Mountforth / Conyers of Hornby / Swynowe
John Watson
I'd like to share a bit of information which may be of interest to
anyone who is descended from the families of Conyers of Hornby and
Mountforth of Hackforth in Yorkshire.
Visitations of the North, Part 3 (Surtees Society, Vol 144) p 116, and
The Visitation of Yorkshire in 1563 & 1564 (Harleian Society, Vol 16)
p 74n, show that Thomas Mountforth of Hackforth, married Margaret
Swynow (Margareta filia et vna heredum Swynow) and that she married
secondly Anthony St Quintin and was the mother of Margaret St Quintin
who married John Conyers and brought Hornby to the Conyers.
Thomas Mountforth must have been married about 1380, as his second son
Thomas proved his age in 1404-5, so was born about 1384-5.
Thomas Mountforth died some time before 4 February 1392, when a
commission was ordered to enquire what evildoers have abducted
Alexander, son and heir of Thomas de Mountford, knight, a minor, the
custody of whose lands and whose marriage belong to queen Anne,
because the said Thomas held of her as of the honor of Richemond by
knight service; the said queen having by her letters patent granted
the marriage to Richard Lescrope [Calendar of Patent Rolls, Richard 2,
Vol 5, p 82].
Presumably Thomas's widow married Anthony St Quintin of Hornby around
this time, although I can find no evidence for this apart from the
visitation pedigrees.
Alexander Mountforth, the young son and heir of Thomas Mountforth died
before 20 September 1396, when there was an inspeximus and
confirmation to Richard Lescrope, knight, of letters patent of Thomas,
archbishop of York, and Edward, earl of Rutland, dated at London, 12
September, in the twentieth year, reciting that the late queen Anne,
for 80l. paid to her by the said Richard, granted to him the wardship
of the lands and tenements late of Thomas Mountfort, knight, during
the minority of Alexander, his son and heir, together with the
marriage of the heir, and that the said Alexander has died a minor
without having married — and granting to the said Richard the wardship
of Thomas, brother and heir of the said Alexander, together with the
marriage, without rendering aught therefor, but he is to find
competent maintenance for the heir and support the real services and
all other charges on the lands and tenements [Calendar of Patent
Rolls, Richard 2, Vol 6, pp 29-30].
The widow of Thomas Mountforth and Anthony St Quintin was married
again to Richard Cliderhowe before 26 February 1399, when there was a
grant to the king's esquire Richard Cliderhowe, in recompense of
certain sums due to him by the king for his wages in the household and
the arrears of an annuity of 10 marks, of certain lands in Riby, co.
Lincoln, which Thomas Mountford, son of his wife, held of the earl of
Kent and which are now in the king's hands by reason of the minority
of the said Thomas and the forfeiture of the earl, to hold to the
value of 10 marks yearly during the said minority, provided that he
answer for any surplus [Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry 4, Vol 1, p
222].
So who was this Margaret Swynow? I came across something recently
which shows that she wasn't called Margaret. In one of the volumes of
Archaeologica Aeliana (Third Series, Vol 6, 1910), available here:
http://www.archive.org/details/archaeologiaaeli06sociuoft there is a
series of extracts from the de Banco Rolls for Northumberland, which
are well worth a look for anyone interested in Northumberland
families.
On page 66 is an extract from a case in 1399:
Richard Cliderowe and Elizabeth, his wife, plaintiffs; Richard
Tempest, miles, defendant. 1 messuage in Newcastle, which John de
Sacra Insula, vicar of the church of Berwyk super Twede, John de
Hasylrigge and John de Werk gave William de Swynowe and Elizabeth his
wife, and their heirs. William son and heir of William de Swynowe and
Elizabeth died without heirs of his body. Elizabeth, sister and heir
of William, the son, was married to Richard Cliderowe (De Banco, R.
553, m. 419d.).
So the Margaret Swynow of the pedigrees was actually called Elizabeth
de Swynowe, and was the daughter of William de Swynowe and Elizabeth
his wife, who held lands in Newcastle.
Richard Cliderhowe her third husband, was I believe the one "of
Newcastle" who appears in the Patent Rolls, and Fine Rolls, and not
the other contemporary Richard Cliderhow who was of Kent and an
admiral of the king's fleet.
Regards,
John
John Watson
> series of extracts from the de Banco Rolls for Northumberland, which
> are well worth a look for anyone interested in Northumberland
> families.
>
> On page 66 is an extract from a case in 1399:
>
> Richard Cliderowe and Elizabeth, his wife, plaintiffs; Richard
> Tempest, miles, defendant. 1 messuage in Newcastle, which John de
> Sacra Insula, vicar of the church of Berwyk super Twede, John de
> Hasylrigge and John de Werk gave William de Swynowe and Elizabeth his
> wife, and their heirs. William son and heir of William de Swynowe and
> Elizabeth died without heirs of his body. Elizabeth, sister and heir
> of William, the son, was married to Richard Cliderowe (De Banco, R.
> 553, m. 419d.).
>
> So the Margaret Swynow of the pedigrees was actually called Elizabeth
> de Swynowe, and was the daughter of William de Swynowe and Elizabeth
> his wife, who held lands in Newcastle.
>
> Richard Cliderhowe her third husband, was I believe the one "of
> Newcastle" who appears in the Patent Rolls, and Fine Rolls, and not
> the other contemporary Richard Cliderhow who was of Kent and an
> admiral of the king's fleet.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
Hi all,
As a follow up to my previous post.
William de Swynowe died before 19 Nov 1386, which was the date of his
inquisition post mortem [45th Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of
the Public Records (London: 1885) p 263] leaving his son and heir
William, aged 22. He was holding the vill of Scremerston,
Northumberland of the Bishop of Durham.
Regards,
John
John Watson
Hi again,
It seems that I erred when I stated that Elizabeth Swynowe was married
three times - apparently her third husband was William Bishopdale,
Mayor of Newcastle.
I found this petition on the PRO website, which is undated but was
probably made around 1399-1400:
Richard Cliderhowe and Elizabeth, his wife, late the wife of William
de Bischopdale. v. The escheator of Newcastle on Tyne and the sheriff
of Yorkshire.: Lands seized for a debt due to the king, but in which
it is claimed that the said Elizabeth ought to have dower.
[Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II
to Philip and Mary, C 1/69/250]
William Bishopdale's will contains some evidence to identify his wife
as Elizabeth Swynowe, and mother of Thomas Mountforth, as both Swinhow
and Mountford are mentioned among the beneficiaries to the will. I am
not clear who John Mountforth was, perhaps a younger brother of Thomas
Mountforth? William Swinhow would probably be his wife's brother.
22 February 1398: Date of the will of William Bishopdale, late mayor
of Newcastle. To be buried in the church of the Friars Minor,
Newcastle. Bequeaths to William Dees, his servant, 13s. 4d. annual
rent during his life — namely, 5s. from a tenement in Northallerton,
and 8s. 4d. from lands and tenements in Mundby and Kirkbywiske; to Cok
Cuke, his servant, for life, his tenement in Newcastle, situate on the
eastern side of the highway leading towards the New Gate, paying to
his assigns an annual rent of 16d.; to Elizabeth his wife, for life,
the tenement in Newcastle wherein he dwells. Orders that all his lands
and tenements in Newcastle above named, with all reversions—namely,
the tenement given to Cok Cuke, the 13s. 4d. to William Dees, the
tenement which he gives his wife, and all his lands, etc., in the city
of Durham, the town of Northallerton, and in other towns and places in
Richmondshire, remain to Joan and Margaret, his daughters, and their
heirs; and if they die without heirs, then to Isabella his sister, for
life, with remainder to John Pykborne her son and his heirs; and if
John die without heirs, then to Richard Pykborne, son of his sister
and brother of John. Bequests of plate and apparel to his wife and
daughters, the Friars Minor of Newcastle, Robert and William Swinhow,
Robert Butbe, John and Thomas Mountford, the church of Bolton-upon-
Swale, John Barber, and William Dees. Residue to his wife. Gilbert
Elvet, Henry Bingfield, and Thomas Dees, the executors, to dispose as
they please for the good of his soul and payment of his debts.
Endorsed — "This will was proved in the church of the blessed
Nicholas, in the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 3d January 1401" [1402].
[Richard Welford, History of Newcastle and Gateshead, Vol. 1, (London:
1884) p 222]
But it does raise a question. Why does Margaret St. Quintin, his
wife's daughter not get a mention in the will?
So now I have Elizabeth Swynhowe's marriages as:
m1. c. 1380 Thomas Mountforth of Hackforth
m2. c. 1391 Anthony St. Quintin of Hornby
m3. c. 1395 William Bishopdale of Newcastle
m4. c. 1399 Richard Cliderhow of Newcastle?
Regards,
John
John P. Ravilious
Dear John,
Many thanks for your detailed posts identifying
Elizabeth de Swynowe and her multiple marriages, etc.
The early Mountfords of Hackforth get fairly little
attention, so all corrections and additions to the
record are very much appreciated.
Concerning the matter of Margaret de St. Quintin
not being named in the will of William Bishopdale, I
have both a general observation and a specific
answer for this. Firstly, medieval testators, as
well as modern ones, dealt with individuals both
loved and otherwise. It is certainly possible that
a child (or stepchild) not in the first category
will receive minimal or no legacy in a will. It
is also possible that a child that already received
provision earlier (e.g. maritagium) would receive
nothing further under a will, and would therefore
escape mention. One example, the will of Sir
Martin de la See of Barmston, Yorks., who had two
living daughters, several deceased sons and a host
of grandchildren at his death: the only relatives
named in the will were his grandson and godson
Martin Boynton (not identified in the will as a
grandson) and his son-in-law and co-executor,
Roger Kelke.
In fact, the evidence indicates that Anthony de
St. Quintin was married twice, and that his daughter
and heiress Margaret was a daughter by the first
marriage, based on the likely early date of her
birth. Margaret de St. Quintin's son and heir
Christopher Conyers was likely born before 21 April
1402, as he was named as a co-executor of the will
of his father in an order dated 21 April 1423.
He was named as the possible member of a
commission concerning the IPM of Sir Henry
FitzHugh in 1425, and named 4 children as well as
his wife in his own will dated 14 Jan 1425/6 [1].
I think it safe to say, Margaret de St. Quintin
would have been born no later than April 1386, as
she was most likely aged 16 or more when
Christopher Conyers was born. It is quite likely
he was born before 1402, and that Margaret was
born sometime before 1386 and most likely some
time before that. Given that you have shown
Thomas de Mountfort was born to his father and
Elizabeth de Swynow say 1384-5, or shortly before,
and that Thomas de Mountfort ('Sr.') died some
time before 4 February 1392, I think it not
likely (if not quite impossible) that Elizabeth
de Swynow was Margaret de St. Quintin's mother.
Gary Boyd Roberts gives Anthony de St.
Quintin another wife, Elizabeth Gascoigne, as
mother of Margaret [2]. This would I reckon be
the first wife; Elizabeth de Swynow would then
have been the 2nd, and oft-married, wife as you
have kindly established. If this is correct,
Margaret de St. Quintin would not even have
been a step-daughter of William Bishopdale,
which works quite well with her avoiding
mention in his will.
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Order dated at Westminster, 21 April, 1423:
" John Beker of Richmond, co,. York, 'wryght', for not
appearing before the same, to answer Margaret late the
wife of John Conyers of Horneby, Christopher son of John
Conyers of Horneby, Robert Conyers, knight, brother of
John Conyers of Horneby, Richard de Norton, Thomas de
Langton, Christopher de Boynton and William de
Haukeswell, clerk, executors of the will of John
Conyers of Horneby, touching a plea of detinue of
40s. Yorks.' [CPR 1 Henry VI, p. 28, mem. 8]
Petition dated 1425:
' SC 8/24/1191
Petitioners: William Fitz Hugh, knight
Addressees: Commons of parliament
Places mentioned: Everwyk (York); Yorkshire;
Burghbridge (Boroughbridge), [West Riding of
Yorkshire]
Other people mentioned: Henry [Fitz Hugh], Lord
Fitz Hugh, father of petitioner; John [le Scrope
of Masham], Lord Scrope; Henry [le Scrope of
Masham], Lord Scrope; John de Etton, knight;
John Bygod, knight; Christopher Conyers
Nature of request: William Fitz Hugh, knight
complains of irregularities in the inquisition
taken on a writ of diem clausit extremum after
the death of his father, with the intention of
delaying and obstructing him from his heritage.
He asks the commons to ask the King and lords,
to grant, by authority of parliament, a
commission to unbiased people, in the nature of
a diem clausit extremum, to enquire into his
father's lands and tenements. And because the
Sheriff and Coroners of Yorkshire are of the
affinity of his adversaries, to send a warrant
to an unbiased person to empanel a jury, with
various penalties to compel them to give their
verdict; so that if it is found that his father
held no lands and tenements of the King in
chief by knight service, or in some other way
requiring wardship and marriage, he might be
able to have possession of them, saving the
rights of others.
Endorsement: [On face] Soit baille as
seignurs (It is to be delivered to the lords).
(on front)[On dorse] A writ is to be issued to
the Escheator of Yorkshire, to return the writ
of diem clausit extremum addressed to him after
the death of Sir Henry Fitz Hugh, knight, with
the inquisition taken on it, if there was one,
on the Tuesday following the feast of St Peter
Ad Vincula next, on pain of a penalty of £100.
And if no such inquisition is returned on the
said Tuesday, then the Chancellor is to have
power, by authority of parliament, to give a
commission to John de Etton, knight, John Bygod,
knight and Christopher Conyers, or to any
others at his discretion, in the nature of a
diem clausit extremum, as is desired by the
petition.'
Will of Christopher Conyers, dated after feast
of St. Hilary [14 Jan.] 1425/6:
- to Elene my wife, if she overlyve me, the
third part of my godes.
- To John, my sonne, xl marc.
- Johan and ____ my daughters.
- To my son Thomas and his heirs my purchased
lands, etc., in Hornby, Brokeholme,...
- John, now mine eldest son, under 21.
- My mother dame Margaret Conyers, John Pigot,
and Richard Welden, exrs. '
[Testa. Ebor. III:288]
[2] ' 9. Anthony St. Quintin = Elizabeth Gascoigne '
[Roberts, RD600 p. 431]
> John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Watson
>
> read more »
Dear John,
Many thanks for your helpful comments. In researching this family
recently, I realised that it was very unlikely that Elizabeth Swynow
was the mother of Margaret St Quintin. Your comments help to reinforce
this view.
This raises another question of course: who was Elizabeth Gascoigne?
Does Gary Boyd Roberts give any sources?
Best regards,
John