone,
Gloucestershire [Line 2, Gen. 8 above].
Line 4.
1. John, King of England, by a mistress, [Isabel?] de Warenne.
2. Richard Fitz Roy, Knt., of Chilham, Kent, married Rose de Dover.
3. Lora de Dover, married William Marmion, Knt., of West Tanfield,
Yorkshire.
4. John Marmion, Knt., of West Tanfield, Yorkshire, married Isabel
_____, widow of Ralph de Plaiz.
5. John Marmion, Knt., 2nd Lord Marmion, of West Tanfield, Yorkshire,
married Maud de Furnival.
6. Avice Marmion, married John de Grey, K.G., 1st Lord Grey of
Rotherfield [see Line 3, Gen. 5 above].
Hal Bradley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Douglas
> Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 8:49 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
>
>
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> In recent time, I've worked out several new royal lines for three 17th
> Century New World immigrants, namely Frances, Jane, and Katherine
> Deighton, each of whom has modern descendants.
<snip>
> 7. Agnes Longland, married John Farway (or Fareway), of Penhallam (in
> Jacobstow), Cornwall.
> 8. Margaret Farway, married John Seymour.
> 9. Elizabeth Seymour, married Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset.
> 10. Cecily Berkeley, married James Ashe.
<snip>
>
> Line 2
>
<snip>
> 8. Maurice Berkeley, Knt., of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, married
> Lora Fitz Hugh.
> 9. Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset, married Elizabeth Seymour
> [see Line 1, Gen. 9 above].
<snip>
Firstly, the names presented here are not so straight forward, nor is the
chronology. The following sources raise some issues:
Elizabeth Seymour was the heir to her grandfather, Edmund Seymour, who died
11 Mar. 1421/2. She was stated to be aged 16 and daughter of Edmund's
deceased son, Thomas, not John (according to Paul Reed's recent article on
the St. Maur family in FMG's "Foundations" vol. 2, no. 6). Paul also states
that chronology would suggest Thomas Seymour was the son of Edmund Seymour's
second wife, also named Joan, and not Joan Basset.
John Berkeley (d. 1479) had an i.p.m. which states "Cecillia Asshe ux'
Jacobi Asshe est soror & heres p[ro]pinquior p'dc'i Joh'is Berkeley et est
etatis triginta anno[rum] & amplius." So, Cecily was aged 30 or more in
1479. John Berkeley's i.p.m. identifies his mother as Elizabeth but does not
name his father. So Cecily was born circa 1440 to 1449, and Elizabeth
Seymour was born circa 1405/6. If we took the latter date, it does leave
room for an additional generation. However, one source states that Thomas
Berkeley, husband to Elizabeth Seymour died 1444/5.
VCH Leicester 5:330-6 includes the following statement, "Sir Edward Seymour
died in 1422 seised of the manor which he held of the barony of Weldon by
right of his wife Joan. Their granddaughter Elizabeth (d. 1446), the wife of
Thomas Berkeley (d. 1443), was succeeded by her son Thomas Berkeley, then
only two or three years of age. During his minority the profits were paid to
Elizabeth Berkeley." Did Thomas die in 1443 or 1444/5? Clarification on this
point would be most welcome. If he was the father of Cecily and John, then
Cecily would have been closer to forty than thirty at her brother's death.
If the latter Thomas Berkeley was aged two or three in 1443, he could not be
the father of Cecily and John. Is this an older brother of Cecily and John?
The citation for the identification of Thomas being aged two or three is
"Farnham, Leics. Notes, v. 413," but I do not have access to this. (If
someone would be kind enough to look this up, it would be most helpful.) If
VCH is not in error as to the name of the heir of Thomas & Elizabeth
(Seymour) Berkeley, then we are left with the scenario that Elizabeth was
born circa 1405/6 and mothered three children while in her late thirties.
Though not impossible, it is suspect and should raise some caution.
Secondly, VCH Wiltshire 8:96-103 outlines a different scenario, stating,
"The third, Anne [Longland], married John Farwaye and left two daughters,
one of whom married Thomas Berkeley. At the division of the Furneaux
property in 1421, Warminster was divided between Leonard Stapleton, who
received 2/3, and Thomas Berkeley, who received 1/3 ... The 1/3 of Furnax
which passed to Thomas Berkeley descended to John Berkeley, who left it at
his death in 1479 to endow a chantry in the church of Tickenham (Som.), and
specifically ordered the exclusion of his sister and heir, Cecily Ashe. In
spite of this Cecily brought a successful action against his feoffees and
obtained the whole of the estate." Richardson's scenario suggest that it was
John Farwaye's granddaughter who married Thomas Berkeley, not his daughter.
Some primary evidence would be helpful on this point.
Thirdly, if Thomas Berkeley was of a similar age as his wife Elizabeth
Seymour, I think you would have a difficult time proving he was a "younger
son" of Maurice & Lord (Fitz Hugh) Berkeley based on chronological grounds.
Finally, Tickenham (according to "Collections for a Parochial History of
Tickenham" [Bristol, 1895)) was held of William Berkeley, son of James &
Isabel (Mowbray) Berkeley. "These he alienated during his life, the Manor of
Tickenham passing into the hands of the Earl of Huntingdon, from whom, with
other manors, it was held by John Berkeley, Esq." So there is some question
as to whether Cecily (Berkeley) Ashe received the Basset property of
Tickenam through direct inheritance from the Seymour family.
In short, this proposed ancestry for the Deighton sisters runs into some
problems in generations 7-10. I would appreciate any clarifications. Thank
you.
Hal Bradley
royala...@msn.com
At the present time, I'm in correspondence with three parties offline
regarding these matters. As such, I won't be able to reply to Mr.
Bradley's comments for several days.
What I can say at present is that the line of descent back to Isabel
Fitz Roy, wife of Sir Richard Fitz Ives, appears to be sound.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
M.Sjostrom
this is funny as hell.
Douggie uttered: "Some of what Mr. Bradley has said is correct, some of it is wrong."
my translation:
well, Douggie is not able to actually tell what of it is wrong and what is right - not before some competent people explain to Douggie how it goes. So, as can be expected, Douggie waits for others to do the work. Meanwhile, Douggie is frantic in trying to conjure tricks to cover his backside as to what he already has published in his printed tomes.
Hal Bradley
What is it that is wrong? The sources I quoted may provide inaccurate
information, but that does not mean what I said was wrong. It only means
that the sources I used contradicted your presentation. If they are wrong,
so be it. I would just like to see some primary evidence that would resolve
the issues raised.
I have transcriptions for the unpublished i.p.m.'s for John Berkeley (d.
1479) and John Ashe (d. 1540). I would be happy to share this info in order
to help resolve some of these issues. The Ashe ancestry you presented from
Jane Ashe (wife of William Basset) back to Cecily Berkeley is correct.
I am not trying to be at loggerheads here. Hopefully, we can use some of
that collegiality you are always touting, compare notes and sources and
resolve some of the issues raised. I just thought it prudent to bring some
of the issues and contradictory sources to light before this new line is
accepted as proven.
Hal Bradley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
> -------------------------------
> 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
CE Wood
Southern England, v. 3 - 2006, p. 646,
Anthony Emery states:
"The manor of Tickenham was held by the Basset family between the mid
and late fourteenth century, by which time it had passed by marriage
to Sir Edmund Seymour (d. before 1422) and his wife. Seymour's heir
was his granddaughter Elizabeth, the wife of Thomas Berkeley (d.
1444/5), a younger son of Sir Maurice Berkeley of Beverston (d.1460).
Thomas' son John held the manor of Tickenham until his death in 1479.
He had no issue and was apparently a tenant of Sir Maurice's grandson,
Sir William Berkeley of Beverston, (d.1485), who held the manor since
1468. The property was subsequently occupied by the Asshe family as
subtenants of the Berkeleys."
Unfortunately, the notes are on a page not accessible via the limited
preview in GoogleBooks.
There is also help in Notes & Queries, 4th Series, (1871) Vol. 7, p.
538.
CE Wood
> > GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
wjho...@aol.com
http://books.google.com/books?id=zSgEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA206
http://books.google.com/books?id=uA4NAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA119
Are there any useful dates for the life of Edward Basset of Yewley (Uley) co Glouc Gent ?
Particularly regarding his birthyear range?
The Ashe ancestry you presented from
Jane Ashe (wife of William Basset) back to Cecily Berkeley is correct.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Bradley <hw.br...@verizon.net>
To: royala...@msn.com; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 10, 2009 12:37 pm
Subject: RE: New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
Douglas,
What is it that is wrong? The sources I quoted may provide inaccurate
information, but that does not mean what I said was wrong. It only means
that the sources I used contradicted your presentation. If they are wrong,
so be it. I would just like to see some primary evidence that would resolve
the issues raised.
I have transcriptions for the unpublished i.p.m.'s for John Berkeley (d.
1479) and John Ashe (d. 1540). I would be happy to share this info in order
to help resolve some of these issues. The Ashe ancestry you presented from
Jane Ashe (wife of William Basset) back to Cecily Berkeley is correct.
I am not trying to be at loggerheads here. Hopefully, we can use some of
that collegiality you are always touting, compare notes and sources and
resolve some of the issues raised. I just thought it prudent to bring some
of the issues and contradictory sources to light before this new line is
accepted as proven.
Hal Bradley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
> royala...@msn.com
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 11:11 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
>
>
> Some of what Mr. Bradley has said is correct, some of it is wrong.
>
> At the present time, I'm in correspondence with three parties offline
> regarding these matters. As such, I won't be able to reply to Mr.
> Bradley's comments for several days.
>
> What I can say at present is that the line of descent back to Isabel
> Fitz Roy, wife of Sir Richard Fitz Ives, appears to be sound.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
royala...@msn.com
Since making my first post regarding the Deighton sisters' descent
from Isabel, the alleged illegitimate daughter of King John, I've done
some additional research on the various families connected to the
extended ancestry of the Deighton sisters.
Following my earlier post, Mr. Bradley raised a question about the
correct name of Margaret Farway's husband, John Seymour, who I named
in my Line 1, Generation 8. Hal kindly pointed out that there was an
inquisition post mortem dated 1422 for John Seymour's father, Sir
Edmund Seymour, in which John Seymour is called Thomas Seymour. This
inquisition is cited in Gentleman's Magazine n.s. 3 (1835): 588–594,
which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=azrzWAAB8eMC&pg=PA590&dq=Thomas+Berkeley+Seymour
Equally contemporary to the 1422 inquisition, however, is a pedigree
of the Furneaux family dated c.1421/40 in which Margaret Farway's
husband is called John Seymour, not Thomas Seymour. I posted this
record on the newsgroup back in 2007. This pedigree reads in part as
follows:
“Et predicta Margareta prima filia predicti Johannis [Fareway] et
Agnetis marritata fuit Johanni Seymour, filio et heredi Edmundi
Seymour militis, et habuerunt exitum unam filiam vocatam _____ que
marritata fuit Johanni de Bercley.” [Reference: Somerset & Dorset
Notes & Queries, 16 (1920): 281–285].
Margaret Farway's husband is likewise called John Seymour in the
published Visitiation of Somerset, which is of much later date:
Benolte, Vis. of Somerset 1531, 1573 & 1591 (1885): 108 (Furneaux
pedigree: “Margerett [Fareway], ux. John, sonn and heire of Sr. Henery
Semore.”).
Since we have conflicting sources which call Margaret Farway's husband
both John and Thomas Seymour, the name of this man is uncertain at the
present time. Hence, for now, I have revised Line 1 below to call him
John (or Thomas) Seymour. Other than that, Line 1 essentially stands
as posted.
Mr. Bradley next raised a question about the identity of John/Thomas
Seymour's parentage, which issue was not even raised in my post. He
cites a recent article on the Seymour family by Paul C. Reed, F.A.S.G.
in which Mr. Reed allegedly suggests that "Thomas" Seymour (husband of
Margaret Farway) was the son of Sir Edmund Seymour, by his "second"
wife, Joan (possibly an Acton), and not by his "first" wife, Joan
Basset. It so, it would appear that Mr. Reed missed the evidence
cited above in which "Thomas" Seymour was called "John" Seymour. He
also overlooked the fact that the Basset manor of Welham,
Leicestershire duly descended by inheritance to the issue of John/
Thomas Seymour and his wife, Margaret Farway, thus proving that Joan
Basset, wife of Sir Edmund Seymour, was the mother of the said John/
Thomas Seymour, husband of Margaret Farway.
As for the identity of Sir Edmund Seymour's wife/wives, it is certain
that his wife in 1382 was Joan Basset, daughter and heiress of Andrew
Basset, of Tickenham, Somerset, which Andrew Basset was a male line
descendant of a cadet branch of the baronial Basset family of
Weldon. We can be sure of this due to a lawsuit lodged in Michaelmas
term in that year in which Thomas Fitz Nichol, of Gloucestershire,
sued Sir Edmund Seymour and his wife, Joan Basset, for the manor of
Tickenham, Somerset. A pedigree taken from this lawsuit can be found
in Genealogist, n.s. 13 (1896): 97. This pedigree establishes that
Sir Edmund Seymour's then wife, Joan, was the daughter of Andrew
Basset and that she was distantly related through her paternal
grandmother to Thomas Fitz Nichol the plaintiff. Elsewhere, it
appears that Andrew Basset (father of Joan Basset) was of Tickenham,
Somerset in 1376, as indicated by an inquisition dated that year,
which record was published in Proceedings of Somersetshire
Archaeological and Natural History Society, n.s. 19 (1893): 30-31.
This item may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kEoJAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA5-PA31&dq=Andrew+Basset+Tickenham
That Joan (Basset) Seymour was still living as late as 1414-5 is
proven by a subsequent fine of that date in which Thomas Fitz Nichol
(the same person as the plaintiff in the 1382 lawsuit) conveyed the
reversion of the manor of Tickenham, Somerset to Thomas Berkeley, 5th
Lord Berkeley [see Green, Feet of Fines for Somerset 4 (Somerset Rec.
Soc. 22) (1906): 47]. This may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dM0OQTK6qeUC&pg=PA47&dq=%22Thomas+lord+Berkeley+querent%22
In that fine, it is specifically states that Edmund Seymour knight and
Joan his wife were then holding the manor of Tickenham "for life."
Presumably the life estate of Edmund and Joan in the manor of
Tickenham was determined (or arranged) at the time of the 1382 lawsuit
cited above. Since this property was the inheritance of Joan Basset
herself, it would be extremely doubtful that it would be held by any
later wife of Edmund Seymour. Hence, it is virtually certain that
Joan (Basset) Seymour was herself living in 1414-5. Given these
various facts, any suggestion that Joan (Basset) Seymour was not the
mother of Sir Edmund Seymour's son and heir apparent, John/Thomas
Seymour, is erroneous. Moreover, Mr. Reed's idea that "the
chronology" suggests that John/Thomas Seymour was the son of a later
wife of Sir Edmund Seymour is off the mark.
I believe that covers the first points raised by Mr. Bradley in his
post. In a subsequent message, I'll address the issue of the
parentage of Thomas Berkeley, husband of Elizabeth Seymour (see Line
1, Gen. 9 below).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + +
Line 1 (Slightly revised)
1. John, King of England, by an unknown mistress, _____.
2. Isabel Fitz Roy, illegitimate daughter, married Richard Fitz Ives,
Knt., of Degembris (in Newlyn East), Cornwall.
3. William Fitz Richard, Knt., of Lanisley [in Gulival], Cornwall,
married Rose Bevyle.
4. Isabel Fitz William, married Stephen de Beaupré, Knt., of Kelynack
(in St. Just), Cornwall.
5. Ralph de Beaupré, Knt., of Trenoweth-with-Trewithgy (in Probus),
Cornwall, married Margaret de Furneaux.
6. Isabel de Beaupré, married John de Longland (or Langelonde), Esq.,
of Grove (in South Brent), Somerset.
7. Agnes Longland, married John Farway (or Fareway), of Penhallam (in
Jacobstow), Cornwall.
8. Margaret Farway, married John/Thomas Seymour.
9. Elizabeth Seymour, married Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset.
10. Cecily Berkeley, married James Ashe.
11. Richard Ashe, married Margaret _____.
12. John Ashe, Esq., married Isabel Rudhale.
13. Jane Ashe, married William Basset, Esq., of Uley, Gloucestershire.
14. Edward Basset, Gent., of Uley, Gloucestershire, married Isabel (or
Elizabeth) Ligon.
royala...@msn.com
In my initial post this past week regarding the new royal ancestry of
the Deighton sisters, I identified Thomas Berkeley (died 1443), of
Tickenham, Somerset as a younger son of Maurice Berkeley, Knt. (died
1460), of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, by his wife, Lora Fitz Hugh.
In so doing, I was relying on Emery, Greater Medieval Houses of
England & Wales, 1300–1500 3 (2006): 646, which may be viewed at the
following weblink:
Initially, this identification seemed acceptable, as Thomas, son of
Maurice, of Beverstone, is the only known legitimate member of the
family who could conceivably be Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham,
Somerset. At the time I made my post, however, I was in discussion
privately with several other parties regarding the matter of Emery's
identification of Thomas Berkeley of Tickenham as Thomas, son of
Maurice, of Beverstone. One of these correspondants raised the issue
of a possible chronological problem in this identification. Hal
Bradley subsequently raised the same issue in his earlier post in
this thread.
Since my original post, I've done additional research and proven
beyond doubt that Thomas Berkeley (died 1443), of Tickenham, Somerset
is definitely a different person than Thomas Berkeley, younger son of
Sir Maurice Berkeley, of Beverstone, and Lora Fitz Hugh. We can be
certain of this as Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, is known to have
died in 1443 (see Farnham, Leicestershire Medieval Village Notes 5
(1931): 413]. Thomas, son of Maurice Berkeley, on the other hand, was
still living in 1455, he being named in that year in the will of his
aunt, Eleanor Berkeley, Countess of Arundel. An abstract of Countess
Eleanor's will is published in Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826):
277–279. It may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=J8ZsAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA98&dq=Nicolas,+Testamenta+Vetusta
So, if Thomas, son of Maurice Berkeley was not the same person as
Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, then who was Thomas Berkeley, of
Tickenham?
At this point, I decided to contact Bridget Wells Furby, an archivist
of Berkeley Castle, to see if she might know the parentage of Thomas
Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset. Ms. Furby is presently writing a
book on the Berkeley family and has had extensive access to the
Berkeley Castle Muniments. Ms. Furby replied to me promptly by e-mail
and provided the following information:
"I believe this Thomas [Berkeley of Tickenham] to be an illegitimate
son of Thomas (IV) Lord Berkeley (d. 1417). The accounts of Lord
Berkeley's daughter the countess of Warwick refer to a 'Thomas brother
of the Countess' (Ross, TBGAS 1951) and Lord Thomas appears to have
intervened to ensure the passage of Tickenham by buying the reversion
in 1415 from Fitznichol. I have come across no definite proof or
evidence of this relationship."
Since receiving this information from Ms. Furby, I've had the
opportunity to check the source she cited, it being an article by C.D.
Ross entitled "The Household Accounts of Elizabeth Berkeley, Countess
of Warwick, 1420-1," published in Transactions of the Bristol &
Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 70 (1951): 81-105.
The article by Ross confirms that Elizabeth Berkeley, Countess of
Warwick, indeed had an illegitimate brother, Thomas Berkeley, who was
a resident of the countess' household in 1420-1. Ross indicates that
on the death of Countess Elizabeth's father, Thomas, Lord Berkeley, in
1417, the Countess' brother, Thomas Berkeley, served as one of the
sureties for the grant of the custody of the Berkeley family estates
to three of the earl of Warwick's associates [Reference: Cal. Fine
Rolls, 1413-1422, pg. 207]. The household accounts further indicate
that this same Thomas Berkeley was receiver of the Lisle family
estates in 1420. The Lisle estates or lands mentioned here formed
part of Countess Elizabeth's inheritance from her mother, Margaret
(Lisle) Berkeley. These estates included extensive lands in Cornwall
[see, for example, Cornwall Feet of Fines 2 (1950): 68]. The
household accounts further indicate that the keeper of the household
received sums amounting to £594 1s. 3-1/2d., of which more than half -
£329 7s. 8-1/2d. was paid over to him directly by Thomas Berkeley,
receiver of the "Lyleslondez" [that is, Lisle lands]. As such, the
Countess' bastard brother, Thomas Berkeley, held a very responsible
position in her household.
In a footnote 2 on page 91 of Ross' article, Mr. Ross identifies
Thomas Berkeley, receiver of Lisle estates in 1420, as being the same
person as Thomas Berkeley, canon of Hereford, who was steward of the
household of Robert Mascall, bishop of Hereford in 1416. He gives no
explanation for this identification, other than the canon was
presumably the only Thomas Berkeley who could be a candidate to be the
Countess' bastard brother. However, the household accounts themselves
evidently do not make that identification, and Mr. Ross appears not to
have known about the existence of the other contemporary Thomas
Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset. For what it is worth, Bridget
Wells Furby has discounted Mr. Ross' identification of the canon as
the bastard brother of Elizabeth, Countess of Warwick.
In reviewing this matter, we have two pieces of evidence which
indicate that Thomas Berkeley, the bastard brother of Elizabeth
Berkeley, Countess of Warwick, is Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham,
Somerset. First, we know from other records that Thomas Berkeley, of
Tickenham, married Elizabeth Seymour, granddaughter and heiress of Sir
Edmund Seymour, of Chelvey and Tickenham, Somerset, by his wife, Joan
Basset. In 1414-1415 Elizabeth's grandparents, Sir Edmund and Joan
Seymour, held a life estate in the manor of Tickenham, Somerset. In
that year, Thomas, Lord 5th Berkeley (father of Countess Elizabeth)
acquired the reversion of the manor of Tickenham, Somerset from Thomas
Fitz Nichol, of Gloucestershire for 100 marks of silver [see Green,
Feet of Fines for Somerset 4 (Somerset Record Society, 22) (1906):
47]. He subsequently installed Edmund Seymour's granddaughter,
Elizabeth, and her husband, Thomas Berkeley, as tenants of the manor
at Tickenham. The acquisition of the reversion of the manor of
Tickenham was evidently made in anticipation of the marriage of Lord
Berkeley's illegitimate son, Thomas, to Edmund Seymour's granddaughter
and heiress, Elizabeth Seymour. Emery (who is cited further above)
indicates that John Berkeley, son and heir of Thomas Berkeley and
Elizabeth Seymour, held the manor of Tickenham at the time of his
death in 1479. The Tickenham property was subsequently occupied the
Asshe family who were descendants of John Berkeley's sister, Cecily
(Berkeley) Ashe "as subtenants of the Berkeleys."
Second, there is a detailed discussion in Collectanea Topographica et
Genealogica,. 1 (1834): 243–248 regarding the division of the estates
of Lady Alice (Blount) (Stafford) Stury (died 1417), one of whose co-
heirs in 1421 was Elizabeth Seymour, wife of Thomas Berkeley, of
Tickenham, Somerset. This material may be found at the following
weblink:
The following is a quote from that material:
“The 3rd Anne [Longland] maryed John Farwaye, and had bytwixte them 2
doughters, the one maryed with Stowell, the other with Berkley Lord of
Tekenam and Stowell. And Berkeley as one heyre had for hir parte the
lands at Warmester, and afterwards Stowell and Berkley made exchaunge,
that Barkley shuld have Warmester hole for his parte to hym and his
heyres; and Stowell to have as mych land therfor in Cornewaile, that
was Barkles before that exchange made.” END OF QUOTE.
The above information (albeit slightly garbled) indicates that c.1421
(the date the lands of Alice Blount were divided) that Thomas
Berkeley, of Tickenham, exchanged his own lands in Cornwall for lands
in Warminster, Wiltshire, which lands in Warminster had been assigned
to Thomas Berkeley's wife's maternal aunt, Joan Farway, wife of Walter
Stawell. The Warminster property was part of the estates formerly
belonging to Alice Blount.
It is curious that Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, should have
possessed lands in Cornwall c.1421, as the Berkeley family in this
period resided principally in Gloucestershire, Somerset, and
Hampshire. The only member of the Berkeley family that I know that
had lands in Cornwall was Thomas Berkeley, 5th Lord Berkeley, died
1417, who obtained them in marriage with his wife, Margaret Lisle. If
Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, was the receiver of the Lisle lands in
1420-1421, then he would have had reason to be in Cornwall, as some of
the Lisle estates were located in that county.
Without knowing further particulars, it appears that Thomas Berkeley,
5th Lord Berkeley, made provision for his illegitimate son, Thomas
Berkeley, by arranging for his marriage to Elizabeth Seymour, the
heiress of several manors, and, by acquiring the reversion of the
manor of Tickenham. Lord Berkeley likewise installed his bastard son,
Thomas Berkeley, as a member of his household and I assume it was he
who initially appointed Thomas as receiver of the Lisle estates. I
also believe that Lord Berkeley conveyed lands in Cornwall to his
bastard son, Thomas Berkeley, to make up part of the marriage
settlement for his bastard son, Thomas Berkeley, and his wife,
Elizabeth Seymour. That Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, was a member
of Lord Berkeley's household in 1417 is indicated by the Fine Rolls
item cited by Ross. On the death of Lord Berkeley in 1417, Thomas
Berkeley became a member of the household of his sister, Elizabeth,
Countess of Warwick, and served her as receiver of the Lisle estates
in 1420-1421. I have not traced Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, beyond
1420-1421. Two events, however, which would have changed his life in
1422 were the death of his sister, Elizabeth Berkeley, Countess of
Warwick, and the death of his wife's grandfather, Sir Edmund
Seymour. A likely scenario after 1422 would be that Thomas Berkeley
left England for military service in France, which would explain why
he and his wife, Elizabeth Seymour, had no known issue until at least
the mid-1430's. Thomas Berkeley , of Tickenham, died in 1443. His
widow, Elizabeth Syemour, was living in 1445.
I've posted below a new line which replaces Lines 2, 3 and 4 of my
original post. The new replacement line sets forth a new descent from
King Edward I down to the Deighton sisters.
In closing, I wish to thank Bridget Wells Furby for sharing
particulars of her private research with me regarding Thomas Berkeley,
which material she kindly shared from the manuscript of her upcoming
book on the Berkeley family. Her collegiality in this matter is much
appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
New Replacement Line 2
1. Edward I, King of England, died 1307.
2. Elizabeth of England, married Gilbert de Clare, Knt., Earl of
Gloucester and Hertford.
3. Eleanor de Clare, married Hugh le Despenser, Knt., 2nd Lord le
Despenser.
4. Elizabeth le Despenser, married (1st) Maurice de Berkeley, Knt.,
4th Lord Berkeley.
5. Thomas Berkeley, Knt., 5th Lord Berkeley, died 1417, by an unknown
mistress, _____.
6. Thomas Berkeley, died 1443, married Elizabeth Seymour.
7. Cecily Berkeley, married James Ashe.
8. Richard Ashe, married Margaret _____.
9. John Ashe, Esq., married Isabel Rudhale.
10. Jane Ashe, married William Basset, Esq., of Uley, Gloucestershire.
11. Edward Basset, Gent., of Uley, Gloucestershire, married Isabel (or
Elizabeth) Ligon.
12. Jane Basset, married John Deighton, Gent., of St. Nicholas,
wjhonson
> Thomas, son of Maurice Berkeley, on the other hand, was
> still living in 1455, he being named in that year in the will of his
> aunt, Eleanor Berkeley, Countess of Arundel. An abstract of Countess
> Eleanor's will is published in Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826):
> 277–279. It may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>
--------------------------
Recte, the link
http://books.google.com/books?id=J8ZsAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA277
Google Books has decided to be both verbose, and obtuse at the same
time. They now make you jump *to* a searched page, and then *clear
the search* and then click on the "Link" button in order to actually
get the proper link for the page cited.
Someone at Google Books really needs to be taken out back and shot.
Will Johnson
M.Sjostrom
it looks to me that much of the Deighton roots (the Basset mother, seemingly) were from various branches of the Berkeley.
so, some century or so earlier, several generations of their ancestors appear to been Berkeley vassals. I wdn't be surprised if many lineages there, are found (and attested) to been in various capacities of gentlemanly service to the mighty Berkeley...
Douggie, you are making this Berkeley bastard as having obtained somehow his own lands in Cornwall.
However, the whole exchange could actually be a rearrangement of his wife's (= the Seymour girl) own inheritances.
Namely, both she and her aunt likely were inheriting lands in Cornwall, from the Farsaw grandparents. Nowm both of them inherited also some lands from a remoter childless female kinswoman.
the whole exchange could sinply be that the aunt now received the rest of her own parents' lands in Cornwall, nicely rounding it up for her; and giving up in exchange some lands elsewhere, to her niece who could have something rounded there.
and that the Berkeley bastard was just acting as husband, which meant his name was in documents like as owner, but it really were all his wife's.
I gather the inheritances involved were -really- divided only into two: half to aunt, the other half to this niece Seymour wife of Berkeley bastard.
this of course demolishes your point of the Berkeley bastard having properties in cornwall independently of his wife's.
Though, a reason why the guy was put forward to marry a gal with inheritances in Cornwall too, could have been his supposed identity with one involved in governing his sister's vast properties in that county.
John
> http://books.google.com/books?id=zSgEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA206
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=uA4NAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA119
>
> Are there any useful dates for the life of Edward Basset of Yewley (Uley) co Glouc Gent ?
> Particularly regarding his birthyear range?
>
> The Ashe ancestry you presented from
> Jane Ashe (wife of William Basset) back to Cecily Berkeley is correct.
>
What support is there for this last statement, regarding the ancestry
back from Jane [Ashe] Basset back to Cecily Berkeley?
wjhonson
> On Jul 10, 3:31 pm, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=zSgEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA206
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=uA4NAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA119
>
> > Are there any useful dates for the life of Edward Basset of Yewley (Uley) co Glouc Gent ?
> > Particularly regarding his birthyear range?
>
> > TheAsheancestry you presented from
>
> What support is there for this last statement, regarding the ancestry
> back from Jane [Ashe] Basset back toCecilyBerkeley?
How bizarre.
When you enquoted it it came across as if I had said this last
statement about the ancestry being correct. But if you look higher in
this thread, you can see what I myself was quoting Hal Bradley stating
this. I can't explain why it appears this way. I have no knowledge
of this line, other than what's already been presented in this thread.
Will Johnson
John
You are correct . From the way your message is presented in Google
(presumably driven by whatever posting mechanism you are using), the
statement in question doesn't look like a quote from an earlier post
but rather an original statement from you....which is why I addressed
the inquiry so. Perhaps if Hal Bradley is following this thread, he
can answer the question. So far, there's been no discussion of this
part of the descent in question - and no support given for any of its
links.
John
I may have partially answered my own questions regarding the Ashe
descent to Basset of Uley - and in doing so raised some further
questions.
In the original post in this thread the pertinent segment of the
descent was given as follows:
10. Cecily Berkeley, married James Ashe.
11. Richard Ashe, married Margaret _____.
12. John Ashe, Esq., married Isabel Rudhale.
13. Jane Ashe, married William Basset, Esq., of Uley, Gloucestershire
However Hal Bradley earlier in this thread cited Joseph Byrchmore,
"Collections for a Parochial History of Tickenham" (1895), which gives
a somewhat different (and longer) descent. See page 10 at this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=MKgLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&dq=john+ashe+tickenham&ei=5LJeStEZg8aVBKfV8bIG
The descent here is:
10. Cecily Berkeley, m. James Ashe
11. John Ashe of Tickenham (d. Aug 1540)
12. John Ashe (d. Aug. 1560), m. (1) Isabel Rudhall of Rudhall,
Herts; m. (2) Jane, dau. of Sir Edward Gorges of Wraxhall
[not indicated which wife was mother of his son]
13. John Ashe (d. Jan 1580/1), m. Elizabeth, dau. of Owen Glynne of
Bristol
14. Jone Ashe, m. William Basset (d. 1596)
But this is further complicated by a statement in VCH Wiltshire
8:96-103 which says that Cecily Berkeley's "great-great-grandson, John
Ashe of Tickenham....apparently left three daughters and coheirs", one
of whom was Jane, wife of William Basset. In the original posted
descent John Ashe the father of Jane (Ashe) Basset was a grandson of
Cecily Berkeley, while the descent given by Byrchmore makes him a
great-grandson. In fact, the Byrchmore descent may be in sync with
VCH, because it indicates that the John Ashe in question did have a
son John (great-great-grandson of Cecily) who apparently died without
issue. VCH may have misconstrued its sources (as suggested by the
word "apparently") to say that the co-heirs of the great-great-
grandson John were his daughters rather than his sisters. If VCH is
corrected to read that his co-heirs were instead his sisters, then
Byrchmore agrees with VCH.
Can anyone provide any support for the originally proposed descent vis-
a-vis the one indicated by Byrchmore?
CE Wood
In the same book by Byrchmore (pp. 9-10), Cecilia Berkeley, wife of
James Ashe, is stated to be sister and heir of James Berkeley, Esq.,
d. 1480, who held the manor of Tickenham from the Earl of Huntingdon.
But John Burke's Dormant & Extinct, and Bernard Burke's Dormant &
Extinct, differ from Byrchmore's, stating that that James, the son of
Nicholas and Johanna (Pollard) Ashe, married Anne Walrond - no mention
of Cecilia Berkeley.
CE Wood
> a somewhat different (and longer) descent. See page 10 at this link:http://books.google.com/books?id=MKgLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&dq=john+ashe+ti...
John
Hal Bradley sent me the response below off-list. he intended to post
it to the list as well but had a technical problem and asked me to
forward it on his behalf. It points out some additional issues
regarding the proposed new royal descent for the Deighton sisters.
Hal's post follows:
John, Douglas, et al,
I only have a few moments, but can safely say that Byrchmore's account
is garbled at best and contains some obvious errors.
Byrchmore asserts that James, husband of Cecily Berkeley is the son of
Nicholas & Joan (Pollard) Ashe. Nicholas Ashe is probably two
generations younger than James Ashe. Although Nicholas did have a son
named James, this latter James married Anne Walrond and is nearly a
century younger than the husband of Cecily Berkeley. Byrchmore also
skips over Richard Ashe, making John Ashe (d. 1540) a son of James
Ashe.
I'm sure some of the confusion stems from having a John Ashe in three
successive generations. Suffice it to say, Isabel Rudhale survived her
husband, John, who died in 1540. It was John & Isabel (Rudhale) Ashe's
son John who married Jane Gorges. This last John died in 1560. John
(d. 1560) is the one who had three sisters, Margaret, Mary and Jane
(who married William Basset).
I will give details as soon as I get a chance. The inq. p.m.'s were
the only way to straighten things out. Although Doug has come to the
correct conlcusion that Thomas Berkeley, father of Cicely, was not the
son of Maurice & Lord (Fitz Hugh) Berkeley, I am still not convinced
of the Farwaye ascent.
Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica 1:244 asserts Hugh Longland
had three daughters, including "The 3rd Anne maryed John Farwaye, and
had bytwixte them 2 doughters, the one maryed with Stowell, the other
with Berkley Lord of Tekenam and Stowell." It does not say John
Farwaye's daughter married a Seymour who in turn had a daughter who
married a Berkeley. The Vis. of Somerset, does not help because it
asserts the husband of Margaret Farwaye, dau. of John, was a John
Seymour, son of Henry; whereas we know the grandfather of Elizabeth
Seymour, wife of Thomas Berkeley, was Edward Seymour (d. 1422). There
is still something askew here.
There are also some questions about the Beaupre & Longland marriages.
More later.
Hal Bradley
royala...@msn.com
On Jul 16, 7:55 pm, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I'd like to see the evidence for this 1415 date.? I'm not entirely convinced that Joan in 1415 was the same person as Joan in 1382 by the way.? So I have to reserve judgement on that.
Will ~
As far as it goes, I quoted the source for the 1414-1415 record in my
post. But, to make it easier for you, here is the weblink for that
record:
http://books.google.com/books?id=j_IGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR10&dq=Green+Somerset+Fines
The manor of Tickenham, Somerset was part of the inheritance of Joan
Basset, 1st wife of Sir Edmund de Seymour. As such, it is virtually
certain that she was Joan, wife of Edmund de Seymour in 1414-1415,
when it was recorded that they were holding the manor of Tickenham,
Somerset for life. It would be extremely unsual for Edmund de
Seymour to be holding his wife's inheritance with a later wife. He
could hold the inheritance alright, but not jointly with a later
wife. At her death, Joan Basset's properties at Welham,
Leicestershire and Tickenham, Somerset descended first to her
granddaughter, Elizabeth Seymour, wife of Thomas Berkeley, and
evtnually to their heirs the Ashes. This proves that Joan (Basset)
Seymour was the ancestress of the Ashe family.
Even so, Joan Basset is known to have predeceased her husband, Sir
Edmund de Seymour, who died in 1422. At Sir Edmund's death, he
appears to have been succeeded by a much younger second wife, also
named Joan, who married (2nd) before 1424 Thomas de la Hay (died
1440), of Arkstone (in Kingstone), Herefordshire, Sheriff of
Herefordshire, 1433-1434, and (3rd) before 1443-4 Henry Griffith, Esq.
(he living in 1446). This Joan in turn appears to have had a
daughter, Joan (presumably Seymour), wife of Robert Stanshaw and John
Bonefaunt, Esq. On the death of the second Joan, her interest in the
Seymour family properties at Chelvey and Migill, Somerset appears to
have reverted back to Sir Edmund de Seymour's senior heirs, the Ashes.
I might add that Sir Edmund de Seymour's 2nd wife, Joan, and her
subsequent marriages and issue are overlooked by Mr. Bradley in his
posts, as well as by Mr. Reed's otherwise fine article on the Seymour
family.
CE Wood
mentions Edward and Joan, not Edmund and Joan:
"12. At Westminster in the quinzaine of St. Hillary and afterwards in
the octave of St. Hillary in the third year of the same king, between
Thomas lord Berkeley querent and Thomas Fitz Nicholl chivaler
deforciant, for the manor of Tykenham in the county of Somerset which
Edward Seymour chivaler and Joan his wife held for their lives. Thomas
Fitz Nicholl granted for himself and his heirs that the said manor his
heritage which after the decease of Edward and Joan to him ought to
revert shall remain to Thomas de Berkeley and his heirs ; for this
Thomas de Berkeley gave him one hundred marcs of silver."
CE Wood
On Jul 17, 11:15 am, royalances...@msn.com wrote:
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> On Jul 16, 7:55 pm, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see the evidence for this 1415 date.? I'm not entirely convinced that Joan in 1415 was the same person as Joan in 1382 by the way.? So I have to reserve judgement on that.
>
> Will ~
>
> As far as it goes, I quoted the source for the 1414-1415 record in my
> post. But, to make it easier for you, here is the weblink for that
> record:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=j_IGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR10&dq=Green+Somers...
royala...@msn.com
> I am confused because page 47 in the book you referenced below
> mentions Edward and Joan, not Edmund and Joan:
Carolyn ~
The explanation is that the names Edmund and Edward are
interchangeable in records in this time period. Joan, widow of
"Edward" Seymour, then wife of Thomas de la Hay, was holding the
Seymour manor and advowson of Chelvey, Somerset for the term of her
life in 1424-5 and again in 1428-9 [see Green, Feet of Fines for
Somerset 4 (Somerset Rec. Soc. 22) (1906): 65, 74]. She was likewise
holding Seymour lands in Chelvey and Migill, Somerset for the term of
her life, together with her 3rd husband, Henry Griffith, in 1443-4
[see Green, Feet of Fines for Somerset 4 (Somerset Rec. Soc. 22)
(1906): 106]. She was still living as late as 1446, when her husband,
Henry Griffith, presented to the church of Chelvey, Somerset [see
Weaver, Somerset Incumbents (1889): 250]. Her life interest in the
Seymour lands was presumably held in right of dower by virtue of her
marriage to Sir Edmund Seymour who died back in 1422. She was
obviously much younger than Sir Edmund Seymour, as Sir Edmund died as
an old man in 1422, whereas Joan was still living in 1446. At Joan's
death, these lands appears to have passed to her daughter, Joan
[presumbly Seymour], wife of Robert Stanshaw and John Bonefaunt.
It is possible that the elder Joan was the wife of a younger son of
Sir Edmund Seymour named Edward Seymour, but since there is no
indication that Sir Edmund settled the lands in question on a younger
son, I assume it was Sir Edmund himself who was Joan's husband. What
typically took place when a man married a younger wife was for him to
settle part of his estates on himself and his new wife for life, with
reversion to their issue. This kind of arrangement secured lands to
the new wife if she survived her husband and provided for their issue,
if any survived. If the issue failed, the lands usually reverted back
to the husband's senior heirs by his first or earlier marriages, which
appears to be what happened in this case, as the Ashe family later
held the advowson of Chelvey, Somerset.
royala...@msn.com
Here is a reference to a lawsuit involivng the younger Joan [Seymour?]
wife of Robert Stanshawe and John Bonefaunt dated 1477-1478 in List of
Early Chancery Procs. 2 (PRO Lists and Indexes 16) (1903): 233. It
may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qWEsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA233&dq=%22Robert+Stanshawe%22
The lawsuit concerns the manor of Alderley, Gloucestershire, a
Stanshawe family holding.
Below is an abstract of the same lawsuit taken from the National
Archives:
C 1/56/154
Record Summary
Scope and content
John Bonefaunte, esquire, and Johane, his wife, previously the wife of
Robert Stanshawe. v. Thomas Forster and William Shorte, feoffees to
uses.: Manor of Alderley.: Gloucester.
Covering dates 1475-1480, or 1483-1485
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
There is also a second lawsuit involving these same parties dated
1480-1483:
Source: National Archives
C 1/63/122
Record Summary
Scope and content
John Bonefant and Johane, his wife, executrix and previously the wife
of Robert Stanshawe. v. The mayor, sheriff, and bailiffs of Bristol.:
Action brought by Roger Cole for the whole penal amount of a partly
paid bond. Certiorari.: Bristol.
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Joan, wife of Robert Stanshawe and John Bonefaunt, was the heiress of
the advowson of Chelvey, Somerset (formerly a Seymour family
holding). Both of her husbands presented to the church at Chelvey,
Somerset. Sometime before 1555, the advowson of Chelvey, Somerset
reverted to the Ashe family, presumably as the senior heirs of Sir
Edmund Seymour (died 1422), as indicated by the following record:
Source: A2A Catalogue
Folder icon CHELVEY,etc. deeds DD\S\WH/44 1548-1609
Somerset Archive and Record Service
13 docts.
Contents:
Title deeds relevant to the sale of the manors of Chelvey and Midgell
to Edw.Tynte in 1602 [See DD/RN 15 for this deed]. Post nuptial
settlement of Jn.Asshe of Asshe [co.Hereford[ and Eliz.dau. of Owen
Gwyn of Bristol Castle, 1577. Asshe trust deed of 1555 also relates to
the advowson of Chelvey, Manor of Tickenham and Manor of Ashe Ingen,
in Bridestowe near Ross (co.Hereford]. Grant of Wardship with an
extent of the manors in 1555 deed, 1582. Reversionary lease for 60
years and lives of Le Garstons (Goodridge) 1580,with grant of annuity
on this land 1609,surrender of lease for 40 years of the cap.messuage
and land, land in the Manor of Chelvey, 1605.
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Here is website reference to Robert Stanshawe, of Arderlegh [surely
Alderley intended].
http://books.google.com/books?id=6YgLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA32&dq=%22Robert+Stanshawe%22.
He is presumably the Robert Stanshawe, of Gloucestershire, who whose
inquisition post mortem is dated 1472-3:
Source: National Archives
C 140/42/48
Record Summary
Scope and content
Stanshawe, Robert, esq Glos and the marches of Wales
Covering dates 12 Edw IV [1472-1473].
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
Joan and Robert Stanshaw evidently left surviving issue as indicated
by the following four lawsuits, the first three of which are dated
1518-1529:
Source: National Archives
C 1/488/37
Record Summary
Scope and content
John Calton and Margery, his wife, daughter and heir of John, son of
Robert Stanshawe. v. Robert Stanshawe and Nicholas Smythe.: Detention
of deeds relating to the preceding and other lands there, and to the
manors of Chelvey, Kingrove [in Old Sodbury] and Alderley, messuages,
land, and rent there and in Midgal, Old Sodbury, Chipping Sodbury,
Dodington, Yate, Wapley, North Nibley, Wotton, Charfield, Hawkesbury,
Tresham, Thornbury, Leighterton, Kilcott [in Hillesley], and
Hillesley, burgages in Chipping Sodbury and Wotton, and the advowsons
of Chelvey and Alderley.: Somerset, Gloucester.
Covering dates 1518-1529
+ + + + + + + + +
C 1/488/40
Record Summary
Scope and content
The same, and Alice Hockerby, widow, daughter and heir of John
Stanshaw. v. John Walshe, esquire, William Freme, gentleman, William
Smyth, and Thomas Tyler.: Forcible entry on the manor of Chelvey, and
fraudulent title to messuages, land, and rent in theabove-named places
(except North Nibley, Wotton, Leighterton, and Hillesley), and in
Codrington.: Somerset, Gloucester.
Covering dates 1518-1529
+ + + + + + + +
C 1/516/6
Record Summary
Scope and content
John Galton and Margery, his wife, granddaughter of Robert Stanshaw.
v. Thomas Poyntz, esquire, and John Poyntz, gentleman.: Detention of
deeds relating to the manor and advowson of [Al]derlegh.: Gloucester.
Covering dates 1518-1529
+ + + + + + + + + +
C 4/25/151
Record Summary
Scope and content
[?John] Calton, his wife Marjorie and Alice Hokerby v. John Stanshawe
and William Frenne [?Frennd]: replication
Date of document: Sixteenth century
Covering dates 1501 Jan 1 - 1600 Dec 31
Best always, Douglas Richardon, Salt Lake City, Utah
royala...@msn.com
On Jul 17, 5:35 pm, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
< Far too many assumptions for my taste Douglas.
< I did not state that the fine didn't make it clear that the Manor
was being purchased.
< However it does not state that he was buying the "reversion".
Yes, it does. You apparently don't understand the meaning of the word
"reversion."
< Rather it states that the manor *had* been held and should have
reverted to Thomas FitzNichol but he was willing to allow it to stay
with Thomas Berkeley for 100 marks.
You can play word games if you want. But the manor was held for life
by Edmund and Joan Seymour and Edmund was certainly still living.
The word "held" does not imply that either Edmund Seymour or his wife,
Joan, were deceased.
For example, on page 106 of the same volume of Somerset Fines, there
is fine dated 1443-4 in which mention is made of Seymour family
property in Chelvey and Migill, Somerset which was then stated to be
possesed by "Henry Gryffyth and Joan his wife who was the wife of
Thomas de la Hay held for the life of Joan."
This can be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=j_IGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR10&dq=Green+Somerset+Fines
Yet Henry Griffith was still living in 1446, when he presented to the
church of Chelvey, Somerset. The 1446 presentation means his wife,
Joan, was also still living in 1446, as Henry Griffith's right to
present to the advowson can only have come through his wife, Joan's
dower.
So the word "held" does not imply or suggest past tense at all, but
rather present tense. This may just be the way that Mr. Green chose
to translate the Latin into English.
> The simplest way to read it, is that the reversion should have already occurred.? That is, those holding Tickenham were now dead, and Berkeley had possession of it.? FitzNichol was not selling the reversion but rather the manor itself.
You haven't bothered to actually read these fines, yet you presume to
know what they mean. I encourage you to read the tortured language
of more fines.
> You are adding that Edward (Edmund) was yet living and therefore the reversion couldn't have occurred, but that's another assumption based on the 1422 IPM which we haven't even substantiated is the same person.
Huh?
> You yourself stated that "it appears" that he left a much younger wife also named Joan.? It's quite possible that there are simply two completely different men, Edward and Edmund each with a wife Joan who have been conflated.? Your insistence that there is only one way to read an ambiguous document isn't very compelling.
Yes, it's possible that there was a man named Edward Seymour who was
separate from Edmund Seymour. However, given that the names Edward
and Edmund are interchangeable, I believe that it is Sir Edmund
Seymour was the husband of the Joan, who subsequently married Thomas
de la Hay and Henry Griffith, Esq. The chief reason I say that is
that we know that Edmund Seymour held the manors of Chelvey and
Tickenham, Somerset in 1412 [see Feudal Aids, 6 (1920): 511, available
at this weblink: http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=dN0rAAAAIAAJ&q=Chelvey#search_anchor].
On the death of Sir Edmund Seymour in 1422, we know that the manor and
advowson of Chelvey, Somerset passed to Joan who subsequently held the
property in dower as late as 1446. This strongly implies that Joan
was Sir Edmund's own widow.
John
> On Jul 17, 12:59 pm, CE Wood <wood...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I am confused because page 47 in the book you referenced below
> > mentions Edward and Joan, not Edmund and Joan:
>
> Carolyn ~
>
> The explanation is that the names Edmund and Edward are
> interchangeable in records in this time period.
Aside from this particular case, what evidence is there that these two
names were "interchangeable in records in this time period"? Can you
cite any other instances from this period in which these particular
names were interchanged?
A more conservative explanation would be that the name Edmund was
simply mis-recorded as Edward in one or both of the documents
mentioned in the book you cited. Have you ruled out this
possibility? Why?
wjho...@aol.com
I know what a reversion is.
Douglas the fine does not state that he is selling the reversion.
It states that the property should revert to him.
And then it allows Thomas Berkeley to hold it for 100 marks.
This does not imply that the property *has* reverted to him, and it does not imply that the property *has not* reverted to him either.
He does not state that he is selling the reversion.? You might *assume* that, because you add in that Edward (Edmund) was yet living and has a 1422 IPM.? If you remove that, and assume instead that this is a different couple, then you don't need to assume they were living either.
I did not state that "held" meant past-tense.? My point is that "had been held" is a past-tense form, or can be.? It can perhaps be used to mean a long continuing situation but then I would have expected to see "has been held", or "is being held".
In addition the discrepancy between Edmund and Joan and Edward and Joan and another Joan still living 40 years later, would speak as well to the idea that these are two different couples.
-----Original Message-----
From: royala...@msn.com
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 17, 2009 5:25 pm
Subject: Re: New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
http://books.google.com/books?id=j_IGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR10&dq=Green+Somerset+Fines
Huh?
royala...@msn.com
< Douglas the fine does not state that he is selling the reversion.
< It states that the property should revert to him.
< And then it allows Thomas Berkeley to hold it for 100 marks.
You're going around in circles again.
The conveyance in 1414-1415 was the sale of a reversion by the terms
stated in the fine itself. If you can't understand that, then you
haven't spent enough time in fines to understand the phraseology used
in these documents.
The fine does not say the property "had been held" by Edmund and Joan
Seymour. It says "held." As I pointed out in another fine, the word
"held" as used by the editor clearly intended "held" to be in the
present tense, not the past tense. If the property was presently held
by a husband and wife for the term of their lives, then all Thomas
Fitz Nichol had to convey was either the reversion or a quitclaim to
the property. Since the word quitclaim and release are not used in
the document, the fine should be for a reversion. That is the way
that Bridget Wells Furby has interpreted the document. And, that is
the way I have interpreted the document.
< In addition the discrepancy between Edmund and Joan and Edward and
Joan and another Joan still living 40 years later, would speak as well
to the idea that these are two <different couples.
Not at all. Men often married late in life to younger women. Edmund
Seymour's surviving wife Joan was not living 40 years later. She
survived him by about 24 years, hardly surprising given that she was
much younger than Edmund Seymour. It is obvious that Edmund Seymour's
surviving wife,.Joan, was a younger second wife, as her 2nd husband,
Thomas de la Hay, had his 2nd son and heir about 1410, whereas Edmund
Seymour's son and heir apparent, Thomas (or John), was born about
1385. In order words, there was almost a generation difference in
ages between Joan's 1st husband, Edmund Seymour, and her 2nd husband,
Thomas de la Hay. This is typical for medieval marriages.
As for the possibility that Joan's husband was an Edward Seymour, not
Edmund Seymour, as I pointed out we know that Edmund Seymour was
holding Chelvey and Tickenham, Somerset in 1412 and that he survived
until 1422. One of the fines in which Edmund is called Edward is
dated 1414-5, which is right in the middle of that time period.
You'd have to check his inquisition post mortem dated 1422 to see what
lands he held at his death. If his inquisition states he held the
manor and advowson of Chelvey, Somerset at his death, then you would
know he was the same person as "Edward" Seymour back in 1414-1415.
If you're not familiar that the names Edmund and Edward are
interchangeable, then you haven't spent enough time in primary records
in this time period.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
royala...@msn.com
In a recent post, Mr. Bradley stated the following:
<Secondly, VCH Wiltshire 8:96-103 outlines a different scenario,
stating,
<"The third, Anne [Longland], married John Farwaye and left two
daughters,
<one of whom married Thomas Berkeley. At the division of the Furneaux
<property in 1421, Warminster was divided between Leonard Stapleton,
who
<received 2/3, and Thomas Berkeley, who received 1/3 ... The 1/3 of
Furnax
<which passed to Thomas Berkeley descended to John Berkeley, who left
it at
<his death in 1479 to endow a chantry in the church of Tickenham
(Som.), and
<specifically ordered the exclusion of his sister and heir, Cecily
Ashe. In
<spite of this Cecily brought a successful action against his feoffees
and
<obtained the whole of the estate." Richardson's scenario suggest that
it was
<John Farwaye's granddaughter who married Thomas Berkeley, not his
daughter.
<Some primary evidence would be helpful on this point.
Mr. Bradley is correct that one scenario has Agnes Longland with two
daughters, one of married Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham. Another
account has Agnes Longland with two daughters, the eldest of whom left
a daughter who married Thomas Berkeley. Mr. Bradley says "some
primary evidence would be helpful on this point."
Frankly, I don't understand Mr. Bradley's comment regarding the need
for primary evidence regarding Agnes Longland's issue. In the very
same post he presents primary evidence from an IPM which proves that
Thomas Berkeley's wife was Elizabeth Seymour (not Farway). In that
IPM dated 1422, Elizabeth's father is named as Thomas Seymour, and he
in turn is identified as the son of Edmund Seymour. If that
information is correct, then Elizabeth Seymour obviously can't be the
daughter of Agnes Longland and John Farway. So who is Mr. Bradley
trying to fool?
In so far as it goes, Mr. Bradley is correct that there is one account
of the Farway family which is followed by VCH Wiltshire in which
Elizabeth Seymour is presented as the daughter of Agnes Longland and
John Farway. That account is found in Coll. Top. et Gen. 1 (1834):
243–248. It reads as follows:
“The 3rd Anne [Longland] maryed John Farwaye, and had bytwixte them 2
doughters, the one maryed with Stowell, the other with Berkley Lord of
Tekenam and Stowell. And Berkeley as one heyre had for hir parte the
lands at Warmester, and afterwards Stowell and Berkley made exchaunge,
that Barkley shuld have Warmester hole for his parte to hym and his
heyres; and Stowell to have as mych land therfor in Cornewaile, that
was Barkles before that exchange made.” END OF QUOTE.
However, there is a second account of the Farway family which dates
from the time period c.1423/1444, in which Elizabeth Seymour is
presented as the granddaughter of Agnes (Longland) Farway. This is
the correct version. It reads as follows:
"Et predicta Annes [Longland] tercia filia predicti Johannis [de
Longland] et Isabelle marritata fuit Johanni Fareway et habuerunt
exitum Margaretam et Johannam. Et predicta Margareta prima filia
predicti Johannis [Fareway] et Agnetis marritata fuit Johanni Seymour,
filio et heredi Edmundi Seymour militis, et habuerunt exitum unam
filiam vocatam _____ que marritata fuit Johanni de
Bercley.” [Reference: Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries, 16 (1920):
281–285].
As I indicated above, Mr. Bradley has presented primary evidence which
proves that the first account can not be correct. Then he says he is
concerned because I follow the second account of the family. Why is
that? The second account is the same version followed by the 1623
visitation of Somerset, which can be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nPUGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA108&dq=Visitation+Henery+Semore
For interest's sake, I've copied below a detailed account of Agnes
Longland and her two husbands, John Farway and Robert Coker, Esq. My
research indicates that Agnes (Longland) (Farway) Coker was born about
1370, and that she married her first husband, John Farway, before 20
Jan. 1385. As such, the chronology is acceptable for her to be the
maternal grandmother of Elizabeth (Seymour) Berkeley, who we know from
the 1422 IPM was born about 1406.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
LONGLAND-FARWAY FAMILY
9. AGNES LONGLAND, born at Axbridge, Somerset about 1370 (aged 10 in
1380). She married (1st) before 20 Jan. 1385 JOHN FARWAY (or
FAREWAY), of Penhallam (in Jacobstow), Cornwall. They had one son,
John, and two daughters, Margaret and Joan. His wife, Agnes, was a
legatee in the 1414 will of her sister, Margaret Hakluyt, who
bequeathed her a silver cup with a cover. She was co-heiress in 1414
to her cousin, Alice Blount, wife successively of Richard Stafford,
Knt. and Richard Stury, Knt. His widow, Agnes, married (2nd) before
1414–1415 (date of settlement) (as his 2nd wife) ROBERT COKER, Esq.,
of Lydeard St. Lawrence, Somerset, Sheriff of Somerset and Dorset,
1422–1423. They had no issue. In 1418 the bishop granted licenses
for one year to Robert and his wife, Agnes, to have masses and other
divine services celebrated in their presence. His wife, Agnes, died
shortly before 21 Sept. 1419. He married (3rd) MICHAELA _____, widow
successively of John Plecy and Robert Derby. They had no issue. She
died in Sept. 1424. He married (4th) before 1432 (date of pardon for
marrying without royal license) MARGARET TUCHET , widow of John
Luttrell, Knt. (died 30 June 1430) [see LOWELL 12], of Dunster,
Somerset, and daughter of John Tuchet, Knt., 4th Lord Audley, by
Elizabeth, daughter of Humphrey Stafford, Knt. [see TUCHET 11 for her
ancestry]. Margaret died 1 June 1438. Following her death, he was
charged with having committed waste in two-thirds of Dunster Castle
and also in the manor of Carhampton, Somerset. He was forced to take
refuge in flight. ROBERT COKER, Esq. died about 1441.
References:
Coll. Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 243–248 (Furneaux pedigree: “The 3rd Anne
[Longland] maryed John Farwaye, and had bytwixte them 2 doughters, the
one maryed with Stowell, the other with Berkley Lord of Tekenam and
Stowell. And Berkeley as one heyre had for hir parte the lands at
Warmester, and afterwards Stowell and Berkley made exchaunge, that
Barkley shuld have Warmester hole for his parte to hym and his heyres;
and Stowell to have as mych land therfor in Cornewaile, that was
Barkles before that exchange made.”). St. George & Lennard, Vis. of
Somerset 1623 (H.S.P. 11) (1876): 106–107 (Stawell pedigree) (Farway
arms: Sable, a chevron between three escallops argent). Benolte Vis.
of Somerset 1531, 1573 & 1591 (1885): 108 (Furneaux pedigree: “Agnes
[Longland], ux. John ffareway.”). List of Sheriffs for England &
Wales (PRO Lists and Indexes 9) (1898): 123. Weaver, Somerset
Medieval Wills 1 (Somerset Rec. Soc. 16) (1901): 66–67. Green, Feet
of Fines for Somerset 4 (Somerset Rec. Soc. 22) (1906): 175–177.
Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries 11 (1909): 193–195 (Farway arms:
Sable a chevron between three escallops argent); 16 (1920): 281–285
(Furneaux pedigree dated 1421: “Et predicta Annes [Longland] tercia
filia predicti Johannis [de Longland] et Isabelle marritata fuit
Johanni Fareway et habuerunt exitum Margaretam et Johannam.”). C.F.R.
9 (1926): 214–215. C.C.R. 1422–1429 (1933): 51, 228, 237–238. C.C.R.
1429–1435 (1933): 266. Nathan, Annals of West Coker (1957): 488–490.
VCH Wiltshire 8 (1965): 96–103. Cal. IPMs 16 (1974): 71.
Children of Agnes Longland, by John Farway:
i. JOHN FARWAY, son and heir. He was living 21 Sept. 1419 (date of
his mother’s inquisition post mortem), but died before 1421.
References: Benolte, Vis. of Somerset 1531, 1573 & 1591 (1885): 108
(Furneaux pedigree: “John ffareway, sonn and heire.”). Nathan, Annals
of West Coker (1957): 488–489.
ii. MARGARET FARWAY, elder daughter. She married THOMAS (or JOHN)
SEYMOUR, son and heir apparent of Edmund Seymour, Knt., of Chelvey and
Tickenham, Somerset, Welham, Leicestershire, etc., by his 1st wife,
Joan, daughter and heiress of Andrew Basset, of Tickenham, Somerset.
They had one daughter, Elizabeth. His wife, Margaret, or their
daughter, Elizabeth, was co-heir to her brother, John Farway, sometime
in the period, 1419/1421. Margaret died before 1421. THOMAS (or
JOHN) SEYMOUR died before 1422.
References:
Gentleman’s Mag. n.s. 3 (1835): 588–594. Benolte, Vis. of Somerset
1531, 1573 & 1591 (1885): 108 (Furneaux pedigree: “Margerett
[Fareway], ux. John, sonn and heire of Sr. Henery Semore.”). Procs.
Somersetshire Arch. & Natural Hist. Soc. n.s. 19 (1893): 30–31.
Genealogist n.s. 13 (1896): 97. Green, Feet of Fines for Somerset 4
(Somerset Rec. Soc. 22) (1906): 47, 65, 74, 106. Feudal Aids 6
(1920): 511. Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries 16 (1920): 281–285
(Furneaux pedigree dated 1423/44: “Et predicta Margareta prima filia
predicti Johannis [Fareway] et Agnetis marritata fuit Johanni Seymour,
filio et heredi Edmundi Seymour militis, et habuerunt exitum unam
filiam vocatam _____ que marritata fuit Johanni de Bercley.”). VCH
Leicester 5 (1964): 330–336. VCH Wiltshire 8 (1965): 96–103.
Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 3 (1992): 80–82 (biog. of Sir
Thomas Fitznichol). Foundations 2(6) (2008): 390–422 (states in error
that “Thomas” Seymour, son of Sir Edmund Seymour (died 1422), of
Chelvey and Tickenham, Somerset was the son of Sir Edmund’s 2nd wife,
Joan. _____).
iii. JOAN FARWAY, younger daughter. She married WALTER STAWELL, Esq.,
son and heir apparent of Thomas Stawell, Knt., of Cothelstone,
Coschaevyssh, Stawell, and Stonystratton, Somerset, and Merton and
Sutcombe, Devon [see FISHER 9.ii], by his 2nd wife, Joan, daughter of
Walter Frampton. They had one son, Robert, Esq. His wife, Joan, was
co-heiress before 1421 to her brother, John Farway, by which she
inherited the manor of Penhallam (in Jacobstow), Cornwall. She died
before 1421. WALTER STAWELL, Esq., died before 1439.
References:
Pole, Colls. Towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 380–381. St. George &
Lennard, Vis. of Somerset 1623 (H.S.P. 11) (1876): 106–107 (Stawell
pedigree: “Walter Stowell Esq. = Joan d. & h. of John Farway.”).
Benolte, Vis. of Somerset 1531, 1573 & 1591 (1885): 108 (Furneaux
pedigree: “Joane [Fareway], ux. Walter Stowell.”). Stawell, Quantock
Fam. (1910): 38–45. Somerset & Dorset Notes & Queries 16 (1920): 281–
285 (Furneaux pedigree dated 1423/44: “Et predicta Johanna secunda
filia predicti Johannis [Fareway] et Agnetis marritata fuit Waltero
Stowell et habuerunt exitum unum filium vocatum _____ qui non est in
plena etate.”).
Hal Bradley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
> royala...@msn.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 8:24 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
>
snip
>
> Mr. Bradley is correct that one scenario has Agnes Longland with two
> daughters, one of married Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham. Another
> account has Agnes Longland with two daughters, the eldest of whom left
> a daughter who married Thomas Berkeley. Mr. Bradley says "some
> primary evidence would be helpful on this point."
>
> Frankly, I don't understand Mr. Bradley's comment regarding the need
> for primary evidence regarding Agnes Longland's issue. In the very
> same post he presents primary evidence from an IPM which proves that
> Thomas Berkeley's wife was Elizabeth Seymour (not Farway). In that
> IPM dated 1422, Elizabeth's father is named as Thomas Seymour, and he
> in turn is identified as the son of Edmund Seymour. If that
> information is correct, then Elizabeth Seymour obviously can't be the
> daughter of Agnes Longland and John Farway. So who is Mr. Bradley
> trying to fool?
>
Doug,
I am not trying to fool anyone. When sources conflict, it is appropriate to
comment on the discrepancies and address the issues they raise. It is also
appropriate to explain why you discount one source and give more weight to
another. Your initial post had an error regarding the identity of Thomas
Berkeley (d. 1443) of Tickenham. The 1455 will of Maurice Berkeley's sister,
Eleanor, showing that Maurice's son Thomas was still living, though Thomas
Berkeley of Tickenham was deceased in 1443, conclusively proved that Emery
had erred in his identification. All I did was question the chronology of
Emery's identification and it turns out that it was the right call. Thank
you for sharing your findings.
As promised, here is the transcription for the inq. p.m. for John Berkeley
as transcribed & translated from the Latin by Chris Phillips:
The National Archives
C 140/70/40.
Inquisition post mortem, John Berkeley, Somerset, 19 Edward IV [C 140/70/40]
Writ to escheator of Somerset and Dorset, dated 11 May 19 Edward IV [1479].
Inquisition at Bruggewater, co. Somerset, 24 October 19 Edward IV [1479].
John Berkeley held no lands of the lord king or of any other on the day he
died, in demesne or in service. Elizabeth Berkeley, widow, mother of the
aforesaid JB, was seised of the manors of Tykenh[a]m and Brytton', co.
Somerset, and of 7 messuages, 100 acres of land, 100 acres of pasture and 60
acres of meadow in Burneh[a]m, Foletowne and Merke, in said co., in her
demesne as of fee, and being thus seised, by her charter (shown) granted the
manors, lands and tenements among others to Roger Purley of Gloucester, to
hold to him, his heirs and assigns for ever. And Elizabeth had issue John,
in the writ named, and Cecily, now the wife of James Asshe, and died, and
likewise Roger Purley died, after whose deaths and after the death of JB,
who died without issue, a certain Nicholas [?]Dubber, kinsman and heir of
Roger Purley, entered into the manors etc and being thus seised enfeoffed
the aforesaid James Asshe and Cecily, his wife, of the manors etc, to hold
to them and the heirs and assigns of Cecily for ever. By virtue of which
feoffment James and Cecily were seised, namely James as of free tenement and
Cecily in her demesne as of fee, and until now remain thus seised.
The manor of Tykenh[a]m is held of the earl of Huntingdon as of his manor or
castle of Chappestowe in the March of Wales, and is worth 10 marks p.a. The
manor of Brytton' is held of the bishop of Bath and Wells as of his manor of
Compton' Ep'i, and is worth 6 pounds p.a. The 7 messuages, 100 acres of
land, 100 acres of pasture and 60 acres of meadow in Burneh[a]m, Foletowne
and Merke are held of the lady de Say as of her manor of Burneh[a]m by rent
of 35 shillings in free socage and are worth 7 pounds p.a. JB died without
issue ... 19 Edward IV [1479], and Cecily Asshe, the wife of James Asshe, is
his sister and next heir and is of the age of 30 years and more. [End Quote]
I think there are some issues regarding the Beaupre and Longland families
that still need to be addressed, but that will have to wait for another
post. I hope this is of some help.
Hal Bradley
WJho...@aol.com
doesn't make it change.
If you want to argue a position, the *least* compelling way is to declare
that your opponent is ignorant without presenting any new material of your
own.
In a message dated 7/17/2009 9:25:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:
The conveyance in 1414-1415 was the sale of a reversion by the terms
stated in the fine itself. If you can't understand that, then you
haven't spent enough time in fines to understand the phraseology used
in these documents.
**************Can love help you live longer? Find out now.
(http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relationships/?ncid=emlweu
slove00000001)
WJho...@aol.com
conclusion.
The word "held" is not in question here. I've never argued about the word
"held".
The tense of the word "held" is not material to what I've said. Maybe
you've said it, but I've never argued against it.
I agree that *IF* the property were presently held then.... but that's the
entire point.
I am stating that it's quite possible that the property was *not* presently
held. That it should have already reverted, and this sale is simply a
direct sale, not of the reversion.
We've already been over this territory. You believe the document can only
be read one way. I think it can be read at least two ways.
The fine does not say the property "had been held" by Edmund and Joan
Seymour. It says "held." As I pointed out in another fine, the word
"held" as used by the editor clearly intended "held" to be in the
present tense, not the past tense. If the property was presently held
by a husband and wife for the term of their lives, then all Thomas
Fitz Nichol had to convey was either the reversion or a quitclaim to
the property. Since the word quitclaim and release are not used in
the document, the fine should be for a reversion. That is the way
that Bridget Wells Furby has interpreted the document. And, that is
the way I have interpreted the document.
**************Can love help you live longer? Find out now.
(http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-relationships/?ncid=emlweu
slove00000001)
royala...@msn.com
< We've already been over this territory. You believe the document
can only
< be read one way. I think it can be read at least two ways.
Dear Will ~
I recommend you get the 1422 IPM of Sir Edmund Seymour. If the
inquisition states he held the manor of Tickenham, Somerset at his
death, then you can conclude my reading of the 1414 fine is
correct. If the inquisition states that he and his current wife,
Joan, held the manor and advowson of Chelvey, Somerset at his death.
then you can conclude that the Joan who subsequently married Thomas de
la Hay and Henry Griffith was Edmund Seymour's widow.
The inquisitions post mortem for year 1422 are now in print. The year
1422 is covered by Volumes 21 and 22 of the published inquisitions
post mortem. If you don't have access to those volumes on your end,
I'm sure there is someone here on the newsgroup who does have access.
Hopefully either you or they can post a full transcript of the
Somerset part of Edmund Seymour's inquisition. Neither library here
in town has these volumes, otherwise I would check the inquisition
myself.
Good luck.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> In a message dated 7/17/2009 9:25:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> royalances...@msn.com writes:
>
> The fine does not say the property "had been held" by Edmund and Joan
> Seymour. It says "held." As I pointed out in another fine, the word
> "held" as used by the editor clearly intended "held" to be in the
> present tense, not the past tense. If the property was presently held
> by a husband and wife for the term of their lives, then all Thomas
> Fitz Nichol had to convey was either the reversion or a quitclaim to
> the property. Since the word quitclaim and release are not used in
> the document, the fine should be for a reversion. That is the way
> that Bridget Wells Furby has interpreted the document. And, that is
> the way I have interpreted the document.
>
> **************Can love help you live longer? Find out now.
> (http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/02/18/longer-lives-through-rel...
> slove00000001)
royala...@msn.com
For those interested in the Ashe family of Tickenham, Somerset, below
is a weblink to information regarding Elizabeth Gwyn, wife
successively of John Ashe (died 1580) and Francis Dyer. Elizabeth
Gwyn's first husband, John Ashe (died 1580), was the nephew of Jane
Ashe, wife of William Basset, Esq., of Uley, Gloucestershire, which
Jane is the ancestress of the Deighton sisters.
http://books.google.com/books?id=M0cJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA152&dq=Owen+Gwynne+Bristol
And,. here is a weblink to a biography of Elizabeth (Gwyn) Ashe's
father, Owen Gwyn, of Bristol:
http://books.google.com/books?id=u_eIrJpc_T0C&pg=PA270&dq=Owen+Gwynne+Bristol
Matt Tompkins
> On Jul 17, 9:13 pm, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> < Douglas the fine does not state that he is selling the reversion.
> < It states that the property should revert to him.
> < And then it allows Thomas Berkeley to hold it for 100 marks.
>
> You're going around in circles again.
>
> The conveyance in 1414-1415 was the sale of a reversion by the terms
> stated in the fine itself.
Will, Douglas is right - the Fine's meaning is clear: on 27 January
1415 (and perhaps also on 20 January 1416 - the transaction seems to
have taken a year to effect) the ownership of the manor of Tickenham
was divided between Sir Edward Seymour and his wife Joan, who held a
life interest, and Sir Thomas Fitz Nicholl, who held the reversionary
interest (ie the right to become the owner after the Seymours'
deaths), which reversion he was selling to Thomas Lord Berkeley.
> If you're not familiar that the names Edmund and Edward are
> interchangeable, then you haven't spent enough time in primary records
> in this time period.
Douglas, I know what you mean, but 'interchangeable' isn't really the
right word - I doubt very much whether any contemporaries believed the
two names to be one and the same. The relationship between the two
names might perhaps better be described as 'frequently confused with
each other'.
No doubt sometimes the clerks drawing up original medieval records
were uncertain which name an individual bore, but I think the
confusion more often arose when the records were misread. The problem
is that in original medieval documents both names were frequently
severely contracted, often to just Ed' plus the appropriate case
ending (eg Ed'us, Ed'i, Ed'o), making it difficult to decide which
name was meant. Even if the contraction was not quite so severe (eg
to Edw'dus or Ed'ndus), bad handwriting or a damaged or faded document
might make it difficult to discern which name was meant, or a hasty
copyist or transcriber might just assume he was seeing one name or the
other without looking carefully at what was actually written. I
suspect the confusion has more often arisen among modern transcribers
than medieval clerks, but no doubt they too occasionally fell prey to
it.
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
> Will, Douglas is right - the Fine's meaning is clear: on 27 January
> 1415 (and perhaps also on 20 January 1416 - the transaction seems to
> have taken a year to effect) the ownership of the manor of Tickenham
> was divided between Sir Edward Seymour and his wife Joan, who held a
> life interest, and Sir Thomas Fitz Nicholl, who held the reversionary
> interest (ie the right to become the owner after the Seymours'
> deaths), which reversion he was selling to Thomas Lord Berkeley.
I've noticed that 'was divided' is ambiguous. I don't mean that the
division was effected by the fine - I mean that the ownership was
already divided when the fine was made.
Matt
royala...@msn.com
Relative to this discussion, I've seen two individuals named Edmund in
early modern/colonial records who occur as "Edmund alias Edward."
Clearly Edmund and Edward were separate names, but for some reasons,
they were confused or interchanged in records, hence the alias.
One other set of names treated this way in the same time period are
Mary and Mercy.
I've never understood why early modern people "confused" Edmund/Edward
and Mary/Mercy, but perhaps these names were easily misread by the
people of that time.
royala...@msn.com
In one of my posts last week (see below), I speculated that Thomas
Berkeley, Knt., 5th Lord Berkeley (died 1417), had settled lands in
Cornwall on his illegitimate son, Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham,
Somerset sometime before 1421. I said that because it is recorded
that Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, conveyed lands in Cornwall to his
wife's aunt's husband, Walter Stawell, in exchanged for Stawell's
share of the lands of Alice Blount in Warminster, Wiltshire. Walter
Stawell's wife, Joan Farway, and Thomas Berkeley's wife, Elizabeth
Seymour, were co-heires to their distant Furneaux cousin, Alice
(Blount) (Stafford) Stury.
Since my post, I've realized that the lands in Cornwall which Thomas
Berkeley, of Tickenham, possessed were almost certainly lands which
his wife, Elizabeth Seymour, inherited from her uncle, John Farway.
One of these properties was surely the manor of Penhallam (in
Jacobstow), Cornwall, which later was held exclusively by the Stawell
family.
The timetable of the Farway family inheritance indicates that
Elizabeth (Seymour) Berkeley's maternal grandfather, John Farway, died
sometime before 1414–1415, when his widow, Agnes Longland, is known to
have married (2nd) Robert Coker, Esq. Agnes (Longland) (Farway) Coker
in turn died shortly before 21 Sept. 1419, when her son, John Farway
was stated to be her heir. John Farway the younger in turn died
before 1421, when the estates of his cousin, Alice Blount, were
assigned to John Farway's sister, Joan (Farway) Stawell, and his
niece, Elizabeth (Seymour) Berkeley.
Since the Farway inheritance had already kicked in before the Blount
estates were divided, it seems likely that Thomas Berkeley obtained
lands in Cornwall through his wife, Elizabeth Seymour, she being a co-
heir to her uncle, John Farway. This would have taken place in or
before 1421. At the subsequent division of the Blount estates in
1421, Thomas Berkeley appears to have horse traded part of the Farway
inheritance in Cornwall with his wife's aunt's husband, in exchange
for Blount family lands in Warminster, Wiltshire.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Jul 15, 11:25 am, royalances...@msn.com wrote:
< Second, there is a detailed discussion in Collectanea Topographica
et
< Genealogica,. 1 (1834): 243–248 regarding the division of the
estates
< of Lady Alice (Blount) (Stafford) Stury (died 1417), one of whose
co-
< heirs in 1421 was Elizabeth Seymour, wife of Thomas Berkeley, of
< Tickenham, Somerset. This material may be found at the following
< weblink:
<
< http://books.google.com/books?id=TSsEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=B...
<
< The following is a quote from that material:
<
< “The 3rd Anne [Longland] maryed John Farwaye, and had bytwixte them
2
< doughters, the one maryed with Stowell, the other with Berkley Lord
of
< Tekenam and Stowell. And Berkeley as one heyre had for hir parte
the
< lands at Warmester, and afterwards Stowell and Berkley made
exchaunge,
< that Barkley shuld have Warmester hole for his parte to hym and his
< heyres; and Stowell to have as mych land therfor in Cornewaile, that
< was Barkles before that exchange made.” END OF QUOTE.
<
< The above information (albeit slightly garbled) indicates that c.
1421
< (the date the lands of Alice Blount were divided) that Thomas
< Berkeley, of Tickenham, exchanged his own lands in Cornwall for
lands
< in Warminster, Wiltshire, which lands in Warminster had been
assigned
< to Thomas Berkeley's wife's maternal aunt, Joan Farway, wife of
Walter
< Stawell. The Warminster property was part of the estates formerly
< belonging to Alice Blount.
<
< It is curious that Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, should have
< possessed lands in Cornwall c.1421, as the Berkeley family in this
< period resided principally in Gloucestershire, Somerset, and
< Hampshire. The only member of the Berkeley family that I know that
< had lands in Cornwall was Thomas Berkeley, 5th Lord Berkeley, died
< 1417, who obtained them in marriage with his wife, Margaret Lisle.
If
< Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, was the receiver of the Lisle lands
in
< 1420-1421, then he would have had reason to be in Cornwall, as some
of
< the Lisle estates were located in that county.
<
< Without knowing further particulars, it appears that Thomas
Berkeley,
< 5th Lord Berkeley, made provision for his illegitimate son, Thomas
< Berkeley, by arranging for his marriage to Elizabeth Seymour, the
> heiress of several manors, and, by acquiring the reversion of the
< manor of Tickenham. Lord Berkeley likewise installed his bastard
son,
< Thomas Berkeley, as a member of his household and I assume it was he
< who initially appointed Thomas as receiver of the Lisle estates. I
< also believe that Lord Berkeley conveyed lands in Cornwall to his
< bastard son, Thomas Berkeley, to make up part of the marriage
< settlement for his bastard son, Thomas Berkeley, and his wife,
< Elizabeth Seymour. That Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, was a member
< of Lord Berkeley's household in 1417 is indicated by the Fine Rolls
< item cited by Ross. On the death of
John
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> For those interested in the Ashe family of Tickenham, Somerset, below
> is a weblink to information regarding Elizabeth Gwyn, wife
> successively of John Ashe (died 1580) and Francis Dyer. Elizabeth
> Gwyn's first husband, John Ashe (died 1580), was the nephew of Jane
> Ashe, wife of William Basset, Esq., of Uley, Gloucestershire, which
> Jane is the ancestress of the Deighton sisters.
>
>
> And,. here is a weblink to a biography of Elizabeth (Gwyn) Ashe's
> father, Owen Gwyn, of Bristol:
>
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I had noticed both of these items when I was attempting to determine
whether the Ashe part of the descent to the Deighton could be
supported. They are interesting but provide no real support for this
descent.
Hal Bradley commented earlier that the Ashe descent presented by
Burchmore is incorrect and that IPMs can be used to prove the present
descent. However, the Ashe part of the descent proposed in the
original post still remains unproven - or at least unsupported.
John
It's hard to see how an example from the vaguely identified period of
"early modern/colonial records" could be relevant to a discussion of
another instance in the 14th or 15th century. Sounds like a stretch
to make a weak point....
And Matt Tompkins is correct in indicating that "interchanged" is too
broad a word for this situation - "confused" or "mis-recorded" is
likely closer to the truth, as I mentioned in an earlier post. We
still haven't seen any other evidence of a pattern indicating that
"the names Edmund and Edward are interchangeable in records in this
time period" as previosuly asserted.
WJho...@aol.com
The only fine I've seen says nothing about E and Joan's part only to state
that it existed or had existed, that's it.
That could be a condition of the present or the past. Repeating that it's
a condition of the present doesn't change the wording of the fine to agree
with that interpretation.
In a message dated 7/20/2009 3:45:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ml...@le.ac.uk writes:
Will, Douglas is right - the Fine's meaning is clear: on 27 January
1415 (and perhaps also on 20 January 1416 - the transaction seems to
have taken a year to effect) the ownership of the manor of Tickenham
was divided between Sir Edward Seymour and his wife Joan, who held a
life interest, and Sir Thomas Fitz Nicholl, who held the reversionary
interest (ie the right to become the owner after the Seymours'
deaths), which reversion he was selling to Thomas Lord Berkeley.
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
for any occasion.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009)
WJho...@aol.com
However that is not a fact, only an interpretation of what this fine was
affecting.
In a message dated 7/20/2009 3:55:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ml...@le.ac.uk writes:
I've noticed that 'was divided' is ambiguous. I don't mean that the
division was effected by the fine - I mean that the ownership was
already divided when the fine was made.
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
WJho...@aol.com
simply as something like Edd. or Ed. or E. or something and they simply
guessed what it must be in long form.
In a message dated 7/20/2009 9:00:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
And Matt Tompkins is correct in indicating that "interchanged" is too
broad a word for this situation - "confused" or "mis-recorded" is
likely closer to the truth, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
Hal Bradley
In your original post you summed up the Ashe portion of the pedigree as
follows:
9. Elizabeth Seymour, married Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset.
10. Cecily Berkeley, married James Ashe.
11. Richard Ashe, married Margaret _____.
12. John Ashe, Esq., married Isabel Rudhale.
13. Jane Ashe, married William Basset, Esq., of Uley, Gloucestershire.
I have never seen this in print and was wondering what your source was? As
noted previously, Byrchmore omits Richard Ashe, positing that John Ashe who
married Isabel Rudhale was the son of James & Cecily (Berkeley) Ashe.
Hal Bradley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 8:49 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: New Royal Lines for Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton
>
>
-------------------------------
royala...@msn.com
Thank you for your good post.
One of the sources I used for the Ashe pedigree was the book, Making
of a Manor, by Forrest. From your comments, I assume that you haven't
seen this book. I think you'll find the book helpful.
Among other things, this book shows that Cecily Berkeley, widow of
James Ashe [Line 1, Gen. 10 in my original post] married (2nd) Robert
Forthey. Elsewhere I've found that in the period, 1504–1515, Robert
Forthey and his wife, Cecily, “late the wife of James Asshe,” sued
John Browne, executor of Thomas Browne in Chancery regarding fraud in
the recital of a release of a statute staple made by Cecily when sold
to John Chester and the said Thomas Browne, and detention thereof
[Reference: National Archives, C 1/310/69 (abstract of document
available online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp].
A search of the published Somerset index of Inqusitions Post Mortem
indicates there is an IPM dated 6 Henry VIII [1514-1515] for Cecily
Forthey, wife of Robert Forthey, who was the "sister and heir of John
Berkeley" [Reference: Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological
& Natural History Society, pg. 41].. This item may be viewed at the
following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GLbRAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA41&dq=Cecilia+Forthey&lr=
The same inquisition is also listed in the online National Archives
Catalogue:
I assume the information about Cecily Berkeley's 2nd Forthey marriage
and her IPM is new to you, as none of this material appears in your
online database.
For those interested in seeing Hal's information on "Cicely" Berkeley,
they may do so at the following weblinks:
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=hwbradley&id=I61657
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hwbradley/aqwg2666.htm#67302
One last quick comment. The woman's name is usually spelled Cecily,
not Cicely as you have it. Cecily is the female version of the man's
name, Cecil.
Matt Tompkins
> Will, Douglas is right - the Fine's meaning is clear: on 27 January
> 1415 (and perhaps also on 20 January 1416 - the transaction seems to
> have taken a year to effect) the ownership of the manor of Tickenham
> was divided between Sir Edward Seymour and his wife Joan, who held a
> life interest, and Sir Thomas Fitz Nicholl, who held the reversionary
> interest (ie the right to become the owner after the Seymours'
> deaths), which reversion he was selling to Thomas Lord Berkeley.
> I've noticed that 'was divided' is ambiguous. I don't mean that the
> division was effected by the fine - I mean that the ownership was
> already divided when the fine was made.
On 20 July, 18:26, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Please clearly show the evidence that it was *divided*.
> The only fine I've seen says nothing about E and Joan's part only to state
> that it existed or had existed, that's it.
> That could be a condition of the present or the past. Repeating that it's
> a condition of the present doesn't change the wording of the fine to agree
> with that interpretation.
[and in response to the later clarification:]
> That is an interpretation that the life estate was a present condition.
> However that is not a fact, only an interpretation of what this fine was
> affecting.
The fact that the life interest was still in existence when the fine
was made, and that Fitz Nicholl still had only the reversion, is clear
from the second sentence ("Thomas Fitz Nicholl granted ... that the
said manor his heritage which after the decease of Edward and Joan to
him ought to revert shall remain to Thomas de Berkeley ...").
If the life interest had already terminated when the fine was made,
and Fitz Nicholl was no longer the reversioner but had become the full
owner, the fine would have been worded quite differently.
Matt
royala...@msn.com
I've had a second response from Bridget Wells Furby regarding the
parentage of Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset (died 1443).
Ms. Wells Furby believes that Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, is an
illegitimate son of Thomas Berkeley, 5th Lord Berkeley, who died in
1417. She bases this on a reference to "Thomas brother of the
Countess " in the article by C.D.Ross entitled "The Household Accounts
of Elizabeth Berkeley, Countess of Warwick, 1420-1," published in
Transactions of the Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society,
70 (1951): 81-105. Also, she notes that Lord Berkeley acquired the
reversion of the manor of Tickenham, Somerset in 1415 from Thomas Fitz
Nichol, Knt., which acquisition took place about the time Thomas
Berkeley, of Tickenham, married Elizabeth Seymour. Elizabeth
Seymour's grandparents,
Sir Edmund and Joan Seymour, held the manor of Tickenham for life in
1415. Ms. Wells Furby's reasoning seems sensible enough.
Ms. Wells Furby states that Mr. Ross implied there were two Thomas
Berkeley's mentioned in the household accounts of the Countess of
Warwick, one being Thomas Berkeley, Canon of Hereford, and one
presumably being Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham. I got the same
impression when I read Mr. Ross' article, so Ms. Wells Furby is not
making this up. However, I've read what Mr. Ross wrote several
times, and have concluded that he did not mean to imply that the
household accounts mentioned two Thomas Berkeley's. Rather, only one
Thomas Berkeley is mentioned and he is there identified as "brother of
the Countess" and "receiver of the Lisle lands."
Mr. Ross stated that [following Lord Berkeley's death in 1417] this
Thomas Berkeley served as served as one of the sureties for the grant
of the custody of the Berkeley family estates to three of the earl of
Warwick's associates [Reference: Cal. Fine Rolls, 1413-1422, pg.
207]. I haven't yet seen the Fine Rolls item, and until now I've
assumed it relates to Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset.
However, Ms.
Wells Furby has indicated to me that the Thomas Berkeley who served as
surety in 1417 was Thomas Berkeley who was a clerk. If correct (and
I'm trusting Ms. Wells Furby's word for it), then I can only conclude
that it was Thomas Berkeley, Canon of Hereford, who was the
illegitimate son of Thomas Berkeley, 5th Lord Berkeley, and that he is
the one who later was receiver of the Lisle lands in 1420 for his
sister the Countess.
As such, I no longer support the identification of Thomas Berkeley, of
Tickenham, as an illegitimate son of Thomas Berkeley, 5th Lord
Berkeley. Rather, I believe it was Thomas Berkeley the Canon who was
Lord Berkeley's illegitimate son. Ross waffles on the canon being
Lord
Berkeley's illegitmate son, but I see no reason for doing so. If he
was the surety in 1417 and he was the receiver in 1420, then he was
clearly Thomas who was brother of the Countess named in the household
accounts.
That basically brings us back to the drawing board again. As best I
can determine, there are no other places to put Thomas Berkeley as a
legitimate son of the baronial Berkeley family,. except as the son of
Sir John Berkeley, of Beverstone, Gloucestershire who died in 1428.
Roskell (presumbably citing Smyth's Lives of the Berkeleys) states
that Sir John Berkeley had fourteen sons in all, yet only one of these
sons
is named by Roskell or anyone else I have consulted, that son being
Sir John's heir, Maurice Berkeley, of Beverstone, Gloucester (died
1460), who married Lora Fitz Hugh.
I asked Ms. Wells Furby who has studied the Berkeley family is she
knew the names of the other thirteen sons of Sir John Berkeley. She
told me
that she hadn't found any record of their names, and assumes that
Smyth saw a reference to Sir John's fourteen sons in a document or
chantry record which has not yet surfaced. Be that as it may, my
feeling is that Sir John Berkeley is the best candidate to be the
father of Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, due to three reasons.
First, it appears that Sir John Berkeley was a life long friend and
associate and briefly the father-in-law of Sir Thomas Stawell (died
1439), of Cothelstone, Somerset. These two men appear together in
various records, among them being a fine dated 1416-17 recorded in
Warwickshire Feet of Fines, 3 (1943): 130-131. I suspect that these
two men were looking for wives for their respective sons about that
time. Sometime between 1419/21, John Farway the younger died without
issue, leaving his older sister's daughter, Elizabeth Seymour, and his
younger sister, Joan Farway, as his co-heirs. My guess (and it's
purely a guess) is that when this took place, Sir John Berkeley and
Sir
Thomas Stawell took the opportunity of marrying Elizabeth Seymour and
Joan Farway to their respective sons, Thomas Berkeley and Walter
Stawell. I don't know exactly when the marriages took place but it
was before 1421, when the lands of Alice Blount, a Farway cousin, were
divided, and
Thomas Berkeley and Walter Stawell were awarded part of her lands in
right of their wives.
Second, I note that Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset (died
1443) named a son, John, presumably in honor of his father, Sir John
Berkeley, of Beverstone,
Gloucestershire.
Third, while Ms. Wells Furby is correct that Thomas Berkeley, 5th Lord
Berkeley acquired the reversion of the manor of Tickenham, Somerset in
1415, at some point the overlordship of Tickenham was transferred to
the Berkeleys of Beverstone. I assume that the overlordship of
Tickenham was held by Sir William Berkeley, of Beverstone in 1483,
when he was attained and his lands confiscated. Following the
confiscation of Sir William Berkeley's lands, the overlordship of
Tickenham was granted to William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon.
This explains why John Berkeley, of Tickenham, son and heir of Thomas
Berkeley (died 1443), of Tickenham, by Elizabeth Seymour, was holding
the manor of
the Earl of Huntingdon at his death in 1489.
I do not know why the overlordship passed from the heirs of Thomas
Berkeley, 5th Lord Berkeley to the Berkeleys of Beverstone, but
suffice to say, it took place. As a result, the Berkeley family of
Tickenham held the manor Tickenham as subtenants of the Berkeleys of
Beverstone.
I plan to ask Ms. Wells Furby if she know of any charters of Sir John
Berkeley, of Beverstone, which she has not consulted, which might
mention his younger sons. At the present time, I know there is at
least one charter for Sir John Berkeley dated 1416 which is published
in Langley
Cartulary, by Peter Coss, page 61, as indicated by the following
snippet view weblink:
I believe this charter deals with the same property as involved in the
fine published in Warwickshire Feet of Fines, 3 (1943): 130-131. I
see that Thomas Stawell is mentioned in the published Langley
Cartulary. But I'm unable to tell if he served as a witness to Sir
John Berkeley's charter dated 1316.
wjhonson
>
> The fact that the life interest was still in existence when the fine was made, and that Fitz Nicholl still had only the reversion, is clear from the second sentence ("Thomas Fitz Nicholl granted ... that the said manor his heritage which after the decease of Edward and Joan to him ought to revert shall remain to Thomas de Berkeley ...").
>
That's right. That way of reading this makes sense to me. The key
phrase being "...ought to revert...."
Will Johnson
royala...@msn.com
I encountered a document in the A2A Catalogue which shows that Maurice
Berkeley, of Beverstone (died 1460) witnessed a lease in 1448 for
Robert son and heir of Robert Stanshawe, of Alderley, Gloucestershire,
Esq.
In a previous post, I identified Joan, wife of this Robert Stanshawe,
as probably the daughter of Sir Edmund Seymour (died 1422), of Chelvey
and Tickenham, Somerset, by his 2nd wife, Joan. If correct, then Joan
Stanshawe would have been an aunt of the half blood to Elizabeth
Seymour, wife of Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset.
This document basically confirms that Maurice Berkeley, of Beverstone,
Gloucestershire was fully knowledgeable of the likely near relations
of Elizabeth Seymour, wife of Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham,
Somerset..
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
Source: A2A Catalogue
Gloucestershire Archives, Hale Family of Alderley
Folder icon [no title] D1086/T2/9 1448
These documents are held at Gloucestershire Archives
Contents:
30 September, 27 Henry VI
Confirmation of lease for life
(1) Robert, son and heir of Robert Stanshawe of Alderley, esq.
(2) Isabella, mother of (1)
(1) confirms for life of (2) 3 messuages, mill, land (100a.), meadow
(20a.), pasture (12a.), wood (3a.) in Alderley, Hillesley, and
Leighterton which she holds of Thomas Seysell and Isabella his wife,
formerly wife of John de Chausy of Alderley, decd.
Witnesses: Maurice Berkeley of Beverstone, Nicholas Poyntz, Nicholas
Stanshawe, Richard Sheuman, parson of Alderley, Thomas Tovy, and
others
Seal: on a tag; seal missing
CE Wood
consensus about Douglas' supposition.
Any other ideas about who Thomas' father is most likely to have been?
CE Wood
On Jul 23, 12:35 pm, royalances...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> my feeling is that Sir John Berkeley is the best candidate to be the father of Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, due to three reasons...
WJho...@aol.com
have had an illegitimate son.
In a message dated 7/24/2009 11:30:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
woo...@msn.com writes:
CE Wood
-------------------------------
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
**************A bad credit score is 600 & below. Checking won't affect your
score. See now!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377105x1201454426/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgI
D=62&bcd=JulyBadfooterNO62)
M.Sjostrom
who succeeded Thomas, the 5th Lord Berkeley,
as lord Berkeley ??
Have I gathered a correct impression that it were a male-line hereditacy ??
If so, his male-line heir would have become his successor as *overlord* of his 'vassals', and thusly held the feudal overlordship over the actual holders of manors the Lord Berkeley had granted to others.
I gather that a *reversion* easily mutated to/ continued as, an overlordship.
While the 5th Lord Berkeley would *plausibly* have arranged his bastard's life by granting him (and/or his wife) the actual holdership of a manor.
Sp, they'd become 'vassals' of whomever succeeded as Lord Berkeley, while however holding the one manor in question.
--------------------
In any case, I am seeing a pattern in the fact that the Seymour grandfather held the manor, Twickenham (I gather the place was sometimes called Tickenham, other times Twickenham) and whatever would have been a formal limitation, still his heiress would have ion thozse days had a claim to it.....
And, when the Lord Berkeley wanted to arrange the future of one Thomas Berkeley,
by marrying him off to an arguable claimant of that manor AND then ensuring their position by purchasing the reversionary right, he was creating a perfect situation where two claims would unite,
because the Lord was then in position to grant -as overlord, holder of reversion- the manor to that one Thomas Berkeley as his vassal, and to agree that the young Thomas' wife had a good claim to it,
which would be united in their heir born of that marriage.
Illegitimate sons were not heirs, not in lawful way. Their parents needed to arrange it some other way. It was actually a much-wanted thing to have a heiress to marry to an illegitimate son, because heiresses inherited properties lawfully, their husbands held such, and their kids inherited them.
That sort of thing was a plausible thing for a magnate to do for providing for his illegitimate son.
---------------------------
The men named Thomas Berkeley:
* the clerk guy
* the Twickenham guy
should be checked againsat chronological considerations. Which of them could be born in a suitable period of adulthood of the 5th lord Berkeley ? Is one of them too old for being sired by said lord ?
wjhonson
> who succeeded Thomas, the 5th Lord Berkeley,
> as lord Berkeley ??
> Have I gathered a correct impression that it were a male-line hereditacy ??
>
> If so, his male-line heir would have become his successor as *overlord* of his 'vassals', and thusly held the feudal overlordship over the actual holders of manors the Lord Berkeley had granted to others.
Thomas the Lord Berkeley who d.s.p.m. in 1417 had a daughter by his
wife Margaret d'Lisle. This daughter was Elizabeth de Berkeley,
Baroness Lisle suo jure and "aged 30" at her father's death. She
herself at her own death, left three co-heiresses.
However the "Lord Berkeley" followed the male-line, going at Thomas'
death in 1417 to his *nephew* James, heir to Thomas' next-brother also
named James who was already dead having died in 1405.
The mother of this next Lord Berkeley (wife of the dead James) was
Elizabeth Bluet heiress of her father John Bluet of Raglan, co
Monmouth, Knt.
So that tells you that not only did Berkeley follow the male-line, but
Lisle did not.
Will Johnson
John
Perhaps it may help to summarize what's been posted so far on this
matter.
July 8: Thomas Berkeley of Tickenham was stated to be a son of Sir
Maurice Berkeley of Beverstone (d. 1460). No support was provided for
this parentage at the time, but subsequently, on July 15, Emery,
Greater Medieval Houses of England & Wales, 1300–1500 3 (2006): 646
was cited as support.
July 15: Thomas B. of T. (d. 1443) cannot be the son of Sir Maurice
B. of B. (d. 1460) because Sir Maurice's son Thomas was known to be
living 1455 when he was mentioned in the will of his aunt. Based on
information from Bridget Wells Furby, citing an article by C. D. Ross
in Transactions BGAS, Thomas, 5th Lord Berkeley (d. 1417) had at least
one illegitimate son Thomas, mentioned in the accounts of his half-
sister the Countess of Warwick, who MAY be Thomas B. of Tickenham.
But Ross was unaware of Thomas B. of T. and associates the Thomas in
the account books (mentioned as "brother of the Countess" and
"receiver of the Lisle estates" in 1420) with another Thomas Berkeley,
canon of Hereford. Ms. Furby is said to disagree with this conclusion
and to identify Thomas B. of T. as the illegitimate son and Thomas B.
the canon as a separate individual (parentage presumably unknown).
July 23: Ms. Furby [now called Ms. Wells Furby] is quoted again as
believing that the Thomas Berkeley mentioned in the account books as
"brother of the Countess" and "receiver of the Lisle estates" in 1420
was the illegitimate son of the 5th Lord Berkeley and also was our
Thomas Berkeley of Tickenham, separate and distinct from Thomas
Berkeley, canon of Hereford. Ms. Furby also points out that a Thomas
Berkeley, said to be a clerk, apparently served as surety in 1417 in
regard to the estate of the 5th Lord Berkeley. Mr. Richardson appears
to conclude from this that the Thomas Berkeley of 1417 must by the
same Thomas Berkeley of 1420 who was the brother (actually half-
brother) of the Countess and thus illegitimate son of the 5th Lord
Berkeley. Furthermore, since the Thomas Berkeley of 1417 is said (by
Ms. Furby) to be a clerk (although not specifically a canon), he
presumably cannot the Thomas Berkeley of Tickenham who married and had
children. Thus it is necessary to find another potential father for
Thomas Berkeley of Tickenham - hence the introduction of Sir John
Berkeley of Beverstone (d. 1427/8).
It's worth noting that the identification of Thomas Berkeley, canon of
Hereford, as the illegitimate son of the 5th Lord Berkeley and the
rejection of Thomas Berkeley as the illegitimate son depends on the
following chain of facts:
1) that Thomas Berkeley the surety of 1417 was a clerk (stated by Ms.
Furby and accepted by DR but not yet verified) and thus not permitted
to marry
2) if Thomas Berkeley the surety of 1417 was a clerk, he was the same
Thomas Berkeley who was canon of Hereford
3) that Thomas Berkeley the surety of 1417 was the same Thomas
Berkeley who was receiver of the Lisle estates in 1420 and thus half-
brother of the Countess of Warwick
In addition, if Thomas Berkeley of Tickenham was NOT the illegitimate
son of the 5th Lord Berkeley, it's hard to understand the efforts of
the 5th Lord Berkeley (described in the July 15 post) to secure the
reversion of the manor of Tickenham for Thomas. It's also not
entirely clear yet exactly what the role of the Berkeleys of
Beverstone was in the ownership or custody of the manor of Tickenham.
In addition, no one has yet checked Smyth's "Lives of the Berkeleys"
to see if anything is said about the sons (legitimate or otherwise) of
either the 5th Lord Berkeley or Sir John Berkeley of Beverstone.
Finally, it's noted that Thomas Berkeley of Tickenham and his wife
Elizabeth Seymour named their son John, presumably in honor of Thomas'
now-proposed father Sir John Berkeley of Beverstone. But it was also
noted earlier in this thread that Elizabeth Seymour's father is
variously called Thomas or John Seymour. It's not implausible that
John the son could have been named for his maternal grandfather
instead of his paternal grandfather, and this his naming is not a
conclusive argument in favor of the parentage of Thomas Berkeley of
Tickenham being a son of Sir John Berkeley.
There's been a considerable amount of useful information presented so
far, but there are still gaps and questions, and also different
possible interpretations of some sources (notably the Ross article).
I'd say that the safest conclusion at this point is that the parentage
of Thomas Berkeley of Tickenham cannot be definitely determined - with
the most likely candidates being the 5th Lord Berkeley and Sir John
Berkeley of Beverstone, without ruling out other possibilities yet to
be located.
So...perhaps it's premature to change your database yet again.. Wait
for further posts..!!
John
According to CP sub Berkeley, that's not quite exactly what happened
with the title of Lord Berkeley.
The title held by the 5th Lord Berkeley (d. 1417) was a barony by writ
of summons, created in 1295. As such, it was inheritable by a female
heir and thus would have fallen into abeyance among the descendants of
the three daughters of the 5th Lord Berkeley's daughter Elizabeth
Countess of Warwick, who was suo jure baroness Lisle as you note and
by modern practice would also be suo jure Baroness Berkeley. The
possible heirs (as of 1823) to the 1295 creation are listed in CP
8:54-5 sub Lisle.
Her cousin James managed to acquire title to the Berkeley estates
(although much contested by the Countess of Warwick per CP). He was
summoned to Parliament in 1421 as Lord Berkeley, but CP treats this
title as a new and separate creation from that of 1295. There are
other issues, including the question of whether the original Berkeley
barony was a barony by tenure, but this is the gist of the matter.
wjhonson
------------------
Based on this entry in the original run of CP
http://books.google.com/books?id=27EKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA329
which may or may not match the later edition, your restatement isn't
quite what he says. He states that *if* we use modern decisions than
the title should have gone into abeyance... *but* that there are other
titles which did descend in the same way to heirs-male (which we today
would say they shouldn't have) instead of going into abeyance so the
situation isn't without precedent.
Will Johnson
John
>
> which may or may not match the later edition, your restatement isn't
> quite what he says. He states that *if* we use modern decisions than
> the title should have gone into abeyance... *but* that there are other
> titles which did descend in the same way to heirs-male (which we today
> would say they shouldn't have) instead of going into abeyance so the
> situation isn't without precedent.
>
> Will Johnson
But CP also says that the Berkeley barony of 1421 held by James the
cousin of the Countess of Warwick must be considered as an original
creation. And CP, in the note you cite (which is the same in the
later edition), does not say that the other titles (specifically
Burghersh and De la War) "descended" to the heir male rather than the
heir general, but rather that the heir male was "summoned" to
Parliament, thus in both cases (at least per CP) creating a new title
rather than continuing the older title. This is confirmed in the CP
accounts of these titles.
The whole question of baronies by summons and whether they did in fact
create inheritable titles is of course a messy question in itself and
seems to largely governed by decisions made centruies after the fact
with little regard to what the contemporary view of these supposed
titles was.
John
Accounts of Elizabeth Berkeley, Countess of Warwick, 1420-1" in vol.
70 of the Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire
Archaeological Society is available on-line via the table of contents
at:
http://www.bgas.org.uk/tbgas/bgc061.htm
With respect to Thomas Berkeley of Tickenham, it probably should be
read in the context of the comments of Bridget Wells Furby, archivist
of Berkeley Castle, earlier in this thread.
There appear to be some other articles on the Berkeleys in this
periodical which may be of interest to this group - although not
necessarily directly relevant to this thread..
M.Sjostrom
an illegitimate son would have needed a dispensation from the illegitimate birth, to become a priest, and hold the position of canon
Also a legitimate younger son of the family of Berkeley, or a legitimate son of a younger brother of a Lord Berkeley, would plausibly have been a canon - and not needed a dispensation.
Dispensations were expensive.
ecclesiastical registers on 1400s have a pretty good coverage of granted dispensations.
in the absence of a dispensation, the 'brother of the countess' should be assumed to been a layman.
Matt Tompkins
> I gather that a *reversion* easily mutated to/ continued as, an overlordship.
I'm afraid the reversion to a life interest had nothing in common with
feudal overlordship - they were legally quite unconnected.
A life interest and the reversion after it were interests in the same
level of tenure, resulting when that tenure was divided in time,
between someone who possessed it now and someone who would come into
possession of it in the future.
The interests of an overlord and his vassal, on the other hand, were
two different levels of tenure, giving both the lord and the vassal
simultaneous ownership of the same property, but at different levels
of tenure. It was the result of sub-infeudation.
Subinfeudation had been banned in 1290, by the Statute of Quia
Emptores - thereafter it was no longer possible for the lord of a
manor to subinfeudate it to a vassal, and all purported grants of
subinfeudation took effect as outright transfers of the lord's own
interest, causing the intended vassal to acquire the lord's own level
of tenure.
The result of this (and other earlier changes in the nature of
subinfeudation) was that overlordship gradually became irrelevant.
The subinfeudations that had been created before 1290 still existed,
of course, and many lords of manors held them under an overlord, but
the overlords only occasionally derived any benefit from their
overlordship and by the end of the fifteenth century most
overlordships had become little more than technicalities (the great
exception was the Crown's own ultimate overlordship, of course).
> While the 5th Lord Berkeley would *plausibly* have arranged his bastard's life by granting him (and/or his wife) the actual holdership of a manor.
> Sp, they'd become 'vassals' of whomever succeeded as Lord Berkeley, while however holding the one manor in question.
This had not been possible since 1290.
Matt Tompkins
M.Sjostrom
Matt,
do you then have an explanation how the Berkeleys of Beverston would have become overlords of Twickenham/Tickenham; ?
or IS the notion that they held an overlordship, a mistaken idea altogether ?
--------------------------
The Bassets, family of grandpa Seymour's first wife, seemingly held a hereditary right to the manor of Twickenham.
Their heirs would have inherited that hereditary right. Probably the Seymour granddaughter (the wife of Thomas Berkeley) was one such heir, assuming her grandmother had been that Joan Basset.
That hereditary right should not have mutated to only a lifetime holdership.
And, there's a root for the arguable claim of the Thomas berkeley's seymour wife.
Whereas, from what historical right did the right to reversion derive in this case ?
My understanding is that if a subtenancy right lapses, then it's the overlord to whom the manor reverts.
That would be a source of the reversionary right. Overlordship. I was thinking that Lord Berkeley purchased the overlordship, or the overlord's right to reversion of that very manor of Twickenham.
However, i'd be glad to hear where the actually purchased right to reversion (in this very case) would have derived from, if it wasn't the overlord's right to that reversion.
Matt Tompkins
> do you then have an explanation how the Berkeleys of Beverston would have become overlords of Twickenham/Tickenham; ?
> or IS the notion that they held an overlordship, a mistaken idea altogether ?
I haven't been following all the threads of this discussion, but I
don't think there's been any reference to the Berkeleys of Beverston
as overlords of Tickenham, has there? Just a suggestion that the
Thomas de Berkeley who bought the reversion from FitzNichol in 1416
may have been a member of that branch of the family. But maybe I've
missed it.
So the question of overlordship seems to be a red herring, deriving
from a misapprehension of the significance of the word 'reversion' in
the 1416 fine (was it 1416? - I'm writing from memory). As I
explained in my previous post, in this present context 'reversion' has
nothing to do with overlordship (as you say, in some circumstances a
subinfeudated property could revert to its overlord, but this was not
normally called 'reversion' (not after 1290, anyway) - it was
technically 'escheat').
I think the explanation for Joan Basset and her husband Edmund Seymour
having only a life interest in the manor of Twickenham in 1416 has
already been given by Douglas Richardson - it is probably a
consequence of the lawsuit in 1382 by which Thomas FitzNicholl claimed
the manor from Edmund and Joan. That lawsuit was presumably ended by
a compromise under which Edmund and Joan kept it for life and
FitzNicholl got it after their deaths (a not unusual outcome to
property disputes in those days).
Matt
M.Sjostrom
well, Douggie is telling a tale that the Beverstones anyway held the overlordship over Twickenham,
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2009-07/1248377708
and that after knight William Berkeley, of Beverstone, the overlordship became transferred to the earl of Huntingdon.
....but, if you say that the whole overlordship is a red herring.....
do you think Douggie talks bullshit about that ?
Matt Tompkins
> I haven't been following all the threads of this discussion, but I
> don't think there's been any reference to the Berkeleys of Beverston
> as overlords of Tickenham, has there? Just a suggestion that the
> Thomas de Berkeley who bought the reversion from FitzNichol in 1416
> may have been a member of that branch of the family. But maybe I've
> missed it.
On 25 July, 12:57, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> well, Douggie is telling a tale that the Beverstones anyway held the overlordship over Twickenham,http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2009-07/12...
> and that after knight William Berkeley, of Beverstone, the overlordship became transferred to the earl of Huntingdon.
> ....but, if you say that the whole overlordship is a red herring.....
> do you think Douggie talks bullshit about that ?
Ah, yes, the overlordship had indeed been mentioned. Mea culpa - my
attention sometimes wavers before I get to the end of those very long
posts.
But the overlordship still has no relevance to the reversion in the
1415-16 fine.
Matt
M.Sjostrom
would it not be an amazing coincidence that the overlordship of Twickenham, were gained by a branch of Berkeleys
- if it were separate from the acquisition of 'reversion' of the same Twickenham that a Berkeley gained in about 1410s.
Still we dot have any explanation how and why the overlordship came to the possession of a branch of Berkeleys.
A reversion would have been a part of overlonrd's rights. There could be its explanation.
----
Joan Basset, the wife of Edmund, was a heiress of Bassets who held Twickenham. her right to Twickenham would presumably been hereditary.
then what right would Thomas FitzNicholl have had to that ? hereditary right at the same level, or overlordship right ? or what?
this should be known, before it's realistic to claim what was the basis and level of the much-talked reversionary right.
John
> Dear Hal ~
>
> Thank you for your good post.
>
> One of the sources I used for the Ashe pedigree was the book, Making
> seen this book. I think you'll find the book helpful.
>
> Among other things, this book shows that Cecily Berkeley, widow of
> James Ashe [Line 1, Gen. 10 in my original post] married (2nd) Robert
> Forthey. Elsewhere I've found that in the period, 1504–1515, Robert
> Forthey and his wife, Cecily, “late the wife of James Asshe,” sued
> John Browne, executor of Thomas Browne in Chancery regarding fraud in
> the recital of a release of a statute staple made by Cecily when sold
> to John Chester and the said Thomas Browne, and detention thereof
> [Reference: National Archives, C 1/310/69 (abstract of document
> available online athttp://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp].
>
The book mentioned above is Denys Forrest, "The Making of a Manor: The
Story of Tickenham Court" (1975). Upon reading it, it's hard to see
how this could be cited as a useful source to support the line to the
Deighton sisters, since its treatment of the pertinent segment of the
line is filled with errors and omissions.
To begin with, although Mr. Richardson says above that "this book
shows that Cecily Berkeley, widow of James Ashe, ... married (2nd)
Robert Forthey", the book in fact says the Forthey marriage was the
first, not the second, for Cecilia [sic - not Cecily or Cicely] -
specifically, "before marrying James Asshe she had had a first husband
called Robert Forthey". Based on the abstracted item from the
National Archives cited above, it is possible if not likely that the
book is wrong on this point, but nonetheless Mr. Richardson is at
least careless in saying that the book says that Robert Forthey was
the second husband of Cecily Berkeley - because it doesn't say that.
With respect to Cecily's brother John, the book refers to him just as
"a certain John Berkeley, whose precise relationship to the great clan
[i.e., the family of the Lords Berkeley] has never been establsihed".
The book makes no mention at all of the apparent connections to
Tickenham of the Berkeleys of Beverstone and in fact overlooks many of
the details that have been mentioned in this thread, saying only that
Tickenham's "history at this time is particularly obscure". And the
key individual Thomas Berkeley "of Tickenham" is not mentioned at all.
With respect to the Asshe segment of the proposed deighton descent,
Forrest specifically cites and follows the work of Rev. Joseph
Byrchmore, "Collections for a Parochial History of Tickenham" (1900).
Byrchmore's work was discussed earlier in this thread, when Hal
Bradley showed that it is totally wrong in outlining an Asshe descent
consisting of Richard followed by three Johns followed by Joan the
wife of William Basset of Uley. But Forrest simply restates exactly
this sequence.
Mr. Richardson says of the Forrest work "I think you'll find the book
helpful". Either he didn't carefully read the book or he's simply
joking, because it's hard to see how this book could be helpful in
proving this descent.
royala...@msn.com
I'm glad you found the Forrest book so helpful to your research. It's
always a pleasure assisting you in your family research. In the
future, though, it would be nice to hear a thank you from you for my
help, instead of the grumbling, grousing, complaints, and negativity
you project to the newsgroup. The "drama queen" aspect of your posts
is most undesirable and unwelcome.
Regarding Cecily Berkeley's marriage to Robert Forthey, I cited not
one, but two pieces of evidence which conclusively prove that Robert
Forthey was her second husband. As such, there is no confusion
whatsoever about the order of Cecily Berkeley's marriages. She
married (1st) James Ashe and (2nd) Robert Forthey. Period. End of
story.
John
More inaccuracies....
You cited three, not two, pieces of evidence that Robert Forthey was
the second husband of Cecily Berkeley: the Forrest book, the item
from the National Archives, and Cecily's IPM. As I pointed out I
don't disagree with the conclusion, but you were clearly in error in
saying that the Forrest book supported Robert Forthey as the second,
not first, husband of Cecily Berkeley. Now that your error has been
pointed out, you refuse to admit that you made a mistake (to put it
most generously) in saying that "this book shows that Cecily Berkeley,
widow of James Ashe, ... married (2nd) Robert Forthey". And you now
don't dispute the fact that the Forrest book fails to provide any real
support for other elements of the descent in question.
And we're supposed to "thank you" for for your "helpful" contribution
in mis-characterizing the Forrest source and calling it "useful"?
Once again you must be joking. Readers of the newsgroup can make
their own judgments - I suspect that they will be different from your
contorted views.
At least you could attempt to be more accurate in your future posts to
the group....but that's probably asking too much.
royala...@msn.com
< More inaccuracies....
<
< You cited three, not two, pieces of evidence that Robert Forthey was
< the second husband of Cecily Berkeley:
Correction. I cited two pieces of contemporary evidence, or citations
derived from contemporary evidence. The book by Forrest would be
considered a secondary source, not direct or indirect evidence.
As for I evidence I cited, it clearly indicates that Cecily Berkeley
married (1st) James Ashe and (2nd) Robert Forthey. This is not
"likely" as you claim. It is fact.
Even so, it would still be nice to hear you say thanks. Your refusal
to acknowledge the assistance of others shows a very negative aspect
of your personality.
John
More distortions of the facts to cover up for your blatant error.....
In your post of July 20th, you cited three sources for the marriages
of Cecily Berkeley, without distinguishing between "contemporary" or "
secondary" sources. Now you're playing with words so that you can
claim to classify two of the sources as "contemporary" and therefore
"evidence", while conveniently downplaying the third source (the
Forrest book) which you mischaracterized (deliberately?) in your July
20th post.
But this "dialogue", such as it is, is going nowhere, and I see no
reason to continue it.
And I see no reason why "thanks" are in order for this continuing
stream of misinformation, If the lack of appreciation is a problem
for your delicate psyche, so be it.
royala...@msn.com
<`More distortions of the facts to cover up for your blatant
error.....
<
< But this "dialogue", such as it is, is going nowhere, and I see no
< reason to continue it.
The present discussion of this thread concerns Cecily Berkeley's
marriage to Robert Forthey.
I posted two (not three) pieces of evidence taken from contemporary
sources which indicate that Robert Forthey was Cecily Berkeley's 2nd
husband.
royala...@msn.com
Since making my first post regarding the Deighton sisters' descent
from Isabel, the alleged illegitimate daughter of King John, I've done
some additional research on the various families connected to the
extended ancestry of the Deighton sisters.
Following my earlier post, Hal Bradley raised a question about the
correct name of Margaret Farway's husband, John Seymour, who I named
in my Line 1, Generation 8. Hal kindly pointed out that there was an
inquisition post mortem dated 1422 for John Seymour's father, Sir
Edmund Seymour, in which John Seymour is called Thomas Seymour. This
inquisition is cited in Gentleman's Magazine n.s. 3 (1835): 588–594,
which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=azrzWAAB8eMC&pg=PA588&dq=%22Long,+im...
However, I've pointed out that there is a pedigree of the Furneaux
family dated c.1421/40 in which Margaret Farway's husband is there
called John Seymour, not Thomas Seymour. I posted this record on the
newsgroup back in 2007, which Hal overlooked. This pedigree
reads in part as follows:
“Et predicta Margareta prima filia predicti Johannis [Fareway] et
Agnetis marritata fuit Johanni Seymour, filio et heredi Edmundi
Seymour militis, et habuerunt exitum unam filiam vocatam _____ que
marritata fuit Johanni de Bercley.” [Reference: Somerset & Dorset
Notes & Queries, 16 (1920): 281–285].
Margaret Farway's husband is likewise called John Seymour in the
published Visitiation of Somerset, which is of much later date:
“Margerett [Fareway], ux. John, sonn and heire of Sr. Henery
Semore.” [Reference: Benolte, Vis. of Somerset 1531, 1573 & 1591
(1885): 108 (Furneaux pedigree)]..
The above source may be viewed at the following weblink:
Since presenting this evidence, I've located yet another piece of
contemporary evidence in which Margaret Farway's husband is not
called Thomas or John Seymour, but Edmund Seymour! This evidence
comes from Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume 23 (2004),
page 57. Hal perhaps missed this item as it is not
referenced in the index under Seymour, or any variant form.
The item is taken from the inquisition post mortem of Sir John
Berkeley, Knt., of Beverston, Gloucestershire, who died 5 March 1428.
The Somerset part of the inquisition was taken 4 May 1428. It lists
various properties that Sir John Berkeley held in Somerset at his
death including 3 messuages, 3 curtilages, 2 cottages, etc. at
Tickenham, Somerset , which John Berkeley "held of Thomas de Berkele
and Margaret his wife, who was daughter and heir of Edmund Saymour, in
right of Margaret as of her manor of Tickenham by knight service."
Thus, the above item indicates that Thomas Berkeley's wife was named
Margaret Seymour, whereas we know her name from other sources was
Elizabeth Seymour.
The above item also indicates that Thomas Berkeley's wife was the
daughter of Edmund Seymour, whereas we know from other sources that he
was John (or Thomas) Seymour, and that Edmund Seymour was her
grandfather.
Regardless, the item further tells us that Tickenham, Somerset
belonged to Thomas Berkeley's wife, which adds new evidence that
Elizabeth (Seymour) Berkeley was the granddaughter and heiress of Joan
Basset, wife of Edmund Seymour, who was the earlier heiress of the
manor of Tickenham, Somerset.
So now we have not one, not two, but three given names for the father
of Thomas Berkeley's wife, Elizabeth Seymour. Go figure.
royala...@msn.com
Checking the surname index to Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem,
Volume 23 (2004), I've found the entry for Edmund Seymour in the IPM
of Sir John Berkeley listed in the index under the surname, "St Maur."
M.Sjostrom
if I read correctly what is in the inquisition post mortem of Sir John
Berkeley, of Beverston, died 5 March 1428;
"..... at Tickenham, Somerset , which John Berkeley 'held of Thomas de Berkele and....",
this would mean that actually, Thomas Berkeley, of Twickenham, were overlord of John Berkeley, of Beverston.
Right ?
Has the ipm text been correctly rendered ? or should the prepositions or such, actually be vice versa?
If Thomas Berkeley and his wife were overlords of John, as to holdings in twickenham, this surely is nothing more than that for some reasons, Thomas and his wife the heiress, had rented out some of their property to Thomas' kinsman, who was for that period then responsible for some of the fudal obligations.
A man could easily utilize his cousin, remote cousin, in such - this does imo not mean that Thomas himself were of the Beverston branch.
Since sub-feudation was prohibited, this would not have been a proper sub-feudation, but just a semi-informal arrangement for some time, to get the obligations cared for and some revenue out of the properties.
The Beverstons do not necessarily need to be continuing in any holdership of Twickenham lands after a brief period.... because seemingly, it was not the Beverston who were overlords.
Most importantly, this affirms that Thomas' wife ended up as the final owner of Twickenham, and the Lord Berkeley's purchase obviously just assisted her (or the couple) in that.
John Berkeley would have belonged to this family:
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00125457&tree=LEO
Lord Berkeley (d 1416):
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00054205&tree=LEO
----
I can easily believe that a granddaughter, whose father predeceased his father, so the girl became directly heiress of the said grandfather, would been called as 'daughter' of grandfather by some careless one.
No trouble in that interpretation.
The 1428 ipm clearly says that Thomas Berkeley's wife was the lawful heiress of Twickenham according to what the 1428 people perceived the situation. So, obviously the purchase made by Lord Berkeley some decade and more earlier, was just a piece of giving assistance to her to obtrain a more undisputed claim.
The Lord would not have been legally allowed to leave a bastard son such a good inheritance, but as holder of rival claim to the property, the Lord was quite easily in position to and able to concede his bastard son's wife to have the better claim.
(the inquisition post mortem of knight John Berkeley, of Beverston,
taken 4 May 1428)
John H
For children of John DEIGHTON & Jane (nee BASSETT) below, you show 3
females!
Were there also others?
Some sites show a son John christened on 9th April 1607 at St. Nicholas
church in Gloucester
and who was married to a Mary Anstye. This John shown as having died 31st
Oct 1676 at Gloucester.
Apparently the burial memorial shows 3 sons and 4 daughters.
Whilst another site says 11 children.
Would you comment please, as to the existence of any or all other children.
regards
John H
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:42849864-688e-4bdc...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my initial post this past week regarding the new royal ancestry of
the Deighton sisters, I identified Thomas Berkeley (died 1443), of
Tickenham, Somerset as a younger son of Maurice Berkeley, Knt. (died
1460), of Beverstone, Gloucestershire, by his wife, Lora Fitz Hugh.
In so doing, I was relying on Emery, Greater Medieval Houses of
England & Wales, 1300�1500 3 (2006): 646, which may be viewed at the
following weblink:
Initially, this identification seemed acceptable, as Thomas, son of
Maurice, of Beverstone, is the only known legitimate member of the
family who could conceivably be Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham,
Somerset. At the time I made my post, however, I was in discussion
privately with several other parties regarding the matter of Emery's
identification of Thomas Berkeley of Tickenham as Thomas, son of
Maurice, of Beverstone. One of these correspondants raised the issue
of a possible chronological problem in this identification. Hal
Bradley subsequently raised the same issue in his earlier post in
this thread.
Since my original post, I've done additional research and proven
beyond doubt that Thomas Berkeley (died 1443), of Tickenham, Somerset
is definitely a different person than Thomas Berkeley, younger son of
Sir Maurice Berkeley, of Beverstone, and Lora Fitz Hugh. We can be
certain of this as Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, is known to have
died in 1443 (see Farnham, Leicestershire Medieval Village Notes 5
(1931): 413]. Thomas, son of Maurice Berkeley, on the other hand, was
still living in 1455, he being named in that year in the will of his
aunt, Eleanor Berkeley, Countess of Arundel. An abstract of Countess
Eleanor's will is published in Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826):
277�279. It may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=J8ZsAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA98&dq=Nicolas,+Testamenta+Vetusta
So, if Thomas, son of Maurice Berkeley was not the same person as
Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, then who was Thomas Berkeley, of
Tickenham?
At this point, I decided to contact Bridget Wells Furby, an archivist
of Berkeley Castle, to see if she might know the parentage of Thomas
Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset. Ms. Furby is presently writing a
book on the Berkeley family and has had extensive access to the
Berkeley Castle Muniments. Ms. Furby replied to me promptly by e-mail
and provided the following information:
"I believe this Thomas [Berkeley of Tickenham] to be an illegitimate
son of Thomas (IV) Lord Berkeley (d. 1417). The accounts of Lord
Berkeley's daughter the countess of Warwick refer to a 'Thomas brother
of the Countess' (Ross, TBGAS 1951) and Lord Thomas appears to have
intervened to ensure the passage of Tickenham by buying the reversion
in 1415 from Fitznichol. I have come across no definite proof or
evidence of this relationship."
Since receiving this information from Ms. Furby, I've had the
opportunity to check the source she cited, it being an article by C.D.
Ross entitled "The Household Accounts of Elizabeth Berkeley, Countess
of Warwick, 1420-1," published in Transactions of the Bristol &
Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 70 (1951): 81-105.
The article by Ross confirms that Elizabeth Berkeley, Countess of
Warwick, indeed had an illegitimate brother, Thomas Berkeley, who was
a resident of the countess' household in 1420-1. Ross indicates that
on the death of Countess Elizabeth's father, Thomas, Lord Berkeley, in
1417, the Countess' brother, Thomas Berkeley, served as one of the
sureties for the grant of the custody of the Berkeley family estates
to three of the earl of Warwick's associates [Reference: Cal. Fine
Rolls, 1413-1422, pg. 207]. The household accounts further indicate
that this same Thomas Berkeley was receiver of the Lisle family
estates in 1420. The Lisle estates or lands mentioned here formed
part of Countess Elizabeth's inheritance from her mother, Margaret
(Lisle) Berkeley. These estates included extensive lands in Cornwall
[see, for example, Cornwall Feet of Fines 2 (1950): 68]. The
household accounts further indicate that the keeper of the household
received sums amounting to �594 1s. 3-1/2d., of which more than half -
�329 7s. 8-1/2d. was paid over to him directly by Thomas Berkeley,
receiver of the "Lyleslondez" [that is, Lisle lands]. As such, the
Countess' bastard brother, Thomas Berkeley, held a very responsible
position in her household.
In a footnote 2 on page 91 of Ross' article, Mr. Ross identifies
Thomas Berkeley, receiver of Lisle estates in 1420, as being the same
person as Thomas Berkeley, canon of Hereford, who was steward of the
household of Robert Mascall, bishop of Hereford in 1416. He gives no
explanation for this identification, other than the canon was
presumably the only Thomas Berkeley who could be a candidate to be the
Countess' bastard brother. However, the household accounts themselves
evidently do not make that identification, and Mr. Ross appears not to
have known about the existence of the other contemporary Thomas
Berkeley, of Tickenham, Somerset. For what it is worth, Bridget
Wells Furby has discounted Mr. Ross' identification of the canon as
the bastard brother of Elizabeth, Countess of Warwick.
In reviewing this matter, we have two pieces of evidence which
indicate that Thomas Berkeley, the bastard brother of Elizabeth
Berkeley, Countess of Warwick, is Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham,
Somerset. First, we know from other records that Thomas Berkeley, of
Tickenham, married Elizabeth Seymour, granddaughter and heiress of Sir
Edmund Seymour, of Chelvey and Tickenham, Somerset, by his wife, Joan
Basset. In 1414-1415 Elizabeth's grandparents, Sir Edmund and Joan
Seymour, held a life estate in the manor of Tickenham, Somerset. In
that year, Thomas, Lord 5th Berkeley (father of Countess Elizabeth)
acquired the reversion of the manor of Tickenham, Somerset from Thomas
Fitz Nichol, of Gloucestershire for 100 marks of silver [see Green,
Feet of Fines for Somerset 4 (Somerset Record Society, 22) (1906):
47]. He subsequently installed Edmund Seymour's granddaughter,
Elizabeth, and her husband, Thomas Berkeley, as tenants of the manor
at Tickenham. The acquisition of the reversion of the manor of
Tickenham was evidently made in anticipation of the marriage of Lord
Berkeley's illegitimate son, Thomas, to Edmund Seymour's granddaughter
and heiress, Elizabeth Seymour. Emery (who is cited further above)
indicates that John Berkeley, son and heir of Thomas Berkeley and
Elizabeth Seymour, held the manor of Tickenham at the time of his
death in 1479. The Tickenham property was subsequently occupied the
Asshe family who were descendants of John Berkeley's sister, Cecily
(Berkeley) Ashe "as subtenants of the Berkeleys."
Second, there is a detailed discussion in Collectanea Topographica et
Genealogica,. 1 (1834): 243�248 regarding the division of the estates
of Lady Alice (Blount) (Stafford) Stury (died 1417), one of whose co-
heirs in 1421 was Elizabeth Seymour, wife of Thomas Berkeley, of
Tickenham, Somerset. This material may be found at the following
weblink:
The following is a quote from that material:
�The 3rd Anne [Longland] maryed John Farwaye, and had bytwixte them 2
doughters, the one maryed with Stowell, the other with Berkley Lord of
Tekenam and Stowell. And Berkeley as one heyre had for hir parte the
lands at Warmester, and afterwards Stowell and Berkley made exchaunge,
that Barkley shuld have Warmester hole for his parte to hym and his
heyres; and Stowell to have as mych land therfor in Cornewaile, that
was Barkles before that exchange made.� END OF QUOTE.
The above information (albeit slightly garbled) indicates that c.1421
(the date the lands of Alice Blount were divided) that Thomas
Berkeley, of Tickenham, exchanged his own lands in Cornwall for lands
in Warminster, Wiltshire, which lands in Warminster had been assigned
to Thomas Berkeley's wife's maternal aunt, Joan Farway, wife of Walter
Stawell. The Warminster property was part of the estates formerly
belonging to Alice Blount.
It is curious that Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, should have
possessed lands in Cornwall c.1421, as the Berkeley family in this
period resided principally in Gloucestershire, Somerset, and
Hampshire. The only member of the Berkeley family that I know that
had lands in Cornwall was Thomas Berkeley, 5th Lord Berkeley, died
1417, who obtained them in marriage with his wife, Margaret Lisle. If
Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, was the receiver of the Lisle lands in
1420-1421, then he would have had reason to be in Cornwall, as some of
the Lisle estates were located in that county.
Without knowing further particulars, it appears that Thomas Berkeley,
5th Lord Berkeley, made provision for his illegitimate son, Thomas
Berkeley, by arranging for his marriage to Elizabeth Seymour, the
heiress of several manors, and, by acquiring the reversion of the
manor of Tickenham. Lord Berkeley likewise installed his bastard son,
Thomas Berkeley, as a member of his household and I assume it was he
who initially appointed Thomas as receiver of the Lisle estates. I
also believe that Lord Berkeley conveyed lands in Cornwall to his
bastard son, Thomas Berkeley, to make up part of the marriage
settlement for his bastard son, Thomas Berkeley, and his wife,
Elizabeth Seymour. That Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, was a member
of Lord Berkeley's household in 1417 is indicated by the Fine Rolls
item cited by Ross. On the death of Lord Berkeley in 1417, Thomas
Berkeley became a member of the household of his sister, Elizabeth,
Countess of Warwick, and served her as receiver of the Lisle estates
in 1420-1421. I have not traced Thomas Berkeley, of Tickenham, beyond
1420-1421. Two events, however, which would have changed his life in
1422 were the death of his sister, Elizabeth Berkeley, Countess of
Warwick, and the death of his wife's grandfather, Sir Edmund
Seymour. A likely scenario after 1422 would be that Thomas Berkeley
left England for military service in France, which would explain why
he and his wife, Elizabeth Seymour, had no known issue until at least
the mid-1430's. Thomas Berkeley , of Tickenham, died in 1443. His
widow, Elizabeth Syemour, was living in 1445.
I've posted below a new line which replaces Lines 2, 3 and 4 of my
original post. The new replacement line sets forth a new descent from
King Edward I down to the Deighton sisters.
In closing, I wish to thank Bridget Wells Furby for sharing
particulars of her private research with me regarding Thomas Berkeley,
which material she kindly shared from the manuscript of her upcoming
book on the Berkeley family. Her collegiality in this matter is much
appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
New Replacement Line 2
1. Edward I, King of England, died 1307.
2. Elizabeth of England, married Gilbert de Clare, Knt., Earl of
Gloucester and Hertford.
3. Eleanor de Clare, married Hugh le Despenser, Knt., 2nd Lord le
Despenser.
4. Elizabeth le Despenser, married (1st) Maurice de Berkeley, Knt.,
4th Lord Berkeley.
5. Thomas Berkeley, Knt., 5th Lord Berkeley, died 1417, by an unknown
mistress, _____.
6. Thomas Berkeley, died 1443, married Elizabeth Seymour.
7. Cecily Berkeley, married James Ashe.
8. Richard Ashe, married Margaret _____.
9. John Ashe, Esq., married Isabel Rudhale.
10. Jane Ashe, married William Basset, Esq., of Uley, Gloucestershire.
11. Edward Basset, Gent., of Uley, Gloucestershire, married Isabel (or
Elizabeth) Ligon.
12. Jane Basset, married John Deighton, Gent., of St. Nicholas,
Gloucester, Gloucestershire, surgeon.
Children of Jane Basset, by John Deighton, Gent.:
i. Jane Deighton, married (1st) John Lugg; (2nd) Jonathan Negus,
of Boston, Massachusetts
ii. Frances Deighton, married Richard Williams, of Taunton,
Massachusetts.
iii. Katherine Deighton, married (1st) Samuel Hackburne (or
Hagborne), of Roxbury, Massachusetts; (2nd) [Gov.] Thomas Dudley;
(3rd) [Rev.] John Allin, of Dedham, Massachusetts.
M.Sjostrom
sigh. I realized that some dork (a well-known one at that...) has been putting the Beverston relatives to property and genealogy places where they do no belong.
according to Hal Bradley (and discarding Douggie Richardson), it was William, son of James, Lord Berkeley, and his wife Isabel Mowbray, who lost Twickenham to lord Huntingdon. I.e, NOT William Berkeley of Beverston.
Now, that makes some sense: James was heir-male of that Thomas who was the 5th Lord Berkeley.
The purchase (of 'overlordship', and/or 'reversion') of Twickenham, made in 1415 by Lord Thomas, would plausibly been inherited by his heir-male, James, along which they could pass to that William who then according to Hal, lost them to Huntingdon.
Certainly the Berkeleys who inherited the 'reversionary' right to Twickenham (its original right was to gain it upon the death of Edmund Seymour) do not seem to used their that right. Certainly not upon the death of Edmund Seymour, since Elizabeth Seymour, and her husband, her son and her daughter are attested, for more than half a century after edmund's death, to have held Tickenham.
So, the reversionary right did not kick. But, the heir-male of Lord Berkeley is mentioned as having been the one 'of' whom the Elizabeth's issue held that manor - i.e, seemingly overlord.
John Berkeley, of Beverston (d 1428) is shown ho have rented lands in Twickenham from his kinspeople the Basset heiress and her hubby. But the Beverston branch are not shown to have held either overlordship or reversion of Twickenham.
Since there is no such linkage with the Beverston, there is nothing to indicate Thomas Berkeley of Twickenham being in closer genealogical connection with the Beverston branch. He could well have rented something to the Beverston even if they were just remote kinsmen like dozens of other Berkeleys.
Matt Tompkins
> if I read correctly what is in the inquisition post mortem of Sir John
> Berkeley, of Beverston, died 5 March 1428;
> "..... at Tickenham, Somerset , which John Berkeley 'held of Thomas de Berkele and....",
> this would mean that actually, Thomas Berkeley, of Twickenham, were overlord of John Berkeley, of Beverston.
> Right ?
> Has the ipm text been correctly rendered ? or should the prepositions or such, actually be vice versa?
>
> If Thomas Berkeley and his wife were overlords of John, as to holdings in twickenham, this surely is nothing more than that for some reasons, Thomas and his wife the heiress, had rented out some of their property to Thomas' kinsman, who was for that period then responsible for some of the fudal obligations.
> A man could easily utilize his cousin, remote cousin, in such - this does imo not mean that Thomas himself were of the Beverston branch.
>
> Since sub-feudation was prohibited, this would not have been a proper sub-feudation, but just a semi-informal arrangement for some time, to get the obligations cared for and some revenue out of the properties.
The Berkeley landholdings in Tickenham referred to in the 1428 IpM
were not the results of sub-infeudatory grants to the Berkeleys
(either formal or semi-informal), but were freehold tenancies which
were already in existence when the Berkeleys purchased them from their
previous owners right back in the first half of the 14th century (see
Smith’s Lives of the Berkeleys and Bridget Furby-Wells’ Berkeley
Castle Muniments). At that time the Beverstone branch of the family
did not exist, but when Thomas lord Berkeley (d. 1361) later created
the Beverstone estate for his younger son he allocated these Tickenham
properties to it.
When the properties were purchased, back in the early 14th century,
the Berkeleys were not the lords of the manor of Tickenham. The lords
at that time were Nicholas Fitz Ralph, whose family had held it since
the 12th century, and later Thomas Basset (see Feudal Aids, iv). This,
incidentally, was almost certainly the basis of Thomas Fitz Nicholl’s
claim to the manor in 1382 - he was descended from Nicholas Fitz
Ralph’s son John Fitz Nicholl (see Smith and Furby-Wells) and was no
doubt claiming the manor by right of inheritance, not by reason of
overlordship.
Major landholders such as the Berkeleys would not have bothered to
create ‘semi-informal arrangements’ equivalent to sub-infeudations in
order to ‘get the obligations cared for and some revenue out of the
properties’. By that century the feudal obligations due to an
overlord could still occasionally be onerous, but for most lords most
of the time they had become little more than an historical curiosity
(other than those due to the king, of course), while manors were
tenanted by rent-paying peasants who generated substantial incomes far
outweighing the intermittent and fast-disappearing burden of feudal
incidents. Even the the Berkeley's sub-manorial Tickenham properties
would have consisted of a number of farms, for which the Berkeleys
would have owed relatively small freehold rents to the manor, but from
whose peasant sub-tenants they would have received much larger rents.
The place is called Tickenham, not Twickenham. I think you said you
have seen a contemporary reference to it as Twickenham - if this was
definitely a reference to the Somerset Tickenham, and not to
Twickenham in Middlesex (now a suburb of west London), then it was a
mis-spelling, as the Somerset Tickenham is spelt without a -w- in
every medieval or modern reference I have ever seen, from Domesday
Book onwards.
Matt Tompkins
Douglas Richardson
Back in 2009 there was a discussion regarding the family of John Farway (or Fareway, Farewey), of Penhallam (in Jacobstow), Cornwall (living 1403) and his wife, Agnes (died 1418), daughter of John de Longland, Esq., of Grove (in South Brent), Somerset.
John Farway and his wife, Agnes, are known to have had one son, John, and two daughters, Margaret and Joan (wife of Walter Stawell, Esq.). It is known that the daughter Margaret married a Seymour and left issue. But there was confusion in surviving records as to the given name of Margaret Farway's husband. One source (perhaps the best) stated his name was Thomas; two other sources gave his name as John; and a fourth source called him Edmund (perhaps confusing him with his father of that name). While it is highly unusual to find such a disparity regarding an individual's name, such things do occur in surviving records. So we take the names as they appear and try to find additional evidence to sort things out.
Fortunately in recent time I located an all new contemporary source which confirms that Margaret Farway's husband's name was in fact Thomas Seymour. The record consists of a lawsuit in the Court of the King's Bench dated 1417. An abstract of this lawsuit was kindly provided to me offlist by Matt Tompkins.
The original lawsuit may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H5/KB27no623/aKB27no623fronts/IMG_0074.htm
The lawsuit indicates the following: In 1417 William Robroke sued Agnes widow of John Farewey in a plea of trespass committed against him, presumably in Somerset, by the said Agnes with Eustace Farewey, Thomas Seymour and Margaret his wife, Joan Farewey, John Dannebury and Joan Wattys. Agnes did not turn up so four men (John Coke, Richard Loup, John Coucher and Laurence Fyssher) who had given security that she would appear forfeited half a mark. The court ordered that she be further distrained to bring her to court in the quindene of Easter and, after another non-appearance at that hearing, in the octave of Michaelmas. Similar successive orders to appear on the same two dates were given to the other 6 defendants and the plaintiff, by their mutual consent. END OF ABSTRACT.
Matt Tompkins admits he is slightly uncertain as to whether Eustace Farewey and the five others named after him were co-defendants or co-plaintiffs - but he's fairly sure they were defendants.
We see above that Agnes Farway is named with her daughter and son-in-law, Margaret and Thomas Seymour, and her other daughter, Joan Farway.
Curiously no mention is made of Agnes Farway's 2nd husband, Robert Coker, Esq., of Lydeard St. Lawrence, Somerset, even though it is certain that they were married in or before 1414 (date of a property settlement). Matt comments that "it wasn't uncommon for 15C records to describe re-married women as the former wife of their previous husband, especially if the context in some way related to their previous marriage. So if Agnes was married to Robert Coker at the time of the trial I would wonder whether the trespass she was being sued over in some way related to her previous marriage to John Farewey. Perhaps it was something to do with her dower lands?" End of Matt's comments
The above lawsuit mentions an Eustace Farway. I presume he was a son or brother-in-law of Agnes (Longland) Farway. If in fact he was Agnes' son (which is possible if not likely), he would necessarily have to have died without issue sometime between 1417 and c.1421.