La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection ?
The...@aol.com
Hello All,
While innocently researching other lines, I noted two websites
which allege a connection between the family of La Zouche and the
Constables of Flamborough, co. Yorks. The property in question is
Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. (or rather a moiety thereof). Details from
the websites in question are given below [1].
Prior to discounting the connection indicated, I noted that the
Constable generation in question shows one Marmaduke Constable who d.
1 June 1378. The pedigree from Burke (Commoners) is problematic (how
unusual), but other than giving this Marmaduke a son married to a
'Joan FitzHugh' the 14th/15th century generations appear reasonable.
The chronology works with this Marmaduke Constable and his wife being
born say 1320/30, with their son Robert being born say 1353, and
married 1381 (to Margaret Skipwith) [2].
There is support found in PRO records for the inheritance of
Lubbesthorpe (or a moiety thereof) by the Constable family, to-wit:
' FILE ref. 26D53/422 - date: Jan. 1399/1400
Leics., Lubbesthorpe.
Receipt of Sir Robert Conestable to Sir Hugh de Sherlay
by hands of Thos. Dodeman for 8 marks, for the farm of the
manor of Lubbesthorpe for Easter and Michaelmas 1399.' [3]
Contributions from Pat Junkin and others give additional fuel to
this fire. In particular, the following information is to be found in
the SGM archives:
1. Grant, of 1302:
C 143/40/6
'Roger la Zouch to grant a messuage, brushwood, land,
and rent in Lubbesthorpe to a chaplain of the chapel of
St. Peter there, retaining land. Leic.
30 EDWARD I. [1302]' [4]
2. Evidently from the IPM of Roger la Zouche, d. 1304:
"In 1304 Roger la Zouch deceased held the manor of
Lubbesthorpe of William la Zouch by the service of the third
part of a knight零 fee; Roger la Zouch, son and heir of the
aforesaid Roger was then aged 11 ...." [5]
3. Grants of land in Lubbesthorpe and elsewhere, 1349/50:
C 143/292/5
'William la Zouche, late dean of the church of St. Peter,
York, and Roger la Zouche, knight, to grant rent in North
Witham and Gunby to a chaplain in the parish church of
Clipsham. Lincoln. The same to grant messuages and land in
Lubbesthorpe to certain chaplains in the chapel of St.
Mary there, the said Roger retaining land and rent in
Lubbesthorpe.
Leic. 23 EDWARD III ' [6]
The lineage, as outlined in the website noted below (excluding the
erroneous first generation) would appear to be:
Eudes la Zouche = Millicent de Cantelou
______________I
I
Roger la Zouche, younger son, b. say 1277/78 (?),
of Lubbesthorpe, Leics.; d. 1304
______________I
I
Roger la Zouche, b. say 1293; d. aft 1349/50
= 1) Matilda = 2) Felicia
____I______________________________________ I
I I I I
William Juliana Margaret Joan/Johanna
(dsp) coheiress coheiress coheiress
= Marmaduke
Constable
d. 1 June 1378
I
I
Robert Constable
of Flamborough, Yorks. &
Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics.
d bef 8 Jan 1400/01
Should anyone have further documentation as to the validity of
this line (and the connection to La Zouche of Harringworth), I (and
other Constable descendants) would appreciate hearing of it.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] http://freespace.virgin.net/owston.tj/zouche.htm
ZOUCHE FAMILY
OF LUBESTHORPE, IN LEICESTERSHIRE
1. William la Zouche, alive 5 Apr 30 Edward 1, married and had issue:-
2. Sir Roger la Zouche, died 1303.
2. Sir Roger la Zouche, died 1303.of Lubesthorpe, in Leicester (given
by Milicent de
Monealto wife of Eudes la Zouche and sister and heiress of George de
Cantilupe),
married and had issue:
3.1 John la Zouche
3.2 Ralph la Zouche, Outlawed 14 Mar 1326 over the death of Roger
Beller.
3.3 Roger la Zouche, died 1326.
3.3 Roger la Zouche, born about 1292 and died after 1326. Knighted
by Edward III. Outlawed for murder of Roger Beller on the 14
April 1326. He married firstly Matilda, and secondly Foelicia
and had issue from both:-
Issue by Matilda:-
4.1 Juliana la Zouche, married to John St Andrews, whose
family inherited one third of the Manor of Lubesthorpe.
4.2 Margaret la Zouche, married to William Bredon.
4.3 William la Zouche, alive 22 Edward III and 37 Edward III.
Issue by Foelicia:-
4.4 Johanna la Zouche, married to Marmaduke Constable of
Flamborough in Yorkshire as his first wife. He was executor
of the Will of William la Zouche Archbishop of York. They
definately had issue as Robert Constable who died in 1441
was found to be in possession of one third of the Manor
of Lubesthorpe.
Notes:
1. J. Nichols in history of Leicester covers this family.
2. There is no definate evidence of how this family relate to the
main family of Zouche in Leicestershire. It is always thought
that Archbishop Zouche belonged to the main family and he
chose Marmaduke Constable to be his executor.
3. Robert Constable who died in 1441 was the father of Sir
Robert Constable who married Agnes Wentworth, a descendant
through her mother of the main Zouche family.
see also site, http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/ZOUCHE.htm
[2] See SGM threads, <Constable Connections!> and others from prior
years. See relevant 'Lubbesthorpe' threads cited below.
[3] Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Record Office: Records
of the Shirley family, Earls Ferrers. of Stauton Harold,
Leicestershire. Records of the Shirley family, Earls Ferrers
of Staunton Harold, Leicestershire. Catalogue Ref. 26D53:
MAIN FERRERS ESTATES.
Leicestershire - various parishes, including Barrow-on-soar, Breedon, Cold
Newton, Lubbesthorpe, Misterton and others.
MAIN FERRERS ESTATES.
Leicestershire - various parishes, including Barrow-on-soar,
Breedon, Cold Newton, Lubbesthorpe, Misterton and others.
FILE ref. 26D53/422
[4] Patricia Junkin, <Re: Eudo la Zouche>, SGM, 4 March 2002.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
* John P. Ravilious
Todd A. Farmerie
> The lineage, as outlined in the website noted below (excluding the
> erroneous first generation) would appear to be:
>
> Eudes la Zouche = Millicent de Cantelou
> ______________I
> I
> Roger la Zouche, younger son, b. say 1277/78 (?),
> of Lubbesthorpe, Leics.; d. 1304
You shouldn't be so fast in discounting the 'erroneous' first
generation. Sheppard wrote an article on Zouche of Lubbesthorpe
that appeared in TAG 49:1-12. He reports two things that support
the alternative, and a possible explanantion for the conclusion.
Apparently Nichols reports that Millicent granted Lubbesthorpe
to Roger in 52 Henry III (1268/9). Since William de la Zouche,
eldest son and heir of Eudes and Millicent, was born in 1276,
Roger cannot be son of Eudes and Millicent. Unfortunately, the
source Nichols used for this date (repeated in VCH Leics) is not
identified, so it may be prudent to discount it. However, there
is a second record that also argues against the connection.
Sheppard cites the Cal Patent Rolls (Edw I, 1301-7, p. 27) for a
document in which on 5 Apr. 1302, Roger la Zouche of L was
granted license for a daily mass for his soul, and that of
"William la Zouche, his father, and Eudo la Zouche and Millicent
his wife, and all the faithful departed." (Sheppard's words)
This is harder to discount or spin in such a way as to make Roger
son of Eudes.
What, then, was the connection with Eudes and Millicent? In
Feudal Aids, in 1284-6, an Eleanor de Zuche was holding Bingley,
Yorks, of Millicent de Montault [wife of Eudes], her mother. She
would be too young to be daughter by Eudes, so Sheppard suggests
that Millicent married her daughter, by her first husband
(Montault), to Roger la Zouche, a kinsman of her second husband,
and granted Lubbesthorpe to him as son-in-law. (It seems unclear
to me, based on the eventual fate of Bingley and the Montault
inheritance, that Roger's children were from this marriage.)
Who, then, was William father of Roger? Sheppard offers several
lines of speculation, with the possibilities basically being that
Roger was younger son of William la Zouche of Black Torrington,
(nephew of Eudes, son of his eldest brother Alan) whose heir was
born in 1267 (impossible if Nichols' early date is right); that
Roger was an illegitimate son of either William, brother of Eudes
(this William's heir was a sole daughter, Joyce) or of William of
Great Torrington; that William, father of Roger was illegitimate
son of one of the three la Zouche brothers; or that William
belonged to some more distant branch of the la Zouche clan.
> ______________I
> I
> Roger la Zouche, b. say 1293; d. aft 1349/50
> = 1) Matilda = 2) Felicia
> ____I______________________________________ I
> I I I I
> William Juliana Margaret Joan/Johanna
> (dsp) coheiress coheiress coheiress
> = Marmaduke
> Constable
> d. 1 June 1378
> I
> I
> Robert Constable
> of Flamborough, Yorks. &
> Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics.
> d bef 8 Jan 1400/01
>
>
> Should anyone have further documentation as to the validity of
> this line (and the connection to La Zouche of Harringworth), I (and
> other Constable descendants) would appreciate hearing of it.
Sheppard cites a document in which Thomas Ashby had custody of a
third of the manor of Lubbesthorpe during the minority of Robert,
son of Marmaduke Constable, which manor was held by Marmaduke
(son of Robert, son of Marmaduke and Joan), Robert de St. Andrew
(heir of Juliana and Sir John de St. Andrew) and Thomas Ashby
(heir of Margaret, whose daughter and heiress Elizabeth Burdet
married Richard Ashby of Loseby). He cites for this Clay's Early
Bedfordshire Charters 12:150f.
taf
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
>
> Who, then, was William father of Roger? Sheppard offers several
I suggest that a review of Moon’s “Knights of Edward I” might provide
some direction to sources for clarifying this. He indicates that the
descent is as follows:
Eudo = Millicent,
William = Matilda
Roger
And About Roger Moon states, “Dead 28 Aug 1303 (F.R) holding Lobesthorp
Manor as ½ Kt. Fee, the gift of Milicent de Montealto in 52 Hen. III,
and leaving s. h. Roger, 11 (Inq.)
Hope this helps.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Todd wrote
Patricia Junkin
appears to be two; one b. ca. 1210. Are we getting them confused? Or had
Eudobeen married before? I do not think that Eudo m. Milicent until 1273. I
tend to believe that Roger was a son of Eudo and Milicent.
1253 William de Cantilupe was granted manor of Lobesthorp and Barby in
Northants.
E 40/106
In 1304 Roger la Zouch deceased held the manor of Lubbesthorpe of William la
Zouch [poss his bro] by the service of the third part of a knightąs fee;
Roger la Zouch, son and heir of the foresaid Roger was then aged 11 [b.
1293]. IPM 7 Edw I
Father is Roger b. 1240-50
CP łsecond son˛
C 143/40/6
Roger la Zouch to grant a messuage, brushwood, land, and rent in
Lubbesthorpe to a chaplain of the chapel of St. Peter there, retaining land.
Leic. 30 EDWARD I.
C 143/292/5 William la Zouche, late dean of the church of St. Peter, York,
and Roger la Zouche, knight, to grant rent in North Witham and Gunby to a
chaplain in the parish church of Clipsham. Lincoln. The same to grant
messuages and land in Lubbesthorpe to certain chaplains in the chapel of St.
Mary there, the said Roger retaining land and rent in
Lubbesthorpe. Leic.
ND..could be son
Writ of Capias to the sheriff of Leicester...March 19, 19 E II By the King.
Inq. Lubesthorp. tuesday the morrow of the close of Easter. Valuation of the
goods of Roger la Zousche of Lubesthorpe who was indicted for the death of
Roger le Beler.24 pp. 226.
Writ to the sheriff of Leicester. York. 14 June 1 E II.
Inquisition Leicester. Thursday after the nativity of St. Mary. The manor of
Lubbesthorpe, which Roger la Zousche, who was outlawed of felony, held, has
been for a year and a day in the kings hands. Petition from the King and
Council from William la Zouche [French. Cf. Close Roll Cal.p. 329]24 pp. 233
Pat
----------
>From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection ?
>Date: Sun, Jun 15, 2003, 2:01 AM
>
> Who, then, was William father of Roger? Sheppard offers several
The...@aol.com
Dear Todd, Pat, Richard, et al.,
Thanks for your answers, feedback & added questions.
First, if I might recount what we know at this point. The descent of
Lubbesthorpe, as evidenced by information posted thus far, provides the following
pedigree of this branch of La Zouche:
William la Zouche = Matilda
identified in I
gift of son, 1302 [1] I
_______________________I
I
Roger la Zouche,
had gift of 1/2 knight's fee in Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics.
from Millicent de Mohaut (Montealto), 1267/8 [52 Hen III]
d. on/before 28 Aug 1303 (F.R.), held 1/3 knight's fee
in Lubbesthorpe [2]
______________I
I
Roger la Zouche, b. say 1293; d. aft 1349/50
= 1) Matilda = 2) Felicia
____I______________________________________ I
I I I I
William Juliana Margaret Joan/Johanna
(dsp) coheiress coheiress coheiress
= Sir John de St. = NN Burdet = Marmaduke
Andrew [3] Constable
I I d. 1 June 1378
______________I ___I I
I I I
Robert de Richard = Elizabeth Robert Constable
St. Andrew I Burdet of Flamborough, Yorks. &
held moiety I [3] Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics.
of Lubbesthorpe I d bef 8 Jan 1400/01
I I
I I
Thomas Ashby Marmaduke Constable
held moiety of Lubbesthorpe of Lubbesthorpe [3]
[3]
The problem, as Todd noted, is the parentage of William la Zouche, which
had dealt with by Sheppard by not yet resolved.
I wonder if the ultimate problem lies in the identification of Eudo la
Zouche (Pat has elaborated on this problem). In particular, the chronology of
Eudo's life and issue vs. his brother (or alleged brother) Sir Alan la Zouche
is something of a problem:
1. Sir Alan la Zouche, m. before 1242 (MC 5) to Elena de Quincy, had
issue an heir Roger, whose son Alan was born 9 Oct 1267. Margery
daughter of Sir Alan and Elena de Quincy, m. Roger, Lord FitzRoger
of Clavering, and had a daughter Euphemia whose husband (Ralph de
Neville) was born in 1262 (CP).
2. Eudo la Zouche was m. bef 13 Dec 1273 to Millicent de Cantelou/
Cantilupe, widow of John de Mohaut. As Todd has pointed out, his
son and heir Sir William la Zouche of Harryngworth was born
'before 21 Dec 1276'. Elizabeth, daughter of Eudo, m. Nicholas de
Poyntz (b. 'before 1278'-CP), and her sister Eva m. Sir Maurice de
Berkeley (b. ca 1271 - CP).
This gives us an alleged younger brother, whose marriage (first ?)
occurred only after his elder brother already had several grandchildren.
It is not impossible that Eudo was the youngest of a wide range of
children, with Sir William being the oldest. It is also not impossible that we have
here another example of the conflation of two generations, with two 'Eudos'
being transformed in error into one.
Evidence concerning Eudo(s) la Zouche and his (their) early career(s)
would be most helpful here; I will look this week to see what is in CP under la
Zouche of Harryngworth (I assume nothing to this point, but..). A possible
result could be:
[WARNING: this is ENTIRELY theoretical...]
Roger la Zouche = Margaret Bisset
__________________________I . . . . . .
I I I .
Sir Alan William Alice Eudo 'the elder'
d. 1270 I
_________________I . . . . . .
I .
Eudo 'the younger' William la Zouche
d. 1279 I
= Millicent de Cantelou I
__________I________ I
I I I I
Sir William Eva Elizabeth Roger la Zouche
of Harringworth of Lubbesthorpe
d. 1351 (aged 74/5) d. 1303 (aged say 30/40)
Your thoughts and comments on the above are most welcome. Again, thanks
for all the input to date.
Good luck, good hunting (and Happy Father's Day to all !)
John *
NOTES
[1] provided by Todd Farmerie, 15 June 2003:
'Cal Patent Rolls (Edw I, 1301-7, p. 27)....
on 5 Apr. 1302, Roger la Zouche of L was granted license for
a daily mass for his soul, and that of "William la Zouche, his
father, and Eudo la Zouche and Millicent his wife, and all the
faithful departed." '
[2] provided by Richard C. Browning, from 'Knights of Edward I':
in re: Roger la Zouche,
'“Dead 28 Aug 1303 (F.R) holding Lobesthorp Manor as ½ Kt.
Fee, the gift of Milicent de Montealto in 52 Hen. III,
and leaving s. h. Roger, 11 (Inq.) '
provided by Patricia Junkin:
'E 40/106
In 1304 Roger la Zouch deceased held the manor of Lubbesthorpe
of William la Zouch [poss his bro] by the service of the third
part of a knight¹s fee; Roger la Zouch, son and heir of the
foresaid Roger was then aged 11 [b. 1293]. IPM 7 Edw I
Father is Roger b. 1240-50
CP ³second son²
C 143/40/6
Roger la Zouch to grant a messuage, brushwood, land, and rent
in Lubbesthorpe to a chaplain of the chapel of St. Peter there,
retaining land. Leic. 30 EDWARD I.'
[3] provided by Todd Farmerie:
from TAG 49:1-12:
'Sheppard cites a document in which Thomas Ashby had custody of a
third of the manor of Lubbesthorpe during the minority of Robert,
son of Marmaduke Constable, which manor was held by Marmaduke
(son of Robert, son of Marmaduke and Joan), Robert de St. Andrew
(heir of Juliana and Sir John de St. Andrew) and Thomas Ashby
(heir of Margaret, whose daughter and heiress Elizabeth Burdet
married Richard Ashby of Loseby). He cites for this Clay's Early
Bedfordshire Charters 12:150f.'
* John P. Ravilious
Todd A. Farmerie
>
>>Who, then, was William father of Roger? Sheppard offers several
>
> I suggest that a review of Moon’s “Knights of Edward I” might provide
> some direction to sources for clarifying this. He indicates that the
> descent is as follows:
>
> Eudo = Millicent,
> William = Matilda
> Roger
>
> And About Roger Moon states, “Dead 28 Aug 1303 (F.R) holding Lobesthorp
> Manor as ½ Kt. Fee, the gift of Milicent de Montealto in 52 Hen. III,
> and leaving s. h. Roger, 11 (Inq.)
Moon must be confused, as the chronology is impossible. William,
son and heir of Eudo and Millicent did marry Matilda (Maud), and
did have a son Roger, yet this young Roger was the fourth son,
and the eldest son and heir, Eudo, was born 1297/8, and hence was
younger than Roger, son of Roger, thus:
Eudo = Millicent William
| |
William = Maud de Lovel Roger
b 1276 | |
| Roger
Eudo, b 1297/8 b 1291/2
William
John
Roger
Thomas
John
Edmund
Millicent
Isabel
Thomasine
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Sunday, 15 June, 2003
>
>
>
> Dear Todd, Pat, Richard, et al.,
>
> Thanks for your answers, feedback & added questions.
>
> First, if I might recount what we know at this point. The descent of
> Lubbesthorpe, as evidenced by information posted thus far, provides the following
> pedigree of this branch of La Zouche:
>
>
>
> William la Zouche = Matilda
> identified in I
> gift of son, 1302 [1] I
I don't think Matilda is right, as I mentioned in my other post.
This appears to intend Maud de Lovel, wife of William, son of
Eudes and Millicent, which is impossible.
Roger la Zouche, b. say 1293; d. aft 1349/50
> = 1) Matilda = 2) Felicia
> ____I______________________________________ I
> I I I I
> William Juliana Margaret Joan/Johanna
> (dsp) coheiress coheiress coheiress
> = Sir John de St. = NN Burdet = Marmaduke
> Andrew [3] Constable
> I I d. 1 June 1378
> ______________I ___I I
> I I I
> Robert de Richard = Elizabeth Robert Constable
> St. Andrew I Burdet of Flamborough, Yorks. &
> held moiety I [3] Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics.
> of Lubbesthorpe I d bef 8 Jan 1400/01
> I I
> I I
> Thomas Ashby Marmaduke Constable
> held moiety of Lubbesthorpe of Lubbesthorpe [3]
> [3]
Hold it. I said (quite intentionally) that Thomas Ashby and
Robert de St. Andrew were heirs, not (necessarily) sons.
Particularly with the Constables descending from a secomd
marriage, it is possible that additional generations intervene.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Richard C. Browning, Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>>> Who, then, was William father of Roger? Sheppard offers several
>>
>>
>> I suggest that a review of Moon’s “Knights of Edward I” might provide
>> some direction to sources for clarifying this. He indicates that the
>> descent is as follows:
>>
>> Eudo = Millicent,
>> William = Matilda
>> Roger
>>
>> And About Roger Moon states, “Dead 28 Aug 1303 (F.R) holding Lobesthorp
>> Manor as ½ Kt. Fee, the gift of Milicent de Montealto in 52 Hen. III,
>> and leaving s. h. Roger, 11 (Inq.)
>
>
> Moon must be confused, as the chronology is impossible. William, son
> and heir of Eudo and Millicent did marry Matilda (Maud), and did have a
> son Roger, yet this young Roger was the fourth son, and the eldest son
> and heir, Eudo, was born 1297/8, and hence was younger than Roger, son
> of Roger, thus:
I dug a little more, and find that there WAS a William married to
Matilda much earlier than the son of Eudo and Millicient. It is
less clear that this is the same man as the father of Roger.
From PROCAT:
C 47/14/1/11
Writ to sheriff of Essex: to enquire into the lands, heir etc of
William la Zouche and Matilda his wife 56 Hen III
This is not William of Black Torrington (I think I mistyped this
as Great Torrington in my post of last night) who died shortly
bef. 1287. It may well be the brother of Eudes, William la
Zouche, who died shortly before 3 Feb. 1271/2, and whose wife
Sheppard was unable to name. If so, this William left sole
daughter and heiress Joyce (mother of William la Zouche de
Mortimer), so he likewise could not be father of Roger (unless
Roger was illegitimate).
taf
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Todd Farmerie Wrote
>
> This is not William of Black Torrington (I think I mistyped this
> as Great Torrington in my post of last night) who died shortly
> bef. 1287. It may well be the brother of Eudes, William la
> Zouche, who died shortly before 3 Feb. 1271/2, and whose wife
> Sheppard was unable to name. If so, this William left sole
> daughter and heiress Joyce (mother of William la Zouche de
> Mortimer), so he likewise could not be father of Roger (unless
> Roger was illegitimate).
>
> taf
Todd,
Do you have access to Moor's "Knights of Edward I", there are
approximately 9 pages of entries on the la Zouche family. These entries
are difficult to follow and being fairly new to this era, I don't really
know all the intricacies of the terminology Moor uses. Maybe you could
help decipher all his entries
If you do not have access I could transcribe some of these but it will
take some time before I can accomplish this.
Richard
Todd A. Farmerie
> Do you have access to Moor's "Knights of Edward I", there are
> approximately 9 pages of entries on the la Zouche family. These entries
> are difficult to follow and being fairly new to this era, I don't really
> know all the intricacies of the terminology Moor uses. Maybe you could
> help decipher all his entries
>
> If you do not have access I could transcribe some of these but it will
> take some time before I can accomplish this.
I no longer have access, so when you find the time, this would
probably prove helpful.
taf
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
>
> I no longer have access, so when you find the time, this would
> probably prove helpful.
>
> taf
Todd, Rosie and John,
Here is what I have condensed from Moor's "Knights of Edward I"
concerning Eudo, William, Eudo, Roger and Roger. These are the only
entries among all the Zouche entries that Moor definitely identifies as
of the same lineage. In trying to limit the excerpts in order to
respect copyright laws, I have only included statements concerning
spouses, parentage, offspring, and manors. I have tried to keep the
excerpts in order and include the references as published. I apologize
for any transcription errors that have crept in. I thank the Harleian
Society and ArchieveCDBooks for having made this book available and
affordable.
Due to the length of these entries, I have divided this into two posts,
in this, the first, find Eudo and son William, in the second William's
sons Eudo and Roger and Roger's son Roger.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Excerpts from Moor's "Knights of Edward I" published by The Harleian
Society and reproduced in facsimile format by ArchieveCDBooks.
Zouche, Sr Eudo la, Kt. (Eoun, Youn, Ivo, Ivonet).
Grant of 30 m. p.a. till K. provide more 27 Ap. 1261.
Livery to him Chester Berton, and Shotwill Cas. of P. Edw. to keep and
defend, 26 Dec. 1262.
Livery to him and w. Milicent, sis. coh. of Geo. de Cantilupo, manors
late of said George at Eyton, Houton in Beds., Haringworth, Beruby,
Rowell, and Bolewik, Northants., Bridgewater and Edenworth, Som.,
Calston, Bridmerston, Roele, and Calne, Wilts., Corneworthy, Dartmouth,
and Totness, Devon, Moles-Bracy, Salop, Stok St. Edwald, Dors., Hamme,
Bucks., Byngele, Yorks., Baseford, Notts., and Hereford, 1 Mar. (C.R.
and F.R.), with their share of his lands in Ireland 30 May 1274 (F.R.),
and in Craudon Manor and rents at Newbury, Spenhamland, and Wodespene
Manors, Berks., 3 June 1275
Grant to him and Milicent forfeiture in their ports so long as K.
receives custom on wool and hides exported 16 Nov. 1275 (P.R.).
Sumd to serve agst. Welsh, he acknowledges 1-1/2 Fee for Milicent, and
will serve in person with a serjeant, 1 Jy. 1277 (P.W.).
He and Millicent nominate attorneys in Ireland 14 June 1278, and have
Protection there 28 Ap. 1279 (P.R.).
He is dead 25 June 1279. She is dead 7 Jan. 1290, leaving s. h. William
la Z. (F.R.).
Zouche, Sr William la, Kt.
S. h. of the last.
Lic, for Wm. de Bosco to enfeoff Millicent de Montealto of Manors of
Thorp-Ernaud, Leic., Weston, Warw., Bromfeld and Hoghton, Northants.,
Ebrighton and Farnecote, Glou., Tubbeneye and Stanelak, Oxon., and
Esyngton, Suff., she to regrant a moiety thereof to said William for
life, remainder to her s. Wm. la Z. and w. Matilda and heirs corp., and
finally to right heirs of Matilda, 15 Feb. 1296 (P.R.).
Wm. la Z., 21-2, s. h. of said Milicent, dec., has livery of her lands,
18 Mar. 1299 (F.R.).
He holds 1 Kt. Fee at Kilpesham, Rut., late of Edm., 1 . of Cornwall, 27
Mar. (C.R.).
He is overlord of Lobesthorp Manor, Leic., 28 Aug. 1303, holds 3 Fees at
Wyminton and Toternho, Beds., with Whetton and Potecote, Northants.,
members of Wyminton, late of Thos. de Wahull, 30 Jan., and 1 Fee at
Meoles, Salop, late of Edm. de Mortimer, 25 Jy. 1304 (Inq.).
His ancestors time out of mind had return of writs in Totness Manor till
in 40 Hen. III the Sheriff withdrew the same (Inq. 2 May 1305).
Lic. on fine for him to assign to Wm. Martyn 20/- rent from Totteneys
Manor, and to charge said Manor with a barge in the millpond to carry
things across, and also with maintenance of 2 causeys and bridges in 2
roads leading from the N. gate of Totteneys to Dertington, 15 Oct. 1305
(P.R.).
Having made fine for 31 Ed. 1, has his scutage in Som., Dors., Wilts.,
Beds., Bucks., Northants., Rut., Wan., Laic, and Salop, 1 Nov. 1306
(S.R.).
Lic. for him to grant to Nicholas de Tewkesbury his rights in Clyfton,
Dertmouth, and Hardenasse and seaport there; and in the water of Derte
from Blakeston to Blakeston by Cornworthi, pertaining to Toteneys Manor,
val. £8 4s. 8d., in exchange for 16 m. rent in Hywisshe Manor, Devon,
which Nicholas holds of him, 11 Feb. 1306 (P.R).
He is overlord of Eselburwe Manor, Bucks., and Wythcale Manor, Lines.,
each as 4 Fee, 6 Aug. 1308. His w. Maud, 30, is d. of Jn. Lovel of
Tychemersh and w. Isabel, and heir in free marriage to lands at Docking,
Norf., as 1Fee, 1 Oct. 1310 (Inq.).
Wm. la Z. of Harringworth nominates Wm. fil. Thos. la. Z. his attorney
in Ireland 13 June 1311.
He holds I Fee at Brampfeld and Houghton and 1 Fee at Harringworth,
Northants., late of Jn. de Hastings, sell., 28 Feb. 1313 (Inq.).
Order to replevy to Wm. fil. Eudo la Z. his lands at Eyton taken for
default 28 Sep. 1313 (C.R.).
He holds 1 Fee at Blakolvysk, Northants., late of Alan la Z., 20 Ap.,
and 1 Fee at Rothewell, Northants., late of Gilb., E. of Gloucester, 10
Jy. 1314 (C.R).
Wm. la Z. of Harringworth is a lord of Houghton Regis, Whipsnade,
Toternho, Birchmore, and Woburn-Chapple, Beds., Creudon, Bucks,, Docking
and Southmere, Norf., Harringworth, Lit. Haughton, Brayfield, and
Barrowby, Northants., Totness, Devon, Clipsham and Pickworth, Rut.,
Cable and Calstone, Wilts., and Bridgewater, Som., 5 Mar. (P.W.), and
overlord of Coleshull Manor, Warw., 13 Mar. 1316 (Inq.).
He and his ancestors have been patrons of Stodeley Priory, Warw., since
its foundation, 4 May 1320 (C.R.), and he has suit with Jn. Engaine of
Blatherwick and w. Elena re pasture at Bulewyk, Northants., 10 Dec. 1321
(P.R.).
S. h. of Eudo la Z. by Milicent de Montealto, he is sumd as a Kt. of
Leic., Norf., Warw., and Worc., and non-resident of Beds. to Gt. Council
at Westminster, 9 May, to serve in Aquitaine 4 Aug., and to Council of
Magnates at Winchester (P.W.).
Grant to him on 1,000 m. fine the marriage of John, s. h. of Rob. de
Wylughby, 5 Ap., but John having married sine lie., on 500 m. fine the
forfeiture due 2 Jy. 1323 (F.R.).
Lic. for him to grant to Wm. fil. Wm. la Z. and heirs reversion to
Eyton, Hoghton, and Thornbury Manors, Here., 10 Oct., and for him to
hunt the fox, hare, badger, cat, and other vermin in forests of
Northants. and Rut., without damage to K's deer, 27 Dec. 1324 (P.R.).
He owes to his s. Wm. £4,000 in Wilts, and £2,000 in Devon, and to his
s. John £4,000 in Corn., 8 Dec. 1325, is to fortify and munition
Toteneys Cas. 30 Ap. (C.R.), and with his household has lie. to bear
arms for defence 25 Mar. 1326.
Lic. for him to settle Totteneys Cas. and Cornworthi Manor, Devon,
Caleston Cas. and Cable Hundred, Wilts., Moelbraci Manor, Salop,
Heygrave Manor and a of Briggewater Manor, Som., on himself for life,
remainders in fee tail successively to his sons Wm., Jn., Rog., Thos.,
Jn., and Edm., and his daus. Millicent, w. of Wm. Dayncourt, Isabel, and
Thomasina, and in fee simple to Hugh de Poynz, Kt., 26 Mar.
His s. Ivo is to be arrested for death of Rog. Beler I Mar. 1326 (P.R.).
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Second Posting (Continuation of la Zouche descent)
Excerpts from Moor's "Knights of Edward I" published by The Harleian
Society and reproduced in facsimile format by ArchieveCDBooks.
ZOUCHE, sr Eudo la, Kt. (Ivo).
S. of Wm. fil. Eoun la Z.,
Joan, w. of Ivo la Z., is d. h. of Wm. Inge and w. Margery, and has
livery of lands held by said Wm. in right of said Margery, dec., 12 Sep.
1322 (F.R.).
is dead 12 June 1326 (F.R.),
holding 1/2 a windmill at Stanstede, Kent, Tyledehall Manor at
Lachyndon, Ess., Cleyore Manor, Oxon., 2/3 of mess. at Toternho by
Dunstaple and mess, at Lit. Gravenhurst, Beds., and moiety of
StokeMaundevile Manor by Aylesbury, Bucks., as 1/2 Fee, all inheritance
of his w. Joan. He was indicted of death of Rog. de Belers, went over
seas sine lic., died in Paris last April, and was buried in church of
the Augustine Friars there, his lands being taken to K, for his flight,
15 Jy. 1326 (Inq.).
Zouche, Sr Roger la, Kt.
Going over seas with K. he nominates attorneys 28 Ap. 1286 (P.R.).
One owes Ł20 to Rog. Is Z. of Lubbisthorp 15 May 1290 (C.R.).
Comn re trespassing in his fishery at Lobesthorp, Leic., 15 Ap. 1293
(P.R.).
He is overlord at Braundeston, Leic., 5 May 1299 (Inq.).
Livery to him land at Braunteston, Suff., saving dower to Margaret, wit
of Hugh de Braunteston, 16 Aug. 1299 (C.R.).
Lic. for him to alienate mess., 34 acres, 26/8 rent, and 2 cartloads of
brushwood p.a. from his wood at Lubesthorp to a chaplain celebrating
daily in St. Peter's chapel for souls of himself, his f. Wm. la Z., and
Eudo la Z. and w. Millicent, 6 Ap. 1302 (P.W.).
Dead 28 Aug. 1303 (F.R.),
holding Lobesthorp Manor as ; Kt. Fee, the gift of Milicent de Montealto
in 52 Hen. III, and leaving s. h. Roger, 11 (Inq.).
ZOUCHE, Sr Roger la, Kt.
S. h. of the last.
Pardon as adherent of Thos., E. of Lancaster, 22 Oct. 1318 (P.R.).
He and his bro. Ralph, accused of entering Manors of Lughteburgh,
Beaumaner, Fretheby, Ernesby, Huclescote, and Querndon, Leic., lately in
K's hands, and doing trespass therein, 28 May,
have Protection, going to Scotland for K. with Eudo la Z., 5 Aug. 1322
(P.R.).
Sumd as a Kt. of Leic. to Gt. Council at Westminster 9 May. Kt. of
Shire, Leic., 20 Oct. 1324 (P.W.).
Comr of Array, to choose 30 hobelers and 60 archers in Warw. and Leic.
22 Dec. 1324 (P.R.),
to inspect levies there 30 Sep., but another vice him sick and incapable
25 Nov. 1325 (P.W.).
Valuation of his goods, Mar. 1326 (Inq.).
Order to take lands and goods of Sr Rog. la Z., Rt., lord of
Lubbesthorp, to K., as he assented to death of Rog. Beler and fled the
country 24 Mar. (F.R.).
His bro. Ralph, indicted for same offence, and having escaped from
England, Donald de Mar is to follow and arrest him, 1 Mar. 1326 (P.R.).
Jn. fil. Rog. la Z. owes Ł18 13s. 4d. to Wm. la Z., lord of Eyton, 27
Ap. 1309 (C.R.).
Patricia Junkin
I have the William of Black Torrington as the son of Alan abnd Elena and
thus brother to Eudo [see possibility below]. I believe this William's son
to be Almeric/Emery. I note Totneys, but not Black Torrington, Devon among
the properties of the Cantilupes.
In the 1313: IPM of Richard de Waumford alias de Wamforde.
Devon: Inq. 27 Nov. 6 E II [1313]
Whiteleye. The manor....held of Emery de la S[ouch] in socage (Feudal tenure
of land by a tenant in return for agricultural or other nonmilitary services
or for payment of rent in money.) by service of 10s. yearly rent.
Blaketor. the hundred, held of the Emery la Souche by knights service
rendering 13s.4d. yearly p.211
Are not Black Torrington and Blaketor the same?
Just a few comments about Eudo.
E 40/106
Confirmation by William de Cantilupe to the chapel in his court of Eyton, of
the grant made to it by his father, William de Cantilupe, of a messuage and
12 acres of land in Eyton, 6 measures of wheat yearly, and 22 solidates
ofannual rent; with a further grant of 50s. yearly, to support a second
chaplain, and of a croft to keep a lamp burning in the chapel; with
stipulations as to the appointment and support of the two chaplains.
Witnesses:- Sir John son of Geoffrey, William de Warnevill, and others
(named). Endorsed: "Eytona com. Bedf. nunc Eton. It appears that Cantilupe
had Eyton and it was settled on Millecent, married to Ive Zouche, Claus. 2
E. I. dorso m. 12. Scr. P. L. (Le Neve)." Bedf. When Sir William de Kalna
alias de Cantilupo in a writ to the sheriff of Wilts. 18 Nov 39 Hen. III
[1255] and all rents of the 19 hides were assigned by Sir William Cantilupo
to John de Montealto, with his daughter, and the rents of three mills were
assigned for life to Lady Agnes de Verdon."
This would indicate to me that Millicent had married John de Montealto by
1255, hence probably b. c. 1240.
I think, the date of the marriage of Eudo to Millicent c. a. 1273 is based
on the IPM of her brother George, however, it could have been much earlier.
IN the IPM 1273 of George de Cantilupo, his heirs are: Milsanda the wife of
Eudo la Zuche [Milsanda the wife of Eudo la Zuche, of full age, and John son
of Henry and Joan de Hastings who is under age in the king’s wardship, are
his heirs] and Joan de Hastings, w/o Henry Hastings and her son John
[underage]...he held Totnes in Devon by reason of pourparty of the lands &c
which were of William de Brewosa...Haringworth in Northants. Berewyk in
Somerset....his birth was 1251 and he was born on the death of his
grandfather William.
In 1299, Milicent de Monte Alto names William la Soche, her son, aged 21 on
18 Dec, her next heir which is problematic in assuming that she had an
earlier male heir. The IPM also speaks of "all the rents of 19 hides were
assigned to Sir William de Cantilupo to John de Montealto, with his
daughter, and the rents of three mills were assigned for life to Lady Agnes
de Verdun."
In an earlier discussion of this, Chris Phillips noted that Alan had a
brother Eudo active in 1262, we
must assume that he was born before 1238 and most probably around 1200-1210.
If we assume that the Eudo here mentioned married Milicent, then he was
63-73 years old and she some 30 years plus.
The de Bosco provision was also discussed and I think it imporant to ask why
Milicent was
" to regrant a moiety thereof to said William for life, remainder to her s.
William la Zouche and wife
Matilda and heirs corp and finally to right heirs of Matilda. 12 Feb.
1296." It is clear that the Zouche of Haryngsworth line came by the
extensive holdings through the marriage to Milicent. If Eudo held
Lobbesthorpe in right of his wife, then it is possible that Roger, even if
by another wife could have been held the property of his brother, William.
If we are to explain this: " [1] provided by Todd Farmerie, 15 June 2003
'Cal Patent Rolls (Edw I, 1301-7, p. 27).... on 5 Apr. 1302, Roger la Zouche
of L was granted license for a daily mass for his soul, and that of
"William la Zouche, his father, and Eudo la Zouche and Millicent his wife,
and all the faithful departed." then we must look for Eudo's brother,
William perhaps to be the father....or could the older Eudo have had a son,
William:
25 December 1262 [Canterbury]To Thomas de Orreby, justice of Chester.
Whereas the whole march of Wales is disturbed by L. son of Griffin and his
accomplices ... the king is sending Alan la Zuche, justice of the forest on
this side Trent, to the said march for the preservation of the peace and the
defence of those parts, he commands the justice to deliver the castles of
Edward, the king's son, to wit, Chester, Beston and Shotwik, to Eudo la
Zuche, brother of the said Alan, without delay to keep in the name of the
said Alan until his arrival
[Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1258-66, p.238: 47 Henry III - Part 1, m.19]
Pat
----------
From: The...@aol.com
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
Date: Sun, Jun 15, 2003, 10:43 AM
Sunday, 15 June, 2003
Dear Todd, Pat, Richard, et al.,
Thanks for your answers, feedback & added questions.
First, if I might recount what we know at this point. The descent of
Lubbesthorpe, as evidenced by information posted thus far, provides the
following
pedigree of this branch of La Zouche:
William la Zouche = Matilda
identified in I
gift of son, 1302 [1] I
_______________________I
I
Roger la Zouche,
had gift of 1/2 knight's fee in Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics.
from Millicent de Mohaut (Montealto), 1267/8 [52 Hen III]
d. on/before 28 Aug 1303 (F.R.), held 1/3 knight's fee
in Lubbesthorpe [2]
______________I
I
Roger la Zouche, b. say 1293; d. aft 1349/50
= 1) Matilda = 2) Felicia
____I______________________________________ I
I I I I
William Juliana Margaret Joan/Johanna
(dsp) coheiress coheiress coheiress
= Sir John de St. = NN Burdet = Marmaduke
Andrew [3] Constable
I I d. 1 June 1378
______________I ___I I
I I I
Robert de Richard = Elizabeth Robert Constable
St. Andrew I Burdet of Flamborough, Yorks. &
held moiety I [3] Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics.
of Lubbesthorpe I d bef 8 Jan 1400/01
I I
I I
Thomas Ashby Marmaduke Constable
held moiety of Lubbesthorpe of Lubbesthorpe [3]
[3]
John *
NOTES
'¢X©¨Dead 28 Aug 1303 (F.R) holding Lobesthorp Manor as ®^ Kt.
Fee, the gift of Milicent de Montealto in 52 Hen. III,
and leaving s. h. Roger, 11 (Inq.) '
provided by Patricia Junkin:
'E 40/106
In 1304 Roger la Zouch deceased held the manor of Lubbesthorpe
of William la Zouch [poss his bro] by the service of the third
part of a knight˝^s fee; Roger la Zouch, son and heir of the
Todd A. Farmerie
> I have the William of Black Torrington as the son of Alan abnd Elena and
> thus brother to Eudo [see possibility below].
Sheppard, citing CP, gives the following account:
Roger la Zouche, b. say 1170-1179, m Margaret
1 a. Alan
2 b. William
3 c. Eudo
d. Lora m Gilbert de Stanford
e. Alive m William de Harcourt
1. Alan la Zouche, son and heir, had seisin 1238, m. Helen de Quincy
a. Roger, son and heir, b. 1240-2 m. Ela Longespee,
having Alan
b. William, 2nd son, of Black Torrington, having heir Emery
c. Alan of Fulbourn, Cambs
d. Oliver of Southoe and Eynesbury, Hunts
e. Henry, parson of East Ham
2. William la Zouche, probably second son
a. Joyce, m. Robert de Mortimer
3. Eudo, granted 1253 the marriage of Agatha, daugh William Earl
of Derby, but transfered her to Hugh de Mortemer of Chelmarsh.
He married Milicent de Cantelou bef. Dec. 1273, widow of John de
Montault, who she married bef. 1254.
a. William,
etc.
This would make William of Torrington the nephew of Eudes. I
see, though, that you are predicating things on there being two
Eudes, uncle and nephew. I don't know how well this can be
supported.
Considering that Milicent's first marriage was before 1254, it
would not be unreasonable to view her second husband as of
similar age. That he did not marry the heiress of the Earl of
Derby (who would have been of great value) suggests to me that he
was already encumbered in 1252, which fits (assuming this was the
same Eudes).
> In an earlier discussion of this, Chris Phillips noted that Alan had a
> brother Eudo active in 1262, we
> must assume that he was born before 1238 and most probably around 1200-1210.
> If we assume that the Eudo here mentioned married Milicent, then he was
> 63-73 years old and she some 30 years plus.
This pushes the dates to the extreme in one direction, but how
about the other way. If Alan was just coming of age when he
inherited in 1238, then his birth would be say 1215 (or 1217 if
Sheppard means that he had seisen on reaching majority in 1238,
which is unclear - his son and heir, Roger, was born 1240-1242,
so this may not be too far off), then a younger brother could be
born as late as 1230, which is not out of line with him being
married in 1252. That would put his birth in the same range as
Milicent's.
> The de Bosco provision was also discussed and I think it imporant to ask why
> Milicent was
> " to regrant a moiety thereof to said William for life, remainder to her s.
> William la Zouche and wife
> Matilda and heirs corp and finally to right heirs of Matilda. 12 Feb.
> 1296." It is clear that the Zouche of Haryngsworth line came by the
> extensive holdings through the marriage to Milicent. If Eudo held
> Lobbesthorpe in right of his wife, then it is possible that Roger, even if
> by another wife could have been held the property of his brother, William.
I don't think making Roger brother of William is viable, given
the following:
> If we are to explain this: " [1] provided by Todd Farmerie, 15 June 2003
> 'Cal Patent Rolls (Edw I, 1301-7, p. 27).... on 5 Apr. 1302, Roger la Zouche
> of L was granted license for a daily mass for his soul, and that of
> "William la Zouche, his father, and Eudo la Zouche and Millicent his wife,
> and all the faithful departed." then we must look for Eudo's brother,
> William perhaps to be the father....or could the older Eudo have had a son,
But was there an 'older Eudes'? While possible, the only reason
for splitting Eudes is his 'late' marriage to Milicent, yet if
he, like she, was married previously, then there is no reason to
hypothesize more than one Eudes. What is the first documentation
of Eudes? How much older need he have been?
I would also recommend care in trying to force Roger into the
immediate family of Eudes. If Sheppard is right about him
marrying a daughter of Milicent, then that explains the favor
shown, and the grant of Lubbesthorpe, and he could go anywhere in
the broader pedigree. I don't think it inherently more likely
that Milicent would grant the property (with or without a
marriage) to her step-son vs. a nephew or more distant (but still
reasonably close) kinsman.
taf
Douglas Richardson
A pedigree of the Zouche family of Lubbesthorpe has appeared in recent
time published by the Harleian Society. I believe it was published in
their new series with either the Visitations of Derbyshire or of
Nottinghamshire. As I recall, the pedigree sets out the correct
relationship between Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe and Eudes la
Zouche, who married Milicent de Cantelowe. It shows Roger with a
father, William, which information is confirmed by contemporary
records of Roger's time.
I don't have the time to pull the pedigree in question right now for
you. However, I'm sure an eager beaver on the newsgroup can find the
information and post it for you. Good luck in your search!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
The...@aol.com
Dear Todd, Pat, Richard, et al.,
A possible line of investigation I noted in Richard's posts from
'Knights of Edward I'. For Sir Roger la Zouche of Lubbesworth (d. 1303), there is
the note,
' He is overlord at Braundeston, Leic., 5 May 1299 (Inq.).
Livery to him land at Braunteston, Suff., saving dower to Margaret,
wit [wife] of Hugh de Braunteston, 16 Aug. 1299 (C.R.).'
Which 'Braundeston' [Brandeston ?] was held by Sir Roger, and how this
came to be held by him, may help in resolving this relationship. There seems
to be a question in the 'Knights' text cited above, whether this was Branston,
co. Leics. or Brandeston, Suffolk....
There is a reference provided previously by Douglas Richardson (see
below [1]), which mentions that Oliver la Zouche, younger son of Alan la Zouche
and Ellen de Quincy, d. between 1283 and 1328, who held lands in Braunston, co.
Rutland (?).
Anyone have any additional information re: this manor (these manors) ?
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Douglas Richardson, <Re: Robert son of Ivo and Joan Inge La Zouche?>,
SGM, 21 Sept 2000:
Dear Pat:
I assume the first Oliver la Zouche in your "supposition" below appears
to be the same individual as Oliver la Zouche, born say 1250 (adult by
1283), who was a younger son of Alan la Zouche, of North Molton, Devon,
by his wife, Ellen de Quincy. Oliver held the manors of South Charford
and La Hyde, co. Hants, Southoe, co. Huntingdon, Chinnor, co. Oxford,
Chadstone in Castle Ashby and Grendon, co. Northampton, and Braunston
and Stoke Dry, co. Rutland. Oliver married first, _____, by whom he
had an unnamed daughter. He married second Joan de Cobham, widow of
Michael de Columbers (died 1284), by whom he had a son, John. He was
dead before 1328, when his son, John, possessed his lands. To my
knowledge, John la Zouche, has no living descendants. Consequently, I
suspect you will need to find another solution for your Zouche
pedigree.
When you have a moment, perhaps you could explain the sources you used
to create your supposition below.
All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
Patricia Junkin
I have done a bit or work on Oliver, mindful of Douglas' assumption that
there were no further of his line after 1385.
According to Douglas: łBerry's Hampshire Pedigrees sets forth a credible
pedigree in which he shows that an early Popham ancestor, Sir John Popham
(living 1316) was married to the "daughter and heir of Oliver Souch." The
Oliver la Zouche intended here can only be Sir Oliver la Zouche, of South
Charford, Hampshire, born say 1250, dead before 1328. That Sir Oliver died
leaving male issue, but it appears on the death of his great-grandson, Sir
John la Zouche, which took place about 1385/94, that the Zouche estates
passed by some prior agreement to a younger Sir John Popham, younger
brother of Henry Popham, of Popham, Hampshire."
I had found in the 1455 IPM of William Lovell reference to an Oliver la
Zouche at Chynnore and thus tried to establish a timeline for that property.
Oliver la Zouche b. ca. 1250 married 1) ? and 2) Joan de Cobham.
The property in this line seems to be: South Charford, Hants., Dodyngton,
South Hoo manor as 1/3 fee, late of Robert de Tatshale (Hunt.), messuage
and land Sutho-Wuncestre as 1 fee, Chinnor, (Oxon), late of Alan la Zouche
( Apr. IPM), Chadstone, Castle Ashby, Grendon (NHants), Braunston, Stoke Or,
Rutland. He is lord of S. Hoo, Wincestre, Eynesbury, Caldecote, Hardwick and
Berkford, (Hunts.) Chinnor, Sydenham, Ocle and Tythorp. He died 5 Mar 1316.
1284 granted lands in Southoe, Eynesbury and elsewhere in Hunts. by his
mother. Held manor of Sooth Charford, La Hyde, (Hants); Southoe (Hunt.);
Chinnor (Oxon.); Chadstone, Castle Ashby; Grendon (Nhants.), Braunston,
Stoke Or, Rutland
1296 held 1/3 pte. service for Lokeris and most of her Scottish lands.
Rosie Bevan points out: "Ashby David handy from VCH
Northamptonshire, v 3 , p. 232. It doesn't answer your questions but
provides a bit of background information.
"David son of William (Ashby) appears to have been slain at Evesham in 1265
and in the following year the king made a grant to Isabel his widow, and her
children, from David's lands at Ashby, Grendon and Chadstone, extended at
L89 11s 9d a year, which had been given to Imbert Guy. David had apparently
mortgaged this holding to Moses the Jew of London whose son Elias in 1267
confirmed to Alan la Zouche a yearly fee of L124 and a debt of L100 in which
David de Ashby had been bound. This resulted in an inquisition two years
later between Isabel, daughter of Stephen, son and heir of David de Ashby,
and Alan la Zouche, concerning David's estate at the time of the war and the
battle of Evesham. That the property was confirmed to Alan is clear from the
facts that in 1276 his widow Ellen had view of frankpledge in Ashby and in
1284 her son Oliver held of John de Hastings the fee in Ashby and Grendon.
Before 1306 Oliver la Zouche had enfeoffed Walter de Langton, Bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield, treasurer and chief minister of Edward I, who in
that year received licence to crenellate the house he was then building at
Ashby David."
A Proposition That Oliver la Zouche Was Alive in 1455
Gen 1.
Oliver la Zouche b. ca. 1250 m. 1) ? 2) Joan de Cobham
Gen 2.
Dau. b. ca. 1270-80, John b. 1270-80, Others
Gen. 3
Children b. 1300-1320
Gen 4.
Children born1340-1360
The John la Zouche of Chinnor who died 1394 could have been of either Gen 3
or 4
Lands in Southoe and Chynnore were held by the da Quincys.
Alan la Zouche who died 1269/70 married Elena daughter of Roger de
Quincy. Alan la Zouche held lands in Cheshire and N Wales, was a granted
charter for a market for Esseby/ Ashby le Zouche, Leic. and fairs at
Swaveseye in Cambridgeshire.
His children were Roger, Oliver, Margery, possibly Joan who m. Philip
de la Beche b. 1250 d. 1329, Henry and Eudo.
In 1230 [DL 25/2336] John de Lascy [Lacy], Constable of Chester, and
Margaret his wife to Roger de Quency: Conveyance by final concord of the
inheritance of Saer de Quency, late Earl of Winchester (lands in
Kettlestone, Chinnor, Southoe, Amesbury, Buckby, Grantchester, Hardwick and
Bradenham], and of the inheritance of Margaret de Quency, Countess of
Winchester (a moiety of the Honor of Leicester), etc. 14 Hen. III
Between 1264 and 1289 [E 40/5895] there is a release by Richard le Swein of
Swithelund, to Margaret de Ferr[ariis], countess of Derby, Ellen la Zuche,
Alexander Comyn, earl of Bouchan, and Elizabeth his wife, the heirs of Roger
de Quency, late earl of Winchester, of all his right in alnd in Schepeheved
(Sheepshead) formerly held by Elias Swein, his brother, and in a toft and
croft and other land there, and in land in Bradegate which was the said
Elias's.
In 1277--[C 47/22/9/8] a letter of the Earl of Buchan to King Edward
stating that at the latter's request he has suspended his suit against Ellen
La Zuche in the Scottish courts. In1282--[C 143/6/3] Ellen la Zuche to grant
rent in Eynesbury to a chaplain in the church of Swavesey. Hunt.10 EDWARD I.
In1286--[C 146/3456] Grant by Hugh son of Hugh the goldsmith of Chynnore,
to Peter de la Pole of Sydenham, and Emma his wife, of land in Chynnore
lying in 'le Sterte': [Oxford.] Michaelmas, 14 Edward I. Katherine de la
Pole, wife of Sir Myles Stapleton, married secondly Sir Richard Harcourt of
Stanton Harcourt in Oxon.
When Helen (Elena) la Zousche died in 1296, Inq. 20 Aug Edward I taken at
Berwyk, she names Alan la Suches, aged 24 her next heir and her inquisition
states that Olives la Suches does a third part of the service of one knight
for the aforesaid lands (Scotland) and the land of Lokeris. Land in Berwick
upon Tweed, Edinburgh, Nudreff, Caldor Cler, Schepeshevede in Leicester held
of William de Ferariis, and Hausho and Brackele in Nhants.
Agnes Muscegrosą mother, Margaret, wife of William de Ferrers, Earl of
Derby, was a sister of the Elene, daughter of Roger de Qunicy. The third
sister was Elizabeth/Isabel, wife of Alexander, Earl of Buchan (Complete
Peerage vol.12, pt 2, p.753). In a charter given when Agnes was a widow, as
lady of Chinnor, Oxfordshire, concerning a rent in Sydenham [in Chinnor],
Roger de Quincy is called her "grandfather."
1279 (7 Edward I), a jury finds that Robert de Muscegros had 2/3 of the
manor of Chinnor in free marriage with Agnes, the daughter of Robert of
Derby, Earl Ferrers. This would make Agnes the granddaughter of William,
Earl of Derby and Margaret de Quency.
If Agnes held 2/3, then the 1/3 part must have been inherited by Oliver la
Zuche and his heirs.
In 1313--[C 143/90/13] Robert de Sapy and Aline his wife to retain
two-thirds of the manor of Chinnor, acquired from Agnes de Mussegros.
Oxford. 6 EDWARD II. The other 1/3 was retained most probably by the heirs
of Oliver la Zouche.
In 1348--[E 199/3/16] Cambridgeshire & Huntingdonshire: Wrt, inquisition and
particulars of account of land at "Russhe" in vill of Southoe Winchester :
Peter de Medeburne, tenant of Robert de Ferrars and John la Zouche (Almost
blind). 21-6 Edw. III. This man could very well be the John, son of Oliver
la Zouche b. ca. 1270-70. Did he have children other than John?
1389-[E 135/24/44 Decree by the official of the court of Canterbury in an
appeal between John Souche, knight, and Breamore priory touching tithes.
By 1394-- Release by John Popham kt. and Matilda, his wife, to John
Chynnore and Robert Waryner, executors of Will of John South [Sowche] kt.,
of all actions. Dated at Brommore [Hants.]. 23 January 1394. This is perhaps
the son of the John Zouche who in 1348 lost his sight.
In the Inquisition Post Mortem for William Lovell who died 13 June 1455,
and his will was dated 18 Mar to 5 June 1455, proved 1 Sep 1455. William
Lovell held łChynnore 3tia pars 1 feodą per Oliver de la Zouche." He also
held łBlacolvesle 1 feod per William la Zouche˛ and the manor of Bermondsey
in Surrey.
When Alan la Zouche died in 1314 he names a John, "Stupellavyntone. A moiety
of a messuage, 1 carucate land and 71s rent were sometime given by the said
Alan to John la Zouch for life." This Alan also leaves properties including
Treve. [The manor with the advowson of the chapel 12l. yearly in rent in
Nutburne, and the advowson of the church in Childyngton, held for life of
the gift and grant of William Poor of Swaveseye, chaplain bu fine levied in
the kings court, with remainders] to William la Zouche of Richardąs Castle
[Mortimer] and the heirs of his body."
I think there are certainly possibilities for the line of Oliver producing
children heretofore unaccounted.
Pat
----------
>From: The...@aol.com
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
The...@aol.com
Dear Pat, Richard, Todd, Douglas, et al.,
Thanks to each of you for the additional research and insight of the last
few days.
Todd, your note re: the various heirs (errors ?) of Lubbesthorpe is
spot-on; given that Ashby was acting as guardian of the son of Marmaduke Constable
(d. before 5 Aug 1404), and not of Marmaduke, certainly leaves open the
possibility of an intervening generation.
Pat, your added contributions should be helpful in a couple of ways; the
possibility of additional La Zouche relations of Oliver La Zouche needs
further attention.
Richard, your cites from 'Knights of Edward I' are extremely valuable.
It may be that the information provided as to Braundeston/Branteston may lead
to some additional connections with the La Zouche of Lubbesworth.
And Douglas, as always, thanks for the suggestion as to the Visitation of
Derbys. (or Notts.) record concerning the La Zouche family(ies). If this is
accessible at the LOC, with luck I may be able to access this with one more
fossick.
I noted in the extract from 'Knights of Edward I' (thanks Richard), the
following concerning the second Sir Roger La Zouche of Lubbesworth:
' Order to take lands and goods of Sr Rog. la Z., Rt., lord
of Lubbesthorp, to K., as he assented to death of Rog. Beler
and fled the country 24 Mar. (F.R.).
His bro. Ralph, indicted for same offence, and having
escaped from England, Donald de Mar is to follow and arrest
him, 1 Mar. 1326 (P.R.). '
This is the same offence for which Eudo/Eon La Zouche, son and heir of
Sir William (d. 1351), fled England and subsequently dvp in Paris, later in 1326
(see Richard's 1st post from 'Knights', on 15 June 2003).
The following from our old friend Burke provides some further information
and documentation concerning this 'incident' :
' Lord [Roger] Beler held the manor of Criche by Barony,
viz. of the king in capite, as of his crown, by the service
of one knight's fee, and so d. seised of it in his own
demesne as of fee, 19 Edward II.; he also d. seised on Bunny
Park, in Nottinghamshire, and other considerable possessions.
The tragical rencontre which occasioned his death is
recorded as follows: -
Eustace de Folville, of Ashby Folville, his two brothers,
and Eudo de la Zouch, of Haryngworth, having been threatened
by Lord Beler, one of the justices itinerant, and very old,
they way-laid and barbarously murdered the judge, in a
valley near Reresby. Dodsworth has this remark on the
occurrence:
" Anno MCCCXXVI., quarto Kal. Februarii occisus est
Dominus Rogerus Beler in comitatu Leycestrie. Iste
Rogerus fundavit cantariam seculariam sacerdotum
apud Kirkeby Beler, in comitatu Leycestrie; quam
post multos annos uxor ejusdem Rogeri, cum concesu
Rogeri filii eorum, transtulit in usos canonicorum
regularium, instituens ibidem primum priorem loci
de Abbathia de Olvestone. Hic Rogerus occisus est
a quodam Eustachio de Folville, ac fratribus suis,
quibus prius minas ingesserat et injurias; interfectus
erat a tribus fratribus in quadam valle juxta
Reresby. Hic oppressor fuit ecclesiarum et aliorum
vicinorum religiosorum, pro cupiditate possessionum,
quas cupierit ad denationem cantaria sua."
The Folvilles being indicated for the murder, their lands
at Reresby were seised by the king, and were never restored
to them.
" Anno 1326, Eudo de la Zouch indictatus pro morte
cujus dem Rogeri de Beler, ob metum indictamenti
transfretavit sine licentia Regis; et ea occasione
terra ejus capte sunt in manum d'ni Regis, et idem
Eudo obiit Parisiia, eodem anno." ' [1]
I will continue searching for additional details re: the career of Eudo
la Zouche (d. 1279), and for the connection between him and William, father of
Roger la Z. of Lubbesworth.
In the meantime, good luck, and good hunting to you all.
John *
NOTES
[1] History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland,
IV:231 (Whatton of Leicestershire).
* John P. Ravilious
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
John wrote
<SniP
> I noted in the extract from 'Knights of Edward I' (thanks
Richard),
> the
> following concerning the second Sir Roger La Zouche of Lubbesworth:
>
> ' Order to take lands and goods of Sr Rog. la Z., Rt., lord
> of Lubbesthorp, to K., as he assented to death of Rog. Beler
> and fled the country 24 Mar. (F.R.).
> His bro. Ralph, indicted for same offence, and having
> escaped from England, Donald de Mar is to follow and arrest
> him, 1 Mar. 1326 (P.R.). '
>
> This is the same offence for which Eudo/Eon La Zouche, son and
heir of
> Sir William (d. 1351), fled England and subsequently dvp in Paris,
later
> in 1326
> (see Richard's 1st post from 'Knights', on 15 June 2003).
>
> The following from our old friend Burke provides some further
> information
> and documentation concerning this 'incident' :
>
<Snip>
> Eustace de Folville, of Ashby Folville, his two brothers,
> and Eudo de la Zouch, of Haryngworth, having been threatened
> by Lord Beler, one of the justices itinerant, and very old,
> they way-laid and barbarously murdered the judge, in a
> valley near Reresby. Dodsworth has this remark on the
> occurrence:
<Snip>
> John
So from this we have three Folvilles, Eustace and his unnamed brothers,
and three la Zouches, Eudo, and Nephews Ralph and Roger, both apparently
sons of Eudo's brother Roger as involved in the murder of Beler.
Is this a correct interpretation of all this?
The...@aol.com
Dear Richard,
The Folville scenario seems clear; however, re: the La Zouche 'family',
we have two families. The known lineage is as follows:
Eudo la Zouche William la Zouche
of Harringworth, Northants. I
d. 1279 = Millicent de Cantelou I
I I
I I
William la Zouche Roger la Zouche
of Harringworth, Northants. = Maud of Lubbesworth, Leics.
d. 1351 (aged ca. 75) I d. 1303
______________I I
I ___________I____________
I I I
EUDO (aka Eon) LA ZOUCHE ROGER RALPH
d. Paris 1326 d. after 1349
Roger and Ralph (brothers) may well have been 2nd cousins at the closest
to Eudo (son and heir of William of Harringworth), if my 'Two Eudo' theory is
correct; they are otherwise more distantly related (3rd or more cousins).
They were definitely not his nephews.....
Cheers,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Please re-read my second post of the 15th, also the last entry for
William in the first posting. I don't know if Moor is correct but he
specifically states that Eudo (Ivo, John) S. of Wm. fil. Eoun la Z., is
indicted for this murder. In his notices, Wm, s. h. of Eudo La Zouche,
was the father of Eudo d. April 1326 in Paris, and Roger among others.
This Roger, is noted as the Grandson of Milicent, and the father of
Roger mentioned as involved in the murder along with his brother Ralph.
Moor does not list a Ralph separately. I will try to set out all the la
Zouches listed in this book, but it may take some time.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The...@aol.com [mailto:The...@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 18:30
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable
> Connection ?
>
The...@aol.com
Dear Richard,
I re-read your posts of the other day, per your suggestion. Yes indeed,
William la Zouche of Harringworth (d. 1351) had a younger son Roger (and
several others: William, John, Thomas & c.).
The reason(s) why this William cannot be the father of the first Roger
la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe:
1. William la Zouche (son of Eudo, d. 1279) was born
before 21 Dec 1276 (CP) - certainly, no later than
1279. He might have been born somewhat earlier:
his parents Eudo la Zouche 'the elder' and Millicent
de Cantelou were married 'before 13 Dec 1273' (AR7).
2. Roger la Zouche 'the elder' of Lubbesthorpe,
identified as son of a William la Zouche, had to
have been born before 1278 (certainly aged 14 or
more in 1292), because
3. Roger la Zouche 'the younger' of Lubbesthorpe,
his son, was born say 1292 or slightly before
(aged 11 at his father's IPM, 28 Aug 1303).
The chronology of these generations does not, therefore, allow for Roger
la Z. of Lubbesthorpe (the elder) to be son of William la Z. of Harringworth,
or thereby, to be a younger brother of Eudo la Z. the indicted.
We are certainly still short of information to tie these two lines
together: my theory at this point still is, that Eudo la Zouche 'the elder' (d.
1279) may well be two individuals, which would permit (not yet prove) the
following:
Eudo the elder (conjectured)
________________I . . . . . . .
I I
Eudo the younger William la Zouche
d. 1279 I
I I
William la Zouche Roger la Zouche
b. say 1276, d. 1351 of Lubbesthorpe, d. 1303
I b. before 1278
I __________I_______
I I I
Eudo / Eon Roger la Zouche Ralph
b. ca. 1297 b. ca. 1292
Hence, my current search for details on the earlier Eudo(s) la Zouche.
Cheers,
John
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> William in the first posting. I don't know if Moor is correct but he
> specifically states that Eudo (Ivo, John) S. of Wm. fil. Eoun la Z., is
> indicted for this murder. In his notices, Wm, s. h. of Eudo La Zouche,
> was the father of Eudo d. April 1326 in Paris, and Roger among others.
> This Roger, is noted as the Grandson of Milicent, and the father of
> Roger mentioned as involved in the murder along with his brother Ralph.
> Moor does not list a Ralph separately. I will try to set out all the la
> Zouches listed in this book, but it may take some time.
Moor is mistaken here. We have a solid age for Roger of
Lubbesthorpe, the murderer. He was older than Eudo, son and heir
of William, and Roger of Lubbesthorpe is known to have been son
of an earlier Roger. Moor, not being aware of the Lubbesthorpe
data, simply assumed he was the younger brother of Eudo, but this
could not have been the case. Thus, it is as follows:
Eudo la Zouche William la Zouche
of Harringworth, Northants. I
d. 1279 = Millicent de Cantelou I
I I
I I
William la Zouche Roger la Zouche
of Harringworth, Northants. = Maud of Lubbesworth, Leics.
d. 1351 (aged ca. 75) I d. 1303
____________________I I
I I ___________I____________
I I I I
EUDO (aka Eon) Roger ROGER RALPH
b. ca. 1297 4th son b.c. 1292
d. Paris 1326 d. after 1349
taf
Patricia Junkin
I am particularily intrigued by the possibilities in placing Roger la
Zouche through William of Black Torrington, part of the archdeaconry of
Totness. Totneys seems to have come into Zouche hands through Eudoąs
marriage to Milicent, daughter of Eve de Braose.
However, "The manor was given with Kings Nympton to Joel de Meduana by
Henry I, to Geoffrey de Luscy by King John, then by Henry III to Roger La
Zouche "who holds Blaketorrintun".
[http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~alan/family/GBlackTorrington.html]
It must have been acquired, ca. 1216-1235, by the la Zouche family through
Roger, who. m. Margaret Bisset.
From Roger la Zouche ca, 1175, d. 14 May 1238 in 1229 was Sheriff of
Devonshire. North Molton " had formerly a weekly market and a fair on All
Saints' day, granted in 1270 to Roger le Zouch [m. Ela Longspee], whose
family obtained the manor from King John. [before 1216]"
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/genuki/DEV/NorthMolton/
Alan [m. Elena de Quincy], held North Malton Manor, Devon, Esseby la Zuche
Manor, Liec. North Molton and it descends through Roger who m. Ela Longspee
to Alan, d. 1313 who m. Elenor Seagrave who "held of the king in chief by
serjeanty of finding an armed man with a barded horse in the kings army for
40 days at his own charges" and willed it to his heirs, "Ellen and Maud, his
daughters are his next heirs and Maud the younger is aged 24."
Black Torrington is not among the properties in the line of Alan and must
then have passed to a line of an earlier generation. Roger la Zouche son and
heir of Sir Alan to leprous women and prior of Mydensbradeligh, 100s yearly
service for the souls of Sir Alan and Elena his wife, Sir Ivo la Zuche, Alan
la Zouche [1279 held Fulborn of his sd. bro, Roger], Nicholas Vallibus,
William de Dune AD 1269-1285.
25 December 1262 [Canterbury]To Thomas de Orreby, justice of Chester.
Whereas the whole march of Wales is disturbed by L. son of Griffin and his
accomplices ... the king is sending Alan la Zuche, justice of the forest on
this side Trent, to the said march for the preservation of the peace and the
defence of those parts, he commands the justice to deliver the castles of
Edward, the king's son, to wit, Chester, Beston and Shotwik, to Eudo la
Zuche, brother of the said Alan, without delay to keep in the name of the
said Alan until his arrival.
[Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1258-66, p.238: 47 Henry III - Part 1, m.19]
If Eudo/Eon/Ivo is brother to Alan, he cannot be the son, Eudo who m.
Milicent. Nevertheless, Beeston appears in the IPM of William of Bramfield
in the Haryngsworth line.
Of note, "Swaviseye and Fulborne. The manors...with the advowson of the
priory of Swaviseye, a meadow called eye, and a water mill at Newenham, held
for life, the gift of William Por of Swaviseye, chaplain by fine levied in
the kings court with remainders to William la Zouche of Richardąs Castle
[Mortimer] and the heirs of his body and to the right heirs of Alan, of the
earl of Richemund in chief by service of a pair of gilt spurs." These
properties continued in this la Zouche line to Alan la Zouche [Mortimer] who
died in 1346 and are so mentioned in the IPM of Alanąs wife, Eleanor who d.
in 1361.
Roger held Lubbesthorpe prior to 1302 when we find this: C 143/40/6
Roger la Zouch to grant a messuage, brushwood, land, and rent in
Lubbesthorpe to a chaplain of the chapel of St. Peter there, retaining land.
Leic. 30 EDWARD I. [1302]
The Inq. of Millicent de Cantilupe del la Zouche de Monte Alto was taken 27
Edw. I (1299) naming her son William, age 22, her heir, with lands in
Websnade, Wodemanleye, Birchmore, Toternho, Eddeworth, Beston and Henlawe,
Wymington, Leteburn and Mentmore in Bedford; lands in Feldhamme and
Wodehamme, Bucks. Calstone and Calne in Wilts.; Ruyton, Bulkynton, Wybytoft,
Wolfareshull, including a park held of John Comyn, earl of Boghan, one of
the heirs of Roger de Quyncy in Warwick; Odecomb in Somerset, Brnfield and
Little Houghton in nhants.; Totnes, Lodeswell, Cornworthy, Dertemere in
Devon; Haryngsworth in Nhants; and, Thorp Everard, Buscby, Belgrave and
lands in Leicester. Her father William de Kalna died 1255 leaving a son
George his heir and lands in Wilts., Warwick, Bedford and Bucks...7 hides
held of Hugh de Gurnay for 1/4 fe. All the rents of 19 hides were assigned
to Sir William de Cantilupo to John de Montealto, with his daughter, and the
rents of thre mills were assigned for life to Lady Agnes de Verdun.
There is no mention of Black Torrington in the IPM of William la Zouche or
de la Zouche of Haryngsworth. Writ 13 March 26 E III [1353] in which mention
in made of:
1) Wlliam la Zouche, son of Eudo la Zouche [of the Beler affair] aged 30
years and more at Christmas last is his heir.
2) Weston. The manor with its members, Folkeshull and Wolfareshull...held
for life, of the gift of Master John la Zouche, rector of the church of
Lodeswelle [Loddiswell near Plymouth, Devon].
3)Berughby. The manor ...with the advowson of the church held for life of
the gift of Master John le Zouche, rector of the church pf Lodeswelles ....
4) Leicester. Thorpe Ernald. the manor with its members, Busseby, Therneby
and Brenteby...held of the heir of Henry de Ferrariis, a minor in the kingą
wardship, by knightą service. [Thorpe Ernauld: Bounded by Burton Lazars,
Melton Mowbray on West...at the time of the Conqueror, Hugh de Grentnesmil
possessed the manor which included Brentyngby, and over Thurnby, Bushby,
Houghton...married to Adeliza....then properties came into possession of the
de Boscos of which there were 4 Ernaulds, all benefactors of the Abbey of
Leicester. At the time of Stephen, Ernauld was steward to Earl Robert of
Leicester. Isabel de Bosco/Bois who m. John Lovell to was one to whom whom
Ernauld gave the manors of Braunfield and Weston and the avowdson of
Bettlesden Abbey Descendants includWilliam Zuche who married Maud. Knights
of Edward I-p. 222: Lic. for William de Bosco to enfeoff Millicent de
Montealto of Manors of Thorp-Enaud, Leic., Weston, Warw., Bromfield and
Hoghton, N"hants, Ebrighton and Franecote Glous., Tybbeneye and Stanelak,
Oxon and Esyngton Suf., she to regrant a moiety thereof to said William for
life, remainder to her s. William la Zouche and wife Matilda and heirs
corp., and finally to right heirs of Matilda..12 Feb. 1296.]
I am posting Timothy J. Owstonąs chart for discussion and copying him.
ZOUCHE FAMILY
OF LUBESTHORPE, IN LEICESTERSHIRE
1. William la Zouche, alive 5 Apr 30 Edward 1, married and had
issue:-
2. Sir Roger la Zouche, died 1303.
2. Sir Roger la Zouche, died 1303.of Lubesthorpe, in Leicester
(given by Milicent de Monealto wife of Eudes la Zouche and sister
and heiress of George de Cantilupe), married and had issue:
3.1 John la Zouche
3.2 Ralph la Zouche, Outlawed 14 Mar 1326 over the death
of Roger Beller.
3.3 Roger la Zouche, died 1326.
3.3 Roger la Zouche, born about 1292 and died after 1326. Knighted
by Edward 111. Outlawed for murder of Roger Beller on the 14 April
1326. He married firstly Matilda, and secondly Foelicia and had
issue from both:-
Issue by Matilda:-
4.1 Juliana la Zouche, married to John St Andrews, whose
family inherited one third of the Manor of Lubesthorpe.
4.2 Margaret la Zouche, married to William Bredon.
4.3 William la Zouche, alive 22 Edward III and 37 Edward
III.
Issue by Foelicia:-
4.4 Johanna la Zouche, married to Marmaduke Constable of
Flamborough in Yorkshire as his first wife. He was
executor of the Will of William la Zouche Archbishop of
York. They definately had issue as Robert Constable who
died in 1441 was found to be in possession of one third
of the Manor of Lubesthorpe.
PAJ--C 143/292/5 William la Zouche, late dean of the church of St. Peter,
York, and Roger la Zouche, knight, to grant rent in North Witham and Gunby
to a chaplain in the parish church of Clipsham. Lincoln. The same to grant
messuages and land in Lubbesthorpe to certain chaplains in the chapel of St.
Mary there, the said Roger retaining land and rent in
Lubbesthorpe. Leic.???????????????
Notes:
1. J. Nichols in history of Leicester covers this family.
2. There is no definate evidence of how this family relate to the
main family of Zouche in Leicestershire. It is always thought that
Archbishop Zouche belonged to the main family and he chose
Marmaduke Constable to be his executor.
3. Robert Constable who died in 1441 was the father of Sir Robert
Constable who married Agnes Wentworth, a descendant through her
mother of the main Zouche family.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page is compiled by Timothy J. Owston of York, England.
Please contact me with any comments or information.
You can Email me at:
owst...@virgin.net
Pat
----------
>From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
>Date: Tue, Jun 17, 2003, 10:54 PM
Ivor West
way I have it is that Joel de Meyne was a Norman and Black Torrington
escheated to the Crown. Henry III regranted the manor to Roger la
Zouche in 1227. Roger's son, Alan, held it in 1241 and his son,
William la Zouche of Black Torrington, held it in 1275 (Hundred Rolls)
and 1285 (FA 327). William's son, Alan, died siezed of the advowson in
1314 and his other son, Emery, (1268 - 1334), held the manor. Emery
had two coheirs. One, Joan, married Richard Piperell and died s.p. The
other coheir married Walter fitzWarin, who had Emery fitzWarin and
Isabel fitzWarin, mother of William Davylles.
Ivor West
""Patricia Junkin"" <paju...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:E19ScKK-...@smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net...
> All,
>
> I am particularily intrigued by the possibilities in placing Roger
la
> Zouche through William of Black Torrington, part of the archdeaconry
of
> Totness. Totneys seems to have come into Zouche hands through Eudo零
Patricia Junkin
Ivor,
This is significant and I do thank you. It confirms my chart.
As I read your post, as follows, correct me if I have misintrepreted.
Joel de Meyne held Black Torrington--is there a time frame?
Reversion to the King--which?
Roger la Zouche who m. Margaret Bisset died 1238. You use the word
"re-granted," had Roger held it before King John?
Alan who m. Elena de Quincy holds in in 1241. [I had not found this
ownership.]
William la Zouche m. ? holds Black Torrington 1275
This William had two sons [known]:
1. Alan la Zouche m. ? was dead 1314 Black Torrington
2. Emery [1268-1334] [Are these Emery's heirs-- "the minors in the ward of
Alan de Cherlton who had married Helen la Zouche following the death of her
first husband, Nicholas St. Maur on his death 21 Sep 1334? And, the same man
mentioned in the IPM of Richard de Waumford alias de Wamforde 1313 who held
Blaketor. the hundred, held of the Emery la Souche by knights service
rendering 13s.4d. yearly?]
Since this Emery is the grandson of Alan, who was granted fairs at
Swaveseye in Camb., could he be the Sir Almaric la Zusche, sheriff of
Cambridge?
Thank you,
Pat
[Failed to send to list--sorry, Ivor, for a duplicate e-mail.]
>From: "Ivor West" <i...@freeuk.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
I have finished, I think, of piecing together a GEDCOM of the la
Zouches. Based on Heraldry I have created a pseudo-father of the Alan
and Eudo, with Alan the heir and Eudo starting a Cadet Line. There are
two Williams that I can't attach to fathers, based on Moor's notices.
I have tried to provide some indication of why I placed people where
they are, and the dates I came up with by quoting Moor. Please comment
on this GEDCOM as you see fit. Provide sources where possible, and if
you have access to the sources quoted by Moor and the time and ability,
please check them out and refute as appropriate.
Due to the size I have posted this file at
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=zouche_rcb
Hope this helps someone find the truth
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I have finished, I think, of piecing together a GEDCOM of the la
> Zouches. Based on Heraldry I have created a pseudo-father of the Alan
> and Eudo, with Alan the heir and Eudo starting a Cadet Line. There are
> two Williams that I can't attach to fathers, based on Moor's notices.
Pseudo-father? Alan and Eudo's father is well known, he was
Roger la Zouche, son of Alan la Coche, son of Geoffrey, Vicomte
of Porhoet.
Roger (2nd son of Alan la Coche, heir to his brother William), by
his wife Margaret, had three sons, Alan, William, and Eudo.
> I have tried to provide some indication of why I placed people where
> they are, and the dates I came up with by quoting Moor. Please comment
> on this GEDCOM as you see fit. Provide sources where possible, and if
> you have access to the sources quoted by Moor and the time and ability,
> please check them out and refute as appropriate.
>
> Due to the size I have posted this file at
> http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=zouche_rcb
Again, you have shown Roger of Lubbesthorpe to be grandson of
Eudo and Milicent. This is chronologically impossible. Roger
received Lubbesthorpe from Milicent in 52 Henry III, which is
1268/9 (this is in the Moor text you quote). William, son of
Eudo and Milicent, who you show to be his father, was not born
until the 1270s, so he can't be father of someone older than he
himself. (Even with your dates (? Moor's dates), you have
William, born bef. 1276/7 being father, as his third son, of
Roger, b. bef. 1282. Moor clearly erroneously combined two
distinct "Roger son of William la Zouche"s, of two different
generations.
(I just noticed, if this 1268/9 date is accurate, it would be an
earlier 'before' date for the marriage of Eudo and Milicent than
that previously given. Do whe know when John de Montault died?)
Further, based on the arms, William, son of Eudes and Milicent
would be the eldest son of Eudes, as he inherited the arms of his
father. The Lubbesthorpes would not have derived from an older
son of Eudes by an earlier wife, or he would have been the senior
heir to his father, and entitled to the arms of Eudes - a canton
rather than a fesse. The problem with this conclusion is that
since Moor confused two distinct Rogers, it is unclear if these
fesse arms belonged to Roger of Lubbesthorpe, or instead to
Roger, son of William of Harringworth. Confusion is perhaps
likely since the son and heir of Roger of Lubbesthorpe bore
different arms than either of the two Moor applies to his father
(specifically, rather than bezancy with an ermine fesse, the
younger Roger is given quarterly, bezancy and ermine). Anyone
know the arms of the Richard's Castle Zouches? How about the
Black Torrington ones?
taf
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Todd, wrote,
>
> Pseudo-father? Alan and Eudo's father is well known, he was
> Roger la Zouche, son of Alan la Coche, son of Geoffrey, Vicomte
> of Porhoet.
>
> Roger (2nd son of Alan la Coche, heir to his brother William), by
> his wife Margaret, had three sons, Alan, William, and Eudo.
I only wrote pseudo-father as Moor made no mention, to either Alan's
father, or Eudo's Father.
>
>
> Again, you have shown Roger of Lubbesthorpe to be grandson of
. . .
> distinct "Roger son of William la Zouche"s, of two different
> generations.
>
> (I just noticed, if this 1268/9 date is accurate, it would be an
> earlier 'before' date for the marriage of Eudo and Milicent than
> that previously given. Do whe know when John de Montault died?)
>
I only created this link, because it is exactly as Moor stated these
linkages. I understand the problems but that is why I posted this. To
try to see how the descents actually fit in.
> Further, based on the arms, William, son of Eudes and Milicent
....
> younger Roger is given quarterly, bezancy and ermine). Anyone
> know the arms of the Richard's Castle Zouches? How about the
> Black Torrington ones?
>
1 William la Zouche 1293 - 1326 Arms: Gules, bezanty Or, a label
Azure Arms2: Gules, 10 Bezants, a
label of 3 points Azure
.. +Alice de Tony 1275 -
......... 2 Ralph la Zouche 1305 -
Moor gives this William as of Richard's Castle.
And
This line of Black Torringtion.
1 WIliam la Zouche 1239 - 1287 Arms: Azure, bezanty Or.
+Maud 1235 -
.. 2 Joan la Zouche 1269 - 1287
.. +Robert de Mortimer 1250 - 1287
.. 2 Almaric la Zouche 1269 - 1334 Arms: Gules 10
Bezants, a bend Azure Arms2: Gules, besanty
Or, a bend Argent
Note: Almaric was placed here based on being baptized at Black
Torrington, where this William was overlord. The difference in arms
caused me to wonder about this.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
>
> ....
>
>>younger Roger is given quarterly, bezancy and ermine). Anyone
>>know the arms of the Richard's Castle Zouches? How about the
>>Black Torrington ones?
>>
>
>
> 1 William la Zouche 1293 - 1326 Arms: Gules, bezanty Or, a label
> Azure Arms2: Gules, 10 Bezants, a
> label of 3 points Azure
> .. +Alice de Tony 1275 -
> ......... 2 Ralph la Zouche 1305 -
>
> Moor gives this William as of Richard's Castle.
>
This William is maternal grandson of the brother of Eudes and
Alan. It is clear that he is using a differenced Zouche arms,
rather than Mortimer of Richard's Castle, his male line, which,
IIRC, was or, seme de lis, sable (? with a lion).
> And
>
> This line of Black Torringtion.
>
>
> 1 WIliam la Zouche 1239 - 1287 Arms: Azure, bezanty Or.
>
> +Maud 1235 -
> .. 2 Joan la Zouche 1269 - 1287
> .. +Robert de Mortimer 1250 - 1287
> .. 2 Almaric la Zouche 1269 - 1334 Arms: Gules 10
> Bezants, a bend Azure Arms2: Gules, besanty
> Or, a bend Argent
>
> Note: Almaric was placed here based on being baptized at Black
> Torrington, where this William was overlord. The difference in arms
> caused me to wonder about this.
This is interesting - Eudes seems to be the only one among the
immediate family who used the ermine difference. This might
provide stronger evidence for linking William, father of Roger of
Lubbesthorpe, to Eudes, either as illegitimate son (or younger
son of an elder Eudes if we split Eudes in two). Alternatively,
though, this use of ermine may have been in recognition of the
feudal relationship - Roger held Lubbesthorpe of this branch, so
perhaps the difference reflects this link, and not a specific a
blood tie, in which case all bets are off for his genealogy.
Does anyone find it suggestive that Roger had prayers said for
the soul of his father, Eudes, and Milicent, but not his mother?
Perhaps this has no more significance than what we already know
- that it was Milicent that left him his land.
taf
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
> Richard wrote,
> >
> >
> > 1 William la Zouche 1293 - 1326 Arms: Gules, bezanty Or,
a label
> > Azure Arms2: Gules, 10
Bezants, a
> > label of 3 points Azure
>
> This William is maternal grandson of the brother of Eudes and
> Alan. It is clear that he is using a differenced Zouche arms,
> rather than Mortimer of Richard's Castle, his male line, which,
> IIRC, was or, seme de lis, sable (? with a lion).
>
These arms are not differenced; they are the same as given for Alan la
Zouche.
> > This line of Black Torringtion.
> >
> >
> > 1 WIliam la Zouche 1239 - 1287 Arms: Azure, bezanty Or.
> >
> > +Maud 1235 -
> > .. 2 Joan la Zouche 1269 - 1287
> > .. +Robert de Mortimer 1250 - 1287
> > .. 2 Almaric la Zouche 1269 - 1334 Arms: Gules 10
> > Bezants, a bend Azure Arms2: Gules,
besanty
> > Or, a bend Argent
> >
Why did this William change from Gules to Azure? And if Almaric is
actually his son, why did he revert to gules and difference with a bend
Argent?
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, Tx
Todd A. Farmerie
>
>>Richard wrote,
>>>
>>>1 William la Zouche 1293 - 1326
>>> Arms: Gules, 10 Bezants a label of 3 points Azure
>>
>>This William is maternal grandson of the brother of Eudes and
>>Alan. It is clear that he is using a differenced Zouche arms,
>>rather than Mortimer of Richard's Castle, his male line, which,
>>IIRC, was or, seme de lis, sable (? with a lion).
>
> These arms are not differenced; they are the same as given for Alan la
> Zouche.
I checked again. In the account of Alan, you (presumably from
Moor) give Gules, bezancy or. (No label). The three pointed
blue label would be the difference.
>>>This line of Black Torringtion.
>>>
>>>1 WIliam la Zouche 1239 - 1287 Arms: Azure, bezanty Or.
>>>.. 2 Almaric la Zouche 1269 - 1334
>>> Arms: Gules 10 Bezants, a bend Azure
>>> Arms2: Gules, besanty, Or, a bend Argent
>
> Why did this William change from Gules to Azure?
Difference. We see the opposite change (blue and gold checked to
red and gold checked) in one of the lines descending from Isabel
de Vermandois.
> And if Almaric is
> actually his son, why did he revert to gules and difference with a bend
> Argent?
I don't think Almaric's link is questioned. As to why he used a
different difference, these rules were not hard and fast.
Perhaps the blue was too different to maintain the desired
indication of affinity.
taf
Patricia Junkin
Thank you for the reference to William la Zouche of York's will. Could you
tell me where it may be found since I have many questions relating to it.
For instance, is property mentioned? In what context is his brother Roger
mentioned? What is the date of the will? Etc.
Thank you,
Pat
----------
>From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
>Date: Sat, Jun 21, 2003, 1:38 PM
Todd A. Farmerie
> Thank you for the reference to William la Zouche of York's will. Could you
> tell me where it may be found since I have many questions relating to it.
Based on my sketchy notes, it appears to be from a book called
"Testamenta Eboracensia". These are old and yellowed
photocopies, so I have no further memory that might help.
> For instance, is property mentioned? In what context is his brother Roger
> mentioned? What is the date of the will? Etc.
I see no property mentioned by name. As to Roger, "Hujus autem
testamenti et ultimę voluntatis meę hos constituo executores,
videlicet Dominum Radulphum Nevyll dominum de Raby, Dominos
Rogerum la Zouche fratrem meum, Marmaducum Constable, Willielmum
de Playce, Christopherum Malore, milites, Magistrum Gilbertum de
Welton, Dominum Willielmum de Ferriby, Dominum Rogerum de
Stiendby clericos, et Anketillum Malore armingerum literatum,
sine quibus quidem Rogero de Stiendby et Anketillo nolo quod
quicquam de bonis meis predictis aliqualiter ministretur." It is
dated 28 Jun. 1349, and probated 27 Jul. 1352.
taf
Patricia Junkin
I had mentioned this in one of the last e-mails but thought I would suggest
again that William la Z. 1249-89 whose son is probably Almaric is not the
same, I think, as the William la Z. d. c. 1272 who m. Maud Hobridge. Maud
had m. 1st John de Trailly who d. died 1235, of Yelden, co. Bedford. She was
the daughter and co-heiress of William de Hobridge, of Howbridge in Witham,
Essex. William La Zuch:Writ of Certiorari 3 Feb. on the complaint of John de
Traylli, that the escheator had taken in to the kingıs hands the manor of
Hibruggı, which the said William held by courtesy of England of the
inheritance of Maud the said Johnıs mother. Inq. The day of St. Peter ad
Cathedram, 56 Hen.III [1272]
Essex. Hobrugı manor was not held of his own inheritance, but he held it by
the courtesy of England of the inheritance of Maud, sometime his wife. Sir
John de Trailly is the next heir of the said Maud. Hen III.
C 47/14/1/11 Writ to sheriff of Essex: to enquire into the lands, heir etc
of William la Zouche and Matilda his wife
56 Hen III [1272]
The Joyce who m. Roger de Mortimer. I believe that this William was also
Sherif of Sussex 1262-3 since his grandson William de Mortymer la Zouche in
Inquisition ad. g. d. 7 ED II, No 107 Coram Regis Rolls, 2 ED III, (1329)
Roll 113...wherein are proceedings of William la Zouche of Ashby and Ralph
his son against John atte Lee, Roger, parson of the church of Stopham...John
atte Ford ets. for fishing in the fish ponds of the said William and Ralph
at Stopham. This la Z. line came to the de Mortymer line through Alan who
had only daughters.
The Witham referred to in the document of William dean of York is in
Lincolnshire.
I believe that William inherited Black Torrington from his father, Alan who
m. Elena de Quincy.
Pat
----------
>From: "Richard C. Browning, Jr." <bro...@anet-dfw.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: RE: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
>Date: Sat, Jun 21, 2003, 7:03 AM
>
> Todd wrote,
>
>> Richard wrote,
>> >
>> >
>> > 1 William la Zouche 1293 - 1326 Arms: Gules, bezanty Or,
> a label
>> > Azure Arms2: Gules, 10
> Bezants, a
>> > label of 3 points Azure
>>
>> This William is maternal grandson of the brother of Eudes and
>> Alan. It is clear that he is using a differenced Zouche arms,
>> rather than Mortimer of Richard's Castle, his male line, which,
>> IIRC, was or, seme de lis, sable (? with a lion).
>>
>
> These arms are not differenced; they are the same as given for Alan la
> Zouche.
>
>
>> > This line of Black Torringtion.
>> >
>> >
>> > 1 WIliam la Zouche 1239 - 1287 Arms: Azure, bezanty Or.
>> >
>> > +Maud 1235 -
>> > .. 2 Joan la Zouche 1269 - 1287
>> > .. +Robert de Mortimer 1250 - 1287
>> > .. 2 Almaric la Zouche 1269 - 1334 Arms: Gules 10
>> > Bezants, a bend Azure Arms2: Gules,
> besanty
>> > Or, a bend Argent
>> >
>
> Why did this William change from Gules to Azure? And if Almaric is
> actually his son, why did he revert to gules and difference with a bend
> Argent?
>
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Patricia Junkin Wrote
> I had mentioned this in one of the last e-mails but thought I would
> suggest
> again that William la Z. 1249-89 whose son is probably Almaric is not
the
> same, I think, as the William la Z. d. c. 1272 who m. Maud Hobridge.
Maud
> had m. 1st John de Trailly who d. died 1235, of Yelden, co. Bedford.
She
I only put Almaric as son of this William, as he was listed as son of
William, and baptized in Black Torrington, and this William was stated
to be overlord of Black Torrington. Which William is the father of
Almaric?
> 56 Hen III [1272]
>
> The Joyce who m. Roger de Mortimer. I believe that this William was
also
> Sherif of Sussex 1262-3 since his grandson William de Mortymer la
Zouche
> in
Moor say this " Made Sheriff of Surr. and Suss. and Const. of Guildford
Cas. 9 Jy., but being ill he resigns 19 Jy., and is again appointed 8
Oct. 1261."
>
> I believe that William inherited Black Torrington from his father,
Alan
> who
> m. Elena de Quincy.
> Pat
>
Moor say this of an Elena la Zouche in the notices of Alan, (who had
only daughters for heirs,) son of Roger, son of Alan, " Sr Alan la Z. is
heir of Elena la Z. 20 Aug. (Inq.), and has livery of her lands 14 Oct.
1296."
I am currently trying to make sense of the holdings of all these people
and to revisit the GEDCOM to verify entries. Will let you know what I
find out.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Todd A. Farmerie
>
>
>
>>I had mentioned this in one of the last e-mails but thought I would
>>suggest
>>again that William la Z. 1249-89 whose son is probably Almaric is not
>
> the
>
>>same, I think, as the William la Z. d. c. 1272 who m. Maud Hobridge.
>
> Maud
>
>>had m. 1st John de Trailly who d. died 1235, of Yelden, co. Bedford.
>
> She
>
> I only put Almaric as son of this William, as he was listed as son of
> William, and baptized in Black Torrington, and this William was stated
> to be overlord of Black Torrington. Which William is the father of
> Almaric?
Almaric was son of William of Black Torrington, son of Alan and
Elena de Quincy. That is not in doubt. The question is whether
it is this William who married Matilda/Maud, or a different
William (either the brother of Alan or the father of Roger,
assuming they are distinct).
taf
Patricia Junkin
It is most important to follow the land and in my study of the la Zouche
family have tried to collect as many IPM's and land records that may exist.
You wrote: " Sr Alan la Z. is
> heir of Elena la Z. 20 Aug. (Inq.), and has livery of her lands 14 Oct.
> 1296."
Indeed, Alan is her heir and she so names him:Alan la Suches, age 24, is her
next heir, and he has done homage to the King for the above lands and others
which he holds in Scotland by doing homage for the land aforesaid.
Fife: Inq. ade at Berwyck on Monday after St. Bartholomew, 24 Edw. I Disard
and Strahon. A third part of the lands of Disard and Strahon, held of the
king in chief; and the free service of Roger de Schazay, and a third part of
1/2 mark of assised rent from him.
Alan la Suches, age 24, is her next heir, and he has done homage to the King
for the above lands and others which he holds in Scotland by doing homage
for the land aforesaid.
Oliver la Suches does a third part of the service of one knight for the
aforesaid lands and the land of Lokeris. [Disard and Strahon in Fife]
Therefore, Oliver, Eduo and William also inherited lands or the obligation
for them.
When her heir Alan died, much of his property went to the members of the la
Zouche of Mortymer line as provided in his IPM as "Swaviseye and Fulborne.
The manors...with the advowson of the priory of Swaviseye, ameadow called
eye, and a water mill at Newenham, held for life, the gift of William Por of
Swaviseye, chaplain by fine levied in the kings court with remainders to
William la Zouche of Richard零 Castle"
but who is this John mentioned in the IPM:
Stupellavyntone. A moiety of a messuage, 1 carucate land and 71s rent were
sometime given by the said Alan to John la Zouch for life..
Did Roger and Ela Longspee have a JOHN?
Pat
----------
>From: "Richard C. Browning, Jr." <bro...@anet-dfw.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: RE: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
>Date: Sat, Jun 21, 2003, 7:32 PM
>
>
>
> Patricia Junkin Wrote
>
>> I had mentioned this in one of the last e-mails but thought I would
>> suggest
>> again that William la Z. 1249-89 whose son is probably Almaric is not
> the
>> same, I think, as the William la Z. d. c. 1272 who m. Maud Hobridge.
> Maud
>> had m. 1st John de Trailly who d. died 1235, of Yelden, co. Bedford.
> She
>
> I only put Almaric as son of this William, as he was listed as son of
> William, and baptized in Black Torrington, and this William was stated
> to be overlord of Black Torrington. Which William is the father of
> Almaric?
>
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
> From: Patricia Junkin [mailto:paju...@erols.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 07:20
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable
<SNIP>
> but who is this John mentioned in the IPM:
> Stupellavyntone. A moiety of a messuage, 1 carucate land and 71s rent
were
> sometime given by the said Alan to John la Zouch for life..
> Did Roger and Ela Longspee have a JOHN?
>
>
Pat,
As I understand the times, Ivo and John were interchangeable, and Eudo
maybe also. Indeed, Moor gave these two Lead ins for the two Eudo
entries"
Zouche, Sr Eudo la, Kt. (Eoun, Youn, Ivo, Ivonet).
ZOUCHE, sr Eudo la, Kt. (Ivo)
And in calls a son of William Jn. One place and Ivo the next.
I will be posting a list of holders of manors as listed in Moors book
shortly, once I figure the best way to condense it.
Richard
Patricia Junkin
I believe that this is JOHN, not Eoun/Youn/Ivo/Ivonet/Eudon. Think it wise
not to assume this is not a John. I think "Stupellavyntone" may be Steeple
Lavington:
C 143/76/8
Walter Aleyn to grant his life-interest in a messuage and land in West
Amesbury to the prioress and convent of Amesbury, retaining land in Maiden
Bradley. Wilts. Walter Lovel to grant his reversion in the same to the same,
retaining land in Steeple Lavington. Wilts.
2 EDWARD II.
Of note here is Maiden Bradley---In A History Of The Priory Of Maiden
Bradley By H D Kitching, "The former Priory was originally founded as a
lazar house for maidens afflicted with Leprosy in1152. The founder was one
of Englands most powerful Barons, Manser Bisset." [The Appendix annotates a
gift of about 1600 acres in demesne from Baron Manser Bisset c. 1152; land
in Fenny Sutton, gift of Henry Biset 1220; land in Wishford and Burton,
Margery Bisset, 1227;land in Ludwark Roger and Alan de la Suche 1224;
clearing rights of 50 acres in Selwood (Yarnfield) gift of Henry III, 1227;
land at North Merden, Sussex, gift of Walter Hussey].
Pat
----------
>From: "Richard C. Browning, Jr." <bro...@anet-dfw.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: RE: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
>Date: Sun, Jun 22, 2003, 9:59 AM
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
All,
I have tried to collect all the Manors and other properties that Rev.
Moor listed in the Zouche Notices, in "Knights of Edward I". I have
produced below a list of those that have entries for more than one
person as holding this property.
Don't know if this will help or confuse but here it is.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prarie, TX
FirstName: Death date:
Manor: Asheby la Zouche (Esseby) Leic
Roger Bef. October 15, 1285
William Aft. October 26, 1326
Alan March 25, 1314
Manor: Baseford Notts
Eudo June 25, 1279
Thomas Aft. March 12, 1323/24
Manor: Black Torrington Devon
WIliam August 06, 1287
Almaric Bef. September 21, 1334
Manor: Bridgewater Som
Eudo June 25, 1279
William Aft. March 25, 1326
Manor: Calstone Wilts
Eudo June 25, 1279
William Aft. March 25, 1326
Manor: Eyton Beds
Eudo June 25, 1279
William Aft. March 25, 1326
Manor: Fulbourne Cambs
Roger Bef. October 15, 1285
William Aft. October 26, 1326
Manor: Harringworth Northants
Eudo June 25, 1279
William Aft. March 25, 1326
Manor: Lobesthorp Leic
Roger Bet. November 25, 1325 -
William Aft. March 25, 1326
Roger August 28, 1303
Manor: North Multon Devon
Roger Bef. October 15, 1285
Alan Bef. September 29, 1270
Alan March 25, 1314
Manor: Nutbourne Suss
William Aft. October 26, 1326
Roger Bef. October 15, 1285
Almaric Bef. September 21, 1334
Manor: Rockingham Cas. .
Alan Bef. September 29, 1270
Alan March 25, 1314
FirstName: Death date:
Manor: Swavesey Cambs
Roger Bef. October 15, 1285
Alan Bef. September 29, 1270
William Aft. October 26, 1326
Manor: Totness Devon
Eudo June 25, 1279
William Aft. March 25, 1326
Manor: Tunge Salop
Alan Bef. September 29, 1270
William Aft. October 26, 1326
Phil Moody
> Bradley By H D Kitching, "The former Priory was originally founded as a
> lazar house for maidens afflicted with Leprosy in1152. The founder was
one
> of Englands most powerful Barons, Manser Bisset." [The Appendix annotates
a
> gift of about 1600 acres in demesne from Baron Manser Bisset c. 1152;
land
> in Fenny Sutton, gift of Henry Biset 1220; land in Wishford and Burton,
> Margery Bisset, 1227;land in Ludwark Roger and Alan de la Suche 1224;
> clearing rights of 50 acres in Selwood (Yarnfield) gift of Henry III,
1227;
> land at North Merden, Sussex, gift of Walter Hussey].
>
> Pat
PLM: You will find in "Appendix B" that Roger and Alan de la Suche's grant
of Ludwark was in 1227 (the same year as Margery Bisset's grants. You can
find a fascimile of this appendix at:
http://www.btinternet.com/~JIM.DOWNES1/history-priory.htm
I still have no idea what you mean when you cite something as "C 143/76/8";
so can you please clarify this for me?
Best Wishes,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patricia Junkin" <paju...@erols.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
Todd A. Farmerie
> I still have no idea what you mean when you cite something as "C 143/76/8";
> so can you please clarify this for me?
These are citations to original records in the Public Records
Office at Kew. (The C is for Chancery, the branch of the
government that originally generated the record.) These records
can be searched, and in some cases short summaries like what have
been posted, at:
taf
Phil Moody
I use at all:-)
Cheers,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
Phil Moody
> Bradley By H D Kitching, "The former Priory was originally founded as a
> lazar house for maidens afflicted with Leprosy in1152. The founder was
one
> of Englands most powerful Barons, Manser Bisset." [The Appendix annotates
a
> gift of about 1600 acres in demesne from Baron Manser Bisset c. 1152;
land
> in Fenny Sutton, gift of Henry Biset 1220; land in Wishford and Burton,
> Margery Bisset, 1227;land in Ludwark Roger and Alan de la Suche 1224;
> clearing rights of 50 acres in Selwood (Yarnfield) gift of Henry III,
1227;
> land at North Merden, Sussex, gift of Walter Hussey].
>
> Pat
PLM: I have searched for this reference online at OLIS, the British Public
Library, and the Library of Congress and I cannot find this book. Pat, can
you provide more information on this reference, because it is one I would
like to order - if I can only locate it:-) I have e-mailed the chap at the
web site as well for the additional information, but if you have it already,
we may get a quicker response.
Best Wishes,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patricia Junkin" <paju...@erols.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Patricia Junkin
I cited from the same website that you mention--should have cited more
fully-- and have also done an internet search for the book with no results.
H. D. is "Hugh" but that did not produce, either.
http://www.btinternet.com/~JIM.DOWNES1/history.htm
I hope Jim Downes answers because, I too, would like to obtain a copy. I
think there is much in that book of benefit. As Todd indicated, the
"C+number; E+number; etc" is from the catalog of the Public Record Office at
Kew.
Evidently, this, Market Lavington, is the holding of John la Zouche: E
210/5775 John Gernun of Market Lavington (Stepellavington) to Hugh de
Plessetis, lord of Kidlington [co. Oxford]: Receipt for money: Wilts. 23
Edw. I.
Pat
----------
>From: "Phil Moody" <moody...@cox.net>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
?
>Date: Sun, Jun 22, 2003, 4:11 PM
moody...@cox.net
Cheers,
Phil
Douglas Richardson
The 1662-1664 Visitation of Nottinghamshire gives a pedigree of the
St. Andrew family on pages 19 and 20 (H.S.P., n.s. 5, 1986). Included
in the pedigree is the family of Roger la Zouche, to whom Milicent de
Cantelowe, widow of Eudes la Zouche, gave the manor of Lubbesthorpe,
co. Leicester. The visitation pedigree places Roger la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe as the son of William la Zouche, which information agrees
with contemporary evidence of his indicated parentage. As per this
pedigree, Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe was the uncle of William la
Zouche Mortimer, 2nd husband of the well known Eleanor de Clare.
Below is an abstract of the Zouche portion of the pedigree:
Galfridus Vicomes de Porhoet.
/
Alanus la Zouche quondam comes Britanniae. = Alicia soror et haeres
Ranulphi de Beaumeis.
/
-----------------------------------------
/ /
Guiliemus la Zouch, ob. s.p. Rogerus la Zouche =
frater et haeres /
14. H. 3. /
/
------------------------------------------------------
/ /
Gulielmus la Zouche 1. Alanus la Zouche = Elena filia secunda
53 H. 3. filius et haeres, et una haeredum
= Johanna 33 Ed. 1 Rogeri de Quincy
/ Comitis Wintoniae
/ ob. 24 E. 1)
/
---------------------------------------------------
/ /
Rogerus la Zouche miles cui = Juliana Jocosa = Dns Robertus
Milicenta de Montealto (uxor / de Mortumari.
Eudonis la Zouche sororq et haeres /
Georgii de Cantilupo) dedit manerium /
de Lobesthorp in Com. Leic. Willielmus cognomento
/ Zouche =
/
/
Matildis = Rogerus la Zouche = Foelicia uxor 2a
uxor 1a / miles, 1 E. 3. / 1 E. 3.
/ /
/ ---------------------------------
/ /
-------------------------------------------- /
/ / / /
Juliana Margareta Willielmus la Johanna
soror et cohaeres soror et Zouche miles, uxor
Will'i la Zouche, mil. cohaeres uxor filius et haeres, Marmaduci
=Johannes de S. Andrea Willielmi Bredon 22 E.3 et Constable.
miles, 3 E.3, 14 E.3. 37 E. 3.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<a4.38b60b7...@aol.com>...
> Saturday, 14 June, 2003
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> While innocently researching other lines, I noted two websites
> which allege a connection between the family of La Zouche and the
> Constables of Flamborough, co. Yorks. The property in question is
> Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. (or rather a moiety thereof). Details from
> the websites in question are given below [1].
>
> Prior to discounting the connection indicated, I noted that the
> Constable generation in question shows one Marmaduke Constable who d.
> 1 June 1378. The pedigree from Burke (Commoners) is problematic (how
> unusual), but other than giving this Marmaduke a son married to a
> 'Joan FitzHugh' the 14th/15th century generations appear reasonable.
> The chronology works with this Marmaduke Constable and his wife being
> born say 1320/30, with their son Robert being born say 1353, and
> married 1381 (to Margaret Skipwith) [2].
>
> There is support found in PRO records for the inheritance of
> Lubbesthorpe (or a moiety thereof) by the Constable family, to-wit:
>
> ' FILE ref. 26D53/422 - date: Jan. 1399/1400
> Leics., Lubbesthorpe.
> Receipt of Sir Robert Conestable to Sir Hugh de Sherlay
> by hands of Thos. Dodeman for 8 marks, for the farm of the
> manor of Lubbesthorpe for Easter and Michaelmas 1399.' [3]
>
> Contributions from Pat Junkin and others give additional fuel to
> this fire. In particular, the following information is to be found in
> the SGM archives:
>
> 1. Grant, of 1302:
>
> C 143/40/6
> 'Roger la Zouch to grant a messuage, brushwood, land,
> and rent in Lubbesthorpe to a chaplain of the chapel of
> St. Peter there, retaining land. Leic.
> 30 EDWARD I. [1302]' [4]
>
> 2. Evidently from the IPM of Roger la Zouche, d. 1304:
>
> "In 1304 Roger la Zouch deceased held the manor of
> Lubbesthorpe of William la Zouch by the service of the third
> part of a knight零 fee; Roger la Zouch, son and heir of the
> aforesaid Roger was then aged 11 ...." [5]
>
> 3. Grants of land in Lubbesthorpe and elsewhere, 1349/50:
>
> C 143/292/5
> 'William la Zouche, late dean of the church of St. Peter,
> York, and Roger la Zouche, knight, to grant rent in North
> Witham and Gunby to a chaplain in the parish church of
> Clipsham. Lincoln. The same to grant messuages and land in
> Lubbesthorpe to certain chaplains in the chapel of St.
> Mary there, the said Roger retaining land and rent in
> Lubbesthorpe.
> Leic. 23 EDWARD III ' [6]
>
>
> The lineage, as outlined in the website noted below (excluding the
> erroneous first generation) would appear to be:
>
> Eudes la Zouche = Millicent de Cantelou
> ______________I
> I
> Roger la Zouche, younger son, b. say 1277/78 (?),
> of Lubbesthorpe, Leics.; d. 1304
> ______________I
> I
> Roger la Zouche, b. say 1293; d. aft 1349/50
> = 1) Matilda = 2) Felicia
> ____I______________________________________ I
> I I I I
> William Juliana Margaret Joan/Johanna
> (dsp) coheiress coheiress coheiress
> = Marmaduke
> Constable
> d. 1 June 1378
> I
> I
> Robert Constable
> of Flamborough, Yorks. &
> Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics.
> d bef 8 Jan 1400/01
>
>
> Should anyone have further documentation as to the validity of
> this line (and the connection to La Zouche of Harringworth), I (and
> other Constable descendants) would appreciate hearing of it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John P. Ravilious
Douglas Richardson
As I recall from my reading of Lee Sheppard's TAG article on Roger la
Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, Roger of Lubbesthorpe was known to have been
the brother of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York.
In my research for the forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry, I came
across a reference in which William la Zouche, Archbishop of York
(died 1352), was called "cousin" by Nicholas de Cauntelowe, lord of
Ilkeston, co. Derby [Reference: W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6
Pt. 1 (1830, rev. ed.): 11 (dated 22 Sep. 16 Edward III)].
If so, this would suggest the possibility that Archbishop William la
Zouche and his brother, Roger, of Lubbesthorpe, were younger sons of
Eudes la Zouche (died 1279), of Harringworth, co. Northampton, by his
wife, Millicent de Cauntelow. This would mean, of course, that Eudes
and Milicent had two sons named William. I note that Eudes and
Milicent's eldest son and heir was named William and he is definitely
a separate and distinct individual from the Archbishop.
The chronology would seem to be a little tight, as Eudes and
Milicent's son and heir, William, was born in 1276, whereas Eudes died
in 1279. If Eudes and Milicent had additional sons, they would
necessarily have to been born in the period, 1276-1279. However, I
see Complete Peerage cites no Inquisition Post Mortem for Eudes la
Zouche, so I'm not sure how the birthdate for Eudes and Milicent's son
and heir, William, is known. William received his mother, Milicent's
lands in 1299, so he was born prior to 1278.
Patricia Junkin
May I first request an observation. Is there a Matilda St. Andrew who m.
William de Veteriponte in the Nottinghamshire pedigree you mention?
As I understand your post, the William who m. Maud Hobridge is a brother to
the Joyce who m. de Mortimer?
The Roger who m. Margaret Bisset d. c. 1238
Roger's son, Alan b. c. a. 1195, d. 1269 m. Elena de Quincy
Roger's son, William d. after 1272 m. Maud Hobridge wid/o John de Trailly
d. 1235.
C 47/14/1/11 Writ to sheriff of Essex: to enquire into the lands, heir etc
of William la Zouche and Matilda his wife. 56 Hen III [1272]. I believe this
William to be the Sheriff of Sussex 1262-3. Joyce's son, William and
grandson, Ralph continued interest in Sussex.
Maud must also have died c. 1272 when her son by John de Trailly issues the
compaint: William La Zuch: Writ of Certiorari 3 Feb. on the complaint of
John de Traylli, that the escheator had taken in to the kingšs hands the
manor of Hibruggš, which the said William held by courtesy of England of the
inheritance of Maud the said Johnšs mother. Inq. The day of St. Peter ad
Cathedram, 56 Hen.III
Essex. Hobrugš manor was not held of his own inheritance, but he held it by
the courtesy of England of the inheritance of Maud, sometime his wife. Sir
John de Trailly is the next heir of the said Maud. C Hen III File 42 (8)
Joyce la Zouche was b. c. 1250 m/. Robert de Mortimer b. 1252
I have Roger of Lubbesthorpe birth 1268, dying 1304.
Could William have married a Johanna after the death of Maud by whom he had
William, father to Roger of Lubbesthorpe?
Pat
----------
>From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection ?
>Date: Sun, Jul 13, 2003, 1:25 PM
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
>
>> part of a knightšs fee; Roger la Zouch, son and heir of the
The...@aol.com
Dear Douglas,
Thanks for that find and post. While this Visitation record
runs quite a bit later than the generations (La Zouche) being
recorded, the record appears to accurately reflect the known
facts of the Lubbesthorpe branch, including the fact (documented
previously) that the father of the first Roger la Zouche (d. bef
28 Aug 1303) of Lubbesthorpe was named William.
Interestingly, the Visitation pedigree (reproduced below)
gives the mother of Roger (and Jocosa/Joyce) as "Johanna", otherwise
Joan. The mother of Joyce is know to be Maud de Hobrugg, coheiress
of her father William de Hobrugg of Hobrugge (or Howbridge), Essex
(cf. Knights of Edward I, V:225). Perhaps what we then have (*) is
1) Johanna = William ("Guiliemus") = 2) Maud de
I la Zouche, of Norton I Hobrugge
__________I co. Northants. I
I I
Sir Roger Joyce
of Lubbesthorpe = Robert de Mortimer
(d bef 28 Aug 1303)
* The placement of "Johanna" as first wife is conjectural
The generations also work well chronologically, from Roger la
Zouche (d. bef 14 May 1238) Margaret Bisset to William, husband of
Maud de Hobrugge (and evidently Johanna) (d. bef 6 Aug 1287), to son
Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe (d. bef 28 Aug 1303) and his son Sir
Roger, who evidently died after 1349.
Merci!
John *
______________________
Dear John ~
_________________
* John P. Ravilious
Patricia Junkin
I meant: As I understand your post, the William who m. Maud Hobridge is a
father to the Joyce who m. de Mortimer and also married a Johanna?
Pat
----------
>From: "Patricia Junkin" <paju...@erols.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection ?
>Date: Sun, Jul 13, 2003, 4:02 PM
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear John ~
>
> As I recall from my reading of Lee Sheppard's TAG article on Roger la
> Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, Roger of Lubbesthorpe was known to have been
> the brother of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York.
This is not the case. William la Zouche, Archbishop of York, was
hypothesized to be brother of Roger of Lubbesthorpe based on
circumstancial evidence.
> In my research for the forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry, I came
> across a reference in which William la Zouche, Archbishop of York
> (died 1352), was called "cousin" by Nicholas de Cauntelowe, lord of
> Ilkeston, co. Derby [Reference: W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6
> Pt. 1 (1830, rev. ed.): 11 (dated 22 Sep. 16 Edward III)].
>
> If so, this would suggest the possibility that Archbishop William la
> Zouche and his brother, Roger, of Lubbesthorpe, were younger sons of
> Eudes la Zouche (died 1279), of Harringworth, co. Northampton, by his
> wife, Millicent de Cauntelow.
Unless you can explain why Roger called his father William, this
doesn't fly.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
I was under the impression that Joyce was heiress of William, not
just of her mother. If so this (quite) late Visitation pedigree
must be questioned, at a minimum in showing Roger as legitimate
son of William.
taf
The...@aol.com
Dear Douglas, Pat, et al.,
Actually, I think the problem is a generation further down: if Archbishop
William was a brother of Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, he was a brother of
Roger the younger (b. say 1292), and not of the elder (born say 1260-1270).
This would apparently introduce two 'wild cards' into the ancestry of William,
Archbishop of York:
1. Juliana, wife of Roger 'the elder' (d. bef 28 Aug
1303); and
2. Joan/Johanna, (1st ?) wife of William la Zouche of
Norton, co. Northants. (also father of Jocosa/Joyce,
wife of Robert de Mortimer).
The ancestry I have for Nicholas de Cauntelo is given below: perhaps
someone has a hint as to another (possibly non-Cauntelo) link to the La Zouches of
Lubbesthorpe.
Cheers,
John *
___________________
1 Nicholas de Cantelou.
of Greasley, Notts. and Ilkeston, co. Derby
held 1/2 Fee in co. Bucks., 17 Sept 1322[1]
2 William de Cantelou. Born bef 6 Aug 1262.[2] William died
bef 6 Aug 1308, he was 46.[2] Occupation: Lord Cauntelo.
of Greasley, Notts. and Ilkeston, co. Derby
summoned to Parliament from 29 Dec 1299 by writs directed 'Willelmo
de Canti Lupo', held thereby to have become Lord Cauntelo[2]
William married Eve de Boltby.
3 Eve de Boltby.
coheiress of her father (Sanders p. 127)[3]
she m. lstly Alan de Walkingham,
2ndly Richard Knoute,
3rdly William de Cantelou[3]
4 Nicholas de Cantelou. Nicholas died bef 24 Sep 1266.[2]
lst husband of Eustache fitzRalph
Nicholas married Eustache FitzHugh.
5 Eustache FitzHugh.
heiress of grandfather Hugh FitzRalph [4]
she m. lstly Nicholas de Cauntelo;
2ndly William de Ros[2]
6 Adam de Boltby. Adam died in 1281.[3]
of Langley, Northumberland
8 William de Cantelou.[2] William died on 22 Feb 1250, he was 65.[2]
Born ? 1185.
of Aston Cantlow, co. Warwick
steward of Henry III[5]
" he and Milicent his wife, 'formerly wife of Aumarie, Count of Evreux,'
had dower in Petersfield and Mapledurham (CP Vol V (Gloucester), p. 693)"[2]
served coheir to his cousin William de Courtenay, of a moiety of the manor
of Badmondisfield, Suffolk [Copinger, Vol. V, p. 301 citing O. 26 Hen.
III. 2][6]
had the wardship of young Piers de Montfort: under a charter dated 10 Feb
1227 from King Henry III for a market and fair at Beaudesert, co. Warwick,
' the market and fair evidently held by William de 'Cantilupe', who paid
15 marks for holding same'[7]
acquired the manor of Bingley, co. Yorks. ca. 1230 : following the
forfeiture by Maurice de Gant of his manor of Bingley in connection
with his ransom,
'...William de Cantilupe received a confirmation from the Crown of
the vill, market and manor of Bingley of the gift and feoffment of
Rannulph, earl of Chester and Lincoln, to be held of him by the
service of half a fief of one knight.'[8]
'Willielmo de Cantilupo junior ', had grant of manors of Boggeden and
Haverburgh, co. Leics. for his life from King Henry III, 18 Jan 21 Hen
III (1236/7) [Nichols II/2, p. 488, ref. Testa de Nevill][9]
NOTE: (1)Turner assigned the acquisition of Bingley to
William (d. 1239), father of this William.
(2) The relationship of William de Cantelou to
William de Curtenai, as noted by Copinger
(see above), is unproven.[10]
In 1217 when William was 32, he married Millicent de Gournay.[2],[11]
9 Millicent de Gournay. Millicent died in 1260.[12]
she m. 1st Amauri de Montfort, Count of Evreux,
2ndly William de Cantelou[2]
Fine for her marriage by William de Cantelou 'senior', 2 Hen. III (Dugdale,
citing Rot. Pip. 2 H. 3)[11]
her maritagium included lands in Houghton, co. Beds. (fine in 4 Hen. 3 paid
by William de Cantelou 'senior' for these lands)
re: her 2nd husband, William de Cantelou:
of Aston Cantlow, co. Warwick
steward of Henry III[5]
" he and Milicent his wife, 'formerly wife of Aumarie, Count of Evreux,'
had dower in Petersfield and Mapledurham.." (CP Vol V (Gloucester),
p. 693)[2]
10 Ralph FitzHugh.
probably d.v.p. [4]
12 Nicholas de Boltby. Nicholas died in 1272.[3]
of Langley, Northumberland de jure uxoris
' Nicholas de Bolteby ', had charters for a market and fair granted 26
Jun 1267, by King Henry III, ' To be held at the manor '.
(CChR, 1257–1300, p. 77)[7]
Nicholas married Philippa de Tindale.
13 Philippa de Tindale.
16 William de Cantelou. Born ? 1158. William died on 7 Apr 1239, he
was 81.[13]
of Aston Cantlow, co. Warwick
Steward to King John, 1210
Sheriff of Warwickshire and Leicester 1201-1204, 1209-1216[11]
Sheriff again under Henry III, 1217-1223 (2 Hen. 3-9 Hen. 3)[11]
exchanged the manor of Cockeswell, Berks. to the King for the manor of
Eaton [Eaton Bray], Beds., charter for which dated 4 April 1205 [Eyton
Vol. VI, p. 356][14]
by a fine of Jan 1211, levied before the King at Westminster, acquired
the manor of Meole Brace, co. Salop to be held of Roger de Mortimer
by the service of one knight's fee, in exchange for 300 merks of silver
[Audulf II de Braci to hold a moiety of de Cantelou, by the service of
half a knight's fee]. Eyton, Vol. VI, pp. 354/5[14]
In 1213 ( 15 Joh.), had respite for
'Three hundred marks for a Fine which he was to have paid for the Wardship
and Custody of the Land of Henry de Longchamps Heir; ..' [his nephew][11]
' In this second year of King Henry the Third, he gave another Fine of two
hundred marks for Milisent, the Widow of Almaric, Earl of Evreux, to be
a Wife for William his Son; and for Katherine, the Daughter of Hugh de
L'Isle, to be married to one of his Brothers.
' In 4 Hen. 3. he paid to the King ten pounds Blanck for Lands in Hochton,
which he had with the Daughter and Heir of the before specified Hugh
de Gornay.'[11]
had grant by letter patent from King Henry III of a market at Aston Cantlow,
1227[7]
William married Mesceline de Braci.
17 Mesceline de Braci.
elsewhere, Masceline or Mazilia
'Vitalis Engaine and Roger Gernet, sued William de Cantelupe and Mazilia
his wife, for a carucate and a half of land in Wurle, and they also sued
Elias de Beauchamp for a carucate and a half of land in the same vill,
...'[10]
18 Hugh V de Gournay. Born ca 1148.[12] Hugh V died on 25 Sep 1214, he was
66.[5]
of Mapledurham, Oxon., and Caister, Norfolk
assessed a fine of more than £119 1180 (Pipe Roll xxix p. 19[5])
received a grant of Wendover, Bucks. and Houghton, Beds. from King Stephen.
Companion of Richard I on the Third Crusade; at the siege of Acre, 1190
(charter to the abbey of Bec confirmed by Richard I, 1190)
opted for England at the pacification of Normandy, 1204 and had restoration
of his lands in Norfolk and elsewhere by decree of King John, 1206[5]
Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, 1214
resigned his lands to son Gerard, 1214[5]
Dugdale indicates he died in 1221 (6 Hen. 3),
'for then did the King direct his Precept to William de Cantilupe, to
restore unto Hugh his Son (Girard being dead, as it seems) all the
Lands of his Inheritance, then in his custody.'[11]
Cooke, p. 11:
"In England, among other manors, Hugh V now held, beside Mapledurham,
Bledlowe in Bucks, some restored manors in Norfolk (Caister, Cantley,
and lands in Aylsham), also Houghton in Beds and Waltham in Lincs,
while in 1210 we find him paying a fine of 700 marks for Wendover.'[5]
Hugh V married Juliana de Dammartin[12].
19 Juliana de Dammartin.[12] Born ca 1165.[12]
20 Hugh fitz Ralph.[4]
of Greasley, Notts., and Ilkeston, co. Derby[2]
Hugh married Agnes de Gresley[4].
21 Agnes de Gresley.[4]
heiress of Greasley[2]
26 Adam de Tindale. Adam died in 1233.[3]
of Langley, Northumberland
32 Walter de Cantelou.
34 Audulf de Braci. Audulf died bef 27 Apr 1203.[14]
of Eaton Bray, co. Beds.[15] and Meole Brace, co. Salop[14]
joined Fulk fitz Warin in his rebellion against King John, 1201 - returned
to the King's peace prior to his death (Eyton, Vol. VI, pp. 351-2)[14]
called a 'cousin' of Fulk fitz Warin in the FitzWarin Chronicle [nature of
relationship not defined][14]
elsewhere 'Adulf' [Adelolf ?]
'Adolfus de Bracheio witnessed a charter (ca. 1164) by Walter Giffard
addressed to all his men, French and English.'[16]
Audulf married NN.
35 NN.
36 Hugh IV de Gournay. Born ca 1094.[12] Hugh IV died ca 1180, he
was 86.[5] Occupation: seigneur de Gournay.
of Mapledurham, Oxon. and Caister, Norfolk;
founded a chapter of the nuns of Fontevrault at Vallee de la Bataille, after
1130[5]
rebelled against Henry I, pardoned ca. 1119
' acted as one of Henry's lieutenants in an effort to keep the peace in
Normandy after the death of the king.', 1135[17]
bef 1147 when Hugh IV was 53, he married Melisende de Coucy[12], in before
leaving on Crusade ?
37 Melisende de Coucy.[12]
called 'Millicent de Marla' by A. H. Cooke[5]
38 Aubri II de Dammartin. Aubri II died on 20 Sep 1200.[18]
Occupation: count of Dammartin.
Aubri II married Maud of Clermont[19].
39 Maud of Clermont.[19] Maud died aft Oct 1200.[18]
42 Ralph de Gresley. Ralph died bef 19 Jun 1228.[2]
of Greasley, Notts. and Middle Claydon, Bucks.
3 knights' fees held of the honour of Peverel of Nottingham[2]
52 Adam de Tindale. Adam died in 1188.[3]
of Langley, Northumberland
1. "Knights of Edward I," Rev. Charles Moor, D.D., F.S.A., Pubs. of the
Harleian Society, 1929-1930, 3 Vols. (Vols. 80-83 in series).
2. "The Complete Peerage," G. E. Cokayne, 1910 -
The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the
United Kingdom.
3. "English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and Descent, 1086-1327," I. J.
Sanders, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.
4. "Driby," Paul C. Reed, Society of Medieval Genealogy (@rootsweb.com),
22 June 1999, posted on GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com.
5. "The Early History of Mapledurham," Alfred Hands Cooke, M.A., Sc.D.,
Oxfordshire Record Society, Oxford: Oxfordshire Record Society, 1925,
*orig. cite by Timothy Powys-Lybbe, t...@powys.org
[t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk], p. 11 cited by T. Powys-Lybbe
(re: Hugh V de Gournay).
6. "The Manors of Suffolk: Notes on Their History and Devolution," W. A.
Copinger, M.A., LL.D., F.S.A., London: T. F. Unwin, 1905-1911, 7 Vols.
7. "Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516," www.histparl.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/,
8. "J. Horsfall Turner," Ancient Bingley: or Bingley, Its History and
Scenery, Bingley, Yorks. : Thomas Harrison and Sons, 1897, Cantilupe:
pp. 66 et seq., scan copy provided by Beryl Thompson, Kambah, Australia,
www.pcug.org.au/~bthompso/bingley/bingleyy.pdf.
9. "The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester," John Nichols,
F.S.A., London: Printed By and For John Nichols, 1795, Vol. I, Appendix
XIII: Chartulary of the Honour of Segrave, p. 119, charters of Thomas de
Birkin, William de Flamborough and Nicholas de Anesty, of lands in
Pickwell and Leesthorpe, co. Leics. to Stephen de Segrave, Vol. II,
Pt. II (Gartre Hundred), p. 488 re: grant of 'Boggeden' and Haverburgh
to William de Cantelou, 1237;, pp. 531 et seq., Burton Overy (family of
Hugh de Meinill), p. 768 et seq., manors of Pickwell and Leesthorpe
(Camville and Curzon), Vol. III, Pt. I (East Gascote Hundred) - 1800; p.
62 et seq., Barrow;, pp. 301 et seq., Launde priory;, pp. 332 et seq.,
Whadborough (charters of Fulk Fitz Warin and family), pp. 353 et seq.,
Prestwould; pp. 363 et seq., Burton on the Wolds.
10. Todd A. Farmerie, "Re: FitzUrse and de Cantelou/Cantilupe," May 11, 2002,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, citing (1) Bracton's Note Book,
De Banco Roll, 4 Hen III and (2) a plea roll pedigree.
11. "The Baronage of England," William Dugdale, Norroy King of Arms, Tho.
Newcomb [reprint Georg Verlag, New York], London, 1675 [reprint
New York, 1977].
12. "Stevens/Southworth Medieval Database," James Allen Stevens, Rootsweb,
created 14 May 2000 [extracted 25 April 2001],
www.gendex.com/users/jast/D0026/G0000090.html.
13. Richard Borthwick, "Cantelou Connections," Jan 8, 1997,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, citing I. J. Sanders, English Baronies.
14. "Antiquities of Shropshire," The Rev. R. W. Eyton, London: John Russell
Smith, 1855, Vol. 5 - p. 242 (Ludlow), pp. 132 (Banaster) and 133-142
(Barony of Hastings), Vol. 6 - pp. 350-359 (Meole Brace and de Bracy).
15. R. Leutner, "Re: De Cantilupe, Cantelupe, Cantelou," Oct 15, 1995,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com.
16. Ed Dunn, "The Bracey Surname,"
http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~eddunn/bracey/
extracted 24 May 2002, citing Calendar of Documents Preserved in France
Illustrative, of the History of Great Britain & Ireland, ed. J.
Horace Round, (London, 1899) Vol. I: AD 918-1206, pp. 76-77, 145 [Braci].
17. "Henry I," C. Warren Hollister, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001,
[English Monarchs Series].
18. Leo van de Pas, "William Fiennes, Sire de Fiennes et de Tingry,"
3 Feb 1998, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, leov...@iinet.net.au.
19. "Fiennes," G. Edward Allen, Society of Medieval Genealogy
@rootsweb.com), 25 Mar 1999 (GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com).
The...@aol.com
Dear Todd,
Actually, Joyce was not even the heiress of her mother.
That honour (of being the heir) belongs to her stepbrother, John
de Trailly. See Pat Junkin's post, given in part below.
Cheers,
John
__________________
From: "Patricia Junkin" (paju...@erols.com)
Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A
Constable Connection ?
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2003-06-21 14:37:54 PST
Richard,
I had mentioned this in one of the last e-mails but thought
I would suggest again that William la Z. 1249-89 whose son
is probably Almaric is not the same, I think, as the William
la Z. d. c. 1272 who m. Maud Hobridge. Maud had m. 1st John
de Trailly who d. died 1235, of Yelden, co. Bedford. She was the
daughter and co-heiress of William de Hobridge, of Howbridge in
Witham, Essex.
William La Zuch: Writ of Certiorari 3 Feb. on the complaint
of John de Traylli, that the escheator had taken in to the
kingıs hands the manor of Hibruggı, which the said William
held by courtesy of England of the inheritance of Maud the
said Johnıs mother.
Inq. The day of St. Peter ad Cathedram,
56 Hen.III [1272] Essex. Hobrugı manor was not held of his
own inheritance, but he held it by the courtesy of England
of the inheritance of Maud, sometime his wife. Sir John de
Trailly is the next heir of the said Maud. Hen III.
C 47/14/1/11 Writ to sheriff of Essex: to enquire into
the lands, heir etc of William la Zouche and Matilda his
wife 56 Hen III [1272]
.............
Douglas Richardson
My comments are given below.
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3F11C7E7...@interfold.com>...
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > Dear John ~
> >
> > As I recall from my reading of Lee Sheppard's TAG article on Roger la
> > Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, Roger of Lubbesthorpe was known to have been
> > the brother of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York.
>
> This is not the case. William la Zouche, Archbishop of York, was
> hypothesized to be brother of Roger of Lubbesthorpe based on
> circumstancial evidence.
Hypothesized? What is the circumstantial evidence?
> > In my research for the forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry, I came
> > across a reference in which William la Zouche, Archbishop of York
> > (died 1352), was called "cousin" by Nicholas de Cauntelowe, lord of
> > Ilkeston, co. Derby [Reference: W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6
> > Pt. 1 (1830, rev. ed.): 11 (dated 22 Sep. 16 Edward III)].
> >
> > If so, this would suggest the possibility that Archbishop William la
> > Zouche and his brother, Roger, of Lubbesthorpe, were younger sons of
> > Eudes la Zouche (died 1279), of Harringworth, co. Northampton, by his
> > wife, Millicent de Cauntelow.
>
> Unless you can explain why Roger called his father William, this
> doesn't fly.
> taf
If Archbishop William la Zouche was called cousin by Nicholas de
Cauntelowe, this is a good indication that Archbishop William la
Zouche was the son or grandson of Milicent de Cauntelowe, wife of
Eudes la Zouche. This does not necessarily mean that Roger la Zouche,
of Lubbesthorpe, was the son of Milicent, unless it can be shown that
Roger was brother to the Archbishop. Whatever the case, Roger of
Lubbesthorpe is clearly closely related to both Archbishop William la
Zouche and to Eudes la Zouche. If Roger was the son of Eudes la
Zouche's brother, William, and Archbishop William was the son or
grandson of Eudes la Zouche, it would put all of these people in the
same circle of kinship.
dcr
Douglas Richardson
If you read my post again, you'll see that Roger la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe and Joyce la Zouche, wife of Nicholas de Whelton and
Robert de Mortimer, are presented as siblings and that their parents
are given as William la Zouche and his wife, Joan. This William la
Zouche was a brother of Eudes la Zouche who married Milicent de
Cauntelowe.
I have seen it stated in print that Joyce la Zouche was the heiress of
her father, William la Zouche, but I don't know if this is true or
not. The Visitation gives William la Zouche a wife, Joan, which may
be true. William la Zouche's known wife was Maud de Howbridge. We
know that Maud de Howbridge was married previously to John de Trailly.
If so, it is entirely possible that William la Zouche was married
previously to a hitherto unknown 1st wife named Joan.
For Joyce la Zouche's 1st marriage to Nicholas de Whelton, and
descendants of that marriage, see my former posts in the newsgroup
archives.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
paju...@erols.com ("Patricia Junkin") wrote in message news:<E19bn4p-...@smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net>...
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3F11C7E7...@interfold.com>...
>>Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>>As I recall from my reading of Lee Sheppard's TAG article on Roger la
>>>Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, Roger of Lubbesthorpe was known to have been
>>>the brother of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York.
As has been pointed out, the hypothesis is that he was brother of
the younger Roger, not the elder. As far as I know, there is no
question that the younger Roger was son of the elder. Since
Roger the Elder names his father William, and was too old to be
son of the heir of Eudes and Milicent, this kinship must be taken
to fly in the face of the hypothesis that Roger the Younger and
the Archbishop were brothers, but does not allow the parentage of
Roger Sr to be determined. (This with the caveat, mentioned by
John, that it is theoretically possible that William was kin to
Nicholas through some other connection than Milicent.)
In fact, now that I think about it, this would fit right in with
Sheppard's hypothesis that Roger Sr. received Lubbesthorpe on the
occasion of his marriage to a daughter of Milicent by her first
husband, John de Montault. Any children of such a marriage would
be kin of the Cantelowes. This kinship, then, solely serves to
link Sheppard's two theories - the Archbishop could have been
brother of Roger Jr. if and only if Roger senior married a
daughter (or kinswoman) of Milicent, as he also hypothesized.
>>This is not the case. William la Zouche, Archbishop of York, was
>>hypothesized to be brother of Roger of Lubbesthorpe based on
>>circumstancial evidence.
>
> Hypothesized? What is the circumstantial evidence?
1) A Roger la Zouche was an executor of the Archbishop's will,
2)William la Zouche, King's clerk (at a time when this would have
been an accurate description of the future Bishop, and Roger la
Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, twice, jointly make donations for prayers
to be said for their ancestors.
>>>In my research for the forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry, I came
>>>across a reference in which William la Zouche, Archbishop of York
>>>(died 1352), was called "cousin" by Nicholas de Cauntelowe, lord of
>>>Ilkeston, co. Derby [Reference: W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6
>>>Pt. 1 (1830, rev. ed.): 11 (dated 22 Sep. 16 Edward III)].
>>>
>>>If so, this would suggest the possibility that Archbishop William la
>>>Zouche and his brother, Roger, of Lubbesthorpe, were younger sons of
>>>Eudes la Zouche (died 1279), of Harringworth, co. Northampton, by his
>>>wife, Millicent de Cauntelow.
>>
>>Unless you can explain why Roger called his father William, this
>>doesn't fly.
>
> If Archbishop William la Zouche was called cousin by Nicholas de
> Cauntelowe, this is a good indication that Archbishop William la
> Zouche was the son or grandson of Milicent de Cauntelowe, wife of
> Eudes la Zouche. This does not necessarily mean that Roger la Zouche,
> of Lubbesthorpe, was the son of Milicent, unless it can be shown that
> Roger was brother to the Archbishop.
And since he names his father William (Roger Sr., that is), then
he wasn't son of Eudes, and was too old to be his grandson, so
yes, if the Archbishop was descended from Eudes, he was not
brother of Roger.
> Whatever the case, Roger of
> Lubbesthorpe is clearly closely related to both Archbishop William la
> Zouche and to Eudes la Zouche.
Has anyone seriously questioned this? All of the hypotheses I
have seen floated here place Roger as a descendant of Eudes or
one of his two brothers (with the sole caveat that there may be
some more distant line we don't know about).
> If Roger was the son of Eudes la Zouche's brother, William,
Bastard, then, as Sheppard explicitly calls Joyce William's "sole
daughter and heiress".
I am underwhelmed by the late evidence of the visitation.
> and Archbishop William was the son or
> grandson of Eudes la Zouche, it would put all of these people in the
> same circle of kinship.
Again, who questions this?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Actually, Joyce was not even the heiress of her mother.
I guess I missed this, but my point was that I thought she _was_
heiress of her father. Do you mean "not _even_" - that we know
she was not heiress of her father, or are you just pointing out
(rightly) that she was not heiress of her mother?
taf
Patricia Junkin
Eudes s/o Alan who married Milicent.
It is my observation that there are two Eudes: 1) brother to Alan who m.
Elena de Quincy "1262:to deliver the castles of Edward, the king's son, to
wit, Chester, Beston and Shotwik, to Eudo la Zuche, brother of the said
Alan, without delay to keep in the name of the said Alan until his arrival",
and 2) Eudes s/o Alan and Elena. Alan and old Eudes' sister, Alice was
mother of Margory who m. John de Cantilupe-IPM William de Harcourt:"The
manors were given to William de Harcourt, lord of Ayliston, to his two
daughters Orrabilis and Margery jointly afterwards came Henry de Pennbrugg
and married the said Orrabilis and John de Cantilupo the said Margery."
Alan b. 1195----------------Eudes b. c. 1190-------------Alice b. 1195-1200
| |
|
Eudo b. 1240 m. Milicent William b. c. 1230-40 Margery m. John de
Cantilupe
| |
|
William b. 1277 Roger b. 1268 of Lub.
Just conjecture. I am also lookiing for a Bosco connection.
Pat
----------
>From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection ?
>Date: Mon, Jul 14, 2003, 1:11 AM
Douglas Richardson
My comments are given below. dcr
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3F123B8...@interfold.com>...
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3F11C7E7...@interfold.com>...
> >>Douglas Richardson wrote:
> >>>As I recall from my reading of Lee Sheppard's TAG article on Roger la
> >>>Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, Roger of Lubbesthorpe was known to have been
> >>>the brother of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York.
> > If Roger was the son of Eudes la Zouche's brother, William,
>
> Bastard, then, as Sheppard explicitly calls Joyce William's "sole
> daughter and heiress".
Specifically, what evidence does Sheppard cite that Joyce was William
la Zouche's "sole daughter and heiress?" As far as I know Joyce
received property at Norton, co. Northampton as her maritagium, but
this was not an inheritance. And, the Essex lands of William la
Zouche's wife, Maud de Howbridge, fell to her son by her 1st Trailly
marriage. I don't know of anything Joyce inherited. Do you? If so,
please name the properties and cite your sources.
The assumption that Joyce was an heiress is probably based on the fact
that about 1300 Alan la Zouche, Lord Zouche, conveyed the reversion of
several manors to Joyce's son, William de Mortimer (later known as
William la Zouche Mortimer). However, William de Mortimer was neither
Alan la Zouche's heir at law, nor his heir male. As such, this
conveyance can not and should not be construed to indicate that
William de Mortimer's mother, Joyce, was the heiress of Alan's uncle,
William la Zouche.
> I am underwhelmed by the late evidence of the visitation.
> taf
Your cynicism and lack of experience are showing. You have dismissed
a piece of valid evidence before examining its worthiness. I
recommend you withhold judgement until more evidence is on the table.
The visitation is in agreement with contemporary records that Roger la
Zouche's father's name was William la Zouche. Also, the chronology
fits perfectly. This matter deserves further investigation.
dcr
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3F123B8...@interfold.com>...
>>
>>Bastard, then, as Sheppard explicitly calls Joyce William's "sole
>>daughter and heiress".
>
> Specifically, what evidence does Sheppard cite that Joyce was William
> la Zouche's "sole daughter and heiress?"
None. For his summary of the Zouche family, he is drawing from
an unpublished genealogy of the family, compiled by John Hunt.
To reveal the basis for this statement, it would appear that
someone would have to locate the Hunt manuscript. Happy Hunting.
> As far as I know Joyce
> received property at Norton, co. Northampton as her maritagium, but
> this was not an inheritance. And, the Essex lands of William la
> Zouche's wife, Maud de Howbridge, fell to her son by her 1st Trailly
> marriage. I don't know of anything Joyce inherited. Do you? If so,
> please name the properties and cite your sources.
Do you know of any properties Roger of Lubbesthorpe inherited
from William? If so, please name the properties and cite your
sources.
>>I am underwhelmed by the late evidence of the visitation.
>
> Your cynicism and lack of experience are showing.
Don't condescend, it is unbecoming of a scholar and gentleman.
(Your egomania, conclusion-jumping and tunnel vision are showing
- see what I mean. Were I to say that, it would only diminish my
position, due to the fallacious nature of the ad hominem, and
further, it would make me look petty and vindictive. Thus, I
will refrain from saying it.)
> You have dismissed
> a piece of valid evidence before examining its worthiness.
I did examine it's worthiness - it is recorded 300+ years after
the events it pretends authority on, and thus it's worthiness is
subject to question. So I questioned it. If you wish to argue
in support of it, then do so without the ad hominem.
taf
Douglas Richardson
Dear taf `
I believe we should examine the original records of the time period
relating to William la Zouche, of Essex, BEFORE we conclude that he
left only a sole daughter and heiress, Joyce. This is simply good
scholarship.
Contemporary medieval records indicate that the father of Roger la
Zouche, of Lubbesthorpe, co. Leicester, was named William. The
visitation I unearthed indicates that Roger's father was William la
Zouche, of Essex. The chronology fits perfectly. This matter
deserves further study.
Please withhold your cynicism until all the facts are on the table.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Lorraine M Money
May I ask where the following fit into this line, if at all.
Mary Zouch(e) dau of George Zouch(e) of Codnor, co Derby; married Edmund
Babington, and another daughter of George married Augustine Babington.
Thanks.
--
Lorraine
visit my genealogical web pages at www.astspace.demon.co.uk (follow the links)
Patricia Junkin
E 32/16
Plea roll of Essex forest eyre 1324, before Aymer de Valence, William la
Zouche, and William Cleydon, begun at Stratford on the octave of Hilary rot
1 appearances; essoins rot 2 amercements for default rot 3 mainpernors rot 4
amercements and issues of the forest by sheriff's return before the justices
rot 5 enrolment of charters rot 11 pleas of venison in the various hundreds
and regards rot 23 pleas of vert in the various hundreds and regards rot 31
regards of Chelmsford, Ongar and Colchester rot 52 claims to liberties 17
E 213/354
Subject: Indenture of delivery by Amaury la Zusche [not Toteleye, I think],
Sheriff of Cambridge and
Huntingdon, to Ralph de Thorp, Master of the ship 'Saintemariecog,' at
Harwich, from the ship 'la Michel' of (King's) Lynn, of 110 trusses of hay,
to be delivered to Sir Nicholas de Hugate, Receiver of the King's victuals
in Gascony. Essex
18 Edw II 1325
E 43/476/(i)
Writ to the sheriff to pay 66l. 13s. 4d. to William la Zouche towards
his expenses on the King's service in Scotland: Essex, Herts.
2 Edw III [1329]
C 143/200/14
William Moton and Joan his wife to grant land at Latchingdon to William la
Zouch, clerk, for his life, retaining land in Oxfordshire. Essex. Oxford.
2 EDWARD III. [1328]
Later------
STAC 2/24/406
PLAINTIFF: Sir John Sowche DEFENDANT: Sir Thomas Cornwall,
Thomas Newport, and others PLACE OR SUBJECT: Unlawful
assembly and riots (depositions only) COUNTY: Essex
22/04/1509-28/01/1547
AC 2/10
PLAINTIFF: Richard CornewallDEFENDANT: Sir Thomas Wyatt and George
Zouche PLACE OR SUBJECT: Forcible ejectment at Grays Thurrock, contrary to
award and obligationCOUNTY: Essex
22/04/1509-22/04/1547
C 1/292/43
William, son and heir of William Chyld. v. Thomas Zouche and Katherine, his
wife.: Detention of deeds relating to lands in London, Boreham, and Risby.:
London, Essex, Suffolk. ND
----------
>From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection ?
>Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2003, 11:29 AM
Todd A. Farmerie
> I believe we should examine the original records of the time period
> relating to William la Zouche, of Essex, BEFORE we conclude that he
> left only a sole daughter and heiress, Joyce. This is simply good
> scholarship.
And yet you feel no such need to do so before accepting that he
left a son Roger? Odd double standard, that.
Yes, he could have been wrong, but I suspect Sheppard (and
apparently Hunt before him) had some reason for making this
statement. Certainly it would be more rigorous not to accept any
statement of any modern historian or genealogist until one has
looked at the original document, but that is not always
practical, as you certainly know. Just two days ago, you didn't
have any qualms about posting what Sheppard had concluded about
the relationship between the Archbishop and Roger without even
looking at the Sheppard article first to see what he actually
said, let alone knowing the evidence he cited. That hardly puts
you in a position to pontificate.
> Contemporary medieval records indicate that the father of Roger la
> Zouche, of Lubbesthorpe, co. Leicester, was named William.
Well, unless I am forgetting something or a new fact has come to
light, this plurality is in error, there being just one record.
Still, you were perfectly willing to contradict this direct
testimony just two days ago, with your misplaced attempt to make
Roger son of Eudes.
> The
> visitation I unearthed indicates that Roger's father was William la
> Zouche, of Essex. The chronology fits perfectly.
As would at least one other William in the Zouche pedigree.
Perhaps you can provide the medieval source, the 'original record
of the time period', that the herald compiling that Visitation
pedigree used to conclude that this was the correct relationship?
No? You mean you are accepting it without an 'original record
of the time period'? Hmm.
> This matter deserves further study.
Are you familiar with the term 'straw man'?
(This is a cheap debating trick used by sleazy politicians and
unscrupulous lawyers. "You shouldn't kick your dog." It leaves
implicit that the other guy boots his basset, distorting the
record without explicitly making any accusations.)
'I have an open mind and you have rushed to judgement without all
the inforamtion' is a bit harsh (and a bit ironic) of a
condemnation to make in response to my 'I don't think you should
rush to judgement based on this one source'. When I suggested
that I did not think a 400-years-after-the-fact pedigree need be
the last word, how could that possibly indicate that I thought
the matter was closed?
> Please withhold your cynicism until all the facts are on the table.
So, you do not reach conclusions "until all the facts are on the
table"? That is truly unfortunate to all of those who have sent
you money for your book, as it will either contain no
conclusions, or it will never go to press because you are still
withholding judgement. Are you aware of a single case in all of
genealogy in which in which every single possible source has been
found, published, and is in hand? With modern medicine and all,
you may live a long time, but I am almost certain that both of us
will be long dead and "all of the facts" will still not be "on
the table".
All scholarship is progressive - one reaches conclusions based on
the information on hand. Likewise, all conclusions are
provisional, subject to reevaluation with each new datum. Heck,
there isn't even any way to know when "all of the facts are on
the table", as you can never know if there isn't some fact out
there somewhere that you have failed to find yet ("my mother
Countess Ida" comes to mind). Thus, by your criterion, no
conclusions can ever be reached until just before the end of the
world, when all genealogical facts will be revealed to mankind by
the Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light.
In fact, there have been several examples discussed in this group
where new evidence has shed light on your prior conclusions (Ida
and Clementia immediately come to mind), so please withhold your
hypocracy until all of the facts are on the table.
taf
Phil Moody
Thus, by your criterion, no
> conclusions can ever be reached until just before the end of the
> world, when all genealogical facts will be revealed to mankind by
> the Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light.
PLM: Todd, are you referring to me here?
Best Wishes,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
>> Thus, by your criterion, no
>>conclusions can ever be reached until just before the end of the
>>world, when all genealogical facts will be revealed to mankind by
>>the Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light.
>
> PLM: Todd, are you referring to me here?
No. This is an occasional character in a popular comic strip.
It never even occured to me that we had a list participant of the
same given name.
taf
Phil Moody
accounts for my ignorance of the phrase:-) It did bring back fond memories of
when my mother and grandmother searched every inch of my body for the "Mark of
the Beast":-) The first Social Security number I was issued had more than
three sixes; so they requested another number, and my second one had four
sixes in a row! The Social Security Administration would not issue me a third
number; so now I am stuck with two Social Security Numbers, and each has three
or more sixes in a row.
So I have grown up with the stigma of being the Anti-Christ in the back of my
mind; but it is rather difficult to launch my plans for World Domination when
I can barely keep my Utilities on:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection ?
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Please help with the following:
Questions on William la Zouche, son of Eudo la Zouche and Milicent do
Montealto and his son Roger, raised (at lease in my mind) by the
references listed in Rev. C Moor’s “Knights of Edward I”.
In medieval references, are Matilda and Maud interchangeable? Moor
references first Matilda as wife [1] and later wife Maud, daughter of Jn
Lovel of Tychemersh [2]. Are these the same person?
Could William have been the second or later husband of Matilda? If not
why would Milicent include and finally, the right Heirs of Matilda in a
regrant of holdings of William de Bosco? [1]
What does “members of Wyminton, late of Thos. de Wahull,” indicate? [3]
Would he be “overlord of Lobesthorp Manor” upon his son’s death, if his
grandson was still a minor? [3], [4] and [5]
Would reference [6] indicate that Roger’s wife was Margaret, widow of
Hugh de Braundeston, and he was overlord of Braundeston while Hugh’s son
and heir was a minor?
Relevant Quotes:
From Moor’s notices on William la Zouche
[1] - Lic. for Wm, de Bosco to enfeoff Millicent de Montealto of Manors
of Thorp-Ernaud, Leic., Wesson, Warw., Bromfeld and Hoghton, Northants.,
Ebrighton and Farnecote, Glou., Tubbeneye and Stanelak, Oxon., and
Esyngton, Suff., she to regrant a moiety thereof to said William for
life, remainder to her s. Wm. la Z. and w. Matilda and heirs corp., and
finally to right heirs of Matilda, 15 Feb. 1296 (P.R.).
[2] - His w. Maud, 30, is d. of Jn. Lovel of Tychemersh and w. Isabel,
and heir in free marriage to lands at Docking, Norf., as ½ Fee, 1 Oct.
1310 (Inq.).
[3] - He is overlord of Lobesthorp Manor, Leic., 28 Aug. 1303, holds 3
Fees as Wyminton and Toternho, Beds., with Whetton and Potecote,
Northants., members of Wyminton, late of Thos. de Wahull, 30 Jan., and 1
Fee at Meoles, Salop, late of Edm. de Mortimer, 26 Jy. 1304 (Inq.).
From Moor’s notices on Roger la Zouche
[4] - Lic. for him to alienate mess., 34 acres, 26/8 rent, and 2
cartloads of brushwood p.a. from his wood at Lubesthorp to a chaplain
celebrating daily in St. Peter's chapel for souls of himself, his f. Wm.
la Z., and Eudo la Z. and w. Millicent, 6 Ap. 1302 (P.W.).
[5]- -Dead 28 Aug. 1303 (F.R.), holding Lobesthorp Manor as 1/2 Kt. Fee,
the gift of Milicent de Montealto in 52 Hen. III, and leaving s. h.
Roger, 11 (Inq.).
[6] - He is overlord at Braundeston, Leic., 5 May 1299 (Inq.). Livery to
him land at Braunteston, Suff., saving dower to Margaret, wid. of Hugh
de Braunteston, 16 Aug. 1299 (C.R.).
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Douglas Richardson
>
> C 143/200/14
> William Moton and Joan his wife to grant land at Latchingdon to William la
> Zouch, clerk, for his life, retaining land in Oxfordshire. Essex. Oxford.
> 2 EDWARD III. [1328]
>
Dear Patricia ~
I very much appreciate the time and effort you took to post abstracts
of several original records regarding the early Zouche family. This
is the kind of collegiality that solves difficult medieval problems
such as the parentage of Roger la Zouche, of Lubbesthorpe, and that of
his kinsman, William la Zouche, Archbishop of York.
Joan, wife of William Moton, named in the abstract above was Joan
Inge, widow of Eudes la Zouche the younger (died 1326), of
Harringworth, co. Northampton. Joan Inge's former husband, Eudes la
Zouche, was the son and heir apparent of William la Zouche (died
1352), of Harringworth, which William was the son and heir of Eudes la
Zouche the elder, of Harringworth, by his wife, Milicent de Cantelowe
[see Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 940-941].
According to Complete Peerage, Joan Inge's 1st husband, Eudes la
Zouche the younger, had a younger brother named William who I
"guesstimate" was born about 1300. I believe William la Zouch, clerk,
named in your abstract was that brother. I suspect he is also
identical with the William la Zouche who subsequently became William
la Zouche, Archbishop of York. Can anyone confirm this
identification? We already know that the Archbishop was called
"cousin" by Nicholas de Cantelowe. If the Archbishop's grandmother
was Milicent de Cantelowe, this would readily explain the kinship to
Nicholas de Cantelowe. I believe we're zeroing in on the solution to
the twin Zouche problems.
Once again, hats off to you, Patricia. Keep up the good work!
Todd A. Farmerie
> Please help with the following:
>
> Questions on William la Zouche, son of Eudo la Zouche and Milicent do
> Montealto and his son Roger, raised (at lease in my mind) by the
> references listed in Rev. C Moor’s “Knights of Edward I”.
This relationship is not as Moor has it.
> In medieval references, are Matilda and Maud interchangeable? Moor
> references first Matilda as wife [1] and later wife Maud, daughter of Jn
> Lovel of Tychemersh [2]. Are these the same person?
Yes.
> Could William have been the second or later husband of Matilda? If not
> why would Milicent include and finally, the right Heirs of Matilda in a
> regrant of holdings of William de Bosco? [1]
This was a vehicle whereby William de Bosco is 'laundering' the
property through the hands of Milicent in order to alter the
normal inheritance of it in favor of Matilda (and William la
Zouche). Presumably, Matilda is not the rightful heiress, so by
granting it to Milicent it erases any encumbrances on the
inheritance, and then Milicent grants it right back, with the new
pattern of inheritance spelled out. (An alternative is that
Matilda was the rightful heir, but this protects the Zouche
children in the event that they are all daughters against the
claim of some son by a later marriage.) Either way, Milicent's
role is as intermediary in a string of transactions intended to
ensure that it passes from de Bosco to Matilda. It likely was
part of the marriage agreement, to ensure that the couple had an
inheritance.
> What does “members of Wyminton, late of Thos. de Wahull,” indicate? [3]
It means that these properties (while in a different county) are
associated with the earlier mentioned Wymington holding, and that
until recently these were held under the overlordship of Thomas
de Wahull.
> Would he be “overlord of Lobesthorp Manor” upon his son’s death, if his
> grandson was still a minor? [3], [4] and [5]
Do not confuse overlordship with guardianship. Think of
overlordship like a sort of sublet. It is a heirarchical
structure, whereby the king holds everything (nominally of the
church), but lets it out to noblemen in exchange for military
service. They in turn 'sublet' portions of it to others, to hold
of them, and on down. Now, as overlord, he would hold as
guardian (which right he could keep or sell) during the minority
of the heir, but he would have been overlord before the holder
died, and would still be overlord after the minor reached
adulthood, and entered into the holding.
More importantly, Moor is mistaken here. The chronology is such
that William, son of Eudes and Milicent, could not be father of
Roger (they were of similar age to each other, or if anything
Roger was older than William). Roger is son of A William, but
not this one. Instead, it looks like Milicent did not grant
Lubbesthorpe outright to Roger, but rather enfeoffed it (granted
it to him as undertennant, to hold it with her as overlord).
When she died, William became overlord over Roger, and when Roger
died, William would have held it as overlord during the minority
of young Roger.
> Would reference [6] indicate that Roger’s wife was Margaret, widow of
> Hugh de Braundeston, and he was overlord of Braundeston while Hugh’s son
> and heir was a minor?
No. It appears to be saying that Roger has posession, as
overlord, of all of it except that portion currently serving as
part of the dowery of Margaret, as widow of someone (Hugh or an
earlier husband) who had held it. Margaret would hold it for
life, at which point it would revert to the feoffee or overlord.
taf
Patricia Junkin
Dear Richard,
>
> Questions on William la Zouche, son of Eudo la Zouche and Milicent do
> Montealto and his son Roger, raised (at lease in my mind) by the
> references listed in Rev. C Moor’s “Knights of Edward I”.
The History of Leicestershire also states this and goes further to name him
the second son of Euds and Milicent. I have only secondary sources for Roger
calling his father, William, as has been pointed out on this list. Could
someone tell me the more of St. Peter's Chapel for which this declaration
was made? Was this at Lubbesthorpe?
>
> In medieval references, are Matilda and Maud interchangeable? Moor
> references first Matilda as wife [1] and later wife Maud, daughter of Jn
> Lovel of Tychemersh [2]. Are these the same person?
As Todd said, yes the names are used interchangeably.
> Could William have been the second or later husband of Matilda? If not
> why would Milicent include and finally, the right Heirs of Matilda in a
> regrant of holdings of William de Bosco? [1]
>
The de Boscos held Thorp Ernauld. Maude Lovell's mother was Isabel de
Bosco/Bois, daughter of Ernauld de Bosco of Thorp Ernauld and sister to
william and John de Bosco.
I find this bit of possibility most interesting.
E 40/3691
Grant William de Fraxineto [Frethnei?], to the nuns of St. Mary's, Wike, in
frankalmoin, for the souls of himself and Cristiana his mother, of all the
assart he made in Svineland, and the tenement of Reginald de Bosco and
others there; 3s. yearly to be devoted to clothng the nuns.
Between 1264 and 1289 there is a release by Richard le Swein of Swithelund
[nr. Mountsorrel in parish of Groby, Leic], to Margaret de Ferr[ariis],
countess of Derby, Ellen la Zuche, Alexander Comyn, earl of Bouchan, and
Elizabeth his wife, the heirs of Roger de Quency, late earl of Winchester,
of all his right in alnd in Schepeheved (Sheepshead) formerly held by Elias
Swein, his brother, and in a toft and croft and other land there, and in
land in Bradegate which was the said Elias's. E 40/3439: Ancient Deeds,
Series A Grant by Robert de Beche and Idonea his wife, daughter of William
de Frethnei, to the nuns of St. Mary of Wikes, in frank almoin, of all the
land that William de Frethnei assarted in Swineland and atenement in the
same place. Witnesses:- Robert de Aguillion
William de Frethnei had two daughters, Idonea who married a Robert de la
Beche and Margery who m. Robert de Aguillon. In ancient deeds, a grant by
Robert de Beche and Idonea his wife, daughter of William de Frethnei to the
nuns of St. Mary Wikes. It appears that Robert Aguillon was witness.
Sir Robert de la Beche, Knt. b. ca 1210, knighted 1278 was father of Sir
Philip de la Beche b. 1250 d. 1329 married Lady Joan (It is inferred from
the seal that she was of the family of de la Zouche). He was sheriff of
Berkshire and Wiltshire and with Bartholomew Burgherch and Thomas, Earl of
Lancaster defeated at Boroughbridge, Yorkshire. In 26 Edw. I , Hungerford,
Berks. 1/2 knights fee held by John de Kyngeston, Nicholas de Kyngeston and
Philip de la Beche of the same honour. As I mentioned previously, Roger la
Zouche of Lubbesthorpe was an adherent of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster.
E 40/29 Grant by Dunecan de Lascelles, and Christina his wife, to the House
of Mary of Wykes, and I(donea), the prioress, of the homage of Alard, son of
Aldwin de Bosco, of land in Bekenesfeld, of that moiety of land therecalled
'Deue,' and a moiety of the park of Walter de Windleshores, infrankalmoign,
in exchange for land granted by Christina, daughter of Ralph de Windlesores,
to that house.
Henry III [1216-72]
Knights of Edward I-p. 222: Lic. for William de Bosco to enfeoff Millicent
de Montealto of Manors of Thorp-Enaud, Leic., Weston, Warw., Bromfield and
Hoghton, N"hants, Ebrighton and Franecote Glous., Tybbeneye and Stanelak,
Oxon and Esyngton Suf., she to regrant a moiety thereof to said William for
life, remainder to her s. William la Zouche and wife Matilda and heirs
corp., and finally to right heirs of Matilda..12 Feb. 1296.
> Would he be “overlord of Lobesthorp Manor” upon his son’s death, if his
> grandson was still a minor? [3], [4] and [5]
I believe that Rosie has posted some information on Lubbesthorpe and hope
this is not redundant. E I:land at Lupesthorp held by Pagen under William
Peverel; another 3 oxgangs in Kirbyu Muxbe held by Riulf under William
Peverel belonged to William Peverel...1280 "Lubesthorpe est de feodo
Peverell; & d'na Milkicent de Mohunt habet is eadem duodecim virgatas terrre
in dominico & unum molendinum ventriticum..."
In 1253 there was a grant of the manor of Lubesthorp and also the manor of
Barby in Northamptonshire to William de Cantilupe, whose grandather had been
steward on the houshold and one of the chief counsellors to King Henry
III..History and Antiquities of Leicestershire citing Pat. H. III inter MSS,
Hatton. In 1296, the town of Lobesthorpe was held in fee of the Honor of
Peverell. Roger la Zouch held the same of Milicent de Monhunt; and Milicent
de Monhunt of the king in capite, by service of two parts of one knight's
fee" cited:Inq. 24 E I in Scaccario.
1304 Roger la Zouche held Lubbesthorpe of William la Zouche
1346 Roger la Zouch and his tenants and Robert Herle on the aid then ganted
for knighting Edward of Woodstock, the king's eldest son, assessed ..for a
sixth part of a knight's fee in Braunston and Lubbesthorpe, parcel of the
HOnor of Peverell
1364 Robert de Herle dec'd held 36s rent at Lubbesthorpe of William de la
Zouch
By 1441 Robert Constable died seised of the manor of Lubbethorpe held of
William la Zouche of Haryngsworth
>
> Would reference [6] indicate that Roger’s wife was Margaret, widow of
> Hugh de Braundeston, and he was overlord of Braundeston while Hugh’s son
> and heir was a minor?
>
Pat
> Relevant Quotes:
>
> From Moor’s notices on William la Zouche
>
> [1] - Lic. for Wm, de Bosco to enfeoff Millicent de Montealto of Manors
> of Thorp-Ernaud, Leic., Wesson, Warw., Bromfeld and Hoghton, Northants.,
> Ebrighton and Farnecote, Glou., Tubbeneye and Stanelak, Oxon., and
> Esyngton, Suff., she to regrant a moiety thereof to said William for
> life, remainder to her s. Wm. la Z. and w. Matilda and heirs corp., and
> finally to right heirs of Matilda, 15 Feb. 1296 (P.R.).
I believe that this is a guarantee of the succession of property to the
heirs of his sister, through Milicent to their daughter in law Maude Lovell.
Douglas Richardson
With regard to the parentage of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York,
I took the time today to read his biography in the Dictionary of
National Biography (vol. 21, pp. 1335-1338). The writer of the
biography gave the following regarding his parentage, family, and
ancestry:
" ... [He] seems from his close connections with Northamptonshire to
have belonged to the Harringworth branch of the Zouche family, and he
is generally said to have been a younger son of William la Zouche,
first Baron Zouche (1276?-1352)."
"On 21 Aug. of the same year [1335] he was joined with William la
Zouche of Harringworth, possibly his father, to lay before the shires
of Northampton and Rutland the decision of king and council as to the
defenses of the realm"
"In his will he set aside three hundred marks for this purpose, and
directed his executors, one of whom was his brother, Sir Roger la
Zouche, to divide the residue of the property among his kinsfolk,
servants, etc." END OF QUOTE
In regards to the assertion that Archbishop William la Zouche was a
younger son of William la Zouche (died 1352), of Harringworth, co.
Northampton, we know from the above information that the Archbishop
had a brother, Roger. As such, the first test would be to see if
William la Zouche of Harringworth had younger sons named William and
Roger and also to see if the chronology fits for the Archbishop to be
William of Harringworth's son.
In answer to these questions, we find that Complete Peerage 12 pt. 2,
pg. 940, footnote i, shows that William la Zouche (died 1352), 1st
Lord Zouche of Harringworth, was granted a license in 1326 to convey
lands to himself for life, with remainder to his younger children,
they including sons William and Roger.
As for the chronology, we know that William la Zouche's eldest son and
heir, Eudes, was born about 1297-8, he being aged 24 in 1322. As
such, we can suppose that the second son, William [the putative
Archbishop], was born say 1300. Details provided by the biography of
the Archbishop indicate that he first shows up in records in 1328.
This would be in complete agreement with an approximate birthdate of
1300.
Patricia has elsewhere posted a record dated 1328 in which Joan Inge,
the widow of Eudes la Zouche, born 1297-8, conveyed property to
William la Zouche, clerk, which William is almost certainly the future
Archbishop. As indicated above, Eudes la Zouche, husband of Joan
Inge, was the son and heir apparent of William la Zouche, 1st Lord
Zouche of Harringworth.
Elsewhere, I have posted a citation in which Nicholas de Cauntelowe,
lord of Ilkeston, co. Derby, referred to Archbishop William la Zouche
as his "cousin" [Reference: W. Dugdale Monasticon Anglicanum 6 Pt. 1
(1830, rev. ed.): 11 (dated 22 Sep. 16 Edward III)]. This kinship is
readily explained if the Archbishop's father was William la Zouche, of
Harrington, as William of Harringworth's mother was a Cantelowe. If
Archbishop was not a son of William la Zouche of Harringworth, it
would be near impossible to explain the kinship between Nicholas de
Cantelowe and the Archbishop.
Given these facts, I conclude that William la Zouche, Archbishop of
York, was a younger son of William la Zouche, 1st Lord Zouche of
Harringworth, by his wife, Maud Lovel.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.03071...@posting.google.com>...
JKent...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
> ... [He] seems from his close connections with Northamptonshire to
> have belonged to the Harringworth branch of the Zouche family, and he
> is generally said to have been a younger son of William la Zouche,
> first Baron Zouche (1276?-1352)."
>
>
How does these la Zouche people relate to Eva la Zouche who married Maurice
de Berkelely and apparently lived in this same time period?
Jno
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> With regard to the parentage of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York,
> I took the time today to read his biography in the Dictionary of
> National Biography (vol. 21, pp. 1335-1338). The writer of the
> biography gave the following regarding his parentage, family, and
> ancestry:
>
> " ... [He] seems from his close connections with Northamptonshire to
> have belonged to the Harringworth branch of the Zouche family, and he
> is generally said to have been a younger son of William la Zouche,
> first Baron Zouche (1276?-1352)."
>
> "On 21 Aug. of the same year [1335] he was joined with William la
> Zouche of Harringworth, possibly his father, to lay before the shires
> of Northampton and Rutland the decision of king and council as to the
> defenses of the realm"
>
> "In his will he set aside three hundred marks for this purpose, and
> directed his executors, one of whom was his brother, Sir Roger la
> Zouche, to divide the residue of the property among his kinsfolk,
> servants, etc." END OF QUOTE
>
> In regards to the assertion that Archbishop William la Zouche was a
> younger son of William la Zouche (died 1352), of Harringworth, co.
> Northampton, we know from the above information that the Archbishop
> had a brother, Roger.
No, we know nothing of the sort. What we _know_ is that the
author of this biography _said_ that the Archbishop had a brother
Roger.
Don't you believe we should examine the original records of the
time period relating to Archbishop William la Zouche, BEFORE we
conclude that he named his brother Roger as executor? This is
simply good scholarship, right?
That being the case, you would certainly have looked at his will
(or at least the abstract of it, quoting the text naming Roger as
one of the executors, that I posted earlier in these threads) and
thus you already know that while the Archbishop's will does, in
fact, name Sir Roger la Zouche as one of his executors,it does
_not_ call him brother. The relationship is the assumption of
the DNB biographer. Fortunately, your argument is no more or
less sound, whether William had a brother Roger or not.
> As such, the first test would be to see if
> William la Zouche of Harringworth had younger sons named William and
> Roger and also to see if the chronology fits for the Archbishop to be
> William of Harringworth's son.
>
> In answer to these questions, we find that Complete Peerage 12 pt. 2,
> pg. 940, footnote i, shows that William la Zouche (died 1352), 1st
> Lord Zouche of Harringworth, was granted a license in 1326 to convey
> lands to himself for life, with remainder to his younger children,
> they including sons William and Roger.
You have thus reiterated the assumptions that had been made in
the past (as seen in the DNB quote), and which served as the
point from which Sheppard started his analysis. He concluded
that there is no reason to favor this old assumption that the
Archbishop was associated with the Harrintworth line, while there
were reasons to prefer placing him with the Lubbesthorpe Roger.
Nor does the following help:
> As for the chronology, we know that William la Zouche's eldest son and
> heir, Eudes, was born about 1297-8, he being aged 24 in 1322. As
> such, we can suppose that the second son, William [the putative
> Archbishop], was born say 1300. Details provided by the biography of
> the Archbishop indicate that he first shows up in records in 1328.
> This would be in complete agreement with an approximate birthdate of
> 1300.
And he would have had a similar birthdate were he son of Roger of
Lubbesthorpe, Sr., so you gain nothing from the chronology.
> Patricia has elsewhere posted a record dated 1328 in which Joan Inge,
> the widow of Eudes la Zouche, born 1297-8, conveyed property to
> William la Zouche, clerk, which William is almost certainly the future
> Archbishop. As indicated above, Eudes la Zouche, husband of Joan
> Inge, was the son and heir apparent of William la Zouche, 1st Lord
> Zouche of Harringworth.
This is the only item which would, at first, seem to give
preference to the Harringworth solution, yet it is not as clear
as all that. It must be kept in mind that the Harringworth group
were overlords of the Lubbesthorpe group, and hence a degree of
interaction and common interest might be expected. This
particular item might be more weighty were it not for the two
church donations in which, jointly, William la Zouche, king's
clerk, and Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe provide for prayers to
be said in memory of their ancestors (particularly odd of they
only shared distant ones). So you have one document associating
the Archbishop with the Harringworth line, and two associating
him with Roger of Lubbesthorpe. I can't see that this would
favor a Harringworth placement.
> Elsewhere, I have posted a citation in which Nicholas de Cauntelowe,
> lord of Ilkeston, co. Derby, referred to Archbishop William la Zouche
> as his "cousin" [Reference: W. Dugdale Monasticon Anglicanum 6 Pt. 1
> (1830, rev. ed.): 11 (dated 22 Sep. 16 Edward III)]. This kinship is
> readily explained if the Archbishop's father was William la Zouche, of
> Harrington, as William of Harringworth's mother was a Cantelowe. If
> Archbishop was not a son of William la Zouche of Harringworth, it
> would be near impossible to explain the kinship between Nicholas de
> Cantelowe and the Archbishop.
It would be far from impossible - Sheppard, without even knowing
of the kinship, had concluded that the elder Roger la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe had perhaps married a daughter of Milicent by her
first husband. Thus, William son of William of Harringworth
would have been paternal grandson of Milicent de Cantelowe, while
a William son of Roger of Lubbesthorpe would have been maternal
grandson of Milicent de Cantelowe.
> Given these facts, I conclude that William la Zouche, Archbishop of
> York, was a younger son of William la Zouche, 1st Lord Zouche of
> Harringworth, by his wife, Maud Lovel.
Yet you have failed to consider the donations that point strongly
to a close link with Lubbesthorpe. A bit rash, don't you think,
drawing a conclusion without all of the facts on the table.
taf
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Is it possible that Roger la Zouche of Lubesthorp was a younger son of
Eudo and Milicent and that Moor is wrong in calling William his father
in the reference to the daily celebration below, and that he was
actually Williams brother (frere in French, don't know the Latin, but I
think it starts with f also)? As we have discussed before, Roger of
Lubesthorp d. 1303 could not have been the son of this William. If then
this William was the father of William the Archbishop of York. Roger
would be his uncle. I believe this could explain the chronology,
kinship references and the gift of Lubesthorp from Milicent.
Lic. for him to alienate mess., 34 acres, 26/8 rent, and 2 cartloads of
brushwood p.a. from his wood at Lubesthorp to a chaplain celebrating
daily in St. Peter's chapel for souls of himself, his f. Wm. la Z., and
Eudo la Z. and w. Millicent, 6 Ap. 1302 (P.W.).
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Is it possible that Roger la Zouche of Lubesthorp was a younger son of
> Eudo and Milicent and that Moor is wrong in calling William his father
> in the reference to the daily celebration below, and that he was
> actually Williams brother (frere in French, don't know the Latin, but I
> think it starts with f also)?
The problem is that father doesn't start with an f in either of
those languages (it wouldn't have been an f in the original, but
a p). Further, it is not Moor who is to blame for this, as
Sheppard has an identical account, based on the original (not
Moor) found in the Cal. Patent Rolls.
> As we have discussed before, Roger of
> Lubesthorp d. 1303 could not have been the son of this William. If then
> this William was the father of William the Archbishop of York. Roger
> would be his uncle. I believe this could explain the chronology,
> kinship references and the gift of Lubesthorp from Milicent.
Based on the supposed date of the gift, Roger would have been
older than William, but William was the heir, so this too would
not work.
taf
J.C.B.Sharp
A. Farmerie) wrote:
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> >
> > In regards to the assertion that Archbishop William la Zouche was a
> > younger son of William la Zouche (died 1352), of Harringworth, co.
> > Northampton, we know from the above information that the Archbishop
> > had a brother, Roger.
>
> No, we know nothing of the sort. What we _know_ is that the
> author of this biography _said_ that the Archbishop had a brother
> Roger.
>
> Don't you believe we should examine the original records of the
> time period relating to Archbishop William la Zouche, BEFORE we
> conclude that he named his brother Roger as executor? This is
> simply good scholarship, right?
>
> That being the case, you would certainly have looked at his will
> (or at least the abstract of it, quoting the text naming Roger as
> one of the executors, that I posted earlier in these threads) and
> thus you already know that while the Archbishop's will does, in
> fact, name Sir Roger la Zouche as one of his executors,it does
> _not_ call him brother. The relationship is the assumption of
> the DNB biographer. Fortunately, your argument is no more or
> less sound, whether William had a brother Roger or not.
I have not seen the original but as printed I see:
Dominos Rogerum la Zouche fratrum meum (Surtees Society ii 56).
J.C.B.Sharp
London
jc...@obtfc.win-uk.net
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
For those not familiar with Latin, the words "fratrum meum" means "my
brother." This means that Archbishop William la Zouche had a brother
named Roger la Zouche, who he appointed one of the executors of his
will.
Douglas Richardson
Since posting my conclusions regarding the identification of the
parentage of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York, I've examined the
transcript of the registered will of the Archbishop which is found in
the following source: Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4)
(1836): 55–56. The modern transcript confirms that Archbishop William
la Zouche named his brother, Roger la Zouche, to be one of his
executors. So, there is no question that Archbishop William had a
brother named Roger.
I've also double checked the reference in which the Archbishop is
called "cousin" by Nicholas de Cantelowe, of Ilkeston, co. Derby. The
reference to kinship is found in William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830, rev. ed.): 11, 13. Dugdale published a
transcript of the original charter dated 1343 in which Nicholas de
Cantelowe named Archbishop la Zouche as his cousin (specifically
"consanguinei mei karissimi"]. This kinship is important, as it
confirms that Archbishop la Zouche was the grandson of Milicent de
Cantelowe, wife of Eudes la Zouche.
I find no evidence whatsoever that Milicent de Cantelowe, wife of
Eudes la Zouche, had any surviving children by her 1st marriage to
John de Montalt, nor any evidence that a Montalt child married Roger
la Zouche, the elder, of Lubbesthorpe, co. Leicester. Such ideas were
formulated by the late Walter Lee Sheppard, who attempted to identify
the Archbishop's brother, Roger, with the Archbishop's cousin, Roger
la Zouche, the younger, of Lubbesthorpe. To quote Mr. Sheppard's
words, "We have no evidence to support this guess." The Montalt
connection was a guess, that is all. It goes without saying that
medieval history/genealogy is built on evidence drawn from original
sources, not on wild guesses by 20th Century genealogists, however
well intentioned they might be.
My findings amplify and support the biography of Archbishop la Zouche
which appears in the Dictionary of National Bibliography published c.
1910. I understand that a new edition of the DNB is now being
prepared. I'd appreciate it if someone could forward me the e-mail
address of the editor of the new DNB, so that I can forward my
findings onto him or her.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0307...@posting.google.com>...
> > named in your abstract was that brother. I also believe he is
> > identical with the William la Zouche who subsequently became William
> > la Zouche, Archbishop of York.
> >
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup? You crossposted this to two newsgroups, yet since you
are only addressing it to one (and from the context, it is
clearly soc.gen.med to which it is addressed), I have to assume
that you are not crossposting it to be read in the other group,
but rather simply to prove a point - a passive-aggressive point
about having your theories questioned, heaven forbid.
Whatever the reason, please stop.
> Since posting my conclusions regarding the identification of the
> parentage of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York, I've examined the
> transcript of the registered will of the Archbishop which is found in
> the following source: Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4)
> (1836): 55–56. The modern transcript confirms that Archbishop William
> la Zouche named his brother, Roger la Zouche, to be one of his
> executors. So, there is no question that Archbishop William had a
> brother named Roger.
I have to offer a mea culpa on this one - I was misremembering.
I posted the relevant portion of the transcript a month ago, from
the same source, (and it was confirmed by yet another poster two
days ago), but now _you_ have posted it, removing all doubt.
> I've also double checked the reference in which the Archbishop is
> called "cousin" by Nicholas de Cantelowe, of Ilkeston, co. Derby. The
> reference to kinship is found in William Dugdale, Monasticon
> Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830, rev. ed.): 11, 13. Dugdale published a
> transcript of the original charter dated 1343 in which Nicholas de
> Cantelowe named Archbishop la Zouche as his cousin (specifically
> "consanguinei mei karissimi"]. This kinship is important, as it
> confirms that Archbishop la Zouche was the grandson of Milicent de
> Cantelowe, wife of Eudes la Zouche.
No, it does not. It confirms that William was kinsman of
Nicholas, one explanation of which is that he was grandson of
Milicent.
> I find no evidence whatsoever that Milicent de Cantelowe, wife of
> Eudes la Zouche, had any surviving children by her 1st marriage to
> John de Montalt, nor any evidence that a Montalt child married Roger
> la Zouche, the elder, of Lubbesthorpe, co. Leicester. Such ideas were
> formulated by the late Walter Lee Sheppard, who attempted to identify
> the Archbishop's brother, Roger, with the Archbishop's cousin, Roger
> la Zouche, the younger, of Lubbesthorpe. To quote Mr. Sheppard's
> words, "We have no evidence to support this guess." The Montalt
> connection was a guess, that is all. It goes without saying that
> medieval history/genealogy is built on evidence drawn from original
> sources, not on wild guesses by 20th Century genealogists, however
> well intentioned they might be.
For all of your pontificating about evidence, you have no direct
evidence that the Archbishop was grandson of Milicent. You are
deducing it from a stated relationship, yet for such a deduction
to be valid, the datum in question must provide the power of
distinction, such that it can apply to only one of two (or more)
alternatives. If it applies, or at least can apply, to both,
then it has no diagnostic power. That is exactly the case here.
Whether Roger married a daughter of Milicent (which is just
speculation, as you rightly point out), or not, we are, for the
time being, stuck with the _fact_ that we lack any documentation
as to the origin of the mother and paternal grandmother of Roger
II de Lubbesthorpe, and hence of a prospective brother 'William'.
Were the Archbishop brother of Roger, son of William, son of
Eudo and Milicent, there would be a relationship to Nicholas de
Cantelowe, but were he brother of Roger II, son of Roger I, son
of William, you cannot exclude a relationship through the wives
of these immediate progenitors. You are jumping the gun to
ignore the undocumented Lubbesthorpe wives as kinswomen of
Nicholas and consider this 'confirmation' of the alternative, and
you are completely ignoring the close association of the
Archbishop and Roger II.
> I understand that a new edition of the DNB is now being
> prepared. I'd appreciate it if someone could forward me the e-mail
> address of the editor of the new DNB, so that I can forward my
> findings onto him or her.
So he can replace an old speculation with a new one? This is
certainly relevant evidence, and with sufficient knowledge of the
relationships in question it could prove diagnostic, but we are
not at that point yet. Perhaps you should practice what you
preach - "I recommend you withhold judgement until more evidence
is on the table. . . . This matter deserves further investigation."
taf
D. Spencer Hines
I'm more and more getting the impression this alleged "forthcoming" Richardson
book, PA3, is just NOT going to be ready for prime time ---- unless a real
kick-arse editor is assigned to it and put on Richardson's back ---- and
frankly, I don't see that happening.
Deus Vult.
"I don't care a twopenny damn what becomes of the ashes of Napoleon
Buonaparte." ---- Attributed to Arthur Wellesley, [1769-1852] Duke of
Wellington
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted
only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author,
unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3F1C3197...@interfold.com...
Reedpcgen
>"consanguinei mei karissimi"].
consanguin/eitas does not by any stretch force one to conclude a first-cousin
(common grandparent) relationship, but only a blood tie (or belief of one)
however distant. charissimus [carus], most prescious/dearly beloved, etc., is
often used to describe people in donations, gifts, etc.
We have the Latin original will on microfilm, don't we (PCY)? Why stop at a
printed abstract, if you're not going to accept what has already been posted.
Paul
Pierre Aronax
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 5cf47a19.03072...@posting.google.com...
<...>
> Dugdale published a
> transcript of the original charter dated 1343 in which Nicholas de
> Cantelowe named Archbishop la Zouche as his cousin (specifically
> "consanguinei mei karissimi"]. This kinship is important, as it
> confirms that Archbishop la Zouche was the grandson of Milicent de
> Cantelowe, wife of Eudes la Zouche.
<...>
I am not sure to understand well this point. Do you mean by that that
"consanguineus" in medieval texts means necessarily first cousin, rather
than second or third cousin?
Pierre
Patricia Junkin
This information may be helpful.
In the Calendar of Fine Rolls Richard II relating to the manor of
Ravensthorp with its members Thrilkby and Boltby concerning pourparty. 1390.
Lands taken into the King's hands on the death of William de Cantilupo,
'chivaler'. This William held these properties in the King's demesne as of
"fee of others than the king, and that John, son and heir of John de
Hastyngs, late Earl of Pembroke, the son of John, the son of Laurence, the
son of John the son of John the son of Joan, daughter and one of the heirs
of William de Cantilupo, brother of Nicholas de Cantilupo, the father of
William the father of Nicholas the father of William the father of William
who died without heir of his body and William la Zouche 'chivaler' son of
Eudo the son of William the son of Milicent daughter and heir of the said
William brother of Nicholas were at the time of the taking of the
inquisitions kinsmen and coheirs of the said William de Cantilupo
'chivaler', John son of the earl being then a minor (now deceased) and
William la Zouche being then of full age (also now deceased).....William la
Zouche the father and kinsman and next heir of John son of the earl and of
full age, and praying the king to order that the said manor and lands be
delivered to him (3) another inq. taken....finding that the said William de
Cantilupo, long before his death gave and granted the manor and lands to
afsd. Marmaduke Conestable, "chivaler", William de Alburgh and John de
Felicekirke parson...and their heirs; these last passing the manor to Thomas
son of Robert de Roos of Ingmanthorp 'chivaler' in tail with remainder to
right heirs of sd. William de Cantilupo....a later inq between John son of
the earl and Willliam la Zouche of one part and Thomas de Roos the
other.....
Without doubt there is a relationship between the la Zouche and Cantilupo
families
"consanguinei -insman, blood relation; brother (M); a sister (F);
kindred/relations (pl.);mei-of myself
karissimi-dear, beloved; costly, precious, valued; high-priced, expensive"
Is there a possibility that the transcription of the mention of William as
father to Roger was in error since patris and fratris are very closely
written? I think we must find the original. I can find no other explanation
for this continued relationship and lands other than Roger being the second
son of Eudes and Milicent as stated in The History and Antiquities of
Leicestershire.
Pat
----------
>From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection ?
>Date: Mon, Jul 21, 2003, 1:34 PM
>
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Since posting my conclusions regarding the identification of the
> parentage of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York, I've examined the
> transcript of the registered will of the Archbishop which is found in
> the following source: Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4)
> (1836): 55–56. The modern transcript confirms that Archbishop William
> la Zouche named his brother, Roger la Zouche, to be one of his
> executors. So, there is no question that Archbishop William had a
> brother named Roger.
>
> I've also double checked the reference in which the Archbishop is
> called "cousin" by Nicholas de Cantelowe, of Ilkeston, co. Derby. The
> reference to kinship is found in William Dugdale, Monasticon
> Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830, rev. ed.): 11, 13. Dugdale published a
> transcript of the original charter dated 1343 in which Nicholas de
> Cantelowe named Archbishop la Zouche as his cousin (specifically
> "consanguinei mei karissimi"]. This kinship is important, as it
> confirms that Archbishop la Zouche was the grandson of Milicent de
> Cantelowe, wife of Eudes la Zouche.
>
> I find no evidence whatsoever that Milicent de Cantelowe, wife of
> Eudes la Zouche, had any surviving children by her 1st marriage to
> John de Montalt, nor any evidence that a Montalt child married Roger
> la Zouche, the elder, of Lubbesthorpe, co. Leicester. Such ideas were
> formulated by the late Walter Lee Sheppard, who attempted to identify
> the Archbishop's brother, Roger, with the Archbishop's cousin, Roger
> la Zouche, the younger, of Lubbesthorpe. To quote Mr. Sheppard's
> words, "We have no evidence to support this guess." The Montalt
> connection was a guess, that is all. It goes without saying that
> medieval history/genealogy is built on evidence drawn from original
> sources, not on wild guesses by 20th Century genealogists, however
> well intentioned they might be.
>
> My findings amplify and support the biography of Archbishop la Zouche
> which appears in the Dictionary of National Bibliography published c.
> 1910. I understand that a new edition of the DNB is now being
> prepared. I'd appreciate it if someone could forward me the e-mail
> address of the editor of the new DNB, so that I can forward my
> findings onto him or her.
>
Douglas Richardson
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Newsgroup? You crossposted this to two newsgroups, yet since you
> are only addressing it to one (and from the context, it is
> clearly soc.gen.med to which it is addressed), I have to assume
> that you are not crossposting it to be read in the other group,
> but rather simply to prove a point - a passive-aggressive point
> about having your theories questioned, heaven forbid.
>
> Whatever the reason, please stop.
> > taf
Dear Todd ~
We seem to have been through this before. I post through Google.
Every time I post, Google gives me the option to post to mutiple
groups. I chose to exercise that option today. No biggie.
As for the content of my post, William la Zouche's life and
accomplishments have merited his inclusion in the Dictionary of
National Biography. That makes him an historical figure. As such, my
post is relevant to both the soc.history.medieval and the
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroups, especially since my post contains
information which amplifies and supports the DNB account of his life.
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3F1C3197...@interfold.com>...
>
>>Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Newsgroup ~
>>
>>Newsgroup? You crossposted this to two newsgroups, yet since you
>>are only addressing it to one (and from the context, it is
>>clearly soc.gen.med to which it is addressed), I have to assume
>>that you are not crossposting it to be read in the other group,
>>but rather simply to prove a point - a passive-aggressive point
>>about having your theories questioned, heaven forbid.
>>
>>Whatever the reason, please stop.
> We seem to have been through this before. I post through Google.
> Every time I post, Google gives me the option to post to mutiple
> groups. I chose to exercise that option today. No biggie.
But it is a biggie, as it renders it much more difficult to use
moral pursuasion to get others to stop crossposting into this
group because they think we should read what they have to say
(such as the recent ungentlemanly attack on Mrs. Hines).
> As for the content of my post, William la Zouche's life and
> accomplishments have merited his inclusion in the Dictionary of
> National Biography. That makes him an historical figure. As such, my
> post is relevant to both the soc.history.medieval and the
> soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroups, especially since my post contains
> information which amplifies and supports the DNB account of his life.
We have been through this before too - a USENET post is on-topic
in the group where it is most relevant, not in every group that
the author thinks is remotely relevant. It was clear from your
introduction that you were only addressing one group, in spite of
having posted to a second. That says it all.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Is there a possibility that the transcription of the mention of William as
> father to Roger was in error since patris and fratris are very closely
> written? I think we must find the original.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward I (1301-7), p. 27, or are you
talking _original_, at Kew.
> I can find no other explanation
> for this continued relationship
You lost me here? What continued relationship? Between the two
Zouche families (and later, Constable and Zouche)? One was
tennant of the other (at the time of the Fine, Constable was
tennant of William, son of Eudo, son of William, son of Eudo la
Zouche), so they would have a continued relationship until the
property was alienated.
> and lands other than Roger being the second
> son of Eudes and Milicent as stated in The History and Antiquities of
> Leicestershire.
Anything is possible, but this seems unlikely to me, as it would
be unusual to ask for prayers for his living brother before he
names his deceased parents.
taf
Clagett, Brice
do you have a theory as to why she conveyed Lubbesthorpe
to Roger La Zouche?
Douglas Richardson
taf ~
My post was relevant to both groups.
dcr
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Todd Farmerie Wrote
was having prayers said specifically for his recovery, and included his
deceased parents, and neglected to mention this posibility in an earlier
post, because none of the Williams that I have information have a
mention of being ill at the time of this request.
Douglas Richardson
> Doug -- If Milicent had no children by John de Montalt,
> do you have a theory as to why she conveyed Lubbesthorpe
> to Roger La Zouche?
Dear Brice ~
I believe that Sir Roger la Zouche, of Lubbesthorpe, co. Leicester,
was the son and heir of William la Zouche, of Essex (died c. 1272).
As such, Sir Roger would have been the nephew of Milicent de
Cantelowe's husband, Eudes la Zouche. Sir Roger was not granted the
manor of Lubbesthorpe outright by Milicent. Rather, he held the manor
as a subtenant under Milicent and her heirs. This was standard
practice in this period.
We have contemporary evidence that Roger la Zouche's father was named
William la Zouche. The only viable candidate to be his father is
William la Zouche, of Essex (died c. 1272). William is usually
assigned a daughter and sole heiress, Joyce, wife of Nicholas de
Whelton and Robert de Mortimer. However, while it appears that Joyce
was almost certainly William's child, she was not necessarily his
heiress. This would represent a correction for Complete Peerage and
many other sources.
I believe that Roger la Zouche, of Lubbesthorpe, was half-brother to
Joyce la Zouche, wife of Nicholas de Whelton and Robert de Mortimer.
I do not believe that Roger la Zouche's mother was William la Zouche's
known wife, Maud de Howbridge. Rather, Joyce appears to be the sole
surviving child of William la Zouche's marriage to Maud de Howbridge.
The Visitation of Nottinghamshire by William Dugdale concurs that
Roger la Zouche's father was William la Zouche, of Essex, and that
Roger was brother to Joyce la Zouche, wife of Robert de Mortimer. I
believe the visitation is correct.
When I have more time, I'll explore these matters further here on the
newsgroup, especially the passage of the manor of King's Nympton,
Devon from William la Zouche, of Essex, to his daughter, Joyce.
ADRIANC...@aol.com
William la Z. ..."Dead 6 Aug. 1287, tenant of the heir of Rog. la Z., a
minor. Livery of Norton Manor, by Daventry, to his d. Joyce, wid. of Rob. de
Mortimer, 25 Oct. 1287 (F.R)"
Is this saying that the minor Roger was the heir general, perhaps a grandson?
(son of a dead son). The construction of this sentance seems to say that
William was the tenant of the heir of Roger, but this seems an odd thing to say.
Adrian
In a message dated 24/07/03 21:04:11 GMT Daylight Time, royala...@msn.com
writes:
<snip>
> We have contemporary evidence that Roger la Zouche's father was named
> William la Zouche. The only viable candidate to be his father is
> William la Zouche, of Essex (died c. 1272). William is usually
> assigned a daughter and sole heiress, Joyce, wife of Nicholas de
> Whelton and Robert de Mortimer. However, while it appears that Joyce
> was almost certainly William's child, she was not necessarily his
> heiress. This would represent a correction for Complete Peerage and
> many other sources.
>
<snip>
Patricia Junkin
It is a strangely crafted wording. I will posit the question, if William,
the son of Joyce, who married Alice de Toeni held nothing in Essex of his
grandfather, was his grandfather the William of Essex?
I believe that a William b. ca. 1230 was the following: łHundred of
Bullingfield XXIII William la Zouche (Suche) the Sheriff, took , by
Exchequer summons 40 s. from the vill of Cuckfield (Cokkefeld) and did not
aquit the debtors...William la Zouche was Sherrif of Sussex 1262-63.˛
1338 William la Zousche, de Mortuo Mari. Writ. 1 March 11 Edw. III [1338]
Writ to enquire what lands the said William, held by courtesy of England of
the inheritance of Alice de Tony, late countess of Warwick, sometime his
wife.
Essex. Welkhamstowe. The manor (extent given) held of the king in chief by
service oof half a knightąs fee, for his life, by the courtesy of England
afte the death of Alice, late his wife, sister and heir of Robertde Tony, as
of the right and inheritance of Thomas Bello Campo, earl of Warwick, to whom
the said manor ought to revert after the death of the said William, as son
and heir of the said Alice and now aged [Thos. Beauchamp]23 years and more.
Heir of the said William unknown
Sussex. Treve and Nuttebourn.
Leic. Assheby la Zousche...held of Henry de Beaumond by service of two
knightąs fees.
Alan, his son, age 19 and more years is his next heir.
I believe that it is the de Mortimer line this interest descends.
In 1327 William la Zouche of Assheby and Ralph his son had an interest in
Stopham for they complained of John and William atte See and Roger, parson
at the church at Stopham, for fishing in their stews.
This is the William or Willmo mentioned in the Sussex lay subsidies of
1327/32.
In 1347 Alan la Zouche, knight Writ. 24 Novv. 20 Edw. III held Chiltyngton
and Treve, Sussex.
Pat
----------
>From: ADRIANC...@aol.com
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
>Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2003, 7:27 PM
Todd A. Farmerie
> Knights of Edward I states that:
>
> William la Z. ..."Dead 6 Aug. 1287, tenant of the heir of Rog. la Z., a
> minor. Livery of Norton Manor, by Daventry, to his d. Joyce, wid. of Rob. de
> Mortimer, 25 Oct. 1287 (F.R)"
>
> Is this saying that the minor Roger was the heir general, perhaps a grandson?
> (son of a dead son). The construction of this sentance seems to say that
> William was the tenant of the heir of Roger, but this seems an odd thing to say.
Based on the dates, I think William was holding this manor, first
of his brother Alan, then of Alan's son Roger, who apparently
died ca. 1285, and thus in 1287, William was holding of the heir
(actually coheiresses, but this may have been left intentionally
vague) of Roger, son of Alan. In other words, tthis isn't the
same Roger.
Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>We have contemporary evidence that Roger la Zouche's father was named
>>William la Zouche. The only viable candidate to be his father is
>>William la Zouche, of Essex (died c. 1272).
Why not William of Black Torrington? I think Patricia has
presented good evidence that the 1268 grant was not made by
Milicent to Roger, but rather by Milicent to his father William.
Thus Roger need not be nearly as old as in the framework we had
batted around, so let's take another look at the dates. His son
and heir was born about 1292. That makes Roger II about the same
age as Eudo, son of William, son of Eudo, and makes Roger I of
Lubbesthorpe of similar age to William, son of Eudes, who was
born ca. 1276. Our candidate fathers are three: 1) William 'of
Essex', father of Joyce; 2) William of Black Torrington, son of
Alan; and 3) some unknown William.
Obviously, we cannot address the last of these, but let's look at
the chronology of the other two.
William of Essex was younger brother of Alan, who was adult by
1238. While William may have been somewhat younger, it would be
hard to speculate a birth later than, say, 1228. His daughter
Joyce, was 22+ (and Sheppard speculates 32+) in 1274, or b. bef.
1252, and perhaps much earlier. If, as has been suggested, Roger
was born to an earlier wife, then it would make for a 40+
generation between Roger I and Roger II. Ignoring this last
assumption, going from William to a son Roger, to a son Roger II,
we would have 64 years, 32 per generation, which is a bit long
for father to son and heir, to son and heir (although not
prohibitively so).
William of Black Torrington was younger brother of the Roger
discussed above (so not unlikely to reuse the name). His son and
heir, Emery, was born ca. 1267, (about the time the father of
Roger received his grant), and hence a younger son could have
been born, say, 1270, and would have been 22 when his son and
heir was born in 1292.
Neither of these are definitive, but I would suggest that
chronology favors the second over the first. I must then ask,
again, why William 'of Essex' is the only candidate you consider
viable? Do you have any reason to favor his placement as son of
that William vs. the other?
taf
Chris Phillips
> Knights of Edward I states that:
>
> William la Z. ..."Dead 6 Aug. 1287, tenant of the heir of Rog. la Z., a
> minor. Livery of Norton Manor, by Daventry, to his d. Joyce, wid. of Rob.
de
> Mortimer, 25 Oct. 1287 (F.R)"
>
> Is this saying that the minor Roger was the heir general, perhaps a
grandson?
> (son of a dead son). The construction of this sentance seems to say that
> William was the tenant of the heir of Roger, but this seems an odd thing
to say.
I read that as saying that William was the tenant of Roger's heir, and that
Roger's heir (unnamed) was a minor.
Chris Phillips
The...@aol.com
Dear Todd, et al.,
Some questions and observations re: the last post in this
thread.
1. Adrian Channing cited 'Knights of Edward I' as follows,
concerning William la Zouche (of Essex):
"Dead 6 Aug. 1287, tenant of the heir of Rog. la Z.,
a minor. Livery of Norton Manor, by Daventry, to his
d. Joyce, wid. of Rob. de Mortimer, 25 Oct. 1287 (F.R)"
Todd, you had then stated (in part) that
'... in 1287, William was holding of the heir (actually
coheiresses, but this may have been left intentionally
vague) of Roger, son of Alan. In other words, this
isn't the same Roger. '
Obviously this discussion has gone from vague to confused.
Roger la Zouche, of Ashby and Brockley [son and heir of Alan la
Zouche and Elena de Quincy) died before 15 Oct 1285, leaving a
minor son Alan (born 9 Oct 1267). From his father's death,
although a minor, Alan (1267-1314) was lord of Ashby la Zouche and
the other lands inherited from his father, and would have been the
overlord of William at his death in 1287 - and, still then a minor
(consistent with the language from 'Knights' above). He was the
'heir of Roger, son of Alan'.
Might I ask, what coheiresses you refer to? I hope we're not
talking about an additional (and hitherto unknown) branch of la
Zouche .....
2. Your argument re: the identity of the father of Roger
'I' la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe is constructed on the
particularly uncertain basis,
' If, as has been suggested, Roger was born to an
earlier wife,...'
Concerning the issue of whether William la Zouche of Essex makes
a reasonable (not discussing most likely here) candidate as the
father of Roger 'I' of Lubbesthorpe, I think it far more likely
that Roger, if a half-brother of Joyce, was a younger (not older)
brother. Your observation of a generational problem with the
placement of Roger 'I' as a son of William of Essex, being born say
1240-1250, and having a son (Roger 'II') born ca. 1292 (aged 11 or
more at his father's IPM) is valid, but only based on this
assumption of Roger 'I' being older than Joyce.
Generational problems and the la Zouche family (at least the
collateral lines) go hand in hand. Eudo 'I' la Zouche, being
involved with a potential Ferrers marriage in 1253 and only having
a known valid marriage (Millicent de Cantilupe) in 1273 (with issue
ca. 1274-1276 and beyond), is a prime example. The possibility of
Eudo 'I' being actually two individuals, part of this thread's
earlier discussion, awaits further research.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I must also note that we are hampered in the current research by
not only possible conflations (re: Eudo, above), but at least one
identifiable conflation in the secondary sources.
Concerning William la Zouche, who (as taken from Knights of
Edward I V:225-6) was the husband of Maud de Hobrugge & father of
Joyce & c., the account is a conflation in at least one section:
" He was formerly Justice of Chester 6 Jan. 1270,
held Hobrugg Manor, Ess., by courtesy of England,
inheritance of his late wife Maud, 3 Feb. 1272, and
is overlord at Black Torrington, Devon, 26 Jan.
1276 (Inq.). "
The Hobrugg information sounds appropriate, but "overlord at
Black Torrington" is wrong. Black Torrington was held by William
la Zouche, younger son of Sir Alan (d. 1270) and his wife Elena de
Quincy - it had come into the family by a grant to Sir Roger in
1227 (acc. to Ivor West, "Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe"). The
main reason the "Knights" statement re: William (d. 1287) must be
wrong, we find on p. 221, under Sir Almaric la Zouche,
" He holds Blaketoriton Manor, Devon, as 1 Kt. Fee,
late of Alan la Zouche, 20 Ap. 1314 (Inq. and C.R.),
is lord of Black Torrington and of Nutburne, Suss.,
5 Mar. 1316 (P.W.),..."
So it is evident that La Zouche of Black Torrington held that
manor of the senior line (La Zouche of Ashby-la-Zouche), and not
of a junior line. The statement in Knights V:225-6 taken from
'someone's' IPM of 26 Jan., 1276 should be looked at closely,
as it must relate to William, the first of Black Torrington and
father of Almeric.
A quick reference to CP (XII/2, p. 934 note (g) ) says of Roger
la Zouche (d. 1285, son of Alan),
" He had four yr. brothers, William (often confused
with his uncle William; see p. 932, note "i" above),
who was granted the manor of Black Torrington afsd.
by his father and d. shortly before 6 Aug. 1287,
leaving a s. and h., Emery,..."
If CP is then correct that the 1287 death is that of William of
Black Torrington, it remains to be established what is the correct
death date of/record for William of Essex.
The account of William la Zouche (d. before 6 Aug 1287) in
'Knights of Edward I' [V:225] is therefore actually a conflation
of William of Essex, father of Joyce (and presumably Roger), and
of William of Black Torrington. To what extent there is (or is
not) any error or confusion in the CP account noted above should
be ascertained.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hopefully one of the results of this thread will be a more
definitive identification of the generations in the Lubbesthorpe,
and Harringworth, families.
Cheers,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Patricia Junkin
I must say that I am beginning to question. Kings Nympton is a part of Black
Torrington, the whole held by Roger la Zouche [1175-1238].
May we assume that the William born to Roger and Margaret Biset was b. ca.
1200-1210. Maud Howbridge had married John de Traylii prior to 1235 and had
a son; Maud b. ca, 1219 or before.
Roger [1175-1238], as I understand, would have given the Manor of Black
Torrington to Alan, separating out interest in its member, Kings Nympton, to
a younger son, William. However, the overlordship appears to rest in the
hands of the direct heir of Roger, that is the Alan who d. 1313. Posted
previously: Devon. Inq. 5 May 7 E II
Kingąs Nymet. The mnor held by Geoffrey de Cornwall in chief by knights
service.
Blaketoriton. The manor held by Emery la Zuche by knights service.
Blaketoriton. The advowson of the church.
I think it is accepted that this Emery is the son of William la Zouche of
Black Torrington.
1237-38 William la Zouche s/o Roger m. Margaret Biset, acquires Kings
Nympton of his father, Roger. CPXII/2 p. 957
In 1262, we have, I believe, a Eudo la Zouche brother of Alan [1195-1269]:
1262, 25 December ... the king is sending Alan la Zuche, justice of the
forest on this side Trent, to the said march commands the justice [ Thomas
Orreby] to deliver the castles of Edward, the king's son, to wit, Chester,
Beston and Shotwik, to Eudo la Zuche, brother of the said Alan, without
delay to keep in the name of the said Alan until his arrival .
[Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1258-66, p.238: 47 Henry III - Part 1, m.19]
[CHESTER, BEESTON AND SHOTWICK ARE IN THE IPM OF THE EUDO, S/O ALAN AND
ELENA DE QUINCY, WHO M. MILICENT DE CANTILUPO. THE BROTHER CANNOT BE THE
SON.]
1263 William la Zuche apptd. justice of Chester by King. Cal. Pat. Rolls.
Hen III
1263, 17 Oct. Eudo la Suche summoned to Windsor.Cal. Pat. Rolls. Hen III
1264 William de la Suche to deliver prisoners, supporters of Montfort, held
in Northampton, to the king in London. Cal. Pat. Rolls. Hen III
1265 Sir Henry Hastings supported Simon de Montfort at the Battle of
Evesham. As to manor of Caldecote. David de Offinton, also a supporter of
Montfort and taken into custody when Sir William la Zuke [Zouche] seized it
as being of his fee. [Hundred of Wyxstantre] While in Berkshire, concerning
the Hundred of Bienershe, Henry the parson of Sotesbrok was deprived and Sir
William la Zuche, chaplain, took his parsonage. Concerning the Hundred of
Carleford, Richard de Argentem had land at Sekeford worth 34s. 10 1/2 d.
Nicholas de Chicel, servant of Eudo la Zuche received the Michaelmas rent of
6 1/2d. Cal. Misc Inq. Hen. III. When Willliam de Kalna d. 1255, there
were, "fees in Mentmore town held by....Roger de Argentem"
It is evident from this document that in 1265 we have two Williams, both
adults, therefore b. ca. 1240 or before.
I am concerned that we are excluding possibilities of descent from cadet
lines. And, the question remains why Milicent would have given Lubbesthorpe
to William, father of Roger. Roger of Lubbesthorpe who d. 1303/4 deceased
held the manor of Lubbesthorpe of William la Zouch by the service of the
third part of a knightąs fee. Who held the other 2/3?
Pat
----------
>From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection
>Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2003, 11:17 PM
>
> ADRIANC...@aol.com wrote:
>> Knights of Edward I states that:
>>
>> William la Z. ..."Dead 6 Aug. 1287, tenant of the heir of Rog. la Z., a
>> minor. Livery of Norton Manor, by Daventry, to his d. Joyce, wid. of Rob. de
>> Mortimer, 25 Oct. 1287 (F.R)"
>>
>> Is this saying that the minor Roger was the heir general, perhaps a grandson?
>> (son of a dead son). The construction of this sentance seems to say that
>> William was the tenant of the heir of Roger, but this seems an odd thing to
say.
>
> Based on the dates, I think William was holding this manor, first
> of his brother Alan, then of Alan's son Roger, who apparently
> died ca. 1285, and thus in 1287, William was holding of the heir
> (actually coheiresses, but this may have been left intentionally
> vague) of Roger, son of Alan. In other words, tthis isn't the
> same Roger.
>
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
>>>We have contemporary evidence that Roger la Zouche's father was named
>>>William la Zouche. The only viable candidate to be his father is
>>>William la Zouche, of Essex (died c. 1272).
>
> Why not William of Black Torrington? I think Patricia has
> presented good evidence that the 1268 grant was not made by
> Milicent to Roger, but rather by Milicent to his father William.
> Thus Roger need not be nearly as old as in the framework we had
> batted around, so let's take another look at the dates. His son
> and heir was born about 1292. That makes Roger II about the same
> age as Eudo, son of William, son of Eudo, and makes Roger I of
> Lubbesthorpe of similar age to William, son of Eudes, who was
> born ca. 1276. Our candidate fathers are three: 1) William 'of
> Essex', father of Joyce; 2) William of Black Torrington, son of
> Alan; and 3) some unknown William.
>
> Obviously, we cannot address the last of these, but let's look at
> the chronology of the other two.
>
> William of Essex was younger brother of Alan, who was adult by
> 1238. While William may have been somewhat younger, it would be
> hard to speculate a birth later than, say, 1228. His daughter
> Joyce, was 22+ (and Sheppard speculates 32+) in 1274, or b. bef.
> 1252, and perhaps much earlier. If, as has been suggested, Roger