Paston - Fastolf connection
Colin Bevan
Recently, while researching the Mortimers of Attleburgh, with the generous help of Sonia Addis-Smith, I uncovered a number of family relationships which could explain the Fastolf-Paston connection. This pedigree will also be of interest to those descended from the Cliftons of Buckenham, Norfolk. There are other siblings throughout the pedigree, which I have left off for the sake of brevity.
1. Sir Constantine de Mortimer of Attleborough, Norfolk b abt 1280-d.1355 [CP IX, 248]
+ Agnes
2. Sir Robert Mortimer b abt 1310-d.1387 [CP IX, 250]
+ 1st wife Margery Fastolf d.1341 [CP IX, 250]
+ 2nd wife Margery d aft 1387
3. Sir Thomas Mortimer d. abt 1378 [CP IX, 250] [Blomefield, v.XI, p.207]
+ Mary Park da of Nicholas Park d 1406. They had 3 daughters.
(Mary's second husband was John Fastolf and they were the parents of Sir John Fastolf) [CP IX, 249] [Blomefield, v.XI, p.207] [Fastolf's will 1459]
3.Eleanor Mortimer [Blomefield, v.1, p.375]
+ Adam de Clifton of Buckenham d.1367
4. Constantine de Clifton d bef 1367
+ Katherine de la Pole d.1363
4.Eleanor de Clifton [Mauteby pedigree, 1440]
+ Sir John Mauteby d 1403
5.Sir Robert Mauteby d 1434
+ Margaret de Beauchamp da. of Sir Roger Beauchamp of Bletsoe [Margaret Mauteby's will dated 1482]
6. John Mauteby d. 1438 [Margaret Mauteby's will dated 1482]
+ Margaret Berney d.1446
7.Margaret Mauteby d. 1482
+ Sir John Paston d. 1466
From this family grouping it seems possible that Margaret Mauteby and Sir John Fastolf may have had two connections through the Mortimers of Attleborough, if Eleanor and Thomas Mortimer were children of Margery Fastolf, and Margery Fastolf was somehow related to Sir John. As eldest of the Mortimer children, it is likely that they were children of Margery.
It also appears that Fastolf was eventual heir of at least one of his Mortimer half sisters - Elizabeth.
Now my question is - has anyone researched the Fastolf family of Yarmouth/ Caistor/ Norfolk and/ or does anyone know the parentage of Margery Fastolf? I would appreciate any information or comments.
Rosie Bevan
Richard Borthwick
>>X-From_: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com Tue Sep 12 13:14:35 2000
>>Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:12:42 -0700
>>X-Original-Sender: cbe...@xtra.co.nz Mon Sep 11 22:12:41 2000
>>From: "Colin Bevan" <cbe...@xtra.co.nz>
>>Old-To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
>>Subject: Paston - Fastolf connection
>>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:05:55 +1200
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.5600
>>Resent-Message-ID: <aijYED.A...@lists6.rootsweb.com>
>>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>Resent-From: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>X-Mailing-List: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/45817
>>X-Loop: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>Resent-Sender: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
>>
>>In 1459 Sir John Fastolf of Caistor, Norfolk, died and left in his will, a
>considerable amount of property to Sir John Paston which the latter was
>only able to enjoy for a few years until his death, and which his son and
>wife had to fight hard to retain. Paston's wife Margaret Mauteby was known
>to be kin of Fastolf, because they addressed each other as such in their
>letters, but it has never been really clear in which way they were related.
>>Recently, while researching the Mortimers of Attleburgh, with the generous
>help of Sonia Addis-Smith, I uncovered a number of family relationships
>which could explain the Fastolf-Paston connection. This pedigree will also
>be of interest to those descended from the Cliftons of Buckenham, Norfolk.
>There are other siblings throughout the pedigree, which I have left off for
>the sake of brevity.
>>
>>
one of his two wives, of Robert who d.1387. Sir Constantine who d.1355
predeceased his father and was Robert's elder brother.
I thought Margaret Mauteby drew her will in 1482 but died 4 Nov 1484.
Did Margaret actually state in her will that her paternal grandmother was
Margaret Beauchamp? I have not seen the will.
elizabeth abbott
to wrest control' of Fastolf's estates from John Paston. Fastolf was
licenced to build Manor 1432-35 at Caister died 3:pm Monday November 1459.
Paston had wanted to found a chantry at Caister Castle to follow his patron
(Fastolf's) wishes. The Pastons lost Caister 1468.
On another subject could someone help me with this: Paston letters which are
on the internet have various references to Jarmys, Gurneys etc. Are they all
the same family, and what is the relationship to the Pastons? I know that
John Jermy (1555-1630) of Gunton (son of Robert Jermy of Antingham and Anne
Calthorpe) member of the Middle Temple 1578-9 was trustee of the Paston
estates and his wife vis. Lady Paston in 1624.
Letters in the 1400s refer also to Jermyns and "Gurnays" and it sounds as
though they are related, eg:
from J.P. (John Paston?) to Margaret Paston 1477 03 08: "'.... for my
brodyr Tho. Jermyn tellyth me... Bokenham Ferry is so over-flowyn that there
is no man that may anethe passe it, though he be right well horsyd...' Your
sone and humbyll servaunt J.P."
and
1477 04 14 to John Paston III : "To John Paston belovyd brother... wryghting
to yow and to my cosynge Gurnaye.."
&
"To my rygth worchepful husbond Jhon Paston (JP I) 1443 09 28: "... My fader
Garneyss sentte me worde .. he xuld e ben here.. nexth weke.... (from
Margaret P)
&
to Mgt Paston or Jn Paston III 1472 11 22 "I have opteyned letterys from the
Kynge to my lorde off Norfolk, to my lady of Norfolk and to ther concell....
Gornaye Brome Sowthewelle I trust to my cosyn Gornay. (from J.P. Kt."
Thank you,
Liz (researching Jermys)
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Bevan <cbe...@xtra.co.nz>
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date: September 11, 2000 10:12 PM
Subject: Paston - Fastolf connection
>In 1459 Sir John Fastolf of Caistor, Norfolk, died and left in his will, a
considerable amount of property to Sir John Paston which the latter was only
able to enjoy for a few years until his death, and which his son and wife
had to fight hard to retain. Paston's wife Margaret Mauteby was known to be
kin of Fastolf, because they addressed each other as such in their letters,
but it has never been really clear in which way they were related.
>Recently, while researching the Mortimers of Attleburgh, with the generous
help of Sonia Addis-Smith, I uncovered a number of family relationships
which could explain the Fastolf-Paston connection. This pedigree will also
be of interest to those descended from the Cliftons of Buckenham, Norfolk.
There are other siblings throughout the pedigree, which I have left off for
the sake of brevity.
>
>
Colin Bevan
Good to see you are on the ball!
Yes you are right Sir Constantine's death should read 1358/9
I was under the impression she died on 17 June 1482, but I may be wrong - I
will check sources and get back to you.
COPY OF WILL 1482
In the name of God, amen. I, Margaret Paston, widowe, late the wiff of
John
Paston, squier, doughter and heire to John Mauteby, squier, hole of spirit
and
mynde, with parfite avisement and good deliberacion, the iiijte day of
February
in the yer of our Lord God a ml cccclxxxj, make my testament and last wille
in
this fourme folowyng. First, I betake my sowle to God Almyghty and to Our
Lady
his blissed moder, Seint Michael, Seint John Baptist, and to alle seintes,
and
my body to be beried in the ele of the cherch of Mauteby byfore the ymage of
Our
Lady there, jn which ele reste the bodies of diuers of myn aunceteres, whos
sowles God assoile.
Item, I bequethe to the high awter of the seid cherch of Mauteby xx s.
Item, I wulle that the seid ele in which my body shalbe beried be newe
roved,
leded, and glased, and the walles therof heyned conuenyently and werkmanly.
Item, I wull that myn executours purveye a stoon of marble to be leyde
alofte
vpon my grave within a yer next after my decesse; and vpon that stoon I
wulle
have iiij scochens sett at the iiij corners, wherof I wulle that the first
scochen shalbe of my husbondes armes and myn departed, the ijde of Mawtebys
armes and Berneys of Redham departed, the iijde of
Mawtebys armes and the Lord Loveyn departed, the iijte of Mawtebys armes and
Sir
Roger Beauchamp departed. And in myddys of the seid stoon I wull have a
scochen
sett of Mawtebys armes allone, and vnder the same thise wordes wretyn: 'In
God
is my trust'; with a scripture wretyn in the verges therof rehersyng thise
wordes: 'Here lieth Margret Paston, late the wif of John Paston, doughter
and
heire of John Mawteby, squier', and forth in the same scripture rehersed the
day
of the moneth and the yer that I shall decesse, 'on whos sowle God have
mercy'.
Item, I wulle that myn executours shall purveye xij pore meen of my
tenauntes,
or other if they suffice not, the which I wulle shalbe apparailled in white
gownes with hodes according, to holde xij torches abowte myn herse or bere
at
such tyme as I shalbe beried, during the exequies and masse of my berying;
which
xij torches I wille remayne in the seid cherch of Mawteby whil they may last
for
my yerday.
That she was descended from Sir Roger Beauchamp, I don't see any reason to
doubt if she believed it herself. The exact relationship has been extracted
from a contemporary pedigree which was drawn up after the marriage of Sir
John Paston and Margaret Mauteby in 1440.
The Pastons were very aware who was kin, and who wasn't, as can be deduced
from the manner of their letter writing.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message ----- > >>In 1459 Sir John Fastolf of Caistor,
Richard Borthwick
saw it I realised that I had seen it before. I do apologise - I should have
been more alert. If the relationship to Sir Roger Beauchamp is made
explicit in the Mauteby pedigree of 1440, does the pedigree do the same for
'the Lord Loveyn departed'?
I would appreciate it if you could give the full reference for the work
containing the Mauteby pedigree of 1440.
At 07:24 13/09/00 +1200, you wrote:
>Hi Richard
>
>Good to see you are on the ball!
>
>Yes you are right Sir Constantine's death should read 1358/9
This will also mean that Agnes goes as well. Robert will be the son of
Sibil or Catherine (I think these are the names of the two wives of the
first Constantine de Mortimer - I am writing this away from home).
Ed Mann
>
> May I beg some clarification of a previous message, which seems to have been
> posted in a garbled fashion?
>
> On 2000-07-20 Rosie BEVAN responded:
> Thanks Douglas - it certainly makes sense when you look at the dates.
> So does the genealogy runs like this? Have I missed anything significant
> out?
>
> 1.Walter de Beauchamp, Lord of Elmley d. 1303 = Alice de Toeni
> (snip)
> 2. Roger de Beauchamp, Lord Bletsoe d. 1380 = Sibyll de Pateshull
> 3. Roger de Beauchamp, d.v.p. 1374 = Joan Clopton d 1404
> 4. Roger de Beauchamp Lord Bletsoe d. 1406 = Mary
> 4. Margaret Beauchamp = Robert Mauteby
> 5. Sir John Beauchamp d 1412 = Margaret Holland
> 6. Margaret Beauchamp = 1.Oliver St John; = 2. John
> Beaufort, Duke of Somerset.
>
> Are lines 4 and 5 above correct? It would appear that Robert Mauteby
> married Margaret Beauchamp, only to give their child Sir John his wife's
> surname.
What I have:
Selected Descendants of Walter de Beauchamp
1 Walter de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1243 d: 1303 ref #: Ä84-29
+Alice de Toeni d: Aft. 1306 ref #: (Ä84-29)
2 Giles de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1273 d: Oct 1361 ref #: Ä84-30
+Catherine de Bures b: Bef. 1315 d: Aft. 1354 ref #: W57-6
3 Roger de Beauchamp aka: 1st Lord Beauchamp of Bletsoe d: 3 Jan
1379/80 ref #: W57-7
+Sibyl de Pateshull d: Aft. 26 Oct 1351 ref #: Ä184A-13
4 Roger de Beauchamp aka: 2d Baron Beauchamp of Bletsho d: Bef. 1381
ref #: W57-8
5 Roger de Beauchamp b: Bef. 1363 d: 3 May 1406 ref #: W57-9
+Joan Clopton ref #: (Ä85-33)
6 John de Beauchamp aka: Knt. d: Abt. 1412 ref #: W57-10
+Margaret Holand ref #: (Ä85-34)
7 Margaret de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1412 d: Abt. 3 Jun 1482 ref #:
W57-11
+Oliver de St. John b: Abt. 1414 d: 1437 ref #: (Ä225-37)
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:INET...@atlantic.net
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
NK2 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_Two_, [page].
Π= Hardy, Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America, [pg].
PA = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, 2d ed. [page:para].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat lector.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat lector.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page] Caveat lector.
Colin Bevan
Richardson whose findings are backed up by a Mauteby pedigree dating from
1400-1500s.
TO QUOTE
"Speaking of the Beauchamp family of Bedfordshire, it appears
that Sir Roger de Beauchamp (died 1380), of Bletsoe, co.
Bedford, and Bloxham, co. Oxford, was NOT as universally
believed the son of Giles de Beauchamp (died 1361), of Powick
and Acton Beauchamp, co. Worcester, by his wife, Katherine de
Bures.
The reason for this is quite simple. Giles Beauchamp's wife,
Katherine de Bures, was born about 1315/24, and their eldest son
and heir, John, was born about 1339. Sir Roger de Beauchamp on
the other hand was married before 1337 to Sibyl de Patshull and
had a son and heir, Roger, born soon afterwards.
Clearly Giles and Sir Roger were contemporaries to each other,
not father and son. As best I can determine, the two men were
evidently brothers. My research shows that Sir Roger was
granted the manor of Ashmore, Dorset by Giles de Beauchamp's
older brother, William de Beauchamp (see Dorset Feet of Fines,
1327-1485, pp. 80-81). This manor later descended in the
Beauchamp family down to Margaret Beauchamp, the female heiress,
who brought it in marriage to the Saint John family." END QUOTE
I made an error in my posting which I correct thus by transposing Margaret
and Roger de Beauchamp.
1.Walter de Beauchamp, Lord of Elmley d. 1303 = Alice de Toeni
2. Roger de Beauchamp, Lord Bletsoe d. 1380 = Sibyll de Pateshull
3. Roger de Beauchamp, d.v.p. 1374 = Joan Clopton d 1404
4. Margaret Beauchamp = Robert Mauteby
4. Roger de Beauchamp Lord Bletsoe d. 1406 = Mary
5. Sir John Beauchamp d 1412 = Margaret Holland
6. Margaret Beauchamp = 1.Oliver St John; = 2. John
Beaufort, Duke of Somerset.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
> O = Hardy, Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America, [pg].
P A MagLOCHLAINN
posted in a garbled fashion?
On 2000-07-20 Rosie BEVAN responded:
Thanks Douglas - it certainly makes sense when you look at the dates.
So does the genealogy runs like this? Have I missed anything significant
out?
1.Walter de Beauchamp, Lord of Elmley d. 1303 = Alice de Toeni
(snip)
2. Roger de Beauchamp, Lord Bletsoe d. 1380 = Sibyll de Pateshull
3. Roger de Beauchamp, d.v.p. 1374 = Joan Clopton d 1404
4. Roger de Beauchamp Lord Bletsoe d. 1406 = Mary
4. Margaret Beauchamp = Robert Mauteby
5. Sir John Beauchamp d 1412 = Margaret Holland
6. Margaret Beauchamp = 1.Oliver St John; = 2. John
Beaufort, Duke of Somerset.
Are lines 4 and 5 above correct? It would appear that Robert Mauteby
married Margaret Beauchamp, only to give their child Sir John his wife's
surname.
Yours gratefully,
P A MagLOCHLAINN
in Belfast, Northern Ireland
====================
Colin Bevan wrote in message
<01af01c01cef$252cac20$020a...@bite.bevan.com>...
>Hi Richard
>Good to see you are on the ball!
>Yes you are right Sir Constantine's death should read 1358/9
> I was under the impression she died on 17 June 1482, but I may be wrong -
I
>will check sources and get back to you.
=====
(snip)