Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Were the Washbournes of Worcestershire also de Estham?
174 views
Skip to first unread message
AJB
Apr 3, 2016, 11:04:06 PM4/3/16
to
Many well-known books and contemporary internet pages, pertaining to the history of the armigerous Washbourne family of Worcestershire, state that these Washbournes were also known as de Estham. Mabel Thacher Rosemary Washburn wrote: "It seems beyond question that our ancestors, soon to be surnamed "de Washbourne" were named also, in this early period, "de Estham"." ('Washburn Family Foundations in Normandy, England and America')
The purely theoretical and unsubstantiated idea that the Washbournes were Esthams has its origin in the Ernaldus Charter, dated to circa 1145: Ernaldus de Powis dedi concessi Willelmo filio meo terram meam de la hida in feudo in hereditate. In this charter, Ernaldus de Powis is giving some of his land to his younger son William. Among the witnesses to the charter are a William de Estham and Samson his son. Historically, many Washbourne researchers have assumed that because Samson of the Ernaldus charter and Sampson of Little Washbourne (documented in the 'The Red Book of Worcester') were contemporaries, that they must also be one and the same man; therefore Sampson of Little Washbourne was the Samson of the Ernaldus Charter and hence an Estham. The discovery of a passage in Regesta Anglo-Normannorum, 1066-1154, Vol.III, revealed that the father of Samson of Little Washbourne was not named William, rather he was a man named Godard. Therefore, Sampson of Little Washbourne was not the son of William de Estham.
Despite this documented and compelling primary evidence, supporters of the Estham theory remain undaunted, moving on to the claim that the father of Sir Roger de Washbourne (Wasseburne), whom the Visitation pedigrees identify as the head of the Washbourne family in Worcestershire, was the son of Samson de Estham. Extremely tenuous support for this idea has been inferred from a document known as the Kyre Charter, dated to the late 1200s and very likely over a hundred years later than the Ernaldus Charter of c 1145.
Grant from Roger son of Samson de Estham to Henry Ketel of a meadow in Cure between the meadow of John Esturmi and the meadow of Elured le Long for a rent of id. Yearly and a payment of 5 marks of silver. Witnessed by William de Wasseburne, Robert Wiard, Robert de la Hull, John de Sutton ,Richard de Bocklington, Elured le Long, Nicholas le Black, Geoffrey Cnotte, Nicholas Cnotte, Richard le Hore, Richard de Longley, Robert de Dilwe, Richard his son, and others.
(Source: 'Original Charters Relating to the City of Worcester: In Possession of the Dean and Chapter, and by Them Preserved in the Cathedral Library', Volume 15, Part 1)
Sure enough, here we find a Roger son of a Samson, de Estham. We also observe that a William de Washbourne is among the witnesses and note that Sir Roger de Washbourne was living in this time period. However, geographic proximity does not equate to consanguinity.
The land in the charter is located in Kettle's Kyre (Kettles Cure, Little Kyre) near Kyre Wyard and Stoke Bliss. This land was held at Domesday by Osbern son of Richard fitz Scrob. There is absolutely nothing in the primary records to even faintly suggest that any Washbourne held land in Kettle's Kyre, or any of the other Kyre properties, from the 1100s forward.
The Washbournes did hold land in the surrounding area. From at least the early 1200s they held land in Orleton, Worcestershire, located about 5 miles NE of Kettles Kyre and 3 miles SE of Eastham. It is very easy to read "Orleton" and assume that it means Eastham because Orleton is included in the Parish of Eastham. But the fees held in Kyre, Eastham Proper and Orleton are quite separate and careful research will show this to be true.
In 1202, William de Washbourne owed I mark for having right of half a knight's fee in Orleton owed to him by his tenent Simon de Carsy (Chausi). (VCH)
In 1242, we find the exact same half fee held by a William de Washbourne in Orleton: Holreton' dimidium feodum quod Ricardus de Karsy tenet de Willelmo de Wasseburne, Willelmus de Rogero de Clifford, Rogerus de Waltero de Clifford, Walterus de Willelmo de Stuttevill', ipse de domino rege. (Source: 'Liber Feodorum' Part II)
This same William is also found holding land in Stanford Washbourne:
In Stanford Wasseburne due partes unius feodi quas Willelmus de Wasseburne tenet de domina Matillide de Treuegoyd, ipsa de Waltero de Crauele, Walterus de Waltero de Clifford, Walterus de heredibus de Tony, heredes de Tony de domino rege. (Source: 'Liber Feodorum' Part II)
Sir John de Washbourne, son of Sir Roger of the Visitation pedigrees, holds the Washbourne's original three hides in Little Washbourne and the same fees, in both Orleton and Stanford, held by William Washbourne above in 1242.
Little Washbourne 1299: Johannes filius Rogeri de Wasseburne tenet in Wassebourne iii hidas, per servitium militare et allocatur Domino Waltero de Bellocampo in servitio XV militum et dimidii. (Source: 'The Red Book of Worcester')
Stanford 1302-1304: Ex parte Johannis de Wasseborn recepimus quod licet ipse teneat manerium suum de Standeford in comitatu predieto per servicium medietatis f.j.m. (Source: 'Inquisitions and Assessments Relating to Feudal Aid' Vol V)
Orleton 1314: IPM, Robert de Clifford, Severnstoke, Tenbury. Inquisition taken at Worcester 8 Ed. II before Job Abel Escheator of the King... "Also the above-written Jurors present that of the manor of Themedbury (Tenbury) are held two and one half Knight's fees, viz. John de Wassheburne holds in Orleton two Carucates of land of the same manor by one fee in the same county, worth yearly in all issues 4 li, when scutage runs 40s." (Source: 'The Inquisitiones Post Mortem for the County of Worcester, Part 1' )
So here we see three, perhaps four, generations of the Washbournes of Little Washbourne and Stanford Washbourne, holding the same fees on the same land from the 1200s through the early 1300s. Not one record mentions any holdings of land in Kettle's Kyre or any other lands associated with the Esthams.
Analysis of existing records suggests that the Washbournes of Worcestershire were not Esthams. They were an entirely separate family. Further, there is no primary record extant suggesting that the Sir Roger de Washbourne of the Visitation pedigrees was son of a Samson. The land records we do have strongly suggest that Sir Roger's father was named William de Washbourne.
The purely theoretical and unsubstantiated idea that the Washbournes were Esthams has its origin in the Ernaldus Charter, dated to circa 1145: Ernaldus de Powis dedi concessi Willelmo filio meo terram meam de la hida in feudo in hereditate. In this charter, Ernaldus de Powis is giving some of his land to his younger son William. Among the witnesses to the charter are a William de Estham and Samson his son. Historically, many Washbourne researchers have assumed that because Samson of the Ernaldus charter and Sampson of Little Washbourne (documented in the 'The Red Book of Worcester') were contemporaries, that they must also be one and the same man; therefore Sampson of Little Washbourne was the Samson of the Ernaldus Charter and hence an Estham. The discovery of a passage in Regesta Anglo-Normannorum, 1066-1154, Vol.III, revealed that the father of Samson of Little Washbourne was not named William, rather he was a man named Godard. Therefore, Sampson of Little Washbourne was not the son of William de Estham.
Despite this documented and compelling primary evidence, supporters of the Estham theory remain undaunted, moving on to the claim that the father of Sir Roger de Washbourne (Wasseburne), whom the Visitation pedigrees identify as the head of the Washbourne family in Worcestershire, was the son of Samson de Estham. Extremely tenuous support for this idea has been inferred from a document known as the Kyre Charter, dated to the late 1200s and very likely over a hundred years later than the Ernaldus Charter of c 1145.
Grant from Roger son of Samson de Estham to Henry Ketel of a meadow in Cure between the meadow of John Esturmi and the meadow of Elured le Long for a rent of id. Yearly and a payment of 5 marks of silver. Witnessed by William de Wasseburne, Robert Wiard, Robert de la Hull, John de Sutton ,Richard de Bocklington, Elured le Long, Nicholas le Black, Geoffrey Cnotte, Nicholas Cnotte, Richard le Hore, Richard de Longley, Robert de Dilwe, Richard his son, and others.
(Source: 'Original Charters Relating to the City of Worcester: In Possession of the Dean and Chapter, and by Them Preserved in the Cathedral Library', Volume 15, Part 1)
Sure enough, here we find a Roger son of a Samson, de Estham. We also observe that a William de Washbourne is among the witnesses and note that Sir Roger de Washbourne was living in this time period. However, geographic proximity does not equate to consanguinity.
The land in the charter is located in Kettle's Kyre (Kettles Cure, Little Kyre) near Kyre Wyard and Stoke Bliss. This land was held at Domesday by Osbern son of Richard fitz Scrob. There is absolutely nothing in the primary records to even faintly suggest that any Washbourne held land in Kettle's Kyre, or any of the other Kyre properties, from the 1100s forward.
The Washbournes did hold land in the surrounding area. From at least the early 1200s they held land in Orleton, Worcestershire, located about 5 miles NE of Kettles Kyre and 3 miles SE of Eastham. It is very easy to read "Orleton" and assume that it means Eastham because Orleton is included in the Parish of Eastham. But the fees held in Kyre, Eastham Proper and Orleton are quite separate and careful research will show this to be true.
In 1202, William de Washbourne owed I mark for having right of half a knight's fee in Orleton owed to him by his tenent Simon de Carsy (Chausi). (VCH)
In 1242, we find the exact same half fee held by a William de Washbourne in Orleton: Holreton' dimidium feodum quod Ricardus de Karsy tenet de Willelmo de Wasseburne, Willelmus de Rogero de Clifford, Rogerus de Waltero de Clifford, Walterus de Willelmo de Stuttevill', ipse de domino rege. (Source: 'Liber Feodorum' Part II)
This same William is also found holding land in Stanford Washbourne:
In Stanford Wasseburne due partes unius feodi quas Willelmus de Wasseburne tenet de domina Matillide de Treuegoyd, ipsa de Waltero de Crauele, Walterus de Waltero de Clifford, Walterus de heredibus de Tony, heredes de Tony de domino rege. (Source: 'Liber Feodorum' Part II)
Sir John de Washbourne, son of Sir Roger of the Visitation pedigrees, holds the Washbourne's original three hides in Little Washbourne and the same fees, in both Orleton and Stanford, held by William Washbourne above in 1242.
Little Washbourne 1299: Johannes filius Rogeri de Wasseburne tenet in Wassebourne iii hidas, per servitium militare et allocatur Domino Waltero de Bellocampo in servitio XV militum et dimidii. (Source: 'The Red Book of Worcester')
Stanford 1302-1304: Ex parte Johannis de Wasseborn recepimus quod licet ipse teneat manerium suum de Standeford in comitatu predieto per servicium medietatis f.j.m. (Source: 'Inquisitions and Assessments Relating to Feudal Aid' Vol V)
Orleton 1314: IPM, Robert de Clifford, Severnstoke, Tenbury. Inquisition taken at Worcester 8 Ed. II before Job Abel Escheator of the King... "Also the above-written Jurors present that of the manor of Themedbury (Tenbury) are held two and one half Knight's fees, viz. John de Wassheburne holds in Orleton two Carucates of land of the same manor by one fee in the same county, worth yearly in all issues 4 li, when scutage runs 40s." (Source: 'The Inquisitiones Post Mortem for the County of Worcester, Part 1' )
So here we see three, perhaps four, generations of the Washbournes of Little Washbourne and Stanford Washbourne, holding the same fees on the same land from the 1200s through the early 1300s. Not one record mentions any holdings of land in Kettle's Kyre or any other lands associated with the Esthams.
Analysis of existing records suggests that the Washbournes of Worcestershire were not Esthams. They were an entirely separate family. Further, there is no primary record extant suggesting that the Sir Roger de Washbourne of the Visitation pedigrees was son of a Samson. The land records we do have strongly suggest that Sir Roger's father was named William de Washbourne.
0 new messages