Ancestry of Lucy Wife of John Picot of Doddington
John Watson
Back in November 2010, I asked in this group if anyone was aware of
the connection between Lucy, wife of John Picot of Doddington and the
family of Belet. In 1246, Annora de Verdun, widow of Walter de Verdun,
who was a sister of Magister Michael Belet was claiming land in
Sydestan (Syston) Lincolnshire against John Picot and his wife Lucy.
No answers were forthcoming at that time, but I have now worked out
Lucy's ancestry - she was not a Belet, but her grandmother was once
married to one. I can summarize the relationships below.
The heirs of Sir Fulk d'Oyry III (died 1231) of Gedney, Lincolnshire
were his three daughters, Ela, who married Robert Constable of
Halsham, Emecina who married Ralph de Goushil and Alice who had two
husbands. Alice married firstly John Belet, younger brother of
Magister Michael Belet. John was dead in or before 1204. Alice seems
to have had several suitors after that who paid fines to have her
marriage and lands. She married secondly William de Beaumont who held
lands in Fulking, Sussex and at Themelthorpe and Kerdiston in Norfolk
of the honour of Warenne. [Note that he was not the same person as
William de Beaumont of Drayton, Norfolk as alleged by Blomfield].
From a Lincolnshire assize of mort d'ancestor in 1245, we find that
the heirs of William de Beaumont and Alice were their three daughters:
Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, Alice wife of Warin son of Hugh, and
Ela, wife of Hervey de Stanhou [1]. Another Lincolnshire court record
of a plea of warranty of charter in 1249, shows that Warin son of Hugh
and Alice de Beaumont had two daughters, Ela married (at that time) to
Godfrey de Millers and Lucy, married to John Picot [2]. John Picot and
Lucy were probably the parents of Michael Picot of Doddington,
Lincolnshire who married Joan Wake, heiress of one-ninth of the barony
of Beauchamp of Bedford [3]. Alice Beaumont married secondly, before
1259, John son of John de Scales (Scalariis).
Ela, daughter of Warin son of Hugh and Alice de Beaumont appears to
have had three husbands. She married firstly Geoffrey de Oyly and
secondly Lambert de Multon, as his second wife [4]. Lambert died in
1246 and she afterward married Geoffrey de Millers. This was rather
unfortunate because Matthew Paris relates that Geoffrey de Millers was
caught by a certain John le Breton sneaking into John's daughter's
bedroom, whereupon John and his men removed certain parts of
Geoffrey's anatomy. In December 1250, Ela and Geoffrey were in the
process of being divorced. Whether she married again after this is not
recorded.
The lands in Syston which were the subject of a court case in 1246
between Annora de Verdun, her daughter Burgia and John and Lucy Picot
[5] appear to have been held in dower by Lucy's grandmother Alice
d'Oyri as part the lands of her first husband John Belet. The Belets
certainly held land in Syston and Magister Michael Belet gave the
advowson of Syston to the priory of Wroxton, Oxfordshire when he
founded it around 1217 [6]. How these dower lands came into the
possession of Alice's granddaughter is not clear. There are several
cases in the curia regis from 1204 to 1221 between various members of
the Belet family and Alice d'Oyry but none of the records gives any
details.
Fulk d'Oyry
I
I
-----------------------------------------
Ela = Alice = Emecina =
Robert Constable 1 John Belet Ralph Goushil
2 William Beaumont
I
----------------------------------------
I I I
Joan Beaumont = Alice Beaumont = Ela Beaumont =
1 Reyner de Burgh 1 Warin Fitz-Hugh Hervey de Stanhow
2 John de Scales
I
------------------------------
I I
Ela Fitz-Warin = Lucy Fitz-Warin =
1. Geoffrey de Oyly John Picot
2. Lambert de Multon
3. Godfrey Millers
Regards,
John
References:
1. 'Final Concords for Lincs: 29 Henry III (Case 130, File 31)', Final
Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 1-16. No. 21
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53619
2. 'Final Concords for Lincs: 34 Henry III (Case 130, File 34)', Final
Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 51-63. No. 2
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53622
3. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2010-11/1288908381
4. Complete Peerage, IX:401-2 - Note that Ela's identity is not stated
in CP.
5. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2010-11/1289121835
6. 'Houses of Augustinian canons: The priory of Wroxton', A History of
the County of Oxford: Volume 2 (1907), pp. 101-102.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40190
ADRIANCH...@aol.com
Don't know how accurate the following is (taken from _Hubert de Burgh, A
Study in Constancy_ by Clarence Ellis, Phoenix House Ltd. 1952), but I have:
THOMAS de Burgh (-1243<d<1246); In 1215-6 Castellian of Norwich; In cMay
1216 taken prisoner by LOUIS, his life threatened if his br HUBERT does not
capitulate Dover Castle; m 1208 Alice wdw of JOHN BELET and d of FULK
d'OYRY.
They had a son:
REYMUND (-1230 drowned) m Christiana wdw of WILLIAM de MANDEVILLE
Thomas de Burgh had a number of brothers including Hubert (c1175-1243) of
Banstead manor, Surrey servant to Price Richard and a prominent supporter of
King John
Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In a message dated 03/03/2011 04:45:06 GMT Standard Time,
John Watson
> John,
>
> Don't know how accurate the following is (taken from _Hubert de Burgh, A
> Study in Constancy_ by Clarence Ellis, Phoenix House Ltd. 1952), but I have:
>
> THOMAS de Burgh (-1243<d<1246); In 1215-6 Castellian of Norwich; In cMay
> 1216 taken prisoner by LOUIS, his life threatened if his br HUBERT does not
> capitulate Dover Castle; m 1208 Alice wdw of JOHN BELET and d of FULK
> d'OYRY.
>
> They had a son:
>
> REYMUND (-1230 drowned) m Christiana wdw of WILLIAM de MANDEVILLE
>
> Thomas de Burgh had a number of brothers including Hubert (c1175-1243) of
> Banstead manor, Surrey servant to Price Richard and a prominent supporter of
> King John
>
> Adrian
>
Hi Adrian,
I have not seen the sources quoted here, but I am reliably informed
that Alice did not marry Thomas Burgh. He gave 100 marks in 1208 to
have Alice d'Oyri with her marriage portion and dower - the
sheriff .was to take security and give seisin if this was pleasing to
Alice and her father, Fulk (R.de Ob.& Fin., 440). The Pipe Roll
(Norfolk/Suffolk) recognised this 100m debt, but a bracketed entry
adds that he was quit of this through a fine made in Yorkshire (Major,
d'Oyri Family cit. PR 1208, p.14). However the next year in Yorkshire
he owed 130m and two palfreys for having the daughter and heiress of
Henry son of Hervey (Major, cit. PR, 1209, 136).
Regards,
John
John Watson
It has been pointed out to me (thanks Rosie) that I have made a
blunder, firstly in confusing Ela and Ida and secondly as placing Ida
as a daughter of Warin son of Hugh and Alice de Beaumont.
Ida was the widow of Geoffrey d’Oyri (d.s.p.1243), son and heir of
Fulk d’Oyri and brother of Ela, Alice, and Emmecina. The pedigree
should look like this:
Fulk d'Oyry (d. 1231)
I
-------------------------------------------------------
I I I I
Ela = Alice = Emecina = Geoffrey =
Robert Constable 1 John Belet Ralph Goushil Ida
2 William Beaumont
I
----------------------------------------
I I I
Joan Beaumont = Alice Beaumont = Ela Beaumont =
Reyner de Burgh 1 Warin Fitz-Hugh Hervey de Stanhow
2 John de Scales
I
Lucy Fitz-Warin =
John Picot
In two entries in the Close Rolls, Ida is called de Oyly (not de Oyry)
which made me miss the obvious connection.
16 November 1246, Pro Ida de Oyly.— Mandatum est Johanni filio
Hugonis, excaetatori in Kesteven' et Hoyland', quod omnes terras et
tenementa que Lambertus de Multon' tenuit in dotem Ide de Oyly, uxoris
sue, de dono Galfridi de Oyly, primi viri sui, et que cepit in manum
regis una cum aliis terris et tenementis que fuerunt ipsius Lamberti,
ipsi Ide restituat, simul cum omnibus inde perceptis postquam fuerunt
in manu regis. Teste rege apud Merleberg' xvj. die Novembris. Eodem
modo scribitur Willelmo Rusteng' excaetatori in comitatu Norf'.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 5: 1242-1247 (1916), pp.
482-488
30 December 1250, Pro Ida de Oyly.— Rex concessit Ide de Oyly quod
quamdiu lis inter ipsam et Godefridum de Millers, virum suum,
duraverit, causa divorcii celebrandi, habeat ad sustentacionem suam
manerium de Flete, quod est de dote ipsius Ide de dono primi viri sui,
et quod est in manu predicti Godefridi; et mandatum est vicecomiti
Lincolnie quod eidem Ide de predicto manerio plenam seisinam habere
faciat in forma predicta.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 6: 1247-1251 (1922), p. 394
Regards,
John
WJho...@aol.com
watso...@gmail.com writes:
> I have not seen the sources quoted here, but I am reliably informed
> that Alice did not marry Thomas Burgh. He gave 100 marks in 1208 to
> have Alice d'Oyri with her marriage portion and dower - the
> sheriff .was to take security and give seisin if this was pleasing to
> Alice and her father, Fulk (R.de Ob.& Fin., 440). The Pipe Roll
> (Norfolk/Suffolk) recognised this 100m debt, but a bracketed entry
> adds that he was quit of this through a fine made in Yorkshire (Major,
> d'Oyri Family cit. PR 1208, p.14). However the next year in Yorkshire
> he owed 130m and two palfreys for having the daughter and heiress of
> Henry son of Hervey (Major, cit. PR, 1209, 136).
>
However John, DR five years ago here, pointed out that W.A. Copinger,
Manors of Suffolk, 1 (1905): 109-110: Sub Groton Mannor. States there that When
Adam de Cockfield died about 1209, his widow Rohais released to Thomas de
Burgh and NESTA HIS WIFE, her dower in the lands of her late husband in this
parish.
Now there Copinger states that Nesta was the heiress of Adam de Cockfield
and that she married after his death John de Beauchamp and then Matthew de
Leyham, this last by 26H3 when they grant jointly. "Nesta died about 1248
WITHOUT ISSUE by any of her husbands."
Can you reconcile this with your above ?
W
John Watson
> In a message dated 3/3/2011 2:26:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>
Hi Will,
How about this as an answer - Thomas de Burgh who married Nesta and
Thomas de Burgh who married the daughter of Henry fitz Hervey were
different men. Its quite possible that this other Thomas de Burgh was
the son of Thomas de Burgh (d. 1199) and his wife Sara de Neville. In
which case he died sp about 1229, when Philip his brother was his
heir.
Regards,
John
WJho...@aol.com
watso...@gmail.com writes:
> How about this as an answer - Thomas de Burgh who married Nesta and
> Thomas de Burgh who married the daughter of Henry fitz Hervey were
> different men. Its quite possible that this other Thomas de Burgh was
> the son of Thomas de Burgh (d. 1199) and his wife Sara de Neville. In
> which case he died sp about 1229, when Philip his brother was his
> heir.
>
No because the Thomas who was involved with the Cockfield's was already an
adult BY 1201 when he was released from a debt.
Amabilia "filia" Adam FitzSweyn (mother of this Sarah) had a child Cecilia
with her second husband Simon de Crevequer no earlier than 1203. So
Amabilia is not of an age to be grandmother to a man already adult by 1201.
Will
John Watson
Actually Thomas died before May 1235, when Thomas, the son of his
brother Philip was his heir:
4 May 1235, Grant to John de Kirkeby, for a fine of 700 marks, of the
custody of the son and daughter of Philip de Burgo, brother of Thomas
de Burgo, which son is the heir of the said Thomas, with the custody
of the land late of the said Thomas during the minority of the said
son and daughter, and with the marriage of the said son and daughter.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry 3, Vol. 3, p. 103
Regards,
John
WJho...@aol.com
watso...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Actually Thomas died before May 1235, when Thomas, the son of his
> brother Philip was his heir:
>
> 4 May 1235, Grant to John de Kirkeby, for a fine of 700 marks, of the
> custody of the son and daughter of Philip de Burgo, brother of Thomas
> de Burgo, which son is the heir of the said Thomas, with the custody
> of the land late of the said Thomas during the minority of the said
> son and daughter, and with the marriage of the said son and daughter.
> Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry 3, Vol. 3, p. 103
>
This doesn't say the son's name is Thomas.
TJ Booth_aol
Burghs about this time :
1. Thomas the son of Sara de Nevile was of Burgh Green, Cambridgeshire.
He dsp when his brother Philip succeeded. Thomas' wife's name is apparently
unknown. A discussion of this family is in JW Walker; "Burghs of
Cambridgeshire . ."; Yorkshire Archeological Journal; Vol 30 (1931).
2. Thomas who m. Nesta de Cokefield (who m(2) John de Beauchamp), was bro
of Hubert de Burgh the MC advisor and chief justiciar (see Complete Peerage
VII:133-42 for Hubert's entry). DR posted extensively on Thomas of Upper
Arley, Staffordshire, and Cockfield, Suffolk,in 2006.
Mr. Johnson has provided ample clues there also were two William de
Bellomontes with a wife named Alice about this time. The 'The Beaumonts in
History' text appears to have the families of this generation all mixed up,
since another couple, William m. Alice le Strange, is shown as the parents
of Godfrey of Drayton which is contradicted below.
For a good discussion of Nesta de Cokefield and her 3 husbands, see Will's
earlier cited source : Walter Arthur Copinger; The Manors of Suffolk,
London; Fisher Unwin; 1902. On page 110 it is noted that Nesta had no issue
by her 3 husbands (her 2nd one being John de Bellomont/Beaumont)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=6TtOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA110), stating she "died
without issue by any of her husbands, about the year 1248, when the King
commanded Edmund, Abbot of St. Edmunds to restore to Bartholomew de Creke,
Ralph de Berners and William de Bellomonte the Manors of Groton and Semere .
." It goes on to note that a "1286 writ of right was brought for the
recovery of her lands [still held by the abbot] by John de Creke, Ralph
Berners and Godfrey de Bellomonte the then heirs of Nesta, descended from
her three aunts Alicia, Beatrix and Gunnora [de Cokefield]", and quotes the
related latin text.
There follows a pedigree on page 111 for the Cokefield family which sorts
out this complicated family. It indeed shows the William de Bellomont who m.
Alice d'Oyri was a descendant of Gunnora de Cokefield (Nesta's aunt). His
parents were also a William and Alice, she being Alice de Drayton. The
pedigree shows that William de Bellomonte and Alice d'Oyri had two sons
Godfrey and Sir John but no daus. When Godfrey (of the 1286 writ), dsp in
1293, page 112 notes he was succeeded by his brother Sir John de Bellomonte
and he by his son Richard de Bellomonte.
An earlier post in this thread stated that "from a Lincolnshire assize of
mort d'ancestor in 1245, we find that the heirs of William de Beaumont and
Alice were their three daughters: Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, Alice wife
of Warin son of Hugh, and Ela, wife of Hervey de Stanhou [1]." This would
appear to refer to a different William de Beaumont and Alice, since William
of Drayton's and Alice d'Oyri's heir in 1286 was their son Godfrey.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
Regards,
John
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
John Watson
Terry,
Thanks for the additional information, but again these Beaumonts have
been confused by various authors,
William de Beaumont of Fulking, Sussex and Themelthorpe and Kerdiston,
Norfolk married Alice d'Oyry. In 1245, their heirs were their three
daughters: Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, Alice wife of Warin son of
Hugh, and Ela, wife of Hervey de Stanhou. If they had any sons, they
were dead without heirs before 1245. See final concord below.
7 May 1245, At Lincoln; from Easter in three weeks, 29 Henry III.
Between Reyner de Burgo and Joan his wife, Warin son of Hugh and Alice
his wife, Hervey de Stanhou and Ela his wife, plaintiffs, by William
Gambun put in the place of Hervey and Ela, and John de Oyry, tenant,
of 38 acres of land in Gedeney. And between the same plaintiffs, by
the said William Ganbun [sic] put in the place of Hervey and Ela, and
the said John, whom Thomas rector of the church of Gedeney vouched to
warrant, of 1½ acres of land in the same vill. Assize of mort
d'ancestor. The plaintiffs have acknowledged all the land to be the
right of John, as that which he has of the gift of William de Bello
Monte, the father of Joan, Alice and Ela, whose heirs they are: to
hold to John and his heirs of Reyner and Joan and the heirs of Joan
for ever; rendering therefor yearly one pound of cumin at the Nativity
of the Lord for all service, suit of court, custom and demand. Reyner
and Joan and the heirs of Joan shall warrant the land to John and his
heirs. For this John has given the plaintiffs 10 pounds sterling.
'Final Concords for Lincs: 29 Henry III (Case 130, File 31)', Final
Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 1-16, No. 21
The William de Beaumont who married Alice d'Oyry was probably the son
of another William de Beaumont and his first wife Joan, daughter of
Maurice de Barsham. William, the father married secondly Muriel -
possibly a de Langetot. I'm still looking for sources on this. William
de Beaumont the father was dead before 1206. These Beaumonts may have
been related to the contemporary William de Beaumont of Drayton, but
they were a different family. They had no connection as far as I can
see with Nesta de Cokefield or her aunts.
For instance, see An Essay towards a Topographical History of the
County of Norfolk: volume 7, pp. 53-65 and pp. 195-197: East-Barsham
and Sengham.
Regards,
John
TJ Booth_aol
In my last post the page 111 'Manors of Suffolk' pedigree (w William de
Beaumont of Drayton m. Alicia de Oyri co-heiress of Fulk) was presumed
correct since the property descent was valid. Nor did the 7 May 1945 final
concord noted below (& earlier) state William Beaumont m. Alice d'Oyri or
his wife's name. So I mistrusted it. However, I've now found the other final
concords you noted but didn't quote - you are right, Joan, Alice & Ella were
heirs of the couple.[1][2][3]
Rereading the 'Manors of Suffolk' page 111 pedigree, it cites no source for
its William de Beaumont of Drayton m. Alice d'Oyri marriage. Nor is it
necessary for the property descent. While the claim thus lacks apparent
contemporary corroboration, some added evidence suggests a good possibility
that William of Fulking and Themilthorpe, and William of Drayton, were the
same person, and thus that the various inheritances may have involved
perhaps two wives.
Godfrey de Bellomonte is linked to both Themilthorpe and Fulking. In 1265 he
clearly held the 2/5 interest in Themilthorpe his father William, son of
William and Muriel [not Joan so perhaps an earlier wife?], had held.[4 - the
Vol 8 Thimelthorpe description of Castlegate priory transactions has items
not in the Sengham and East Barsham vol 7 entries cited in your last post].
There was also a Godfrey de Bellomonte in Fulking although the year is
unclear.[5]
The 1929 'Beaumonts in History'
(http://www.beaumontfamily.com/bf_downloadBIH.htmMy) page 260 shows Godfrey
and John as the 3rd and 4th sons of William and Alice le Strange. The author
admitted his difficulty in sorting these generations out ('The records of
all the foregoing are conflicting and by no means clear') - hopefully added
records can be found. 'Beaumonts' states Godfrey bro John m. Alice de
Montbegon and inherited Whitley estate, but I can't verify this.
My interest is the ancestry of William who m. Elizabeth de Fossato heiress
of Crosslands. His son Robert, who m. Agnes de Quaramby, was the infamous
Robert, 'foully murdered' by Sheriff John Eland in the 'Eland Tragedies'.
Foster's Beaumont pedigree shows Robert's father as Richard, but that is
incorrect as you are aware.[6] There is Close Rolls and other evidence, some
provided by Baildon, supporting the essential facts of the Eland story
despite Dodsworth's statement (which relied on a Beaumont family member's
not unbiased opinion) that it was a fiction.
One item that needs better understanding and documentation is how the
Whitley property came into the family. Or was it simply identified as
Huddersfield for several centuries with a portion then renamed Whitley
Beaumont?
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
FOOTNOTES
---------
[1]Final Concords for Lincs: 37-39 Henry III (Case 130, File 38)', Final
Concords of the County of Lincoln: 1244-1272 (1920), pp. 110. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53626). "No. 40. At
Westminster; from St. Michael in fifteen days, 39 Henry III, [13 October,
1255]. Between William le Conestable, plaintiff, and Roger de Thurkelby,
tenant, of the third part of 72 acres of land in Geden', to wit, the third
part of one piece of land which is called Calfholm, and the third part of
another piece of land which is called Henehepes. Plea. William has
quitclaimed from himself and his heirs to Roger and his heirs all the right
and claim which he had in the third part, for ever. And for this Roger has
granted to William and his heirs all the lands and tenements in Estwenn and
Middelton which he ought to have of the grant of Alice de Bellomonte, which
came to her in respect of the inheritance which was of Geoffrey de Oyri, her
uncle, one of whose heirs she is."
[2] Ibid.,page 145. "At Lincoln; from St. Martin in fifteen days, 41 Henry
III, [25 November, 1256]. Between William de Geyste, canon of the abbey of
St. Mary of Crek', querent, and John de Ory [son of Fulk], impedient, of 1
messuage, 1 windmill and 47 acres of land in Gedeney. Plea of warranty of
charter. John has acknowledged the messuage, windmill and land with the
appurtenances, as in demesnes, meadows, pastures, waters, marshes, dikes,
roads, paths and all other things to the premises belonging, excepting a
certain part of the messuage which shall remain to John for his life, to be
the right of William, as those which William has of John's gift for his
maintenance to celebrate divine service in the chapel which is in the
messuage, and to maintain five poor people there, for the souls of Fulk de
Ory, John's father, Geoffrey de Ory, Roger de Thurkilby, William de Bello
Monte and Alice his wife, and the said John and his ancestors and heirs; in
such wise that he shall find every day for each of the poor people one loaf
of the weight of fifty shillings, and drink, and one mess (ferculum) of
flesh or fish or other food, according to what the season requires, between
two of them; and every second year for each of them one tunic of cloth
(panno) suitable for their use: to hold to William for his life, as is
aforesaid, in frank almoign; so that after his death or cession the abbot
and his successors shall present three fit canons of their abbey to the
bishop of Lincoln for the time being, who shall, at his will, choose one of
them, and put him in William's place to celebrate divine service in the
chapel and maintain the poor people, as is aforesaid. And so successively,
after the death or cession of each canon admitted by the bishop to the
chapel, the abbots of Crek' shall present to the bishop of Lincoln for the
chapel their canons, who shall celebrate divine service there and maintain
the five poor people, as is aforesaid, for ever, without any subordination
(subiectione) which the abbot or his successors shall be able to demand of
William or his successors who shall serve the chapel, except only one
competent lodging (hospitium) throughout the year for five horses, or half a
mark at Pentecost if they will not have the lodging. And if, after the death
or cession of any canon admitted to the chapel, the abbot or his successors
shall put off presenting their canons to the bishop of Lincoln for the time
being, then, after the lapse of forty days from the time at which the chapel
became vacant, it shall be lawful for the bishop to confer the chapel upon
any canon he pleases of the order of the abbey, saving to the abbot and his
successors their right of presenting thereafter to the chapel, and likewise
their right to the lodging or half a mark by the year, as is aforesaid, for
ever. And for this William has granted to John the said part of the
messuage, to wit, that part which is enclosed by the dike (fossato), at the
drawbridge (ad pontem tractiuum), where the hall, chamber, kitchen and the
said chapel are situate, together with the garden and dovecot of the
messuage: to hold to John for his life of William and his successors; saving
to William and his successors free ingress and egress, as necessity may
require, to serve the chapel, for ever. And after John's death, the said
part of the messuage, with the houses, buildings, and garden and all their
appurtenances, shall wholly remain to William and his successors: to hold,
together with the other part of the messuage and the mill and the land with
their appurtenances in frank almoign, as is aforesaid, for ever.
[Warranties.] And be it known that it shall not be lawful for William or his
successors to give, sell, mortgage or otherwise to aliene any part of the
messuage, mill or land; but all those tenements shall remain to maintain the
celebration of divine service, and to support the said poor people, as is
aforesaid, for ever."
[3] Ibid. Page 336. "[Rolls of the King's Court, Pipe Roll Society, xiv, 27,
28] In eight days of St. John [1 July, 1194], at Westminster:- Fulk de Oiri
and Conan son of Elias are brought into concord touching the advowson of the
church of All Saints and the chapel of St. Peter in Holebeche, to the effect
that the aforesaid Fulk has quitclaimed from himself and his heirs all the
right and claim which he had in the advowsons of the aforesaid churches to
the aforesaid Conan and his heirs for ever. And he, the said Conan, has
given to the aforesaid Fulk xxi shillings of rent in Holebeche: to hold to
him and his heirs of the lord H[ubert] archbishop of Canterbury and of his
heirs, hereditarily, by one pair of gilt spurs at Easter for all service.
And the heirs of the lord archbishop shall be pledged (affidati erunt) to
Conan and his heirs touching the aforesaid rent; and Fulk and his heirs
shall be pledged to the lord archbishop and his heirs touching the same
rent. A day is given them for receiving the chirograph on the morrow of St.
Peter ad Vincula [2 August]; and Fulk has put in his place William son of
Simon.
[4] Eynford Hundred: Themilthorpe', An Essay towards a Topographical History
of the County of Norfolk: volume 8, pp. 277-279. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=78465.
"In the 8th of King John, a fine was levied between Muriel, widow of
William de Bellomonte, and William de Bellomonte her son, of the dower of
Muriel in this town; and William de Bellomonte confirmed to the priory of
Castleacre 2 parts of the tithe of his demeans here, and in Kerdeston, held
of the Earl Warren; and in the 14th of Henry III. Robert de Thymelthorp had
lands, and paid half for a writ called a pone.
"John of Oxford Bishop of Norwich confirmed to the priory of Castleacre,
two parts of the tithes of the demeans of Godfrey de Bellomonte, as Simon
the Bishop did in 1265."
In Freebridge Hundred and Half: Castleacre', An Essay towards a
Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: volume 8, pp. 356-377. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=78480 is a list of the
benefactors of Castleacre that includes :in Kerdeston and Thymelthorpe, 2
parts of the demean of Geff. [Godfrey] de Bellomonte; -in Tatersete, 2 parts
of the demean of the late William de Bellomonte:-
[5] Parishes: Fulking', A History of the County of Sussex: Volume 7: The
rape of Lewes (1940), pp. 202-204. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=56948. "Soon after the
Conquest, land in FULKING was held by Godfrey de Bellomonte, and in 1286
Robert Aguilun died seised of a tenement in Perching, formerly of Sir
William Beaumund, held of Sir William de Say as half a knight's fee,
rendering to Earl Warenne for William de Say 2 bushels of beans in lieu of
fencing the earl's park of Ditchling. This was probably the manor of Fulking
held by John de Scalariis and his wife Alice. They, in 1260, released to
Robert Aguilun all their rights in two-thirds of the manor, with the
reversion of the remaining third, held by John Pycot and his wife Lucy as
her dower of the inheritance of Alice. In 1261 Robert Aguilun's right in
one-third of the manor was recognized by Robert de Castre and his wife
Joan."
[6] Dodsworth's Yorkshire Notes, page 23 @
http://books.google.com/books?id=IrkHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA23. "In the Writeings of
Rich. Beamond, Kt. & Baronet. K. 109. Know p'sent to come that I, William de
Bellomonte haue given etc. to Robert my sonne all Messlands, & tenemts etc.
which I had by reason of my inheritance after the decease of William de
Bellomonte my father & of Richard de Bellomonte my brother or purchased of
others in Hodresfeld, Crossland-fosse, North Grossland, Meltham, & South
Kirkby, dic. paying to me dureing my life 20 markes, to haue & to hold to
the said Robert & the heires of his body lawfully begotten etc. Dat. at
Crosseland 31 Ed. 1. (1302-3)."
----------
"John Watson" <watso...@gmail.com> wrote >
John Watson
> [4] Eynford Hundred: Themilthorpe', An Essay towards a Topographical History
> of the County of Norfolk: volume 8, pp. 277-279. URL:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=78465.
> "In the 8th of King John, a fine was levied between Muriel, widow of
> William de Bellomonte, and William de Bellomonte her son, of the dower of
> Muriel in this town; and William de Bellomonte confirmed to the priory of
> Castleacre 2 parts of the tithe of his demeans here, and in Kerdeston, held
> of the Earl Warren; and in the 14th of Henry III. Robert de Thymelthorp had
> lands, and paid half for a writ called a pone.
Terry
Thanks for your kind words. Just to clear up one small point.
Blomefield writes, "In the 8th of King John, a fine was levied
between Muriel, widow of William de Bellomonte, and William de
Bellomonte her son, of the dower of Muriel in this town"
However, two different editions of calendars of Norfolk feet of fines
state that the text reads:
1206-07, 8 John, Muriel widow of William de Bello Monte v. William his
son, reasonable dower in Timeltorp "sic aqua descendit a novo ponte
usque ad Hakefordwad".
George H. Dashwood, Pedes Finium, or, Fines Respecting the County of
Norfolk (1863) p. 114, No. 341
Walter Rye, A Short Calendar of the Feet of Fines for Norfolk, Vol. 1
(1885) p. 25, No. 341
Blomefield states that William was Muriel's son, but the evidence does
not support this. It is more probable that William was the son of Joan
de Barsham.
Regards,
John