Lucy Ros, wife of Robert Plumpton--CP Correction?
Robert Forrest
footnote i:
"(i) Rievaulx Chartulary, p. 360. He had yr. sons, William (see Ros of
Ingmanthorpe), Alexander, Herbert and John, Knights, and Piers, and
daughters Lucy, who m. Robert, s. of Robert de Plumton, and Alice, who m.
Sir John Comyn, lord of Badenoch..."
The footnote then gives a string of citations for all the younger sons and
daughters.
CP 11:117-118, discussing the Sir William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe referred to
above, says:
"...presumably 3rd son of Sir William (son of Robert) de Ros of Helmsley,
who d. c1264...", and goes on to tell us that this William married Eustache
FitzHugh, widow of Nicholas de Cauntelo, adding a footnote (h) on p. 118:
"...Eustache d. in his lifetime. He left a younger son Thomas...and several
daughters: Margaret..., Mary..., and apparently Lucy, wife of Sir Robert de
Plumpton (Yorks. Deeds, Yorks Rec. Ser., vol. v, no. 273), who had a da.
named Eustache(Idem, no. 306)..."
So was Lucy who married Robert Plumpton the daughter (as on p. 94) or the
granddaughter (as on p. 118) of Sir William de Ros of Helmsley?
Robert Forrest
John P. Ravilious
CP XI:117-118 is correct. Lucy, wife of Sir Robert de Plumpton,
was the daughter of Sir William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe and his wife
Eustache, or Eustachia. The best evidence for this I've seen: the
issue of Sir Robert de Plumpton and Lucy de Ros included Eustachia, or
"Eustasia, dau. of Robert Plumpton, of Plumpton", wife of Sir Peter de
Middleton [Foster, Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire,
pedigree of Middleton]. Lucy, daughter of Sir William de Ros of
Helmsley (sister of William of Ingmanthorpe) was the wife of William
de Kyme, of Sotby, Lincs. and mother of Philip de Kyme [see
Genealogics, #I00340654].
This constitutes a correction to CP XI:94. Thanks for bringing
this to the attention of the list; I will pass same on to Chris
Phillips for his website, http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk
Many thanks for this!
Cheers,
John
Rosie Bevan
the deeds posted) it is appropriate to post some more details about
the identity of the other Lucy de Ros, which was discussed in the
thread "Lucy (de Ros ?) de Audley, wife of Sir William de Ryther" in
January. The origin of the statement that Lucy was the daughter of
John, son of Robert de Ros of Helmsley, is an interpretation of a 1280
fine. Hopefully it might clarify the position as to the identity of
Lucy. It certainly gives us a previously unknown son of Robert de Ros
named Alexander.
The following comes from F.H. Slingsby (ed.). Feet of Fines for the
County of York from 1272-1300. Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1956.
(Y.A.S.Record Series, vol. CXXI), the first of two consecutive fines
dealing with the Ryther properties, the abstracts of which are given
below. The date of the first one is January 14 1280.
"28.York. Morrow of Hil. 8 Edw I. Before the same. Between John, son
of Robert de Ros of Hamelak, quer., and William de Rither, deforc., of
the manors of Rither, Schardecroft, Gyldhusum' and the advowson of
Rither church. Covenant. John's right as of William's gift. John and
his heirs to hold of the chief lords. William and his heirs to
warrant. For a sore sparrowhawk."
This feoffment was the first stage of a settlement. The second fine as
given by John took place very soon after, on February 2 1280.
' 54. York. Morrow of Cand. Before the same. Between William de
Ryther, quer., and John de Ros, deforc., of the manors of Ryther,
Scarthecroft and Gildehus' with the advowson of Ryther church.
Covenant. John's right. William and Lucy his wife and the heirs of
Lucy's body to hold of the chief lords with remainder to William and
reversion after William's death to John and the heirs of his body with
remainders to Alexander, John's brother, and the heirs of his body and
to William's next heirs. '
The two fines had a threefold purpose - feoffment, marriage jointure,
and protection against wardship of the lands in case of a minority.
That Gildersdale was of the fee of Ros at the time of the settlement,
there is no question - it is listed in Feudal Aids with Robert's
holding as chief lord given in the past tense, meaning its tenure was
recorded just after his decease in 1285. Its two carucates had
descended to the Ros family via the Trussebuts, with William de Ros
inheriting it on the death of his aunt Agatha in 1247. It is possible
that John had been enfeoffed in this manor, but there are indications
that Rithers were tenants long before it passed into Ros posession,
and the marriage settlement shows that it was unlikely to have been
Lucy's maritagium.
The settlement of the Ryther lands on Lucy and her issue is
characteristic of a jointure, an increasingly preferred method of
marrying off daughters without reducing the family estate by the end
of the thirteenth century. A sum of money passed hands as the bride's
marriage portion, and in return there was a settlement of the groom's
lands on her for life. The jointure also protected the issue of the
marriage from claims by other children of the husband from earlier or
later marriages. Most importantly if the husband died leaving a widow
and underage children, the lord did not have wardship of that land.
John de Ros must have been related to Lucy in some way. Usually the
principals of a marriage jointure were the father or brother providing
dowry, but in this case it is possible that being a secondary marriage
it was only a small one, and with Lucy's youth, William Rither was
more interested in her Audley dower. Chronology goes against Lucy
being daughter of John, but she may certainly have been a younger
daughter of Robert de Ros and Isabel D'Aubigny who were married around
1244. We would expect them to have had a daughter called Lucy, named
after Robert's mother. At a guess it is possible that John and
Alexander were clerics and did not expect to leave heirs. The
reversion to them on the death of William in the event of lack of
heirs would represent a refund of the marriage portion, with the lands
ultimately passing to William's right heirs after their death.
As it happens, the Ryther lands did pass down William's direct line,
so the fine clearly served its primary intent. Notably, while
Scarcroft and Ryther descended with his heirs, there is no mention of
Gildersdale in the 1491 inquisition for Robert Ryther, so it appears
to have passed out of the family in the intervening 211 years.
Cheers
Rosie
John P. Ravilious
Many thanks for that excellent post!
I would agree, given the known chronology of the family of Sir
Robert de Ros and Isabel d'Aubigny, and that of Henry de Audley, Lucy
de Ros (wife of Henry de Audley, 2ndly William [de] Ryther) must have
been a sister of John de Ros, and daughter of the aforementioned Sir
Robert and Isabel. Some slight added support might be drawn from the
heir of William Ryther and Lucy being their son, Sir Robert Ryther
(evidently named for his maternal grandfather).
Good show!
John