Re:William Wrothe
Jwc...@aol.com
I have found the record of Sir John
Mortimer of Bishop`s Hatfield, Herts. trial. At an unknown date in date in
King Henry V`s reign Sir John Mortimer of Bishop`s Hatfield was imprisoned on
suspicion of treason and sent to the Tower of London in 1 Henry VI. in 3
Henry VI on King, servant of Sir Robert Scot, Governor of the Tower revealed
that he (Mortimer) had bribed him to help him escape, offering him an
earldom if he would aid him in going to his cousin Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of
March or failing such aid would go to the King of France.. Mortimer was
therefore sentenced to execution by drawing and quartering. (source ; a
Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and other
High Crimes and Misdemeanors T B Howell p 10 ;trial 21 volume 1.
Sir John , given his grand scheme was almost certainly a son of Sir
Edmund Mortimer (died 1411) and Catrin ferch Owain Glyndwr whom he married in
1402 and with whom he had at least four children. Sir Edmund was the younger
son of Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March and Philippa , Countess of Ulster.
Given Sir Edmund`s plan to place his nephew on the throne (for Which see
Original Letters Illustrative of English History by Sir Henry Ellis pp
29-31 and John`s apparent plans involving his cousin The Earl of March. The one
troubling thing is the time frame. He could be no older than twenty or
twenty one for the chronology to work, moreover William Wrothe died in say
1445-1455. If the unknown daughter of a John Mortimer were this John Mortimer
it`s doubtful they were married many years.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
wjho...@aol.com
Edmund Mortimer was attacking Wales in 1402 WHEN he was captured by Owain Glyndwr. He was held prisoner, not being ransomed by the king, which probably rankled him quite a lot.
He was released after he made an arrangement with Owain and his marriage to Owain's daughter Catherine was to help cement this pact. If all that is so, then John Mortimer, later called of Bishop's Hatfield (you say) cannot have been born prior to 1402.
Next we have Edmund, Owain and one other I've forgotten agreeing to a tripartite pact to divide all of England! Edmund was to have the south and east, Owain to have wales and a bit more, and the third guy would have the north. So I suppose he must have been a Northumberian baron of some kind.
At any rate, the King wasn't too happy about that, so among other things, he sent some other forces to attack Wales. It was during one of these attacks in 1408, that Catherine now Mortimer and "her SON and daughters" were all captured and taken to the Tower. Obviously John, if this is he referred to here only as "son" would have been an infant or child.
But it does neatly explain how he happens to be in the Tower as he was obviously captured here not while HE was in battle, but only as the spoils of battle. Probably kept to help ensure Edmund's good behaviour. Not sure it worked out that well!
At any rate, since the king kept Owain's son Gruffyd in prison for his entire life, I wouldn't put it past the slob to keep all of Edmund's children there for life as well.
Will
wjho...@aol.com
This source
http://books.google.com/books?id=aURnAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22edmund%20mortimer%22%20catrin&client=firefox-a&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q=&f=false
declares that John Mortimer, was not the *son* of Edmund
But was his... brother.
Now the chronology relaxes quite a lot and we can see why he might foment a rebellion in the 1420s.
Will
Merilyn Pedrick
offer except encouragement! It would be wonderful if it could be teased out
so that we can be sure that the Ox or Cow can be seen to be Sir John's
daughter. Then we will know that William Wrothe and his descendant James
Cudworth have that Mortimer descent.
So keep it going - I'm on tenterhooks.
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
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
.
Cherryexile
> Next we have Edmund, Owain and one other I've forgotten agreeing to a
> tripartite pact to divide all of England! Edmund was to have the south and
> east, Owain to have wales and a bit more, and the third guy would have the
> north. So I suppose he must have been a Northumberian baron of some kind.
>
> - Show quoted text
I think the "other one" is either,
Henry 'Hotspur' Percy, (1364-1403) who married Elizabeth Mortimer,
sister of Sir Edmund, and died fighting Henry IV at the Battle of
Shrewsbury or,
Henry's father, Henry Percy, (1342-1408), 1st Earl of Northumberland
Matt Tompkins
The DNB entry for Sir Edmund Mortimer (written by RR Davies, whose
knowledge of Wales and the Marches in this period was vast) says the
son who was imprisoned with his mother and sisters was called Lionel,
and was Mortimer's only son with Catherine Glendower.
The life and fate of the Sir John Mortimer who was executed for
treason in 1424 is the subject of the following essay:
E. Powell, ‘The strange death of Sir John Mortimer: politics and the
law of treason in Lancastrian England’, in "Rulers and ruled in late
medieval England", ed. R. E. Archer and S. Walker (1995), pp. 83–97.
His parentage is discussed briefly at p. 91, where it is concluded
that while he may well have been an illegitimate relative of the
Mortimer earls of March, the exact relationship between them remains a
matter of conjecture.
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
1-2), dated 7 August 1424, appears in the Calendar of IPMs, vol. 22
(1-5 Henry V). Unfortunately it provides no genealogical information,
except for a reference to his surviving widow Alice - which is odd, as
Powell's 'Strange death of Sir John Mortimer' essay says he married
Eleanor Russall, daughter of Sir Walter Russall in Shropshire (through
whom Mortimer had acquired the manor of Russall), and implies that she
was the wife who survived him.
According to the IPM the only lands Mortimer had at his death were a
small collection of sub-manorial tenancies, scattered across three
parishes in Hertfordshire (Hatfield, Bramfield and Diggswell) and
totalling just 300 acres, which he had vested in feoffees in June 1423
(one of whom was the bishop of Winchester) so there was no need to
identify an heir, though the jurors did report that his widow Alice
had taken the revenues since his forfeiture.
The 20 Edw IV IPM of a John Wrothe, who I think was the son of the
William whose wife may have been called 'Averia', is at C 140/74/28,
but that hasn't been calendared.
Matt Tompkins
Jwc...@aol.com
I
came across a pedigree saying that Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March and
Eleanor Holand were parents of sons Edmund , John and Hugh and that Hugh died
in 3 Henry VI as did John. and also of Anne (Mortimer) Plantagenet. the
source is called The Succession to the Crown of England during the
Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.
Stirnet indicates that Sir John Mortimer of Hatfield was the 2nd husband
of Alice Neville, daughter of John , 3rd Lord Neville of Raby and widow
(since 1381) of William, 3rd Lord Deincourt and that the marriage took place
in about 1409.
According to The Commons in the Parliament in 1422 pp 207-08 Sir William
Palton, Knight of the Shire for Somerset and married to Elizabeth (died
1413) , daughter and heir of Sir John Wrothe of Brampton Ralph, Somerset and
Enfield, Middlesex and a cousin of Sir John Tiptoft , Treasurer of England
in 1408-09)
On February 14, 1418 Palton with Richard Clitheroe Esq,{ a son-in-law of
Sir John Oldcastle}stood Surety for Sir John Mortimer, cousin of the Earl of
March who was a cause of much uneasiness for the Council, headed by John,
Duke of Bedford which was governing in Henry V`s name. In 1421 Sir John
Mortimer was arrested and sent to the Tower of London from which he escaped in
1422. He (Mortimer) was captured and convicted of treason in 1424 and
executed.
Sincerely.
David Drabold
Several bits of interesting information here, nice sleuthing.
Here is one small addition. William Laird Clowes and Sir Clements
Robert Markham in "The Royal Navy, History from earliest times to
present" (iii p 379) states that the vessels of the western ports were
ordered to proceed to sea under the command of Sir Thos. Carew, the
Sire de Chastillon and Sir John Mortimer, then to cruise from 1 Mar to
Nov 1 (1417) against the French and others.
Like Matt, I also come upon the recent scholarly article in a book:
Rulers and ruled in late medieval England: essays presented to Gerald
Harriss
By G. L. Harriss, Rowena E. Archer, Simon Walker. This has the most
detail I have seen on Mortimer, and helps on chronology. It mentions
that he was serving in France at the beginning of Henry IV's reign,
before he was a knight and was captured about 1401. There are many
other details here and a number of good references. There is also
explicit reference to his wife Eleanor.
Back to my day job....
Cheers, Dave
Matt Tompkins
> > Palton, Knight of the Shire for Somerset and married to Elizabeth (died
> > 1413) , daughter and heir of Sir John Wrothe of Brampton Ralph, Somerset and
> > Enfield, Middlesex and a cousin of Sir John Tiptoft , Treasurer of England
> > in 1408-09)
> > On February 14, 1418 Palton with Richard Clitheroe Esq, {a son-in-law of
> > Sir John Oldcastle} stood Surety for Sir John Mortimer, cousin of the Earl of
> > March who was a cause of much uneasiness for the Council, headed by John,
> > Duke of Bedford which was governing in Henry V`s name. In 1421 Sir John
> > Mortimer was arrested and sent to the Tower of London from which he escaped in
> > 1422. He (Mortimer) was captured and convicted of treason in 1424 and
> > executed.
This seems to be the only sure connection between William Wrothe and
Sir John Mortimer of Hatfield, but it's a tenuous one. There were of
course other John Mortimers living at this time who could also have
been the father of William Wrothe's wife. For a start there is John
Mortimer of Grendon in Northants and Stoke Goldington in Bucks,
(married before 1407, died in 1446) and his son of the same name
(living 1446), while the lists of gentlemen who took the oath not to
maintain lawbreakers in 1434 included a John Mortimer in Berkshire and
a John Mortimer of Bromyard in Herefordshire (CPR Hen VI vol. 2,
1429-36, pp. 377, 403). There were no doubt others.
The Grendon John Mortimer doesn't seem a terribly good bet. The
article on him in the History of Parliament: House of Commons,
1386-1421 (iii, 788) mentions only daughters called Eleanor and Joan
who married William and John Haldenby, and VCH Bucks, iv, p. 468, says
the younger John Mortimer's daughter and heir was an Agnes who married
Baldwin Willoughby.
Collinson's Somerset also says the arms of William Wrothe's father-in-
law, John Mortimer, esq., were 6 fleur-de-lis. If that is reliable
then John Mortimer of Grendon is definitely eliminated, since his arms
were 'Argent, two bars and a chief gules with three sexfoils argent in
the chief' (per VCH Bucks - these arms were later quartered by Sir
Christopher Hatton of Holdenby in right of his descent from the Joan
Mortimer who married William Haldenby, and I think can still be seen
in the achievement displayed on the two arches in the grounds of
Holdenby House).
The fleur-de-lis coat of arms probably also eliminates the Bromyard
John Mortimer, on the supposition that he was a member of the Marcher
Mortimer family (who used the well-known blue and gold 'Dead Sea'
arms). If Sir John Mortimer of Hatfield were indeed a member of the
Marcher family then he too would probably be eliminated for the same
reason.
There was, however, a Mortimer family who definitely used the fleur-de-
lis arms. This was the East Anglian Mortimers of Attleborough in
Norfolk and Kingston in Cambridgeshire, whose coat was 'or, fleury
sable'. Fleury means scattered with fleur-de-lis, but was little
different from a coat depicting precisely 6 fleur-de-lis, and indeed
the family's arms were occasionally recorded as just that (see their
entry in Complete Peerage, and also Burke's General Armoury and
Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry - the ultimate source is the Dunstable
Roll and another 14C roll which I forget). If Collinson is right then
this would seem to be the place to look for William Wrothe's father-in-
law.
Matt Tompkins
David Drabold
Very nice work.
I would mention that Collinson directly links the Earls of March (not
Sir John specifically) and Wm. Wrothe, since the latter was a
"substitutionary forester" appointed for a part of Somerset by the
Earl of March, close kinsman of Sir John. Not a direct link, but
definitely an indication of connection between the families. The point
about the Mortimers of East Anglia looks very interesting.
Dave
wjho...@aol.com
That's pretty direct evidence that John must either be Edmund's younger brother, or else Edmund's uncle, I would say. At least it shows evidence that John could not likely be illegitimate, as then he would not be next heir, and certainly have no claim to the throne, and to call himself that would be rather too shocking and bold, when the alternative seems much more likely.
Will
wjho...@aol.com
Here is one of the citations laid bare. The CCR one
http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&id=1TEMAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22Manor+of+Russall%22&q=Russall#search_anchor
We can see that in the entry he is already a knight and at that time married to Eleanor.
That's not to say that he didn't also later marry Alice
Will
Dear Group,
Cheers, Dave
wjho...@aol.com
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h5v2/body/Henry5vol2page0074.pdf
Will
Matt Tompkins
Will, have you read the rest of the article? Sir John Mortimer's
claim that he was next heir of the earl of March comes from a
statement by a prosecution witness in a political show trial, an agent
provocateur whose job was to create grounds for Mortimer's
execution.
And even if Mortimer did actually say that - which must be uncertain -
it need not have been true, and certainly does not exclude an
illegitimate relationship. In the previous sentence the gaoler
reports Mortimer as saying 'the earl of March should be king, if he
had right and truth, and he should be his heir.' This is sounds very
much like a bastard bemoaning his exclusion from the line of
inheritance (think Edmund in King Lear - "Why bastard? Wherefore
base?").
Matt Tompkins
wjho...@aol.com
I don't read it with that tone Matt. To me it sounds like he is saying that he is the next heir after Edmund. Note that in the discussion in the article it does actually state that he says this, and then later it states it a slightly different way (as you did). So evidently the author also read it the same way. That John was stating that he is the next heir. Not complaining that he isn't. I did read the whole thing, and I do see that the author opines that John may be illegitimate. But then he states "because Edmund had no legitimate relations named John" which is quite hyperbolic. I doubt anyone knows this for a certainty and the author gives no sources for that statement, so we should take that with a grain of salt.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 12:21 am
Subject: Re: William Wrothe
Matt Tompkins
David Drabold
Whilst rooting for John Mortimer facts, it appears that Sir John
Mortimer (executed 1424) was buried in Old Christ Church Newgate. See
attached link from London: its celebrated characters and remarkable
places, Volume 3
By John Heneage Jesse
Cheers, Dave
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com
Jwc...@aol.com
I did a little
reading up of the family of Mortimer of Attleborough and unless Thomas
Mortimer (d 1387) married Mary Park (d 1406) , son of the last lord Sir Robert
Mortimer and his wife Margery Peake , grandson of Sir Constantine Mortimer
and Sibyl, daughter of Richard de Braose and so a descendant of Llewelyn
Fawr , Prince of Wales. Anyway Thomas and Mary had ? three daughters
co-heir Margery , Cecily and Sibyl who were in possession by 1402. Margery was
married to Philip Braunch and John FitzRalph, Cecily was married to John
Herling and if Sibyl were also called Elizabeth she married John Manning.
Mary Park was mother by a second husband Sir John Fastolf of Sir John
Fastolf. John was perhaps a younger son of Sir Robert Mortimer and Margery Peake.
At any rate a Constantine Mortimer, Esq is noted in the area in 1443.
Sincerely,
David Drabold
Thank you James for another nice lead.
Here is a direct transcription of Collinson (complete with quaint
"integral sign" s's, coming across as f's):
This William (Wroth) died in Somerfetfhire 28 Henry VI. and was
buried on the north fide of the chancel of die parifh church.of
Bridgwater, where was a ftone, with an infcription in brafs, fetting
forth the time of his death, and that he married a daughter of John
Mortimer, efq; whofe arrhs were fix fleurS-de-lis. This rnonument was
in being in 1631, but is now entirely defaced.
Matt makes an important observation that James is following up on --
the arms appear to be those of the East Anglian Mortimers. Also, as
Matt and I have discussed, beside the issue of the arms, its hard to
reconcile Sir John with the John Mortimer of the brass. Collinson
quite clearly calls him "Esquire". Its hard to imagine that Wrothe's
tomb would not trumpet his father in law being a knight. So all things
considered, its leaning heavily away from Sir John, executed in 1424.
Best wishes, Dave Drabold
Monica Kanellis
people could believe him to have said. It would be pointless to ascribe
comments to him that made no sense.
mk
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
Douglas Richardson
I've copied below is an abstract of petition dated 1423 submitted by
Sir John Mortimer to Parliament relative to his charges for treason.
Earlier reference has been made to the published record of Sir John
Mortimer's trial in 1424 which is found in Cobbett’s Complete
Collection of State Trials, 1 (1809): 267–268. Cobbett may be viewed
at the following weblink:
If Sir John Mortimer's alleged statements about being "next heir" to
his cousin, Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, are true, he would
necessarily have been a legitimate son of Edmund Mortimer, born 1376,
younger son of Edmund de Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March, by his wife,
Philippe of Clarence.
Illegitimate issue could not inherit by the laws of England in this
time period.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + +
SC 8/336/15882
[Reference: http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp].
Record Summary
Scope and content
Petitioners: John Mortimer, knight.
Addressees: Commons in Parliament.
Other people mentioned: [Humphrey], Duke of Gloucester; Henry V, King
of England; William Hankeford (Hankford), justice of the King's Bench.
Nature of request: [Left-hand side missing] Mortimer requests that the
commons intercede on his behalf with the duke of Gloucester and lords
of Parliament concerning the accusation of treason made against him.
Endorsement: [None].
Covering dates [1423]
Availability Open Document, Open Description, Normal Closure before
FOI Act: 30 years
Note Dated to the October 1423 Parliament in PROME (October 1423, no.
18). The petitioner was condemned to death for treason by authority of
Parliament on 26 February 1424.
Douglas Richardson
For what it is worth, I've copied below a post made earlier this year
by "Brian" on an internet blog "The Yorkist Age," which post concerns
the parentage of Sir John Mortimer. Brian's post is followed by one
by "Tony," followed by a response by "Brian."
As I stated in my earlier post, Sir John Mortimer can't have been
illegitimate if he was "next heir" to Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of
March. We can be certain of this as bastards were not able to inherit
anything by descent by the laws of England then in force.
Thus, the term "next heir" indicates that Sir John Mortimer was
claiming to be a legitimate male kinsman of Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl
of March. Sir John Mortimer also allegedly claimed to be next in line
to the throne after Edmund Mortimer, which can only mean he was
claiming to be a lineal descendant of Philippe of Clarence, wife of
Edmund de Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The Yorkist Age
[Reference: http://yorkistage.blogspot.com/2009/02/note-about-sir-john-mortimer.html]
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
A note about Sir John Mortimer
Who was Sir John Mortimer?
Frankly, I have no idea! I've seen a family tree (In Felbrigg Hall,
Norfolk, of all places) that made him the legitimate brother of Roger,
4th Earl of March and Sir Edmund Mortimer. However, I can find no
other trace of him as such. He does not figure in the index of Wylie's
History of England Under Henry IV, and if you're anyone at all in
Henry's reign (and often if you're no one) you show up there.
Could he possibly have been an illegitimate son of the 3rd or 4th
earl? Yes. Could he possibly have been a son of Sir Edmund Mortimer?
Maybe, but almost certainly not by Catrin ferch Owain. Might he have
been a collateral kinsman - for example a son of that Sir Thomas
Mortimer who is a known illegitimate uncle of the 4th earl? Could
be...
All we can say for certain is that the bloke was accused of treason in
1421 and executed (on the basis of an Act of Attainder - no trial) in
1424. And he was a 'kinsman' of the Earl of March.
If anyone knows more, please tell me.
Posted by Brian at 14:20
Labels: Sir John Mortimer
2 comments:
Tony said...
Brian,
Just following threads on John Cade and wondering if this could be
his father.
There seem to be many co-incidences that have lead me here and
might explain how John Cade had such a large following and the support
of the Duke of York.
It may also explain why there was such little information about
him and his 'father' as History tends to wipe out unpopuar characters.
Talking of unpopular characters John Cade (Mortimer) had married a
Lady of good position and led a rebellion that defeated the Kings Army
which isn't bad for someone described as a murderer and Irishman.
Probably two extreame insults for the times.
Just think it may be a useful link.
Duke of Clarence?
Regards Tony
12 October 2009 09:07
Brian said...
It's certainly a possibility, Tony.
I would be a lot happier if I could figure out who exactly Sir
John Mortimer himself was, and why he was such a threat. The Mortimers
did have various illegitimate lines (qv Thomas Mortimer in the reign
of Richard II) and it may be that Cade came from one.
Cade may well have received tacit support from York or his circle.
One of the features of York's career was that various associated
people (William Oldhall for one) 'put themselves forward'. It's hard
to discern whether they were always acting with York's express
approval, and this fog may well have been deliberate. Alternatively
they may have been working independently of 'the boss' and playing the
part of the tail that wags the dog.
12 October 2009 13:49
Douglas Richardson
The following is a weblink to a petition dated 1421 written by
Eleanor, wife of Sir John Mortimer, to John, Duke of Bedford and the
king’s council regarding the imprisonment of her husband:
Source: Nicolas, Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of
England, 2 (1834): 311–312.
Douglas Richardson
You're correct to question the name of Sir John Mortimer's wife in his
IPM as being Alice.
Sir John Mortimer's only known wife and subsequently his widow was
Eleanor Rossall, daughter and co-heiress of Walter Rossall, of
Rossall, Shropshire. She was born about 1377, and died 28 Dec.
1432. At the time that Sir John Mortimer married Eleanor Rossall c.
1409, she was then the widow of Sir Nicholas Dagworth (died 1402), of
Blickling, Norfolk. Sir Nicholas Dagworth was a a favorite of King
Richard II and a prominent knight of the king's chamber. Sir John
Mortimer and Eleanor Rossall had no issue. At her death in 1432,
Eleanor's heir was her sister, Alice Rossall's son, John Englefield,
then aged 30 and more.
For more detailed information on the life of Eleanor (Rossall)
(Dagworth) Mortimer, see Complete Peerage, 4 (1916): 29-31 (sub
Dagworth) and Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 2 (1992): 733–734
(biog. of Sir Nicholas Dagworth).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 5, 5:11 am, Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
< Sir John Mortimer's Inquisition post Mortem (PRO ref. C 139/9/14,
mm.
< 1-2), dated 7 August 1424, appears in the Calendar of IPMs, vol. 22
< (1-5 Henry V). Unfortunately it provides no genealogical
information,
< except for a reference to his surviving widow Alice - which is odd,
as
< Powell's 'Strange death of Sir John Mortimer' essay says he married
< Eleanor Russall, daughter of Sir Walter Russall in Shropshire
(through
< whom Mortimer had acquired the manor of Russall), and implies that
she
< was the wife who survived him.
<
< According to the IPM the only lands Mortimer had at his death were a
< small collection of sub-manorial tenancies, scattered across three
< parishes in Hertfordshire (Hatfield, Bramfield and Diggswell) and
< totalling just 300 acres, which he had vested in feoffees in June
1423
< (one of whom was the bishop of Winchester) so there was no need to
< identify an heir, though the jurors did report that his widow Alice
< had taken the revenues since his forfeiture.
<
< Matt Tompkins
Douglas Richardson
With regard to Sir John Mortimer's alleged statements regarding his
kinship to Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March which were repeated at
his trial in 1424 [see Cobbett’s Complete Coll. of State Trials 1
(1809): 267–268], Sir John may well have been Earl Edmund's next heir
male in 1424, but he was neither son or grandson of Philippe of
Clarence, wife of Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March. As such, he
would have had no claim whatsoever to the throne as alleged at his
trial.
Even so, apparently on the basis of the second hand gossip given at
his trial in 1424, the historian Sandford placed Sir John Mortimer as
the uncle of the Earl of March. But he certainly was not that. The
lengthy and detailed will of an earlier Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of
March, dated 1380 conclusively proves he had but two sons, Roger and
Edmund, and no son John [see Nichols, Collection of All the Wills
(1780): 104–117]. As such, Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl, had no uncle
named John Mortimer as claimed by Sandford.
Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl, did, however, have two brothers, Roger and
Thomas, Knt., and it may be that Sir John Mortimer of Hatfield
(executed 1424) descends from one of them. But even that is difficult
with respect to Sir Thomas Mortimer (brother of Edmund, 3rd Earl), as
Thomas' only known marriage to Agnes Poynings, widow of William
Bardolf, 4th Lord Bardfolf, took place shortly after 10 April 1386.
Thomas and Agnes are not known to have had children. On the other
hand, Sir John Mortimer was apparently born about 1375, as he first
occurs in the records c.1401. And, it appears that Sir John
Mortimer's only known wife, Eleanor Rossall, was born c.1377. While
it is still possible that Sir John Mortimer was a nephew of Edmund
Mortimer, 3rd Earl, it is unlikely he was a son of Sir Thomas
Mortimer's only known marriage to Agnes Poynings. The possibility
remains that Sir John Mortimer was the son of Sir Thomas Mortimer by a
marriage earlier than that to Agnes Poynings, or that he was the son
of Earl Edmund and Sir Thomas Mortimer's remaining brother, Roger
Mortimer, about whom little is known.
The facts of this case once again underscore the extreme difficulty is
giving credence to salacious second hand gossip to support wild
allegations such as King Henry VIII's alleged bastard children by Mary
Boleyn, even when that gossip is repeated at a state trial with many
prominent witnesses being present.
Douglas Richardson
< SirJohn, given his grand scheme was almost certainly a son of Sir
EdmundMortimer(died 1411) and Catrin ferch Owain Glyndwr whom he
married in
< 1402 and with whom he had at least four children. SirEdmundwas the
younger
James ~
Sir John Mortimer of Hatfield first occurs in the records as an adult
c.1401. As such, the chronology dictates that he can't have been the
son of Sir Edmund Mortimer (born 1376) and his wife, Katherine, who
were married about 30 Nov. 1402.
Nor was Sir John Mortimer the brother of Sir Edmund Mortimer. Sir
John Mortimer might, however, have been a first cousin of Sir Edmund
Mortimer. If so, that might position him as the next male heir in
1424 to Sir Edmund Mortimer's nephew, Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of
March, as all of the 5th Earl's near male relatives had already
predeceased him in 1424.
Matt Tompkins
> Dear Matt
> You're correct to question the name of Sir John Mortimer's wife in his
> IPM as being Alice.
>
> Sir John Mortimer's only known wife and subsequently his widow was
> Eleanor Rossall, daughter and co-heiress of Walter Rossall, of
> Rossall, Shropshire. She was born about 1377, and died 28 Dec.
> 1432. At the time that Sir John Mortimer married Eleanor Rossall c.
> 1409, she was then the widow of Sir Nicholas Dagworth (died 1402), of
> Blickling, Norfolk. Sir Nicholas Dagworth was a a favorite of King
> Richard II and a prominent knight of the king's chamber. Sir John
> Mortimer and Eleanor Rossall had no issue. At her death in 1432,
> Eleanor's heir was her sister, Alice Rossall's son, John Englefield,
> then aged 30 and more.
>
> For more detailed information on the life of Eleanor (Rossall)
> (Dagworth) Mortimer, see Complete Peerage, 4 (1916): 29-31 (sub
> Dagworth) and Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 2 (1992): 733–734
> (biog. of Sir Nicholas Dagworth).
Ah! Well done, Douglas - a good bit of sleuthing. I wonder what
caused Stirnet to think Sir John Mortimer's marriage in 1409 was to
"Alice Neville, daughter of John, 3rd Lord Neville of Raby and widow
(since 1381) of William, 3rd Lord Deincourt." Was she perhaps the
husband of a different Sir John Mortimer, knt? There was a Sir John
Mortimer of Martley and Kyre Wyrard in Worcestershire who died on 28
Oct 1415 (his IPM is in Birmingham City Archives - he left a son and
heir, also called John, aged 5 and over - and he is mentioned in the
VCH Worcs chapter on Kyre Wyrard, iv, 289-97) - could he have been her
husband?
The tiny landholdings of the Sir John Mortimer who was executed in
1424 - smaller even than a single manor - is surely an argument
against his having been a legitimate or close relation of the earls of
March, and a pointer towards his having been a bastard, or at best the
younger son of a younger son. It's interesting, too, that his first
and only wife was a widow - by coincidence, I have just been reading
Christine Carpenter's comments in 'Locality and Polity: a Study of
Warwickshire Landed Society, 1401-1499', p. 102, that heiresses tended
to be married to heirs, or if to younger sons then to scions of
prominent families, and that men with little land or unimpressive
connections often had to make do with widows (whose landed wealth was
only a temporary benefit).
Matt
wjho...@aol.com
Also I would like to know the source that claims that Alianore (his wife) was born exactly in 1377 (or nearly).
Thanks
Will Johnson
wjho...@aol.com
Why Bridgwater? What claim or right did he have to get himself buried there?
-----Original Message-----
From: David Drabold <ddra...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 6:29 am
Subject: Re: William Wrothe
Dear List,
Best wishes, Dave Drabold
Matt Tompkins
>> Sir John Mortimer of Hatfield first occurs in the records as an adult
>> c.1401. As such, the chronology dictates that he can't have been the
>> son of Sir Edmund Mortimer (born 1376) and his wife, Katherine, who
>> were married about 30 Nov. 1402.
On 9 Nov, 23:48, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I do not believe that we can state that John's appearance in 1401 was
> "as an adult". We know only, as far as I know, that he was captured
> while traveling in or near Guienne or on his way back to Guienne and
> held for ransom. At the time he was described by H5 as "my esquire",
> but that does not mean that he was necessarily an adult.
Are you perhaps imagining that 'esquire' meant a teenaged knight's
servant or apprentice knight? By 1401 that meaning of the word was
long obsolete. By the end of the 14th century esquire had acquired a
quite different meaning, or rather two meanings. Depending on context
it could describe either a military status, that of a man-at-arms, a
fighting man equipped with horse and armour, or a social status, a
superior gentry class sandwiched between the titled nobility and the
mere gentlemen. I do not think either status is likely to have been
accorded to someone younger than their late teens at the earliest. It
is true that some men are known to have been first armed in their
early teens (as young as 14 or even 12), and no doubt the early deaths
of fathers of esquire status caused some early teenagers to inherit
sufficient wealth to qualify as esquires, but I am doubtful whether in
either case they would actually have been described as esquires until
they had come to some maturity.
Can anyone provide some examples of men described as esquire
(armigerus, esquier) while still provably in their teens? (Only from
the late 14th or early 15th century, please - these terms changed
their meaning over time and examples from earlier or later will not be
relevant.)
Incidentally, Henry V's reference to John Mortimer as 'my esquire'
dates from 1406, not 1401. From the context it seems clear that it
meant a man-at-arms rather than the social status. Whether he would
have been described as an esquire back in 1401 is uncertain, though
the fact that he was captured while travelling back from Guienne does
suggest that he was already of fighting age.
But whether he was an adult or teenager in 1401-6, he is very unlikely
to have been the son of a man born in 1376, and certainly not by a
marriage only contracted in 1402.
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
>> This William (Wroth) died in Somerfetfhire 28 Henry VI. and was
>> buried on the north fide of the chancel of die parifh church.of
>> Bridgwater, where was a ftone, with an infcription in brafs, fetting
>> forth the time of his death, and that he married a daughter of John
>> Mortimer, efq; whofe arrhs were fix fleurS-de-lis. This rnonument was
>> in being in 1631, but is now entirely defaced.
On 10 Nov, 00:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Why Bridgwater? What claim or right did he have to get himself buried there?
Bridgwater is the next parish to North Petherton, where the Wrothe
family had their principle holdings and usual residence. It was an
important regional centre and focus for the surrounding countryside,
and Wrothe would have spent much of his time there. A guild and
several fraternities were established in its parish church - such
institutions often attracted members from the surrounding hinterland,
and Wrothe may have been one.
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
> This seems to be the only sure connection between William Wrothe and
> Sir John Mortimer of Hatfield, but it's a tenuous one. There were of
> course other John Mortimers living at this time who could also have
> been the father of William Wrothe's wife. For a start there is John
> Mortimer of Grendon in Northants and Stoke Goldington in Bucks,
> (married before 1407, died in 1446) and his son of the same name
> (living 1446), while the lists of gentlemen who took the oath not to
> maintain lawbreakers in 1434 included a John Mortimer in Berkshire and
> a John Mortimer of Bromyard in Herefordshire (CPR Hen VI vol. 2,
> 1429-36, pp. 377, 403). There were no doubt others.
A look at the early 15th-century returns of holders of knights fees in
Feudal Aids produces the following John Mortimers:
John Mortimer of Grendon, Northants, 1412 (vi, p. 495)
John Mortymer, knight, in 1428 recently deceased and succeeded by his
son Hugh, holding 3 fees in Herefs (ii, 409, 414, 420)
John Mortymer, in 1428 one of the jurors for Wantage Hundred,
Berkshire (i, 60)
John de Mortuo Mari, former holder of lands and tenements making half
a fee in Cambridge, 1428 (i, 192).
An A2A search reveals several references to the Wantage juror between
1415 and 1447, from which it appears he was probably resident in
Wantage itself. He witnessed 6 deeds relating to property in the
town, was juror in the IPM of a Wantage man and was a town feoffee in
1446. This must be the Berkshire man who swore the oath not to
maintain lawbreakers in 1434.
The Cambridge reference is interesting, as this is very close to the
landholdings of one branch of the East Anglian Mortimers who used the
fleurs-de-lis coat of arms. The question is, how recently had John
Mortimer held that 1/2 fee in Cambridge - was he living recently
enough to have been the father-in-law of William Wrothe? The archives
of Gonville and Caius College might provide the answer - I think this
1/2 fee must be the landholding in Newnham (a suburb of Cambridge on
the west bank of the river), later called Mortimers' Lands or
Mortimer's Manor, which the college acquired at the end of the 15th
century.
An A2A search for early 15th-century John Mort*mers also reveals:
John Mortimer, the chaplain of the Guild of Holy Cross, Stratford on
Avon, c1406-1430, and a single reference from c1406 to a John Mortimer
of Millecote, member of the Guild (perhaps the chaplain's father?).
John Mortimer, knight, in 1413 the former holder of a tenement in
Brent Eleigh, Suffolk
John Mortimer, in 1431 one of Sir John Cheyne's feoffees of the manors
of Quainton and Great Missenden, Bucks.
John Mortimer, knight, of Martley and Kyre Wyrard, his 1416 IPM.
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
> Can anyone provide examples of men described as esquire
> (armigerus, esquier) while still provably in their teens? ... ...
>
> Incidentally, Henry V's reference to John Mortimer as 'my esquire'
That should have been armiger, not armigerus, and Henry IV, not V
(must read own posts before clicking Send).
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
> A look at the early 15th-century returns of holders of knights fees in
> John de Mortuo Mari, former holder of lands and tenements making half
> a fee in Cambridge, 1428 (i, 192).
>
> landholdings of one branch of the East Anglian Mortimers who used the
> fleurs-de-lis coat of arms. The question is, how recently had John
> Mortimer held that 1/2 fee in Cambridge - was he living recently
> enough to have been the father-in-law of William Wrothe? The archives
> of Gonville and Caius College might provide the answer - I think this
> 1/2 fee must be the landholding in Newnham (a suburb of Cambridge on
> the west bank of the river), later called Mortimers' Lands or
> Mortimer's Manor, which the college acquired at the end of the 15th
> century.
It turns out the 1428 Feudal Aid which said that a half knight's fee
in Cambridge, then held by a John Ratclyffe, had been formerly held by
a John Mortimer was almost certainly confused as to the former
holders' first name. He was in fact either Robert Mortimer or his son
Thomas Mortimer, both of Attleborough. After their deaths (Thomas
predeceased his father, who died 1387) most of their lands, including
the manor of Newnham, passed to Thomas' daughter's husband, John
Radcliffe - House of Commons 1386-1421, iv, 155-9, and CP, ix, 250.
So that eliminates that possible father-in-law of William Wrothe.
Matt Tompkins
wjhonson
>
> It turns out the 1428 Feudal Aid which said that a half knight's fee
> in Cambridge, then held by a John Ratclyffe, had been formerly held by
> a John Mortimer was almost certainly confused as to the former
> holders' first name. He was in fact either Robert Mortimer or his son
> Thomas Mortimer, both of Attleborough. After their deaths (Thomas
> predeceased his father, who died 1387) most of their lands, including
> the manor of Newnham, passed to Thomas' daughter's husband, John
> Radcliffe - House of Commons 1386-1421, iv, 155-9, and CP, ix, 250.
>
> So that eliminates that possible father-in-law of William Wrothe.
>
> Matt Tompkins
Would this Robert father of Thomas Mortimer, be the same person as
Robert Mortimer, son and heir of Constantine Mortimer of
Attleborough? Is that right?
Will