The heir(s) of William la Zouche, of Essex
Douglas Richardson
In the course of the debate about the parentage and ancestry of Roger
la Zouche, of Lubbesthorpe, co. Leicester, questions have been raised
as to available evidence which shows the heir(s) of his putative
father, William la Zouche, of Essex.
William la Zouche, of Essex, is stated in various printed sources to
have left a daughter and sole heiress, Joyce, wife of Robert de
Mortimer. However, a review of William's Inquisition Post Mortem as
posted by Patricia Junkin does not state his heir:
William La Zuch: Writ of Certiorari 3 Feb. on the complaint of John
de Traylli, that the escheator had taken in to the kingąs hands the
manor of Hibrugg [Howbridge, Essex] which the said William held by
courtesy of England of the inheritance of Maud the said Johnąs mother.
Inq. The day of St. Peter ad Cathedram, 56 Hen.III [1272] Essex.
Hobrugą manor was not held of his own inheritance, but he held it by
the courtesy of England of the inheritance of Maud, sometime his wife.
Sir John de Trailly is the next heir of the said Maud. Hen III.
C 47/14/1/11 Writ to sheriff of Essex: to enquire into the lands, heir
etc of William la Zouche and Matilda his wife 56 Hen III [1272]. END
OF QUOTE.
Checking the Fine Rolls, I've located a document which states that
Robert de Mortimer, held the manor of Norton, co. Northampton "of the
inheritance of Joyce his wife." [see Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1272-1307
(1911), pp. 238; see also pp. 241-242]. Reviewing the history of
Norton, co. Northampton, however, it appears that this manor was
acquired in 1269, by William la Zouche, of Essex, by fine from Roger
de Whelton. Roger de Whelton was the brother of Joyce la Zouche's 1st
husband, Nicholas de Whelton. Eric St. John Brooks surmises that the
acquisition of Norton "was, no doubt, for the benefit of Joyce,
Zuche's daughter and heiress." [Reference: Publications of the
Bedfordshire Rec. Soc. 14: 58-59]. In which case, this property was
acquired for the specific purpose of going to Joyce and her heirs,
irrespective of any inheritance. Baker in fact states that Sir
William la Zouche gave the manor of Norton "in free marriage with
Jocosa or Joyce, his daughter and heiress." [Reference: George Baker,
Hist. & Antiquities of the County of Northampton, 1 (1822-1830): 414].
Unfortunately, he gives no sources for this statement. A gift in
free marriage is not the same thing as being the sole heiress of one's
father.
In ordinary circumstances, when a property is termed one's
inheritance, it is commonly thought that the person receiving the
property is the heir of the person giving it. However, I've elsewhere
seen references in medieval records to property given in marriage
being styled a woman's "inheritance." In one case that I know, the
woman was not an heiress at all. As such, the references in the Fine
Rolls that Norton was Joyce's "inheritance" can mean either that she
received the property in marriage, or was her father's heiress.
Either interpretation is acceptable.
Given these facts, it appears that the surviving records do not
specify William la Zouche's heir(s). As a younger son of a baronial
family, William la Zouche would have been land poor, unless he married
an heiress or widow who had property in her own right or by right of
dower. In this case, it appears that William la Zouche held the bulk
of his properties in right of his wife, Maud de Howbridge, who was
both an heiress and a widow. Maud had surviving male issue by her
first marriage. In such a case, the crown records would usually not
state his heir, especially since he held nothing in his own right as
tenant in chief of the king. They would, however, duly record that
his wife's lands were to descend to her son by a former marriage,
which is exactly what took place.
As an aside, this is why it is so difficult to prove descents from
younger sons of baronial families, as they often held property of
their father or brother for the term of their life. They usually held
nothing directly of the king. On the death of the younger son with or
without issue, their property often reverted to the main stem of the
family, thus disinheriting later descendants of the younger son.
Without properties to trace, it is virtually impossible to track
descendants of younger sons in medieval English records.
In summary, while various authors have concluded that Joyce la Zouche,
wife of Nicholas de Whelton and Robert de Mortimer, was William la
Zouche's daughter and heiress, it appears that this statement is not
supported by the surviving evidence. While Joyce was almost certainly
William la Zouche's daughter, I believe it would be stretching the
evidence to say she was his heiress. Lacking such evidence, it is
clear that William la Zouche may well have had children by another
marriage, which issue would not be involved with his settlement of
Norton, co. Northampton on his daughter, Joyce.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
<snip>
> Given these facts, it appears that the surviving records do not
> specify William la Zouche's heir(s). As a younger son of a baronial
> family, William la Zouche would have been land poor, unless he married
> an heiress or widow who had property in her own right or by right of
> dower.
While it is true that heiresses were a Good Thing, though probably not
genetically, not all baronial families failed to provide for younger
sons. In the Fitzharding aka Berkeley family, there were many records
that showed that younger sons were given at least one and sometimes a
few manors and that their descendants kept them for many generations.
So there were records of the descents of such families.
> In this case, it appears that William la Zouche held the bulk
> of his properties in right of his wife, Maud de Howbridge, who was
> both an heiress and a widow. Maud had surviving male issue by her
> first marriage. In such a case, the crown records would usually not
> state his heir, especially since he held nothing in his own right as
> tenant in chief of the king. They would, however, duly record that
> his wife's lands were to descend to her son by a former marriage,
> which is exactly what took place.
>
> As an aside, this is why it is so difficult to prove descents from
> younger sons of baronial families, as they often held property of
> their father or brother for the term of their life.
Not in the case of the FitzHardings aka Berkeleys.
> They usually held nothing directly of the king. On the death of the
> younger son with or without issue, their property often reverted to
> the main stem of the family, thus disinheriting later descendants of
> the younger son. Without properties to trace, it is virtually
> impossible to track descendants of younger sons in medieval English
> records.
True.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
The...@aol.com
Dear Tim, Douglas, et al.,
These examples (Berkeley, la Zouche) are certainly a few of those which
point to both the upward and downward mobility operating in medieval English
society. Younger sons (and descendants of younger sons) were not the primary
concern of the lord, and while suitable marriages (or clerical vocation) were
(most likely) usually arranged, it was only through the luck of the draw (or
concilium Dei, depending on your view) that junior lines of baronial families
were able to maintain or improve their 'lifestyle'.
Examples of 'upward mobility':
1. Roger Wentworth (d. 1452), younger son of John of
North Elmsall, to whom Margery Despenser (Baroness
Despenser and heiress of her parents [1]) evidently
took a fancy.
2. William de Mortimer, younger son of Robert de
Mortimer (d. 1287), of Burford, co. Salop and
Richard's Castle, co. Hereford, by Joyce la Zouche
[part of current Zouche-Constable threads]. His
attachment to his 2nd cousin Alan la Zouche resulted
in his acquiring Ashby la Zouche and taking the
Zouche surname: his subsequent marriages to Alice
de Tosny, and Eleanor de Clare, and his summons to
Parliament from 1323, would not have otherwise
occurred.
Examples of 'downward mobility':
1. William Kelke, 3rd son of Christopher Kelke of
Barnetby-le-Wold, co. Lincs. (slain Feb 1523/4)
and Isabel, daughter of William Girlington of
Normanby and Frodingham, co. Lincs. His older
brother Christopher inheriting the family 'caput',
and younger brother Roger becoming a priest
(later Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and
Vice Chancellor), his marriage to Thomasine Skerne
is not known to have brought anything of note to
the family. We find William becoming a merchant
in London (presumably with ongoing connections in
Lincolnshire), and his daughter Cecily marrying the
2nd son [John Farrar] of a minor Yorkshire family.
~ John Farrar (d. ca. May 1628) did succeed to the
family estates following his elder brother's
death; his 3rd son William found his fortune in
Virginia [John Farrar being a supporter of the
Virginia Company, along with his kinsman Nicholas
Farrar/Ferrar].
Many more examples, with similarly interesting social (and genealogical)
results, could be brought in (Monthermer, Dagworth, & c.).
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] Margery's parents were Sir Philip Despenser (d. 1424),
of Goxhill, Gedney and Roxholme, co. Lincoln and
Camoys Manor in Toppesfield, co. Essex, 2nd Lord Le
Despenser, and his wife Elizabeth, 3rd dau. and
coheiress of Robert de Tibetot (d. 1372), 3rd Lord
Tybetot/Tiptoft.
* John P. Ravilious
yee22uuyee
Douglas Richardson
Dear Tim ~
I descend from one of the cadet branches of the Berkeley family, the
Fitz Nichols family. By any chance, is this one of your lines?
Best always, Douglas Richardson
Jay
>
>
> Dear Tim, Douglas, et al.,
>
> These examples (Berkeley, la Zouche) are certainly a few of those which
> point to both the upward and downward mobility operating in medieval English
> society. Younger sons (and descendants of younger sons) were not the primary
> concern of the lord, and while suitable marriages (or clerical vocation) were
> (most likely) usually arranged, it was only through the luck of the draw (or
> concilium Dei, depending on your view) that junior lines of baronial families
> were able to maintain or improve their 'lifestyle'.
Sometimes they were able to improve their lifestyle by their own
gumption. Not everything one had even in those times was by marriage
or inheritance, lowly knights often were able to achieve rank,
position and lands through accomplishments. Granted the system was
stacked against such upstarts, but it did happen. Sometimes they
succeeded to well and ran up against the envy of the old guard who
might take it on themselves to engineer a fall. William the Marshal
as a youth was if I remember correctly on hard times (well for a
knight), making his living on the jousting circuit. (I guess the
medieval equivalent of the rodeo :-). Course his older brothers
conviently died so he did got the inheritence after all and he DID
marry well, but I believe that all happened after he had made a name
for himself.
*****************************point two******************************
the son of John Ferrar who married 1. Ann Shepard and 2. Bathsheba
Owen? This latter John was uncle to my Richard Farrar/Ferrar
or was he part of the Farrars for whom Farrar Island in Virginia is
named? Those Farrars are definitely of Yorkshire, but I thought their
connection to the Nicholas Farrar (of the Virginia company and the
Little Gidding religious community) was unclear. His father also of
the Virginia Company in London was apprenticed skinner in London and I
believe his father came from Hertford (may be wrong on that). The
belief is that they were of the Yorkshire Farrars but has anyone
actually worked that part out?
Tim Powys-Lybbe
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
<snip of discussion of Berkeley pedigrees.>
> Dear Tim ~
>
> I descend from one of the cadet branches of the Berkeley family, the
> Fitz Nichols family. By any chance, is this one of your lines?
Try this, for a Poyntz line, which does connect to a Powys:
FitzHarding to FitzNichol to Poyntz
===================================
Nicholas FitzRobert, generation 2, was given Hill and Nympesfield by
his father and the property was held until it was sold by the Poyntzes.
(1) Robert FITZHARDING Lord of Berkeley [1, His own article], [2,
Berkeley art, vol II, pp. 124-5], [3, Robert Filius Harding, pp.
904-5],[4, Berkeley, Glos barony, p. 13], [5, Vol I, pp. 19-62],
(ca1095 - 1171)
(2) Nicholas FITZ ROBERT [3, His father-in-law, Wido filius Tecii, p.
962], [5, Vol I, pp. 44 & 65] ( - 1189)
(3) Roger FITZ NICHOLAS [5, Vol I, pp. 46-7] ( - 1230)
(4) Nicholas FITZROGER [6, Glos of 1623, pub 1885, p. 130], [7, No
16448, p. 179], [5, Vol I, p. 47], ( - 1261)
(5) Radulf FITZNICHOLAS [7, No 8224, p. 136], [6, Glos of 1623, pub
1885, p. 130], [5, Vol I, p. 47], ( - ca1291)
(6) Nicholas FITZRADULF [7, No 4112, p. 101], [6, Glos of 1623, pub
1885, p. 130], [5, Vol I, p. 47], ( - 1312)
(7) Sir John FITZNICHOL [6, Glos of 1623, pub 1885, p. 131], [7, No
2056, p. 74], [5, Vol I, p. 47], ( - 1375)
(8) Reynold FITZNICHOL [7, No 1028, p. 54],[6, Glos of 1623, pub
1885, p. 131], [5, Vol I, p. 47], ( - <1375)
(9) Sir Thomas FITZNICHOL [7, No 514, p. 40], [6, Glos of 1623,
pub 1885, p. 131], [6, Essex of 1612, pub Harleian 1878, Poyntz
p. 269], [5, Vol I, pp. 47-9], (ca1354 - 1418)
(10) Katherine FITZNICHOL [7, p. 30, No 257], [6, Glos of 1623,
pub 1885, p. 132], [6, Essex of 1612, pub Harleian 1878, Poyntz
p. 269], [5, Vol I, pp. 48-9], (ca1378 - >1448)
(11) Sir Nicholas POYNTZ [7, No 128, p. 23], [6, Glos of 1623,
pub 1885, p. 132], [6, Glos of 1623, pub 1885, p. 51], [6,
Essex of 1612, pub Harleian 1878, Poyntz p. 269], [5, Vol I,
p. 48], ( - 1449)
There is also a line of Brownings from Alienor the co-heir of Sir Thos
FitzNichol in generation 9.
Sources
=======
1. Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Leslie
Stephen at alia, Vols 1 to 50 odd, 1st: 1885 to 1900.
2. G E C et al, Complete Peerage.
3. II: Domesday Descendants, K S B Keats-Rohan, Boydell Press, 2002.
4. I J Sanders, English Baronies, OUP, 2nd ed, 1963.
5. Smyth, Lives of the Berkelelys, pub 1883 by Bristol etc Arch Soc.
6. Visitations.
7. Ronny O Bodine & Brother Thomas W Spalding Jr, The Ancestry of
Dorothea Poyntz, Bodine & Spalding, 3rd Preliminary Edition.
I am slowly working through all the Berkeley descendants in Smyth's book
and will put this on my web-site at a later date.