Feet of Fines and the Driby Family

[John Watson]

Dear all,

The feet of fines can be very useful, in combination with other contemporary records, in determining the genealogy of medieval families. This week I noticed that Chris Philips’ excellent medieval genealogy website has added new abstracts of the feet of fines for Lincolnshire between 1272 and 1283. Looking through these fines I found several which clarify the genealogy of the Driby family. I give a quick summary below: -

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/lincolnshire.shtml

Simon son of Robert de Driby (died about 1249) of Driby and Tumby, Lincolnshire married before January 1261, Alice, daughter of Hugh fitz Ralph of Greasley, Nottinghamshire, probably by his second wife Idonea. She brought Simon the manor of Lenton (Lavinton), Lincolnshire in marriage.
See, Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/131/43, number 21.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/lincoln-record-soc/vol2/pp174-186

Simon probably died about 1290, and Alice was living in 1280.

Simon and Alice had four sons and one daughter: -

(1) Robert de Driby, the eldest son and heir married Joan, said (CP, vol. 12/1, 653, note (c)) to be daughter of Robert de Tateshal (born 5 December 1248 and died 1298) by his wife Joan daughter of Ralph fitz Ranulf of Middleham, Yorkshire. Robert de Driby was probably dead before October 1278 (see below). He was certainly dead before 19 May 1280 when Joan his widow, came to an agreement with Simon de Driby and Alice his wife concerning her dower. She renounced her rights to one third of the manors of Driby, Lenton and Tumby in exchange for the manor of Tumby.
See Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/132/53, number 3.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_132_53.shtml#3

Joan was holding Tumby when she died in October 1329 (CIPM, vol. 7, 172, No. 241) and Tumby later came to her great-granddaughter Maud Bernake, wife of Ralph de Cromwell (died August 1398).

Most secondary sources say that Robert de Driby was a knight, but I am unable to find any contemporary record where he is so named. The chronology of the family is very tight if Joan really was the daughter of Robert de Tateshal who died in 1298, and Robert must have been only in his early twenties when he died and Joan less than 20 years old (with 4 children).

Robert and Joan had three sons and a daughter: -
(i) Simon de Driby, married Margery, he died before 8 August 1322 (CIPM, vol. 6, No. 397) when his heir was his brother Robert.
(ii) Robert de Driby. There is no record of any marriage or children, he died before 1329.
(iii) John de Driby, a clergyman, to whom his mother granted her share of the barony of Tattershall shortly before her death. He died shortly before 20 June 1334 when his heir was his sister Alice, married to William de Bernake (CIPM, vol. 7, No. 590).
(iv) Alice de Driby, who married William de Bernake (died before 23 April 1339). She died on 12 April 1341, when her heir was her son John (CIPM, vol. 8, No. 332).

(2) Sir Hugh de Driby, the second son of Simon de Driby and Alice. On 20 October 1278, probably after the death of his brother Robert, Simon and Alice granted him and his heirs the manor of Driby, with remainder to his brother Ralph, with remainder to his brother Simon.
See Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/132/52, number 23.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_132_52.shtml#23

Hugh appears to have died about 1305, without children.

(3) Sir Ralph de Driby, the third son of Simon de Driby and Alice. On 20 October 1278, Simon and Alice granted him and his heirs the manor of Lenton, with remainder to his brother Hugh, with remainder to his brother Simon.
See Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/132/52, number 26.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_132_52.shtml#26

In October 1294, he had a grant of free warren in Baston, Lenton and Hardwick, Lincolnshire (Cal. Chart. Rolls, vol. 2, 455). He must have inherited the manor of Driby from his brother Hugh, since it was later held by his son Hugh. Sir Ralph de Driby died before 1318. He left a son Hugh and daughters Andrina and Isabel.
See Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/136/82, number 27.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_136_82.shtml#27

Hugh son of Sir Ralph de Driby appears to have had a daughter Margery who married John de Arsic. Hugh granted them the manor of Driby in 1324.
See Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/137/94, number 7.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_137_94.shtml#7

However, there appears to have been a dispute between the Arsics and Alice de Driby, concerning the manor of Driby.
See: Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/138/107, number 52.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_138_107.shtml#52

Hugh granted the manor of Lenton to Nicholas de Cauntelo in 1328.
See Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/137/97, number 21.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_137_97.shtml#21

Hugh was living in 1336.
See, Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/137/97, number 21.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_138_105.shtml#23

(4) Simon de Driby, the fourth son of Simon de Driby and Alice. I can find no record of him after 1278.

(5) Beatrice daughter of Simon de Driby and Alice, married before 1282, Robert son of William de Kirketon of Kirton in Holland, Lincolnshire. Simon and Alice granted them property and rent in various places in Lincolnshire of Alice’s inheritance.
See, Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/133/54, number 3.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_133_54.shtml#3

Robert de Kirketon died about 1303, and was succeeded by his son John, later Lord Kirketon. In 1334, John was granted the castle of Tattershall by his first cousin John de Driby, son of Robert de Driby and Joan (CP, vol. 7, 338-40). In 1364, John de Kirketon granted Tattershall castle to his first cousin twice removed, Maud Bernake and her husband Ralph de Cromwell.
See, Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/141/127, number 8.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_141_127.shtml#8

I’m looking forward to the next batch of Lincolnshire fines on Chris’s website which may shed more light on the Driby genealogy.

Regards,

John

[jonathan kirton]

Dear John and All,

Thank you very much indeed for your very useful posting. I believe
that I can add a bit to it:-

iii) JOHN de DRIBY had not always been a clergyman, but is recorded as
having taken the field on behalf of King Edward III:-

1329, 10 Mar. "General Pardon to JOHN(3) de KIRKETON, Knight, who
lately aided the King (Edward III) when he took the field against
certain rebels, and the like to JOHN de DRIBY", this pair of first
cousins, about whom much more will come (ref.: "Calendar of Patent
Rolls, Edward III, Vol. I, pgs. 373-4, memb. 27 (By p. 5.), issued from
Chertsey). This surely demonstrates that the two first cousins did
indeed have a long-standing relationship together as comrades-in-arms,
some time prior to John de Driby becoming a parson.

JOHN de DRIBY's first cousin was:-

Sir / LORD JOHN(3) de KIRKETON, Knight / Knight Banneret / Baron by
Writ. 2nd son & eventual heir of his father, Sir Robert(5) de Kirketon,
Knight, & his only wife, Beatrice (nee de Driby). Born likely at the
Manor of Kirketon, Kirketon / Kirton-in-Holland, co. Lincs., c. 1295
(ref.: "Debrett's Peerage .." (1828), Vol, II, Appendix, p. 17). Raised
by his mother after his father's death in late 1303. His security &
inheritance was the reason for the charter, British Library No.
C-13348-51.

Arms: It is important to note the coats-of-arms used by Sir John(3)
over the course of his lifetime:- Initially he began using his father's
coat-of-arms, differenced for cadency by the symbol of an eldest son
and heir, thus taking over the arms originally used by his late,
deceased elder brother, but only for a very short period of time, after
his brother's death, between April, 1303, and his father's evident
death before the end of 1303. So this would have been:- "Barry of six,
Gules and Ermine, with a label of (probably) three points, (probably)
Argent".

With his father's death he would have begun using his father's arms,
without a label, thus:- "Barry of six, Gules and Ermine" or "Gules,
three bars, Ermine", and his use of these arms was contemporarily
reported on several occasions:- Once at the Tournament at Dunstable II,
and again in "Powell". (ref.: "Roll of Arms of the Knights at the
Tournament at Dunstable in 7 Edward III (1334) "Monsr. John de
Kirketon, barre d'ermyne et de goules" [But N.B. that this writer has
reversed the gules and ermine by ERROR]; ref.: "Collectanea Topograpica
et Genealogica", Vol. IV, (1837) by Madden, Bandinel & Nichols, p. 392;
Surtees Society, Vol. CXLVI, "Visitation of the North", Part IV, p.
161, No. 475, quoting "MS Ashmole No. 834": Sr. J. Kyrkiton (sic); "The
Carlisle Roll" (1334); &: "Strangway's Version of the Mandeville Roll"
(c. 1431); & "A Catalogue of English Medieval Rolls of Arms", O. Barron
& S. M. Collins, Harleian Society, Vol. 100, (1948): "Dictionary of
British Arms Medieval Ordinary", Vol. 1; & "Scotch Roll" (sic) "Sir
Humphrey de Littlebury, Roxburgh: Monsieur Johan de Kirketon amongst
"Les Chivaliers, (knights) et valletz du Comte de Nichole." (ref.: V.
Smith MSS, Soc. of Genealogists, UK, Vol. 36, p. 4).
The next change in his arms occurred soon after the death of his
evident uncle, Thomas(1) de Kirketon, who died sometime between 1342/3
and 1346, being at about the same time at which Sir John(3) regained
possession of the Manor of Kirketon at Kirketon-in-Holland. After 1346
he is consistently reported using the coat-of-arms, "Barry of six,
Gules and Argent", which had originated with old Sir Ralph(1) de
Kirketon, the crusader, and was then used by Sir William(1), Sir
John(3)'s grandfather, and evidently subsequently by Thomas(1). All the
sources, certainly from the time of Sir John(3) becoming a Knight
Banneret, confirm this identification.
1319:- John de Britannia surrendered all his right of advowson in the
church of Kirketon-in-Holland, co. Lincs., at which time 3/4 of the
advowson was in the possession of the Prior of England of the Order of
the Knight Hospitallers (the Order of St. John of the Hospital of
Jerusalem); 1/4 of the advowson remaining in the possession of John(3)
de Kirketon (ref.: "The Cartulary of Buckland (Boclaund / Bocland /
Bukelon) Priory (St. Mary & St. Nicholas)", co. Somerset, Charters No.
193 (p. 112) & No. 198 (p. 115)).
1321, 17 June:- Conservator of the Peace in Holland, co. Lincolnshire
1322, 17 Jan. :- Commissioner of Array, co. Lincs., with John de Roos
(CPR, Ed.II, V.4)
1326, 19 April, (19 Edward II) Knighted by bathing by the hands of
Thomas de Langford (ref.: "The Book of Dignitaries", Ockerby, p. 754; &
"The Knights of England", Vol. I). “Had allowance of his robes of the
King's Wardrobe”.
1327, 28 May:- Sir Nicholas de Grey, Kt., former brother-in-law of Sir
John(3), had recently died. Sir John(3) had enfeoffed Sir Nicholas &
his wife, Isabel (nee de Kirketon) with the Manor of Barton in Rydale
(Barton-le-Street, co. Yorks.). Isabel had had a son, John de Grey, but
he had died before 1321, after which Nicholas had remarried to Agnes,
with whom he had a son, Edward de Grey. (See: CCR, 1 Ed. III, Part II,
p. 128).
[However, there seems to be an error here, see PRO Item # C 143/260/4
which shows that John de Grey was still alive in 1343, & only died of
the Black Death sometime before 1355(?)].
1327, 13 Dec.:- Commissioner of the Peace in the parts of Holland; with
John de Multon, William de Daunton & Alexander de Cobeldyk (ref.: CPR,
Ed.III, Vol.I, p. 220).
1328, 20 March:- Commissioner of the Peace in the parts of Holland,
with John de Multon, Humphrey de Littlebury & Alexander de Cobeldyk,
pursuant to the statute Winchester ... (ref.: CPR, Ed.III, Vol. 1, p.
290).
10 Nov.:- "To William de Roos. Order to send to the king in chancery
the indictments of John de Kirketon, knight, JOHN de DRIBY, and 4
others, at the king's suit before him & his fellows, justices of oyer &
terminer in co. Lincs., for divers trespasses, ..." What these two had
done is completely unclear, however, from what follows, they were
clearly soon forgiven (ref.: CCR, Vol. 1, p. 343);
1329, 10 Mar.:- "General Pardon to JOHN(3) de KIRKETON, Knight, who
lately aided the King when he took the field against certain rebels,
and the like to JOHN de DRIBY", the pair of first cousins, about whom
much more will come (ref.: "Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, Vol.
I, pgs. 373-4, memb. 27 (By p. 5.), issued from Chertsey). This surely
demonstrates that the two first cousins did indeed have a long-standing
relationship together as comrades-in-arms, some time prior to John de
Driby becoming a parson.
1330, 10 Dec.:- Commission of Walls & Ditches / Canals – To Thomas de
Multon of Fraunkton (sic. Frampton(?)) and John de Kirketon, + 2
others, along the coast between Saltenaye & Skyrebek Gote, co. Lincs.
(ref: CPR, Ed. III, Vol. II, p. 61).
1331, 8 May :- Licence, at the request of Edward de Boun, the king's
kinsman, for ISABELLA, late the wife of George MERIETE, tenant in
chief, to marry John de Kirketon (ref.: Calendar of Patent Rolls,
Edward III, Vol. II, p. 114). Isabella / Isabel already had a son,
John, from her first marriage to Sir George Meriete / Meryet / Meriet.
1332, circa :- Eldest son and heir, Nicholas(2) born. Probably named in
memory of the late Sir Nicholas de Grey, Knight, who had previously
been Sir John(3)'s brother-in-law.
1334, circa :- 2nd. son, John(5) de Kirketon likely born [John de Driby
his god-father?]
1334, prior to 20th. June :- JOHN de DRIBY, parson, Sir John(3)'s first
cousin (their parents were brother & sister), gave the Manor of
Tatershale / Tattershall), including the Castle of Tattershall, to Sir
John(3) de Kirketon, only retaining for John de Driby's own use a
messauge, some other land & a mill in Baston, co. Lincs., (ref.:- PRO
Item # C 143/228/5). It was later suggested that Sir John(3) had
visited John de Driby, while John de Driby was lying on his death bed,
& somehow compelled John de Driby to sign the properties over to him.
However, this does seem unlikely for two reasons; firstly, that the two
first cousins had a long record of activities together, & secondly, if
John de Driby had any suspicion at all that he was about to die, why
would he bother to retain some of his own specific properties for his
own intended future use? This writer suspects that John de Driby was
simply expecting to recover, if he was indeed unwell, and was not
anticipating that he was about to die.
20 June:- Writ prepared for Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol.
VII, pgs 404-5, No. 590 following the death of John de Driby, last
surviving male child of Robert de Driby & his wife, Joan, (nee de
Tateshale), who died just before 20 June, 8 Edward III (1334),
inquisitions taken in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, his heir being
his sister, Alice, wife of Sir William Bernacke, Kt..
24 June:- [Royal] "Pardon to John de Kirketon for acquiring in fee from
JOHN de DRIBY the castle of Tatereshale(sic) & the manor of Tumby, held
in chief, & entering thereon without licence; & licence for him to
retain them. By fine of £ 20." (ref.: CPR, Edw. III, Vol. II, p. 554 &
Lincs. Arch. Soc., Vol. 23, p.118). 8 Edward III:- "John de Kirketon,
knight, to retain the castle of Tattersall (sic) & Manor of Tumby,
acquired from John de Driby, who retains a messuage, land, & mill at
Baston, Lincoln." (ref.: PRO # C 143/228/5).
1335, 26 Jan.:- Commissioners of Array, in Holland, co. Lincs., to see
that men are furnished with arms; Humphrey de Littlebury, John de
Kirketon, plus two others (ref.: Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III,
Vol. III, p. 137-8).
6 Mar. :- Commissioners of Array, "To supervise that all men, knights &
others, should be provided with horses & other arms according to their
estate, & assessed & arrayed at arms according to the form of the
proclamation made in all the counties of England, & of the statute of
Winchester, so that all these men should be provided with arms as
aforesaid, to wit, the horse arrayed in constabularies & the foot in
hundreds & scores, according to the form of the ordinance which the
king sent under the great seal, to be ready for the defense of the
realm when they should be required .... to Humphrey de Littlebury, John
de Kirketon, plus two others, in Holand (sic), co. Lincoln" (Calendar
of Close Rolls, Edward III, Vol. III, pgs. 369-370).
30 Mar.:- To Gilbert de Leddred, escheator in cos. Lincoln, Northampton
& Rutland. Order not to distrain John de Kirketon for his homage,
because he has done homage to the king for the lands which he holds of
him (C. C. R., Ed. III, Vol. III, p. 384).
1337, 21 Aug.:- Commission of oyer and terminer to justice John de
Kirketon & 4 others, on complaint of an assault at Benyngworth, co.
Lincs (CPR, Ed.III, V. III, p. 513).
20 Oct.:- Commission of oyer and terminer to justice John de Kirketon &
4 others, on complaint by Robert Breton, Knt., re assault & theft at
Benyngworth, Lincs.. Changed because sealed at another time (CPR,
Edward III, Vol. III, p. 578).
1338, 6 Feb.:- Commission to John de Kirketon, knight, Gilbert Ledered
& John de Meres of Kirketon, to take an inquisition in the Co. of
Lincoln into all the circumstances of the death of John de Kent of
Kirketon, killed at Sourflete. (CPR, Ed. III, V. IV, p. 65).
16 Feb.:- Licence for the alienation in mortmain by John de Kirketon to
the prior & convent of Markeby of 3 messauges, 26 acres of land, 20
acres of meadow, & 17 shillings & 2 pence of rent, in Sutton &
Trusthorp, to find a chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in
their church for the good estate of the said John in life, for his soul
after death, & for the souls of John de Driby & of the ancestors &
heirs of the said John de Kirketon. By fine of 5 marks. Lincoln (CPR,
Edward III, Vol. IV, p. 13) (Markeby, on the coast, just north of the
Wash).
6 July :- Commission to array the men of the county for defense against
invasions, to watch the coast & to keep the peace pursuant to the
statute of Northampton: John de Kirketon , Richard de Byron (the elder)
in parts of Lyndeseye, co. Lincoln (CP Rolls, Edward III, Vol. IV, p.
138 & Vernon Smith MSS, Vol. 36, p. 46).
1340, 10 Dec.:- Commission of oyer & terminer touching oppressions &
extortions by ministers, justices, & any other ministers of the King, &
of Edward, duke of Cornwall, in Lincoln; to John de Kirketon & 3 others
(CPR, Ed. III, Vol. V, pgs 106, 111, 112 & 113).
1340, 16 Dec.:- Appointment of John de Kirketon, & seven others, as
surveyors in the Co. of Lincoln of the collection of the ninth of
sheaves, lambs, & fleeces. They are to inform themselves of the true
value of each church, & of the said ninth in the parishes of each
church & to certify to the receiver of the said county as the receiver
at the Tower of London of such values (Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward
III, Vol. V, p. 72).

1341, 3 Feb.:- Commission of oyer & terminer, to John de Kirketon, & 4
others, touching any homicides, murders, larcenies, & other felonies in
the county of Lincoln (ref.: Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III,
Volume V, page 202).

1342 16 Edward III:- "John de Kirketon to settle the castle of
Tattershall & the manors of Tattershall & Tumby, with the knight's fees
& advowsons thereto pertaining, on himself & Isabel his wife & the
heirs of his body, with remainder to Robert de Littlebury & Florence
his wife & the heirs male of the body of the said Robert, remainder to
John de Loudham & the heirs male of his body, remainder to John, son of
John le Bret & the heirs male of his body, remainder to John, son of
Nicholas le (sic. de) Grey, & the heirs male of his body, remainder to
the grantor's right heirs." (PRO, Chancery Inquisitions taken as a
result of applications to the Crown for licences to alienate land, Item
# C 143/260/4) - This document tells us a great many things, as
follows:-
a) At that time Sir John(3) & his wife had living children, both male
and female.
b) Sir Robert d Littlebury & his wife Florence, Sir John's sister, were
still alive, & either already had, or were expected to soon have, a
male heir.
c) That Sir John's sister, Alice (nee de Kirketon) had already
re-married, as her 2nd husband, John le Bret / Breton / Bretoun, & that
their son, John(2) le Bret, had already been born. Also that John de
Grey, son of the late Sir Nicholas de Grey, & Sir John's sister, the
late Isabel (nee de Kirketon), was still living. As are are shown in
the chart.
1343, 25 Aug.:- "Exemption for life of John de Kirketon from being put
on assizes, juries, or recognitions, & from appointmen as mayor,
sheriff, coroner, escheator, constable, verderer, forester or other
bailiff or minister of the king, against his will (ref.: Calendar of
Patent Rolls, Edward III, Vol. VI, page 113).
1344, circa :- Thomas(1) de Kirketon, Sir John(3)'s probable uncle,
died.
1344 20 July:- "Commissioners of the Peace pursuant to the statutes of
Winchester & Northampton, John de Kirketon, & 4 others, in Parts of
Lindsey in co. Lincs." (Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, Vol. VI,
pages 393 – 394).
1345, 3 Oct.:- King Edward III caused a writ to be sent to John(3) de
Kirketon, knight, of the retinue of William de Bohun, Earl of
Northampton, to meet the king at Sandwich with as many men-at-arms &
archers as he could collect, in preparation for them to sail with his
army into France. (This writ was subsequently delayed until December,
1345).
1346:- The Manor of Kirketon at Kirketon-in-Holland, co. Lincs., was
restored to Sir John, being valued at that time at £10 per annum (ref:-
"Feudal Aids", Vol. 3, page 239) his holding in this manor consisted of
7 Parts, which his grandfather, Sir William(1) de Kirketon had
originally held before. John(3) also held 4 Parts which his father, Sir
Robert(5) had previously held, so Sir Robert(5) must have added to what
he had originally obtained from Sir William(1), so that Sir John(3)
held a total of 11 Parts of a knight's service.
8 July:- "Commission of oyer & terminer to John de Kirketon, chivaler
(knight), on complaint by John, bishop of Carlisle, for breaking &
depasturing of the priory at Hagham, co. Lincs. & an assault so life
despaired of." (ref.: CPR, Ed. III, Vol. VII, p. 175).
1346, 16 July:- "Commission of oyer & terminer touching malefactors who
have made insurrection in Boston, co. Lincoln & the vicinage .." (ibid,
p. 381).
1346, 26 Aug.:- Sir John(3) was evidently present with his men-at-arms
& archers at the Battle of Crecy in Northern France, & subsequently
from Sept., 1346 possibly until its end, at the Siege of Calais until
August, 1347(“Crecy & Calais”, From The Original Records In The Public
Record Office (1898) by Maj. Gen. The Hon. George Wrottesley)
1348, circa:- "Bardney Abbey in Lincs.” No. XXIII, p. 637: "Endentre
entre Roger, Abbe de Bardeneye et Margarete Prioress de Greenfeld et
autres de la Manoir de Grand Strpynegg".[Cartulary Antiq. Harley,
British Museum, 44 A 8):- "Ceste endentre tesmoigne que le jour de la
nativite de notre Dame, 1' an du regne le roy Edward tierez puis le
Conquest vyntisme primier, a Bardeneye (sic) entre Roger, abbe de
Bardeneye et le couent de mesme le lieu d'une part, et Margarete
prioresse de Grenefeld (sic), John de Kyrketon, chiualer / chivalier."
1348:- "John de Kirketon, knight, to grant messauges, land, & rent in
Sutton & Trusthorpe to the prior & convent of Markby (sic), retaining
the manors of Kirton & Tattershall., Lincs.” (ref.: PRO Item # C
143/283/18) - As previously licenced by the Crown in 1338 (see above).
1351, 12 July:- Commission of oyer & terminer to John de Kirketon & 4
others in co. Lincoln, concerning the following crimes which have been
committed in the county:-
1. The waylaying and forestalling on things on the way to market towns.
2. And the waylaying of workmen an servants.
3. The selling of wines which were not guaged.
4. The bringing in & making of counterfei coins & the circulating of
same.
1351, 4 Aug.:- John de Kirketon, knight, Lord of Tatresale (sic) &
Alice(sic) his wife (This is an error, his ONLY wife was Isabel) of the
diocese of Lincoln, indult to choose a confessor). [a special privilege
or licence or permission granted by authority of the pope (OED, p.
234)] (ref.:- Calendar of Papal Registers, Letter 3: 449).
12 Nov.:- Commission of Walls & Ditches; John de Kirketon & 5 others,
between Ingeldinds & Germethorpe in the parts of Lyndeseye, co. Lincs.
(Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, Vol. 9, page 201).
1352 Jan.:- John de Kirketon / Kirton requests that the king will give
him licence to give the castle & manor of Tattershall and the advowsons
of Kirkestead Abbey, Markby Priory & the church of Tattershall to Ralph
d'Aubigny, parson of Broughton; Thomas, parson of Tattershall; John,
parson of Beesby; John de Loudham; Alice [de Loudham]; Isabel [de
Loudham] [all the children of John de Loudham]; John de Loudham, father
of John de Loudham; Alice [de Loudham], wife of John de Loudham, father
of Sir John de Loudham (sic). So that they can charge it with 100 marks
per annum to Loudham & grant it back to Kirketon with remainders to
Loudham & his heirs male (ref.: PRO Item # SC 8/246/12282).
26 Feb.:- The foregoing petition was granted by the king in council -
"Licence for £12 which John de Loudham has paid to the King, for John
de Kirketon to enfeoff Ralph Daubeneye (sic), parson of the church of
Broughton; Thomas, parson of the church of Tateshale, & John, parson of
the church of Besby (sic. Beesby)(all in Lincs.) (ref.: CPR Ed. III,
Vol . IX, p. 233, & was confirmed by PRO Item # C 143/307/2). [In these
last 2 documents we see Sir John(3) de Kirketon specifically
identifying that, at that time, he still had "heirs of his body",
though perhaps not any 'male' heirs, as he was careful to specify for
the de Loudhams. So evidently both his sons were already deceased, but
perhaps one of his daughters was still alive, & we know for certain
that at least 1 granddaughter, Beatrice(2) was still alive in 1352.]
1352, 16 Nov. A licence was granted to John de Kirketon for a fee of 1
mark, which he was to pay to the king, for the said John to found an
hospital in honour of All Saints, of a warden & fifteen poor persons in
a messuage in Holbech(sic), & assign that messuage for the site of the
hospital & for buildings for the habitation & easement of the warden &
poor persons & 4 acres of land to the said warden in mortmain, & the
mark has been paid in the hanaper (ref.:- CPR, Edw. III, Vol. IX, p.
360). This was confirmed in 26 Edw. III, by PRO Item # C 143/307/7:-
"John de Kirketon, knight, to new found a hospital in honour of All
Saints in a messuage of his at Holbeach, & to endow it with land there,
retaining land & rent in Holbeach & Kirton, Lincoln."
1353 :- Constituted a Commissioner of Array for co. Lincs., upon the
danger of invasion by the French, for arming all knights, esquires, &
others for defending the sea coasts in that shire.
1354 :- Commissioner of the Peace & of Justice.
1355 – 1359:- Between these years Sir John was made a "Knight
Banneret"; an ancient order, its members, who ranked next in precedence
below the Knights of the Garter, (provided they were created on the
battlefield by the King himself; otherwise they took rank after
baronets). They had the privilege of leading their retainers into
battle under their own banner / flag. (The order is now extinct).
1357 :- By PRO Item # C 143/325/15:- "John de Kirketon, knight, to
grant rent in Holbeach to the abbot & convent of Croyland, in exchange
for permission to grant messuages, salterns land, & rent held by him of
the said abbot & convent in Holbeach to a chaplain to be warden of the
hospital of All Saints new founded by him in Holbeach, retainin a
messuag and land there.
1359, 26 July:- Appointment of John de Kirketon, & 4 others, as
deputies to take his adversary, JOHN of FRANCE (King of France) from
Hertford Castle to Somerton Castle, to be kept there until further
order, with 22 men-at-arms & 20 archers. (in case of any default in the
number of archers, to take sufficient, in such places as shall be
expedient to make good the deficiency) (by the King) (ref.: CPR, Ed.
III, Vol. XI, p. 251).
1360, 10 Feb.:- From: CPR, Ed. III, Vol. XI, pgs, 404 &
405:-"Commission to…..(p.405) The bishop of Lincoln, William Deyncourt,
John de Kirketon & William Skippewyth, at Lincoln, of whom the said
bishop & William de Skippewyth were present &c., (p. 404) reciting
that, whereas of late both before & after the king's crossing to France
it was ordained by the king and council that there should be an array
of men-at-arms & archers made in every county in case the king's
enemies should invade the realm & whereas the peril grows daily & there
will have to be great outlay of money over the leading of the said men
from their parts to resist the invaders, ..........".
2 Mar.:- To William Deyncourt, John de Kirkerton, & 3 others, keepers
of JOHN of FRANCE the king's adversary imprisoned at Somerton castle.
Order & request, upon their allegiance and under pain forfeiture, not
to relinquis the charge of keeping the said adversary, but to keep him
& other prisoners safe in Berkhampsted castle, & to stay personally
thereupon until further order; as the king is informed for certain that
the enemy (of France) are actually at sea with a host of men-at-arms,
armed men & horses, probably purposing to invade the realm, seize the
said adversary out of the king's hands & bring him out of England,
wherefore by assent of the whole council it is appointed that he & the
other prisoners be removed from Somerton and taken to Berkhampsted,
there to abide in custody; .." (ref.: "Calendar of Close Rolls", Edward
III, Vol. XI, p. 11).

To be continued -

---------- Original Message ----------

[John Watson]

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:55:02 UTC+1, jonathan kirton wrote:
> Dear John and All,
>
> Thank you very much indeed for your very useful posting. I believe
> that I can add a bit to it:-
>

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for the information on the Kirketon family. The situation concerning Isabel de Kirketon and her husband Sir Nicholas de Grey is a bit more complicated than you indicate.

Nicholas, the younger son of Henry de Grey of Codnor was enfeoffed of the manor of Barton in Ryedale in 1305 by his father. As you have indicated, he married firstly a sister of John de Kirketon, although I haven't yet found a record which shows her name as Isabel. They had a son John de Grey who is mentioned in the remainders of the castle of Tattershall and the manors of Tattershall and Tumby in 1342-3.

After the death of Isabel, about 1320, Nicholas de Grey married a much-married lady named Agnes. Her first husband was nn de Arderne, by whom she had a son Robert de Arderne. She married secondly, as his second wife, Sir Richard de Sutton of Sutton on Trent, Warsop, Kegworth, etc. [This isn't shown in Douglas Richardson's books]. In June 1315, John de Sutton, son and heir of Richard de Sutton and his first wife Isabel Patric, granted the manor of Kettleby, Leicestershire to Richard de Sutton and Agnes his wife, for life, with remainder to Agnes' son Robert de Arderne.

See, Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/124/49, number 116.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_124_49.shtml#116

Richard de Sutton died early in 1318, and Agnes married thirdly Sir Nicholas de Grey. On 1 August 1321, Nicholas de Grey had licence to enfeoff John de Kirketon of his manor of Barton in Ryedale, held in chief, and for the latter to re-grant the same in tail to him and Agnes his wife, with remainder to the heirs of the said Nicholas.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward II, vol. 4: 1321-1324 (1904), 10.

In April 1326, by a fine at Westminster, John de Kirketon granted the manor of Barton in Ryedale to Nicholas de Grey and Agnes his wife and the heirs of their bodies to hold of the King.
Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/272/101, number 30 (Sorry this fine is not online).

By this grant of Barton to Nicholas and Agnes and their heirs, John de Kirketon effectively disenfranchised his nephew John de Grey from his patrimony in Barton. Why he should do this, I don't know. Perhaps he had made other arrangements for John de Grey.

Nicholas de Grey and Agnes had a son and heir Edmund, who inherited Barton.

In 1326, Nicholas and Agnes made an agreement with John son of Richard de Sutton concerning the manor of Horley in Oxfordshire, which Agnes was holding in dower of her second husband Richard de Sutton. After Agnes' death the manor would go to Robert de Arderne, her son.
See, Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/189/16, number 99.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_189_16.shtml#99

Sir Nicholas de Grey died shortly before 23 April 1327 (CIPM, vol. 7, No. 10) and Agnes married fourthly Sir William de Wistow, knight.

In 1345, Giles, son of Robert de Arderne came to an agreement with John son of Richard de Sutton, Agnes and William de Wistow, concerning the manor of Kegworth, Leicestershire.

See: Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/125/60, number 141.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_125_60.shtml#141

Agnes and William de Wistow were living in April 1351 when they had a papal indulgence.

Regards,

John

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:58:18 PM UTC-6, John Watson wrote:
>
< Thanks for the information on the Kirketon family. The situation concerning
< Isabel de Kirketon and her husband Sir Nicholas de Grey is a bit more
< complicated than you indicate.

< After the death of Isabel, about 1320, Nicholas de Grey married a much-married < lady named Agnes. Her first husband was nn de Arderne, by whom she had a son
< Robert de Arderne.

There is no evidence that Agnes previously married an Arderne.

< She [Agnes] married secondly, as his second wife, Sir Richard de

< Sutton of Sutton on Trent, Warsop, Kegworth, etc. [This isn't shown in Douglas < Richardson's books].

This is correct.

< In June 1315, John de Sutton, son and heir of Richard de Sutton and his first < wife Isabel Patrick, granted the manor of Kettleby, Leicestershire to Richard < de Sutton and Agnes his wife, for life, with remainder to Agnes' son Robert de < Arderne.

< See, Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/124/49, number 116.
< http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_124_49.shtml#116

Actually the 1315 fine states that after the deaths of Richard de Sutton and his wife, Agnes, the manor of Kegworth (not Kettleby), Leicestershire was to go to Robert de Sutton, son of Richard de Sutton and his wife, Agnes, for the term of his life. I double checked the actual fine. Robert de Arderne is no where mentioned in this fine, nor was he the son of Agnes.

< In 1326, Nicholas [de Grey] and Agnes made an agreement with John son of

< Richard de Sutton concerning the manor of Horley in Oxfordshire, which Agnes
< was holding in dower of her second husband Richard de Sutton. After Agnes'
< death the manor would go to Robert de Arderne, her son.

< See, Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/189/16, number 99.
< http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_189_16.shtml#99

Robert de Arderne figures in both the 1324 and 1326 fines alright, but it nowhere refers to him as the son of Agnes. You have misread the fines. Agnes had a son, Robert, but as stated above, he was the son of her marriage to Richard de Sutton which is set forth in the 1315 fine cited above. Robert de Sutton, son of Agnes, was still alive in 1324, as indicated by the 1324 fine. Robert de Arderne and Robert de Sutton are completely different individuals.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[John Watson]

Dear Douglas,

You are correct, I completely misread the 1324 and 1326 fines. I am still trying to work out the relationship between Agnes and Robert de Arderne.

Best regards,

John

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:21:33 AM UTC-6, John Watson wrote:

< (1) Robert de Driby, the eldest son and heir married Joan, said (CP, vol.
< 12/1, 653, note (c)) to be daughter of Robert de Tateshal (born 5 December
< 1248 and died 1298) by his wife Joan daughter of Ralph fitz Ranulf of
< Middleham, Yorkshire.

Joan de Tateshale, wife of Robert de Driby, can hardly be the daughter of Robert de Tateshale, born 1248, died 1298, as Joan was born about 1256, she being aged 50 in 1306.

Moreover, Robert de Tateshale [died 1298] is styled “brother” by Joan, widow of Robert de Driby in a lawsuit dated 1307. Reference: Year Books of Edward II 1 (Selden Soc. 17) (1903): 1–4, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=68YKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR97

It is certain which Robert de Tateshale was called brother by Joan de Driby, as she specifically mentions a lawsuit brought against her brother before Hugh de Cressingham and his fellow justices. Hugh de Cressingham died in 1297.

In short, both you and Complete Peerage have identified the wrong parentage for Joan de Tateshale.

< Most secondary sources say that Robert de Driby was a knight, but I am unable < to find any contemporary record where he is so named.

I haven't found any contemporary indication that Robert de Driby was a knight either. For what it is worth, however, I find that he is styled a knight in two visitations of the Driby family, which date a long time after his death:

1. Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 176–177 (Knevet ped.: “Johanna [Tateshall] nupta. = Roberto Dryby Militi.”).

2. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 3 (Surtees Soc. 144) (1930): 152–156 (Daubeny ped.: “Iohanna [Tateshall] filia et coh. nupta Dryby militi”).

< The chronology of the family is very tight if Joan really was the daughter of
< Robert de Tateshal who died in 1298, and Robert must have been only in his
< early twenties when he died and Joan less than 20 years old (with 4 children).

As stated above, Joan was not the daughter of Robert de Tateshale, who died in 1298. Her own testimony proves that she was his sister. This places her as the daughter of an earlier Robert de Tateshale, Knt., of Tattershall, Lincolnshire (born c.1223, died 1278), by his wife, Nichole, daughter of John de Grey, Knt., of Shirland, Derbyshire, Thurleigh and Podington, Bedfordshire, etc.

For additional details of the Tateshale and Driby families, please see my book, Royal Ancestry, 1 (2013): 341-343; 2 (2013): 249-258.

[John Watson]

Dear Douglas,

I quite agree with you concerning the parentage of Joan de Tateshal, wife of Robert de Driby, but my better judgement was swayed by the opinion of Complete Peerage. The CP view of her parentage comes from a discussion by C. T. Clay in Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. 5 (1936), pp. 305-6. This concerns the manor of Hethersett, Norfolk, which Joan gave to her daughter Alice and her husband William Bernak, in 1305 according to Blomefield. The problem is that Hethersett was not of Joan's inheritance, it belonged to the Middleham fee of Joan daughter of Ralph fitz Ranulf, who married the Robert de Tateshal who died in 1298. That is why Clay considered that Joan, wife of Robert de Driby must have been a daughter of Robert de Tateshal (d. 1298) and Joan daughter of Ralph fitz Ranulf. But as you have stated, Clay and CP were obviously wrong.

By the way, you should know better than to trust the ages given in inquisitions post mortem. In the ipm you quote of Robert de Tateshal, who died on 30 January 1306, the jurors in Yorkshire give Joan's age as 30 and more; the Leicester jurors state she was aged 40; and the jurors in Norfolk say she was aged 50 and more. I don't think that this is evidence that she was born about 1256.

Best regards,

John

[jonathan kirton]

Continuing (from 1359, slightly overlapping Part 1 in order to correct
some typos):-

1359, 26 July:- Appointment of John de Kirketon, & 4 others, as
deputies to take his adversary, JOHN of FRANCE (King of France) from
Hertford Castle to Somerton Castle, to be kept there until further
order, with 22 men-at-arms & 20 archers. (in case of any default in the
number of archers, to take sufficient, in such places as shall be
expedient to make good the deficiency) (by the King) (ref.: CPR, Ed.
III, Vol. XI, p. 251).

1360, 10 Feb.:- From: CPR, Ed. III, Vol. XI, pages, 404 & 405:-
"Commission to……. (p.405):- The bishop of Lincoln, William Deyncourt,

John de Kirketon & William Skippewyth, at Lincoln, of whom the said
bishop & William de Skippewyth were present &c., (p. 404) reciting
that, whereas of late both before & after the king's crossing to France
it was ordained by the king and council that there should be an array
of men-at-arms & archers made in every county in case the king's
enemies should invade the realm & whereas the peril grows daily & there
will have to be great outlay of money over the leading of the said men
from their parts to resist the invaders, ..........".

2 Mar.:- To William Deyncourt, John de Kirketon, & 3 others, keepers of

JOHN of FRANCE the king's adversary imprisoned at Somerton castle.

Order & request, upon their allegiance and under pain of forfeiture,

not to relinquis the charge of keeping the said adversary, but to keep

him & other prisoners safe in Berkhampsted castle, and to stay

personally thereupon until further order; as the king is informed for
certain that the enemy (of France) are actually at sea with a host of
men-at-arms, armed men & horses, probably purposing to invade the
realm, seize the said adversary out of the king's hands & bring him out
of England, wherefore by assent of the whole council it is appointed
that he & the other prisoners be removed from Somerton and taken to
Berkhampsted, there to abide in custody; .." (ref.: "Calendar of Close
Rolls", Edward III, Vol. XI, p. 11).

-----------------------------------
1360, 10 Mar.:- On Monday next before the feast of St. Gregory the
pope, 34 Edward III [1360], a BEATRICE(2) de KIRKETON, daughter & heir
of [the late] NICHOLAS(2) de KIRKETON, son of John de Kirketon, made a
Grant & Acknowledgement of the last remaining 1/4 of the Advowson of
the church of Kyrketon-in-Holand still remaining in the possession of
the de Kirketons [no doubt on behalf of her grandfather, Sir John(3) de
Kirketon, who was away and otherwise engaged] by taking care of an
outstanding piece of family business: to JOHN PAULI, the prior of the
Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in England as in right of his
Hospital. "Which said church the prior & his predecessors have held for
a long time to their own uses and of their proper advowson." [see
above] "Also quit claim to him and his successors for ever of all right
that she had in that advowson. To have and to hold to him and his
successors for ever." (At least seven witnesses, including Rogero de
Mer (sic Meres) of Kirketon.) (ref.: ”Cartulary of Buckland Priory in
the Co. of Somerset", by F. W. Weaver (1909), Somerset Record Soc.,
Vol. XXV, p. 116).
[N. B. : The writer suspects that the fact that Beatrice(2) is involved
in this grant makes it very likely that both of Sir John(3) and
Isabel's two sons were already deceased, and possibly their two sisters
also. It is also clear that 7 years later, when Sir John(3) himself
died in 1367, that by that time it is certain that Beatrice(2) herself
had also already died.]
----------------------------------------
1360, 6 May:- Calendar of Close Rolls , Edward III, Vol. XI, p. 26:-
"To the collectors of customs in the port of Boston. Order to pay to
John de Kirketon 16 marks, to William de Colville 13 marks, to Saier de
Rocheford 13 marks, and to John Deyncourt 8 marks of the 50 marks which
the king ordered the collectors to pay to the said John, William,
Saier, & John, whom he deputed with others to guard his adversary of
France, for their remuneration and for recompense of expenses by them
incurred in that duty over & above their daily wages, taking from every
of them letters of acquittance." A full explanation for which follows:-
"Sir John de Kirketon, Knight Banneret, with Sir Sayer de Rochford,
undertook to keep safe the King of France (then a prisoner in England)
at Somerton Castle in Lincolnshire. Sir John being a banneret was paid
4 shillings per day, while Sir Sayer was paid 2 shillings per day, and
they were allowed for each esquire with them 1 shilling (12 pence) per
day." (ref.: "History of Norfolk", Blomefield (1808), Vol. IX, page
107; quoted in: Rymer, Vol. VI, p. 131, Note 4).
---------------------------------------------
1360, Trinity Term, 33 Edward III, 10 June to 1 July:- At this time a
certain Sir Ralph de Cromwell, in right of his wife, Maud (nee
Bernake), granddaughter of Sir William Bernake, Kt. [who was a relation
of Sir John(3) de Kirketon’s father, Sir Robert(3 de Kirketon, & whose
wife, Dame Alice de Bernake (nee de Driby) was a niece of Sir John(3)'s
mother] now first began an action against Sir John(3), in an attempt to
deprive Sir John(3) of the Manors of Tumby and Tattershall, and the
Castle of Tattershall, which had been legally given to Sir John(3) by
Sir John(3)'s own first cousin and long-time comrade-in-arms and
friend, John de Driby (Maud's grandmother Alice de Bernake (nee de
Driby)'s elder brother), in an attempt to have the properties turned
over to Maud, and thus to himself, Sir Ralph de Cromwell.
At this time Sir John(3) was about 65 years of age, and it is very
likely indeed, as already mentioned above, that both of his sons and
heirs, Nicholas(2) and John(5), were already deceased, as were probably
his two daughters; while his one remaining granddaughter, Beatrice(2)
de Kirketon, who we know for certain had still been alive as late as
March, 1360, although she too had evidently eventually died before her
grandfather.
John de Driby, as previously mentioned above, was recorded in his
mother, Joan de Driby (nee Tatershale)'s IPM in 1329 as her heir (ref.:
CIPM, Vol. VII, No. 241) and as being aged 40 at that time, so had been
born circa 1289, and in 1334 was aged about 45 at the time of his
death. In May, 1334 he was identified as a "parson of a mediety of the
church of Hedersete". He had been married, with a wife, Hugelina, with
whom he is mentioned in a fine dated 13 Edward II, but she had died
before her husband, and there were evidently no surviving children.
John de Driby was the last male heir of the main line of his family,
and shortly before his death he conveyed some important manors and
holdings, which he held of the king in chief, to his first cousin, Sir
John(3) de Kirketon, with whom he had evidently had a long-standing
relationship, as shown in the foregoing. As these holdings were
conveyed during his lifetime, they were indeed his to convey. However
he did this without making any charter, and without his tenants having
attorned to Sir John(3) during John de Driby's lifetime.
It is difficult now to determine exactly when John de Driby died, but
clearly before the 20th. of June. His IPM was Writ on 20th. of June, 8
Edward III (1334), and was held on the 12 July, 1334 in 3 counties.
(ref.: "Calendar of Inquisitions", Vol. VII, Edward III (1909) No. 590,
pgs. 404 & 405 – JOHN de DRYBY). At which time he still held properties
in Bockenham, Babbingeleye & Denton in co. Norfolk; 1/3 of the manor of
Schelleye in co. Suffolk; and Baston, in co. Lincoln, which had come
from Simon de Driby, whose widow, Margery, still held 1/3 in dower.
John de Driby's sole heir being shown as "Alice his sister", "daughter
of Robert de Dribi(sic), whom William de Bernak, knight, took to wife",
who was found to be aged 50 years and more (twice), and aged 40 years
and more (once) [i.e. born in or before / between 1284 and 1294] ).
Thus, though Alice and her husband had inherited a substantial number
of holdings, the holdings which had been conveyed to Sir John(3) de
Kirketon before John de Driby’s death did constitute a major part of
the Tateshale / Driby inheritance, and it was not a simple matter to
disinherit a potential heir.
The Inquisition Post Mortem of Sir William de Bernak, held in co.
Sussex, husband of "Alice his wife, who still survives" was dated 1
May, 13 Edward III (1339), the writ being dated 23 April (ref.: CIPM,
Vol. VIII, No. 221, pages. 163-4).
Here this writer thinks it important to remind the reader again that
Sir John(3)'s mother, Beatrice (nee de Driby) was Dame Alice de Bernak
(nee Driby)'s paternal aunt.
Probably as a result of this relationship, Sir William and Dame Alice
de Bernak never seem to have ever taken any opportunity to attempt to
recover any of the properties conveyed by John de Driby to Sir John(3)
de Kirketon, even though, as is shown above, Sir William lived on for
some five years after John de Driby's death, and Dame Alice lived on
for seven years after her brother's death.
They would in fact have had a year and a day to assert their rights as
adverse claimants (ref.: "History of English Law", Pollock & Maitland,
Vol. 2, pgs. 98 & 99), however they clearly did not do so, for what
ever reason.
As for Sir John(3) de Kirketon, he later effectively strengthened his
title to the properties by the process of common recovery, whereby he
granted the properties to certain other parties, and then received them
back from them.
This situation remained stable from 1334 until June – July, 1360, some
26 years later, when Sir Ralph de Cromwell, Kt., and his wife Maud (nee
de Bernake) brought two suits in the Common Bench at Westminster
against Sir John(3) de Kirketon, Knight Banneret, concerning:-
a) The castle of Tattershall and the manor of Scremby-halle in Kirkeby,
co. Lincs..
b) The manor of Kirkeby upon Bayne, including four messuages, one
carucate & two bovates of land, 5 acres of meadow and £20 / 19 s. rent
in Boston, Roughton, Wodehalle, Wynthorp and Langeton by Thornton (For
full details see CPR, Henry VI, Vol. II, pages. 147 – 152).
To these suits Sir John(3) responded through his attorney, John de
Poynton, making defence, but in the end craved leave to imparl, and
afterwards defaulted, so that the judgement in each case went against
Sir John(3).
Subsequently Sir John(3) responded by bringing suit against Sir Ralph
and Maud in the Michaelmas Term (roll 152) by his attorney, Thomas de
Edlyngton, seeking the castle of Tattershall and the manor of
Kirkeby-upon-Bayne, which he claimed to hold to him and the heirs of
his body (he probably had just the one granddaughter still living). He
produced a deed, dated at Tateshale, the "Tuesday after St. Barnabas,
26 Edward III". The Feast of St. Barnabas falls on the 11th. of June,
which in 1334 was evidently a Saturday so that the following Tuesday
was the 14th. of June, which must have been just a few days before John
de Driby actually died, shortly before the 20th of June.
After much debate there was a judgement by a jury of twelve belted
knights that Maud had the greater right to both the castle and the
manor, about which, in the case of just the manor, Sir John(3) was said
to have made a false claim, although this is not explained, and no
proof of this statement is provided.
In spite of these judgements, there does not seem to have been any
effort or action to separate Sir John(3) from his previous holdings,
which was evidently put off and even maybe delayed, as can be see in
what follows:-
1361, 12 Mar.:- Sir John(3) de Kirketon appointed again as a
Commissioner of Justice, with a Commission of oyer and terminer, with
four others, with regard to a break-in and theft (ref.: Calendar of
Patent Rolls, Edward III, Vol. XI, p. 586).
1362, 5 July :- Commission of Walls & Ditches, John de Kirketon & Roger
de Meres of Kirketon, and six others, along the sea shore from Boston
to Barton on Humbre, co. Lincoln (Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III,
Vol. XII, page 212).
1362 :- Calendar of Papal Registers "Petitions" - Petition 1: 385
(1362) - "Sir John de Kirketon, Knight, has founded and endowed a
hospital for fifteen poor persons and a master, Holbeache (sic), for
the good of the souls of himself, his wife, Isabella, and of the late
Robert de Liltilbiris (sic. Littlebury), their heirs and ancestors".
1362, 14 Aug.:- Sir John(3) de Kirketon, Knight Banneret, summoned to
Parliament by Writ, as a Baron, as 'Lord John, Baron de Kirketon'.
Arms: "Barry of six, Gules and Argent" (ref.:- "The Complete Peerage"
(1929), Vol. VII, pages. 338-340; Burke's Extinct Peerage, page 306,
etc.).
[It has been said that Sir John(3) de Kirketon was able to become a
baron only because he held such important properties. HOWEVER, it is
clear that before he was summoned by writ, he had just lost a court
case which was to deprive him of most of those properties; this writer
suspects that, as we shall see in what follows, Sir John had had a long
& exemplary record of service to the crown & to the state, and as a
result it certainly appears as if the Crown now took a specific part in
the unfolding of events, with the intention of providing Sir John with
some protection.]
1362, 18 Nov. "Licence for John de Kirketon, knight, to enfeoff William
de Skipwyth, knight, Ralph Daubenay, parson of the church at
Broghton(sic. Broughton), Roger de Meris(sic. Meres) of Kirketon, and
two others, of the manor of Tumby in Lyndeseye, held in chief, and for
them to grant the same to him & Isabel, his wife, for life, with
remainders to John de Loudham, kt., for life, to John son of the said
John de Loudham and Katherine his wife, and the heirs of his body & to
the right heirs of of the said John de Loudham." (ref.: Calendar of
Patent Rolls, Edw. III, Vol. XII. p. 272 & PRO Item # C 143/342/16,
which also allows Sir John and Isabel to retain the manor of Ashby
Puerorum (Askeby Parva juxta Gretham).
-----------------------------
So, where did this leave Sir Ralph de Cornwall & Maud, who 2 years
earlier had won their suit? And how could a court ruling be so
overturned? Presumably ONLY by the King himself, acting to protect a
loyal and long serving agent of the crown.
Based on this last entry, from CPR & PRO, it would appear that by Nov.,
1362 ALL of Sir John(3)’s and Isabel's children and grandchildren were
now deceased, including the above mentioned Beatrice(2) de Kirketon.
Sir John was now aged 67, and he and his wife, while they must have
been greatly saddened by the loss of all their direct heirs, at least
still had a couple of living nephews.
1363, 1 June:- John(3) de Kirketon Summoned to Parliament by Writ for a
second time as Baron de Kirketon.
1364, 1 July :- "Whereas by pretext of an inquisition taken before
Gilbert de Umframville, earl of Angus, and his fellows, appointed by
the king's letters patent finding that John de Dryby at the time of his
death gave the castle of Tatersall to John de Kirketon, knight, by such
word:- "John, I give to thee this castle", without a charter made
thereof and without the tenants having attorned to him in the lifetime
of John de Driby and that the said John de Kirketon occupied the manors
of Tumby, Kirkeby on Bayne and Skrymbyhalle in Kirkeby, a messuage,
three cottages, a carucate, and 2 bovates of land, 5 acres of meadow
and £20. 19s. of rent in Boston, Roughton, Wodhalle and Langerton by
Thornton, of which John de Dryby was seised in his demesne as of fee on
the day of his death, from the time of the death of John de Dryby who
held the said castle, the manors of Tumby and Skrymbyhalle and £20 of
rent in Boston of the king in chief, and took the issues and profit
thereof, and that after the death of the said John de Dryby and Alice,
his sister and heir, and John de Bernak, son & heir of the said Alice,
being then within age and in the king's ward by reason of other lands
which his father held of the king in chief, he [Sir John(3) de
Kirketon] enfeoffed certain persons of the castle in fee simple and
these persons granted the castle to him, in tail, with remainder to
John de Loudham, in fee, and that after the death of the said John son
of John Bernack who died in his nonage, William, brother and heir of
the said John, son of John Bernak, was within age and in the king's
ward, and that John de Kirketon occupied the manor of Little Stretton
after the death of Robert Breton who held the same of John de Dryby as
of the said castle and never attorned to John de Kirketon in the
lifetime of John de Dryby, by the name of wardship by reason of the
nonage of the heir of the said Robert and, after the death of such
heir, seized into his hand the heir of the said heir, then being within
age, and sold his marriage for a sum of money, and that the said John
de Kirketon after the death of William de Fryskenaye who held 20 acres
of land of John de Dryby as of the said castle and did not attorn to
John de Kirketon in the lifetime of John de Dryby, took into his hand
the heir and sold his marriage, a plea is pending between the king and
John de Kirketon before the king in the chancery that John shew cause
wherefore the manors and lands of John de Dryby should not be taken
into the king's hands and he answere of the issues thereof from the
time of the death of the said John [de Dryby], as well as of the other
issues of the said other lands taken by John de Kirketon by the name of
wardship, and of the value of the sale of the said marriages; the KING
of SPECIAL GRACE has PARDONED the SAID JOHN [de KIRKETON] for all his
trespasses by reason of the acquisitions, alienations, intrusion and
occupation of and in the premises and QUASHES the plea and process
thereof."
(ref.: Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, Vol. XII, pages 519 –
520).
1364, 1 July:- "Whereas Ralph de Cromwell, knight, and Maud, his wife,
are impleading before the justices of the Bench John de Kirketon,
knight, of the castle and manor of Tateshale, and the manors of Tuymby,
Skrymbyhalle and Kirkeby on Bayne, and a messuage, three cottages, a
carucate and two bovates of land, 5 acres of meadow and £20 / 19s. of
rent, in Boston, Roughton, Wodehalle and Langton by Thorneton, the king
wishing, in case they recover the same as of the right of Maud, to do
them a special grace, has granted licence for them after recovery of
possession to grant the manor of Tumby to John de Kirketon for life,
and the castle and manor of Tateshale to Thomas de Wyke, clerk, Thomas
de Kirkeby, parson of the church of Tateshale, and three others, in
fee, for the life of the said John de Kirketon, and for the feofees to
grant their estate therein to the said John [de Kirketon] to hold of
the king for the services due; and for Ralph and Maud to grant the
reversions of the manor of Tumby and the castle and manor of Tateshale
to Ralph, parson of the church of Cromwelle, Roger de Meres [of
Kirketon, the future Sir Roger de Meres, a future justice] and two
others, in fee, and for them, after receiving sufficient attornment
thereof, to re-grant the reversions of the castle and manors to Ralph
and Maud in tail, to hold of the king by the services due, with
remainder to the right heirs of Maud."
(ref.: Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, Vol. XIII, page 3).
Thus King Edward III seemingly resolved the whole problem of the John
de Driby estate; and it is evident that he deliberately protected and
forgave Lord John, Baron de Kirketon, and permitted him to retain all
that he had enjoyed during his lifetime for the remainder of his life,
no doubt in recognition of Lord John's lengthy service to the crown and
state. At the same time he recognized and allowed the decisions of the
courts, simply introducing a delay in the execution of the decisions to
permit Lord John, Baron de Kirketon, now aged 69, who had by now lost
all the direct heirs of his body, to live out his days.
1367, 20 Feb.:- Lord John, Baron de Kirketon died, and all his
children, and at least one granddaughter, having all predeceased him,
he left no direct heirs of his blood, so that his Barony became
extinct. He died seized of the Manor and Castle of Tattershall, and the
Manor of Tumby, all of which on his death passed to Sir Ralph de
Cromwell, Kt., in right of his wife, Maud (nee Bernake), as shown.
27 Feb.:- Writ prepared for Sir John de Kirketon's Inquisition Post
Mortem.
27 Feb.:- Order to the escheator of the County of Lincoln to take into
the king's hands the lands whereof John de Kirketon, 'chivaler', who
held in chief, was seised in his demesne as of fee on the day of his
death, and to make inquisition touching his lands & heir etc. (ref.:
Calendar of Fine Rolls, Edward III, Vol. VII, page 370).
Thursday, First week in Lent
Calendar of Inquisition Post Mortem, Vol. XII, Edward III, No. 150,
pages 127- 8:-
"JOHN(3) de KIRKETON knight. Inquisition held at Horncastre, co.
Lincoln. All the properties of Ralph and Maud Cromwell. He held at the
time of his death several other properties which were evidently not
handed over to the Cromwells, as follows:-
"Kirkeby upon Bayne. The manor, with the appurtenances in Kirleby,
Tateshale & Thorp by Tateshale, held in all respects as the castle &
manor of Tateshale above. It is held of John de Wylughby, as of the
manor of Eresby, by service of one knight's fee and £20. 13s. 1d.
yearly.
Sixhill. The manor, held jointly with Ralph Daubenaye, clerk, and
Thomas, parson of the church of Tateshale, for their lives, by demise
of Roger la Warre, knight, with reversion to Roger and his heirs. It is
held of Henry de Percy, knight, by service of a fifth part of a
knight's service.
Castelcarlton. A third part of the manor, held jointly with Isabel his
wife, as of dower which fell to her after the death of George de
Meryet, her former husband. The manor is held of the king in chief by
service of a fifth part of a knight's fee.
Kirketon in Holand. The manor, held jointly with Isabel his wife, for
their lives, by demise of Ralph Daubenaye, parson of the church of
Broughton, and Thomas, parson of the church of Tateshale, with
reversion to John de Littelbyrs (sic Littlebury) and his heirs, to whom
the said John & Isabel attorned. The manor is held of Sir William de
Huntyngfeld, knight, by service of a third part of a knight’s fee.
He died on 20 February, 41 Edward III (1367).
John de Ludeham (sic Loudham), knight, John de Lyttelbyrs (sic
Littlebury), John de Tylnaye and William de Sutton, parson of the
church of Whitewell, all of full age, are his heirs (ref.: c. Edw. III.
File 194. (8)).
1367, 18 Mar.:- Promptly thereafter, in the "Calendar of Close Rolls",
Edw. III, Vol. XII, pages 322 & 323:- Walter de Kelby, the escheator in
Lincolnshire, was ordered to deliver to Ralph de Cromwell & Maud his
wife all the properties taken into the king's hand, delivering up any
issues of these last taken; as the king has learned by inquisition,
taken by the escheator, that the said John de Kirketon at his death
held for life the said properties.
P. 323 (at the bottom):- Walter de Kelby was also ordered not to meddle
further with the manor of Kirketon in Holand and a third part of the
manor of Castelcarleton taken into the king's hand by the death of John
de Kirketon, knight, delivering to Isabel late his wife any issues
thereof taken; etc..
Dame Isabel survived her husband by a couple of years, dying on 3 July,
1369/70.
--------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five years after Sir John's death, an item appeared in the
"Calendar of Patent Rolls", 16 Richard II, Vol. V, p. 143.:-
1392, 2 Sept. "...... to a chaplain for celebrating divine service
daily at the altar of St. Mary in the Parish Church at
Kirketon-in-Holand for the souls of John de Kirketon, knight, Isabel
his wife, John de Lutelbirs (sic Littlebury), and their ancestors."
Doubtless at the instigation of one of the de Littlebury descendants,
who now came into the possession of the original Manor of Kirketon at
Kirketon-in-Hoylaund / Kirton-in-Holland, co. Lincolnshire.
So, it would seem very clear that it was the king himself who had
spared a faithful servant of the crown and state from the humiliation
of losing his holdings; and had indeed clearly promoted him, AFTER he
had lost his court case with the Cromwells, thus allowing him to live
out his days without having to surrender any of his lands. Sir John(3)
was thus the very last de Kirketon to ever actually hold the original
Manor of Kirketon, close by to the village from which the family name
had originated.
The Manor of Kirketon now passed into the hands of Sir John de
Littlebury, Knight, the son of Sir John(3) de Kirketon's sister,
Florence de Kirketon. It would appear that Florence may have been
considered as a co-heir of her brother because nearly 200 years later,
after an Elizabeth Litlebury(sic) had become the wife of Sir John
Copledike, Knight, of Harrington, co. Lincs., who died 12 Dec., 1557,
their joint tomb displayed their arms thus:- Impaled those of Copledike
and Littlebury, and Quarterly: those of Kirketon, showing the expected
"Barry of six" and Dalyson (ref.: The Architectural & Archaeological
Society of The County of Lincoln, "Copledike of Harrington" by W. O.
Massingbeed, M.A., page 26).

After the de Littlebury family the original moated, stone-built
Kirketon / Kirton manor house passed into the hands of the de Meres
family, and later still into the hands of a family named Orme,
resulting in it being re-named “Orme Hall”.
Finally in 1818 Sir Alexander de Kirketon’s original “Court at
Kirketon” was dismantled, and by early in the 20th century the moat had
also been filled in.
================================

Best Regards,

Jonathan Kirton, Canada

---------- Original Message ----------

From: John Watson <watso...@gmail.com>
Date: June 20, 2017 at 5:21 AM

Dear all,
The feet of fines can be very useful, in combination with other
contemporary records, in determining the genealogy of medieval
families. This week I noticed that Chris Philips’ excellent medieval
genealogy website has added new abstracts of the feet of fines for
Lincolnshire between 1272 and 1283. Looking through these fines I found
several which clarify the genealogy of the Driby family. I give a quick

summary below: - etc.

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Thank you Jonathan and Douglas,

In this discussion, may I interject a question. Simon Driby’s son, Robert married Joan Tatteshall, sister to Emma who married Osbert de Cailly. I am interested in how the heirs of Robert de Tateshale are holding fees in Nutburne, Sussex.

Pat

> Dear all,
> The feet of fines can be very useful, in combination with other
> contemporary records, in determining the genealogy of medieval
> families. This week I noticed that Chris Philips’ excellent medieval
> genealogy website has added new abstracts of the feet of fines for
> Lincolnshire between 1272 and 1283. Looking through these fines I found
> several which clarify the genealogy of the Driby family. I give a quick

> summary below: - etc.
>
> -------------------------------
> 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

[John Watson]

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 18:04:02 UTC+1, Patricia A. Junkin wrote:
> Thank you Jonathan and Douglas,
>
> In this discussion, may I interject a question. Simon Driby’s son, Robert married Joan Tatteshall, sister to Emma who married Osbert de Cailly. I am interested in how the heirs of Robert de Tateshale are holding fees in Nutburne, Sussex.
>
> Pat

Hi Pat,

See: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/sussex/vol4/pp126-132#h3-0004

Regards, John

[John Watson]

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 10:21:33 UTC+1, John Watson wrote:
>
> Hugh son of Sir Ralph de Driby appears to have had a daughter Margery who married John de Arsic. Hugh granted them the manor of Driby in 1324.
> See Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/137/94, number 7.
> http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_137_94.shtml#7
>
> However, there appears to have been a dispute between the Arsics and Alice de Driby, concerning the manor of Driby.
> See: Feet of Fines: CP 25/1/138/107, number 52.
> http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_138_107.shtml#52
>

Correction: -
Margery who married John Arsic was not the daughter of Hugh de Driby. She was the widow of Sir Simon de Driby who died shortly before 8 August 1322.

25 November 1323, To Master John Waleweyne, escheator beyond Trent. Order not to intermeddle further with the manor of Driby, and to restore the issues thereof, as the king learns by inquisition taken by the escheator that Simon de Driby, deceased, and Margery his wife held the manor jointly at Simon's death of their purchase, and that Margery continued her seisin of the same jointly with him until his death, and that the manor is held of Henry de Bello Monte by knight service.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward II, vol. 4: 1323-1327 (1898), 49.

30 January 1324, To John Blunvill, escheator in cos. Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Essex, and Hertford. Order to assign dower to Margery late the wife of Simon de Driby, tenant in chief, in the presence of Robert de Driby, son [recte brother] and heir of Simon, if he choose to attend.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward II, vol. 4: 1323-1327 (1898), 61.

27 May 1324, Release by Hugh de Dryby, son and heir of Sir Ralph de Dribi, to John son of Sir John de Harsyk of co. Norfolk and Margery his wife of his right in the manor of Dryby, co. Lincoln, and in all knights' fees, advowsons, and all other things pertaining thereto. Witnesses: Sir William de Kyme, Sir Robert Darcy, Sir Simon Chaumberleyn, Sir William de Paris, Sir Robert de Morle, Sir John Haward, Sir John de Felton, knights; William Morteyn; John Pecok. Dated at London, 27 May, 17 Edward II.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward II, vol. 4: 1323-1327 (1898), 186.

28 May 1324, Enrolment of grant by John son of Sir John de Arsyk, knight, of Northfolk, to Hugh de Dryby, son of Sir Ralph de Dryby, knight, of a robe, price 2 marks, or 2 marks yearly from his manor of Suthacre, co. Northfolk, Witnesses: Sir John Haward, Sir John de Felton, knights; John Pecok. Dated at London, 28 May, 17 Edward II.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward II, vol. 4: 1323-1327 (1898), 186.

Regards,

John

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Thank you, John. I am trying to make a bit of sense of the BHO posting. The Aguillons were holding knight’s fees on Nutborne; the three fees held by Richard Agualion in 1242 were assigned to Thomas de Cailly, one of the heirs of Robert de Tateshale. On the death of Alan la Zouche in 1314, his heirs held 12l. yearly rent in Nutborne and the advowson of Chitlington. The 12l rent in Nutburne and the advowson of the church of Childyngton are held in chief of Robert de Mohunt , Roger de Sumery and the heirs of Robert de Tateshale by knight’s service. Osbert de Cailly held Buckingham Castle in right of his wife, Emma and heir of Robert de Tateshale.Was there a marriage to an Aguillon? I am struggling with dates in records, since this Thomas de Cailly was (above) named as an heir of Tateshale who died in 1249. If in 1286 Osbert de Cailly is holding free warren in Bradenham, Norfolk, and Joan Driby, granted her third part held by Joan late wife of Robert de Tateshale in Buckingham, Norfolk, are we missing a generation or was Osbert a very old man?

Pat

[John Watson]

Dear Pat,

I think that you have your Caillys mixed up.

Emma de Tateshal married Adam de Cailly who was living in 1303. They had one son Thomas, and a daughter Margaret. Thomas died s.p. before 30 July 1316. His inquisition post mortem found that his heir was Adam de Clifton, son of his sister, Margaret, by Roger de Clifton, then aged 9 years and more.

Do you mean Buckenham castle in Norfolk?

Regards,

John

[Patricia A. Junkin]

John,
There has been much confusion about whether Emma married Osbert or Adam, but I have concluded that it was Osbert that she married.
“By deed in Henry III’s time(1207-72): “In honor of Christ and the Blessed Virgin, and all the saints for the souls of his father Adam de Cayly, Mabel his mother and Margery his grandmother, and all his family deceased, he settled on Hervey de Brokedish (Chaplain), and all his successors, in St. Margaret’s Chapel at Hilburgh, ….for their performing of devine service there, the whole furlong or went of land called Flitting, or Hilbirgh field, joining that land he had before settled on the said chapel; witnesses, Sir Adam de Cayly, his son, Sir Thomas de Cayly, Simon de Cayly and others.... with seal of Osbert de Cayly attached.”

John de Cailly m. Margery who later m. Michael de Poynings
+Adam m. Mabel Gifford
++Osbert m. Emma Tateshale sister of Robert who died in 1248
+++Adam de Cailly by an unknown first wife
+++Thomas de Cailly

Osbert de Kaylly had respite of knighthood until Christmas (1244, therefore born circa 1220) and in 1257 “Osbert de Cailly of Norfolk” was excused from being put on assizes and the like. 1265 With Simon de Caly (?brother) had letters of protection. 1275 Sir Osbert de Caly and Walter de Caly had leet at Denver, and Osbert claimed assize of bread at Bradenham and Oxborough and held whole vill of Cranwich of Earl of Warenne. 1285 Had acquittance of common summons of eyre of Norfolk. 1287 In army in Wales

Appreciate your assistance in sorting this out.

Pat

[John Watson]

Pat,

Please see the inquisition post mortem of Robert, son and heir of Robert de Tateshal who died under age. Writ 30 January 1306.
The jurors in Yorkshire say that his heirs are: Thomas son of Adam de Caylly, aged 24 and more .... The jurors in Norfolk say that the heirs are: Thomas de Caylli, son of Emma sister of Robert de Tateshale grandfather of the deceased, aged 22 and more ....
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem vol. 4, Edward I (1813), 257, No. 391.

The grandfather of Robert de Tatesahale died in 1298 (not 1248) and Thomas de Caylly is said to be son of Adam and son of Emma.

What is your evidence that this is not correct?

Regards,

John

[Peter Howarth]

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:55:02 UTC+1, jonathan kirton wrote:

It is very good to see someone using contemporary sources for mediaeval heraldry.

However, the following is the evidence that I have for Kirton, Kirketon, Kyreton, Kirkington, etc of Kirton (in Holland), Lincs, up to 1420:

William de Kirton of Kirton
none

Robert de Kirton of Kirton
seal: temp Edw I, Robert de Kirketone in Hoyland, Lincs, shield of arms: barry of six [Birch, Catalogue of Seals, no 11094]
Lord Marshall's Roll (c.1295) LM 398, painted shield, Robert de Kyrketon, gules, 3 bars ermine [Brault, Rolls of Arms Edward I, i. p 345]
Collins' Roll (c.1296) Q 451, painted shield, Robert de Kyrketone, gules, 3 bars ermine [Brault, Rolls of Arms Edward I, i. p 391]

John de Kirton of Kirton, 'Ld Kirketon'
Second Dunstable Roll (1334) SD 55, blazon, Monsr John de Kirketon, barre d'ermyne et de goules [C. E. Long, Collectanea, Topographica et Genealogica, iv. (1887) 389-395]
Carlisle Roll (1334) CA 49, blazon, Mons John de Kirton, (gules, 3 bars ermine) [cited Dictionary of British Arms i. p 62]
Ashmolean Roll (c.1334) AS 203, blazon, Monsr John de Kerketon, (gules, 3 bars ermine) [cited Dictionary of British Arms i. p 62]
Cooke's Ordinary (c.1340) CKO 310, painted shield, Sr J de Kyrketon, gules, 3 bars ermine [Clemmensen, Ordinary of Medieval Armorials]
Cotgrave's Ordinary (c.1340) CG 228, blazon, Monsire John de Kirketon port le revers de Sire Hussey* [Nicolas, Roll of Arms of Edw III, 23]
Powell's Roll (c.1350) PO 500, painted shield, Sr Jon de Kyrketone, gules, 3 bars ermine [Greenstreet, Powell Roll of Arms, Reliquary iii (1889) p 238]
William Jenyns' Ordinary (c.1360-80) WJ 592, painted shield, Mons John de Kyrketon, gules, 3 bars ermine [Clemmensen, William Jenyns Ordinary p 71]
Thomas Jenyns' Book (c.1410) TJ 553, painted shield, Monsr John de Kirketon, gules, 3 bars ermine [Clemmensen, Ordinary of Medieval Armorials]

* CG 226 Le Sire Hussy port d'ermin a trois barres de gules

Comments
We have no way of knowing whether William had a coat of arms, and if so, what it was. Edward I raised much larger armies than any of his predecessors, with the result that many families had to provide a knight for the first time, and they therefore needed a coat of arms for the first time as identification (see D Simpkin, The English Aristocracy at War (2008) p 21). Robert could well have been the first in the family to bear arms.
Robert's seal had six stripes but on the rolls of arms his shields had seven. Judging by similar variations on other men's arms at this time, no one worried too much about the exact number of stripes. It was only later on in the fourteenth century that the number of stripes on a particular arms started to become fixed.
Since we have no evidence, we have no way of knowing what arms John bore during his father's lifetime. There are quite a few examples where a son bore the same arms as his father, or if he did bear a difference, where it was something other than a label. So whilst there are many examples where the heir apparent bore his father's arms with a label, we cannot assume that that was an invariable custom. And where the field was gules, the most common tincture for the label was azure.
All the contemporary evidence, in eight different rolls dated throughout John's life, is that he bore ermine bars. I can only find two sources where the bars are argent and they date from c.1510 and c.1520, a century and a half after he died.

Peter Howarth

[jonathan kirton]

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your posting and comments.

I have forwarded to you individually a Pedigree Chart with recorded
coat-of-arms, and two other studies which I have made with evidence
which shows that Sir William(1) de Kirketon, Knight, prior to the death
of his father, Sir Ralph(1) de Kirketon, Knight, in c. 1255, was
bearing a coat-of-arms:- "Barry of six, Gules & Argent, with a label of
five points, Sable".

It is therefore, I believe, save to assume that from c. 1255 until his
own death in 1275 he bore the "Barry of six, Gules & Argent", without
the label.

[Please note that the Kirketon / Kirton / Kearton Study, Revision
"P-2", which I have sent to you, is in the process of being updated,
although the new revisions will not affect the parts in which I think
that you will be interested.]

If any other member of this forum would wish to have pdf copies of
these files, please contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kirton

---------- Original Message ----------

[Peter Howarth]

Thank you very much for going to the trouble of passing on the information about the research. I understand that this has been carried out by someone else. The genealogy may possibly be based on contemporary documentation with any assumptions being clearly indicated. I wish I could say the same about the heraldry. For example, for the first coat of arms it is claimed that:

"Sir ROBERT(2) de KIRKETON, Knight, son of CONAN. Between the years 1220 - 1230, he had assumed the coat-of-arms: "Argent, a fesse Gules" (ref.:- "The British Herald" (1850) Robson, Vol. II; "Ordinary of British Armorials" (1874) Papworth, Vol. II; "The General Armory" (1884) B. Burke, p. 570)"

None of these publications are contemporary, nor do they give their sources. Indeed, they are all suspect. John Woody Papworth was an architect who had a brilliant idea about how to arrange a dictionary of coats of arms by carefully classifying their blazons. This plan was then improved by his collaborator, Alfred William Morant. Unfortunately, almost the only source he had for the coats of arms themselves was Burke's General Armory. Burke is notorious for accepting without question anything and everything that his correspondents sent him for his Peerages. He may even have added further errors of his own. His General Armory is equally unreliable, since he copied anything that he found anywhere, but then didn't bother to say where. It is because Burke, and therefore Papworth, are so unreliable that the Dictionary of British Arms (DBA) was eventually published after sixty years' of hard work by almost a hundred people. The DBA's great strength is that every single entry is given its mediaeval source.

Let me explain how impossible it is to know that someone bore 'Argent, a fess Gules' in 1220 - 1230. The earliest evidence we have for arms in colour are the manuscripts of Matthew Paris, a monk at St Albans Abbey, writing between c.1244 and c.1259. He wrote chronicles of events in the world around him and then decorated the margins of his manuscripts with shields representing those people he was writing about.

The next roll of arms is Glover's Roll, compiled around 1253-58, but which may have copied some of its entries from another source dating from around 1240-42. Robert de Kirketon does not appear in either Matthew Paris or Glover's Roll. There is no mediaeval glass from this period, nor are there any other painted manuscripts with coats of arms apart perhaps from an English psalter in the Royal Swedish Library in Stockholm which may date from this time. It is therefore impossible to know for certain what tinctures were being used before 1240. And unless we have an heraldic seal for this Robert de Kirketon, we have no way of knowing whether he bore any arms at all.

The next coat of arms mentioned is:

"SIR GILBERT(1) de KIRKETON, Knight. "Argent, a fesse and a chevron in chief, Gules". Several sources mention the above blazon: a College of Arms MS Vincent 152, with Dethic additions, & a MS Gu L2 295, 4 & an Additional MS 45131 & Wriothsley's Fesses & Bars & in Prince Arthur's Book, c.1509; also "A Complete Body of Heraldry" Joseph Edmonson (1780); "The British Herald" (1830) Thomas Robson; and "The General Armory" by Burke, all identified as that of "Kirketon / Kirton of Westmorland", which was subsequently used by all the successive inhabitants of the Manor of Kirketon Hall at Screveton, co. Notts., & by the Kirtons of
Biddenham, co. Bedford., and of Reeth, in Swaledale, N.R. Yorks., who had come down from Westmorland, and in Southwark, Middlesex, and eventually London and Northamptonshire, & spreading to the west."

None of these sources are contemporary. The College of Arms MS Vincent 152 is the same as 'Prince Arthur's Book' and 'Wriothesley's Fesses and Bars'; it was compiled by Sir Thomas Wriothesley's workshop during the early sixteenth century as an ordinary, with Prince Arthur's arms at the front and with many other varied items added; and in the section on fesses the arms of William Dethick (Garter, d.1612) have been added over an erasure [Catalogue of Manuscripts in the College of Arms, pp 387-391]. The entry for 'Kirton' is just that, no Christian name, no provenance, no date, no indication of any particular person.

L2 295, 4 refers to another College of Arms MS, an alphabet of arms painted early to mid 16th c.[Catalogue of Manuscripts in the College of Arms, pp 21-22]. Again the entry is just for 'Kyrton' with no indication of any particular person. The entry in British Library Additional MS 45131 is, according to the Dictionary of British Arms iii. p 340 from which these three sources are taken, for Dame Margaret Kyrtton d. 1520/1, wife of Sir Stephen Jenyns, Mayor of London.

I have not got time to go through all 292 pages of the paper when the first two heraldic entries just don't understand what is evidence and what is not. I'm afraid you have been misled, may be not intentionally, by someone who does not understand mediaeval heraldry.

I have already set out all the contemporary evidence I can find. There may well be other evidence I don't know about, but it is not in this paper.

Peter Howarth

[Patricia A. Junkin]

John,
I wonder if we are looking are the same.

1. Robert Tateshale d. 1248 married Mabel de Albini from whom Buckenham 42 Hen III had free warren. His sisters were Emma, Joan and Isabel. Robert de Tateshal. nq. (undated.) 1249--28 July, 33 Hen. III (defaced). He died on Friday before St. Margaret last. Sir Robert, his son, aged 26, is his heir. Tateshal, 1 carucate land, garden, water-mill, fishery, meadow, 56s. rent of assize, and 15l. 2s. 11d. from villeins and customers. Kanloby manor (extent given) pertaining to the barony of Tateshal. Tateshal ⅓ part, and Kyrkeby manor held of John Bech of the fee of Dunhill (Dunham/Dunholme,Lincs.), by fee farm rent of 20l. 13s. 1d.
Osbert, through his marriage to Emma, sister and heir of Robert Tatteshall[PJ1] , acquired Buckenham Castle built by William de Arundel in the time of Henry II. [1]

[1]Sir Bernard Burke. Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionaryof the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire. Harrison and Sons, Pall Mall, London. 1868. P. 199-200. https://books.google.com/books?id=NiVNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA857&dq=%22de+Kaily%22+wiltshire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFns-JxqfLAhXI4CYKHYfyDbYQ6AEIIzAB#v=snippet&q=cailly&f=false



2. Robert Tateshale b. 1222, d, 1272 m. Joan FitzRalph Joan de Tatteshall, Emma’s sister, and in 1323 Joan de Driby granted the third part of two-thirds of the manor of Hunmanby, and her reversion in the third part of the third part now held in dower by Joan, late the wife of Robert de Tateshale, to James de Ros, Maud his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, with remainder to the heirs of Maud, retaining the castle of Tattersall (Lincoln) and the manor of Buckenham (Norfolk). Lincoln. Norfolk. 16 EDWARD II.[1] According to Burke, Osbert de Cailly was married to an unknown by whom she had a son Adam before the marriage to Emma Tattersall.[2]

[1] 1 C 143/157/13

[2] Sir ‪Bernard Burke. Ed., Ashworth P. Burke. Harrison and sons, London. 1895. A Genealogial and Heraldic History of the colonial Gentry. P. 750. https://books.google.com/books?id=x8lsAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA750&lpg=PA750&dq=%22Osbert+de+cailly%22&source=bl&ots=jZFAaF77UO&sig=voiS_NXt1tiFPgGRWZRZwGKGY1M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY8NGmzILNAhWFQyYKHRW3ANcQ6AEIPTAI#v=onepage&q=%22Osbert%20de%20cailly%22&f=false

3. Robert Tateshale, b. 1248, d. 1306

And a revisit to Osbert de Cailly:
In the time of Henry III Osbert de Cailly makes the following:

In honor of Christ and the Blessed Virgin, and all the saints for the souls of his father Adam de Cayly, Mabel his mother and Margery his grandmother, and all his family deceased, he settled on Hervey de Brokedish (Chaplain), and all his successors, in St. Margaret’s Chapel at Hilburgh, ….for their performing of devine service there, the whole furlong or went of land called Flitting, or Hilbirgh field, joining that land he had before settled on the said chapel; witnesses, Sir Adam de Cayly, his son, Sir Thomas de Cayly, Simon de Cayly and others.... with seal of Osbert de Cayly attached

Pat

[John Watson]

Dear Pat,

You should rely more on Complete Peerage, than Burke's publications, which are notoriously unreliable.

See Complete Peerage, vol. 12, part 1 (1953), pp. 645-653.
You can download a copy here:
https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?from=fhd&dps_pid=IE6044184

According to CP, you are missing 2 Robert Tateshals:

1. Robert de Tateshal, born about 1198, died 16 July 1249, married Maud, daughter of William d'Aubigny and Mabel of Chester.

2. Robert de Tateshal, born 1222, died 22 July 1273, married Nichole, daughter of John de Grey of Shirland and Emma de Cauz.

3. Robert de Tateshal, born 5 December 1248, died before 8 September 1298, married Joan, daughter of Ralph fitz Ranulf and Anastasia de Percy. He had three sisters; Joan, married to Robert de Driby, Emma married to Adam de Cailly, Isabel, married to John de Orreby.

4. Robert de Tateshal born about 1268, died before 28 July 1303, married Eve, daughter of Robert de Tybotot and Eve de Chaworth.

5. Robert de Tateshal, born 18 March 1287 or 1288, died before 30 January 1306, married Joan, probably daughter of Hugh Bardolf.

The inquisition post mortem of the last Robert (Cal. Inq. p.m., vol. iv, no. 391), who died under age, found that his heirs were Emma, Joan and Isabel the sisters of Robert his grandfather (d. 1298). Emma had already died before 1306 and her heir was her son Thomas, son of Adam de Cailly, age given as 22 or 24.

Regards,

John

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In an earlier post in this thread, I stated that Robert de Tateshale [died 1298] was styled “brother” by Joan, widow of Robert de Driby in a lawsuit dated 1307. Reference: Year Books of Edward II 1 (Selden Soc. 17) (1903): 1–4, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=68YKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR97

Joan de Driby stated that there was an earlier lawsuit brought against her brother, Robert de Tateshale, by Gilbert de Gaunt before Hugh de Cressingham and his fellow justices. Hugh de Cressingham died in 1297. Thus, the lawsuit must pre-date 1297. Unfortunately the property involved in the earlier lawsuit is not identified by the Year Book record.

This past week I located a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1294 which appears to concern the earlier legal matter. Below is a brief abstract of this lawsuit:

In Trinity term 1294 Robert de Tateshale, the elder, sued Gilbert de Gaunt in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the manor of Skendleby, Lincolnshire.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/105, image 8f, available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no105/aCP40no105fronts/IMG_0008.htm).

[Douglas Richardson]

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 11:27:53 AM UTC-6, John Watson wrote:

< 5. Robert de Tateshal, born 18 March 1287 or 1288, died before 30 January
< 1306, married Joan, probably daughter of Hugh Bardolf.

Complete Peerage 12 (1)(1953): 652, footnote i states that Joan, wife of Robert de Tateshale, 3rd Lord Tateshale, was "probably daughter of Hugh Bardolf, who had the marriage of Robert." If the parentage of wives was so easily established, I would surely know the identities of many brides. The truth is that the grant of young Robert de Tateshale's marriage to Sir Hugh Bardolf does not in itself suggest, imply, or prove that his wife, Joan, was Hugh Bardolf's daughter. And, lacking additional information, Complete Peerage has seriously overstated the evidence in hand.

As for Joan, widow of Robert de Tateshale, I've found nothing whatsoever in contemporary records to connect her to the Bardolf family. My research indicates that in 1317 Joan sued John Beneyt, of Theford [Thetford], Norfolk, and Simon Beneyt in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 100s. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/218, image 79f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no218/aCP40no218fronts/IMG_0079.htm)]. Joan died without issue shortly before 10 Nov. 1335.

As for Sir Hugh Bardolf, 1st Lord Bardolf [died 1304], it appears he and his wife, Isabel d’Aguillon [died 1323], had four proven children, namely two sons, Thomas, Knt. [2nd Lord Bardolf], and William, and two daughters, Nichole (wife of Robert Butvillein, Robert de Arderne, Knt., and Thomas Wale, K.G.) and Margery (or Margaret) (wife of Michael de Poynings, Knt.).

During her long widowhood, Isabel d’Aguillon, herself a wealthy heiress, was repeatedly involved in contemporary records with all four of her adult Bardolf children. I haven't found any indication that she had any dealings with Joan, widow of Robert de Tateshale.

As such, I must conclude that Joan, wife of Robert de Tateshale, 3rd Lord Tateshale, was not the daughter of Sir Hugh Bardolf, 1st Lord Bardolf. If anyone can advance additional evidence to show otherwise, I'd very much like to see it.

[Douglas Richardson]

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 11:27:53 AM UTC-6, John Watson wrote:

< 2. Robert de Tateshal, born 1222, died 22 July 1273, married Nichole, daughter < of John de Grey of Shirland and Emma de Cauz.

< 3. Robert de Tateshal, born 5 December 1248, died before 8 September 1298,
< married Joan, daughter of Ralph fitz Ranulf and Anastasia de Percy. He had
< three sisters; Joan, married to Robert de Driby, Emma married to Adam de
< Cailly, Isabel, married to John de Orreby.

Complete Peerage states that there are "reasons" to suppose that Robert de Tateshale's three sisters listed above were his daughters. This is false, as I have already shown.

Moreover, it appears that Robert de Tateshale, died 1298, also had a brother, Sir Hugh de Tateshale, of Toft, Lincolnshire, as indicated below. This is yet another lapse by Complete Peerage.

HUGH DE TATESHALE, Knt. He had the manor of Toft, Lincolnshire, by the gift of his brother, Robert de Tateshale. He was granted protection in 1287, he having gone on the king's service to Wales in the retinue of his brother, Robert de Tateshale. He was summoned to Scotland in 1298. He died without issue.

References:

Gough, Scotland in 1298 (1888): 86–88. C.P.R. 1281–1292 (1893): 274. Genealogist n.s. 17 (1901): 247. Wrottesley, Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls (1905): 353. Court of Common Pleas, CP40/698, image 658f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no698/aCP40no698fronts/IMG_0658.htm).

[John Watson]

Dear Pat,

Another piece of evidence that Emma de Tateshal married Adam not Osbert de Cailly: -

1450-51, Be Banco. Hillary. 29. Hen. 6. m. 377. Essex. — John Knyvet, of Hamerton, Armiger, sued Thomas Freman for the manor of Little Waltham, which Robert Tateshale had given to Adam, son of Osbert Cayly, in frank marriage with Emma, his sister.
G. Wrottesley, Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls (1905), 383.

Regards,

John

[John Watson]

Hi Douglas,

some more references for Sir Hugh de Tateshale. It appears that he was living on 24 June 1301:-

29 June 1300, (Letters of respite of debts for] ... Hugh de Tatesale with the king, to the sheriffs of Yorks, Lincs and Norfolk
Grant S. Simpson and James D. Galbraith, eds., Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, vol. 5 (Supplementary), 1970, 321, no. 1284.

30 June 1300, [Letters of protection for] ... Hugh de Tateshale
Grant S. Simpson and James D. Galbraith, eds., Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, vol. 5 (Supplementary), 1970, 406, no. 2236.

Hugo de Tateshale .. summoned from the counties of Warwick and Leicester to perform military service in person against the Scots. Muster at Berwick-upon-Tweed, on the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (24 June 1301) 29 Edward I.
Francis Palgrave, ed., The Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons, vol. 1, Record Commission (1827), 857.
https://books.google.com/books?id=JKqJOnq9anQC&pg=PA857

Regards,

John

[Patricia A. Junkin]

John,
It is difficult to access this since it is a document of a later date, however, let’s consider the dating.
Osbert de Cailly was active by 1244 when he had respite of knighthood. He was probably born 1220 or before. In 1263 he is called “of Norfolk.” His father was Adam de Cailly who married Mabel. Osbert had a son, Adam. In 1314, Thomas de Caily son of Osbert was a benefactor of Wymondham Priory, Norfolk and by 1320 held Bradenham and Hillsborough. What is not clear is the age of Emma. If we accept that she was a sister of the Robert de Tateshale who died in 1303 (IPM, m. Eva), then her birthdate was probably in the 1240’s. In 1286, Osbert had free warren in Bradenham, Norfolk.
Hare 2163 194 x 3
Inspeximus by Adam son of Osbert de Cailly of two charters of feoffment and confirmation from Clement de Telford and Isabella his sister to Osbert his father of land and liberty of faldage in Hildeburgworge (ca. 1299 or before.)
We might suggest that Emma Tateshale married Adam, son of Osbert de Cailly.
Pat

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

Thank you for the added information that Sir Hugh de Tateshale, of Toft, Lincolnshire, was living in 1301.

As to an appoximate date of Sir Hugh's death, I note that in Michaelmas term 1309, John de Cove and his wife, Eve, were attached to answer Robert le Curzun of a plea why they distrained him to do suit to their court at Toft by Witham, Lincolnshire. See Year Books of Edward II 2 (Selden Soc. 19) (1904): 95–96, available at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=dWgcqEjwy-4C&pg=PA95

Eve, wife of John de Cove, may be identified Eve de Tibetot, wife previously of Robert de Tateshale [died 1303], the nephew of Sir Hugh de Tateshale. In the 1309 lawsuit, the said John and Eve declare that they held various tenements "by reason of the manor of Toft, which they hold in Eve's dower by the endowment of her first husband, Robert de Tateshale."

By this statement, I judge that Sir Hugh de Tateshale died without issue sometime between 1301 and the death of his nephew, Robert de Tateshale, who died shortly before 28 July 1303. In any event, Sir Hugh was definitely deceased before Michaelmas term 1309.