Maud de Nerford and the illegitimate childen of John, Earl of Warenne

800 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 9:59:00 AMFeb 11
to
Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.

The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).

Apparently prior to this, the Earl already had at least one illegitimate son, William, who was granted the manor and advowson of Beeston, Norfolk by his father in 1311. That son was, unsurprisingly, a minor when a presentation to Beeston rectory was made by the earl as custodian in March 1311 (Register of John Salmon, Bishop of Norwich, 1299-1325, E. Gemmill [ed], 2019, p 108).

On 4 August 1316 the Earl arranged for settlements to be made to himself for life, remainder to John de Warenne son of Matilda de Neirford (sic) and the heirs of his body, remainder to Thomas de Warenne, son of the said Maud (sic) -- these were the settlements referred to in the Patent Rolls entries for 22 November 1345 and 10 February 1345/6, by which time those two sons were professed in the Order of St John and thus not expected to leave legitimate issue.

In 1324 we have the fine settling property at Skeyton away from the de Skeyton family after the death of the childless Sir Ralph, to Maud de Nerford and her sons Ralph and Edward (Alice de Hauteyn, sister and heir of Sir Ralph de Skeyton quitclaiming in 20 Edward II).

In 1344 the Earl obtained a papal indulgence in favour of himself, his wife, his son William de Warenne, knight, and the latter's wife Margaret.

Then we have the will of the Earl from 1347, in which he names his son "Monsieur William" (ie Sir, evidently a knight), another son "Dn William" destined for the the church according to the tenor of his bequest, daughters Johan de Basyng and Katerin, and son Edward de Warenne.

It isn't clear on the face of the foregoing that Edward de Warenne, illegitimate son of the Earl, was the son of Maud de Nerford, although it seems that Maud did have a son Edward (as well as a son Ralph, and sons John and Thomas whose father was the Earl).

Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?

Incidentally, it would appear that Maud de Nerford was not the same individual as Maud the wife of John de Dalling, who was dealing with the advowson of Itteringham along with Edward de Warenne. Maud de Nerford was dead by 22 November 1345 as the Patent Roll entry for that date makes clear, while Mad de Dalling was still living in 1349 (Calendar of Close Rolls, 23 February 1349).

taf

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 10:56:17 AMFeb 11
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl
> of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne
> and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal
> XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
>
> The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first
> round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who
> was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).

Or maybe Driby? There was apparently a Simon de Driby who son of Robert and Joan de Tattershall and was a member of the royal household, dying s.p. 1323. (though I find reference to a Simon de Driby being married to a Margaret in 1322).

> In 1324 we have the fine settling property at Skeyton away from the de Skeyton family
> after the death of the childless Sir Ralph, to Maud de Nerford and her sons Ralph and
> Edward (Alice de Hauteyn, sister and heir of Sir Ralph de Skeyton quitclaiming in 20
> Edward II).

This is really where it all hangs - if this Maud de Nerford who received Skeyton is the same as the Maud de Nerford who was mistress of John de Warenne, then there is no reason to question the whole thing. However, Watson maintained that there was documentation giving the mistress different parentage than the Skeyton holder - that there were two different contemporary Mauds de Nerford.

> Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate
> issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?

I don't see any reason to go there. If this is indeed the same Maud, then it seems needless to posit the Edward de Warenne, Earl John's son to be different than the Edward de Warenne who was son of Earl John's mistress. And if this is not the same Maud, then all bets are off. Either way, I think it more likely Sir Ralph de Skeyton was a kinsman of Maud.

> Incidentally, it would appear that Maud de Nerford was not the same individual as
> Maud the wife of John de Dalling, who was dealing with the advowson of Itteringham
> along with Edward de Warenne. Maud de Nerford was dead by 22 November 1345 as
> the Patent Roll entry for that date makes clear, while Mad de Dalling was still living in
> 1349 (Calendar of Close Rolls, 23 February 1349).

Clearly Maud, wife of Dalling, was distinct from Maud, mistress of Earl John. If I remember correctly, Maud Dalling and Edward disputed the presentation and reached an agreement to alternate, which would have been unusual had Maud been the mother of Edward and conduit for his claim.

taf

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 11:01:01 AMFeb 11
to
Since Edward de Warenne's son William afterwards held Skeyton (CP 25/1/167/168), it is logical to identify him as Edward, the son of Maud de Nerford named in the 1324 grant, in which case her son Ralph died without lawful issue. It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.

Fairbanks seems to indicate that the Earl also had children by his last concubine, Isabel de Holande, as he implies that "Dame Maud de Holande", "Mon[sieur] Robert de Holande" and "Mon[sieur] Otes de Holande" named in his will, were his children. I'm not convinced.

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 11:23:44 AMFeb 11
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 3:56:17 PM UTC, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl
> > of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne
> > and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal
> > XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
> >
> > The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first
> > round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who
> > was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
> Or maybe Driby? There was apparently a Simon de Driby who son of Robert and Joan de Tattershall and was a member of the royal household, dying s.p. 1323. (though I find reference to a Simon de Driby being married to a Margaret in 1322).
> > In 1324 we have the fine settling property at Skeyton away from the de Skeyton family
> > after the death of the childless Sir Ralph, to Maud de Nerford and her sons Ralph and
> > Edward (Alice de Hauteyn, sister and heir of Sir Ralph de Skeyton quitclaiming in 20
> > Edward II).
> This is really where it all hangs - if this Maud de Nerford who received Skeyton is the same as the Maud de Nerford who was mistress of John de Warenne, then there is no reason to question the whole thing. However, Watson maintained that there was documentation giving the mistress different parentage than the Skeyton holder - that there were two different contemporary Mauds de Nerford.
> > Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate
> > issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?
> I don't see any reason to go there. If this is indeed the same Maud, then it seems needless to posit the Edward de Warenne, Earl John's son to be different than the Edward de Warenne who was son of Earl John's mistress. And if this is not the same Maud, then all bets are off. Either way, I think it more likely Sir Ralph de Skeyton was a kinsman of Maud.

Fair enough. So in turn, unless secondary evidence of the "MS in the College of Arms by Glover" can be identified, we only have Watson's [tertiary] word for it that there was a [primary] deed calling Maud de Nerford the daughter of Richard de Skeyton (even if it is by inference, eg because Alice the sister of Richard son Ralph calls Maud her sister). Watson seems to have been determined to assert/prove a legitimate descent for the Poynton Warrens, so I am a little wary of his claims, lest for all we know he jumped to conclusions on the basis of the 1324 settlement and a subsequent quitclaim by Alice.

The one item by Glover that is readily accessible is his & Flower's Visitation of Cheshire, 1580, printed in 1882. This contains a pedigree for the Poynton Warrens:

1. John, Erle Warren Sussex & Surrey married Jane daughter to Lord William Mowbray
2. Sir Edward Warren
3. Edward Warren married Ciceley Elton [sic]

https://archive.org/details/visitationofches00glov/page/242/mode/2up

I expect this pedigree pleases no-one.

taf

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 11:33:44 AMFeb 11
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 8:23:44 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:

> Fair enough. So in turn, unless secondary evidence of the "MS in the College of Arms
> by Glover" can be identified, we only have Watson's [tertiary] word for it that there was
> a [primary] deed calling Maud de Nerford the daughter of Richard de Skeyton (even if
> it is by inference, eg because Alice the sister of Richard son Ralph calls Maud her sister).
> Watson seems to have been determined to assert/prove a legitimate descent for the
> Poynton Warrens, so I am a little wary of his claims, lest for all we know he jumped to
> conclusions on the basis of the 1324 settlement and a subsequent quitclaim by Alice.

Yes, quite. I would appreciate better sourcing all the way around.

> The one item by Glover that is readily accessible is his & Flower's Visitation of Cheshire, 1580, printed in 1882. This contains a pedigree for the Poynton Warrens:

> I expect this pedigree pleases no-one.

Given that the Warrens of Ightfield also have a visitation pedigree tracing their descent from the Earls Warenne and Geoffrey Plantagenet, clearly invented, I am underwhelmed by this visitation claim of Warren of Poynton.

taf

taf

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 11:42:57 AMFeb 11
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 2:59:00 PM UTC, Mark Jennings wrote:

> Since Edward de Warenne's son William afterwards held Skeyton (CP 25/1/167/168), it
> is logical to identify him as Edward, the son of Maud de Nerford named in the 1324 grant,
> in which case her son Ralph died without lawful issue.

Yes. There is continuity in the Skeyton-Nerford-Warren of Poynton line.

> It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.

A provision for Ralph would certainly tip the balance.

> Fairbanks seems to indicate that the Earl also had children by his last concubine, Isabel de
> Holande, as he implies that "Dame Maud de Holande", "Mon[sieur] Robert de Holande" and
> "Mon[sieur] Otes de Holande" named in his will, were his children. I'm not convinced.

Look like the Holands of Upholand to me. Matilda la Zouche, widow of Robert de Holand, 1st baron (d. 1328), their heir Robert and younger son Otho, KG.

taf

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 11:52:44 AMFeb 11
to
Good spot. Doubtless Isabel the concubine belongs there too then, presumably as a sister of Robert the younger and Otho. Fairbanks also cites a 1346 settlement by the Earl (which I think is taken from Watson) in which he considers the possibility of heirs born by Isabel, whom he refers to as wife, which indicates they then had no issue (or at least, issue that the earl could consider legitimate).

taf

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 12:00:42 PMFeb 11
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 8:52:44 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:

> Good spot. Doubtless Isabel the concubine belongs there too then, presumably as
> a sister of Robert the younger and Otho.

At least according to Wikipedia (all necessary caveats apply) the old DNB entry for Earl John makes this relationship explicit, that his mistress Isabel de Holand was sister of Thomas, 1st Earl of Kent (brother of Robert, 2nd baron, and Otho).

taf

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 1:02:30 PMFeb 11
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 4:42:57 PM UTC, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 2:59:00 PM UTC, Mark Jennings wrote:
>
> > Since Edward de Warenne's son William afterwards held Skeyton (CP 25/1/167/168), it
> > is logical to identify him as Edward, the son of Maud de Nerford named in the 1324 grant,
> > in which case her son Ralph died without lawful issue.
> Yes. There is continuity in the Skeyton-Nerford-Warren of Poynton line.
> > It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.
> A provision for Ralph would certainly tip the balance.

Could Ralph be the "Ravlyn fitz al Counte de Garrein" (Ravlyn son of the Earl of Warenne) named in the Parliamentary Petitions (#63, 8 Edward III - 1334)?

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000020573638&view=1up&seq=94

(I omitted the will reference to the Earl's daughter Isabel, "noneyne de Sempryngham" - a nun at Sempringham - to complete the list of his children.)

taf

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 3:47:14 PMFeb 11
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 4:42:57 PM UTC, taf wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 2:59:00 PM UTC, Mark Jennings wrote:
> >
> > > Since Edward de Warenne's son William afterwards held Skeyton (CP 25/1/167/168), it
> > > is logical to identify him as Edward, the son of Maud de Nerford named in the 1324 grant,
> > > in which case her son Ralph died without lawful issue.
> > Yes. There is continuity in the Skeyton-Nerford-Warren of Poynton line.
> > > It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.
> > A provision for Ralph would certainly tip the balance.
> Could Ralph be the "Ravlyn fitz al Counte de Garrein" (Ravlyn son of the Earl of Warenne) named in the Parliamentary Petitions (#63, 8 Edward III - 1334)?

DNB names him as one of the Earl's bastards, but for some reason calls him Welsh. Not sure if they were interpreting the name as having a different etymology than as a pet name for Rauf (Ralph).

taf

taf

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 4:16:18 PMFeb 11
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 8:23:44 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:

> Fair enough. So in turn, unless secondary evidence of the "MS in the College of Arms
> by Glover" can be identified, we only have Watson's [tertiary] word for it that there was
> a [primary] deed calling Maud de Nerford the daughter of Richard de Skeyton (even if
> it is by inference, eg because Alice the sister of Richard son Ralph calls Maud her sister).

Something else to throw into the mix. Watson views there being two Mauds de Nerford, one the daughter of William de Nerford and mistress of Earl John, and the other the daughter of Richard de Skeyton. However, here I find the mistress called "widow of William de Nerford". Maybe Watson's basis for there being two Mauds is an error in the relationship of Maud to William - the daughter of Richard de Skeyton and the widow of William de Nerford could indeed have been the same woman.

Roy Martin Haines, King Edward II: His Life, His Reign, and Its Aftermath, 1284-1330, p. 406, note 79:
"Select Cases before the King's Council 1243-1482, pp. lxvi-lxix, 27-33 (MS Holkham Misc. 29, fos. 229r-31r) Matilda de Neyrford, widow of Sir WIlliam de Neyrford, was Warenne's mistess, and a case of divorce with her as 'actric' had been brought into the court of the archdeacon of Norfolk 'in dedecus ipsius domini regis manifestum er contemptum.' . . ."

taf

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 5:10:12 PMFeb 11
to
Unfortunately, I think this must be a mis-reading. The select cases (p 28) makes it clear that the Earl's mistress is "[Matilda] de Neyrford filie quondam Willelmi de Neyrford militis defuncti" (daughter of the late William de Nerford, knight, deceased), so I don't know the reference to her being Sir William's widow has arisen here. In any case, the widow of the only Sir William de Nerford I am aware of, was the well-attested Petronilla, heiress of the Vaux family.

Peter Stewart

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 5:25:34 PMFeb 11
to
On 12-Feb-21 2:56 AM, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl
>> of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne
>> and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal
>> XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
>>
>> The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313, when the first
>> round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She was described as "Matilda who
>> was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
>
> Or maybe Driby? There was apparently a Simon de Driby who son of Robert and Joan de Tattershall and was a member of the royal household, dying s.p. 1323. (though I find reference to a Simon de Driby being married to a Margaret in 1322).

Maud de Nerford's husband was named as Sir Simon de Driby in a letter
from the bishop of Llandaff to the archbishop of Canterbury and other
prelates at the provincial council of London in 1313 ("diabolus
instigavit quandam Matildam de Narford, quae Domino Simoni de Dribi
nuptiis ex more celebratis matrimonialiter adhuc fuisse coniuncta, in
adulteriis detinuit amplexibus").

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 5:29:41 PMFeb 11
to
Apologies - I forgot to include the name of the subject in the passage
quoted, who had engaged in adultery with Sir Simon de Driby's wife Maud
de Nerford: "nobilis vir Iohannes de Warenne, comes Surriae ..."

Peter Stewart

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 5:50:13 PMFeb 11
to
Many thanks Peter. I am very conscious that this is raking over ground that has been cultivated intensively for the best part of 250 years now, but it never hurts to revisit and go back to basics; I am grateful for the List's forbearance.

It would be instructive to track down the document which Watson used to assert that [at least one] Maud was a de Skeyton, since this is the only potential stumbling block to accepting Edward of Poynton as the son of Earl John (something, incidentally, that I am happy to accept). I see there is another 19 Edward II record naming "Matil[da] de Nerford", in which she makes a fine for 5 marks for a pardon for having acquired from Richard de Drencheston [Drinkstone] and Oliver de Re[e]dham property in Causton, Bo[o]ton, Brandeston and Skeyton, Norfolk (Rotulorum Originalium In Curia Scaccarii Abbreviatio, I, 293).

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 6:25:09 PMFeb 11
to
OK, so this probably does relate to the 1324 fine, which was detailed in a post here (again, apologies for the self-indulgent regurgitation on my part):

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/hu1M9_JmbtA/m/OPJdEcK6pmkJ

"Rad. de Skegeton v Oliver de Reedham and Rich[ard] de Drengeston, parson of the church of Skegeton [Skeyton], of the manors of Skegeton and Boton: The King puts in a claim; David de Strabolgi, Earl of Atholl puts in a claim; Philip son of Robert de Baldeswell of Boton puts in a claim; Roger de Gyney and Margery his wife and William de Whytewell put in a claim; Richard, vicar of the church of Aylesham, Peter Skypping, Richard de Drenkeston, parson of the church of Skeyton, William Hauteyn and Alicia his wife, Henry de Walcote and Beatrix his wife put in a claim; Richard son of Evorard de Thornton and Peter le Waleys of Boton put in a claim.

As the original poster noted, this extract by Rye says nothing about any reversionary clauses [this may be the first of a succession of transactions, ie the initial transfer of the property to feoffees] so we are left with Blomefield assertion about the beneficiaries being Ralph de Skeyton, them Maud de Nerford, then her sons Ralph and Edward, and none the wiser about Watson's assertion that Maud was Ralph de Skeyton's sister.

taf

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 9:03:42 PMFeb 11
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 3:25:09 PM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:

> OK, so this probably does relate to the 1324 fine, which was detailed in a post here:

> As the original poster noted, this extract by Rye says nothing about any reversionary clauses
> [this may be the first of a succession of transactions, ie the initial transfer of the property to
> feoffees] so we are left with Blomefield assertion about the beneficiaries being Ralph de
> Skeyton, them Maud de Nerford, then her sons Ralph and Edward, and none the wiser about
> Watson's assertion that Maud was Ralph de Skeyton's sister.

The original is on AALT:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 4:22:18 AMFeb 12
to
Perfect - thanks!

So, if I am reading it correctly, that talks about the remainder to Matilda de Nerford and the heirs of her body, and then remainder in default of such heirs to Rad. [Ralph] her son, and Edward her son.

Two points to be gleaned: (1) no relationship is mentioned between Maud de Nerford and any member of the Skeyton family, and (2) the fact that the grant is not to Maud for life, but to Maud and the heirs of her body, and only then with remainder to her sons Ralph and Edward posits that those two sons were illegitimate. This is strong supporting evidence that Watson/Glover are wrong, and that Edward (and Ralph) were sons of John, Earl of Warenne by Maud de Nerford.

joseph cook

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 7:59:52 AMFeb 12
to

> > The original is on AALT:
> > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm
> Perfect - thanks!
>
> So, if I am reading it correctly, that talks about the remainder to Matilda de Nerford and the heirs of her body, and then remainder in default of such heirs to Rad. [Ralph] her son, and Edward her son.
>
> Two points to be gleaned: (1) no relationship is mentioned between Maud de Nerford and any member of the Skeyton family, and (2) the fact that the grant is not to Maud for life, but to Maud and the heirs of her body, and only then with remainder to her sons Ralph and Edward posits that those two sons were illegitimate. This is strong supporting evidence that Watson/Glover are wrong, and that Edward (and Ralph) were sons of John, Earl of Warenne by Maud de Nerford.

I agree with this conclusion; although still think Richardson should suck lemons for his rude uncalled for comments earlier. This isn't a validation of his approach at all.
--JC

taf

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 8:11:24 AMFeb 12
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.

Regarding his son Rawlin, doing an archive dive, I note that a decade ago Mr. Richardson cited a grant from Earl John to a Ralph de Warenne without indicating any relationship. This could mean that he indeed made provision for additional bastards, but in documents that either by intent or omission simply do not make the relationship explicit.

taf


taf

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 8:15:20 AMFeb 12
to
On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 1:22:18 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:

> Two points to be gleaned: (1) no relationship is mentioned between Maud de
> Nerford and any member of the Skeyton family, and (2) the fact that the grant
> is not to Maud for life, but to Maud and the heirs of her body, and only then
> with remainder to her sons Ralph and Edward posits that those two sons were
> illegitimate. This is strong supporting evidence that Watson/Glover are wrong,
> and that Edward (and Ralph) were sons of John, Earl of Warenne by Maud de
> Nerford.

If I recall correctly from when I looked at it, I was not entirely clear that Watson was drawing his conclusions regarding relationship solely from this fine alone and not also the quitclaim by Maud's 'sister' Alice of her half-share.

I found an antiquarian commentary from the late 1800s on Watson's theory that among other things laid set out that the Skegeton family was holding these properties by infeudation under William de Nerford and Petronilla. (unfortunately my computer rebooted on me and I lost the link)

taf

taf

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 8:20:15 AMFeb 12
to
On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:11:24 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It is odd that the Earl only made provision for her sons John and Thomas outside of his will.
> Regarding his son Rawlin, doing an archive dive, I note that a decade ago Mr. Richardson cited a grant from Earl John to a Ralph de Warenne without indicating any relationship.

I see in retrospect my wording is ambiguous. It is the grant itself what gave no relationship. Mr. Richardson was not so prudent.

taf

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 8:51:03 AMFeb 12
to
You're quite right - the implication is that Alice Breton/Hauteyn is giving up a half share to a coheiress, although it isn't clear whether that is a construction placed on the quitclaim based on an assumption about the relationships or on the wording of the quitclaim. I don't suppose the original of this can also be traced for review?

(And IIRC Blomefield might support your memory of the feudal relationships between the Skeytons and the Nerfords)

taf

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 11:38:31 AMFeb 12
to
On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 5:51:03 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> You're quite right - the implication is that Alice Breton/Hauteyn is giving up a half
> share to a coheiress, although it isn't clear whether that is a construction placed
> on the quitclaim based on an assumption about the relationships or on the wording
> of the quitclaim. I don't suppose the original of this can also be traced for review?

I can't help but wonder if there isn't confusion on top of confusion here, and would suggest the following:

That all Ralph de Skegeton held at the time was a half-share.
That (for reasons that can only be guessed at) he granted the reversion of these properties to Maud.
That Alice, as sister and heiress to Ralph de Skegeton, executed a quitclaim to confirming the alienation of this part of her inheritance by her brother.
Watson interpreted these two acts as paired transactions involving each half of the land, and as such concluded from there being two such halves that Alice (explicit) and Maud (implicit) were the two heiresses, but instead what we actually are dealing with are two transactions relating to the same single half, transferred to Maud by Ralph with the (later formalized) consent of his full-heiress Alice.

In tis reconstruction, the later dispute over presentation, Edward de Warenne and Maud Dalling would be the representatives of these two halves, with Dalling representing the other half that was never part of the Ralph de Skegeton - Alice Hayteyn - Maud de Nerford - Ralph & Edward de Warenne devolution. (Though there is an alternative here, that Maud was widow of one of the Ralphs, claiming some sort of dower right).

taf

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 1:24:20 PMFeb 12
to
According to Blomefield, the 3rd portion of the advowson of Itteringham, which he calls Bintre's Portion, was held in 1275 by Robert de Skeyton and Cecily his wife, and John de Bintre. The alternating presentations to this third were presumably shared between the descendants/representatives of the de Skeyton, and de Bintre. Edward de Warenne seems to have represented the de Skeytons (possibly the advowson was pendant upon the manor which he acquired under the terms of the 1324 settlement); Maud and John de Dalling presumably represented the de Bintre moiety. Robert de Bintre had presented in 1304, and Ralph de Skeyton in 1320 (Sir Ralph of course made the 1324 settlement, and was the son of John de Skeyton, son of Robert and Cecily de Skeyton.

Maud likely cannot be a widow of either Ralph de Skeyton, whose widow Felicia survived him according to Blomefield, or of Ralph the son of Maud de Nerford, since he probably died vita matris (although he may have died between 1345 when Maud died, and 1349 when her son Edward was concerned in the presentation to Itteringham).

Blomefield does say that the main manor at Skeyton had been divided, but 2/3 to the de Skeytons and 1/3 to the Whitwells (descended from a cadet de Skeyton's heiress) under a settlement of 1187. Skeyton was held under the Baynard family, whereas Boton was held of the de Nerfords, presumably as heirs of the Vaux family.

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 4:02:57 PMFeb 12
to
Good spot - I had searched the archives and missed some of that thread. This also shows that Ralph had a wife Joan, who likely had some dower or settlement rights in Skeyton, and that Ralph was dead by 1346, when Edward held at Skeyton (if Ralph ever held, it was for a very short period - although Paul Mazkenzie's post argues that he was dead by 1342, based on a reconstruction of Joan's subsequent marital history).

taf

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 11:53:10 PMFeb 12
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 4 August 1316 the Earl arranged for settlements to be made to himself for life, remainder
> to John de Warenne son of Matilda de Neirford (sic) and the heirs of his body, remainder to
> Thomas de Warenne, son of the said Maud (sic) -- these were the settlements referred to in
> the Patent Rolls entries for 22 November 1345 and 10 February 1345/6, by which time those
> two sons were professed in the Order of St John and thus not expected to leave legitimate issue.

TNA SC 8/280/13971
Petitions to the King and Council, etc.

"The Earl Warenne requests that the King and council review the descent of his lands in Surrey, Sussex, Yorkshire and Wales so that his heirs not be disinherited. The petitioner enfeoffed the King in all his castles, manors, lands and tenements in Surrey, Sussex Yorkshire and Wales, and the King then re-enfeoffed Warenne in the same in Surrey, Sussex and Wales for life, descending after his death to John, son of Maud and his male heirs, and in default of a male heir to his brother Thomas and his male heirs, and in default of a male heir to the male heirs of the petitioner, and in default of a male heir to the King and his heirs, and also re-enfeoffed Warenne in the same in Yorkshire for life, descending after his death to Maud, and after her death to her son John and his male heirs, and in default of a male heir to his brother Thomas and his male heirs, and in default of a male heir to the male heirs of the petitioner, and in default of a male heir to the King and his heirs."

"Dated on the guard to c. 1326, with reference to SC 8/174/8702B."

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9517919 (Free to download)

Also:

TNA SC 8/87/4348
Petitions to the King and Council, etc.

"Earl Warenne asks that the commission of oyer et terminer against his men given to John de Mutforde, John Bakun, John de Redenhale, and John le Claver at the suit of John de Nerforde in Norfolk might be repealed, as these justices are of the fees and robes of Lady de Nerforde, John's mother, and are doing all the harm they can to his people because he has expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his company. He suggests that John de Nerforde might sue against him at common law if it seems good to him."

"CPR 1317-21 p.474 is dated 1 December 1319, and p.537 is dated 8 July 1320. This petition, however, like many of this file, is most likely to have been presented at the Michaelmas parliament of 1320, so either or both of these would seem more likely to represent the commission about which the petitioner is complaining, rather than the confirmation of this commission given in the endorsement."

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9148890 (Free to download)

taf

taf

unread,
Feb 13, 2021, 12:15:28 AMFeb 13
to
On Friday, February 12, 2021 at 8:53:10 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> "Earl Warenne asks that the commission of oyer et terminer against his men given
> to John de Mutforde, John Bakun, John de Redenhale, and John le Claver at the suit
> of John de Nerforde in Norfolk might be repealed, as these justices are of the fees
> and robes of Lady de Nerforde, John's mother, and are doing all the harm they can
> to his people because he has expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his
> company. He suggests that John de Nerforde might sue against him at common law
> if it seems good to him."
>
> "CPR 1317-21 p.474 is dated 1 December 1319, and p.537 is dated 8 July 1320. This
> petition, however, like many of this file, is most likely to have been presented at the
> Michaelmas parliament of 1320, so either or both of these would seem more likely to
> represent the commission about which the petitioner is complaining, rather than the
> confirmation of this commission given in the endorsement."

The text of these CPR citations:

1) p. 474 "Dec. 1. York. The like to John de Mutford, John Bacun, John de Radenhale, and John Claver on complaint by John de Neyrford touching the persons who broke his close at Wesenham, co. Norfolk, and carried away his goods."

2) p. 537 "July 8. Westminster. Commission of oyer and terminer to John de Mutford, John Bacun, John de Redenhale and John Claver, on complaint by John de Neyrford that John Sprygi, Simon Plesent, Robert de Reppes and John Caunceler, with others, broke his close at Wesenham, co. Norfolk, and took and carried away his goods. Witness, the said earl."

taf

taf

unread,
Feb 13, 2021, 1:11:03 AMFeb 13
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> Undoubtedly the best secondary treatment of the troubled marital career of John, Earl of Warenne (d 1347) is F. Royston Fairbanks' monograph "The Last Earl of Warenne and Surrey, and the Distribution of His Possessions" (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal XIX, 1907, pp 193-264), which cites numerous primary sources.
>
> The affair between the Earl and Maud de Nerford was in play by 1313,
> when the first round of contentious divorce proceedings began. She
> was described as "Matilda who was the wife of S. de Diriba" (identified
> by Fairbanks as Sir Simon de Derby).
>
> Apparently prior to this, the Earl already had at least one illegitimate son,
> William, who was granted the manor and advowson of Beeston, Norfolk
> by his father in 1311. That son was, unsurprisingly, a minor when a
> presentation to Beeston rectory was made by the earl as custodian in
> March 1311 (Register of John Salmon, Bishop of Norwich, 1299-1325, E.
> Gemmill [ed], 2019, p 108).
>
> On 4 August 1316 the Earl arranged for settlements to be made to himself
> for life, remainder to John de Warenne son of Matilda de Neirford (sic)
> and the heirs of his body, remainder to Thomas de Warenne, son of the
> said Maud (sic) -- these were the settlements referred to in the Patent
> Rolls entries for 22 November 1345 and 10 February 1345/6, by which
> time those two sons were professed in the Order of St John and thus not
> expected to leave legitimate issue.

An addition to the early timeline that refers to children of the couple, though does not name them - Helen Matthews, The Legitimacy of Bastards (2019) includes the following in reference to a 1331 confirmation to Lewes of grants for Earl John's soul and that of his wife Joan de Bar :

"This charter marks a contrast with one from 1316 when Warenne confirmed his and his ancestors' donations to the Priory of Thetford. Then it had been Maud Nerford and their children, rather than his wife, whose souls he had been concerned about: 'ac etiam pro salute animae Matildis de Nereford et antecessorum suorum, et puerorum nostrorum'."

(no page number in the preview Google is showing me, no citation given for the paragraph)

taf

Peter Stewart

unread,
Feb 13, 2021, 6:41:47 AMFeb 13
to
This quotation is from the end of John's confirmation of a series of his
predecessors' donations to Thetford priory, printed in Monasticon vol. 6
part II pp. 729-730, here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=hc3PxVZNZugC&pg=PA730.

Peter stewart

Mark Jennings

unread,
Feb 13, 2021, 6:44:57 AMFeb 13
to
There was a brief discussion of some of this back in 2010, when Peter Stewart sensibly picked up that the Warenne-Nerford spat must have meant that the Earl had ended his liaison with Maud by 1320, thus assisting in any estimate of the birthdates of their sons. He also added the following very useful item on 25.10.2010:

"At least two of these children were born before 30 April 1313, when John de
Monmouth, bishop of Llandaff, mentioned them in writing to Robert
Winchelsey, archibishop of Canterbury, and other prelates in the provincial
council of 1313 in London - here's a new reference for your list, _Records
of Convocation_ edited by Gerald Bray, vol. 3, Canterbury, 1313-1377
(Woodbridge, 2005), p. 8 [NB the editor misdates this 30 April 1314, but
Robert Winchelsey died on 11 May 1313]:

"Scelus nefandum adulterii notorii quod nobilis vir Iohannes de Warenne,
comes Surriae damnabiliter perpetrare non metuit et notorie committere non
desistit ... (nobili muliere domina Iohanna, excellentissimi principis
Edwardi, Dei gratia regis Angliae nepote, uxore sua legitima, cui se olim in
facie ecclesiae solemniter compulavit, sine iudicio ecclesiae temere
dimissa), diabolus instigavit quandam Matildam de Narford, quae Domino
Simoni de Dribi nuptiis ex more celebratis matrimonialiter adhuc fuisse
coniuncta, in adulteriis detinuit amplexibus ... sicut in adulterio per
multa iam tempora notorie detenuit et adhuc detinet et soboles praestitit
sui testes adhuc superstites ex ipsa suscitavit ..."

This text is from the register of the succeeding archbishop, Walter
Reynolds, folios 52v-53r"

Although we don't know how many of the illegitimate children were born to Maud de Nerford (William the knight, William the prior, Joan, Katherine and Isabel remain 'motherless', we can guess that the affair began circa 1310, two children were born by April 1313 - but probably only two boys (John and Thomas) needed to be provided for in 1316, when the grand resettlement was made - and then perhaps Ralph and Edward followed between 1316 and 1320.

taf

unread,
Feb 14, 2021, 6:40:17 PMFeb 14
to
In addition to this entry I am finding two other references to 'Sir" Simon de Driby during this period in primary records. In 1318 "Sir Simon de Driby" was compensated for taking Gilbert de Middeltone and his brother John to the Tower, and in 1319, "Sir Simon de Dryby" was one of the admirals of ships going against the Scots.

While secondary sources identify this 'Sir Simon' with the son of Robert, I am not finding any primary sources that allow this identification to be made definitively. There were at least three Simons living during this period.

1. Simon, son of Sir Simon de Driby, debtor, 1290. In 1313 and 1325 the same debt was outstanding, owed by Simon son of Simon (no 'Sir'), who could be the same man, or the next generation. (TNA)
2. Simon, son of Sir John de Driby, creditor, with his father, 1311 (TNA)
3. Simon, son of Robert de Driby and Joan, d. 1322, widow Margery, heir brother Robert (40 & more) (IPM)

On #1, the father in the 1290 record is Sir Simon, fl. 1270s, 1280s, husband of Alice dau Hugh Fitz Ralph. W.O. Massingberd, History of the parish of Ormsby-cum-Ketsby (1893) reports:
6 Edw . I. Simon de Dryby and Alice his wife , besides Robert his son and heir , had Hugh , Ralph , and Simon . - Feet of Fines , Lincoln , case 5.

taf





taf

unread,
Feb 14, 2021, 9:11:13 PMFeb 14
to
On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 3:40:17 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> On #1, the father in the 1290 record is Sir Simon, fl. 1270s, 1280s, husband of Alice dau Hugh Fitz Ralph. W.O. Massingberd, History of the parish of Ormsby-cum-Ketsby (1893) reports:
> 6 Edw . I. Simon de Dryby and Alice his wife , besides Robert his son and heir , had Hugh , Ralph , and Simon . - Feet of Fines , Lincoln , case 5.

For a summary of this final concord, and a lot more on the Dribys, see:
W. O. Massingberd, "Lords of the Manor of Driby", Reports and Papers of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of the Counties of Lincoln and Northampton, vol. 23, pp. 106-134
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015062791267&view=1up&seq=192

The original is here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/CP25(1)/CP25(1)132Lincs52/IMG_0028.htm
and a second here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/CP25(1)/CP25(1)132Lincs52/IMG_0031.htm

taf

taf

unread,
Feb 17, 2021, 9:44:33 PMFeb 17
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:

> Then we have the will of the Earl from 1347, in which he names his son "Monsieur
> William" (ie Sir, evidently a knight), another son "Dn William" destined for the the
> church according to the tenor of his bequest,

On this latter:
The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216-1377, p. 237
William de Warenne M. of Lewes, illegitimate s. of John, Earl Warenne, born at Conisbrough Castle (Cal. Misc. Inq., II, 397). Occ. 1 June 1335 (BL, Stowe ms. 935, f. 45r); Mar. 1337 (CCR 1337-39, pp. 106, 109) 22 Feb. 1339, 8 May 1339) (CCR 1339-41, pp. 18, 82). Transferred to Castleacre (q.v.) from Monks Horton (CPL, III, 124).

Cal. Papal Reg. 2:11
1306 4 Non. June Bordeaux. To John, son of John, earl of Warrenne, of the diocese of Hereford, who having been ordained priest under age, held the churches of Westbiri, Dorkingue, and Fichelarke, in the dioceses of Winchester and York, and a canonry and prebend of York, without papal dispensation. Dispensation to retain the same.
. . .
1306 4 Non. June Bordeaux. To William, son of John, earl of Warrenne, who having been ordained priest under age, and held the churches of Heytfeld and Northerpples, in the dioceses of Norwich and York. Dispensation to retain the same, with licence to accept an additional benefice.

Cal. Inq. Misc. 2:397
1622. Writ to the sheriff of Kent. Witness : — Edward, duke of Cornwall and earl of Chester, guardian of England. Kenyngton. 8 November 12 Edward III. [1338.]
Inquisition : — Canterbury. Wednesday after St. Lucy.
William de Warenna, prior of Horton, co. Kent, is son of John earl of Warenne, and was born in England at Conesburgh castle, co. York ; neither he nor his predecessors have made any payment or done any service [intendenciam] to any foreign religious house. Cf. Close Roll Calendar, 1339-1341, p. 18.
C. Inq. Misc. File 136. (13.)

Cal. Close R. 1339-41, p. 18, 82
22 Feb. 1339 Kennington. To the sheriff of Kent. Order not to intermeddle further with the priory of Horton in that county, which is a cell of the priory of Lewes, as is said, restoring the issues to the prior, as lately at the prior‘s suit showing that he is an Englishman and has never made any apportum or tax to any religious house beyond the sea, and that the priory and its possessions were never taken into the king’s hands with the possessions of alien men of religion, yet the priory has been taken into the king's hands as an alien priory and the prior has besought the king to order his hand to be amoved therefrom, wherefore the king ordered the sheriff to take an inquisition upon the matter, by which it is found that William de Warenna, son of John de Warenna, earl of Surrey, the present prior, was born in England in Conesburgh castle, co. York, and neither he nor his predecessors have made any apportum, tax or service (intendenciam) to any religious house beyond the sea.

8 May 1339 Berkampstead. To the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. Order to revoke assignments made upon the priory of Horton, co. Kent, a cell of the priory of Lewes, and permit the prior to hold the priory and lands without rendering any form to the king as an alien, provided that he answer for any other forms which he may owe, as he has shown the king that he is an Englishman, and neither he nor his predecessors have been bound to make any apportum, tax or service to any religious house in parts beyond the sea, and the priory has never been taken into the hands of the kings as alien in past times, and it has been so taken by the king's order, and the king ordered the sheriff of Kent to take an inquisition upon the matter, by which it is found that William de Warenna son of John de Warenna, earl of Surrey, then prior, was born in England in Conesburgh Castle, co. York, and no priors had made any apportion, tax or service to any religious house beyond the sea, wherefore the king ordered the sheriff not to intermeddle further with the priory, and now the king has learned that the treasurer and barons aggrieve the prior, pretending that he ought to render a ferm for the priory, and have made assignments upon the prior for that ferm to divers persons, whereupon the prior has besought the king to provide a remedy.

Cal. Papal Reg. 3:12, 124, 139
1344 17 Kal. Dec. Avignon. To John, earl of Warenne. Recommending John de Janicuria for the priory of St. Pancras, in the diocese of Chichester, now void, and accepting the instance made for the promotion of bis son William, prior of Castleacre, by Iterius, abbot of Cluny.

1344 16 Kal. Feb. Avignon. To the priors of Westacre, Cokesford, and Thetford. Mandate to make provision to William de Warrenne, successively prior of Horton and Castleacre, of the latter, which he obtained irregularly by virtue of a dispensation from Benedict XII. enabling him to hold any office of his order short of the abbatial, and which is therefore void since this does not include a conventual priory. [Cal. Pet. i. 38.]

1344 16 Kal. Feb. Avignon. To William de Warrenn, monk of Lewes. Rehabilitation touching dispensations granted him, so that, having held the non-conventual priory of Horton, be may hold the conventual priory of Castelacre, notwithstanding illegitimacy.

TNA Petitions to the King, etc.
SC 8/247/12337
Petitioners: Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel.
Nature of request: Fitz Alan requests remedy and that Pileryn be commanded to cease the grievous and wrongful demand for the first fruits made on the priory of Castle Acre because of the provision of Warenne as prior, as the demand would ruin the house.
People mentioned: Raymond Pileryn, proctor of the Pope; William de Warenne, bastard son of [John de Warenne], Earl of Warenne, prior of Castle Acre.
Note: The petition dates to 1348 as the privy seal warrant with which it was formerly enclosed dates to 22 February 1348 [22 Edw. III] (C 81/328/19299). William de Warenne's successor as prior was appointed in 1348, and the petition appears to be in the aftermath of Warenne's election and subsequent attempts to obtain dispensation for his illegitimacy (The Heads of Religious Houses, II, pp.224-5). The petition also seems to be after the death of the last Warenne earl in 1348, as the petitioner's interest in Castle Acre Priory only came as heir to Warenne.

taf

taf

unread,
Feb 17, 2021, 10:39:24 PMFeb 17
to
On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 6:44:33 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Then we have the will of the Earl from 1347, in which he names his son "Monsieur
> > William" (ie Sir, evidently a knight), another son "Dn William" destined for the the
> > church according to the tenor of his bequest,
>
> On this latter:

Another mention:
Cal. Pat. R. Ed. II, 1307-1313, p. 343
1311 April 15. Berwick on Tweed. Licence for the alienation in mortmain by John de Warenna, earl of Surrey, to Master William de Warenna, parson of the church of North Reppes, of a messuage and 4 acres of land in that place.

taf

taf

unread,
Feb 17, 2021, 11:07:52 PMFeb 17
to
On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 6:44:33 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Then we have the will of the Earl from 1347, in which he names his son "Monsieur
> > William" (ie Sir, evidently a knight), another son "Dn William" destined for the the
> > church according to the tenor of his bequest,
>
> On this latter:
> The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216-1377, p. 237
> William de Warenne M. of Lewes, illegitimate s. of John, Earl Warenne, born at Conisbrough Castle (Cal. Misc. Inq., II, 397). Occ. 1 June 1335 (BL, Stowe ms. 935, f. 45r); Mar. 1337 (CCR 1337-39, pp. 106, 109) 22 Feb. 1339, 8 May 1339) (CCR 1339-41, pp. 18, 82). Transferred to Castleacre (q.v.) from Monks Horton (CPL, III, 124).
>
> Cal. Papal Reg. 2:11
> 1306 4 Non. June Bordeaux. To John, son of John, earl of Warrenne, of the diocese of Hereford, who having been ordained priest under age, held the churches of Westbiri, Dorkingue, and Fichelarke, in the dioceses of Winchester and York, and a canonry and prebend of York, without papal dispensation. Dispensation to retain the same.
> . . .
> 1306 4 Non. June Bordeaux. To William, son of John, earl of Warrenne, who having been ordained priest under age, and held the churches of Heytfeld and Northerpples, in the dioceses of Norwich and York. Dispensation to retain the same, with licence to accept an additional benefice.

Sorry, their initial episcopal dispensation was in 1294, so these and the William in the followup are sons of the previous Earl John. For them see:
S. J. Chadwick, "Notes on Dewsbury Church and Some of Its Rectors and Vicars", The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, vol. 20, pp. 369-446 at 405-417

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044094420452&view=1up&seq=547

taf

Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 21, 2021, 11:55:58 AMJul 21
to
Now then, I wander if there could be a chance that Felicia, the widow of Ralph de Skeyton who survived him and was living in 1358, according to Bloomfield, was a sister of Maud de Nerford?

This is copied and pasted from Peter Stewarts comments in a Google Group discussion on 24th of October 2010:

"What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they were?
See CP vol. 9 p. 469 note (k):

"Besides his 2 elder sons [John (died 5 Feb 1328/29) and Thomas (died 14 May
1344)], who suc. him in turn, he [William de Nerford (died 12 June/9 July
1302)] left issue Piers, Edmund, Felicie, and Maud (Parl. Writs; Rye,
Norfolk Fines, p. 172; Cal. Inq. p. m., vol. vii, no. 350 ; Cal. Patent
Rolls, 1313-17, pp. 5, 401; Her. and Gen., vol. vii, pp. 215-218)." -

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/hu1M9_JmbtA/m/OPJdEcK6pmkJ

From British History Online:

"In 1315 Sir Ralf de Skeyton was lord and patron, who in 1321 released to Alice Bretoun and her heirs, and to Robert Brian of Felmingham and Hawise his wife, and their heirs, all his claim in the homages, services, and customs which they formerly held of Sir Ralf, and Sara his mother, in Felmingham and Skeyton; he sealed with Vair erm. and sab. a bend. Felicia his widow was alive in 1358, but in 1323 Sir Ralf settled it, with Boton, on himself and

Maud de Nerford, and her sons, as in Boton, and in 1345 Alice, sister and heiress of Sir Ralf, then widow of Hautein, her second husband, released all right to the said Maud." -

But the next sentence might be a bit confusing:

" In 1345, Sir William de Warren, Knt. held two parts of a fee in Skeyton, Boton, Crostweyt, and Tibenham, of the heirs of Fulk Baniard, and had issue, Edward, John, and William, and died in 1382, leaving to his son, Sir John Warren, Knt. whose wife Margaret carried it to her second husband, John Mayne-Wareyne, who had it in 1401, and held it in 1403, of Hadeston manor, and it passed with Booton, till it was purchased by

William Hare of Beeston, Gent. about 1532."


"Skeyton's Manor, or Skeyton Hall." Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Skeyton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 359-364. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp359-364 [accessed 21 July 2021].


https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp359-364

Shouldn't "Sir William de Warren, Knt" mentioned as holding Skeyton etc in 1345 be substituted for Sir Edward de Warren, Knt?



Edward's son Sir John Warren married Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Stafford of Wickham. John died in 1386 and was buried at Booton, Norfolk.
His widow Margaret then married John Mainwaring (or le Mainwaring) of Over Peover. Margaret died April the 6th 1418. Her Inquisition Post Mortem was taken the same year.

John's Inquisition Post Mortem (abstract of) can be viewed here on p.25 - 26:

"Johannes de Wareyn, Chivaler (10 Richard.II)." -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

His wife Margaret's (widow of John Mainwaring or similar surname) inquisition dated 9th of June 1418, can be viewed in the same book on pages 131 - 132.
On the next page follows some notes of the Warrens and other information followed by a tree. Relating to John this tree reads:

"Sir John Warying, or Warren, died Sunday next before St. Andrew's day, 10 Ric 2, 1386." -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Margaret's Inquisition Post Mortem from 1418 can also be viewed on p.275 of Earwaker's History of East Cheshire, Volume 2. The paragraph before this inquisition states that Margaret was the daughter of Sir John de Stafford of Wickham, Norfolk. Note (h) on this page states that the marriage settlement was dated 1371 "is preserved amongst the Woodford deeds now at Capesthorne."
Her inquisition states that Margaret had been the wife of Sir John de Warren. They had a son Nicholas. John then died, and Margaret then married John "le Mainwarying." Nicholas has a son named Lawrence. Nicholas, her son died while Margaret was still alive. So Margaret's grandson Lawrence "aged 24 years or more" was heir. -

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=317&skin=2021&q1=Sir%20Edward%20Warren

In 1369 John was heir to the daughter of his cousin.
John's cousin was Sir Richard de Eton, alias de Stokeport/Stockport. Sir Richard's daughter Isabel/Isabella died on October the 18th 1369.
Volume II, p.275 of Earwaker's History of East Cheshire (above) states that Sir Edward's son, "John de Warren, was found heir to his cousin Isabel de Stokeport." It might seem a bit pedantic, but she was the daughter of his cousin, not strictly a plain cousin.

This is Isabel/Isabella's inquisition post mortem taken in 1370, which also states that John was above the age of 26 years. The relationships written out in this inquisition states that her father was John's cousin. It also states that John's father was Sir Edward de Warren:

"...she died in the feast of St.Luke the Evangelist (October 18th), 43 Edward III (1369), and John, the son of Sir Edward Warren, Knt., is next of kin and next heir, namely son of a certain Cicely, sister of Robert de Stokeport, father of the said Sir Richard de Stokeport, Knt., father of the said Isabella, and the said John is of the age of 26 years and more." -

"Isabel, daughter of Sir Richard de Stokeport, Knt: Cheshire Inquisitions Post Mortem - Record Office." in "The Barons of Stockport." Earwaker, J.P. (1877). East Cheshire Past And Present: Or A History Of The Hundred Of Macclesfield In The County Palatine of Chester. From Original Records. Volume I, p.341.

It can be viewed on Google Books here:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/East_Cheshire_Past_and_Present/VwMcAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

So Isabel was John's first cousin once removed.

Page 341 of this book shows the family tree "Stokeport and Eton of Stockport." It is clearly a mistake by listing on there John's father as Sir William Warren, Knt, and not Sir Edward: The information in the above Inquisition Post Mortem gives his father as Edward. And also previous pages in the same chapter give his father as Sir Edward:

"In addition to the three sons mentioned above, Nicholas de Eton and Joan had a daughter Cicely, who married for her first husband John, son of Sir John de Arderne, Knt. (as see in the Arderne pedigree), but who was divorced from him in 1332. She subsequently married Sir Edward Warren, Knt., whose son, Sir John Warren, ultimately succeeded to Stockport, Poynton, &c." -

From p.339 of above book.

Then there is this one:

"SIR JOHN DE WARREN, KNT., the son of Sir Edward de Warren, Knt., and Cicely de Eton his wife, who thus succeeded to the manors and lands of the de Stokeports, was the first of a long line of Warrens who successively held these estates." -

From p.342 of the above book.

Then there is this relating to Boton (Booton, Norfolk) from British History Online:

"In 1323 Oliver de Redham, and Ralf, rector of Skeyton, as trustees, settled this and Skeyton on Sir Ralf de Skeyton aforesaid for life, and then on Maud de Nerford and her two sons, Ralf and Edward.

¶This Maud (fn. 7) was concubine to William Earl Warren, and had by him these two sons, who took the name of Warren, the Earl having no legitimate issue; (fn. 8) and Sir Edward Warren, (fn. 9) Knt. (fn. 10) had the manor here; his 2d son, Sir John de Warren, Knt. succeeded him here, and was buried in Boton church in 1382; this Sir John, in 1347, was not in possession, for then Felicia de Skeyton held it in dower at half a fee, of Thomas de Nerford, who held it of the honour of Clare; Sir John married Margaret, daughter and heiress of Sir John Stafford of Wykham, Knt who afterwards remarried to John le Mayne Warren, who in 1401 was lord here; and in 1427, Laurence Mainwarren had it." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Boton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 352-359. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359 [accessed 21 July 2021].

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359

Once again we know that this Maud de Nerford was concubine to John Earl Warren, not William as above stated. And Sir John de Warren died in 1386 and was buried at Boton (Booton).

I KNOW I have waffled on for FAR too long. But what does anyone think to the idea of Felicia the widow of Ralph Skeyton being a sister of Maud de Nerford?
Is it a none starter?





Thank you very much.

Richard Ebdon.









Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 21, 2021, 12:35:03 PMJul 21
to

> Page 341 of this book shows the family tree "Stokeport and Eton of Stockport."

Sorry, I meant to put p.343. -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/East_Cheshire_Past_and_Present/VwMcAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 22, 2021, 8:22:29 AMJul 22
to
Regarding Sir Edward Warren, illegitimate son of the last Earl, there is this note (9) from "Boton" on British History online:

"9. Sir Edward was alive in 1365, and Cecily, daughter and coheir of Nicholas de Eton, Knt. relict of John, son and heir of John Ardern, Knt. was his wife." -

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359

Does anybody know please where the evidence is, apart from Bloomfield stating this in his book, that Sir Edward was alive in 1365?

I also found this from Geni.com on Sir Edward's biography:

"He was at the Seige of Calais in 1347."

Is anyone aware that there exists evidence stating that he was at the Siege of Calais?

I know there is probably a chance that he may have been at this siege because part of his biography on Geni.com states:

"In 1346 he was serving in France in the retinue of his brother, William de Warenne; his father the Earl requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the demand to find a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk." -

https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-de-Warren-of-Poynton/6000000000146847868

And part of the above statement is true: I remember viewing on google groups somewhere that John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey stated in 1345/ 1346 that his sons William and Edward were ready to "serve the king abroad," and requested Edward was to be discharged from the demand to find a man at arms for his lands in Norfolk. But where is it recorded that Edward was in the retinue of his brother William?

And this statement about Edward being Knighted on the same page as above does not make sense at all either:

"Knighted by Joan de Stoke Knight (Joan de Stockport)."

I have always wandered when it was that Edward may have been knighted though:

He was just named as plain Edward in his father John's will in 1347.

By 1348 or 1349 (sorry I can't remember the record that I viewed recording this), Edward had become a Knight. It may have been a record in 1348/49 in relation to his Norfolk estates.

Thank you very much.

Any information would be gratefully accepted.


Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 22, 2021, 8:39:44 AMJul 22
to
On Thursday, 22 July 2021 at 13:22:29 UTC+1, Richard Ebdon wrote:
>
> I have always wandered when it was that Edward may have been knighted though:
>
> He was just named as plain Edward in his father John's will in 1347.
>
> By 1348 or 1349 (sorry I can't remember the record that I viewed recording this), Edward had become a Knight. It may have been a record in 1348/49 in relation to his Norfolk estates.

I think I've found it:

He is recorded as Sir Edward Warren by 1348:

" III. Bintre's Portion.

1275, Rt. de Skeyton, and Cecily his wife, and John de Bintre were then patrons.

1304, James Bacon, by Rt. de Bintre.

1320, John de la Grene, by Sir Ralph de Skeyton, Knt. this turn.

¶1346, Maud, relict of John de Dallyng, was patroness this turn.

1348, (fn. 6) Nicks. le Weyte, by Sir Edward Warren, Knt.

Bintre Manor.
¶In 1275 it belonged to John de Bintre, and Hawise his wife, they purchased one moiety of it of Robert de Skeyton, and Cecily his wife, sister probably of Hawise, and in 1285, he had view of frank pledge, and assize of bread and beer. In 1313, Maud de Bintre had it; she married John de Dallyng, and was his widow in 1346, after this it passed as may be seen in Bintre's portion above.

Footnotes:
6. Each portion at this time was taxed et 5 marks." -



Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Itteringham', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 472-477. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp472-477 [accessed 22 July 2021].

Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 22, 2021, 9:13:19 AMJul 22
to
On Thursday, 11 February 2021 at 15:56:17 UTC, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Could Ralph (and Edward) the son(s) of Maud de Nerford in 1324, be the illegitimate
> > issue of Sir Ralph de Skeyton, born after the end of her liaison with the Earl?
> I don't see any reason to go there. If this is indeed the same Maud, then it seems needless to posit the Edward de Warenne, Earl John's son to be different than the Edward de Warenne who was son of Earl John's mistress. And if this is not the same Maud, then all bets are off. Either way, I think it more likely Sir Ralph de Skeyton was a kinsman of Maud.

Yes, Ralph could have been a kinsman of Maud: Could Maud have been the sister of Sir Ralph de Skeyton's wife Felicie?
Please see my comment relating to this.

Thank you.

Richard.

taf

unread,
Jul 22, 2021, 11:04:32 AMJul 22
to
Looks like a reasonable possibility, though this wouldn't explain Ralph's sister executing a quitclaim (unless I have lost track of something).

taf

Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 22, 2021, 11:49:14 AMJul 22
to
Thank you.

Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 22, 2021, 12:09:26 PMJul 22
to
On Thursday, 22 July 2021 at 13:22:29 UTC+1, Richard Ebdon wrote:
>
>
> "He was at the Seige of Calais in 1347."
>
> Is anyone aware that there exists evidence stating that he was at the Siege of Calais?
>
> I know there is probably a chance that he may have been at this siege because part of his biography on Geni.com states:
>
> "In 1346 he was serving in France in the retinue of his brother, William de Warenne; his father the Earl requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the demand to find a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk." -
>
> https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-de-Warren-of-Poynton/6000000000146847868
>
> And part of the above statement is true: I remember viewing on google groups somewhere that John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey stated in 1345/ 1346 that his sons William and Edward were ready to "serve the king abroad," and requested Edward was to be discharged from the demand to find a man at arms for his lands in Norfolk.

Here we are I've found this one:

"1346. April 22. John, Earl of Warenne, Surrey, and Stratherne, to the Chancellor. As his two sons, Edward de Warenne and William de Warenne, are ready to attend the King abroad, he begs that the former may be discharged from the demand to find a man- at-arms for his lands in Norfolk, as he holds no others there. (3)

(3). Pat. 20 Edw. III., part 1., m. 15, p. 265, No. 1450*." -

"The Last Earl of Warenne And Surrey, And The Distribution of His Possessions". Fairbank, F.R. (1907). The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal vol.XIX. p.248:

https://archive.org/details/YAJ019/page/270/mode/2up

But that still doesn't necessarily mean that Edward was at the siege of Calais, or even in the retinue of his brother William. Although there is a possibility that he may have been.




Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 25, 2021, 4:47:15 PMJul 25
to
On Thursday, 22 July 2021 at 16:04:32 UTC+1, taf wrote:
"Blomefield (63) reports that in 1323 Oliver de Redham and Ralf, Rector of Skeyton,
acting as Trustees, settled a moiety of the manor of Booton, together with the manor
of Skeyton, on Sir Ralf de Skeyton for life, and then on Maud de Nerford and her two
sons, Ralf and Edward, who took the name of Warren. Watson (64) refers it seems to
this same settlement, but states one Rither vicar of Aylesham, had released his right,
as a trustee in the said manors to said Maud and heirs of her body. Blomefield (65 )also
reports that subsequent to the settlement, Alice, sister and heiress of Sir Ralf, then
widow of Hauteyn her second husband, released all her moiety of said manors to
Maud de Nerford. Watson (66) dates this release as 1326, and states Alice settled this
moiety on Maud de Nerford, and heirs of her body, with remainder to Ralph son of
said Maud and heirs of his body, remainder to his brother Edward and his heirs of his
body, remainder to Alice and her heirs. Watson (67) also refers to an indenture dated
1326, concerning the manors of Skeyton, Booton, and lands and rent in Booton,
Skeyton, Canston, Bradiston, Tybenham, and Briston to be settled as above.

(Notes):
63 Blomefield, History of Norfolk 3 (1769) page 609
64 Watson, John. Memoirs of the ancient earls of Warren and Surrey, and their descendants to the
present time. By the Rev. John Watson, 1782, vol 2 p91
65 Blomefield History of Norfolk 3 (1769) page 604
66 Watson, John. Memoirs of the ancient earls of Warren and Surrey, and their descendants to the
present time. By the Rev. John Watson, 1782, vol 2 p91
67 ibid. " -

THE MATERNITY of JOHN and BEATRIX de BREWES
by P.W. Mackenzie, pp 6-7:

http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/family/Joan%20Brewes.pdf


Thank you.

Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 27, 2021, 4:48:06 PMJul 27
to

"In 1323 Oliver de Redham, and Ralf, rector of Skeyton, as trustees, settled this and Skeyton on Sir Ralf de Skeyton aforesaid for life, and then on Maud de Nerford and her two sons, Ralf and Edward.

¶This Maud (fn. 7) was concubine to William (should obviously be John) Earl Warren, and had by him these two sons, who took the name of Warren, the Earl having no legitimate issue; (fn. 8) and Sir Edward Warren, (fn. 9) Knt. (fn. 10) had the manor here." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Boton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 352-359. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359 [accessed 21 July 2021].

Maud had died by the 22nd of November 1345. Calendar of Patent Rolls Edward III Vol 7 Page 16 (image p.34), showing this can be viewed here:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079307&view=1up&seq=34&skin=2021

Then these is this from 1346:

"1346. April 22. John, Earl of Warenne, Surrey, and Stratherne, to the Chancellor. As his two sons, Edward de Warenne and William de Warenne, are ready to attend the King abroad, he begs that the former may be discharged from the demand to find a man- at-arms for his lands in Norfolk, as he holds no others there. (3)

(3). Pat. 20 Edw. III., part 1., m. 15, p. 265, No. 1450*." -

"The Last Earl of Warenne And Surrey, And The Distribution of His Possessions". Fairbank, F.R. (1907). The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal vol.XIX. p.248:

https://archive.org/details/YAJ019/page/270/mode/2up

Page 83 here from Wrottesley, George, (1898), "Crécy And Calais", indicates that Edward was in the retinue of William de Warrenne. -

https://archive.org/details/CrecyAndCalais/page/n115/mode/2up?q=Edward+de+Warrenne

Page 123 of the above book also gives reference to Edward having a letter of protection.

Details relating to Edward's lands in Norfolk which he held in 1346/ joint mesne lord with in this year:

Feudal Aids Vol 3 Page 483 mentioning Edward as a joint mesne lord of lands and tenements in "Crostweyth" with William Whitwell in the hundred of Tunstede. -

"Robertus de Gymyngham, Willelmus de Crostweyth, Laurencius Sprigge et Matilda, que fuit uxor Rogeri de Kerdeston, tenent in Crostweyth di. f. ra. de Edwardo de Warrennia et de Willelmo de Wytewell, et iidem de Thoma de Grey, et idem Thomas de Johanne filio Walteri, et idem Johannes de rege, quod Johannes de Gymyngham, senior, et Johannes de Gymyngham, minor, Willelmus de Crostweyth, Rogerus de Tybenham quondam tenueruut." -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/482/mode/2up?view=theater

Feudal Aids Vol 3 Page 485 mentioning Edward held lands in "Crostweyt" (Crostwick?), "Skegton" (Skeyton), "Berton" (where is/ was this please? ), and "Tybenham" (Tibenham). -

"Edwardus de Warrenne, miles, tenet in Skegton in dicto hundredo, Crostweyt, Berton et Tybenham duas partes j. f. m. de heredibus Fulconis Baniard, et dicti heredes de domino rege, quod quondam luit Johannis de Skegton xxvj.ft. viij.d." -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/484/mode/2up?view=theater

Boton (Booton) and Skeyton in Norfolk were in the hundred of South Erpingham. Crostwick, and also including Berton (I think) were in the hundred of Tunstede. Tybenham (Tibenham), fell within the hundred of Depwade.

And if I have it right (these pages are all in Latin), on page 487, it shows that Felicia de Skeyton in the same year (widow of Sir Ralph), held Boton (Booton), of the (heirs of?) Thomas de Nerford. -

"Felicia de Skegton tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome de Nerford, et dicti heredes de domina de Clare, et dicta domina de rege, quod Augnes de Baldeswell et Willelmus de Thorp quondam tenuerunt - - - xx.s." -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/486/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Boton

Feudal Aids Vol 3 Page 539 describing that Edward Warrene was mesne lord of lands in Rougham and Fransham in the hundred of Laundich, Norfolk. -

"Johannes atte Grene et Johannes de Doune et percenarii tenent j. f. m. in Rougham, Fransham de Edwardo de Warrennia, et idem de heredibus Johannis de Gatesdene, et idem de comite Warrennie, unde Alicia Mareschal tenet quartam partem de Johanne Extraneo et percenariis suis, et idem de predictis heredibus Johannis de Gatesden, et idem de comite Warrennie, et comes de rege, quod heres Willelmi le Boteler quondam tenuit ---xl.s." -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/538/mode/2up?view=theater

Page 83 here from Wrottesley, George, (1898). Crécy And Calais, indicates that Edward was in the retinue of William de Warrenne. -

https://archive.org/details/CrecyAndCalais/page/n115/mode/2up?q=Edward+de+Warrenne

Because none of these above mention Edward's brother Ralph, and because (below), Ralph was not named in his father's will in 1347, P.W. McKenzie deduced that Ralph may have died before 1342, when Ralph's widow Joan, daughter of Nicholas Percy, married Peter de Brewes. -

THE MATERNITY of JOHN and BEATRIX de BREWES
by P.W. Mackenzie, p17:

http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/family/Joan%20Brewes.pdf


Edward was named as the son of the Earl John in his will written at Conisborough Castle on the 24th of June 1347. He was left £20 in this will. -

"The Last Earl of Warenne And Surrey, And The Distribution of His Possessions". Fairbank, F.R. (1907). The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal vol.XIX, p.254:

https://archive.org/details/YAJ019/page/276/mode/2up

Edward was alive in 1348. This relates to Itteringham in Norfolk:

" III. Bintre's Portion.

1275, Rt. de Skeyton, and Cecily his wife, and John de Bintre were then patrons.

1304, James Bacon, by Rt. de Bintre.

1320, John de la Grene, by Sir Ralph de Skeyton, Knt. this turn.

¶1346, Maud, relict of John de Dallyng, was patroness this turn.

1348, (fn. 6) Nicks. le Weyte, by Sir Edward Warren, Knt.

Bintre Manor.
¶In 1275 it belonged to John de Bintre, and Hawise his wife, they purchased one moiety of it of Robert de Skeyton, and Cecily his wife, sister probably of Hawise, and in 1285, he had view of frank pledge, and assize of bread and beer. In 1313, Maud de Bintre had it; she married John de Dallyng, and was his widow in 1346, after this it passed as may be seen in Bintre's portion above.

Footnotes:
6. Each portion at this time was taxed et 5 marks." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Itteringham', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 472-477. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp472-477 [accessed 22 July 2021].

He was dead by the 20th of October 1349. There is this from that date stating Edward had previously been lord of Skeyton in Norfolk, and that his wife was named Cicely:

"(1349. October 20. Westminster). Commission of oyer and terminer to Richard de Kelleshull, Ralph de Bokkyngg, Robert Clere and John de Berneye, touching a complaint by
Peter de Brewes containing that, whereas he, in his manor of Skeyton,
co. Norfolk, which by a writing of Edward de Garrenne, late lord of that
manor, is bound to him in a rent of 10 marks for which he can distrain when in arrear, had taken certain cattle of Cecily late the wife of the said Edward by John Bryd and Richard de Chinham, his servants, for 5 marks of the rent in arrear, and the same John and Richard would have impounded these, some evildoers rescued them and assaulted John and Richard and other of his men and servants, whereby he lost their service for a great time. By p.s" -

C.P.R. 1348–1350 (1905):451–452. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr06offigoog/page/n462/mode/2up

As you can see, Peter de Brewes, held Skeyton at this date. P.W.Mackenzie presumed that Peter temporarily held Skeyton at this time on behalf of his wife Joan as her dower from her first husband Ralph Warrene, Edward's brother. This Peter divorced Joan sometime between the 27th of January 1352 and the 24th of October of that year, after which Joan had married Alan Cheney. -

THE MATERNITY of JOHN and BEATRIX de BREWES
by P.W. Mackenzie, p17:

http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/family/Joan%20Brewes.pdf

We have this from 1352 which also references Edward and his wife Cicely and the hundred of Macclesfield in Cheshire:

"May 23. 1352. London. Order by advice of the prince's council to Sir Thomas de Ferrers, justice of Cestre, (obviously Chester) or his lieutenant to put in respite until the arrival in those parts of the prince or one of his council between now and St. Peter's Chains next the distress taken on the doomsmen of the hundred of Macclesfield for the sum due to the prince on account of the reversal in the Common Bench of the judgement given by them in an eyre at Macclesfield on divers bills of debt and covenant given on Sir John Darden (probably Ardern/ de Ardern) by Edward de Garren (de Warren) and Cecily his wife." -

Reg. of Edward the Black Prince 3 (1932): 64.

Can be viewed here on image p.72:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000000339988&view=2up&seq=72&skin=2021&size=125&q1=Cecily

Edward and Cicely had a son named John. There is this information from the inquisition post mortem of Isabel/Isabella, daughter of Richard de Stokeport/ Stockport Knight, taken in 1370. It states that Johns father was Sir Edward de Warren, and his mother was Cicely. Cicely/Cecily was born an Eton. Her father was Nicholas. Nicholas had a son named Robert (brother of Cicely), who subsequently took/was given the surname of Stokeport/Stockport. Robert was this Isabel's grandfather:

"...she died in the feast of St.Luke the Evangelist (October 18th), 43 Edward III (1369), and John, the son of Sir Edward Warren, Knt., is next of kin and next heir, namely son of a certain Cicely, sister of Robert de Stokeport, father of the said Sir Richard de Stokeport, Knt., father of the said Isabella, and the said John is of the age of 26 years and more." -

"Isabel, daughter of Sir Richard de Stokeport, Knt: Cheshire Inquisitions Post Mortem - Record Office." in "The Barons of Stockport." Earwaker, J.P. (1877). East Cheshire Past And Present: Or A History Of The Hundred Of Macclesfield In The County Palatine of Chester. From Original Records. Volume I, p.341.

It can be viewed on Google Books here:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/East_Cheshire_Past_and_Present/VwMcAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Sir John Warren married Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Stafford of Wickham. John died in 1386 and was buried at Boton (Booton), Norfolk.
John's Inquisition Post Mortem (abstract of) can be viewed here on p.25 - 26:

"Johannes de Wareyn, Chivaler (10 Richard.II)." -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Pages 34 and 47-48 of this book give information relating to John and the custody of the manor of Woodplumpton in Lancashire, after his death. Page 48 appears to mention Skeyton.

His widow Margaret then married John Mainwaring (or le Mainwaring) of Over Peover.

And then in 1401-02 John Mainwaring written as "Johann Maynwaryn" on Feudal Aids Volume 3, p.617, held the manor of Syeyton. Crostwick, Berton, and Tybenham are also mentioned. All of these places were mentioned on page 485 in relation to lands which Edward de Warren earlier held in 1346:

"Johannes Maynwaryn tenet in Skeggeton in dicto hundredo, Crostweyt Berton, et Tybenham extra dictum hundredum duas partes j. f, m. de heredibus Fulconis Baniard, doinini de Haddystoun, quod Johannes Stuclee tenet de comite Rutlandie, ut de jure uxoris sue, et idem de rege, ut parcellam baronie vocate Baniardescastell." -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/616/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Meynwaren

Also in reference to Boton (Booton) it appears to state on p.618 that he held there. But the only difference between this and the one above is that it explains/appears to explain that John(? or another John Mainwaring or somebody?) was under age:

"Johannes Maynwaryn tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome de Nerford, et (lidem?) heredes de herede comitis le Marchie {sic), et est infra etatem etc."

John Mainwaring died before 1418: In this year his wife Margaret's inquisition post mortem was taken. It stated that John had died, and Margaret had previously been the wife of Sir John Warren. Her inquisition can be viewed on pages 131 - 132 here:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

And then in 1428, from Feudal Aids Volume 3, pages 554 and 555: There was a "Lawrence Maynwaren (Lawrence Mainwaring)" who held Skeyton, and Boton (Booton) in Norfolk:

"Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Skeyton duas partes J. f, m. de heredibus Fulconis Banyard, que nuper fuerunt Edwardi de Warenne."

"Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome Narford, quod nuper fuit Felicia de Skeyton." -

https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/554/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Meynwaren

Thank you.




Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 28, 2021, 7:09:07 AMJul 28
to


> And then in 1428, from Feudal Aids Volume 3, pages 554 and 555: There was a "Lawrence Maynwaren (Lawrence Mainwaring)" who held Skeyton, and Boton (Booton) in Norfolk:
>
> "Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Skeyton duas partes J. f, m. de heredibus Fulconis Banyard, que nuper fuerunt Edwardi de Warenne."
>
> "Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome Narford, quod nuper fuit Felicia de Skeyton." -
>
> https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/554/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Meynwaren
>
Or was this actually Lawrence Warren, grandson of Edward Warren, and not a Lawrence Mainwaring?
Lawrence Warren was named as heir to his grandmother Margaret (widow of John Mainwaring, previously also widow of John de Warren) in her inquisition of 1418. In that inquisition Lawrence's age was listed as 24 years and above. Scouring google books and the internet archive, I cannot find any reference to a Lawrence Mainwaring during this time at all. There are references to his step grandfather John Mainwaring. And also to a Randle and William Mainwaring. But no Lawrence Mainwaring who was a Knight.

And from page 769 of this book, Lawrence le Warren had become a Knight by 1428:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/55QbAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1


Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 28, 2021, 7:50:11 AMJul 28
to
On Wednesday, 28 July 2021 at 12:09:07 UTC+1, Richard Ebdon wrote:
> > And then in 1428, from Feudal Aids Volume 3, pages 554 and 555: There was a "Lawrence Maynwaren (Lawrence Mainwaring)" who held Skeyton, and Boton (Booton) in Norfolk:
> >
> > "Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Skeyton duas partes J. f, m. de heredibus Fulconis Banyard, que nuper fuerunt Edwardi de Warenne."
> >
> > "Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome Narford, quod nuper fuit Felicia de Skeyton." -
> >
> > https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/554/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Meynwaren
> >
> Or was this actually Lawrence Warren, grandson of Edward Warren, and not a Lawrence Mainwaring?
GREAT GRANDSON OF Edward Warren, not grandson:
Edward had John who died in 1386 and was buried at Boton, Norfolk. John married Margaret, and they had a son named Nicholas, who was named as son and heir, listed as being aged 14 years at the inquisition of his father, taken in March 1387, which can be viewed on pages 25-26 here:
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Sir+John+Warren+died+Sunday+next+before+St.+Andrew%27s+day+1386&pg=PA133&printsec=frontcover

Nicholas married Agnes, daughter of Sir Richard de Winnington, Knight. He died before his mother Margaret. Page 275 of Earwaker's East Cheshire Volume 2 (image page 317), gives his date of death as 1413 here. His heir was his son Lawrence Warren.-

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=317&skin=2021&q1=Margaret%20Bulkeley

Richard Ebdon

unread,
Jul 28, 2021, 4:29:32 PMJul 28
to
"What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they were?
See CP vol. 9 p. 469 note (k):

"Besides his 2 elder sons [John (died 5 Feb 1328/29) and Thomas (died 14 May
1344)], who suc. him in turn, he [William de Nerford (died 12 June/9 July
1302)] left issue Piers, Edmund, Felicie, and Maud (Parl. Writs; Rye,
Norfolk Fines, p. 172; Cal. Inq. p. m., vol. vii, no. 350 ; Cal. Patent
Rolls, 1313-17, pp. 5, 401; Her. and Gen., vol. vii, pp. 215-218)." -

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/hu1M9_JmbtA/m/OPJdEcK6pmkJ

Page 5 here mentions Felicia, daughter of William de Narford and a moiety of an acre of land in Raynham. Dated 20th of July 1313. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarofpaten02grea/page/4/mode/2up?q=Felicia

Page 223 - The Earl granting his manor at "Sadeliscombe", Sussex, to Thomas de Nerford for his life. February the 22nd 1315. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarofpaten02grea/page/222/mode/2up?q=Felicia

Page 481 of the same books describes John de Warren, the earl of Surrey granting to Edmund de Nerford and his heirs the reversion of a messuage, 2 carucates(?) of land, 24 acres of meadow and 10 marks of rent. 12th of June 1316. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarofpaten02grea/page/480/mode/2up?q=Felicia

The same book again from page 653: The Sirs John and Thomas de Nerford witnessed a Charter in 1317 by John de Warren. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarofpaten02grea/page/652/mode/2up?q=Felicia

Richard Ebdon

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 2:53:32 PMAug 3
to
"On 8 March 1370 at Erpingham, Sir Robert de Erpingham and his son Sir John [13][14] signed their names to a charter, along with Sirs Robert de Salle and John de Colby, all testifying of their own knowledge that John de Warren was the next heir of Isabel, daughter of Sir Richard de Stockport (or de Eton)[note 2] and Isabel had died in 1369. They testified that John was the son of Sir Edward de Warren [note 3] and his mother was Cicely. Cicely was the daughter of Nicholas de Eton, and John de Warren was heir to Isabel because they both shared a common ancestor in Nicholas. Robert and his son John left seals on this charter of an inescutcheon between eight martlets.[13]

[13]. Stapleton, Thomas (1846)."Preface". In De Antiquis Legibus Liber. Cronica Maiorum et Vicecomitum Londoniarum. London: Camden Society. p.clxxix.
[14]. Earwaker, J.P (1877). "The Barons Of Stockport: Note P". In East Cheshire: Past And Present: or A History Of The Hundred Of Macclesfield In The County Palatine Of Chester. From Original Records. Volume I. London: Wyman And Son. p.341.

[note 2]. Sir Richard's grandmother was Joan de Stokeport or Stockport. She was the eldest daughter and finally sole heiress of the Lord of Stockport. Sir Richard's grandfather was Joan's husband Nicholas de Eton.Sir Richard's father, Robert de Eton (brother of Cicely, and uncle of John de Warren), succeeded to the manor of Stockport and was commonly known as Robert de Stokeport or Stockport.[15] Earwaker, J.P (1877). "Stokeport And Eton Of Stockport Pedigree". In East Cheshire: Past And Present: or A History Of The Hundred Of Macclesfield In The County Palatine Of Chester. From Original Records. Volume I. London: Wyman And Son. p.343.

[note 3]. Sir Edward de Warren was the illegitimate son of John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey, by his mistress Maud de Nerford of Norfolk. In 1323 Sir Ralf de Skeyton settled "Boton" (Booton, Norfolk) and Skeyton on himself for life, and then on Maud de Nerford and her two sons, Ralph and Edward.[16] It is believed that Ralph, Edward's brother had died between 1342-1346, and his widow Joan then married Peter de Brewes.[17] Maud de Nerford had died by 22 November 1345.[18] In 1346, Felicia the widow of Ralph de Skeyton was recorded as holding Booton.[19] Edward de Warren was recorded as holding Skeyton in that year, in the same hundred as Erpingham in Norfolk. He also held lands in Norfolk or was joint mesne lord of lands and tenements in Crostwick, Berton and Tibenham,[20] and Rougham, and Fransham outside of the hundred of South Erpingham.[21]On 22 April 1346, Edward named as the son of John Earl Warenne of Surrey and Stratherne, was ready to serve the King abroad. But the Earl asked the Chancellor to discharge Edward from finding a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk.[22]In 1348 he was named as "Sir Edward de Warren, Knight," and held a portion (Bintre's Portion) of the adowson of Itteringham. His son John also held this same portion of the adowson at Itteringham in 1370.[23] Edward was dead by 20 October 1349. On this date he was named as "Edward de Garrenne, late lord of that manor" (of Skeyton), and Cicely his widow was still alive. Peter de Brewes was listed as lord of the manor of Skeyton at this time.[24]Edward's son, John de Warren had been Knighted by 1379. In that year he held the adowson of Skeyton and presented Roger de Schevesby as Rector there.[25] Sir Thomas Erpingham witnessed a charter with Sir John de Warren at Brandiston, just under two miles from Booton, on 19 March 1386.[26] Sir John de Warren died on 25 November 1386[27] and was buried at Booton. He was survived by his children, and his wife Margaret, who then married John Mainwaring of Over Peover.[28]John Mainwaring recorded as "Johannes Maynwaryn," was listed as holding Skeyton and Booton in 1401.[29]

[16]. Bloomfield, Francis: Parkin, Charles (1807)."Hundred Of South Erpingham: Skeyton's Manor or Skeyton Hall". In An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk. Volume 6. London: W Miller. p.360.
[17]. Mackenzie, P.W "Review". In The Maternity Of John And Beatrix de Brewes. p.17.
[18]. Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Isaacson, R.F (1903)."1345. Membrane 9. November 22". In Calendar Of The Patent Rolls. Edward III. Vol.VII. A.D. 1345 - 1348.
[19]. Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Lyle, J.V: Stamp, A.E (1904)."Hundredum de South Erpyngham: A.D. 1346". In Feudal Aids: A.D. 1284 - 1431. Vol.III. Kent-Norfolk. London: Mackie And Co. p.487.
[20]. Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Lyle, J.V: Stamp, A.E (1904)."Hundredum de South Erpyngham: A.D. 1346". In Feudal Aids: A.D. 1284 - 1431. Vol.III. Kent-Norfolk. London: Mackie And Co. p.485.
[21]. Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Lyle, J.V: Stamp, A.E (1904)."Hundredum de Laundich: A.D. 1346". In Feudal Aids: A.D. 1284 - 1431. Vol.III. Kent-Norfolk. London: Mackie And Co. p.539.
[22]. Fairbank, F.R (1907)."The Last Earl of Warenne And Surrey, And The Distribution of His Possessions". In The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal vol.XIX. p.248.
[23]. Bloomfield, Francis: Parkin, Charles (1807)."Itteringham: III. Bintre's Portion". In An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk. Volume 6. London: W Miller. p.475.
[24]. Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Isaacson, R.F (1905)."1349. Membrane 24d. October 20".In Calendar Of The Patent Rolls. Edward III. Vol.VIII. A.D. 1348 - 1350. London: Mackie And Co. pp.451 - 452.
[25]. Bloomfield, Francis: Parkin, Charles (1807)."Hundred Of South Erpingham: Skeyton: Rectors". In An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk. Volume 6. London: W Miller. p.363.
[26]. Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Bird, W.H.B: Morris, G.J (1921)."1386. Membrane 13d". In Calendar of The Close Rolls, Richard II: Volume 3, 1385-1389. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office. p.135.
[27]. Langdon, William (1875)."Christopher Towneley's Abstracts Of Lancashire Inquisitions: Johannes de Wareyn, Chivaler. 10 Ric II.(March 1387)". In Abstracts Of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Made By Christopher Towneley And Roger Dodsworth.Manchester: Charles Simms.p.25-26.
[28]. Earwaker, J.P (1880)."Poynton Township".In East Cheshire: Past And Present: or A History Of The Hundred Of Macclesfield In The County Palatine Of Chester. From Original Records. Volume II. London: Wyman And Sons. p.275.
[29]. Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Lyle, J.V: Stamp, A.E (1904)."Hundredum de South Erpyngham: A.D. 1401-2". In Feudal Aids: A.D. 1284 - 1431. Vol.III. Kent-Norfolk. London: Mackie And Co. pp.617 - 618. " -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Erpingham

On top of all of this we know that Edward was named in the will of his father the Earl in 1347. -

https://archive.org/details/YAJ019/page/276/mode/2up

Sir Edward de Warren's son was named as "Sir John Warren, Knt" at the inquisition post mortem of his aunt Isabel de Stathum widow of Thomas, and also the former wife of Sir John's uncle Robert de Eton (alias de Stock/Stockeport). This Isabel was grandmother of the previous Isabel where John was mentioned as heir in 1369 (above). This particular inquisition post mortem is dated the 19th of May 1381:


"...And the Jury further say that Sir John Warren Knt., is next of kin and heir of the said Robert, son of Nicholas de Eton, namely (that Sir John Warren was) the son of Cicely, the sister of the said Robert, son of Nicholas de Eton." -


"Isabel de Stathum: Cheshire Inquisitions Post Mortem - Record Office." in "The Barons of Stockport." Earwaker, J.P. (1877). East Cheshire Past And Present: Or A History Of The Hundred Of Macclesfield In The County Palatine of Chester. From Original Records. Volume I, pp.341 - 342.

Some more Norfolk links between this Sir John de Warren, son of Edward:

On the 1st of May 1382 at "Skegeton" (actually Skeyton in Norfolk), he granted the Manor of Woodplumpton in Lancashire to John de Davenport. It can be viewed on p.47-48 here. It is from John's inquisitions relating to Woodplumpton after his death:

https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis00langgoog/page/n70/mode/2up

British History online, describes this dispute lasting after John had died until 1392:


" (19) Lancs. Inq. p.m. (Chet. Soc), i, 25, 34, 47. In 1382 Sir John de Warren had granted this manor to John de Davenport and others; after his death a dispute ensued between the Duke of Lancaster and these trustees as to the custody of the manor, lasting from 1387 to 1392; Dep. Keeper's Rep. xl, App. 525." -


'Townships: Woodplumpton', in A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 7, ed. William Farrer and J Brownbill (London, 1912), pp. 284-291. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol7/pp284-291 [accessed 30 July 2021].

The Warren family soon received back this manor.

On the 20th of April 1383, Sir John de Warren is recorded in this writ "of Supersedeas by mainprise" the writ was in favour of "Roger parson of Skeggton (Skeyton)." This may have been Roger de Schevesby, who Sir John presented as recor there (above), in 1379. -


"To the sheriff of Norffolk. Writ of supersedeas, by mainprise of William de Snetesham, William de Basyngham and John de Beston of Norffolk and Roger de Blaby of Leycestershire, in favour of Roger parson of Skeggeton at suit of John de Warenne knight averring threats." -


'Close Rolls, Richard II: May 1383', in Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II: Volume 2, 1381-1385, ed. H C Maxwell Lyte (London, 1920), pp. 303-308. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-close-rolls/ric2/vol2/pp303-308 [accessed 29 July 2021].

What was this "supersedeas by mainprise" please?

Sir John married Margaret (apparently a daughter of a Sir John de Stafford of Wickham/Wykham and married in 1371) and they had a son named Nicholas, who was named as son and heir, listed as being aged 14 years at the inquisition of his father, taken in March 1387, which can be viewed on pages 25-26 here:https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Sir+John+Warren+died+Sunday+next+before+St.+Andrew%27s+day+1386&pg=PA133&printsec=frontcover

Nicholas married Agnes, daughter of Sir Richard de Winnington, Knight. He died before his mother Margaret. Page 275 of Earwaker's East Cheshire Volume 2 (image page 317), gives his date of death as 1413 here. His heir was his son Lawrence Warren.-

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=317&skin=2021&q1=Margaret%20Bulkeley

Margaret married John Mainwaring of Over Peover after Sir John de Warren died. In 1401 this John was holding "Boton" (Booton), and Skeyton in Norfolk as can be seen above. He is likely to have been the same John Mainwaring that a writ was issued regarding his death in 1409 / 1410 dated March the 13th. It can be viewed here on page 319, of Volume 36 of The Deputy Keeper of The Public Records: Welsh Records: Recognizance Rolls Of Chester. -
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/yf8qAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover


Lawrence de Warren was named as heir to his grandmother Margaret (widow of John Mainwaring, previously also widow of Sir John de Warren) in her inquisition of 1418. In that inquisition Lawrence's age was listed as 24 years and above. Margaret's inquisition post mortem can be viewed here on page 131-132. -

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Abstracts_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_La/SQEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

And then in 1428, from Feudal Aids Volume 3, pages 554 and 555: There was a "Lawrence Maynwaren" who held Skeyton, and Boton (Booton) in Norfolk:

"Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Skeyton duas partes J. f, m. de heredibus Fulconis Banyard, que nuper fuerunt Edwardi de Warenne."


"Laurencius Meynwaren, miles, tenet in Boton di. f. m. de heredibus Thome Narford, quod nuper fuit Felicia de Skeyton." -


https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/554/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Meynwaren

Was this actually Lawrence de Warren, great grandson of Sir Edward de Warren?

Scouring google books and the internet archive, I cannot find any reference to a Lawrence Mainwaring during this time at all. There are references to his step grandfather John Mainwaring. And also to a Randle and William Mainwaring. But no Lawrence Mainwaring who was a Knight.

And from page 769 of this book, Lawrence le Warren had become a Knight by 1428:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/55QbAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

I suggest this also partly because the Skeyton/ Booton Norfolk link to the Warren's of Stockport and Poynton did not end there:

Sir Lawrence Warren died in 1444. His heir was John who died in 1474. This comes from "Warren of Poynton" tree, on page 286, of Earwakers History of East Cheshire Volume 1. It can be viewed here on image page 328:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=328&skin=2021&q1=Margaret%20Bulkeley

In 1473, John de Warren, lord of Skeyton presented Master Roger Davenport as Rector at Skeyton. -

"1473, Master Roger Davenport. John de Warren, lord of Skeyton." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Skeyton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 359-364. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp359-364 [accessed 28 July 2021].

And then in 1529 we have this. -

"In 1529, Thomas Tropnel and others settled Boton and Skeyton manors on Lawrence Warren, Esq. and Sibil his wife; and in 1531 John Horseman kept his first court at Booton." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Boton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 352-359. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359 [accessed 21 July 2021].

Lawrence Warren, mentioned in the passage above, who held Boton and Skeyton manors in 1529, was the great grandson of the John Warren named as lord of Skeyton in 1473. His second wife was Sybil, widow of William Honford. This Lawrence died on the 18th of September 1530. -

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=329&skin=2021&q1=Margaret%20Bulkeley

Richard Ebdon

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 3:03:29 PMAug 3
to
On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 19:53:32 UTC+1, Richard Ebdon wrote:

>
> Sir Lawrence Warren died in 1444. His heir was John who died in 1474. This comes from "Warren of Poynton" tree, on page 286, of Earwakers History of East Cheshire Volume 1. It can be viewed here on image page 328:
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=328&skin=2021&q1=Margaret%20Bulkeley
>
Sorry, I meant Volume 2.

Gail Peterson

unread,
Aug 5, 2021, 9:49:13 AMAug 5
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 4:16:18 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:

> Something else to throw into the mix. Watson views there being two Mauds de Nerford, one the daughter of William de Nerford and mistress of Earl John, and the other the daughter of Richard de Skeyton. However, here I find the mistress called "widow of William de Nerford". Maybe Watson's basis for there being two Mauds is an error in the relationship of Maud to William - the daughter of Richard de Skeyton and the widow of William de Nerford could indeed have been the same woman.
>
> Roy Martin Haines, King Edward II: His Life, His Reign, and Its Aftermath, 1284-1330, p. 406, note 79:
> "Select Cases before the King's Council 1243-1482, pp. lxvi-lxix, 27-33 (MS Holkham Misc. 29, fos. 229r-31r) Matilda de Neyrford, widow of Sir WIlliam de Neyrford, was Warenne's mistess, and a case of divorce with her as 'actric' had been brought into the court of the archdeacon of Norfolk 'in dedecus ipsius domini regis manifestum er contemptum.' . . ."
>
> taf

I have to preface this by the fact that I write as a genealogist and not an accomplished historian as many of you are, but the descendants of Warenne are a subject near and dear to my heart as my father's mother was
Warren who descends from the Poynton Warennes through Humphrey Warren of Virginia.

With this in mind, quite by accident I discovered a history describing the provenance of Skeyton Hall which states in part "...In 1315 Sir Ralf de Skeyton was lord and patron, who in 1321 released to Alice Bretoun and her heirs, and to Robert Brian of Felmingham and Hawise his wife, and their heirs, all his claim in the homages, services, and customs which they formerly held of Sir Ralf, and Sara his mother, in Felmingham and Skeyton; he sealed with Vair erm. and sab. a bend. Felicia his widow was alive in 1358, but in 1323 Sir Ralf settled it, with Boton, on himself and Maud de Nerford, and her sons, as in Boton, and in 1345 Alice, sister and heiress of Sir Ralf, then widow of Hautein, her second husband, released all right to the said Maud...."

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Skeyton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 359-364. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp359-364 located online at: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp359-364#anchorn5

While I fought against this theory for some time, I must agree with taf in that there does appear to have been two contemporary Mauds de Nerford associated with the earls Warenne. What their relationship to each other may have been remains a question to be ferreted out.

~Gail


Richard Ebdon

unread,
Aug 5, 2021, 12:30:45 PMAug 5
to
I think it has already been stated above that this was a mis-reading:
"Unfortunately, I think this must be a mis-reading. The select cases (p 28) makes it clear that the Earl's mistress is "[Matilda] de Neyrford filie quondam Willelmi de Neyrford militis defuncti" (daughter of the late William de Nerford, knight, deceased), so I don't know the reference to her being Sir William's widow has arisen here. In any case, the widow of the only Sir William de Nerford I am aware of, was the well-attested Petronilla, heiress of the Vaux family."

There was only one contemporary Maud de Nerford who was associated with the Earl. And this was the Maud who was daughter of William de Nerford:

"On 8 March 1315 Maud was described as "Maud of Neyrford, daughter of the former William of Neyrford Knight, deceased, of the diocese of Norwich."[25][b] This description occurred during a notice delivered by "Robert, called of the chapel of Jackesle, a clerk of the diocese of Lincoln," to Joan of Bar that she was cited to appear before Thomas Gerdeston, the Archdeacon of Norfolk or his commissary to answer in a case of matrimony and divorce between herself and John de Warenne. This case was brought by Maud herself. However, the notice was read out to Joan while she was in the crypt of Saint Stephen's in Westminster and attending to the queen, which was forbidden. And so Robert was sent to the Tower of London, and Thomas Gerdeston was ordered to appear at the next parliament.[28] Maud had petitioned for the divorce of Warenne and his wife Joan on the basis that she had been precontracted to be married to John.

[25]. "1315. Rex v. Gerdeston". Leadam, I. S: Baldwin, J.F. (1918). Select cases before the King's Council, 1243-1482.Selden Society.p.29.
https://archive.org/details/selectcasesbefo00grea/page/n181/mode/2up
[b]. Maud's father had died in 1302, and in his inquisition post mortem named Petronilla his wife, as heir.[26] Maud's father William de Nerford (or Narford) was lord of the manor of Narford in Norfolk, and became a Knight by 1277. His wife Petronilla was a daughter of Sir John de Vaux. Petronilla divided her estate in the 16th year of the reign of Edward I, between herself and her sister Maud, then the wife of William de Roos or Roose. Petronilla's sister was assigned the lordships of Thirston and Shotesham, and a moiety of those of Holt, Cley juxta Mare, and Houghton by Walsingham, with many knights fees in Norfolk and Suffolk. Petronilla was lady of the manor of Narford in 1315. She died in 1326 and was buried in the priory of Petney, nearby to Narford. Maud de Nerford/ Narford's brothers were Sir John, Sir Thomas and Edmund. Edmund died in 1330 without issue.[27]
[26]. "Inquisitions Post Mortem, Edward I, File 106: 114. WILLIAM DE NEYRFORD alias DE NERFORD". Sharp, J.E.E.S: Stamp, A.E.(1913).Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem: Volume 4, Edward I. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.p.76.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387820/page/n123/mode/2up
[27]. "The Manor of Narford, Alias Oldhall". Blomefield, F. (1807). 'Hundred of South Greenhoe: Narford', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6. London.pp.229-231.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1." -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Warenne,_7th_Earl_of_Surrey

Something (possibly or possibly not) relevant to the above and might be added to note [b] is that Maud de Nerford also appears to have had a sister named Felicia:

"What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they were?
See CP vol. 9 p. 469 note (k):

"Besides his 2 elder sons [John (died 5 Feb 1328/29) and Thomas (died 14 May
1344)], who suc. him in turn, he [William de Nerford (died 12 June/9 July
1302)] left issue Piers, Edmund, Felicie, and Maud (Parl. Writs; Rye,
Norfolk Fines, p. 172; Cal. Inq. p. m., vol. vii, no. 350 ; Cal. Patent
Rolls, 1313-17, pp. 5, 401; Her. and Gen., vol. vii, pp. 215-218)." -

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/hu1M9_JmbtA/m/OPJdEcK6pmkJ

Page 5 here mentions Felicia, daughter of William de Narford and a moiety of an acre of land in Raynham, Norfolk (around 28 miles from Skeyton). Dated 20th of July 1313. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarofpaten02grea/page/4/mode/2up?q=Felicia

Page 223 - The Earl granting his manor at "Sadeliscombe", Sussex, to Thomas de Nerford for his life. February the 22nd 1315. -