Post by Paul MackenzieI noticed the interest in Maud Nerford. Here are some relevant translations of Norfolk Feet of Fines with references to the originals on AALT.
NORFOLK
FEET OF FINE
This is the final agreement made in the court of the lord king at Westminister two weeks from the Purification of the Blessed Mary in the 17th year of the reign of our lord king Edward son of king Edward before William de Bereford, John de Mutford, William de Herle, John de Boussier, William de [illegible], Geoffrey le Scrope Justices and other subjects of the lord king present there at that time, between Ralph de Skegeton querent and Oliver de Reedham and Richard de Drengeston parson of the church of Skegeton deforciants concerning the manors of Skegeton and Boton with appurtenances and the advowson of the church of the same manors where a plea of contract was summoned between them in the same court, namely that said Ralph acknowledges said manors with appurtenances and said advowson is the right of the same Oliver, which the same Oliver and Richard have of the gift of said Ralph Skegeton and for this acknowledgement, agreement and fine, the same Oliver and Richard grant said Ralph said manors with appurtenances with said advowson and that they have surrendered it to him in the same court. The same Ralph and heirs of his body are to have and hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Ralph should die without heirs procreated of his body then after the death of the same Ralph said manors with appurtenances and the aforesaid advowson are to remain wholly to Maltida de Nerford and heirs of her body so procreated to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Maltida should die without heirs of her body so procreated then after the decease of said Maltida said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to Ralph son of the same Maltida and heirs of his body so procreated, to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen that the same Ralph should die without heirs of his body so procreated then after the decease of the same Ralph said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to Edward son of said Maltida and heirs of his body so procreated, to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity. And if it should happen the same Edward should die without heirs of his body so procreated then after the decease of said Edward said manors with appurtenances and said advowson are to remain wholly to the right heirs of said Ralph Skegeton to hold said manors with appurtenances and said advowson of the chief lord of that fee by service in perpetuity.
The King app. Clam.;
David de Strabolgy, Com. Atthi (Earl of Athol) app. Clam.;
Philip son of Robert de Baldeswell of Boton app. Clam.;
Roger de Gyney and Margery his wife and William de Whytewell app. clam.;
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, app. clam. ;
Richard son of Evorard de Thorton and Peter Waleys of Boton app. clam.
Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm
Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0518.htm
Comments on this Feet of Fine
1. There is no reference to the familial relationship if any between Ralph de Skegeton and Maltida de Nerford. It is common in such fines for the property to be granted to both husband and wife for life and then their heirs. In this case, she is most unlikely to be the husband of Ralph Skegeton.
According to Bloomfield, Ralph's widow was Felicia. From a comment copied and pasted on this page by Mark66j:
"Maud likely cannot be a widow of either Ralph de Skeyton, whose widow Felicia survived him according to Blomefield,..."
In 1346, Felicia held "Boton" (Booton, Norfolk) (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." -
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. -
https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/487/mode/2up?view=theater
Sir Thomas de Nerford (Maud's brother), died in 1344. He was survived by his son and heir John de Nerford who was around eight or nine when his father died. He was also survived by his wife Alice. He held the manor of Saddlescombe at death jointly with Alice his wife. In Norfolk, Sir Thomas held a moiety or part of the manors of Houghton, Holt, Cley, Panworth and Narford. -
Maxwell Lyte, H.C: Sharp, J.E.E.S (1913)."508. Thomas de Nerford, Knight (Chivaler)". In Calendar Of Inquisitions Post Mortem. Vol.VIII.Edward III. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.pp.360-361. -
https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387861/page/n407/mode/2up
In 1346 Edward de Warren held two parts of a fee of lands in Skeyton in the hundred of South Erpingham, and Crostwick, Berton and Tibenham outside of this hundred of the heirs of Fulk Baniard which had formerly been held by John de Skeyton. -
"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 fuit Johannis de Skegton xxvj.s. viij.d." -
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. -
https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/485/mode/2up?view=theater&q=de+Warrenne
William de Whitwell also held part of Skeyton in 1346:
"Willelmus de Wytewell tenet in Skeyton terciam partem j. f. m. de heredibus Fulconis Bainard, et dicti heredes de domino rege, quod quondam fuit Johannis de Wytewell ...-.----- xiij.s. iiij.d." (p.486 of above book).
Edward de Warren is also mentioned in 1346 in the hundred of Laundich, with regards to Rougham and Fransham. From p.539 of above book:
"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." -
https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/538/mode/2up?view=theater
Post by Paul Mackenzie2. There is no mention of the Warren family.
Yes, it is of course true that there is no mention of the Warren family in the 1323/24 fine.
But I personally do not see this as a significant factor when considered in relation to prior and subsequent events to that date:
The Earl's mistress was Maud (would she have been named "Matilda" in Latin? https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/yUR5DGngc70 ) de Nerford. She was a daughter of "the former William of Neyrford Knight, deceased, of the diocese of Norwich." -
Leadam, I. S: Baldwin, J.F. (1918) "1315. Rex v. Gerdeston". In Select cases before the King's Council, 1243-1482.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Selden Society. p.29. -
https://archive.org/details/selectcasesbefo00grea/page/n181/mode/2up
William de Nerford had died in 1302 and Petronilla his wife was his heir. (p.76 here):
https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387820/page/n123/mode/2up
By 1320 the Earl had "expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his company." It is interesting (to me anyway) that John de Mutford is one of the names mentioned in the petition. I think it is very likely that this is the same person mentioned in the 1323/24 Fine. -
"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....
Nature of endorsement: [On face] John de Mutforde is to be one, and the commission is to stand.[None on dorse]." -
"Petitioners: John de Warenne, Earl Warenne. Reference: SC 8/87/4348". -
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9148890
"Lady de Nerford" mentioned above was Petronilla, widow of William de Nerford and mother of John and Maud named in the petition. Petronilla died in 1326 according to Bloomfield, and buried in Pentney Priory.(p.230 here:https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). Petronilla was also mother of Thomas (died in 1344 mentioned above), and Edmund:
John de Nerford died on 5 February in the 3rd year of the reign of Edward III (1328 or 1329). He held the manor of "Wysete" (Wissett) in Suffolk jointly with his wife Agnes, of the honour of Richmond. Thomas de Nerford, his brother was to become John's heir after the death of Agnes, John's wife. The age of Thomas at the date of John de Nerford's inquisition was roughly estimated to be 30 years and more. (p.149 here):
https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387853/page/n199/mode/2up?q=Narford
Edmund de Nerford, brother of Thomas, John and Maud had died by 17 February in the 5th year of Edward III's reign. Edmund held a moiety of the manor of "Hogstone" (Houghton) by Walsingham in Norfolk. He held this for life from a grant of Petronilla de Nerford, his mother. His brother Thomas de Nerford, Knight, son of Petronilla was Edmund's heir. (p.255 here):
https://archive.org/details/cu31924011387853/page/n305/mode/2up?q=Narford
The Earl's son Edward de Warren, held lands in Norfolk in 1346 (which indeed he did, see above). On 22 April 1346, the Earl asked the Chancellor for his son Edward to be excused from finding a man at-arms for his Norfolk lands before serving the King abroad (at Crecy and/or Calais). p.248 here:
https://archive.org/details/YAJ019/page/270/mode/2up
We also know that the Earl had a son named Ralph de Warren/Warrenne:
"Ravlyn son of the Earl of Warenne" was named in a parliamentary petition by Ralph le Botiller (Butler) in 1334. -
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9209964
On the 20th of November 1338, John de Warren, Earl of Surrey had a licence to "grant a sixth part of the barony of Wich-Malbank to John de Gaydon and William de Blorton, in trust to grant the same to John Mautravers and Joan his wife, for life, with remainder to Ralph de Warrenne, and Joan his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, and, them failing, to the right heirs of the said Joan, wife of the aforesaid John Mautravers." "Warren- Warenna - Wareyn." Welsh Records: Recognizance Rolls Of Chester, (p.508 here):
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/yf8qAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
Ralph de Warrenne died without issue. - "Browning." Welsh Records: Recognizance Rolls Of Chester, (p.62 here):
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Deputy_Keeper_of_th/yf8qAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
It is believed by P.W. Mackenzie, that Ralph died between 1342, and 1346 (because he was not named in the Feudal Aids of Norfolk in that year, but Edward was and held two parts of a fee of land in Skeyton).
He was also not named in the Earl's will in 1347, but Edward was.
Ralph's widow Joan, a daughter of Nicholas Percy, then married Peter de Brewes. Peter held the manor of Skeyton by October 1349. It has been presumed by Mackenzie that Peter held this on behalf of his wife Joan, as her dower from her first husband Ralph de Warrenne.(p.17 "Review" here);
http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/family/Joan%20Brewes.pdf
By this date, Edward de Warren had died and he was named as the previous lord of the manor of Skeyton before Peter de Brewes. His wife named Cicely was still alive:
"(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
Post by Paul MackenzieFEET OF FINE
This is the final agreement made in the court of the lord king at Westminister three weeks from Easter in the forty second year of the reign of king Edward third after the conquest before Robert de Thorpe, John Mowbray, William de Fynde Senior, William de Wichyngham, Justices and then fourteen days from Saint Mary in the reign of the same king Edward aforesaid granted and recorded before the same Justices and other subjects of the lord king present there at that time between John Whyte querent and William son of Edward Warrene knight deforciant of eighteen acres of land with appurtenances in Skeyton which Cecilia who was the wife of Edward Warrene held for life whence a plea of contract was summoned between them in the same court, namely the aforesaid William acknowledged the said land with appurtenances to be the right of the same John and he granted for himself and his heirs that said land with appurtenances which said Cecilia holds for life of the heirs of said William in the said village on the day this agreement was made and which after the death of the same Cecilia was to revert to said William and his heirs, are to remain wholly after the decease of said Cecilia to said John and his heirs to hold of the chief lords of the fee by the services which pertain to the said land forever. And said William and his heirs warrant the aforesaid land with appurtenances to said John and his heirs against all men forever And for this acknowledgement grant warranty fine and agreement the said John gives said William twenty marcs of silver.
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_167/IMG_0171.htm
Some more:
Sir Edward de Warren's son John was named in the inquisition post mortem of Isabel de Stokeport in March 1370 . -
"...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." (p.341 here):
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/East_Cheshire_Past_and_Present/VwMcAQAAMAAJ?q=Bramhall&gbpv=1#f=false
On the 8th of March 1370 at Erpingham in Norfolk Sir Robert de Erpingham and his son Sir John, signed their names to a charter, along with Sir Robert de Salle and Sir John de Colby, all testifying that John de Warren was the next heir of Isabel, daughter of Sir Richard de Stokeport (Richard's father Robert de Eton, brother of Cicely, became known as "de Stokeport") They testified that John was the son of Sir Edward de Warren and his mother was Cicely, a daughter of Nicholas de Eton, and John de Warren was heir to Isabel because they both shared a common ancestor in Nicholas. ("Preface" p.clxxix here):
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Cronica_maiorum_et_vicecomitum_Londoniar/hicikUSheyYC?hl=en&gbpv=1
In the same year as Isabel's inquisition, John de Warren held "Bintre's Portion" of the adowson of Itteringham in Norfolk. His father Edward held this same portion of that adowson in 1348. (p.475):
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
He married Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Stafford in 1371. John had been Knighted by 1379, and held the adowson of Skeyton that year presenting Roger de Schevesby as rector. (p.363 here):
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Essay_Towards_a_Topographical_History/0r_NAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
On the 1st of May 1382 at "Skegeton" (Skeyton in Norfolk), Sir John de Warren 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 20 April 1383, Sir John de Warren was recorded in a writ of supersedeas by mainprise which involved Roger parson of Skeggton (Skeyton):
"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." (p.306 here):
https://archive.org/details/calendarofclos02grea/page/306/mode/2up?view=theater
On the 19th of March 1386 Sir John de Warren witnessed a charter with Sir Thomas Erpingham, at Brandiston, just under two miles from Booton, Norfolk. (p.135 here):
https://archive.org/details/calendarofclo03grea/page/134/mode/2up?view=theater
Sir John de Warren died on the 25th of November 1386. (pp.25 - 26 here):
https://archive.org/details/abstractsinquis00langgoog/page/n48/mode/2up
He was buried at Booton. (p.275 here):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=317&skin=2021&q1=Sir%20Edward%20Warren
His widow Margaret married John Mainwaring of Over Peover, who was recorded as holding Booton and Skeyton in 1401. -
"Johannes Maynwaryn tenet in Skeggeton in dicto hundredo, Crostweyt Berton, et Tybenham extra dictum hundredum duas partes j. f, m. de heredibus Fulconis Baniard, domini de Haddystoun, quod Johannes Stuclee tenet de comite Rutlandie, ut de jure uxoris sue, et idem de rege, ut parcellam baronie vocate Baniardescastell." - (p.617 of "Feudal Aids" here):
https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/617/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Maynwaryn
"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." - (p.618 of above book).
Also in this same year, Roger Boys, Henry Betelee, and Henry Lesyngham held land in Crostweyt (Crostwick) of the heirs of John de Warren. And land in Berton was held in 1401 of the heirs of John de Warren. (p.619 of above):
https://archive.org/details/inquisitionsasse03grea/page/619/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Maynwaryn
John Mainwaring 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 Earwaker's History of East Cheshire Volume 2. 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