Proposed line of descent from Henry I Beauclerc to Isabel Culpeper wife of Walter Roberts

[jordanva...@hotmail.com]

I was wondering if anyone could confirm or discredit this line of descent I am proposing from Henry I Beauclerc to Isabel Culpeper.

Henri I Beauclerc, King of England, Duke of Normandy m. Unknown
Robert FitzRoy, Earl of Gloucester m. Mabel FitzHamon
Ranulf de Gernons, 5th Earl of Chester m. Maud of Gloucester
Hugh de Kevelioc, Earl of Chester m. Bertrade de Montfort
Mabel of Chester m. William d'Aubeney, 3rd Earl of Arundel
Nicole (Colette) d'Aubeney m. Roger de Somery
Margaret de Somery m. Ralph Bassett (d.1265)
Ralph Bassett m. Hawise ?
Margaret Bassett m. Edmund Stafford
Mary Stafford m. Sir James Stafford of Sandon
Margaret Stafford m. John Hardreshull
Elizabeth Hardreshull m. John Culpeper
Thomas Culpeper m. Joyce Conrad
Walter Culpeper m. Agnes Roper
John Culpeper m. Agnes Gainsford
Isabel Culpeper

*If Isabel Culpeper is the mother of Joan Roberts as proposed as most likely in the excellent article on the Exhurst-Stoughton ancestry by Janet Wolfe, John Blythe Dobson & Adrian Benjamin Burke then if correct this would be a plausible line to the children of Rev. Thomas Stoughton.

Isabel Culpeper m. Walter Roberts
Joan Roberts m. Richard Exhurst
Mary Exhurst m. Edward Stoughton
Francis Stoughton m. Agnes ?
Rev. Thomas Stoughton m. Katherine ?

Children of Rev. Thomas Stoughton & Katherine
Mary, Thomas, Anne, Thomas, John, Elizabeth, Judith & Israel

[Robert O'Connor]

On Monday, 27 July 2015 15:38:41 UTC+12, jordanva...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone could confirm or discredit this line of descent I am proposing from Henry I Beauclerc to Isabel Culpeper.
>
> Henri I Beauclerc, King of England, Duke of Normandy m. Unknown
> Robert FitzRoy, Earl of Gloucester m. Mabel FitzHamon
> Ranulf de Gernons, 5th Earl of Chester m. Maud of Gloucester
> Hugh de Kevelioc, Earl of Chester m. Bertrade de Montfort
> Mabel of Chester m. William d'Aubeney, 3rd Earl of Arundel
> Nicole (Colette) d'Aubeney m. Roger de Somery
> Margaret de Somery m. Ralph Bassett (d.1265)
> Ralph Bassett m. Hawise ?
> Margaret Bassett m. Edmund Stafford
> Mary Stafford m. Sir James Stafford of Sandon
> Margaret Stafford m. John Hardreshull
> Elizabeth Hardreshull m. John Culpeper
> Thomas Culpeper m. Joyce Conrad
> Walter Culpeper m. Agnes Roper
> John Culpeper m. Agnes Gainsford
> Isabel Culpeper
>

I think that the line breaks at Elizabeth Hardreshull, who appears to have been the daughter of John Hardreshull's first wife, not Margaret Stafford, his second wife.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jordan ~

The descent from King Henry I of England you've presented is probably correct. There is one problem generation, it being Generation 10 below.

1. Henry I, King of England, Duke of Normandy, by an unknown mistress.
2. Robert Fitz Roy, Earl of Gloucester, married Mabel Fitz Hamon.
3. Maud of Gloucester, married Ranulf de Gernons, 5th Earl of Chester.
4. Hugh, 6th Earl of Chester, married Bertrade de Montfort.
5. Mabel of Chester, married William d'Aubeney, 3rd Earl of Arundel.
6. Nichole (or Colette) d'Aubeney, married Sir Roger de Somery, of Dudley (in Sedgley), Staffordshire.
7. Margaret de Somery, married (1st) Ralph Basset, of Drayton Basset, Staffordshire.
8. Ralph Basset, 1st Lord Basset of Drayton, married Hawise _____.
9. Margaret (or Margery) Basset, married (1st) Edmund de Stafford, 1st Lord Stafford.
10. Margaret de Stafford, married Sir James de Stafford, of Sandon, Staffordshire.
11. Margaret de Stafford, married (2nd) Sir John de Hardreshull.

Various printed sources concerning Generation 10 state that Sir James de Stafford, of Sandon, Staffordshire (living 1356) married Mary de Stafford, daughter of Edmund de Stafford, 1st Lord Stafford. However, some time ago, I found a contemporary record which indicates that the name of Sir James de Stafford's wife was actually Margaret, not Mary. Although standard sources for the Stafford family certainly vouch for this marriage, I've never seen any actual documentation cited for the marriage. That always raises a red flag for me. While this marriage is highly probable, I'd like to see better evidence for it. Just because something is claimed in print over and over again, that doesn't make it correct.

For your interest, I've copied below my file account of Sir James de Stafford and his wife, Margaret. I've cited all of my references. Please see my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), for further details of the Stafford family ancestry, including the families of Basset and Somery, the Earls of Chester and Gloucester, and the Kings of England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

MARGARET DE STAFFORD, married JAMES DE STAFFORD, Knt., of Sandon and Bramshall, Staffordshire, Knight of the Shire for Staffordshire, 1328, Commissioner of Array for Staffordshire, 1337, 1345, 1347, Surveyor of Weights and Measures, 1344, son and heir of William de Stafford, Knt., of Sandon and Bramshall, Staffordshire. He was born about 1300. They had one daughter, Margaret (wife of Thomas de Erdeswick and John de Hardreshull, Knt.). He fought against the king at the Battle of Boroughbridge in 1322. He murdered Alexander de Swinnerton and John de Pichford and took part in the rioting with the Ipstones in 1324-5. He was in Scotland in 1327, in the retinue of Roger de Mortimer. He and his brother, John de Stafford, were committed to the Marshalsea in 1327-8 for the murder of Pichford. He had an armed quarrel with his brother, John de Stafford, and Ralph de Stafford, Lord Stafford between 1334 and 1337. In 1335 James de Stafford, Knt., acknowledged that he owed John de Stafford, Knt., debts of £100 and 50 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Stafford; ; John de Stafford, Knt., likewise acknowledged that he owed James de Stafford, Knt. a debt of £100, to be levied as aforesaid. In 1335 Margery, widow of Richard de Burton, charged James de Stafford, Knt. with aiding and abetting the death of her husband the previous year, when Hugh del Hulle shot her husband, Richard, with a bow and a barbed arrow in the middle of the breast, and cause a mortal wound; chattels of James de Stafford worth 26s. 8d. were subsequently forfeited. His wife, Margaret, died before Michaelmas term 1335. In 1335 William de Stafford, senior, sued him for the manor of Sandon, Staffordshire. In 1337 he sued Nicholas Fitz Herbert, John Bosoun, and others in a plea that they broke vi et armis into his houses at Sandon, Staffordshire and took goods and chattels to the value of £100. In 1338 he gave Thomas son of Thomas de Erdeswick and Margaret daughter of the said James all his manor of Sandon, Staffordshire, in return for an annual rent of 100 marks. In 1345 he brought a writ of novel disseisin against John Tromwyn, Knt., regarding tenements in Sandon, Staffordshire. He took part in the Battle of Crécy 26 August 1346, and in the Siege of Calais in 1346-7. In 1348 the executors of the will of Joan, widow of Roger Tromewyn, sued him for a debt of £8. He was a collector of subsidy in 1350, and was arrested in Jan. 1351 because he had not accounted for the money. SIR JAMES DE STAFFORD was living in 1356.

References:

Bartlett, Hist. & Antiqs. of the Parish of Manceter (1791): 56-58. Pitt, Topog. Hist. of Staffordshire (1817): 305. Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 88-89 (sub Hardredeshull). Colls. Hist. Staffs. 8 (1887): 110, 152; 11 (1890): 62, 79, 119; 12 (1891): 14, 42, 88, 118, 146, 296; 14 (1893): 3, 16, 19, 23, 25, 27, 39, 43-44, 48, 50; n.s. 12 (1893): 122, 128, 129; 1917 (1919): xxxiv, 52-53, 57, 63, 74, 84, 88, 166, 179. C.C.R. 1333-1337 (1898): 475, 707, 725-726. Dudding, Hist. of the Manor & Parish of Saleby with Thoresthorpe (1922): 26-43 (re. Hardreshull fam.). Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward III (2001): 200 ("James de Stafford of Sandon, who represented Staffordshire in 1328, and his younger brother John, who was elected in 1339 and 1340, can serve as examples. Both were embroiled with the Ipstone and Swynnerton families between 1318 and 1328 and were implicated in the murders of Alexander de Swynnerton and John de Pichford. Despite being imprisoned for the latter murder and forfeiting lands for supporting the Contrariants in 1322, they were prominent in county affairs as tax collectors, justices, and commissioners. They also fought in Scotland and France. They may have been in the retinues of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore and Ralph Basset of Drayton and were closely tied to Ralph, earl of Stafford, whose sister Mary James married and whose daughter Margaret John married, making them in-laws as well as brothers. They quarreled, however, because their grandfather preferred John to James and so gave John the bulk of the patrimony. John was commissioned to arrest his elder brother in 1336 for his feuding. John also helped his father-in-law abduct Margaret, daughter and heir of Hugh d'Audeley."). Castor, The King, the Crown, & the Duchy of Lancaster (2000): 212-213.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jordan ~

Robert O'Connor has raised another problem in your proposed descent, that being whether Margaret de Stafford [Generation 11], wife of Sir John de Hardreshull, was the mother of his children.

Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 88-89 (sub Hardredeshull) does identify Margaret de Stafford as the mother of Sir John de Hardreshull's children. See the following weblink for this information:

https://archive.org/stream/baroniaanglicaco02bank#page/88/mode/2up

However, elsewhere this is a lengthy account of the Hardreshull family published in Dudding, History of the Manor and Parish of Saleby with Thoresthorpe (1922): 26-43. In this book, Mr. Dudding assigns all of Sir John de Hardreshull's children to his 1st wife, Maud Mussenden. He states that Sir John de Hardreshull had no issue by his 2nd wife, Margaret de Stafford.

See the following weblink for this source:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b758617;view=1up;seq=61

If Mr. Dudding is correct, then you would lose the Stafford connection. This matter deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[jordanva...@hotmail.com]

Thanks Robert and Douglas for the replies, and thank you Douglas for the information provided on the Staffords. I was basing the link between Elizabeth Hardreshull and her mother Margaret de Stafford on the Banks, Baronies source that you had mentioned along with what I had read on the Culpeper Connections site. They cited a work: George Baker, "Hardreshull and Colepeper of Ashton," History and Antiquites of the County of Northampton, that I have not been able to locate, but would like to take a look at in regards to the Hardreshull/Culpeper connection. It's work cited may provide other sources to offer further insight.
I completely with you Douglas that the matter deserves further study, both in terms of the issues with the Stafford connection, as well as further down the line shoring up Isabel Culpeper's relationship to Joan Roberts.
Thanks so much again, and lets hope more can come to light on the matter.
Jordan.

[roderi...@gmail.com]

Wrottesley, in his Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls, summarizes a case in which it is stated that Elizabeth was the daughter of John Hardreshull's first wife (Matilda):

http://archive.org/stream/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich#page/439/mode/1up

I was wondering who the Joyce Conrad married to Thomas Culpepper was. I have previously only seen her first name given.

Roderick Ward

[roderi...@gmail.com]

Thanks. That helps.

[Matt A]

Here is another possibility:

1. Charlemagne = Hildegard
2. Pepin, King of Italy = Chrothais
3. Bernard, King of Italy = Kunigund
4. Pepin, Count = ?
5. Heribert I, Count of Vermandois = ?
6. Heribert II, Count of Vermandois = ?
7. Adele = Geoffroy I, Count of Anjou
8. Ermengarde = Conan I, Count of Rennes
9. Judith = Richard II, Duke of Normandy
10.Robert I, Duke of Normandy = NN
11.Adele (sister of William I of England) = Lambert of Lens
12.Judith of Lens = Waltheof II of Northumberland
13.Matilda of Northumberland = Simon de St. Liz
14.Maud de St. Liz = Saier I de Quincy
15.Alice de St. Liz = Roger de Huntingfield
16.William de Huntingfield (Magna Carta Surety) = Isabel Fitz Roger
17.Sarah de Huntingfield = Richard de Keynes
18.Richard de Kaynes = Alice de Mankesey
19.Joan de Kaynes = Roger de Lewknor
20.Thomas de Lewknor = Sibyl
21.Roger de Lewknor = Katherine Bardolf
22.Thomas de Lewknor = Joan d'Oyley
23.Beatrice de Lewknor = Ralph Roper
24.Agnes Roper = Walter Culpeper
25.John Culpeper = Agnes Gainsford
26.Isabel Culpeper

Sources:

Generations 1-10: Henry Project (http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/henry.htm)
Generations 11-16: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/Senlis$20Huntingfield/soc.genealogy.medieval/8UPB450NRJo/zoCWHyEvnlwJ and https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.history.medieval/XbYC246FjiU
Generations 17-21: Magna Carta Sureties (2nd Ed.), p. 15-20.
Generations 22-23: My best interpretation of the Visitation of Kent, 1619 p. 82 and Visitation of Kent 1574 v.2 p. 62, which shows Beatrix's father Sir Thomas Lewknor's son as Sir Roger Lewknor and his grandson as another Sir Thomas Lewknor, which seem to align with Magna Carta Sureties (2nd Ed.), p. 15-20, which shows the same succession down to Sir Thomas Lewknor, born 1391-2 (aged 12 in 1404, 19 in 1411), making him no more than around 10 years younger than his first cousin, John Kemp, Cardinal Bishop of Canterbury. As for why the pedigree in 1574 p. 62 calls Beatrix's mother "doughter of Sir Thomas Hoo and brother[sic] to the Lord Hoo" rather than Joan d'Oyley, I think this refers incorrectly to the wife of Sir Thomas' grandson of the same name, Elizabeth (Echingham), who was not the sister but the widow of the Lord Hoo.
Generation 24: Visitation of Kent 1619, p.82.

I hope this line of inquiry (Lewknor) proves productive.

-Matt Ahlgren

[roderi...@gmail.com]

I think the parents of Agnes in generation 23 are not so clear. Berry (p. 213), Hasted (1:473) and the Roper pedigree in the 1619 visitation all give Ralph Roper and Beatrix Lewknor.

However, the Colepeper pedigree in the 1619 visitation, Attree (p. 57), Blaauw (p. 154), and Weever (p. 69) all give Agnes's father as Edmund Roper. Weever cites a monumental inscription ("Agnes erat filia Edmundi Robar iuxta Cantuar".

References:

Attree, F.W.T., and Booker, J.H.L. "The Sussex Colepepers. Part I." in Sussex Archaeological Collections (Lewes: Sussex Archaeological Society, 1904), Volume XLVII, pages 47 to 81.

Berry, William. County genealogies : pedigrees of the families of the county of Kent. (London: Sherwood, Gilbert and Piper, 1830)

Blaauw, W.H., "Wakehurst, Slaugham, and Gravetye," in Sussex Archaeological Collections (London: Sussex Archaeological Society, 1858) Volume X, pages 151-167.

Hasted, Edward. The history and topographical survey of the county of Kent. (Canterbury: W. Bristow, 1972)

Hovenden, Robert, and John Philipot. The visitation of Kent, taken in the years 1619-1621 by John Philipot, Rouge Dragon, marshall and deputy to William Camden, Clarenceux. (London: [Harleian Society], 1898).

Weever, John. Ancient funerall monuments within the United Monarchie of Great Britaine, Ireland, and the islands adiacent, with the dissolved monasteries therein contained: their founders, and what eminent persons haue beene in the same interred, as also the death and buriall of certaine of the Bloud Royall, the nobilitie and gentrie of these kingdomes entombed in forraine nations. (London: T. Harper, 1631)

[roderi...@gmail.com]

Oops. That should be the Agnes in generation 24.

[roderi...@gmail.com]

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I notice that Peter Fleming in his article on the Culpeper family in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography also gives Edmund Roper of Canterbury as Agnes's father. There seems to be better support for this filiation.

[Matt A]

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:33:43 PM UTC+2, roderi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry for the multiple posts, but I notice that Peter Fleming in his article on the Culpeper family in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography also gives Edmund Roper of Canterbury as Agnes's father. There seems to be better support for this filiation.

Thank you for that information. The following proposal seems more probable:

1. Charlemagne = Hildegard
2. Pepin, King of Italy = Chrothais
3. Bernard, King of Italy = Kunigund
4. Pepin, Count = ?
5. Heribert I, Count of Vermandois = ?
6. Heribert II, Count of Vermandois = ?
7. Adele = Geoffroy I, Count of Anjou
8. Ermengarde = Conan I, Count of Rennes
9. Judith = Richard II, Duke of Normandy
10.Robert I, Duke of Normandy = NN
11.Adele (sister of William I of England) = Lambert of Lens
12.Judith of Lens = Waltheof II of Northumberland
13.Matilda of Northumberland = Simon de St. Liz

14.Maud de St. Liz = Robert FitzRichard
15.Walter FitzRobert = Maud de Lucy
16.Alice FitzWalter = Sir Gilbert I Pecche
17.Hamon II Pecche = Eve
18.Gilbert II Pecche = Maud de Hastings
19.Margery Pecche = Nicholas II de Criol
20.Nicholas III de Criol = Maud
21.Sir John de Criol = ?
22.Nicholas IV de Criol = Elizabeth
23.Elizabeth de Criol = William de Echingham
24.Robert de Echingham = Joan atte Gate
25.Elizabeth de Echingham = Richard Wakehurst
26.Anne Wakehurst = John Gainsford
27.Agnes Gainsford = Sir John Culpeper
28.Isabel Culpeper

Sources can almost entirely be found by the citations on Hal Bradley's site at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hwbradley/aqwg1819.htm#31799. Regarding the Criol/Pecche connection, CP and other sources (including the two others cited on Hal Bradley's site) is incorrect and the evidence is confusing, but seems to have been sorted out by Chris Phillips (http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/criol.shtml), Douglas Richardson (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2008-12/1229013569), and others here on this list (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/Pecche$20Criol/soc.genealogy.medieval/gMgXeoMzsvE/5TSD6C6AtrsJ).

[roderi...@gmail.com]

There may be a problem with generations 26/27: The History of Parliament article on Richard Wakehurst (d. 1455) and the ODNB article on the Culpepper family both give Agnes Gainsford as the sister, not the daughter, of the John Gainsford who married Anne Wakehurst.

Also, the Sussex VCH (volume 9, page 270) seems to express some doubt that the Robert Echingham who married Joan was the same Robert who was the father of Elizabeth: "[Hamon's] daughter Joan married Robert Echingham, and in 1412 Dixter was held by a later Robert and was worth £20. This Robert's daughter Elizabeth married Richard Wakehurst..."

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

The lawsuit you cited in your post indicates that Warin Fitz Warin sued Thomas de Cornherde and Margaret his wife in 1337 for the manor of Wodemannecroft, Gloucestershire, which manor a certain Otes Fitz William previously gave to William Fitz William and his heirs. The pedigree indicates that William Fitz William was the grandfather of Warin Fitz Warin.

Otes Fitz William named in this lawsuit is surely the same person as the Otes Fitz William who issued a confirmation charter dated c.1221/2, by which he confirmed an earlier grant of his grandmother, Margaret daughter of Robert Fitz Harding [see Hassall, Cartulary of St. Mary Clerkenwell (Camden 3rd ser. 71) (1949): 105-106 (confirmation charter dated c. 1221/2 of Otes Fitz William confirming the grant of his grandmother, Margaret daughter of Robert Fitz Harding).

I might note that Robert Fitz Harding is the lineal male ancestor of the baronial Berkeley family. And, Otes Fitz William his descendant is the lineal male ancestor of Maud Fitz Thomas, wife of John Botetourt, Knt. (died 1324), 1st Lord Botetourt.

[roderi...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 4:34:26 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Joyce was actually a Cornard or Cornerd, and had been previously married to a citizen of London named Vyne.
>
> http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101079831887;view=1up;seq=240
>
> Janet Wolfe and I worked a bit on this line last summer. It seems clear that Joyce's father Sir Thomas Cornard was a uterine half-brother to Sir Robert Swinburne, M.P. This is revealed in the HOP sketch of Joyce's son-in-law, Robert Baynard, M.P., d. 1434, who is said to have married second "between Apr. 1405 and Apr. 1408, Joyce, da. and h. of John Vyne, citizen and draper of London, by Joan [sic; recte Joyce] da. of Sir Thomas Cornard of Cornard, Suff. and Finchingfield, Essex." This sketch also states that Joyce "was well-connected in Essex, too, being the grand daughter of a local knight and closely related to the prominent family of Swinburne."
>
> http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/baynard-richard-1371-1434
>
> Thomas Swinburne's widow Margery, mother of his son Sir Robert Swinburne, born ca. 1327, was married secondly to a Sir Thomas Cornard, from whom these Cornards descended.
>
> Discovery of Margery's identity might lead to some sort of remote royal descent for the Culpepper family.

Thank you for the many good leads on the Cornards. There is one thing I am unsure of: are you suggesting that Sir Thomas Cornard, the father of the Joyce who married John Vyne and and Sir Thomas Culpepper, was the second husband of Margery, the mother of Sir Robert Swinburne? The History of Parliament articles seem to put Joyce one generation later than Sir Robert. (And the chronology would be a bit of a stretch for Joyce given that Margery died in 1341, Joyce's first husband John Vyne died between 1382 and 1384, and Joyce had several children with her second husband.)

Or am I misreading you, and there were two Sir Thomas Cornards, father and son?

Roderick Ward

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Matt ~

Below is an improved and more direct royal line for Isabel Culpeper. Generations 1-8 can be found in my book, Royal Ancestry. The line below replaces the first 23 generations of the descent you provided earlier.

1. Henry II, King of England, by a mistress, Ida de Tony.
2. William Longespee, Knt., Earl of Salisbury, married Ela of Salisbury.
3. Ida Longespee, married (2nd) William de Beauchamp, Knt., of Bedford, Bedfordshire.
4. Beatrice de Beauchamp, married (1st) Thomas Fitz Otes, Knt., of Mendlesham, Suffolk.
5. Maud Fitz Thomas, married John Botetourt, Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt.
6. Ada Botetourt, married (1st) John de Saint Philibert, Knt., of Eaton Hastings, Berkshire.
7. Maud de Saint Philibert, married Warin Trussell, Knt., of Billesley, Warwickshire.
8. Elizabeth Trussell (died 1419), married Nicholas de Kyriel (or Criol), Knt. (died 1380), of Westenhanger, Stockbury, and Walmer, Kent.
9. Elizabeth de Kyriel (or Criol), married William de Echingham, Knt., of Etchingham, Sussex.

Besides your proposed connection to Isabel Culpeper, Elizabeth de Kyriel [Generation 9 above] is ancestral through her son, William de Echingham, Knt., to the following 17th Century New World immigrants:

William Bladen, James Cudworth, Francis Dade, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, John Oxenbridge.

I have no particulars regarding the Wakehurst-Gainsford part of the descent you gave for Isabel Culpeper.

[Jan Wolfe]

John Culpeper's wife Agnes Gainsford was the sister, not a daughter, of the John Gainsford who married Anne, daughter of Richard and Elizabeth (Etchingham) Wakehurst. When Agnes married John Culpeper, she was the widow of Richard Wakehurst, son of Richard and Elizabeth (Etchingham) Wakehurst. Thus the above royal line does not continue to the children of John Culpeper via his wife Agnes Gainsford.

Richard and Agnes (Gainsford) Wakehurst had two daughters, Margaret and Elizabeth. Two brothers of John Culpeper abducted and then married these Wakehurst daughters. Nicholas and Elizabeth (Wakehurst) Culpeper had several children. Richard and Margaret (Wakehurst) Culpeper did not have surviving children.

The article "The Sussex Colepepers" mentioned in a previous post in this thread discusses the evidence for these generations. The relationships are described in a court case about the abduction.

The court case is also discussed in William Dunn Gainsford, ed., Annals of the House of Gainsford ... between the years A.D. 1331 and A.D. 1909 (Horncastle, Lincs.: W. K. Morton & Sons, 1909), 18. The first three chapters of this book provide a history of the early generations of the Gainsford family starting with a John Gainsford who purchased land in Surrey in 1331 and soon after married Margery de la Poyle, daughter of John de la Poyle (d. 1317) and his wife Margery (living in 1333) and granddaughter of Walter de la Poyle (d. 1299) and his wife Alice (living in 1317), daughter of Stephen de Hampton.

The Gainsford family is also discussed in Charles M. Hansen, "The Barons of Wodhull with Observations on the Ancestry of George Elkington, Emigrant to New Jersey," The Genealogist 7-8 (1986-87):4-126 at 68-73.

[wjhonson]

What is the evidence that Maud the wife of Warin Trussell was the same person as
Maud Trussell the mother of that Elizabeth found to have Thomas Kyriel as her grandson and heir

[Jan Wolfe]

On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 3:34:55 AM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Jordan ~
>
> Robert O'Connor has raised another problem in your proposed descent, that being whether Margaret de Stafford [Generation 11], wife of Sir John de Hardreshull, was the mother of his children.
>
> Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 88-89 (sub Hardredeshull) does identify Margaret de Stafford as the mother of Sir John de Hardreshull's children. See the following weblink for this information:
>
> https://archive.org/stream/baroniaanglicaco02bank#page/88/mode/2up
>
> However, elsewhere this is a lengthy account of the Hardreshull family published in Dudding, History of the Manor and Parish of Saleby with Thoresthorpe (1922): 26-43. In this book, Mr. Dudding assigns all of Sir John de Hardreshull's children to his 1st wife, Maud Mussenden. He states that Sir John de Hardreshull had no issue by his 2nd wife, Margaret de Stafford.
>
> See the following weblink for this source:
>
> http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b758617;view=1up;seq=61
>
> If Mr. Dudding is correct, then you would lose the Stafford connection. This matter deserves further study.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>

Douglas, thank you for providing the citation and link to the book by Dudding. Dudding provides a well-researched and interesting account of the Hardreshull family. I did notice a few minor errors. For example on p. 28, he states that Robert de Hardreshull was a surety for Robert Marmion in 1218, citing a Fine Roll, 2 Henry 3, but it was Robert's father William who was a surety for Robert Marmion in 1218, http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_009.html#it080_006d.(William's surname is written "de Ardrisul" in the image. The Henry III Fine Rolls project standardized most instances of the Hardreshull/Hardredeshull, etc. surname to Hartshill.) Generally, Dudding's account is clear and citations are provided for most facts.

Concerning the identity of the mother of Elizabeth Hardreshull, Dudding states that in 1348 John de Hardreshull "was in litigation with Robert de Stotevill of Covenham, who accused him and John de Chaddworth, knight, of Little Carlton, of unjustly depriving him, Robert, of a free tenement in Little Carlton and 26s 8d of rent. John de Hardreshull by a bailiff said that he was the holder of the lands whence Robert de Stoteville asserted the said rent to be due, and held them with Maud his wife by a writ of 20 June, 21 Edw. III. Robert was not able to sustain his claim." (p. 39, citing Assize Roll 22 Edw. Ill, No. 1439.)

Referring to peak plague years 1348-1349, Dodding states, "In these years John de Hardreshull probably lost his wife, his son William, the latter's wife Katherine, and her father Nicholas Malemeyns, for they were all dead in 1350.
Shortly afterwards he married, secondly, Margaret, daughter of Sir James de Stafford of Sandon co. Stafford, and widow of Thomas de Erdeswick."

If the description of the 1348 court case is correct, it implies that John's wife Maud was still alive in 1348. Thus the earliest a child could have been born to John de Hardreshull by his second wife Margaret was about 1349. If Margaret was Elizabeth de Hardreshull's mother, Elizabeth would have been at most age 14 in 1463, but Elizabeth's son Thomas Culpeper was married to his first wife Alianora Greene by 6 Oct 1378, on which date Ashton (in Northamptionshire, a Hardreshull property--see p. 33 in Dudding) was settled on Thomas Culpeper and Alianora his wife. See http://aalt.law.uh.edu/CP25%281%29/CP25%281%29Nhants178/IMG_0234.htm and
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_178_86.shtml#9.

The Assize Roll cited by Dudding is available on AALT in Just1. The case involving Robert de Stotevill, John de Chaddworth, and John de Hardreshull can be seen in the lower 2/3s of the AALT image here: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1439/bJUST1no1439dorses/IMG_6052.htm

I think that the reply by John de Hardreshull via a bailiff starts on line 16 of the case. I can see the words "with Matilda his wife" in line 18. Perhaps someone can transcribe and translate the document to confirm Dudding's abstract.

[Tompkins]

From: Jan Wolfe via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
Sent: 10 August 2015 03:28

> Douglas, thank you for providing the citation and link to the book by Dudding. Dudding provides a well-researched and interesting account of the Hardreshull family. I did notice a few minor errors. For example on p. 28, he states that Robert de Hardreshull was a surety for Robert Marmion in 1218, citing a Fine Roll, 2 Henry 3, but it was Robert's father William who was a surety for Robert Marmion in 1218, http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_009.html#it080_006d.(William's surname is written "de Ardrisul" in the image. The Henry III Fine Rolls project standardized most instances of the Hardreshull/Hardredeshull, etc. surname to Hartshill.) Generally, Dudding's account is clear and citations are provided for most facts.
>
> Concerning the identity of the mother of Elizabeth Hardreshull, Dudding states that in 1348 John de Hardreshull "was in litigation with Robert de Stotevill of Covenham, who accused him and John de Chaddworth, knight, of Little Carlton, of unjustly depriving him, Robert, of a free tenement in Little Carlton and 26s 8d of rent. John de Hardreshull by a bailiff said that he was the holder of the lands whence Robert de Stoteville asserted the said rent to be due, and held them with Maud his wife by a writ of 20 June, 21 Edw. III. Robert was not able to sustain his claim." (p. 39, citing Assize Roll 22 Edw. Ill, No. 1439.)
>
> Referring to peak plague years 1348-1349, Dodding states, "In these years John de Hardreshull probably lost his wife, his son William, the latter's wife Katherine, and her father Nicholas Malemeyns, for they were all dead in 1350.
> Shortly afterwards he married, secondly, Margaret, daughter of Sir James de Stafford of Sandon co. Stafford, and widow of Thomas de Erdeswick."
>
> If the description of the 1348 court case is correct, it implies that John's wife Maud was still alive in 1348. Thus the earliest a child could have been born to John de Hardreshull by his second wife Margaret was about 1349. If Margaret was Elizabeth de Hardreshull's mother, Elizabeth would have been at most age 14 in 1463, but Elizabeth's son Thomas Culpeper was married to his first wife Alianora Greene by 6 Oct 1378, on which date Ashton (in Northamptionshire, a Hardreshull property--see p. 33 in Dudding) was settled on Thomas Culpeper and Alianora his wife. See http://aalt.law.uh.edu/CP25%281%29/CP25%281%29Nhants178/IMG_0234.htm and
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_178_86.shtml#9.
>
> The Assize Roll cited by Dudding is available on AALT in Just1. The case involving Robert de Stotevill, John de Chaddworth, and John de Hardreshull can be seen in the lower 2/3s of the AALT image here: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1439/bJUST1no1439dorses/IMG_6052.htm
>
> I think that the reply by John de Hardreshull via a bailiff starts on line 16 of the case. I can see the words "with Matilda his wife" in line 18. Perhaps someone can transcribe and translate the document to confirm Dudding's abstract.
>

-------------------------------
________________________________________

Maud is mentioned in two passages - in John de Hardreshull's defence (lines 16-21) and in the jury's verdict on the points at issue between Robert de Stotevill and John de Hardreshull (lines 28-34). In the A-ALT image neither passage is entirely legible - in the first the last few words at the end of each line are mostly worn just beyond legibility, and the entire second passage is only intermittently legible (they'd probably both be much better under ultra violet light). However I think I can read or extrapolate from the context almost the whole of the first reference to Maud and most of the second.

John de Hardreshull's defence (to Robert de Stotevill's claim that he and others have disseised Robert of his free tenement and 26s. 8d. rent in Little Carleton and committed a violent rescue of animals distrained by Robert for the arrears of rent) says he is the tenant of 3 acres of the land from which Robert claims the 26s. 8d. rent, that he holds* it jointly with his wife Maud and that he held** it on the day on which the writ was issued, viz 20 June 21 Edward III [1347], which certain Maud*** is named in the writ.

* the word 'holds' is obscure - I think from the context it is probably in the present tense ('tenet').
** definitely past tense - 'tenuit'
*** these three words are obscure - I think they are 'que quidem Matill'.

The verdict, in lines 28-34, is less legible than the earlier passage, but I think it says that on the day of the issue of the writ, that is 20 June 21 Edw III, John de Hardreshull was seised of the 3 acres of land on terms that Maud ... ... in the same ('absque hoc quod predicta Matillda ?aliquid ?--- ?in ?easdem'), and that the tenement from which the rent issues is within Robert's fee and lordship and held of him, and that Robert was seised of the rent as of his free tenement and that it was in arrears when he distrained for it.

Dudding misunderstood the reference to the writ - Hardreshull and Maud did not hold 'by' the writ, but were holding on the date when the writ was issued. It is clear that Maud was still alive when the writ was issued, and it seems likely that she was still alive at the date of the assize. Also Stotevill seems to have won his case against Chaddeworth and Hardeshull, who had to pay him damages, and only lost against the other defendants.

Matt Tompkins

[Jan Wolfe]

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:21:50 PM UTC-4, Tompkins wrote:
> From: Jan Wolfe via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
> Sent: 10 August 2015 03:28

...

> > Concerning the identity of the mother of Elizabeth Hardreshull, Dudding states that in 1348 John de Hardreshull "was in litigation with Robert de Stotevill of Covenham, who accused him and John de Chaddworth, knight, of Little Carlton, of unjustly depriving him, Robert, of a free tenement in Little Carlton and 26s 8d of rent. John de Hardreshull by a bailiff said that he was the holder of the lands whence Robert de Stoteville asserted the said rent to be due, and held them with Maud his wife by a writ of 20 June, 21 Edw. III. Robert was not able to sustain his claim." (p. 39, citing Assize Roll 22 Edw. Ill, No. 1439.)

...

> > If the description of the 1348 court case is correct, it implies that John's wife Maud was still alive in 1348.

...

> > The Assize Roll cited by Dudding is available on AALT in Just1. The case involving Robert de Stotevill, John de Chaddworth, and John de Hardreshull can be seen in the lower 2/3s of the AALT image here: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1439/bJUST1no1439dorses/IMG_6052.htm
> >
> > I think that the reply by John de Hardreshull via a bailiff starts on line 16 of the case. I can see the words "with Matilda his wife" in line 18. Perhaps someone can transcribe and translate the document to confirm Dudding's abstract.
> >

...

> Maud is mentioned in two passages - in John de Hardreshull's defence (lines 16-21) and in the jury's verdict on the points at issue between Robert de Stotevill and John de Hardreshull (lines 28-34). In the A-ALT image neither passage is entirely legible - in the first the last few words at the end of each line are mostly worn just beyond legibility, and the entire second passage is only intermittently legible (they'd probably both be much better under ultra violet light). However I think I can read or extrapolate from the context almost the whole of the first reference to Maud and most of the second.
>
> John de Hardreshull's defence (to Robert de Stotevill's claim that he and others have disseised Robert of his free tenement and 26s. 8d. rent in Little Carleton and committed a violent rescue of animals distrained by Robert for the arrears of rent) says he is the tenant of 3 acres of the land from which Robert claims the 26s. 8d. rent, that he holds* it jointly with his wife Maud and that he held** it on the day on which the writ was issued, viz 20 June 21 Edward III [1347], which certain Maud*** is named in the writ.
>
> * the word 'holds' is obscure - I think from the context it is probably in the present tense ('tenet').
> ** definitely past tense - 'tenuit'
> *** these three words are obscure - I think they are 'que quidem Matill'.
>
> The verdict, in lines 28-34, is less legible than the earlier passage, but I think it says that on the day of the issue of the writ, that is 20 June 21 Edw III, John de Hardreshull was seised of the 3 acres of land on terms that Maud ... ... in the same ('absque hoc quod predicta Matillda ?aliquid ?--- ?in ?easdem'), and that the tenement from which the rent issues is within Robert's fee and lordship and held of him, and that Robert was seised of the rent as of his free tenement and that it was in arrears when he distrained for it.
>
> Dudding misunderstood the reference to the writ - Hardreshull and Maud did not hold 'by' the writ, but were holding on the date when the writ was issued. It is clear that Maud was still alive when the writ was issued, and it seems likely that she was still alive at the date of the assize. Also Stotevill seems to have won his case against Chaddeworth and Hardeshull, who had to pay him damages, and only lost against the other defendants.
>
> Matt Tompkins

Matt, thank you very much for reading and explaining this case. You note that it implies that Maud was still alive when the writ was issued (20 June 1347) and likely still alive on the date of the assize.

Dudding dated this assize as 22 Edward III, but there is a statement of the date on the front corresponding to the dorse where we are reading this case, see http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1439/aJUST1no1439fronts/IMG_6036.htm.

I think the heading states the date of this group of cases as "die Lun' p[ro]x' post f'tu' Sci' Petru' Ad uinc'la anno suprad'co." I suppose that means, "Monday next after the feast of St Peter in Chains in the year above said." At the top of the same membrane (previous image on AALT) the year is given as 21 (Edward III). I think that the feast of St Peter in Chains was celebrated on August 1, which fell on a Wednesday in 1347. Thus, it appears that date of this assize was 6 August 1347.

The next membrane in this set (next image in AALT) includes cases heard in Lincoln in March of 1347/48, 22 Edward III (following a new heading in the middle of the membrane).

[Tompkins]

> From: Jan Wolfe via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
> Sent: 10 August 2015 03:28
...
> > Concerning the identity of the mother of Elizabeth Hardreshull, Dudding states that in 1348 John de Hardreshull "was in litigation with Robert de Stotevill of Covenham, who accused him and John de Chaddworth, knight, of Little Carlton, of unjustly depriving him, Robert, of a free tenement in Little Carlton and 26s 8d of rent. John de Hardreshull by a bailiff said that he was the holder of the lands whence Robert de Stoteville asserted the said rent to be due, and held them with Maud his wife by a writ of 20 June, 21 Edw. III. Robert was not able to sustain his claim." (p. 39, citing Assize Roll 22 Edw. Ill, No. 1439.)
...
> > If the description of the 1348 court case is correct, it implies that John's wife Maud was still alive in 1348.
...
> > The Assize Roll cited by Dudding is available on AALT in Just1. The case involving Robert de Stotevill, John de Chaddworth, and John de Hardreshull can be seen in the lower 2/3s of the AALT image here: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1439/bJUST1no1439dorses/IMG_6052.htm
> >
> > I think that the reply by John de Hardreshull via a bailiff starts on line 16 of the case. I can see the words "with Matilda his wife" in line 18. Perhaps someone can transcribe and translate the document to confirm Dudding's abstract.
> >

...............................................................

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:21:50 PM UTC-4, Tompkins wrote:
> Maud is mentioned in two passages - in John de Hardreshull's defence (lines 16-21) and in the jury's verdict on the points at issue between Robert de Stotevill and John de Hardreshull (lines 28-34). In the A-ALT image neither passage is entirely legible - in the first the last few words at the end of each line are mostly worn just beyond legibility, and the entire second passage is only intermittently legible (they'd probably both be much better under ultra violet light). However I think I can read or extrapolate from the context almost the whole of the first reference to Maud and most of the second.
>
> John de Hardreshull's defence (to Robert de Stotevill's claim that he and others have disseised Robert of his free tenement and 26s. 8d. rent in Little Carleton and committed a violent rescue of animals distrained by Robert for the arrears of rent) says he is the tenant of 3 acres of the land from which Robert claims the 26s. 8d. rent, that he holds* it jointly with his wife Maud and that he held** it on the day on which the writ was issued, viz 20 June 21 Edward III [1347], which certain Maud*** is named in the writ.
>
> * the word 'holds' is obscure - I think from the context it is probably in the present tense ('tenet').
> ** definitely past tense - 'tenuit'
> *** these three words are obscure - I think they are 'que quidem Matill'.
>
> The verdict, in lines 28-34, is less legible than the earlier passage, but I think it says that on the day of the issue of the writ, that is 20 June 21 Edw III, John de Hardreshull was seised of the 3 acres of land on terms that Maud ... ... in the same ('absque hoc quod predicta Matillda ?aliquid ?--- ?in ?easdem'), and that the tenement from which the rent issues is within Robert's fee and lordship and held of him, and that Robert was seised of the rent as of his free tenement and that it was in arrears when he distrained for it.
>
> Dudding misunderstood the reference to the writ - Hardreshull and Maud did not hold 'by' the writ, but were holding on the date when the writ was issued. It is clear that Maud was still alive when the writ was issued, and it seems likely that she was still alive at the date of the assize. Also Stotevill seems to have won his case against Chaddeworth and Hardeshull, who had to pay him damages, and only lost against the other defendants.
>
> Matt Tompkins

________________________________________

From: Jan Wolfe via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]

Sent: 13 August 2015 00:01

>
> Matt, thank you very much for reading and explaining this case. You note that it implies that Maud was still alive when the writ was issued (20 June 1347) and likely still alive on the date of the assize.
>
> Dudding dated this assize as 22 Edward III, but there is a statement of the date on the front corresponding to the dorse where we are reading this case, see http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1439/aJUST1no1439fronts/IMG_6036.htm.
>
> I think the heading states the date of this group of cases as "die Lun' p[ro]x' post f'tu' Sci' Petru' Ad uinc'la anno suprad'co." I suppose that means, "Monday next after the feast of St Peter in Chains in the year above said." At the top of the same membrane (previous image on AALT) the year is given as 21 (Edward III). I think that the feast of St Peter in Chains was celebrated on August 1, which fell on a Wednesday in 1347. Thus, it appears that date of this assize was 6 August 1347.
>
> The next membrane in this set (next image in AALT) includes cases heard in Lincoln in March of 1347/48, 22 Edward III (following a new heading in the middle of the membrane).
>

-------------------------------

Yes, you're right, the assize was held on 6 August 1347, just 6 weeks after the issue of the writ. This seems extraordinarily quick (assuming the writ in question was the one which originated the suit), but I don't know much about assize process, and maybe this was unexceptional. I believe one of the attractions of the assize of novel disseisin was its speedy process, though I didn't realise it could be this quick.

I've just noticed that John de Hardreshull's appointment of an attorney in the case can be seen at the foot of the dorse of the next membrane (image 6038): http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1439/aJUST1no1439fronts/IMG_6038.htm
Curiously the attorney is one William de Witham - not the 'bailiff' who actually spoke for him and some of the other defendants in the record of the hearing (whose surname isn't legible - something like Gundey or Sondey? - but is definitely not Witham).

Matt

[Jan Wolfe]

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 5:00:39 AM UTC-4, Tompkins wrote:
...

> Yes, you're right, the assize was held on 6 August 1347, just 6 weeks after the issue of the writ. This seems extraordinarily quick (assuming the writ in question was the one which originated the suit), but I don't know much about assize process, and maybe this was unexceptional. I believe one of the attractions of the assize of novel disseisin was its speedy process, though I didn't realise it could be this quick.
>
> I've just noticed that John de Hardreshull's appointment of an attorney in the case can be seen at the foot of the dorse of the next membrane (image 6038): http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1439/aJUST1no1439fronts/IMG_6038.htm
> Curiously the attorney is one William de Witham - not the 'bailiff' who actually spoke for him and some of the other defendants in the record of the hearing (whose surname isn't legible - something like Gundey or Sondey? - but is definitely not Witham).
>
> Matt

Ah, so the case wasn't over! Robert appointed an attorney, too, (http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1443/aJUST1no1443fronts/IMG_6229.htm) and the parties were back in court the next summer, on 8 August 1348 (Thursday next before the feast of St. Laurence, I think it says at the top of the membrane, http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1443/aJUST1no1443fronts/IMG_6235.htm, Assize Rolls, JUST1, 22 Edward III, no. 1443, membrane 11)

The writing is very clear on this one. The tenure of John and of Maud is mentioned several times. Does this imply that Maud was still alive in August 1348?

[Jan Wolfe]

Oops, I meant to type Friday, not Thursday. August 10 (feast of St Laurence) was a Sunday in 1348. Curiously, the membrane in which Robert named his attorney states the date as Friday next after the feast of St. Peter in Chains. Since the August 1 was a Friday, I suppose that would be August 8, too. What a strange way to state dates!

[Tompkins]

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 5:00:39 AM UTC-4, Tompkins wrote:
...
> Yes, you're right, the assize was held on 6 August 1347, just 6 weeks after the issue of the writ. This seems extraordinarily quick (assuming the writ in question was the one which originated the suit), but I don't know much about assize process, and maybe this was unexceptional. I believe one of the attractions of the assize of novel disseisin was its speedy process, though I didn't realise it could be this quick.
>
> I've just noticed that John de Hardreshull's appointment of an attorney in the case can be seen at the foot of the dorse of the next membrane (image 6038): http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1439/aJUST1no1439fronts/IMG_6038.htm
> Curiously the attorney is one William de Witham - not the 'bailiff' who actually spoke for him and some of the other defendants in the record of the hearing (whose surname isn't legible - something like Gundey or Sondey? - but is definitely not Witham).
>
> Matt

________________________________________
From: Jan Wolfe via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]

Sent: 13 August 2015 14:52

>
> Ah, so the case wasn't over! Robert appointed an attorney, too, (http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1443/aJUST1no1443fronts/IMG_6229.htm) and the parties were back in court the next summer, on 8 August 1348 (Thursday next before the feast of St. Laurence, I think it says at the top of the membrane, http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1443/aJUST1no1443fronts/IMG_6235.htm, Assize Rolls, JUST1, 22 Edward III, no. 1443, membrane 11)
>
> The writing is very clear on this one. The tenure of John and of Maud is mentioned several times. Does this imply that Maud was still alive in August 1348?
>

-------------------------------
Good find, Jan. The 1348 entry recording the second suit is perfectly clear, and recites the entire text of the 1347 entry, so I can now provide the definitive texts of the two passages in it which referred to Maud, as follows:

John de Hardeshull's defence (recited in lines 26-32 of the 1348 entry) said that he answered as tenant of 3 acres of the tenement which Robert claims the 26s. 8d. rent issues from, that he holds ('tenet') them jointly with his wife Maud and that he held ('tenuit') them on the day on which the writ was issued, viz 20 June 21 Edward III [1347], which certain Maud is not named ('nominatur') in the writ.

The jury's verdict (in lines 37-39 of the 1348 entry) says that on the day of the issue of the writ, that is 20 June 21 Edw III, John de Hardeshull was solely seised of the 3 acres of land and that Maud had nothing in the same ('absque hoc quod predicta Matillda aliquid habuit in eisdem').

The 1348 entry records a new action, brought by John Hardeshull against the 12 jurors from the earlier hearing (by a writ dated 24 Oct 1347). Hardeshull alleges that the jurors had delivered a false verdict, specifically when they said he was solely seised of the 3 acres and that Maud had no interest in them, and also when they said the land was within Robert de Stotevill's fee and owed him the 26s. 8d. rent. After the 1347 entry had been recited Hardeshull asserted (lines 49-50) that he and Maud held the land jointly on 20 June 1347.

The outcome of the second case is not recorded.

So it is certain Maud was alive at the date of the first hearing (6 Aug 1347) - her husband states explicitly that she held jointly with him on that date, and the jurors' verdict did not say that she was dead, only that she had no interest in the lands. It is unclear whether she was alive at the date of the second hearing (8 Aug 1348).

Matt Tompkins

[Jan Wolfe]

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 8:31:32 AM UTC-4, Tompkins wrote:
...

> Good find, Jan. The 1348 entry recording the second suit is perfectly clear, and recites the entire text of the 1347 entry, so I can now provide the definitive texts of the two passages in it which referred to Maud, as follows:
>
> John de Hardeshull's defence (recited in lines 26-32 of the 1348 entry) said that he answered as tenant of 3 acres of the tenement which Robert claims the 26s. 8d. rent issues from, that he holds ('tenet') them jointly with his wife Maud and that he held ('tenuit') them on the day on which the writ was issued, viz 20 June 21 Edward III [1347], which certain Maud is not named ('nominatur') in the writ.
>
> The jury's verdict (in lines 37-39 of the 1348 entry) says that on the day of the issue of the writ, that is 20 June 21 Edw III, John de Hardeshull was solely seised of the 3 acres of land and that Maud had nothing in the same ('absque hoc quod predicta Matillda aliquid habuit in eisdem').
>
> The 1348 entry records a new action, brought by John Hardeshull against the 12 jurors from the earlier hearing (by a writ dated 24 Oct 1347). Hardeshull alleges that the jurors had delivered a false verdict, specifically when they said he was solely seised of the 3 acres and that Maud had no interest in them, and also when they said the land was within Robert de Stotevill's fee and owed him the 26s. 8d. rent. After the 1347 entry had been recited Hardeshull asserted (lines 49-50) that he and Maud held the land jointly on 20 June 1347.
>
> The outcome of the second case is not recorded.
>
> So it is certain Maud was alive at the date of the first hearing (6 Aug 1347) - her husband states explicitly that she held jointly with him on that date, and the jurors' verdict did not say that she was dead, only that she had no interest in the lands. It is unclear whether she was alive at the date of the second hearing (8 Aug 1348).
>
> Matt Tompkins

Matt, thank you very much for reading and summarizing this second set of documents in this case.

The BBC website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/black_01.shtml, says the plague came to the midlands in Jan-Feb 1348/49. So if Dudding's suggestion that Maud, her son William and William's wife died of (or during) the plague, perhaps they died sometime in 1349.

One legal question: How could it have been relevant to this case whether John de Hardreshull held the land himself or jointly with his wife Maud?

[Tompkins]

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 8:31:32 AM UTC-4, Tompkins wrote:
...
> Good find, Jan. The 1348 entry recording the second suit is perfectly clear, and recites the entire text of the 1347 entry, so I can now provide the definitive texts of the two passages in it which referred to Maud, as follows:
>
> John de Hardeshull's defence (recited in lines 26-32 of the 1348 entry) said that he answered as tenant of 3 acres of the tenement which Robert claims the 26s. 8d. rent issues from, that he holds ('tenet') them jointly with his wife Maud and that he held ('tenuit') them on the day on which the writ was issued, viz 20 June 21 Edward III [1347], which certain Maud is not named ('nominatur') in the writ.
>
> The jury's verdict (in lines 37-39 of the 1348 entry) says that on the day of the issue of the writ, that is 20 June 21 Edw III, John de Hardeshull was solely seised of the 3 acres of land and that Maud had nothing in the same ('absque hoc quod predicta Matillda aliquid habuit in eisdem').
>
> The 1348 entry records a new action, brought by John Hardeshull against the 12 jurors from the earlier hearing (by a writ dated 24 Oct 1347). Hardeshull alleges that the jurors had delivered a false verdict, specifically when they said he was solely seised of the 3 acres and that Maud had no interest in them, and also when they said the land was within Robert de Stotevill's fee and owed him the 26s. 8d. rent. After the 1347 entry had been recited Hardeshull asserted (lines 49-50) that he and Maud held the land jointly on 20 June 1347.
>
> The outcome of the second case is not recorded.
>
> So it is certain Maud was alive at the date of the first hearing (6 Aug 1347) - her husband states explicitly that she held jointly with him on that date, and the jurors' verdict did not say that she was dead, only that she had no interest in the lands. It is unclear whether she was alive at the date of the second hearing (8 Aug 1348).
>
> Matt Tompkins

________________________________________
From: Jan Wolfe via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]

Sent: 14 August 2015 14:16

> Matt, thank you very much for reading and summarizing this second set of documents in this case.
>
> The BBC website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/black_01.shtml, says the plague came to the midlands in Jan-Feb 1348/49. So if Dudding's suggestion that Maud, her son William and William's wife died of (or during) the plague, perhaps they died sometime in 1349.
>
> One legal question: How could it have been relevant to this case whether John de Hardreshull held the land himself or jointly with his wife Maud?
>

-------------------------------

I think it affects the validity of the writ which originated the action. That presumably stated that Hardeshull held the land in question. Hardeshull is arguing, I think, that the statement is untrue, because he held it jointly with Maud, who should have been mentioned, and therefore the writ is invalid. Or perhaps that the writ is invalid because Maud should have named as co-defendant with him. His defence ends 'which certain Maud is not named in the writ, and he seeks judgement of the writ' - ie he asks the court to declare the writ invalid.

Ironically Stotevill uses the same argument against Hardeshull in the 1348 hearing - in his defence against Hardeshull's plaint he alleges that 'a certain Robert Darcy, knight, holds the said rent [of 26s. 8d.] and was the tenant thereof on the day of the issue of the writ, viz 24 Oct 21 Edw III [1347], which Robert Darcy is not named in the writ as tenant of the rent, whereof he seeks judgement of the writ'.

Stotevill knows this argument may not succeed, and adds a second, alternative defence: 'And if etc [ie if the writ is not invalid], then he says that the assize jurors gave a good and legal verdict.'

Matt

[Jan Wolfe]

Thanks for the additional insight. So, perhaps John de Hardreshull was just hoping to delay or discourage Robert by forcing him to get a new writ.

By the way, does anyone have information about the identity of the parents of Maud de Mussenden?

There was a Roger Mussenden (d. c. 1331, IPM), whose heir was his son Roger, age 40 and more. It seems plausible that Maud was similar in age to the son Roger. The elder Roger also had a son Hugh who died in 1361 (IPM in 1368). The elder Roger had land in Northamptonshire (Culworth), so perhaps he is a geographically as well as a chronologically plausible candidate.

[marl...@att.net]

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 5:19:40 AM UTC-7, roderi...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>

> > 21.Roger de Lewknor = Katherine Bardolf
> > 22.Thomas de Lewknor = Joan d'Oyley
> > 23.Beatrice de Lewknor = Ralph Roper
> > 24.Agnes Roper = Walter Culpeper
> > 25.John Culpeper = Agnes Gainsford
> > 26.Isabel Culpeper

<snip>

> > -Matt Ahlgren
>
> I think the parents of Agnes in generation 23 are not so clear. Berry (p. 213), Hasted (1:473) and the Roper pedigree in the 1619 visitation all give Ralph Roper and Beatrix Lewknor.
>
> However, the Colepeper pedigree in the 1619 visitation, Attree (p. 57), Blaauw (p. 154), and Weever (p. 69) all give Agnes's father as Edmund Roper. Weever cites a monumental inscription ("Agnes erat filia Edmundi Robar iuxta Cantuar".
>
> References:
>
> Attree, F.W.T., and Booker, J.H.L. "The Sussex Colepepers. Part I." in Sussex Archaeological Collections (Lewes: Sussex Archaeological Society, 1904), Volume XLVII, pages 47 to 81.
>
> Berry, William. County genealogies : pedigrees of the families of the county of Kent. (London: Sherwood, Gilbert and Piper, 1830)
>
> Blaauw, W.H., "Wakehurst, Slaugham, and Gravetye," in Sussex Archaeological Collections (London: Sussex Archaeological Society, 1858) Volume X, pages 151-167.
>
> Hasted, Edward. The history and topographical survey of the county of Kent. (Canterbury: W. Bristow, 1972)
>
> Hovenden, Robert, and John Philipot. The visitation of Kent, taken in the years 1619-1621 by John Philipot, Rouge Dragon, marshall and deputy to William Camden, Clarenceux. (London: [Harleian Society], 1898).
>
> Weever, John. Ancient funerall monuments within the United Monarchie of Great Britaine, Ireland, and the islands adiacent, with the dissolved monasteries therein contained: their founders, and what eminent persons haue beene in the same interred, as also the death and buriall of certaine of the Bloud Royall, the nobilitie and gentrie of these kingdomes entombed in forraine nations. (London: T. Harper, 1631)

The placement of Agnes Roper as daughter of Edmund Roper seems quite correct, however no mention has been made in this thread that I see that Edmund was in fact was son of Ralph Roper (possibly 23 above).

Testamenta Vetusta (1:156) and Collins Peerage (Vol. 3, 136 I think) cite the contents of the will of John Roper of St. Dunstans where he names Ralph Roper as his son and Edmund as son of Ralph. Edmund's wife Catharine is also named and at the date of the will 3 Henry IV, Ralph had a wife Alice. It is uncertain if Alice is mother of Edmund or not.

What would appear to need verification is that the Ralph Roper of St. Dunstans who had a wife Alice was the same man as suggested married to Beatrice Lewknor and which wife was mother of Edmund. So there are still parts of this proposed descent to be verified and validated.

HS

[al...@mindspring.com]

See 'Parishes: Harbury', in A History of the County of Warwick: Volume 6, Knightlow Hundred, ed. L F Salzman (London, 1951), pp. 103-108 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol6/pp103-108 [accessed 17 August 2015].

Doug

[roderi...@gmail.com]

The will of John Roper actually mentions two Edmunds: (1) his son, whose late wife was named Katherine; (2) the son of Ralph Roper, whose relationship to John is not specified. The will also mentions a Richard Roper, whose relationship to John is not specified.

Here is an abstract of John Roper's will which gives a little more information than Testamenta Vetusta:
http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Libr/Wills/Lbth/Bk23/page%20300.htm

I am with you in that I am not sure that the Ralph Roper in the will and the Ralph Roper who is said to have married Beatrix Lewknor were the same person. (The last time I looked at this line, I was leaning against it, but I can't remember why.)

Even if this gets sorted out, there is a lot of conflicting information about Beatrix Lewknor in secondary sources that I am not sure has been sorted out.

[Jan Wolfe]

Weever, Ancient Funerall Monuments, p. 274-75, describes a tomb in the Collegiate Church of Wye with an inscription lauding a Thomas Kemp and his wife Beatrix. Weever states that this tomb was erected by Archbishop John Kemp for his parents. The inscription is consistent with an identification of the Archbishop's father as Thomas Kemp and the given name of his mother as Beatrix. The 1401 will of John Roper implies that Ralph Roper was living and had a wife named Alice and an adult son named Edmund in 1401. If so, Ralph could not have had a widow Beatrix who subsequently married Thomas Kemp and was also the mother of Ralph's adult son Edmund, as claimed in 1619-21 visitation of Kent.

There is a set of court cases relevant to this question. These are briefly discussed in the article, "The Exhurst Ancestry of the Stoughton Siblings of New England" referenced earlier in this thread. The article states, "In a set of court cases concerning their inheritance, Edmund Roper's sons John and Edmund claim that John Roper, the 1401 testator, and Thomas Roper were brothers. They also claim that their grandfather Ralph Roper was the son of Thomas and thus the nephew and heir of the 1401 testator. Their assertion is challenged by a counterclaim that the elder Edmund's father Ralph Roper was not the son of John Roper's brother Thomas, but instead that Ralph was an illegitimate son of John Roper's sister Juliane and an unknown 'Braboner.'"

The court cases are C 1/2/23-4, C 1/16/146, and C 1/17/404-5 and are available on AALT.

The "Exhurst" article also states, "One of the documents in the cases refers to Archdeacon of Richmond Thomas Kemp as the 'half-brethren' of Edmund Roper's sons John and Edmund, suggesting the possibility that their mother Alice may have been the widow of Thomas Kemp's father. Archdeacon Thomas Kemp, later Bishop of London, was born about 1414 and died in 1489. He was the nephew of Cardinal and Archbishop of Canterbury John Kemp. In 1436 when John, Archbishop of York was named a guardian of Edmund Roper's son John, the holder of that title was John Kemp, later Cardinal and Archbishop of Canterbury."

When we wrote the section of the "Exhurst" article that discusses the ancestry of Walter Culpeper's wife Agnes, we were hoping that our discussion would encourage further research. I am pleased to see people addressing this question now. I won't have time to correspond about it this week or next, but I'd be pleased to do so in September.

[Jan Wolfe]

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 1:23:43 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This source, in German, mentions "Edmunds Witwe Alice (geboren Neylor) ..." so they are claiming Alice was a member of the Neylor family.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=vLF9BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22john+roper%22+kent&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBDgyahUKEwj178rplbjHAhVMmoAKHZysDAI#v=snippet&q=alice&f=false

In this section of Das Haupt, the author is citing the Register of Thomas Chichele, but the Register does not state Alice's surname. Her surname comes from the pedigree chart in the same book (p. 69). The chart is from the pedigree in the possession of Lord Teynham at the time the book was written (see p. 68). (Go to the extra.springer.com website and type in the ISBN number 978-3-663-20009-3 to get the chart.)

The will of Edmund Roper, Consistory Court of Canterbury, Liber 1, fol. 25 [FHL 0188833], dated December 1433 (the date is difficult to read on the film), names his wife Alice executrix and gives the residue of his goods to her for the benefit of his sons. The entries in the Register of Henry Chichele suggest that the sons were still underage in 1441, thus born after 1420.

Since Agnes Roper was widowed by the death of her first husband in 1424, it seems likely that Agnes was born by 1410. Thomas Kemp (Bishop of London) was reportedly born about 1410. A way for Thomas Kemp to have been a half brother of John and Edmund Roper would be for his mother to have been the Alice who subsequently married Edmund Roper. If so, it seems unlikely that Edmund Roper's wife/widow Alice was the mother of Agnes Roper.

The 1401 will of John Roper suggests that Edmund Roper was an adult in 1401. If so he may well have had another wife before Alice.

[Jan Wolfe]

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 1:39:26 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Also, it occurs to me that possibly the order of Beatrix's marriages has simply been wrongly stated.
>
> Although perhaps it would be nice to have independent verification of the existence of a person called "Beatrix Lewknor."

The tomb inscription suggests that the name of Thomas Kemp's wife was Beatrix. Lord Teynham's Roper pedigree gives her name as Beatrix Lewknor and shows Thomas Kemp and Ralph Roper as her husbands. It does not say which husband was first.

If Edmund Roper was an adult in 1401, he was born by 1380. 1380 is also the estimated birth year of Archbishop John Kemp.

Lord Teynham's Roper pedigree shows Ralph as the brother (rather than a nephew) of the John Roper who wrote his will in 1401 and as the son of Thomas Roper. It shows another John Roper in the generation with Thomas.

There are many records of a Thomas Kemp as escheator. Perhaps someone can examine those records to determine when Thomas Kemp, the father of Archbishop John Kemp, died and whether some of the escheator records pertain to his son of the same name (or some other Thomas Kemp). I vaguely recall that one set of such records ended in the mid 1390s and then there were more in the 1400s, some as late as the 1420s.

Hasted, 1:473 (https://books.google.com/books?id=jzgtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA473), provides the following account of early generations of the Roper family:

Thomas Roper married the daughter of Thomas de Apuldore, and by her had one son and heir, Ralph, who was twice married, first to Beatrix, daughter of Sir Thomas Lewknor, and secondly to the daughter of Thomas Kempe of Wye. By his first wife he had John, who died without issue, in 1401; Agnes, married to Walter Culpeper, esq., of Bedgbury, and Edmund, who was of St. Dunstan's and an eminent man in the reigns of Henry IV and V.

See also the discussion in Frederick Hitchin-Kemp, A general history of the Kemp and Kempe families of Great Britain and her colonies... (1902), p. 17, https://archive.org/stream/generalhistoryof00kemp#page/n30/mode/1up, which suggests that Ralph Roper's wife may have been a daughter of Thomas Kemp and his wife Beatrix.

[Robert O'Connor]

Hi Doug

Could you please advise the volume and page that this line appears in your book Royal Ancestry.

Many thanks
Robert O'Connor

[Jan Wolfe]

I meant to say that Thomas Kemp (Bishop of London) was born about 1414. The Oxford DNB article about him mentions a papal dispensation, granted on 18 August 1434, allowing Thomas to hold benefices requiring priestly orders, while still only about twenty years old.