Discussion:
Alice de Sanford [died 1312], wife of Sir Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford
(too old to reply)
Douglas Richardson
2020-10-11 21:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 10 (1945): 216–221 (sub Oxford) has a good account of Sir Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford [died 1296]. Regarding his marriage, the following information is provided:

"He married Alice, daughter and heiress of Gilbert de Sanford, hereditary Chamberlain to the Queen for her Coronation, by Loretta, daughter of (-----) ... Alice died before 9 (probably 7) September 1312, at Canfield, and was buried at Earls Colne." END OF QUOTE.

In footnote j on page 217, the following additional information is provided regarding Alice:

"Alice inherited the manors of Great Hormead and Nuthampstead (Herts) and Fingrith, Margaretting, and Woolverston in Chigwell (Essex), all held in grand serjeantry by the service of acting as the Queen's Chamberlain at her Coronation." END OF QUOTE.

Recently I encountered a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1253 which confirms C.P.'s statement that Alice, wife of Robert de Vere, was the daughter of Gilbert de Sanford. This lawsuit provides the additional detail that Alice was the heir of Nicholas de Sanford. A brief abstract of the lawsuit is provided below.

"In 1253 Roger de Saunford sued Robert de Veer and Alice his wife, daughter of Gilbert de Saunford, and heir of Nicholas de Saunford, that they warrant to him one mill and lands in Grimsby, Northamptonshire, which William de Parco claimed as his right." END OF ABSTRACT.

Reference:
Court of Common Pleas, KB26/148, image 2 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H3/KB26_148/0002.htm).

So who was Nicholas de Sanford?

A deed recorded in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds 1 (1890): 58 shows that Alice de Sanford's father, Sir Gilbert de Saunford, together with Nicholas de Saunford, Roger de Saunford, and Laurence de Saunford, served as witnesses to an undated deed from William de Reymes, Knt., to Gilbert Basset. This document may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA58

Reports and Transactions of the Cardiff Naturalists' Society 52 (1922): 224 reports the following concerning Nicholas de Sanford:

"Nicholas de Sanford was granted Leckwith [Glamorganshire] by Richard de Clare 1243-62, and he transferred it to his brother Laurence, Nicholas died in 1252 according to Matthew Paris. In 1262 a Fulco de Sanford held Leckwith but by 1294 it was in the de Clare hands." END OF QUOTE.

Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica 6 (1840): 351 includes a charter of feoffment of Nicholas de Sanford whereby he "grants, etc. to Sir Laurence de Sanford his brother, and his heirs, for his homage and service, all his manor of Estune in the county of Buckingham, which he had of the gift of John de Sanford formerly his father, reserving a yearly rent of 4d." Witnesses include Sir Roger de Sanford who is presumably the same person as the plaintiff in the 1253 lawsuit above. This charter can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=mycAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA351

The following three deeds confirm Nicholas de Sanford's ownership of Lecquid (or Leckwith), Glamorganshire, and the transfer of this property by him to his brother Sir Laurence de Sanford:

Glam. A. 4870. Grant by Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, to Sir Nicholas de Sanford, of the manor of Lecquid, with 'heybote' and 'hushote' in all the grantor's forests of Meyskin. Witnesses;—Sirs Stephen Baucen, sheriff of Glamorgan, Walter de Sullie, William de Reygny, and others (named). [AD. 1233–45.]
Glam. A. 4871. Grant by Nicholas de Sandford, to Sir Laurence de Sandford, his brother, of the manor of Lecquid. Witnesses:—Sirs Philip Basseth, William Dyve, Oliver de Ingham, Roger de Sandford, Adam de Dutton, and others (named). Fragment of seal of arms.
Glam. A. 4872. Grant by Laurence de Sanford, to Sir Philip Basset, of the manor of Lecquid. Witnesses:—Sir Hugh le Despenser (dispensator'), justiciary of England, Richard de Culewurth, constable of the Tower of London, Henry de Wykham and others (named).

Reference: Desc. Cat. Ancient Deeds 3 (1900): 115, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=g1M4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA115

The following undated Ancient Deed indicates that Nicholas de Sanford was the brother of Thomas de Sanford:

A. 3220. Grant by William de Monte Acuto, son of Drew (Droci) de Monte Acuto, to Philip Basset, of all his land in Therlebergh, paying a pair of gilt spurs or 6d. yearly. Witnesses:— Ralph de Ardern, Thomas and Nicholas de Sanford, brothers, and others (named).

Reference: Desc. Cat. Ancient Deeds 2 (1894): 167.

Matthew of Paris, Chronica Majora 5 (Rolls Ser. 57) (1880): 236 confirms that Sir Nicholas de Sanford died in 1252:

"Obiit Nicholaus de Sanford. Tempore quoque sub eodem, videlicet decimo tertio kalendas Februarii, obiit Nicholas de Sanford miles."

The above can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ufYKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA273#v=onepage&q&f=false

Elsewhere I find that VCH Essex 4 (1956): 24-32 sub Chigwell includes the following information regarding the Sanford family:

In 1066 the manor of WOOLSTON was held by Earl Harold. It was then taken by King William and in 1086 was held by him in demesne. (fn. 233) During the 12th century the manor was granted to the Sanford family to hold in serjeanty by virtue of the office of chamberlain to the queen. (fn. 234) A John de Sanford held the manor in 1210-12 (fn. 235) and Cecily de Sanford in 1219. (fn. 236) Gilbert de Sanford held Woolston in 1236, in which year he officiated at the coronation of Eleanor of Provence. (fn. 237) He was still living in 1248, (fn. 238) but was dead by April 1249 when the wardship of his daughter and heir Alice de Sanford was bought by Fulk Basset, Bishop of London. (fn. 239) In June 1249 the bishop sold the wardship to Hugh de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who married Alice to his son and heir Robert. (fn. 240) In 1259 John de Rivers, lord of Ongar hundred, granted to Robert de Vere and Alice his wife a release of 4d. rent at their view of frankpledge at Woolston. (fn. 241) In 1265 Robert's estates were forfeited for his part in the Barons' War; the township of Woolston was then said to be worth £6 6s. 8d. a year. (fn. 242) Robert recovered his estates under the Dictum of Kenilworth, but before this, in October 1265, all Alice's hereditary lands had been restored to her. (fn. 243). In 1284 Robert and Alice granted the reversion of Woolston after their deaths to their daughter Joan and her husband William de Warenne, son and heir of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (d. 1304). (fn. 244) Robert died in 1296; Woolston was then being held of him and Alice by William le Plomer. (fn. 245) Alice died in 1312." END OF QUOTE.

The above may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol4/pp24-32

Reviewing the above, it appears that Alice de Sanford's father, Sir Gilbert de Sanford (died c.1249), was the son and heir of John de Sanford who occurs in 1210-12. Given that Sir Gilbert de Sanford occurs in records with Sir Nicholas de Sanford and Sir Laurence de Sanford, and given that Sir Nicholas de Sanford's father was also named John de Sanford, I believe it is safe to conclude that Sir Gilbert de Sanford was the brother of Sir Nicholas de Sanford (died 1252), Sir Laurence de Sanford, and Thomas Sanford. This in turn would place Sir Nicholas de Sanford (died 1252) as the uncle of Sir Gilbert de Sanford's daughter and heir, Alice de Sanford, wife of Sir Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford:

Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, John Barclay, Charles Barham, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, Dorothy Beresford, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward Bromfield, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, James & Norton Claypoole, St. Leger Codd, Elizabeth & Thomas Coytemore, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, Rowland Ellis, John Fenwick, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Patrick Houston, Edward Howell, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Elizabeth, Joshua, & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, Edward Raynsford, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, John & Lawrence Washington, John West, Hawte Wyatt, Amy Wyllys.

Do you descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford. If so, I'd very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.

Douglas Richardson, Historian & Genealogist
Peter Howarth
2020-10-12 17:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
"He married Alice, daughter and heiress of Gilbert de Sanford, hereditary Chamberlain to the Queen for her Coronation, by Loretta, daughter of (-----) ... Alice died before 9 (probably 7) September 1312, at Canfield, and was buried at Earls Colne." END OF QUOTE.
"Alice inherited the manors of Great Hormead and Nuthampstead (Herts) and Fingrith, Margaretting, and Woolverston in Chigwell (Essex), all held in grand serjeantry by the service of acting as the Queen's Chamberlain at her Coronation." END OF QUOTE.
Recently I encountered a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1253 which confirms C.P.'s statement that Alice, wife of Robert de Vere, was the daughter of Gilbert de Sanford. This lawsuit provides the additional detail that Alice was the heir of Nicholas de Sanford. A brief abstract of the lawsuit is provided below.
"In 1253 Roger de Saunford sued Robert de Veer and Alice his wife, daughter of Gilbert de Saunford, and heir of Nicholas de Saunford, that they warrant to him one mill and lands in Grimsby, Northamptonshire, which William de Parco claimed as his right." END OF ABSTRACT.
Court of Common Pleas, KB26/148, image 2 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H3/KB26_148/0002.htm).
So who was Nicholas de Sanford?
https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA58
"Nicholas de Sanford was granted Leckwith [Glamorganshire] by Richard de Clare 1243-62, and he transferred it to his brother Laurence, Nicholas died in 1252 according to Matthew Paris. In 1262 a Fulco de Sanford held Leckwith but by 1294 it was in the de Clare hands." END OF QUOTE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=mycAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA351
Glam. A. 4870. Grant by Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, to Sir Nicholas de Sanford, of the manor of Lecquid, with 'heybote' and 'hushote' in all the grantor's forests of Meyskin. Witnesses;—Sirs Stephen Baucen, sheriff of Glamorgan, Walter de Sullie, William de Reygny, and others (named). [AD. 1233–45.]
Glam. A. 4871. Grant by Nicholas de Sandford, to Sir Laurence de Sandford, his brother, of the manor of Lecquid. Witnesses:—Sirs Philip Basseth, William Dyve, Oliver de Ingham, Roger de Sandford, Adam de Dutton, and others (named). Fragment of seal of arms.
Glam. A. 4872. Grant by Laurence de Sanford, to Sir Philip Basset, of the manor of Lecquid. Witnesses:—Sir Hugh le Despenser (dispensator'), justiciary of England, Richard de Culewurth, constable of the Tower of London, Henry de Wykham and others (named).
https://books.google.com/books?id=g1M4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA115
A. 3220. Grant by William de Monte Acuto, son of Drew (Droci) de Monte Acuto, to Philip Basset, of all his land in Therlebergh, paying a pair of gilt spurs or 6d. yearly. Witnesses:— Ralph de Ardern, Thomas and Nicholas de Sanford, brothers, and others (named).
Reference: Desc. Cat. Ancient Deeds 2 (1894): 167.
"Obiit Nicholaus de Sanford. Tempore quoque sub eodem, videlicet decimo tertio kalendas Februarii, obiit Nicholas de Sanford miles."
https://books.google.com/books?id=ufYKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA273#v=onepage&q&f=false
In 1066 the manor of WOOLSTON was held by Earl Harold. It was then taken by King William and in 1086 was held by him in demesne. (fn. 233) During the 12th century the manor was granted to the Sanford family to hold in serjeanty by virtue of the office of chamberlain to the queen. (fn. 234) A John de Sanford held the manor in 1210-12 (fn. 235) and Cecily de Sanford in 1219. (fn. 236) Gilbert de Sanford held Woolston in 1236, in which year he officiated at the coronation of Eleanor of Provence. (fn. 237) He was still living in 1248, (fn. 238) but was dead by April 1249 when the wardship of his daughter and heir Alice de Sanford was bought by Fulk Basset, Bishop of London. (fn. 239) In June 1249 the bishop sold the wardship to Hugh de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who married Alice to his son and heir Robert. (fn. 240) In 1259 John de Rivers, lord of Ongar hundred, granted to Robert de Vere and Alice his wife a release of 4d. rent at their view of frankpledge at Woolston. (fn. 241) In 1265 Robert's estates were forfeited for his part in the Barons' War; the township of Woolston was then said to be worth £6 6s. 8d. a year. (fn. 242) Robert recovered his estates under the Dictum of Kenilworth, but before this, in October 1265, all Alice's hereditary lands had been restored to her. (fn. 243). In 1284 Robert and Alice granted the reversion of Woolston after their deaths to their daughter Joan and her husband William de Warenne, son and heir of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (d. 1304). (fn. 244) Robert died in 1296; Woolston was then being held of him and Alice by William le Plomer. (fn. 245) Alice died in 1312." END OF QUOTE.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol4/pp24-32
Reviewing the above, it appears that Alice de Sanford's father, Sir Gilbert de Sanford (died c.1249), was the son and heir of John de Sanford who occurs in 1210-12. Given that Sir Gilbert de Sanford occurs in records with Sir Nicholas de Sanford and Sir Laurence de Sanford, and given that Sir Nicholas de Sanford's father was also named John de Sanford, I believe it is safe to conclude that Sir Gilbert de Sanford was the brother of Sir Nicholas de Sanford (died 1252), Sir Laurence de Sanford, and Thomas Sanford. This in turn would place Sir Nicholas de Sanford (died 1252) as the uncle of Sir Gilbert de Sanford's daughter and heir, Alice de Sanford, wife of Sir Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford.
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, John Barclay, Charles Barham, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, Dorothy Beresford, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward Bromfield, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, James & Norton Claypoole, St. Leger Codd, Elizabeth & Thomas Coytemore, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, Rowland Ellis, John Fenwick, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Patrick Houston, Edward Howell, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Elizabeth, Joshua, & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, Edward Raynsford, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, John & Lawrence Washington, John West, Hawte Wyatt, Amy Wyllys.
Do you descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford. If so, I'd very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.
Douglas Richardson, Historian & Genealogist
I already had Nicholas de Sandford as brother of Gilbert, together with Fulk, Abp of Dublin †1271, Alan, John, Lawrence (m. Hawise Basset) and Cecily (m. Sir William de Gorham of Westwick), based on posts by Todd Farmerie, John Ravilious and Rosie Bevan under ‘Basset and Sandford (was: Trusted Sources)’, SGM, 8-10 Sep 2005.

Nicholas de Sandford bore 'barry wavy argent and gules' (Matthew Paris Shields (c.1245-51) MP IV. 81, Glover’s Roll (c.1253) B 116, Walford’s Roll (c.1275) C 140) and Gilbert de Sandford bore 'barry wavy argent and azure' (Charles’s Roll (c.1285) F 111). The two brothers presumably based their coats of arms on those of their mother, Alice, daughter of Alan Bassett who bore 'barry wavy or and gules' (seal: c.1225, Birch 7184) (tinctures taken from Alan's son Gilbert's arms in Matthew Paris Shields (c.1244) MP II. 34).

Peter Howarth
joseph cook
2020-10-12 23:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
Nicholas de Sandford bore 'barry wavy argent and gules' (Matthew Paris Shields (c.1245-51) MP IV. 81, Glover’s Roll (c.1253) B 116, Walford’s Roll (c.1275) C 140) and Gilbert de Sandford bore 'barry wavy argent and azure' (Charles’s Roll (c.1285) F 111). The two brothers presumably based their coats of arms on those of their mother, Alice, daughter of Alan Bassett who bore 'barry wavy or and gules' (seal: c.1225, Birch 7184) (tinctures taken from Alan's son Gilbert's arms in Matthew Paris Shields (c.1244) MP II. 34).
Rosie Bevan provided the following info in 2005:

"Cecily, the wife of John de Sanford senior, was the daughter of Adam de
Sewardstone. In 1223 she was called to answer accusations of waste in
Essex which she held of the inheritance of John de Sanford (the
younger). She married Matthew Maunsell after her husband John's
death.[Bracton's Note Book, no.1617].

In 1240 Gilbert de Sanford, son of John junior, unsuccessfully claimed
the vill of Sewardstone which had been given by Henry II to Waltham
abbey around 1178 as part of its refoundation dower. Gilbert said that
it rightly belonged to his grandmother Cecilia who was then under age
and a royal ward and heir to her father Adam. In 1278 Gilbert's
daughter and heir, Alice, then countess of Oxford again tried to
establish a claim to Sewardstone, but was unsuccesful.[Rosalind
Ransford, The Early Charters of Waltham Abbey, 1062-1230 (Boydell,
1989) nos. 26, 287]

This would give us

John de Sanford=Cecily de Sewardstone
|
John de Sanford=Alice Basset
|
Gilbert de Sanford=Loretta la Zouche
|
Alice de Sanford=Robert de Vere

The name Sanford is evidently derived from Stamford Hill."
John Higgins
2020-10-13 03:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
"He married Alice, daughter and heiress of Gilbert de Sanford, hereditary Chamberlain to the Queen for her Coronation, by Loretta, daughter of (-----) ... Alice died before 9 (probably 7) September 1312, at Canfield, and was buried at Earls Colne." END OF QUOTE.
"Alice inherited the manors of Great Hormead and Nuthampstead (Herts) and Fingrith, Margaretting, and Woolverston in Chigwell (Essex), all held in grand serjeantry by the service of acting as the Queen's Chamberlain at her Coronation." END OF QUOTE.
Recently I encountered a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1253 which confirms C.P.'s statement that Alice, wife of Robert de Vere, was the daughter of Gilbert de Sanford. This lawsuit provides the additional detail that Alice was the heir of Nicholas de Sanford. A brief abstract of the lawsuit is provided below.
"In 1253 Roger de Saunford sued Robert de Veer and Alice his wife, daughter of Gilbert de Saunford, and heir of Nicholas de Saunford, that they warrant to him one mill and lands in Grimsby, Northamptonshire, which William de Parco claimed as his right." END OF ABSTRACT.
Court of Common Pleas, KB26/148, image 2 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H3/KB26_148/0002.htm).
So who was Nicholas de Sanford?
https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA58
"Nicholas de Sanford was granted Leckwith [Glamorganshire] by Richard de Clare 1243-62, and he transferred it to his brother Laurence, Nicholas died in 1252 according to Matthew Paris. In 1262 a Fulco de Sanford held Leckwith but by 1294 it was in the de Clare hands." END OF QUOTE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=mycAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA351
Glam. A. 4870. Grant by Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, to Sir Nicholas de Sanford, of the manor of Lecquid, with 'heybote' and 'hushote' in all the grantor's forests of Meyskin. Witnesses;—Sirs Stephen Baucen, sheriff of Glamorgan, Walter de Sullie, William de Reygny, and others (named). [AD. 1233–45.]
Glam. A. 4871. Grant by Nicholas de Sandford, to Sir Laurence de Sandford, his brother, of the manor of Lecquid. Witnesses:—Sirs Philip Basseth, William Dyve, Oliver de Ingham, Roger de Sandford, Adam de Dutton, and others (named). Fragment of seal of arms.
Glam. A. 4872. Grant by Laurence de Sanford, to Sir Philip Basset, of the manor of Lecquid. Witnesses:—Sir Hugh le Despenser (dispensator'), justiciary of England, Richard de Culewurth, constable of the Tower of London, Henry de Wykham and others (named).
https://books.google.com/books?id=g1M4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA115
A. 3220. Grant by William de Monte Acuto, son of Drew (Droci) de Monte Acuto, to Philip Basset, of all his land in Therlebergh, paying a pair of gilt spurs or 6d. yearly. Witnesses:— Ralph de Ardern, Thomas and Nicholas de Sanford, brothers, and others (named).
Reference: Desc. Cat. Ancient Deeds 2 (1894): 167.
"Obiit Nicholaus de Sanford. Tempore quoque sub eodem, videlicet decimo tertio kalendas Februarii, obiit Nicholas de Sanford miles."
https://books.google.com/books?id=ufYKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA273#v=onepage&q&f=false
In 1066 the manor of WOOLSTON was held by Earl Harold. It was then taken by King William and in 1086 was held by him in demesne. (fn. 233) During the 12th century the manor was granted to the Sanford family to hold in serjeanty by virtue of the office of chamberlain to the queen. (fn. 234) A John de Sanford held the manor in 1210-12 (fn. 235) and Cecily de Sanford in 1219. (fn. 236) Gilbert de Sanford held Woolston in 1236, in which year he officiated at the coronation of Eleanor of Provence. (fn. 237) He was still living in 1248, (fn. 238) but was dead by April 1249 when the wardship of his daughter and heir Alice de Sanford was bought by Fulk Basset, Bishop of London. (fn. 239) In June 1249 the bishop sold the wardship to Hugh de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who married Alice to his son and heir Robert. (fn. 240) In 1259 John de Rivers, lord of Ongar hundred, granted to Robert de Vere and Alice his wife a release of 4d. rent at their view of frankpledge at Woolston. (fn. 241) In 1265 Robert's estates were forfeited for his part in the Barons' War; the township of Woolston was then said to be worth £6 6s. 8d. a year. (fn. 242) Robert recovered his estates under the Dictum of Kenilworth, but before this, in October 1265, all Alice's hereditary lands had been restored to her. (fn. 243). In 1284 Robert and Alice granted the reversion of Woolston after their deaths to their daughter Joan and her husband William de Warenne, son and heir of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (d. 1304). (fn. 244) Robert died in 1296; Woolston was then being held of him and Alice by William le Plomer. (fn. 245) Alice died in 1312." END OF QUOTE.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol4/pp24-32
Reviewing the above, it appears that Alice de Sanford's father, Sir Gilbert de Sanford (died c.1249), was the son and heir of John de Sanford who occurs in 1210-12. Given that Sir Gilbert de Sanford occurs in records with Sir Nicholas de Sanford and Sir Laurence de Sanford, and given that Sir Nicholas de Sanford's father was also named John de Sanford, I believe it is safe to conclude that Sir Gilbert de Sanford was the brother of Sir Nicholas de Sanford (died 1252), Sir Laurence de Sanford, and Thomas Sanford. This in turn would place Sir Nicholas de Sanford (died 1252) as the uncle of Sir Gilbert de Sanford's daughter and heir, Alice de Sanford, wife of Sir Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford.
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, John Barclay, Charles Barham, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, Dorothy Beresford, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward Bromfield, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, James & Norton Claypoole, St. Leger Codd, Elizabeth & Thomas Coytemore, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, Rowland Ellis, John Fenwick, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Patrick Houston, Edward Howell, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Elizabeth, Joshua, & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, Edward Raynsford, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, John & Lawrence Washington, John West, Hawte Wyatt, Amy Wyllys.
Do you descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford. If so, I'd very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.
Douglas Richardson, Historian & Genealogist
I already had Nicholas de Sandford as brother of Gilbert, together with Fulk, Abp of Dublin †1271, Alan, John, Lawrence (m. Hawise Basset) and Cecily (m. Sir William de Gorham of Westwick), based on posts by Todd Farmerie, John Ravilious and Rosie Bevan under ‘Basset and Sandford (was: Trusted Sources)’, SGM, 8-10 Sep 2005.
Nicholas de Sandford bore 'barry wavy argent and gules' (Matthew Paris Shields (c.1245-51) MP IV. 81, Glover’s Roll (c.1253) B 116, Walford’s Roll (c.1275) C 140) and Gilbert de Sandford bore 'barry wavy argent and azure' (Charles’s Roll (c.1285) F 111). The two brothers presumably based their coats of arms on those of their mother, Alice, daughter of Alan Bassett who bore 'barry wavy or and gules' (seal: c.1225, Birch 7184) (tinctures taken from Alan's son Gilbert's arms in Matthew Paris Shields (c.1244) MP II. 34).
Peter Howarth
The 2005 discussion on the Sandfords which Peter Howarth mentions above can be found at the link below, starting with a 7 Sept 2005 post by Todd Farmerie and continuing on for quite some length. A lot of information...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/6EVwsFS4U-I/qprQoPeDxrwJ
Eric Kniffin
2020-10-13 00:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Do you descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford. If so, I'd very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.
My line back to them depends on a section of the Woodhull line, which seems unverifiable. If it was verifiable, I suspect Richard Woodhull would be on your list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford. It all depends on:

William Parr 1483-1547 m. Mary Salisbury 1484-1555
Elizabeth Parr m. Nicholas Wodhull 1482-1531
Fulke Wodhull -1613 m. Alice Coles
Lawrence Wodhull
Richard Woodhull 1620-1691

But I cannot find sources for the Wodhull/Woodhull connecting Sir Nicholas with Richard. It is merely written this way in various genealogies. (I first stumbled on it in "A Genealogical History of the Berrien Family" by E. Renee Heiss.)
John Higgins
2020-10-13 03:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Kniffin
Do you descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford. If so, I'd very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.
William Parr 1483-1547 m. Mary Salisbury 1484-1555
Elizabeth Parr m. Nicholas Wodhull 1482-1531
Fulke Wodhull -1613 m. Alice Coles
Lawrence Wodhull
Richard Woodhull 1620-1691
But I cannot find sources for the Wodhull/Woodhull connecting Sir Nicholas with Richard. It is merely written this way in various genealogies. (I first stumbled on it in "A Genealogical History of the Berrien Family" by E. Renee Heiss.)
You may already be familiar with this item, but I'll mention it in case you aren't.

There is a lengthy article on the Wodhull/Woodhull family by Charles M. Hansen in vols. 7-8 of The Genealogist, 1986-87. On page 42, Fulk Wodhull (d. 1613), son of Nicholas Wodhull and Elizabeth Parr, is discussed. It says that Fulk and his wife Alice Colles had "at least two sons, Nicholas and John, who married and had issue" - no mention of a son Lawrence. However, the text at this point, references a long footnote (#471) on pp. 102-104 of the article which discusses the emigrant Richard Woodhull (or Odell) and the attempts to connect him to the family above. Might be worth a read...and then you can draw your own conclusions. :-)
kniff...@gmail.com
2020-10-13 11:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
You may already be familiar with this item, but I'll mention it in case you aren't.
There is a lengthy article on the Wodhull/Woodhull family by Charles M. Hansen in vols. 7-8 of The
Genealogist, 1986-87. On page 42, Fulk Wodhull (d. 1613), son of Nicholas Wodhull and Elizabeth Parr, is
discussed. It says that Fulk and his wife Alice Colles had "at least two sons, Nicholas and John, who
married and had issue" - no mention of a son Lawrence. However, the text at this point, references a long
footnote (#471) on pp. 102-104 of the article which discusses the emigrant Richard Woodhull (or Odell)
and the attempts to connect him to the family above. Might be worth a read...and then you can draw your
own conclusions. :-)
I was not already familiar with that item. Thank you! It seems this is not available digitally. I suppose $15 too order the issue isn't the end of the world.
Greg Cooke
2020-10-13 14:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
You may already be familiar with this item, but I'll mention it in case you aren't.
There is a lengthy article on the Wodhull/Woodhull family by Charles M. Hansen in vols. 7-8 of The
Genealogist, 1986-87. On page 42, Fulk Wodhull (d. 1613), son of Nicholas Wodhull and Elizabeth Parr, is
discussed. It says that Fulk and his wife Alice Colles had "at least two sons, Nicholas and John, who
married and had issue" - no mention of a son Lawrence. However, the text at this point, references a long
footnote (#471) on pp. 102-104 of the article which discusses the emigrant Richard Woodhull (or Odell)
and the attempts to connect him to the family above. Might be worth a read...and then you can draw your
own conclusions. :-)
I was not already familiar with that item. Thank you! It seems this is not available digitally. I suppose $15 too order the issue isn't the end of the world.
For $40, you can order the 1st 10 years of TG, and get their two special issues as well. There are many medieval-related articles in there.
Greg Cooke
ravinma...@yahoo.com
2020-10-13 14:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Cooke
Post by John Higgins
You may already be familiar with this item, but I'll mention it in case you aren't.
There is a lengthy article on the Wodhull/Woodhull family by Charles M. Hansen in vols. 7-8 of The
Genealogist, 1986-87. On page 42, Fulk Wodhull (d. 1613), son of Nicholas Wodhull and Elizabeth Parr, is
discussed. It says that Fulk and his wife Alice Colles had "at least two sons, Nicholas and John, who
married and had issue" - no mention of a son Lawrence. However, the text at this point, references a long
footnote (#471) on pp. 102-104 of the article which discusses the emigrant Richard Woodhull (or Odell)
and the attempts to connect him to the family above. Might be worth a read...and then you can draw your
own conclusions. :-)
I was not already familiar with that item. Thank you! It seems this is not available digitally. I suppose $15 too order the issue isn't the end of the world.
For $40, you can order the 1st 10 years of TG, and get their two special issues as well. There are many medieval-related articles in there.
Greg Cooke
Is it only $40?? I know I sent them a check for $400 for the whole set (maybe 15 years ago?)...
Greg Cooke
2020-10-13 14:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Douglas,
What is the line from Robt de Vere to Obadiah Bruen? I'm missing that one. Here's my line to my gr-grandmother, a 19th century immigrant:
1 Mary Elizabeth Robinson b. 11 Mar 1869, d. 8 Jul 1955
2 Matilda Caroline Higginson b. 27 Aug 1841, d. 1 Apr 1909
3 Mary Maria Hester Wynyard b. 23 May 1815, d. 18 Dec 1893
4 Jane Lascelles b. 19 Aug 1776, d. 22 Jul 1863
5 General Francis Lascelles b. 1 Nov 1744, d. 2 Sep 1799
6 Edward Lascelles b. 25 Feb 1702/3, d. 31 Oct 1747
7 Daniel Lascelles b. 6 Nov 1655, d. 5 Sep 1734
8 Frances St. Quintin d. bef. 20 Sep 1658
9 Mary Lacy d. bef. 4 May 1649
10 Katherine Thirkeld d. bef. 27 Apr 1637
11 Elizabeth Hilton
12 Sir William de Hilton, Knt. d. 1562
13 Sir William Hylton, Knt., de jure 9th Lord Hylton d. aft. 2 Dec 1526
14 Margery Bowes d. bef. 4 Jun 1503
15 Maud Fitz Hugh b. abt. 1422, d. aft. 1466
16 Margery Willoughby d. 22 Oct 1452
17 Lucy le Strange d. aft. 28 Apr 1398
18 Aline de Arundel, Lady Strange d. 20 Jan 1385/86
19 Alice de Warenne d. bt 1331 - 1338
20 Joan de Vere b. say 1266, d. bef. 23 Nov 1293
21 Sir Robert de Vere, Knt., 5th Earl of Oxford

Thanks
Greg Cooke
Post by John Higgins
You may already be familiar with this item, but I'll mention it in case you aren't.
There is a lengthy article on the Wodhull/Woodhull family by Charles M. Hansen in vols. 7-8 of The
Genealogist, 1986-87. On page 42, Fulk Wodhull (d. 1613), son of Nicholas Wodhull and Elizabeth Parr, is
discussed. It says that Fulk and his wife Alice Colles had "at least two sons, Nicholas and John, who
married and had issue" - no mention of a son Lawrence. However, the text at this point, references a long
footnote (#471) on pp. 102-104 of the article which discusses the emigrant Richard Woodhull (or Odell)
and the attempts to connect him to the family above. Might be worth a read...and then you can draw your
own conclusions. :-)
I was not already familiar with that item. Thank you! It seems this is not available digitally. I suppose $15 too order the issue isn't the end of the world.
Greg Cooke
2020-10-13 18:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Cooke
Douglas,
1 Mary Elizabeth Robinson b. 11 Mar 1869, d. 8 Jul 1955
2 Matilda Caroline Higginson b. 27 Aug 1841, d. 1 Apr 1909
3 Mary Maria Hester Wynyard b. 23 May 1815, d. 18 Dec 1893
4 Jane Lascelles b. 19 Aug 1776, d. 22 Jul 1863
5 General Francis Lascelles b. 1 Nov 1744, d. 2 Sep 1799
6 Edward Lascelles b. 25 Feb 1702/3, d. 31 Oct 1747
7 Daniel Lascelles b. 6 Nov 1655, d. 5 Sep 1734
8 Frances St. Quintin d. bef. 20 Sep 1658
9 Mary Lacy d. bef. 4 May 1649
10 Katherine Thirkeld d. bef. 27 Apr 1637
11 Elizabeth Hilton
12 Sir William de Hilton, Knt. d. 1562
13 Sir William Hylton, Knt., de jure 9th Lord Hylton d. aft. 2 Dec 1526
14 Margery Bowes d. bef. 4 Jun 1503
15 Maud Fitz Hugh b. abt. 1422, d. aft. 1466
16 Margery Willoughby d. 22 Oct 1452
17 Lucy le Strange d. aft. 28 Apr 1398
18 Aline de Arundel, Lady Strange d. 20 Jan 1385/86
19 Alice de Warenne d. bt 1331 - 1338
20 Joan de Vere b. say 1266, d. bef. 23 Nov 1293
21 Sir Robert de Vere, Knt., 5th Earl of Oxford
Thanks
Greg Cooke
Post by John Higgins
You may already be familiar with this item, but I'll mention it in case you aren't.
There is a lengthy article on the Wodhull/Woodhull family by Charles M. Hansen in vols. 7-8 of The
Genealogist, 1986-87. On page 42, Fulk Wodhull (d. 1613), son of Nicholas Wodhull and Elizabeth Parr, is
discussed. It says that Fulk and his wife Alice Colles had "at least two sons, Nicholas and John, who
married and had issue" - no mention of a son Lawrence. However, the text at this point, references a long
footnote (#471) on pp. 102-104 of the article which discusses the emigrant Richard Woodhull (or Odell)
and the attempts to connect him to the family above. Might be worth a read...and then you can draw your
own conclusions. :-)
I was not already familiar with that item. Thank you! It seems this is not available digitally. I suppose $15 too order the issue isn't the end of the world.
It's $40 for just the 1st 10 volumes (1980-1989). It's still $400 for the entire run from 1980 to present. Publication paused with vol 10 (1989), but resumed in 1997 with vol 11.
Greg Cooke
2020-10-13 19:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Cooke
Post by Greg Cooke
Douglas,
1 Mary Elizabeth Robinson b. 11 Mar 1869, d. 8 Jul 1955
2 Matilda Caroline Higginson b. 27 Aug 1841, d. 1 Apr 1909
3 Mary Maria Hester Wynyard b. 23 May 1815, d. 18 Dec 1893
4 Jane Lascelles b. 19 Aug 1776, d. 22 Jul 1863
5 General Francis Lascelles b. 1 Nov 1744, d. 2 Sep 1799
6 Edward Lascelles b. 25 Feb 1702/3, d. 31 Oct 1747
7 Daniel Lascelles b. 6 Nov 1655, d. 5 Sep 1734
8 Frances St. Quintin d. bef. 20 Sep 1658
9 Mary Lacy d. bef. 4 May 1649
10 Katherine Thirkeld d. bef. 27 Apr 1637
11 Elizabeth Hilton
12 Sir William de Hilton, Knt. d. 1562
13 Sir William Hylton, Knt., de jure 9th Lord Hylton d. aft. 2 Dec 1526
14 Margery Bowes d. bef. 4 Jun 1503
15 Maud Fitz Hugh b. abt. 1422, d. aft. 1466
16 Margery Willoughby d. 22 Oct 1452
17 Lucy le Strange d. aft. 28 Apr 1398
18 Aline de Arundel, Lady Strange d. 20 Jan 1385/86
19 Alice de Warenne d. bt 1331 - 1338
20 Joan de Vere b. say 1266, d. bef. 23 Nov 1293
21 Sir Robert de Vere, Knt., 5th Earl of Oxford
Thanks
Greg Cooke
Post by John Higgins
You may already be familiar with this item, but I'll mention it in case you aren't.
There is a lengthy article on the Wodhull/Woodhull family by Charles M. Hansen in vols. 7-8 of The
Genealogist, 1986-87. On page 42, Fulk Wodhull (d. 1613), son of Nicholas Wodhull and Elizabeth Parr, is
discussed. It says that Fulk and his wife Alice Colles had "at least two sons, Nicholas and John, who
married and had issue" - no mention of a son Lawrence. However, the text at this point, references a long
footnote (#471) on pp. 102-104 of the article which discusses the emigrant Richard Woodhull (or Odell)
and the attempts to connect him to the family above. Might be worth a read...and then you can draw your
own conclusions. :-)
I was not already familiar with that item. Thank you! It seems this is not available digitally. I suppose $15 too order the issue isn't the end of the world.
It's $40 for just the 1st 10 volumes (1980-1989). It's still $400 for the entire run from 1980 to present. Publication paused with vol 10 (1989), but resumed in 1997 with vol 11.
Just a further note (and back to the subject) on my line from Robert de Vere: #6 Edward Lascelles is #652 in the ahnentafel of Princes Di (Evans, p79). You can see my sources for that line starting here: https://www.gdcooke.org/ss/default.aspx/page/org2-o/p7569.htm

Thanks
Greg
John Higgins
2020-10-13 19:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Cooke
Post by Greg Cooke
Douglas,
1 Mary Elizabeth Robinson b. 11 Mar 1869, d. 8 Jul 1955
2 Matilda Caroline Higginson b. 27 Aug 1841, d. 1 Apr 1909
3 Mary Maria Hester Wynyard b. 23 May 1815, d. 18 Dec 1893
4 Jane Lascelles b. 19 Aug 1776, d. 22 Jul 1863
5 General Francis Lascelles b. 1 Nov 1744, d. 2 Sep 1799
6 Edward Lascelles b. 25 Feb 1702/3, d. 31 Oct 1747
7 Daniel Lascelles b. 6 Nov 1655, d. 5 Sep 1734
8 Frances St. Quintin d. bef. 20 Sep 1658
9 Mary Lacy d. bef. 4 May 1649
10 Katherine Thirkeld d. bef. 27 Apr 1637
11 Elizabeth Hilton
12 Sir William de Hilton, Knt. d. 1562
13 Sir William Hylton, Knt., de jure 9th Lord Hylton d. aft. 2 Dec 1526
14 Margery Bowes d. bef. 4 Jun 1503
15 Maud Fitz Hugh b. abt. 1422, d. aft. 1466
16 Margery Willoughby d. 22 Oct 1452
17 Lucy le Strange d. aft. 28 Apr 1398
18 Aline de Arundel, Lady Strange d. 20 Jan 1385/86
19 Alice de Warenne d. bt 1331 - 1338
20 Joan de Vere b. say 1266, d. bef. 23 Nov 1293
21 Sir Robert de Vere, Knt., 5th Earl of Oxford
Thanks
Greg Cooke
Post by John Higgins
You may already be familiar with this item, but I'll mention it in case you aren't.
There is a lengthy article on the Wodhull/Woodhull family by Charles M. Hansen in vols. 7-8 of The
Genealogist, 1986-87. On page 42, Fulk Wodhull (d. 1613), son of Nicholas Wodhull and Elizabeth Parr, is
discussed. It says that Fulk and his wife Alice Colles had "at least two sons, Nicholas and John, who
married and had issue" - no mention of a son Lawrence. However, the text at this point, references a long
footnote (#471) on pp. 102-104 of the article which discusses the emigrant Richard Woodhull (or Odell)
and the attempts to connect him to the family above. Might be worth a read...and then you can draw your
own conclusions. :-)
I was not already familiar with that item. Thank you! It seems this is not available digitally. I suppose $15 too order the issue isn't the end of the world.
It's $40 for just the 1st 10 volumes (1980-1989). It's still $400 for the entire run from 1980 to present. Publication paused with vol 10 (1989), but resumed in 1997 with vol 11.
I too got the first 10 volumes of TG a number of years ago for a "remainder sale" price of $40. But that option seems to no longer be available on their website. Apparently they have run out of some of the issues in that range.
https://fasg.org/the-genealogist/subscribing-and-back-issues/
John Higgins
2020-10-13 19:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by John Higgins
You may already be familiar with this item, but I'll mention it in case you aren't.
There is a lengthy article on the Wodhull/Woodhull family by Charles M. Hansen in vols. 7-8 of The
Genealogist, 1986-87. On page 42, Fulk Wodhull (d. 1613), son of Nicholas Wodhull and Elizabeth Parr, is
discussed. It says that Fulk and his wife Alice Colles had "at least two sons, Nicholas and John, who
married and had issue" - no mention of a son Lawrence. However, the text at this point, references a long
footnote (#471) on pp. 102-104 of the article which discusses the emigrant Richard Woodhull (or Odell)
and the attempts to connect him to the family above. Might be worth a read...and then you can draw your
own conclusions. :-)
I was not already familiar with that item. Thank you! It seems this is not available digitally. I suppose $15 too order the issue isn't the end of the world.
If you send me a private email, I can scan the pertinent pages of the article for you. The whole article is over 100 pages long and far too much to scan.
kniff...@gmail.com
2020-10-13 23:04:53 UTC
Permalink
If you send me a private email, I can scan the pertinent pages of the article for you. The whole article is over 100 pages long and far
too much to scan.
Well... At the risk of looking a bit foolish, I can't see your email address. Only jhigg... Am I supposed to be able to uncover what's hidden??
taf
2020-10-13 23:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
If you send me a private email, I can scan the pertinent pages of the article for you. The whole article is over 100 pages long and far
too much to scan.
Well... At the risk of looking a bit foolish, I can't see your email address. Only jhigg... Am I supposed to be able to uncover what's hidden??
If you are using Gmail, then the dropdown menu at the top right of each post includes the option to 'Reply privately to author'. Doing that will send an email.

taf
Eric Kniffin
2020-10-14 02:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
If you are using Gmail, then the dropdown menu at the top right of each post includes the option to 'Reply privately to author'. Doing
that will send an email.
Well, I assume I've been at least this aggravated and frustrated at some point in my life, but I don't remember it. I feel like I'm a caveman looking at a computer for the first time. No, I'm not using Gmail. I just log onto groups.google.com from whatever browser I'm on, and it works. Except for this. And I've googled and googled how to get to groups in Gmail, and get all these pages that don't answer the question, or videos showing things I just don't have on my screen. And I try a thousand things. And now it's not even about getting this Woodhull information, it's about losing my mind because I can't make this work. And if you could hear the words coming out of my mouth you'd have me banned from Groups, just on general principle.

Good night, all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
taf
2020-10-14 02:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Kniffin
Well, I assume I've been at least this aggravated and frustrated
at some point in my life, but I don't remember it. I feel like
I'm a caveman looking at a computer for the first time. No, I'm
not using Gmail. I just log onto groups.google.com from whatever
browser I'm on, and it works.
Sorry, that was my mistyping. I meant to say Google Groups.

Just go to the post by the person you wish to contact. As you are reading it you will see two buttons at the top-right, a rectangular one with a curved arrow on top of another, that you use to reply to a post, and on its right, a smaller square button with a point-down triangle. That is a drop-down menu. Click on that button and it will give you a list of options, the first of which is 'Reply privately to author'. Click on that and it will open a reply window that will send a private email to the person who posted the message you are replying to.

taf
taf
2020-10-14 02:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Eric Kniffin
Well, I assume I've been at least this aggravated and frustrated
at some point in my life, but I don't remember it. I feel like
I'm a caveman looking at a computer for the first time. No, I'm
not using Gmail. I just log onto groups.google.com from whatever
browser I'm on, and it works.
Sorry, that was my mistyping. I meant to say Google Groups.
Just go to the post by the person you wish to contact. As you are reading it you will see two buttons at the top-right, a rectangular one with a curved arrow on top of another, that you use to reply to a post, and on its right, a smaller square button with a point-down triangle. That is a drop-down menu. Click on that button and it will give you a list of options, the first of which is 'Reply privately to author'. Click on that and it will open a reply window that will send a private email to the person who posted the message you are replying to.
taf
It occurs to me, this is how it looks in the Old Google Groups. I don't know how it looks in the new interface, and I am not going to switch over to find out as it may not let me back.

taf
John Higgins
2020-10-14 05:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Kniffin
Post by taf
If you are using Gmail, then the dropdown menu at the top right of each post includes the option to 'Reply privately to author'. Doing
that will send an email.
Well, I assume I've been at least this aggravated and frustrated at some point in my life, but I don't remember it. I feel like I'm a caveman looking at a computer for the first time. No, I'm not using Gmail. I just log onto groups.google.com from whatever browser I'm on, and it works. Except for this. And I've googled and googled how to get to groups in Gmail, and get all these pages that don't answer the question, or videos showing things I just don't have on my screen. And I try a thousand things. And now it's not even about getting this Woodhull information, it's about losing my mind because I can't make this work. And if you could hear the words coming out of my mouth you'd have me banned from Groups, just on general principle.
Good night, all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just remembered that Google Groups (the "classic" Google Groups, at least) allows an attachment to be included in a private email (although you cannot include at attachment in an original post to the group). So...hopefully on Wednesday (time permitting), I'll scan the appropriate pages and send them in a private email to you.

Sorry for causing you so much frustration...
Eric Kniffin
2020-10-14 10:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Sorry for causing you so much frustration...
Heh. I don't blame you. If you can't see *my* email, it's kniffineric at gmail. If you're able to do anything, I would appreciate it. I've found various short articles at americanancestors, but, of course, not the one you're talking about, since I guess they aren't digitized. A couple by Henry B Hoff, which say much the same as what you're saying. But if you are saying the Hansen article itself is 100 pages, I'll probably get those two issues anyway. But if you can send me those relevant parts in the meantime, that would be great. I *think* I just emailed you? As related in my last paragraph below.
Post by John Higgins
It occurs to me, this is how it looks in the Old Google Groups. I don't know how it looks in the new interface, and I am not going to
switch over to find out as it may not let me back.
That's good thinking, knowing how these things work.

I thought I had stumbled onto something when my post last night went to my email. But when I got up this morning, only Mr. Higgins' post, and not your two, had come to my email. And it was in my Promotions folder. I have the three-dots menu on the top right of each post, but, at groups.google.com, "Reply to author" is not clickable; and, in email, that's not even an unusable option.

No worries, I'm not tell everybody all this so you can try to figure it out. It's comical, and I'm trying to share a laugh. Lol.

BUT, I have the option of "Show original" in the email version, which, amongst a couple pages of things like eKcDxhFUh0zQSnKYFR09z/aC7vTB2RajLqVfyM38xDxjkk6ykzyXMqyGI nq6cHI03FZ8+N0AptH5OLsu2xChpr00xuJTkEyKdrb1rEDvQcrDE
DOES show me the email address! So possibly in business!

Eric
Greg Cooke
2020-10-14 15:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Sorry for causing you so much frustration...
Heh. I don't blame you. If you can't see *my* email, it's kniffineric at gmail. If you're able to do anything, I would appreciate it. I've found various short articles at americanancestors, but, of course, not the one you're talking about, since I guess they aren't digitized. A couple by Henry B Hoff, which say much the same as what you're saying. But if you are saying the Hansen article itself is 100 pages, I'll probably get those two issues anyway. But if you can send me those relevant parts in the meantime, that would be great. I *think* I just emailed you? As related in my last paragraph below.
Post by John Higgins
It occurs to me, this is how it looks in the Old Google Groups. I don't know how it looks in the new interface, and I am not going to
switch over to find out as it may not let me back.
That's good thinking, knowing how these things work.
I thought I had stumbled onto something when my post last night went to my email. But when I got up this morning, only Mr. Higgins' post, and not your two, had come to my email. And it was in my Promotions folder. I have the three-dots menu on the top right of each post, but, at groups.google.com, "Reply to author" is not clickable; and, in email, that's not even an unusable option.
No worries, I'm not tell everybody all this so you can try to figure it out. It's comical, and I'm trying to share a laugh. Lol.
BUT, I have the option of "Show original" in the email version, which, amongst a couple pages of things like eKcDxhFUh0zQSnKYFR09z/aC7vTB2RajLqVfyM38xDxjkk6ykzyXMqyGI nq6cHI03FZ8+N0AptH5OLsu2xChpr00xuJTkEyKdrb1rEDvQcrDE
DOES show me the email address! So possibly in business!
Eric
The latest issue of TG still has the $40 offer. Alicia's email is on the site, so you might see what you can get. Looks like only two issues are out of print. Still a bargain if you can get it (and your particular issue is not among the missing).

Greg
Eric Kniffin
2020-10-14 18:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Cooke
Post by John Higgins
Sorry for causing you so much frustration...
Heh. I don't blame you. If you can't see *my* email, it's kniffineric at gmail. If you're able to do anything, I would appreciate it. I've found various short articles at americanancestors, but, of course, not the one you're talking about, since I guess they aren't digitized. A couple by Henry B Hoff, which say much the same as what you're saying. But if you are saying the Hansen article itself is 100 pages, I'll probably get those two issues anyway. But if you can send me those relevant parts in the meantime, that would be great. I *think* I just emailed you? As related in my last paragraph below.
Post by John Higgins
It occurs to me, this is how it looks in the Old Google Groups. I don't know how it looks in the new interface, and I am not going to
switch over to find out as it may not let me back.
That's good thinking, knowing how these things work.
I thought I had stumbled onto something when my post last night went to my email. But when I got up this morning, only Mr. Higgins' post, and not your two, had come to my email. And it was in my Promotions folder. I have the three-dots menu on the top right of each post, but, at groups.google.com, "Reply to author" is not clickable; and, in email, that's not even an unusable option.
No worries, I'm not tell everybody all this so you can try to figure it out. It's comical, and I'm trying to share a laugh. Lol.
BUT, I have the option of "Show original" in the email version, which, amongst a couple pages of things like eKcDxhFUh0zQSnKYFR09z/aC7vTB2RajLqVfyM38xDxjkk6ykzyXMqyGI nq6cHI03FZ8+N0AptH5OLsu2xChpr00xuJTkEyKdrb1rEDvQcrDE
DOES show me the email address! So possibly in business!
Eric
The latest issue of TG still has the $40 offer. Alicia's email is on the site, so you might see what you can get. Looks like only two issues are out of print. Still a bargain if you can get it (and your particular issue is not among the missing).
Greg
Thanks! I'll look for that this evening.

Eric
Greg Cooke
2020-10-14 21:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Douglas et al.,

About Obadiah Bruen's descent from Robert de Vere:

In Magna Carta Ancestry (predecessor to RA), I'm able to follow the "ancestors of" footnotes from Robert de Vere for Obadiah up to note 1006 on p888 (Willoughby 8iv). However, when I follow the reference to Fitz Hugh 8, none of their issue have a "ancestors of Obadiah" footnote. Since a similar note for Thomas Booth also disappears at this point, am I wrong to suspect the two have a common ancestry from Robert de Vere buried somewhere in their Booth lineage? If so, I haven't yet found it in MCA or RA. Unfortunately RA doesn't have those "ancestors of" notes.

Any help here?

Thanks

Greg
John Higgins
2020-10-15 23:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Cooke
Douglas et al.,
In Magna Carta Ancestry (predecessor to RA), I'm able to follow the "ancestors of" footnotes from Robert de Vere for Obadiah up to note 1006 on p888 (Willoughby 8iv). However, when I follow the reference to Fitz Hugh 8, none of their issue have a "ancestors of Obadiah" footnote. Since a similar note for Thomas Booth also disappears at this point, am I wrong to suspect the two have a common ancestry from Robert de Vere buried somewhere in their Booth lineage? If so, I haven't yet found it in MCA or RA. Unfortunately RA doesn't have those "ancestors of" notes.
Any help here?
Thanks
Greg
FWIW (not necessarily very much) the Roglo database shows this connection between Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford and Obadiah Bruen. But I'm skeptical about the Molyneux/Bulkeley/Brereton connection. And there may be other issues.
http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en;m=RL;i=5656497;l1=16;i1=5655513;l2=0;i2=5656497
wjhonson
2020-10-17 00:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Roglo suffers here by not having any dating for this important leap.

Randall Brereton of Ipstones and Malpas was the eldest son and was certainly born by 1452 since his third brother was already a father 20 years later.

On the swing side, Alice Ipstones, the heiress by whom the land came to Randall Brereton, the grandfather of this one was *not* born until 1388 at the earliest.

That puts a tight constain on the chronology and shows that it is not possible for this line to survive scrutiny.
taf
2020-10-17 00:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Roglo suffers here by not having any dating for this important leap.
Randall Brereton of Ipstones and Malpas was the eldest son and was certainly born by 1452 since his third brother was already a father 20 years later.
On the swing side, Alice Ipstones, the heiress by whom the land came to Randall Brereton, the grandfather of this one was *not* born until 1388 at the earliest.
That puts a tight constain on the chronology and shows that it is not possible for this line to survive scrutiny.
Could you fill out this argument - I am not really following what you are saying (how this Brereton chronology makes it impossible for the line to possibly survive scrutiny; what the specific problematic lynchpin is)?

It has been a long time since I looked at these lines, but I am pretty sure I did not have the descent this way. I think maybe I had Margaret Molyneux as sister-in-law of Elizabeth Stanley and not as her daughter.

taf
John Higgins
2020-10-17 04:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
Roglo suffers here by not having any dating for this important leap.
Randall Brereton of Ipstones and Malpas was the eldest son and was certainly born by 1452 since his third brother was already a father 20 years later.
On the swing side, Alice Ipstones, the heiress by whom the land came to Randall Brereton, the grandfather of this one was *not* born until 1388 at the earliest.
That puts a tight constain on the chronology and shows that it is not possible for this line to survive scrutiny.
Could you fill out this argument - I am not really following what you are saying (how this Brereton chronology makes it impossible for the line to possibly survive scrutiny; what the specific problematic lynchpin is)?
It has been a long time since I looked at these lines, but I am pretty sure I did not have the descent this way. I think maybe I had Margaret Molyneux as sister-in-law of Elizabeth Stanley and not as her daughter.
taf
Here is a "refreshed" version of the Roglo version of the connection at issue, since the Roglo database is "reorganized" very week on Friday nights (US time) and individuals are assigned new reference numbers.
http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en;m=RL;i=5662037;l1=0;i1=5662037;l2=16;i2=5661053

The problem in the descent is the Bulkeley link, not the Brereton one. The question is which Sir William Bulkeley married Margaret Molyneux, and which Sir William Bulkeley was the father of Katherine Bulkeley who married Randall Brereton. This has been discussed in this group before, with no apparent resolution - except that they are almost certainly not the same man, as Roglo has it.

With respect to the mother of Margaret Molyneux, the Genealogics database calls her "Elizabeth/Anne", daughter of the 1st Lord Stanley. Peter Edmund Stanley's book "The House of Stanley" calls her Elizabeth. No doubt there are other sources that say otherwise...

But the question still stands: is there in fact a valid descent from Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, to Obadiah Bruen?
taf
2020-10-17 05:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
With respect to the mother of Margaret Molyneux, the Genealogics
database calls her "Elizabeth/Anne", daughter of the 1st Lord
Stanley. Peter Edmund Stanley's book "The House of Stanley" calls
her Elizabeth. No doubt there are other sources that say otherwise...
The Visitations of Wales and Part of the Marches, vol. 2, p. 91, has a footnote that says Margaret, wife of William Bulkeley of Eaton was daughter of Richard Molyneux of Sefton by Elizabeth, youngest daughter of Thomas, Lord Stanley.

William Bulkeley of Eaton was (apparently just) of age in 1406, and was still active in 1439. This would seem to place this William in the same generation as the husband of Alice Ipstones, and makes him the likely father of the Katherine who married the younger Randle. He is apparently the William Bulkeley who died 1467, with an ipm - that would be highly informative if it has been published. Ormerod, who was clearly confused here, but he makes the William who died in 1467 the father of the William who married Margaret Molyneux, which would make Margaret the sister-in-law, rather than the mother-in-law, of Randle Brereton.

taf
taf
2020-10-17 14:22:39 UTC
Permalink
First, the chronology of the Breretons:

Alice Ipstones b. 1396/7 m. 1410 to Randle Brereton (I)

Randle (II) b. ca. 1412 m. Katherine Bulkeley as 2nd wife

Randle (III) b. ca. 1435

Randle (IV) b. ca. 1452

Notes: in 1410 Elizabeth de Ipstones (grandmother of Alice) transferred rents to Randle, son of William Brereton, probably marking the marriage. Staff Recd Off D1229/1/4/66. Date of Randle IV is from Will's 'by 1452', consistent with the age estimates for his 7th son, William, as b. 1487-90. It can't be much earlier than this though. I made Randle III younger than I might otherwise, as he was son of a second marriage.

Now let's turn to the Bulkeley/Molyneux marriage, and in particular, the Molyneux pedigree, where we have a date from the same period, that of Sir Richard Molyneux aged 15 months at his father's 1397 ipm. He is the Richard who married Joan Haydock. The pedigrees then show his son Richard married to Elizabeth Stanley. VCH Lancs under Sefton says that this marriage took place by 1432, but given when his father was born, it couldn't have been long before unless it was a juvenile marriage These two dates are enough to align three generations:

1. Alice de Ipstones b1396/7 m1410 Randle I | Richard Molyneux b1396

2. Randle (II) b~1412=Elizabeth Bulkeley | Richard Molyneux b~1414 m~1432 Elizabeth Stanley

3. Randle (III) b~1435 | Margaret Molyneux b~1435=William Bulkeley

There it is then: the line is completely untenable. While there is some slop in the dates, it is all pretty constrained and there is not enough leeway to make it work. Any child of the Molyneux/Bulkeley marriage would have been two generations younger than the Elizabeth who married Randle Brereton II.

Thus the Bruin descent through Brereton from Molyneux and Stanley (also shared by immigrant Robert Abell) and on to deVere (plus Edward I through Stanley) fails. Given the constraints, Elizabeth would have been born no later than the mid-1410s, and if she did indeed come from the Bulkeley of Eaton family, it would have been as daughter of William Bulkeley (son of John Bulkeley and Christina Ryvers). If there was a Bulkeley/Molyneux marriage, it must have either involved a nephew of this Elizabeth (or perhaps a late marriage of a brother), or else the Bulkeley/Molyneux marriage was two generations earlier in the Molyneux pedigree than the Stanley marriage.

taf
John Higgins
2020-10-17 21:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by John Higgins
With respect to the mother of Margaret Molyneux, the Genealogics
database calls her "Elizabeth/Anne", daughter of the 1st Lord
Stanley. Peter Edmund Stanley's book "The House of Stanley" calls
her Elizabeth. No doubt there are other sources that say otherwise...
The Visitations of Wales and Part of the Marches, vol. 2, p. 91, has a footnote that says Margaret, wife of William Bulkeley of Eaton was daughter of Richard Molyneux of Sefton by Elizabeth, youngest daughter of Thomas, Lord Stanley.
William Bulkeley of Eaton was (apparently just) of age in 1406, and was still active in 1439. This would seem to place this William in the same generation as the husband of Alice Ipstones, and makes him the likely father of the Katherine who married the younger Randle. He is apparently the William Bulkeley who died 1467, with an ipm - that would be highly informative if it has been published. Ormerod, who was clearly confused here, but he makes the William who died in 1467 the father of the William who married Margaret Molyneux, which would make Margaret the sister-in-law, rather than the mother-in-law, of Randle Brereton.
taf
I believe the pedigree in the footnote on p. 91 of the cited visitation has it right in saying that Margaret Molyneux married the younger William Bulkeley - not the older William Bulkeley whose daughter married Randle Brereton. Thus, as Todd says, Margaret Molyneux was the sister-in-law, not the mother-in law, of Randle Brereton. Ormerod 3:269 doesn't mention the Bulkeley-Brereton marriage, but it does assign Margatet Molyneux as the wife of the younger William Bulkeley - and gives no issue for that marriage.

As I've said from the start, the Roglo version of the descent from Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, to Obadiah Bruen is erroneous - specifically in the Bulkeley connection. I hope we all can agree on that point now.

But that brings us back to the original question posed by Greg Cooke: what exactly IS the descent from Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, to Obadiah Bruen, that was alluded to by the original poster in this thread? Unfortunately, I think the answer is going to be "read my book".
taf
2020-10-17 22:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
I believe the pedigree in the footnote on p. 91 of the cited visitation
has it right in saying that Margaret Molyneux married the younger William
Bulkeley - not the older William Bulkeley whose daughter married Randle
Brereton.
Note the description given this pedigree - that it is based on the rough notes that the author took from Ormerod. As such, it should not be treated as an independent source from the latter (even though it differs a little).
Post by John Higgins
Thus, as Todd says, Margaret Molyneux was the sister-in-law, not the mother-
in law, of Randle Brereton. Ormerod 3:269 doesn't mention the Bulkeley-
Brereton marriage, but it does assign Margatet Molyneux as the wife of the
younger William Bulkeley - and gives no issue for that marriage.
Note, though that Ormerod gives a pedigree (top to bottom) John, William (I), William (II), Thomas & brother William (III)=Margaret Molyneux. It is William (I) son of John who by date must be the father of Elizabeth, so If Ormerod is right and there are three William's then he is showing the nephew of Elizabeth as the husband of Margaret Molyneux, not the brother. Only if Ormerod has erroneously split two Williams into three (if it should be John, William I, Thomas & brother William (II)=Margaret Molyneux is it Elizabeth's brother.
Post by John Higgins
As I've said from the start, the Roglo version of the descent from Robert
de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, to Obadiah Bruen is erroneous - specifically
in the Bulkeley connection. I hope we all can agree on that point now.
I don't agree with this either. Ormerod is clearly uncertain - the way he expresses the prose summary of the family makes that clear. Thus we can't take for granted that he has placed the Bulkeley/Molyneux marriage in the right generation - the error could be in the Molyneux connection, if the actual pedigree runs John, William (I)-Margaret Molyneux, William (II), Thomas & William (III). In other words, it could be that Elizabeth really was daughter of a Margaret Molyneux, but that Margaret was the aunt rather than the daughter of Richard Molyneux of Sefton who married ELizabeth Stanley.
Post by John Higgins
what exactly IS the descent from Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, to
Obadiah Bruen, that was alluded to by the original poster in this thread?
Likely.

taf
John Higgins
2020-10-18 05:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by John Higgins
I believe the pedigree in the footnote on p. 91 of the cited visitation
has it right in saying that Margaret Molyneux married the younger William
Bulkeley - not the older William Bulkeley whose daughter married Randle
Brereton.
Note the description given this pedigree - that it is based on the rough notes that the author took from Ormerod. As such, it should not be treated as an independent source from the latter (even though it differs a little).
Post by John Higgins
Thus, as Todd says, Margaret Molyneux was the sister-in-law, not the mother-
in law, of Randle Brereton. Ormerod 3:269 doesn't mention the Bulkeley-
Brereton marriage, but it does assign Margatet Molyneux as the wife of the
younger William Bulkeley - and gives no issue for that marriage.
Note, though that Ormerod gives a pedigree (top to bottom) John, William (I), William (II), Thomas & brother William (III)=Margaret Molyneux. It is William (I) son of John who by date must be the father of Elizabeth, so If Ormerod is right and there are three William's then he is showing the nephew of Elizabeth as the husband of Margaret Molyneux, not the brother. Only if Ormerod has erroneously split two Williams into three (if it should be John, William I, Thomas & brother William (II)=Margaret Molyneux is it Elizabeth's brother.
Post by John Higgins
As I've said from the start, the Roglo version of the descent from Robert
de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, to Obadiah Bruen is erroneous - specifically
in the Bulkeley connection. I hope we all can agree on that point now.
I don't agree with this either. Ormerod is clearly uncertain - the way he expresses the prose summary of the family makes that clear. Thus we can't take for granted that he has placed the Bulkeley/Molyneux marriage in the right generation - the error could be in the Molyneux connection, if the actual pedigree runs John, William (I)-Margaret Molyneux, William (II), Thomas & William (III). In other words, it could be that Elizabeth really was daughter of a Margaret Molyneux, but that Margaret was the aunt rather than the daughter of Richard Molyneux of Sefton who married ELizabeth Stanley.
Post by John Higgins
what exactly IS the descent from Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, to
Obadiah Bruen, that was alluded to by the original poster in this thread?
Likely.
taf
I'm confused here by the name "Elizabeth" given to the Bulkeley daughter who married Randle Brereton. The sources I've seen call her either Margaret or Catherine - not Elizabeth. Am I missing something here?

I'm also confused by the identification of which William Bulkeley is the father of this daughter (whatever her name may be). You say here that "Note, though that Ormerod gives a pedigree (top to bottom) John, William (I), William (II), Thomas & brother William (III)=Margaret Molyneux. It is William (I) son of John who by date must be the father of Elizabeth"

But in your post of Friday evening, you say "William Bulkeley of Eaton was (apparently just) of age in 1406, and was still active in 1439. This would seem to place this William in the same generation as the husband of Alice Ipstones, and makes him the likely father of the Katherine who married the younger Randle. He is apparently the William Bulkeley who died 1467, with an ipm".

This William is definitely William II in the list above - not William I. Chronologically, it seems quite feasible, as you said in your Friday note, that William II had the daughter who married Randle Brereton (estimated to have been born ca. 1412 per a previous post).

So the sequence would be:
1. John
2. William I
3. William III (died 1467)
4a. daughter, m. Randle Brereton
4b. William III, m. Margaret Molyneux

Am I confused, or what???
taf
2020-10-18 14:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
I'm confused here by the name "Elizabeth" given to the Bulkeley
daughter who married Randle Brereton. The sources I've seen call
her either Margaret or Catherine - not Elizabeth. Am I missing
something here?
No, I got the names crossed in my head - everywhere I said Elizabeth Bulkeley, substitute Katherine.
Post by John Higgins
I'm also confused by the identification of which William Bulkeley
is the father of this daughter (whatever her name may be). You
say here that "Note, though that Ormerod gives a pedigree (top
to bottom) John, William (I), William (II), Thomas & brother
William (III)=Margaret Molyneux. It is William (I) son of John
who by date must be the father of Elizabeth"
But in your post of Friday evening, you say "William Bulkeley
of Eaton was (apparently just) of age in 1406, and was still
active in 1439. This would seem to place this William in the
same generation as the husband of Alice Ipstones, and makes
him the likely father of the Katherine who married the younger
Randle. He is apparently the William Bulkeley who died 1467,
with an ipm".
This William is definitely William II in the list above - not
William I. Chronologically, it seems quite feasible, as you
said in your Friday note, that William II had the daughter
who married Randle Brereton (estimated to have been born ca.
1412 per a previous post).
1. John
2. William I
3. William III (died 1467)
4a. daughter, m. Randle Brereton
4b. William III, m. Margaret Molyneux
Am I confused, or what???
What has you confused here is that a key bit of what I was thinking was not made not explicit, as as a result two different scenarios are being mashed together. The key question is whether there are two Williams or three, and at the time I wrote that her father was apparently the WIlliam who died 1467, I had a two William scenario in mind.

The William of 1406 was son of John. If he was the William of 1467, then there were just two, William (I) fl. 1406, d. 1467, son of John, and William (II) brother of Thomas. If there were three, as Ormerod has it, William (I) fl. 1406 son of John, William (II) d. 1467, and William (III) brother of Thomas. Either way, Katherine was daughter of William (I) who seems to have just come of age in 1406, son of John. There isn't enough time for her to be granddaughter. If, and only if, this William of 1406 is the William d. 1467, a 2-William scenario, is Katherine daughter of the William who died 1467.

taf
John Higgins
2020-10-18 22:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by John Higgins
I'm confused here by the name "Elizabeth" given to the Bulkeley
daughter who married Randle Brereton. The sources I've seen call
her either Margaret or Catherine - not Elizabeth. Am I missing
something here?
No, I got the names crossed in my head - everywhere I said Elizabeth Bulkeley, substitute Katherine.
Post by John Higgins
I'm also confused by the identification of which William Bulkeley
is the father of this daughter (whatever her name may be). You
say here that "Note, though that Ormerod gives a pedigree (top
to bottom) John, William (I), William (II), Thomas & brother
William (III)=Margaret Molyneux. It is William (I) son of John
who by date must be the father of Elizabeth"
But in your post of Friday evening, you say "William Bulkeley
of Eaton was (apparently just) of age in 1406, and was still
active in 1439. This would seem to place this William in the
same generation as the husband of Alice Ipstones, and makes
him the likely father of the Katherine who married the younger
Randle. He is apparently the William Bulkeley who died 1467,
with an ipm".
This William is definitely William II in the list above - not
William I. Chronologically, it seems quite feasible, as you
said in your Friday note, that William II had the daughter
who married Randle Brereton (estimated to have been born ca.
1412 per a previous post).
1. John
2. William I
3. William III (died 1467)
4a. daughter, m. Randle Brereton
4b. William III, m. Margaret Molyneux
Am I confused, or what???
What has you confused here is that a key bit of what I was thinking was not made not explicit, as as a result two different scenarios are being mashed together. The key question is whether there are two Williams or three, and at the time I wrote that her father was apparently the WIlliam who died 1467, I had a two William scenario in mind.
The William of 1406 was son of John. If he was the William of 1467, then there were just two, William (I) fl. 1406, d. 1467, son of John, and William (II) brother of Thomas. If there were three, as Ormerod has it, William (I) fl. 1406 son of John, William (II) d. 1467, and William (III) brother of Thomas. Either way, Katherine was daughter of William (I) who seems to have just come of age in 1406, son of John. There isn't enough time for her to be granddaughter. If, and only if, this William of 1406 is the William d. 1467, a 2-William scenario, is Katherine daughter of the William who died 1467.
taf
Thanks for these clarifications, especially regarding the two-William scenario and the three-William scenario. I had been wondering if you first supported the two-William scenario and then changed to support the three-William scenario. :-)

AFAIK Ormerod is the only source for the three-William scenario - and I have not seen any other source that follows Ormerod. Dwnn's Visitation of Wales, 2:91 (cited previously) followed the two-William scenario, in the original visitation text in the top half. But that text erroneously assigned Margaret Molyneux as the wife of the elder William Bulkeley. The editor's footnote on that page shows that this marriage is chronologically impossible and Margaret must have married the younger William Bulkeley. This correction leaves the elder William Bulkeley without a wife, but otherwise it seems a satisfactory formulation of the two-William solution.
taf
2020-10-19 01:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
AFAIK Ormerod is the only source for the three-William scenario - and I have not seen any other source that follows Ormerod. Dwnn's Visitation of Wales, 2:91 (cited previously) followed the two-William scenario, in the original visitation text in the top half. But that text erroneously assigned Margaret Molyneux as the wife of the elder William Bulkeley. The editor's footnote on that page shows that this marriage is chronologically impossible and Margaret must have married the younger William Bulkeley. This correction leaves the elder William Bulkeley without a wife, but otherwise it seems a satisfactory formulation of the two-William solution.
Some relevant documents:

TNA C 146/5818
Indenture being a demise by William de Bulkeley of Eyton to Margaret wife of Edmund de Minnishulle, his sister, of half the town of Wymyncham for her life; remainder to John de Cholmundeley of Chorley and his heirs male; remainder to the right heirs of the said John. Tuesday after Michaelmas, 9 Henry V. (1421 Oct)

Cheshire Recognizance Rolls:
1427 (April 29). Sir Peter de Dutton, knt., John de Wetenhall, of Cholmondeston, and Robert de Dutton, of Chirchminshull, to William de Bulkeley, of Ayton, and Margaret, who was the wife of Edmund de Minshull, recognizance for £7 13 4. (5-6 Hen. VI., m. 3d, 4) [from Memorials of the Duttons of Dutton in Cheshire, p. 236]

IPM John Ryvers, 1439; Fine Rolls, Close Rolls
his heir was his William Bulkeley of Eyton, being son of John, son of Christina, sister of Edmund, father of Katherine, mother of said John. An accompanying fine roll provides more detail, calling the deceased John Ryvers alias Lekhull, son of William Lekhull and Katherine Ryvers, and tracing Edmund and Christine through their father John to John Ryvers and Mud, who received the land temp Edward I. William Bulkeley was aged 40 & more.
(Note the correction, I had previously misread a summary as saying William B was son of John and Christine, but Christine was his grandmother.)

Hampshire Archives and Local Studies, 1M53/386
By William Bulkeley of Ayton (Eaton), (Cheshire), Esq., Chief Justice of the King in that county, to his son Thomas, of all his lands and tenements in England and Weles to him and his heirs male, with remainder to his brothers and their heirs male, 4 Nov 1440

Then things take an odd turn, as Thomas Likehull/Lykhull, brother and heir of John appears (he apparently had previously been presumed dead).

Patent Rolls
1442
Thomas Ryvers alias Lykhull, Thomas Payn &wife Joan given permission to transfer Nethirburgate and Fordyngbrigge to an intermediary, who grants them back to them and the heirs of their body, remainder to William Berkeley, then right heirs of Joan.

Close Rolls
1443, 13 July

William Bulkeley of Eyton transfers rents to a long list of men, under the proviso that Thomas de Likehull not be molested in his holding of Nethirburgate and Fordyngbrigge for life, and Joan, wife of Thomas Pyne, and their heirs, and the heirs of Jane, and the heirs of Thomas.

William Bulkeley and Thomas Bulkeley quitclaim Nethirburgate and Fordyngbrigge to Thomas Ryvers alias Likehull, brother and heir of John, during life, THomas Payn and Joan his wife, daughter of Thomas Ramsey, knt, and cousin of Thomas Ryvers, and their heirs, and the heirs of Joan and the heirs of Thomas Payn.

Roger Bulkeley, clerk, brother of William Bulkeley of Eyton executed a quitclaim for Nethirburgate and Fordyngbrigge to the same Thomas Ryvers alias Likehull, and Thomas Payn and wife Joan, as above.

1456 12 Feb
This entry traces the ownership of Nethirburgate and Fordyngbrigge after it went to Thomas Lekehull, who executed a fine to transfer it to himself with remainder to Thomas Payn and his wife Joan and their heirs, that Thomas Payn and Joan died without issue (both as a couple and individually), that Thomas then granted (without royal permission) the lands for life to William Bulkeley of Eyton, and that Thomas then died without issue, his heir being the said William Bulkeley, aged 60 and more.

It sure looks like a two-William scenario, that the Thomas who was heir in 1567 was son of William (I), son of John. Also we learn of two other children of John: Roger and Margaret (m Edmund Minshull).

taf
taf
2020-10-19 14:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Another relevant doc:
U Manchester Libr: Warburton of Arley Charters, GB 133 ARL/8/1


1445/6
(1) Sir Geoffrey de Warburton, knight; Thomas de Pulle; William Massey of Rixton; John de Dutton of Hatton; John Egerton; (2) William de Bulkeley of Ayton; Thomas, son of William de Bulkeley; (3) Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Geoffrey de Warburton.

Bond for £15, conditioned to be void if (3) dies without issue by Thomas, son of William Bulkeley, before Martinmas next. Dated the Saturday next after the feast of St Hilary [13 January], 24 Henry VI.


Ancient Deeds, vol. 6
C. 4743. Grant by John de Manle to William de Bulkeley of Ayton and Margery his wife, and the heirs of William, of a yearly rent of 40s. to be received at feasts of St. Martin and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist from all his land, &c. in the county of Chester; upon condition that if they are not impleaded or expelled from two messuages, two bovates and 20a. land, 4a. meadow and 1a. wood in Multon and Bostok, which they have by his gift, the grant of the said yearly rent to be void. Thursday after the Assumption, 2 Henry VI.
1424 (17 August ?)


So, we have William son of John Bulkeley aged 40+ in 1439 and 60+ in 1456, in the latter year acting in concert with his son Thomas. He is certainly the same William who appears with wife Margery in 1424, and who invested his son Thomas with all his property in 1440, and the son was old enough to potentially be having children by Elizabeth de Warburton in 1445/6. This Thomas with wife Elizabeth de Warburton is the successor of the man who died in 1467 in Ormerod's pedigree.

Thomas would seem to have been born before 1420, and hence is a brother of Katherine, wife of Randall Brereton, who we previously approximated to have been born in the mid-1410s, both children of William (son of John), presumably by his wife Margery.

Re: Roger B, clerk, of 1456, brother of William.
Roger Bulkeley, was nominated by patron William Bulkeley of Eyton in 1454 to be rector of Aston upon Trent, per Cox's Notes on the Churches of Derbyshire.

So, our pedigree is:

John Ryvers, m. Maud, fl. Ed I
John Ryvers
Christine Ryvers (below)
Edmund Ryvers
Katherine m. William Lekhull
John Ryvers als. Lekhull, d. 1439, s.p.
Thomas Ryvers als. Lekhull, d. 1456, s.p.
Christine Ryvers
John Bulkeley of Eyton
William Bulkeley (below)
Roger Bulkeley, rector Aston upon Trent
Margaret m. Edmund de Minshull
William Bulkeley of Eyton, fl. 1406, d. 1467 m. Margery fl. 1424
Thomas Bulkeley fl. 1440, m. 1445/6 Elizabeth de Warburton
(Katherine b. mid-1410s m. Randle Brereton)
(Maud m. Thomas Holford)
(William, m. 1475 Margaret Molyneux, wid. John Dutton of Dutton)

taf
taf
2020-10-19 20:01:28 UTC
Permalink
A few additions to the pedigree, from CP and Peds Plea Rolls

I. Richard de Rivers d. Dec 1221 - Mar 1221/2 m. Maud de Beauchamp, widow of Geoffrey de Lascelles, daughter of William de Beauchamp and Maud de Lucy (granddaughter of the Justicier)

II. Richard de Rivers, d bef. April 1243, m. Margery Biset, dau John Biset and Alice Bassett

III. John de Rivers, b. 1239 (age 4 in Apr 1243), d. bef. April 1294, m. Maud de Creye, sister John
John (see below)
Joan, m. William de Tracy

IV. John de Rivers, b. in or bef 1268 (26 & more in 1294) 1st Lord Rivers
Christine de Rivers (below)
John de Rivers, d.v.p. 1310
John de Rivers, b. 1305, 2nd Lord Rivers, f. 1347, d.s.p.
Edmund de Rivers
Katherine de Rivers m.1 William Lekhull, fl. 1390, m.2 by 1401, John Halle, d.1433 (see HOP for him).
John Ryvers als. Lekhull, d. 1439, s.p.
Thomas Ryvers als. Lekhull, d. 1456, s.p.
Katherine de Rivers, illegitimate daughter

V. Christine Ryvers m. Robert de Bulkeley of Eaton

VI. John Bulkeley of Eyton
William Bulkeley (below)
Roger Bulkeley, rector Aston upon Trent
Margaret m. Edmund de Minshull

VII. William Bulkeley of Eyton, fl. 1406, d. 1467 m. Margery fl. 1424
Thomas Bulkeley fl. 1440, m. 1445/6 Elizabeth de Warburton
(Katherine b. mid-1410s m. Randle Brereton)
(Maud m. Thomas Holford)
(William, m. 1475 Margaret Molyneux, wid. John Dutton of Dutton)

Note that this means William Bulkeley and his senior line were, by modern usage, the rightful Barons Rivers of Ongar.

taf
John Higgins
2020-10-19 22:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
A few additions to the pedigree, from CP and Peds Plea Rolls
I. Richard de Rivers d. Dec 1221 - Mar 1221/2 m. Maud de Beauchamp, widow of Geoffrey de Lascelles, daughter of William de Beauchamp and Maud de Lucy (granddaughter of the Justicier)
II. Richard de Rivers, d bef. April 1243, m. Margery Biset, dau John Biset and Alice Bassett
III. John de Rivers, b. 1239 (age 4 in Apr 1243), d. bef. April 1294, m. Maud de Creye, sister John
John (see below)
Joan, m. William de Tracy
IV. John de Rivers, b. in or bef 1268 (26 & more in 1294) 1st Lord Rivers
Christine de Rivers (below)
John de Rivers, d.v.p. 1310
John de Rivers, b. 1305, 2nd Lord Rivers, f. 1347, d.s.p.
Edmund de Rivers
Katherine de Rivers m.1 William Lekhull, fl. 1390, m.2 by 1401, John Halle, d.1433 (see HOP for him).
John Ryvers als. Lekhull, d. 1439, s.p.
Thomas Ryvers als. Lekhull, d. 1456, s.p.
Katherine de Rivers, illegitimate daughter
V. Christine Ryvers m. Robert de Bulkeley of Eaton
VI. John Bulkeley of Eyton
William Bulkeley (below)
Roger Bulkeley, rector Aston upon Trent
Margaret m. Edmund de Minshull
VII. William Bulkeley of Eyton, fl. 1406, d. 1467 m. Margery fl. 1424
Thomas Bulkeley fl. 1440, m. 1445/6 Elizabeth de Warburton
(Katherine b. mid-1410s m. Randle Brereton)
(Maud m. Thomas Holford)
(William, m. 1475 Margaret Molyneux, wid. John Dutton of Dutton)
Note that this means William Bulkeley and his senior line were, by modern usage, the rightful Barons Rivers of Ongar.
taf
Yes, when I saw your reference last night to the 1439 IPM of John Ryvers [alias Lekhull], I was going to mention that CP 11 p. 15 footnote f (sub Rivers) discusses this IPM and how William Bulkeley became the heir to the Barons Rivers. You've laid it out very clearly here.

In regard to the three-William scenario laid out in the Ormerod work, a reading of p. 266 of vol. 3 of the 2nd [Helsby] edition of the work suggests that Ormerod (or possibly Helsby) simply supposed that William son of John died shortly after 6 Henry V, and thus all subsequent activities of a William Bulkeley were those of his [supposed] son William. But it seems pretty clear from the other evidence we've discussed that this was an incorrect assumption by either Ormerod or Helsby.
taf
2020-10-20 00:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Yes, when I saw your reference last night to the 1439 IPM
of John Ryvers [alias Lekhull], I was going to mention that
CP 11 p. 15 footnote f (sub Rivers) discusses this IPM and
how William Bulkeley became the heir to the Barons Rivers.
You've laid it out very clearly here.
Except I did miss one person - John and Thomas Lekhull had a half-brother. Per HOP, John Halle was permitted to retain control of his deceased wife's lands on behalf of her son by him, named Dru Halle.
Post by John Higgins
In regard to the three-William scenario laid out in
the Ormerod work, a reading of p. 266 of vol. 3 of the
2nd [Helsby] edition of the work suggests that Ormerod
(or possibly Helsby) simply supposed that William son
of John died shortly after 6 Henry V, and thus all
subsequent activities of a William Bulkeley were those
of his [supposed] son William. But it seems pretty
clear from the other evidence we've discussed that this
was an incorrect assumption by either Ormerod or Helsby.
Yes, that was my reading of it when I had originally suggested that the William d. 1467 was William son of John, that Ormerod/Helsby simply decided it couldn't be one William stretching the whole span, and picked a somewhat arbitrary point to split the appearances into two Williams. It is admittedly a long span, with William son of John seemingly making it into his 80s, so that is why I held onto the 3-William scenario as a viable alternative until the documentation made it clear that the same William son of John was the father of the Thomas shown by Ormerod as son of William (II).

I will note though that I still am lacking evidence for the placement of the younger William. Thomas was born before 1420 and married in 1445/6, while William and Margaret didn't marry until 1475. This could just be a late marriage, particularly if there was an earlier first marriage, or, given how little we know about the marital history of William, son of John, he could have been born to a late second marriage, but he also could be a generation farther down the pedigree.

taf
Greg Cooke
2020-10-27 15:16:08 UTC
Permalink
To return to the de Vere--Bruen issue:
I found a line on Genealogics ( https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00591975&tree=LEO ) that is based on John Carrington's parents being George Carrington and Elizabeth Warren, she being the daughter of Nicholas Warren and descended from the de Vere's (see RA 5:317).

The problem is, none of the sources given for the principals (John, George, Elizabeth) provide any evidence for Elizabeth's identity. RA (and the earlier PA & MCA) shows Nicholas Warrenne did have a daughter Elizabeth, but does not name her husband (so "read my books" won't solve the problem). Elizabeth's page on Genealogics shows it was updated in 2018, so perhaps someone's recent research determined her identity. If so, it does not appear to have "published" on this forum. FWIW, Ormerod (1882) 1:544 shows George with two wives, the first (and mother of his children) is unnamed, and (2) Elizabeth (---) who m. (2) Gilbert Bexwyk.

Any thoughts?
Greg
taf
2020-10-27 16:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Cooke
I found a line on Genealogics ( https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00591975&tree=LEO ) that is based on John Carrington's parents being George Carrington and Elizabeth Warren, she being the daughter of Nicholas Warren and descended from the de Vere's (see RA 5:317).
Just to be clear here, this is a potential route for Richardson's claim of a Bruen-Vere descent, but that doesn't mean there necessarily is actually such a descent. Specifically, Richardson's belief that Nicholas has such a descent is based on a name's-the-same assumption, supposedly supported by some additional arguments that fail to make the case any more likely than the alternative, plus a visitation from several centuries later, where such claims to prominent origin should not be taken at face value.

Of course, all this could be avoided if the relevant person would just answer the damned question, but that is unlikely to happen if past is any indication.

taf
John Higgins
2020-10-28 03:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Greg Cooke
I found a line on Genealogics ( https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00591975&tree=LEO ) that is based on John Carrington's parents being George Carrington and Elizabeth Warren, she being the daughter of Nicholas Warren and descended from the de Vere's (see RA 5:317).
Just to be clear here, this is a potential route for Richardson's claim of a Bruen-Vere descent, but that doesn't mean there necessarily is actually such a descent. Specifically, Richardson's belief that Nicholas has such a descent is based on a name's-the-same assumption, supposedly supported by some additional arguments that fail to make the case any more likely than the alternative, plus a visitation from several centuries later, where such claims to prominent origin should not be taken at face value.
Of course, all this could be avoided if the relevant person would just answer the damned question, but that is unlikely to happen if past is any indication.
taf
Is the issue here the old question of whether the Warrens of Poynton are descended from an illegitimate son of the Warenne Earls of Surrey, or is there something else at issue here? I can't now remember the status of the discussion on the supposed descent from the Warennes.
taf
2020-10-28 12:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Is the issue here the old question of whether the Warrens of
Poynton are descended from an illegitimate son of the Warenne
Earls of Surrey, or is there something else at issue here?
Yes, that is the issue.
Post by John Higgins
I can't now remember the status of the discussion on the
supposed descent from the Warennes.
I am not sure there is a status - Mr. Richardson presented the line, with evidence based on a name's the same identification and some ambiguous heraldry. I highlighted the published alternative, including how the heraldry could just as well fit with it too. He simply declared himself correct. I would call the status 'in abeyance' for lack of definitive evidence, he considers the case solved by his own personal affirmation.

taf
ps bumppo
2020-10-28 16:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by John Higgins
Is the issue here the old question of whether the Warrens of
Poynton are descended from an illegitimate son of the Warenne
Earls of Surrey, or is there something else at issue here?
Yes, that is the issue.
Post by John Higgins
I can't now remember the status of the discussion on the
supposed descent from the Warennes.
I am not sure there is a status - Mr. Richardson presented the line, with evidence based on a name's the same identification and some ambiguous heraldry. I highlighted the published alternative, including how the heraldry could just as well fit with it too. He simply declared himself correct. I would call the status 'in abeyance' for lack of definitive evidence, he considers the case solved by his own personal affirmation.
taf
Dear taf

Didn't DR do the same thing with the Mary Machell/Mary Lewknor issue?
taf
2020-10-28 17:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ps bumppo
Didn't DR do the same thing with the Mary Machell/Mary Lewknor issue?
I don't remember that thread.

taf
John Higgins
2020-10-28 17:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by John Higgins
Is the issue here the old question of whether the Warrens of
Poynton are descended from an illegitimate son of the Warenne
Earls of Surrey, or is there something else at issue here?
Yes, that is the issue.
Post by John Higgins
I can't now remember the status of the discussion on the
supposed descent from the Warennes.
I am not sure there is a status - Mr. Richardson presented the line, with evidence based on a name's the same identification and some ambiguous heraldry. I highlighted the published alternative, including how the heraldry could just as well fit with it too. He simply declared himself correct. I would call the status 'in abeyance' for lack of definitive evidence, he considers the case solved by his own personal affirmation.
taf
I do have some faint memory of postings by DR on this subject many years ago. But I don't think he was the first to assert this connection - although he may have claimed so. CP vol. 12 pt. 1 p. 511 note k says that "Edward, the founder of the Poynton Warrens, was a bastard son of the last Warenne Earl of Surrey by Maud de Nerford". And it cites an article by J. G. Nichols in vol. 7 of H&G (1873) which appears to support this. This certainly predates whatever DR may have said on this subject.
taf
2020-10-28 18:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
I do have some faint memory of postings by DR on this
subject many years ago. But I don't think he was the
first to assert this connection - although he may have
claimed so. CP vol. 12 pt. 1 p. 511 note k says that
"Edward, the founder of the Poynton Warrens, was a
bastard son of the last Warenne Earl of Surrey by Maud
de Nerford". And it cites an article by J. G. Nichols
in vol. 7 of H&G (1873) which appears to support this.
This certainly predates whatever DR may have said on
this subject.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. This is an old chestnut, dating at least as far back as the Warren of Poynton pedigree in the Visitation of Cheshire. However, we know the tendency of visitations to 'improve' a family's ancestry - we needn't go any further than Warren of Ightfield for an example of this. The earl indeed had a son of this name, but it is not like the name Edward was rare. A viable alternative has been put forward that is equally consistent with all of the other evidence I have seen brought to bear.

I put this in the category of something that has been long accepted, 'grandfathered', if you will, based on imperfect evidence, and that though it may well be true, there is a distinct possibility it isn't.

taf
John Higgins
2020-10-28 22:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by John Higgins
I do have some faint memory of postings by DR on this
subject many years ago. But I don't think he was the
first to assert this connection - although he may have
claimed so. CP vol. 12 pt. 1 p. 511 note k says that
"Edward, the founder of the Poynton Warrens, was a
bastard son of the last Warenne Earl of Surrey by Maud
de Nerford". And it cites an article by J. G. Nichols
in vol. 7 of H&G (1873) which appears to support this.
This certainly predates whatever DR may have said on
this subject.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. This is an old chestnut, dating at least as far back as the Warren of Poynton pedigree in the Visitation of Cheshire. However, we know the tendency of visitations to 'improve' a family's ancestry - we needn't go any further than Warren of Ightfield for an example of this. The earl indeed had a son of this name, but it is not like the name Edward was rare. A viable alternative has been put forward that is equally consistent with all of the other evidence I have seen brought to bear.
I put this in the category of something that has been long accepted, 'grandfathered', if you will, based on imperfect evidence, and that though it may well be true, there is a distinct possibility it isn't.
taf
When you mention a "viable alternative", are you speaking of Warren of Poynton or Warren of Ightfield? What is the alternative - when/where was it proposed?
taf
2020-10-29 00:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
When you mention a "viable alternative", are you speaking of Warren
of Poynton or Warren of Ightfield? What is the alternative -
when/where was it proposed?
I was talking about the Poynton line, but all I remember is that it was published in a family history but seemed reasonably well researched (at least for its time) and that it argued that Edward, the first of the Poyntons, was not the same as Edward, the illegitimate son of Earl John. Maybe a search of the archive will turn it up?

The Ightfield line seems to descend from the Whitchurch branch, which in turn are a bit questionable, but I favor the interpretation that they come from a branch that separated all the way back in Normandy (the visitation derives them from Geoffrey of Anjou). This was also discussed here, but so long ago it may be in the lost part of the archive.

taf
Gail Peterson
2021-01-17 16:11:23 UTC
Permalink
I was talking about the Poynton line, but all I remember is that it was published in a family history but seemed reasonably well researched (at least for its time) >and that it argued that Edward, the first of the Poyntons, was not the same as Edward, the illegitimate son of Earl John. Maybe a search of the archive will turn it >up?
Oh good grief, I thought the lineage of Edward de Warren, founder of the Poynton line was settled without bringing in the dubious Cheshire visitations. He was listed in the will of his father, John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey in Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47, in the Memoirs of the Ancient Earls of Warren and Surrey and their Descendants of the Present Time, by the Rev. J. Watson. Vol. 2 Warrington, 1782. pg 90, the Calendar of Close Rolls 1349-1354, p. 11, and the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 19 (1907), p 248. If this is not suffucient primary and secondary evidence that Edward, the illegitimate son of John de Warenne and Maude de Nerford, is the Poynton founder then I do not know what form of documentary evidence would stand up to your scrutiny. I say this in exasperation because Edward de Warren is one of my ancestors and I really do not wish to tear up the liniage I have collected on him....
taf
2021-01-17 22:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gail Peterson
Oh good grief, I thought the lineage of Edward de Warren, founder of the
Poynton line was settled without bringing in the dubious Cheshire visitations.
He was listed in the will of his father, John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey in
Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47, in the Memoirs
of the Ancient Earls of Warren and Surrey and their Descendants of the
Present Time, by the Rev. J. Watson. Vol. 2 Warrington, 1782. pg 90, the
Calendar of Close Rolls 1349-1354, p. 11, and the Yorkshire Archaeological
Journal, 19 (1907), p 248. If this is not suffucient primary and secondary
evidence that Edward, the illegitimate son of John de Warenne and Maude
de Nerford, is the Poynton founder then I do not know what form of
documentary evidence would stand up to your scrutiny.
Let's take a look at what those sources actually say.

Testamenta Eboracensia is the will of Earl John (which only goes to p. 45, by the way, in case you want to update your notes). He includes a legacy, "Jeo devys a Edward de Warenne mon filz vynt'." (I devise to Edward de Warenne my son 20 [marcs]). This legacy comes after one left to his son William. This tells us that Earl John had a son named Edward, nothing more, and certainly not that this Edward was the same one who held Poynton.

The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal entry reports a 1346 petition to the Chancellor from Earl John indicating his sons Edward de Warenne and William de Warenne were 'ready to attend on the king' abroad, he begs that the former be excused from the demand he supply a man at arms for his lands in Norfolk, as he holds no others there. I must admit that I am a little confused over the syntax here.

The Close Roll entry reports that Sir Edward de Warenne and Maud, formerly wife of John de Dallyng, both had claims over one of the three advowsons of the rectory of St. Mary, Itteringham, Norfolk, but had agreed in a royal suit to alternate presentation with Sir Edward taking this turn.

The thread of supposition seems to be that the Edward son of Earl John had lands in Norfolk in 1846, and so is to be identified with the Sir Edward de Warenne who held an advowson at Itteringham in 1348, but it is far from explicit these were the same person (and as I said, I am not even sure I am interpreting the 1346 document correctly).

Except this isn't the story told by the fourth source, the Watson work (which I admit, I just took a superficial look as I have spent too long on this already). He concludes that Sir Edward de Warenne of Poynton was distinct from the son of Earl John, presenting a scenario where there were two distinct Warren/Nerford connections. He related that 'Matilda de Nyerford', daughter of William, 'did libel Earl John' and his wife in an cause of matrimony and divorce, but that there was also a woman of the same name who married Sir Edward de Warenne of Poynton, who was the daughter of of Richard de Skegeton and sister of Sir Ralph de Skegeton. For this he cites a Glover visitation manuscript that includes a deed held by the Poynton Warrens in which Alice de Hauteyn, daughter of Richard de Skegeton, gave her halves of Skegeton and Boton, inherited as coheiress of her brother Sir Ralph de Skegeton, to her sister Maud de Nerford, 20 Edward II. The fact that these properties of Skegeton and Boton descended with the Poynton line he saw as direct evidence that they descended from this other Maud de Nerford, and not the one who was mistress of Earl John. He had already traced the Sir Edward who was husband of this other Maud back to the brother of the 3rd Earl (and thus representing the first house of Warenne, and not the Plantagenet-descended second house).

Now, I am not going to say that the argument he laid out is definitive, but given that we don't have anything closer than name's-the-same county-level coincidence in any of the other sources for associating Earl John's bastard with the Poynton line, I think care is needed.

Some notes: Tracking the Itteringham presentations shows that for the so-called 'Bintre's portion' of the Itteringham advowson, in 1320, Sir Ralph de Skeyton presented, then in 1346, Maud, relict of John de Dallyng presented, and in 1348, Sir Edward de Warren presented. In 1349, four men, one a rector, collectively presented (perhaps a group of trustees acting on behalf of either Maud or Edward's widow), at some point there was an undocumented presentation, then in 1356, there was an exchange of rectors with Woodnorton, and in 1370, John de Warren presented, followed in 1376 and thereafter by people who do not appear to be related, and there had probably been a sale of the advowson. (Blomefield's Norfolk, vol. 6, p. 476). With Sir Ralph de Skeyton holding before Maud and Edward, this appears to match the family that the Watson history identifies with the Poynton line, but it is not explicit in these records, nor do we find Earl John. While Itteringham was a Warenne Domesday holding, it clearly came to Edward through another path involving Bintre and Skeyton. A few feet of fines: Radu. de Skegeton executed a fine in 17 Edward II, in which William de Hauteyn and wife Alicia were among a list of people who put in their claim (http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm). John de Dallying was involved in a 17 Edward III fine mentioning Byntre, so he would seem to be Maud's husband, still at that time living, and that in 1351/2 there was a fine involving William, son of Edward Warenne, knight, regarding Skeyton, and referring to Ceclia, Edward's widow. (http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_167/IMG_0171.htm)
Post by Gail Peterson
I say this in exasperation because Edward de Warren is one of my ancestors
and I really do not wish to tear up the liniage I have collected on him....
I wouldn't tear anything up just yet - my conclusion is that certainty is not warranted, not that there is certainty in another direction.

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 12:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Some notes: Tracking the Itteringham presentations shows that for the so-called 'Bintre's portion' of the Itteringham advowson, in 1320, Sir Ralph de Skeyton presented, then in 1346, Maud, relict of John de Dallyng presented, and in 1348, Sir Edward de Warren presented. In 1349, four men, one a rector, collectively presented (perhaps a group of trustees acting on behalf of either Maud or Edward's widow), at some point there was an undocumented presentation, then in 1356, there was an exchange of rectors with Woodnorton, and in 1370, John de Warren presented, followed in 1376 and thereafter by people who do not appear to be related, and there had probably been a sale of the advowson. (Blomefield's Norfolk, vol. 6, p. 476). With Sir Ralph de Skeyton holding before Maud and Edward, this appears to match the family that the Watson history identifies with the Poynton line, but it is not explicit in these records, nor do we find Earl John. While Itteringham was a Warenne Domesday holding, it clearly came to Edward through another path involving Bintre and Skeyton. A few feet of fines: Radu. de Skegeton executed a fine in 17 Edward II, in which William de Hauteyn and wife Alicia were among a list of people who put in their claim (http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm). John de Dallying was involved in a 17 Edward III fine mentioning Byntre, so he would seem to be Maud's husband, still at that time living, and that in 1351/2 there was a fine involving William, son of Edward Warenne, knight, regarding Skeyton, and referring to Ceclia, Edward's widow. (http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_167/IMG_0171.htm)
Blomefield's various accounts (eg Skeyton) are equally confusing or confused. There is also a Norfolk fine dating from "19 & 20 Edward III" in which John de Dallyngge and Matilda [sic] his wife deal with property at Wood Dalling, Themelthorpe, 'Thymerthorp', Foulsham, Guestwick, Thurning, Kerdeston, 'Hakeford' and Salle. This indicates that John de Dalling was still living at least in January 1344/5.
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 13:08:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 10:40:38 PM UTC, taf wrote:
in 1351/2 there was a fine involving William, son of Edward Warenne, knight, regarding Skeyton, and referring to Ceclia, Edward's widow. (http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_167/IMG_0171.htm)

I think the date of this must be too early - the front page for CP 25/1/167/168 states that it is for 38-40 Edward III, but I think it is #1350 in the published Norfolk fines (John Whyte v William son of Edward de Warenne, knight re Skeyton) which is assigned to 42 Edward III - so somewhere in the 1360s.
Douglas Richardson
2021-02-10 19:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gail Peterson
I was talking about the Poynton line, but all I remember is that it was published in a family history but seemed reasonably well researched (at least for its time) >and that it argued that Edward, the first of the Poyntons, was not the same as Edward, the illegitimate son of Earl John. Maybe a search of the archive will turn it >up?
Oh good grief, I thought the lineage of Edward de Warren, founder of the Poynton line was settled without bringing in the dubious Cheshire visitations. He was listed in the will of his father, John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey in Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47, in the Memoirs of the Ancient Earls of Warren and Surrey and their Descendants of the Present Time, by the Rev. J. Watson. Vol. 2 Warrington, 1782. pg 90, the Calendar of Close Rolls 1349-1354, p. 11, and the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 19 (1907), p 248. If this is not suffucient primary and secondary evidence that Edward, the illegitimate son of John de Warenne and Maude de Nerford, is the Poynton founder then I do not know what form of documentary evidence would stand up to your scrutiny. I say this in exasperation because Edward de Warren is one of my ancestors and I really do not wish to tear up the liniage I have collected on him....
Actually .... you are correct. There is clear and conclusive evidence that Sir Edward de Warenne (died 1349), ancestor of the Warren family of Poynton, Cheshire, was the bastard son of Sir John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey [died 1347], by his mistress, Maud de Nerford.

For your interest, I've copied below my current file account of Sir Edward de Warenne. It discusses some of the pieces of evidence which concern Sir Edward's parentage.

I should note that Watson, Memoirs of the Ancient Earls of Warren & Surrey 2 (1782): 98–104 shows that Sir Edward de Warenne's son, Sir John de Warenne [died 1386], sealed with "checky in a canton a lion rampant.” Checky of course are the famous Warenne arms. The lion rampant in the canton stands for Nerford. See, for example, Farrer, Church Heraldry of Norfolk 1 (1887): 52.

The Warenne arms with the Nerford canton can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://jocelynwaller.info/Heraldry.htm

Elsewhere Eedes, Cheshire Peds. (1882): 499 (Harleian MSS 1424: f.143; Harleian MS 1505: fo.147) (arms of Warren of Poynton: Checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant argent).

Cooke & St. George, Vis. of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137 (Warren arms: Chequy or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure ermine).

Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist

+ + + + + + + +

EDWARD DE WARENNE, Knt., of Booton, Skeyton, Crostweyth, Fransham, and Rougham, Norfolk, illegitimate son of Sir John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, by his mistress, Maud de Nerford, born c.1316–20. In 1324 Ralph de Skegeton settled the manors of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk on himself for life, with remainder in default of issue to Maud de Nerford for life, and after her death, successive remainders to her sons, Ralph and Edward and their respective issue. Edward married before 1344 CECILY DE ETON, formerly the wife of John de Arderne the younger (divorced in 1332), and daughter of Nicholas de Eton, Knt., of Ratley, Warwickshire, Woodplumpton, Lancashire, etc., by Joan, daughter and heiress of Robert de Stockport. They had three sons, John, William (living 1368), and Edward. In 1346, he being ready to attend the king abroad, 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. In 1346 Edward and Cecily his wife sued John de Arderne, Knt., in the Court of King’s Bench in a Cheshire plea regarding a debt of 92 marks 6s. 8d. He was a legatee in the 1347 will of his father. He presented to Bintree’s portion of the church of Itteringham, Norfolk in 1348. SIR EDWARD DE WARENNE died before 20 October 1349. His widow, Cecily, was living 30 April 1368 (date of fine), and died before 3 March 1369/70.

References:

Dugdale, Antiqs. of Warwickshire 1 (1730): 539 (Eton-Warren ped.). Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 3 (1769): 604, 607, 609–610 (arms of Warren of Poynton quartering Eton and Stockport were formerly in a window in Booton church); 6 (1807): 230, 352–359 (sub Boton) (“In 1323 [recte 1324] Oliver de Redham, and Ralf, rector of Skeyton, as trustees, settled this [manor] 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 was concubine to William [recte John] Earl Warren, and had by him these two sons, who took the name of Warren, the Earl having no legitimate issue.”) (Window in Booton church had the arms of “Warren, chequy or and az. on a canton gul. a lion rampant arg. the canton and lion being Nerford’s arms, quartering 1st, or, on a chevron gul. three swans arg. 2d, az. crusuly three lozenges or” … “He [Edward de Warenne] and his descendants bare Earl Warren’s arms, and Nerford’s in a canton, to show his extraction from the Earl Warren and Maud Nerford.”), 359–364 (sub Skeyton) (“[In the church of Skeyton] ….. The arms of Warren, lord here, with the canton of Nerford, and Warren quartering on a chevron three swans [?ETON]), . 472 –477. Watson, Memoirs of the Ancient Earls of Warren & Surrey 2 (1782): 98–104. Ormerod Hist. of Chester 3 (1819, 1st ed.): 340–343; 3 (1882, 2nd ed.): 680–687. Hunter South Yorkshire 1 (1828): 105 (Warenne ped.). Dallaway Hist. of the Western Div. of Sussex 2(1) (1832): 128 (Warenne ped.). Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47 (will of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey). Stapleton, De Antiquis Legibus Liber: Cronica Maiorum et Vicecomitum Londoniarum (Camden Soc. 34) (1846): clxxix–clxxx. Ormerod, Parentalia, Gen. Mems. (1851): 19, 85–88. Herald & Genealogist 7 (1873): 213–219. Papworth, Alphabetical Dict. of Coats of Arms Belonging to Fams. in Great Britain & Ireland 1 (1874): 397 (arms of Sir Nicholas de Eton, co. Warwick, temp. Edward I: Gules a chevron between three eagles displayed argent). Earwaker, East Cheshire 1 (1877): 339, 342, 343; 2 (1880): 274–275, 286. Heginbotham, Stockport Ancient & Modern 1 (1882): 144–145. Glover et al. ,Vis. of Cheshire 1580, 1566, 1533 & 1591 (H.S.P. 18) (1882): 241–243 (Warren ped.: “Edward Warren. = Ciceley Elton [recte Eton].”) (Eton arms: Azure, a chevron between three double-headed eagles, displayed Argent, crowned Or.). Eedes, Cheshire Peds. (1882): 499 (Harleian MSS 1424: f.143; Harleian MS 1505: fo.147) (arms of Warren of Poynton: Checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant argent). Cooke & St. George, Vis. of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137 (Warren arms: Chequy or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure ermine). Rye, Short Cal. of the Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 267–268, 353. Bain, Cal. of Docs. rel. to Scotland 3 (1887): 265. Fishwick, Hist. of the Parish of St. Michaels-on-Wyre (Chetham Soc. n.s. 25) (1891): 22–25. Woodward & Burnett, Treatise on Heraldry, British & Foreign 2 (1892): 554. Wrottesley, Crécy & Calais (1898): 83, 123. Genealogist n.s. 18 (1902): 240–241. C.P.R. 1348–1350 (1905): 451–452. Wilson, Regs. of Bishops of Coventry & Lichfield 5 (Colls. Hist. Staffs. n.s. 8) (1905): 134–135 (divorce procs. of John, son of John de Ardene, Kt. and Cecily de Eton dated 1332). Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 396–397. Feudal Aids 4 (1906): 483, 485, 539. Yorkshire Arch. Jour. 19 (1907): 193–264. VCH Lancaster 7 (1912): 285–286. Reg. of Edward the Black Prince 3 (1932): 64. VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 144–145. C.P. 12(1) (1953): 511, footnote k [author states in error that Skeyton, Norfolk was inheritance of Edward de Warenne’s mother, Maud de Nerford. Blomefield indicates that Maud de Nerford acquired the reversion of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk in 1323 by conveyance from Ralph de Skeyton, Knt., not by inheritance. Maud was certainly not an heiress, as she had several brothers, one of whom, Thomas de Nerford, left issue a son and heir, John (see, for example, C.P. 9 (1936): 469–470 (sub Nerford); VCH Sussex 7 (1940): 207–208)]. Court of King’s Bench, KB27/344, image 8603f thru 8645f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/KB27no344/aKB27no344fronts/IMG_8603.htm). National Archives, Norfolk fine dated 1324 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm). National Archives, Norfolk fine dated 1368 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_167/IMG_0171.htm).
taf
2021-02-10 20:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Actually .... you are correct. There is clear and conclusive evidence that Sir Edward
de Warenne (died 1349), ancestor of the Warren family of Poynton, Cheshire, was
the bastard son of Sir John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey [died 1347], by his mistress,
Maud de Nerford.
Deja vu all over again . . . .

We have this same discussion every time. You proclaim the evidence to be conclusive because it is consistent with your preferred answer, while completely ignoring the fact that it is also consistent with the alternative hypothesis. Me pointing out that for evidence to be conclusive, it needs to be inconsistent with one hypothesis while being consistent with the other. If it matches both, then it has no power of discrimination between the two and is thus not conclusive. Both hypotheses make Edward son of the Maud de Nerford, who held the Skeyton remainder. Both hypotheses make the Warrens of Poynton the kin of the Warenne family. Thus a document showing that Maud de Nerford of Skeyton had a son Edward does not distinguish between the two, nor does the Warrens of Poynton using Warenne arms.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2021-02-10 22:59:18 UTC
Permalink
We have this same discussion every time. You proclaim the evidence to be conclusive because it is consistent with your preferred answer, while completely ignoring the fact that it is also consistent with the alternative hypothesis. Me pointing out that for evidence to be conclusive, it needs to be inconsistent with one hypothesis while being consistent with the other. If it matches both, then it has no power of discrimination between the two and is thus not conclusive. Both hypotheses make Edward son of the Maud de Nerford, who held the Skeyton remainder. Both hypotheses make the Warrens of Poynton the kin of the Warenne family. Thus a document showing that Maud de Nerford of Skeyton had a son Edward does not distinguish between the two, nor does the Warrens of Poynton using Warenne arms.
taf
You're entitled to your own opinion, taf, but not to your own facts. Sound history and sound genealogy are based on facts. In this case, the facts are crystal clear. There is ironclad evidence which proves that Sir Edward de Warenne [died 1347], ancestor of the Warren family of Poynton, Cheshire, was the illegitimate son of Sir John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, by his mistress, Maud de Nerford.
This was true back in 1806 when Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk established this connection. And it’s still true today. Suck lemons taf.

DR
taf
2021-02-11 02:42:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
You're entitled to your own opinion, taf, but not to your own facts.
Funny this, coming as it does in the form of an assertion that is distinctly not factual.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Sound history and sound genealogy are based on facts. In this case, the facts are crystal clear.
And the alternative hypothesis is based on the exact same facts.
Post by Douglas Richardson
There is ironclad evidence which proves that Sir Edward de Warenne [died 1347], ancestor
of the Warren family of Poynton, Cheshire, was the illegitimate son of Sir John de Warenne,
Earl of Surrey, by his mistress, Maud de Nerford.
Except no such ironclad evidence exists. The evidence does not definitively distinguish the two hypotheses. Simple repetition of 'it is a fact because Douglas Richardson proclaims it to be a fact' isn't really a sound historical argument.
Post by Douglas Richardson
This was true back in 1806 when Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk
established this connection. And it’s still true today.
The appeal to authority aside, it is also the same evidence that led to a different conclusion decades later, because as has been pointed out, both hypotheses were formulated based on pretty much the same evidence and both are consistent with that evidence. That means that each is as true (or false) as the other based on this 'someone in the 19th century reached this conclusion' argument.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Suck lemons taf.
Ah, yes, the 'argumentum ab citrus'. Always a fallback for the serious scholar when the actual evidence is insufficient to convince. Almost as popular as the 'I'm rubber and you're glue' defense. Back in the adult world . . . .

This has been the course of the discussion, for over a decade. Mr. Richardson proclaims that the evidence supports his preferred hypotheses, making it fact. I point out that the evidence equally supports the other hypothesis, and so it fails to distinguishing between the two. Mr. Richardson , without addressing the critique, simply demands that everyone defer to his opinion. I don't. He goes away in a huff, still not actually addressing the problem. Then years later it comes up again and the whole thing repeats itself, without the critique ever being addressed (and so ad infinitum).

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 11:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Douglas Richardson
Suck lemons taf.
Ah, yes, the 'argumentum ab citrus'. Always a fallback for the serious scholar when the actual evidence is insufficient to convince. Almost as popular as the 'I'm rubber and you're glue' defense. Back in the adult world . . . .
This has been the course of the discussion, for over a decade. Mr. Richardson proclaims that the evidence supports his preferred hypotheses, making it fact. I point out that the evidence equally supports the other hypothesis, and so it fails to distinguishing between the two. Mr. Richardson , without addressing the critique, simply demands that everyone defer to his opinion. I don't. He goes away in a huff, still not actually addressing the problem. Then years later it comes up again and the whole thing repeats itself, without the critique ever being addressed (and so ad infinitum).
taf
I presume that, so far as is known, the last male descendant of the Poynton family was Sir George Warren (d 1801), and thus there is no present male-line descendant whose Y DNA could be plugged into the Richard III work (the de Warenne Earls being descended from Hamelin de Plantagenet)?
taf
2021-02-11 13:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
I presume that, so far as is known, the last male descendant of the Poynton family
was Sir George Warren (d 1801), and thus there is no present male-line descendant
whose Y DNA could be plugged into the Richard III work (the de Warenne Earls being
descended from Hamelin de Plantagenet)?
This possibility has been raised from time to time, and certainly a lot of online genealogies for people named Warren that make claim to such descents, but none of them more than name's-the-same guesses. I am unaware of any identified documented descent, but the way these local gentry families threw off obscure junior lines, the possibility can't be formally excluded.

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 13:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
I presume that, so far as is known, the last male descendant of the Poynton family
was Sir George Warren (d 1801), and thus there is no present male-line descendant
whose Y DNA could be plugged into the Richard III work (the de Warenne Earls being
descended from Hamelin de Plantagenet)?
This possibility has been raised from time to time, and certainly a lot of online genealogies for people named Warren that make claim to such descents, but none of them more than name's-the-same guesses. I am unaware of any identified documented descent, but the way these local gentry families threw off obscure junior lines, the possibility can't be formally excluded.
taf
Many thanks - yes, I see now that this was discussed by yourself and Nat Taylor back in October 2010 (I should have checked first):

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

I'm just wading through the various references to Maud de Nerford and the sons of John, Earl of Surrey, and will probably start a new thread on that.
Mark Jennings
2021-02-11 10:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Suck lemons taf.
DR
What are you, about 6 years old? No wonder you're considered such a joke in the world of scholarship.
Peter Howarth
2021-02-15 10:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gail Peterson
I was talking about the Poynton line, but all I remember is that it was published in a family history but seemed reasonably well researched (at least for its time) >and that it argued that Edward, the first of the Poyntons, was not the same as Edward, the illegitimate son of Earl John. Maybe a search of the archive will turn it >up?
Oh good grief, I thought the lineage of Edward de Warren, founder of the Poynton line was settled without bringing in the dubious Cheshire visitations. He was listed in the will of his father, John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey in Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47, in the Memoirs of the Ancient Earls of Warren and Surrey and their Descendants of the Present Time, by the Rev. J. Watson. Vol. 2 Warrington, 1782. pg 90, the Calendar of Close Rolls 1349-1354, p. 11, and the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 19 (1907), p 248. If this is not suffucient primary and secondary evidence that Edward, the illegitimate son of John de Warenne and Maude de Nerford, is the Poynton founder then I do not know what form of documentary evidence would stand up to your scrutiny. I say this in exasperation because Edward de Warren is one of my ancestors and I really do not wish to tear up the liniage I have collected on him....
Actually .... you are correct. There is clear and conclusive evidence that Sir Edward de Warenne (died 1349), ancestor of the Warren family of Poynton, Cheshire, was the bastard son of Sir John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey [died 1347], by his mistress, Maud de Nerford.
For your interest, I've copied below my current file account of Sir Edward de Warenne. It discusses some of the pieces of evidence which concern Sir Edward's parentage.
I should note that Watson, Memoirs of the Ancient Earls of Warren & Surrey 2 (1782): 98–104 shows that Sir Edward de Warenne's son, Sir John de Warenne [died 1386], sealed with "checky in a canton a lion rampant.” Checky of course are the famous Warenne arms. The lion rampant in the canton stands for Nerford. See, for example, Farrer, Church Heraldry of Norfolk 1 (1887): 52.
https://jocelynwaller.info/Heraldry.htm
Elsewhere Eedes, Cheshire Peds. (1882): 499 (Harleian MSS 1424: f.143; Harleian MS 1505: fo.147) (arms of Warren of Poynton: Checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant argent).
Cooke & St. George, Vis. of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137 (Warren arms: Chequy or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure ermine).
Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
+ + + + + + + +
EDWARD DE WARENNE, Knt., of Booton, Skeyton, Crostweyth, Fransham, and Rougham, Norfolk, illegitimate son of Sir John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, by his mistress, Maud de Nerford, born c.1316–20. In 1324 Ralph de Skegeton settled the manors of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk on himself for life, with remainder in default of issue to Maud de Nerford for life, and after her death, successive remainders to her sons, Ralph and Edward and their respective issue. Edward married before 1344 CECILY DE ETON, formerly the wife of John de Arderne the younger (divorced in 1332), and daughter of Nicholas de Eton, Knt., of Ratley, Warwickshire, Woodplumpton, Lancashire, etc., by Joan, daughter and heiress of Robert de Stockport. They had three sons, John, William (living 1368), and Edward. In 1346, he being ready to attend the king abroad, 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. In 1346 Edward and Cecily his wife sued John de Arderne, Knt., in the Court of King’s Bench in a Cheshire plea regarding a debt of 92 marks 6s. 8d. He was a legatee in the 1347 will of his father. He presented to Bintree’s portion of the church of Itteringham, Norfolk in 1348. SIR EDWARD DE WARENNE died before 20 October 1349. His widow, Cecily, was living 30 April 1368 (date of fine), and died before 3 March 1369/70.
Dugdale, Antiqs. of Warwickshire 1 (1730): 539 (Eton-Warren ped.). Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 3 (1769): 604, 607, 609–610 (arms of Warren of Poynton quartering Eton and Stockport were formerly in a window in Booton church); 6 (1807): 230, 352–359 (sub Boton) (“In 1323 [recte 1324] Oliver de Redham, and Ralf, rector of Skeyton, as trustees, settled this [manor] 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 was concubine to William [recte John] Earl Warren, and had by him these two sons, who took the name of Warren, the Earl having no legitimate issue.”) (Window in Booton church had the arms of “Warren, chequy or and az. on a canton gul. a lion rampant arg. the canton and lion being Nerford’s arms, quartering 1st, or, on a chevron gul. three swans arg. 2d, az. crusuly three lozenges or” … “He [Edward de Warenne] and his descendants bare Earl Warren’s arms, and Nerford’s in a canton, to show his extraction from the Earl Warren and Maud Nerford.”), 359–364 (sub Skeyton) (“[In the church of Skeyton] ….. The arms of Warren, lord here, with the canton of Nerford, and Warren quartering on a chevron three swans [?ETON]), . 472 –477. Watson, Memoirs of the Ancient Earls of Warren & Surrey 2 (1782): 98–104. Ormerod Hist. of Chester 3 (1819, 1st ed.): 340–343; 3 (1882, 2nd ed.): 680–687. Hunter South Yorkshire 1 (1828): 105 (Warenne ped.). Dallaway Hist. of the Western Div. of Sussex 2(1) (1832): 128 (Warenne ped.). Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47 (will of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey). Stapleton, De Antiquis Legibus Liber: Cronica Maiorum et Vicecomitum Londoniarum (Camden Soc. 34) (1846): clxxix–clxxx. Ormerod, Parentalia, Gen. Mems. (1851): 19, 85–88. Herald & Genealogist 7 (1873): 213–219. Papworth, Alphabetical Dict. of Coats of Arms Belonging to Fams. in Great Britain & Ireland 1 (1874): 397 (arms of Sir Nicholas de Eton, co. Warwick, temp. Edward I: Gules a chevron between three eagles displayed argent). Earwaker, East Cheshire 1 (1877): 339, 342, 343; 2 (1880): 274–275, 286. Heginbotham, Stockport Ancient & Modern 1 (1882): 144–145. Glover et al. ,Vis. of Cheshire 1580, 1566, 1533 & 1591 (H.S.P. 18) (1882): 241–243 (Warren ped.: “Edward Warren. = Ciceley Elton [recte Eton].”) (Eton arms: Azure, a chevron between three double-headed eagles, displayed Argent, crowned Or.). Eedes, Cheshire Peds. (1882): 499 (Harleian MSS 1424: f.143; Harleian MS 1505: fo.147) (arms of Warren of Poynton: Checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant argent). Cooke & St. George, Vis. of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137 (Warren arms: Chequy or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure ermine). Rye, Short Cal. of the Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 267–268, 353. Bain, Cal. of Docs. rel. to Scotland 3 (1887): 265. Fishwick, Hist. of the Parish of St. Michaels-on-Wyre (Chetham Soc. n.s. 25) (1891): 22–25. Woodward & Burnett, Treatise on Heraldry, British & Foreign 2 (1892): 554. Wrottesley, Crécy & Calais (1898): 83, 123. Genealogist n.s. 18 (1902): 240–241. C.P.R. 1348–1350 (1905): 451–452. Wilson, Regs. of Bishops of Coventry & Lichfield 5 (Colls. Hist. Staffs. n.s. 8) (1905): 134–135 (divorce procs. of John, son of John de Ardene, Kt. and Cecily de Eton dated 1332). Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 396–397. Feudal Aids 4 (1906): 483, 485, 539. Yorkshire Arch. Jour. 19 (1907): 193–264. VCH Lancaster 7 (1912): 285–286. Reg. of Edward the Black Prince 3 (1932): 64. VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 144–145. C.P. 12(1) (1953): 511, footnote k [author states in error that Skeyton, Norfolk was inheritance of Edward de Warenne’s mother, Maud de Nerford. Blomefield indicates that Maud de Nerford acquired the reversion of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk in 1323 by conveyance from Ralph de Skeyton, Knt., not by inheritance. Maud was certainly not an heiress, as she had several brothers, one of whom, Thomas de Nerford, left issue a son and heir, John (see, for example, C.P. 9 (1936): 469–470 (sub Nerford); VCH Sussex 7 (1940): 207–208)]. Court of King’s Bench, KB27/344, image 8603f thru 8645f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/KB27no344/aKB27no344fronts/IMG_8603.htm). National Archives, Norfolk fine dated 1324 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_163/IMG_0517.htm). National Archives, Norfolk fine dated 1368 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/CP25_1/Norf/CP25_1_167/IMG_0171.htm).
I should note that Watson, Memoirs of the Ancient Earls of Warren & Surrey
2 (1782): 98–104 shows that Sir Edward de Warenne's son, Sir John de
Warenne [died 1386], sealed with "checky in a canton a lion rampant.”
Checky of course are the famous Warenne arms. The lion rampant in the
canton stands for Nerford. See, for example, Farrer, Church Heraldry of
Norfolk 1 (1887): 52.
https://jocelynwaller.info/Heraldry.htm
Elsewhere Eedes, Cheshire Peds. (1882): 499 (Harleian MSS 1424: f.143;
Harleian MS 1505: fo.147) (arms of Warren of Poynton: Checky or and azure,
on a canton gules a lion rampant argent).
Cooke & St. George, Vis. of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22)
(1886): 134–137 (Warren arms: Chequy or and azure, on a canton gules a lion
rampant within a bordure ermine).
As an historian, I am very concerned about the quality of the sources that I offer in my research. Unfortunately, there is an awful lot of dross on the internet about heraldry. One example is the jocelynwaller website quoted above. We are asked to look at the illustration which purports to be the arms of Sir John de Warren, who died in 1386. There is no evidence for the imaginary crest, supporters and motto. They are taken from much later versions. And as for the text, the authors of the website haven't a clue about mediaeval practice and have produced a garbled version of Victorian theory. There is nothing to suggest that they know what they are talking about. I would not dream of mentioning the site in any of my research. Look elsewhere for an illustration.

There is a record of a seal dated 1384/85 with a shield 'checky, on a canton a lion rampant' for a John Warrein, Kt., but he is said to be of Rotheley, Warws. This is in the Bowditch MS, a seventeenth-century manuscript book of transcripts of charters with sketches of the seals, now owned by NEHGS. Is this the seal mentioned by Watson?

Regarding evidence for the Nerford arms in the fourteenth century, we are offered Farrer's nineteenth-century description of a late seventeenth-century monument with a different version of the arms (a lion with a forked tail). On the other hand, there is a painted shield, 'gules, a lion rampant argent' for S' John Nerford of Essex in the County Roll CY 544 (a collection of arms mostly temp. Ric II but with some later insertions, now only in a seventeenth-century Hatton-Dugdale facsimile copy at the Society of Antiquaries). However, these were the arms of the powerful family of Mowbray from 1250 or earlier to 1388 and later (when they became dukes of Norfolk, they then started to use the arms of Thomas of Brotherton, with or without the Mowbray arms). The Nerford family of Narford, Norfolk, bore 'gules, a lion rampant ermine' from the time of Sir William (by 1279) to Sir John (d.s.p.m. 1363).

I am not sure what the relevance is of the arms given in Eedes and the Hertfordshire Visitation for those of Sir Edward de Warenne in the the first half of the fourteenth century. Eedes quotes from Harleian MS 1424, a notebook of John Saunders, a painter-stainer who died c.1687, and Harleian MS 1505, which is a later copy of parts of Harleian MS 1424. The Hertfordshire Visitation is three centuries after Sir Edward and describes a different version of the arms.

Another point: some people were perfectly capable of adopting arms which gave a misleading impression of their ancestry. The Nevilles of Pickhill chose a close similarity to Neville of Raby although not descended from Robert fitz Meldred, and Thomas Wolsey, the son of an Ipswich butcher, took the silver cross engrailed on black from the Ufford earls of Suffolk, with the leopards' faces of their de la Pole successors, and finally added two Cornish choughs for Thomas à Becket. Be careful how you use heraldry in genealogy.

As I have said before, I recommend using the Dictionary of British Arms as a starting point for looking at mediaeval heraldry. It has some errors, but since it gives all its sources it is usually possible to check on the accuracy of a particular entry.

Peter Howarth
taf
2021-02-15 13:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
As an historian, I am very concerned about the quality of the sources that I offer in my research.
I have long had concerns over the claim that the placement of the lion canton of Nerford by the Warennes of Poynton fits with the rules of heraldry when 1) it isn't clear it is Nerford, 2) it isn't clear when the Poynton line adopted it, and 3) there were no such rules at the time, nor why Edmond, of the four (or more) sons of the couple would be the one to end up with this rule-following coat when he was likely the youngest.

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-15 15:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Howarth
As an historian, I am very concerned about the quality of the sources that I offer in my research.
I have long had concerns over the claim that the placement of the lion canton of Nerford by the Warennes of Poynton fits with the rules of heraldry when 1) it isn't clear it is Nerford, 2) it isn't clear when the Poynton line adopted it, and 3) there were no such rules at the time, nor why Edmond, of the four (or more) sons of the couple would be the one to end up with this rule-following coat when he was likely the youngest.
taf
I too have been wary of the heraldic arguments. I'm certainly not aware of any specific "rule" relevant here, other than the general rule that paternal arms were customarily differenced in some way in contemporary cases of illegitimacy; I had a look at Fox-Davies to see whether there is any mention of a canton being used, and indeed he does detail one such case: that of "Sir John [sic, MJ] de Warren, a natural son of John, Earl of Surrey, Sussex, and Warenne (d. 1347)", which is both unevidenced and circular here...
taf
2021-02-15 15:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
I had a look at Fox-Davies to see whether there is any mention of a canton being
used, and indeed he does detail one such case: that of "Sir John [sic, MJ] de
Warren, a natural son of John, Earl of Surrey, Sussex, and Warenne (d. 1347)",
which is both unevidenced and circular here...
I have seen this elsewhere. Some book I looked at over the weekend (I looked at so many online I don't recall which or the precise details) reported the arms for three sons of Earl John: Sir William, who IIRC was attributed a bordure (azure ?), Sir John (not Edward) using a canton with an ermine lion, and a third one (again not Edward, but I don't remember if Thomas or Ralph) whose difference I don't recall that was also not a canton. What struck me at the time was that any claim to the canton representing an expected pattern seemed belied by the very diversity among these siblings.

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-15 16:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
I had a look at Fox-Davies to see whether there is any mention of a canton being
used, and indeed he does detail one such case: that of "Sir John [sic, MJ] de
Warren, a natural son of John, Earl of Surrey, Sussex, and Warenne (d. 1347)",
which is both unevidenced and circular here...
I have seen this elsewhere. Some book I looked at over the weekend (I looked at so many online I don't recall which or the precise details) reported the arms for three sons of Earl John: Sir William, who IIRC was attributed a bordure (azure ?), Sir John (not Edward) using a canton with an ermine lion, and a third one (again not Edward, but I don't remember if Thomas or Ralph) whose difference I don't recall that was also not a canton. What struck me at the time was that any claim to the canton representing an expected pattern seemed belied by the very diversity among these siblings.
taf
I've never seen anyone (at least, no recognised heraldic expert) alleging there was a pattern, expected or otherwise - the arms were apparently just differenced in some way. Fox-Davies certainly believed this to be the case. I'm not aware of any other instance of a canton of maternal arms being used on paternal arms to indicate illegitimacy. There is a (modern) rule in which a woman who is her mother's heir but not her father's (since she has a non-uterine half brother) passes on a quartering of her maternal arms bearing a canton of her paternal arms, but that's the closest I can think of, and of course it precludes illegitimacy.

Peter H very sensible counsels reference to the Dictionary of British Arms - I have the full set here, and it does have sections on the medieval use of cantons - if I get the chance I will take a look at that in case any illegitimacy cases jump out (unless Peter H has already scanned it for the same purpose).
Peter Howarth
2021-02-15 17:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
I had a look at Fox-Davies to see whether there is any mention of a canton being
used, and indeed he does detail one such case: that of "Sir John [sic, MJ] de
Warren, a natural son of John, Earl of Surrey, Sussex, and Warenne (d. 1347)",
which is both unevidenced and circular here...
I have seen this elsewhere. Some book I looked at over the weekend (I looked at so many online I don't recall which or the precise details) reported the arms for three sons of Earl John: Sir William, who IIRC was attributed a bordure (azure ?), Sir John (not Edward) using a canton with an ermine lion, and a third one (again not Edward, but I don't remember if Thomas or Ralph) whose difference I don't recall that was also not a canton. What struck me at the time was that any claim to the canton representing an expected pattern seemed belied by the very diversity among these siblings.
taf
In principle, I see no reason why an early fourteenth-century bastard should not have differenced his father's arms by the addition of a canton of some sort. There were at the time no rules for anyone to follow and no authority-bearing heralds to enforce them. According to CP xii (ii). pp 276-283 William II de Vescy of Alnwick and Malton (d.1253) had two sons, John (d.s.p. 1287) and William III (d.s.p.l. 1297). The latter had an illegitimate son, William 'of Kildare' (d.1314). William II bore 'gules, a cross patonce argent'.[1] Both John and William III, for some reason, bore in turn 'or, a cross sable' (William added a red label during his brother's lifetime).[2] William of Kildare reverted to 'gules, a cross patonce' with the addition of a bend azure.[3]

This is the only example of illegitimacy from this time I can think of off-hand, although there may be others. Especially a bit earlier, there were many examples of vassals adapting the arms of their lords. Sir John de Grendon in 1300 served under Edmund Stafford ('or, a chevron gules') and bore the same arms with the addition of a black martlet in dexter chief.[4] In 1304 he served under Robert de la Ward ('vairy argent and sable') and changed his arms to 'vairy argent and sable, a bend or'. He continued with those arms until at least 1312.[5]

I have found a painted shield 'checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant ermine' in Powell Roll (c.1350) PO 128 for S' Joh' Warenne (no further details). For what it's worth, PO 125 is Nerford 'gules, a lion rampant ermine', and PO 127 is Nerfforde 'gules, a lion rampant ermine, collared ... [tincture unclear]'. Since the Warenne chequers go back to William, the sixth earl (1202-1240), PO 128 could be descended from any generation after that. I don't like singleton entries in rolls; I like to have seals, with provenance, to support them.

Peter Howarth

[1] seals: n.d., drawing, George Tate, The History of the Borough, Castle, and Barony of Alnwick (1866) Plate IV, Fig 1; 1247, Book of Seals 525; etc.
[2] John: Tournoi de Compiègne (c.1278) TCo 49, Heralds’ Roll (c.1279) HE 112, etc.; William III (with label): Heralds’ Roll (c.1279) HE 220, Dering Roll (c.1280) A 84, etc; William III (without label): seal: 1295, Birch 14111.
[3] tomb: Hugh Stanford London, ‘Glover’s and Walford’s Rolls’ (1967) p 129
[4] Stafford: Guillim’s Roll (1295-1305) J 57, Parliamentary Roll (c.1312) N 144, etc.; Grendon: Galloway Roll (1300) GA 228.
[5] Ward: Heralds’ Roll (c.1279) HE 356, Dering Roll (c.1280) A 261, etc. etc.; Grendon: Stirling Roll (1304) ST 40, Parliamentary Roll (c.1312) N 842, etc.
Mark Jennings
2021-02-15 18:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
I had a look at Fox-Davies to see whether there is any mention of a canton being
used, and indeed he does detail one such case: that of "Sir John [sic, MJ] de
Warren, a natural son of John, Earl of Surrey, Sussex, and Warenne (d. 1347)",
which is both unevidenced and circular here...
I have seen this elsewhere. Some book I looked at over the weekend (I looked at so many online I don't recall which or the precise details) reported the arms for three sons of Earl John: Sir William, who IIRC was attributed a bordure (azure ?), Sir John (not Edward) using a canton with an ermine lion, and a third one (again not Edward, but I don't remember if Thomas or Ralph) whose difference I don't recall that was also not a canton. What struck me at the time was that any claim to the canton representing an expected pattern seemed belied by the very diversity among these siblings.
taf
In principle, I see no reason why an early fourteenth-century bastard should not have differenced his father's arms by the addition of a canton of some sort. There were at the time no rules for anyone to follow and no authority-bearing heralds to enforce them. According to CP xii (ii). pp 276-283 William II de Vescy of Alnwick and Malton (d.1253) had two sons, John (d.s.p. 1287) and William III (d.s.p.l. 1297). The latter had an illegitimate son, William 'of Kildare' (d.1314). William II bore 'gules, a cross patonce argent'.[1] Both John and William III, for some reason, bore in turn 'or, a cross sable' (William added a red label during his brother's lifetime).[2] William of Kildare reverted to 'gules, a cross patonce' with the addition of a bend azure.[3]
This is the only example of illegitimacy from this time I can think of off-hand, although there may be others. Especially a bit earlier, there were many examples of vassals adapting the arms of their lords. Sir John de Grendon in 1300 served under Edmund Stafford ('or, a chevron gules') and bore the same arms with the addition of a black martlet in dexter chief.[4] In 1304 he served under Robert de la Ward ('vairy argent and sable') and changed his arms to 'vairy argent and sable, a bend or'. He continued with those arms until at least 1312.[5]
I have found a painted shield 'checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant ermine' in Powell Roll (c.1350) PO 128 for S' Joh' Warenne (no further details). For what it's worth, PO 125 is Nerford 'gules, a lion rampant ermine', and PO 127 is Nerfforde 'gules, a lion rampant ermine, collared ... [tincture unclear]'. Since the Warenne chequers go back to William, the sixth earl (1202-1240), PO 128 could be descended from any generation after that. I don't like singleton entries in rolls; I like to have seals, with provenance, to support them.
Peter Howarth
[1] seals: n.d., drawing, George Tate, The History of the Borough, Castle, and Barony of Alnwick (1866) Plate IV, Fig 1; 1247, Book of Seals 525; etc.
[2] John: Tournoi de Compiègne (c.1278) TCo 49, Heralds’ Roll (c.1279) HE 112, etc.; William III (with label): Heralds’ Roll (c.1279) HE 220, Dering Roll (c.1280) A 84, etc; William III (without label): seal: 1295, Birch 14111.
[3] tomb: Hugh Stanford London, ‘Glover’s and Walford’s Rolls’ (1967) p 129
[4] Stafford: Guillim’s Roll (1295-1305) J 57, Parliamentary Roll (c.1312) N 144, etc.; Grendon: Galloway Roll (1300) GA 228.
[5] Ward: Heralds’ Roll (c.1279) HE 356, Dering Roll (c.1280) A 261, etc. etc.; Grendon: Stirling Roll (1304) ST 40, Parliamentary Roll (c.1312) N 842, etc.
Thanks both (Peter and taf) - I'm constantly in awe of the expertise and knowledge on tap here.

I presume the seal of "Johannis de Warreine" of "Rotheley, Warwickshire, which DBA II, 232 dates to 1383/4, is for Sir John Warren (son of Sir Edward W by Cecily Eton) who inherited the manor of Ratley in that county from the Eton family. That seems to be the closest to contemporary heraldic evidence we have.

DBA also has entries for Sir William 'de Garrein" and Thomas 'de Garein' , whose arms are illustrated in Flower's Ordinary of circa 1520 (College of Arms, 2 G 9, f 105); these are shown on Plate 2 in The Oxford Guide To Heraldry, T. Woodcock & J.M. Robinson, 1990. "M. William" is assigned the Warenne arms (checky or and azure) with a chief argent, while Thomas has the same arms with the additional of a crescent gules on the chief. 1520 isn't quite contemporary (Flower got them from an earlier source, presumably) - I wonder if these are two of the sons of Earl John (d 1347).
taf
2021-02-16 00:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
DBA also has entries for Sir William 'de Garrein" and Thomas 'de Garein' , whose
arms are illustrated in Flower's Ordinary of circa 1520 (College of Arms, 2 G 9, f
105); these are shown on Plate 2 in The Oxford Guide To Heraldry, T. Woodcock
& J.M. Robinson, 1990. "M. William" is assigned the Warenne arms (checky or and
azure) with a chief argent, while Thomas has the same arms with the additional of
a crescent gules on the chief. 1520 isn't quite contemporary (Flower got them from
an earlier source, presumably) - I wonder if these are two of the sons of Earl John
(d 1347).
For what it's worth, the 1970 edition of Boutrell's Heraldry reports the following (p. 111):

"In the Calais Roll, Sir William de Warenne bears Checky or and azure with a canton of Mowbray (i.e. Gules, a lion rampant argent (265) (fn. 1).

fn. 1. It is possible that the lion should be ermine and that the canton should be described as 'of Nerford' rather than 'of Mowbray'" (continued on next page, which I can't see on Google)

taf
Peter Howarth
2021-02-16 08:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
"In the Calais Roll, Sir William de Warenne bears Checky or and azure with
a canton of Mowbray (i.e. Gules, a lion rampant argent (265) (fn. 1).
fn. 1. It is possible that the lion should be ermine and that the canton
should be described as 'of Nerford' rather than 'of Mowbray'" (continued on
next page, which I can't see on Google)
taf
In my copy of Brooke-Little's 1978 edition of Boutell the footnote is:
'It is possible that the lion should be ermine and that the canton should be described as "of Nerford" rather than "of Mowbray" [continued overleaf]
for, if Sir William were descended from John de Warenne last Earl of Surrey and Maud de Nerford, this would fit the case. Sir John Warenne is assigned this coat, but with an Ermine lion, in Powell's Roll (c. 1350) and he may well have been a brother or uncle of Sir William. The problem is discussed in the /Herald and Genealogist/ (1871), and /History of South Yorkshire/ by Rev. Joseph Hunter.'

The main text is:
'In the Calais Roll, Sir William de Warenne bears, /Checky or and azure with a canton of Mowbray (i.e. Gules, a lion rampant argent)/ (265)[i.e. Fig. 265] fn.1. In the Roll of Richard II, Richard de Kyrekeby bears, /Argent, two bars gules, on a canton of the last a cross moline or/; De Etton, /Barry of twelve argent and gules, a label of three points azure, over all a canton sable charged with a cross patonce or/ (266); and Avery Britchebury bears, /Argent, two bars azure, on a canton of the last a martlet or/. The Hartfords record the alliance with an heiress of the Scropes by bearing (267) /Sable, two bends argent with a canton of Scrope (i.e. Azure, a bend or)/.'

According to Anthony Wagner, CEMRA p 61, the [Third] Calais roll c.1348 consists of a genealogy of the English kings followed by 24 coarsely painted shields with names over, of those 'that weyre sleyn and dront on the sey at the sege of Callas'. The cantons of Mowbray or Nerford are therefore later editorial interpretations. Similarly, making Sir John Warenne a brother or uncle of Sir William is editorial speculation. I can't find the discussion of this in the 1871 /Herald and Genealogist/.

The 'Roll of Richard II' is now (and was in 1978) better known as Willement's Roll, which again consists of painted shields with names over (CEMRA pp 71-72) and contains the Kirkby, Etton and Britchbury arms without any attributions for the cantons. We are not given any source for the Harford arms and the version mentioned doesn't appear in the DBA, which has the plain Harford arms appearing only as quarterings on Manfield brasses in Taplow church, Bucks, dated 1455 and 1512. Perhaps the 'Scrope' canton is of a later date still.

So what we have:
1 Cantons could be used to combine one family's arms with another before quartering was in general use; the parents don't have to be married.
2 John Warrein, Kt, of Rotheley, Warws, used a seal 1384/85 with 'checky, on a canton a lion rampant' (Bowditch MS XLIX 3).
3 Third Calais Roll c.1348 gives Sir William de Warenne a painted shield 'checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant argent' (DBA does not include this roll at all).
4 Powell Roll c.1350 PO 128 gives S' Joh' Warenne a painted shield 'checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant ermine'.
5 There are other records of the same or similar arms, but all much later.
6 Rolls of arms were not official records and can contain errors.
7 None of the sources provide any ancestry.

Peter Howarth
Mark Jennings
2021-02-16 09:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
Post by taf
For what it's worth, the 1970 edition of Boutrell's Heraldry reports the
"In the Calais Roll, Sir William de Warenne bears Checky or and azure with
a canton of Mowbray (i.e. Gules, a lion rampant argent (265) (fn. 1).
fn. 1. It is possible that the lion should be ermine and that the canton
should be described as 'of Nerford' rather than 'of Mowbray'" (continued on
next page, which I can't see on Google)
taf
'It is possible that the lion should be ermine and that the canton should be described as "of Nerford" rather than "of Mowbray" [continued overleaf]
for, if Sir William were descended from John de Warenne last Earl of Surrey and Maud de Nerford, this would fit the case. Sir John Warenne is assigned this coat, but with an Ermine lion, in Powell's Roll (c. 1350) and he may well have been a brother or uncle of Sir William. The problem is discussed in the /Herald and Genealogist/ (1871), and /History of South Yorkshire/ by Rev. Joseph Hunter.'
'In the Calais Roll, Sir William de Warenne bears, /Checky or and azure with a canton of Mowbray (i.e. Gules, a lion rampant argent)/ (265)[i.e. Fig. 265] fn.1. In the Roll of Richard II, Richard de Kyrekeby bears, /Argent, two bars gules, on a canton of the last a cross moline or/; De Etton, /Barry of twelve argent and gules, a label of three points azure, over all a canton sable charged with a cross patonce or/ (266); and Avery Britchebury bears, /Argent, two bars azure, on a canton of the last a martlet or/. The Hartfords record the alliance with an heiress of the Scropes by bearing (267) /Sable, two bends argent with a canton of Scrope (i.e. Azure, a bend or)/.'
According to Anthony Wagner, CEMRA p 61, the [Third] Calais roll c.1348 consists of a genealogy of the English kings followed by 24 coarsely painted shields with names over, of those 'that weyre sleyn and dront on the sey at the sege of Callas'. The cantons of Mowbray or Nerford are therefore later editorial interpretations. Similarly, making Sir John Warenne a brother or uncle of Sir William is editorial speculation. I can't find the discussion of this in the 1871 /Herald and Genealogist/.
The 'Roll of Richard II' is now (and was in 1978) better known as Willement's Roll, which again consists of painted shields with names over (CEMRA pp 71-72) and contains the Kirkby, Etton and Britchbury arms without any attributions for the cantons. We are not given any source for the Harford arms and the version mentioned doesn't appear in the DBA, which has the plain Harford arms appearing only as quarterings on Manfield brasses in Taplow church, Bucks, dated 1455 and 1512. Perhaps the 'Scrope' canton is of a later date still.
1 Cantons could be used to combine one family's arms with another before quartering was in general use; the parents don't have to be married.
2 John Warrein, Kt, of Rotheley, Warws, used a seal 1384/85 with 'checky, on a canton a lion rampant' (Bowditch MS XLIX 3).
3 Third Calais Roll c.1348 gives Sir William de Warenne a painted shield 'checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant argent' (DBA does not include this roll at all).
4 Powell Roll c.1350 PO 128 gives S' Joh' Warenne a painted shield 'checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant ermine'.
5 There are other records of the same or similar arms, but all much later.
6 Rolls of arms were not official records and can contain errors.
7 None of the sources provide any ancestry.
Peter Howarth
Good summary, Peter - thank you.

I wonder where the pedigree provided by Glover in the 1580 Visitation of Cheshire fits into all this (it's already been cited here a couple of times, and is based on Harl MSS 1424 f 143 and 1505 f 147). This gives a descent for Sir Edward (m Cecily Eton) and son Sir John from "John Erle Warren Sussex & Surrey and Jane d. to Ld William Mowbray" - whether this is based on or influenced by an interpretation of the canton as representing Mowbray is probably unanswerable at this remove; of course the published blazon describes the lion as "argent".
taf
2021-02-16 09:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
I wonder where the pedigree provided by Glover in the 1580 Visitation of Cheshire
fits into all this (it's already been cited here a couple of times, and is based on Harl
MSS 1424 f 143 and 1505 f 147). This gives a descent for Sir Edward (m Cecily
Eton) and son Sir John from "John Erle Warren Sussex & Surrey and Jane d. to Ld
William Mowbray" - whether this is based on or influenced by an interpretation of
the canton as representing Mowbray is probably unanswerable at this remove; of
course the published blazon describes the lion as "argent".
Seems a likely chain of events - someone misinterpreted the arms and then created a pedigree to match, which is a perfect illustration for the novice of why visitation pedigrees must be used with extreme caution.

taf
taf
2021-02-16 09:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
'It is possible that the lion should be ermine and that the canton should be
described as "of Nerford" rather than "of Mowbray" [continued overleaf]
for, if Sir William were descended from John de Warenne last Earl of Surrey
and Maud de Nerford, this would fit the case. Sir John Warenne is assigned
this coat, but with an Ermine lion, in Powell's Roll (c. 1350) and he may well
have been a brother or uncle of Sir William.
With all the caveats, if this is supposed to be the same canton as given Sir John in the Powell Roll, where its placement clearly suggests that Nerford is indeed intended, and if the Calais Roll entry hasn't just given the wrong name, the chronology we had worked out makes it unlikely this c. 1348 Sir William is a grandson of Earl John. If this heraldry does represent the Earl John/Maud de Nerford liaison (a lot of 'if's, I know), then this would seem most likely to be the apparent eldest son, Sir William (fl. 1344), for whom we otherwise lack direct documentation of maternity.

taf
Mark Jennings
2021-02-16 10:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
'It is possible that the lion should be ermine and that the canton should be
described as "of Nerford" rather than "of Mowbray" [continued overleaf]
for, if Sir William were descended from John de Warenne last Earl of Surrey
and Maud de Nerford, this would fit the case. Sir John Warenne is assigned
this coat, but with an Ermine lion, in Powell's Roll (c. 1350) and he may well
have been a brother or uncle of Sir William.
With all the caveats, if this is supposed to be the same canton as given Sir John in the Powell Roll, where its placement clearly suggests that Nerford is indeed intended, and if the Calais Roll entry hasn't just given the wrong name, the chronology we had worked out makes it unlikely this c. 1348 Sir William is a grandson of Earl John. If this heraldry does represent the Earl John/Maud de Nerford liaison (a lot of 'if's, I know), then this would seem most likely to be the apparent eldest son, Sir William (fl. 1344), for whom we otherwise lack direct documentation of maternity.
taf
It could, and would neatly see off Sir William as "killed or drowned" at Calais in 1348, one year after he is named in his father's will.

But who then is the Sir William de Warenne given a chief argent, and the Thomas de Warrene given a chief argent and a crescent gules in Flower's Ordinary???
Peter Howarth
2021-02-16 11:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
But who then is the Sir William de Warenne given a chief argent, and the Thomas de Warrene given a chief argent and a crescent gules in Flower's Ordinary???
William Flower was Norroy king of arms from 1562-1588, which is outside my period and I don't know his Ordinary. But his son-in-law and deputy, Robert Glover, produced Glover's Ordinary c. 1584 with 15,000 coats of arms. It includes arms from the visitations he made with Flower, as well as many copied from old documents. If Flower's Ordinary is similar, the Warenne arms with a silver chief could be from any time, but my guess would be from the fifteenth century. There is certainly no reason to think they must be related to the Warenne-Nerford arms.

Additional background

Other examples of combining two families' arms
Hugh II de Balliol of Bywell (d.1271). As heir apparent during his father's lifetime, he bore his paternal arms ('gules, an orle argent') with an escutcheon in sinister chief of his mother's arms of Galloway ('azure, a lion rampant argent, crowned or').[1]
William de Thweng of Kirkby in Lonsdale (d.1340). He was the younger son of Marmaduke de Thweng (d.1323) ('argent, a fess gules between three popinjays vert') and Isabel de Ros [of Ingmanthorpe] ('azure, three water-bougets or'). During his elder brother's lifetime, William differenced his father's arms by changing the red fess for one in his mother's colours, blue charged with three gold water-bougets.[2] His brother died v.p. and in due course William inherited Thwing and his father's undifferenced arms.[3]

Cantons used as differencing by younger sons
Sons of William II Longespee (son of William I, earl of Salisbury): 1. William III 'azure, six lions rampant or'[4]; 2. Richard 'azure, six lions rampant or, a canton ermine'[5].
Sons of Roger la Zouch of Ashby: 1. Alan of Ashby 'gules, roundelly or'[6]; 2. Eudo of Harringworth 'gules, roundelly or, a canton ermine'[7]; William of King's Nympton 'azure, roundelly or'[8].
Grandsons of Robert II de Ferrers of Chartley (d.1350) (I have no record of arms for his sons): 1. Robert III of Chartley (son of John III) 'vairy or and gules'[9]; 2. Robert II of Wem (son of Robert I) 'vairy or and gules, on a canton gules a lion passant guardant or'[10].

Peter Howarth

[1] seal: c.1269, illustrated C.H. Hunter-Blair, 'Seals of Northumberland and Durham', Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd series, xx. (1923) pl I no 40; Glover’s Roll (c.1253) B 37.
[2] seal: 1315, Birch 13899.
[3] Cotgrave’s Ordinary (c.1340) CG 288.
[4] Walford’s Roll (c1275) C 75.
[5] Walford’s Roll (c1275) C 76.
[6] Glover’s Roll (c1253) B 85, Heralds’ Roll (c1279) HE 160, Dering Roll (c1280) A 177, Camden Roll (c1280) D 105.
[7] St George’s Roll (c1285) E 336, Collins’ Roll (c1296) Q 141, Q 461 (no name), Holland’s Roll (c1310) I 3.
[8] Heralds’ Roll (c1279) HE 161, Dering Roll (c1280) A 182, Camden Roll (c1280) D 101, St George’s Roll (c1285) E 175, Sir William Le Neve’s Roll (temp. Edw I) WNR 156.
[9] Styward’s Roll (temp Edw III) R 31, Willement’s Roll (c1395) S 94, 153, Armorial Anglais (c1400) ARS 63.
[10] Sandford, Genealogical History (1707) p 263, cited DBA ii. p 234
taf
2021-02-16 12:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
It could, and would neatly see off Sir William as "killed or drowned" at Calais in 1348, one year after he is named in his father's will.
But who then is the Sir William de Warenne given a chief argent, and the Thomas de Warrene given a chief argent and a crescent gules in Flower's Ordinary???
I see two possibilities.

1) as Peter pointed out, there is no reason they need to have belonged to this family - there were other Warennes around (e.g. Whitchurch, Ightfield, though the latter are credited with checky argent & sable in the Salop visitation pedigree of Mainwaring of Ightfield).
2) I remember seeing instances during this period where the same person appears in different rolls with distinct differences, so this could represent Sir William at a different time in his life.

taf
taf
2021-02-16 15:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
'It is possible that the lion should be ermine and that the canton should
be described as "of Nerford" rather than "of Mowbray" [continued overleaf]
for, if Sir William were descended from John de Warenne last Earl of Surrey
and Maud de Nerford, this would fit the case. Sir John Warenne is assigned
this coat, but with an Ermine lion, in Powell's Roll (c. 1350) and he may well
have been a brother or uncle of Sir William. The problem is discussed in
the /Herald and Genealogist/ (1871), and /History of South Yorkshire/ by
Rev. Joseph Hunter.'
I can't find the discussion of this in the 1871 /Herald and Genealogist/.
I strongly suspect that 1871 is a typo/misread of 1874, where we find, N.H.S., "The Arms and Crest of Warren of Poynton and Warren of Stapleford" pp. 65-80

https://books.google.com/books?id=CDI9AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA65

What little there is of it appears on p. 68:

: "Another piece of armorial evidence advanced by Watson (p. 95) relates to the
: period of the siege of Calais in 1347. It appears that there was a Sir William
: Waryn serving on that occasion, who would be probably the bastard Sir William.
: He is said to have differenced his coat by a chief argent (as mentioned in the
: last note); but in the possession of Dore Norroy was a roll, 1 made by Glover
: about the year 1587, in which the name of this Sir William was accompanied by
: a shield, Checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant argent. As,
: however, the arms on this roll were not contemporary, but rested on the authority
: of Glover only, we can only regard this item as the natural sequence of the more
: elaborate Elizabethan productions we have presently to describe."

The 'previous note' referred to says:

: "At p. 67 of his vol. ii. Watson says, " The children he had by Maud de Nerford were
: John de Warren and Thomas de Warren, and by her, or some other concubine, he
: had William de Warren, Joan, Catherine, and Isabel. The doubt here expressed
: concerning this William arises from his not being mentioned in the deed of entail
: 10 Edw. II. with the above John and Thomas.” [This document will be found in
: Watson's book, ii. 14.]
:
: Watson (or rather J. C. Brooke) proceeds, in the same place, to give the armorial
: distinctions of the three bastard sons :-“ William bore for his coat armour Checky
: or and az. a chief argent. Miscellanea MS. B. 2 [f. 78].

: John sealed with Checky, in a canton a lion rampant ermine (as more fully
: discussed above).

: The difference of Thomas is less distinctly stated, and on less reliable authority.
: "I have seen in an ancient MS. the arms of a Sir Thomas Warren, viz., Checky or
: and azure within a hordure ingrailed sable. A pedigree belonging to Sir John
: Borlase Warren, Bart. gives him Checky or and azure, over all a sinister baton
: sable.” (p 70).""

I would not put much faith in this last - as the mark of illegitimacy of a later era, the baton sinister would be the obvious difference to be assigned in an anachronistic retroactive attribution, and the nature of the source, a pedigree of unstated provenance, gives no faith that it represents Sir Thomas' actual arms.

taf
taf
2021-02-16 15:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
: The difference of Thomas is less distinctly stated, and on less reliable authority.
: "I have seen in an ancient MS. the arms of a Sir Thomas Warren, viz., Checky or
: and azure within a hordure ingrailed sable.
Oops - that is a Google OCR error that I didn't catch - "a _bordure_ ingrailed sable"
taf
2021-02-15 17:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Jennings
I had a look at Fox-Davies to see whether there is any mention of a canton being
used, and indeed he does detail one such case: that of "Sir John [sic, MJ] de Warren,
a natural son of John, Earl of Surrey, Sussex, and Warenne (d. 1347)", which is both
unevidenced and circular here...
Tracked this down. It is from the Powell Roll (c1350), which can be viewed here (image 6):
https://iiif.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/iiif/viewer/65cb1810-6c8a-4d8b-b997-feaeb3251614#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=5&r=0&xywh=1044%2C1829%2C1924%2C924

It is specifically attributed to Sir John (it does not refer to his parentage, simply his name), and its intent is clear (this isn't just a silver lion with fly-specs on it) - it is given both directly below and directly to the right of two 'Nerfforde' coats.

taf
John Higgins
2020-10-28 03:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Cooke
I found a line on Genealogics ( https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00591975&tree=LEO ) that is based on John Carrington's parents being George Carrington and Elizabeth Warren, she being the daughter of Nicholas Warren and descended from the de Vere's (see RA 5:317).
The problem is, none of the sources given for the principals (John, George, Elizabeth) provide any evidence for Elizabeth's identity. RA (and the earlier PA & MCA) shows Nicholas Warrenne did have a daughter Elizabeth, but does not name her husband (so "read my books" won't solve the problem). Elizabeth's page on Genealogics shows it was updated in 2018, so perhaps someone's recent research determined her identity. If so, it does not appear to have "published" on this forum. FWIW, Ormerod (1882) 1:544 shows George with two wives, the first (and mother of his children) is unnamed, and (2) Elizabeth (---) who m. (2) Gilbert Bexwyk.
Any thoughts?
Greg
This looks like an error in Genealogics. I agree with you that the Richardson books (at least the 1st editions which I have) don't show a husband for Elizabeth Warren. And the Genealogics sources for Sir George Carrington (including the Ormerod reference you mention) don't show Elizabeth Warren as one of his wives. I've sent a note to Ian Fettes to ask about this.
John Higgins
2020-10-28 18:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Greg Cooke
I found a line on Genealogics ( https://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00591975&tree=LEO ) that is based on John Carrington's parents being George Carrington and Elizabeth Warren, she being the daughter of Nicholas Warren and descended from the de Vere's (see RA 5:317).
The problem is, none of the sources given for the principals (John, George, Elizabeth) provide any evidence for Elizabeth's identity. RA (and the earlier PA & MCA) shows Nicholas Warrenne did have a daughter Elizabeth, but does not name her husband (so "read my books" won't solve the problem). Elizabeth's page on Genealogics shows it was updated in 2018, so perhaps someone's recent research determined her identity. If so, it does not appear to have "published" on this forum. FWIW, Ormerod (1882) 1:544 shows George with two wives, the first (and mother of his children) is unnamed, and (2) Elizabeth (---) who m. (2) Gilbert Bexwyk.
Any thoughts?
Greg
This looks like an error in Genealogics. I agree with you that the Richardson books (at least the 1st editions which I have) don't show a husband for Elizabeth Warren. And the Genealogics sources for Sir George Carrington (including the Ormerod reference you mention) don't show Elizabeth Warren as one of his wives. I've sent a note to Ian Fettes to ask about this.
Ian Fettes has responded, indicating that he has made the corrections to Genealogics to remove the connection between Elizabeth Warren and George Carrrington.
taf
2020-10-17 04:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
On the swing side, Alice Ipstones, the heiress by whom the land
came to Randall Brereton, the grandfather of this one was *not*
born until 1388 at the earliest.
IPM of her brother:
In a Northampton inquisition 15 March [1399/]1400 Alice was aged 2

A Staffordshire inquisition 1 May 1400 makes Alice aged 3 and more

Both make her sister Christina at 6.

If both are accurate, it puts Alice's birthdate between 15 March 1396/7 and 1 May 1397.

taf
wjhonson
2020-10-17 20:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
On the swing side, Alice Ipstones, the heiress by whom the land
came to Randall Brereton, the grandfather of this one was *not*
born until 1388 at the earliest.
In a Northampton inquisition 15 March [1399/]1400 Alice was aged 2
A Staffordshire inquisition 1 May 1400 makes Alice aged 3 and more
Both make her sister Christina at 6.
If both are accurate, it puts Alice's birthdate between 15 March 1396/7 and 1 May 1397.
taf
Is it William Ipstones?
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h4v1/body/Henry4vol1page0296.pdf

I had this man as her father and Maud de Swynnerton as her mother
John Higgins
2020-10-17 21:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
On the swing side, Alice Ipstones, the heiress by whom the land
came to Randall Brereton, the grandfather of this one was *not*
born until 1388 at the earliest.
In a Northampton inquisition 15 March [1399/]1400 Alice was aged 2
A Staffordshire inquisition 1 May 1400 makes Alice aged 3 and more
Both make her sister Christina at 6.
If both are accurate, it puts Alice's birthdate between 15 March 1396/7 and 1 May 1397.
taf
Is it William Ipstones?
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h4v1/body/Henry4vol1page0296.pdf
I had this man as her father and Maud de Swynnerton as her mother
Yes, Sir William Ipstones was the 2nd husband (of 3) of Maud Swinnertom, and the father of Alice Ipstones. He died in October 1399.
taf
2020-10-17 22:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
In a Northampton inquisition 15 March [1399/]1400 Alice was aged 2
Is it William Ipstones?
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h4v1/body/Henry4vol1page0296.pdf
I had this man as her father and Maud de Swynnerton as her mother
Oops - subconscious fingers typed something different than conscious brain told them to. Yes, Alice and Christina were heirs to their father, WIlliam.

taf
Michael Rochester
2021-02-16 04:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Do you descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford. If so, I'd very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.
Douglas Richardson, Historian & Genealogist
My descent:
Sir) Robert deVere 5th Earl of Oxford 1240-1296
22nd great-grandfather
Joan deVere 1264-1293
Daughter of (Sir) Robert deVere 5th Earl of Oxford
Alice Warenne 1287-1338
Daughter of Joan deVere
Aline "Olive" FitzAlan 1314-1386
Daughter of Alice Warenne
Lucy Strange 1367-1405
Daughter of Aline "Olive" FitzAlan
Margery Willoughby 1399-1452
Daughter of Lucy Strange
Elizabeth "Isabel" FitzHugh 1419-1469
Daughter of Margery Willoughby
Margaret (Margery) Greystoke 1442-1500
Daughter of Elizabeth "Isabel" FitzHugh
Anne Grey 1469-1519
Daughter of Margaret (Margery) Greystoke
Margaret (Margery) Delaval 1493-
Daughter of Anne Grey
James Ogle Esq 1530-1598
Son of Margaret (Margery) Delaval
Robert Ogle 1568-
Son of James Ogle Esq
Dorothy Ogle 1605-
Daughter of Robert Ogle
Isabell Widdrington 1620-1705
Daughter of Dorothy Ogle
Philadelphia Fenwick 1652-1719
Daughter of Isabell Widdrington
Robert Harle 1675-1747
Son of Philadelphia Fenwick
Robert Harle 1709-1743
Son of Robert Harle
Margaret Harle 1734-1818
Daughter of Robert Harle
George Eden Meggison 1756-1815
Son of Margaret Harle
Thomas Meggison 1803-1883
Son of George Eden Meggison
Thomas Cuthbert Meggison 1847-1924
Son of Thomas Meggison
Thomas Bernard Meggison 1877-1965
Son of Thomas Cuthbert Meggison
Ernest Joseph Meggison 1914-1995
Son of Thomas Bernard Meggison
Thomas Frederick Meggison 1944-
Son of Ernest Joseph Meggison
Michael Thomas Meggison
mk
2021-02-17 01:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Do you descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford. If so, I'd very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.
Douglas Richardson, Historian & Genealogist
another one fwiw

Robert de Vere = Alice Sanford
Joan de Vere = William de Warren
Alice Warren = Sir Edmund FitzAlan
Aliva Fitzalan = Roger le Strange
John le Strange = Maud de Mohun
Aline le Strange - Sir Edward Burnell
Margaret Burnell = Sir Edmund Hungerford
Sir Thomas Hungerford = Christian Halle
Sir John Hungerford = Margaret Blount
Sir Anthony Hungerford = Jane Darell
Edmund Hungerford = Ursula Ferrers
Bridget Hungerford = John Hitchcock
Agnes Hitchcock = William Bennett
Wlliam Bennett = Jenevora Franke
William Bennett = Elizabeth Coles
John Bennett = Ann Burgis
Frances Bennett = Robert Parham
William Parham = Elizabeth Latty
William Parham = Martha Pike
Mary Parham = Edward Burridge
Thomas Burridge = Kate Helen Creeth
Grace Burridge = Albert Rodd
Daphne Rodd = Jeffrey Edmunds
Monica

another line goes through
Mary FitzAlan = John le Strange
Ankaret le Strange = Sir Richard Talbot
Alice Talbot = Sir Thomas Barre
Elizabeth Barre = Sir Edmund Cornwall
Elynor Cornwall = Sir Richard Croft
Jane Croft = Sir Anthony Hungerford
...

not as familiar with this one, I'm still working through it from the bottom up
Angharad Warren = Richard Puleston
Isabella Puleston = Philip Chetwynd
Philip Chetwynd = Alice de Grendon
Sir William Chetwynd = Maud de Verdon
Sir William Chetwynd = Aliva St. Paul
Margaret Chetwynd = William Purefoy
William Purefoy = Margery Moton
Margaret Purefoy = Sir John Fielding
Sir William Fielding = Agnes de St. Liz
Ann Fielding = Humphrey Grey
Margery Grey = Richard st. Barbe
Thomas St. Barbe = Joan ?
Alice St. Barbe = Christopher Batt
John Batt = Katherine Brotherton
Christopher Batt = Alice Wastfield
Katherine Batt = William Coles
Elizabeth Coles = William Bennett
...


best, Monica
ravinma...@yahoo.com
2021-02-17 19:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Robert de Vere = Alice Sanford
Joan de Vere = William de Warren
Alice Warren = Sir Edmund FitzAlan
Richard FitzAlan = Eleanor of Lancaster
Alice FitzAlan = Thomas de Holand
Margaret de Holand = John Beaufort
Joan Beaufort (Queen of Scotland) = James I of Scotland
James II = Mary of Guelders/ van Egmond
James III = Margaret of Denmark and Norway
James IV = Margaret Tudor
James V = (illegit. by Euphemia Elphinstone)
Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney = (illegit. by .......)
Christian Stewart = John Mowat of Hugoland
Jean Mowat = David Heart
Rev. John Heart = Agnes Baxter
Agnes Heart = Rev. Robert Craighead/ Craghead
Catherine Craighead/ Craghead = Rev. William Homes
Margaret Homes = Col. John Allen
Rebecca Allen = Capt. Wilmot Wass
Sarah Wass = Samuel Osborn
Sarah Osborn = Charles Skinner
Mary Skinner = Benjamin Rockwell
Mary Rockwell = Gurdon Eaton
Eunice Eaton = Thomas Cox
Laura Cox = Frederick Porter
Ella Porter = William Macy
Muriel Macy = Charles Brandon
John

Note this is my matrilineal line through the most recent 13 generations.
Richard Ebdon
2021-08-03 17:45:37 UTC
Permalink
A link between Sir Thomas Erpington of Norfolk, and Sir John de Warren who succeeded to the Manors of Stockport and Pointon, son of Sir Edward:

"His grandfather died in 1370, after 8 March but before 1 August which was the date of death of the father of Thomas: 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
2021-08-03 18:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Sorry I meant "Erpingham" not "Erpington."
Richard Ebdon
2021-08-03 18:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Ebdon
Sorry I meant "Erpingham" not "Erpington."
And "Poynton" and not "Pointon."
ps bumppo
2021-08-07 02:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
"He married Alice, daughter and heiress of Gilbert de Sanford, hereditary Chamberlain to the Queen for her Coronation, by Loretta, daughter of (-----) ... Alice died before 9 (probably 7) September 1312, at Canfield, and was buried at Earls Colne." END OF QUOTE.
"Alice inherited the manors of Great Hormead and Nuthampstead (Herts) and Fingrith, Margaretting, and Woolverston in Chigwell (Essex), all held in grand serjeantry by the service of acting as the Queen's Chamberlain at her Coronation." END OF QUOTE.
Recently I encountered a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1253 which confirms C.P.'s statement that Alice, wife of Robert de Vere, was the daughter of Gilbert de Sanford. This lawsuit provides the additional detail that Alice was the heir of Nicholas de Sanford. A brief abstract of the lawsuit is provided below.
"In 1253 Roger de Saunford sued Robert de Veer and Alice his wife, daughter of Gilbert de Saunford, and heir of Nicholas de Saunford, that they warrant to him one mill and lands in Grimsby, Northamptonshire, which William de Parco claimed as his right." END OF ABSTRACT.
Court of Common Pleas, KB26/148, image 2 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H3/KB26_148/0002.htm).
So who was Nicholas de Sanford?
https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA58
"Nicholas de Sanford was granted Leckwith [Glamorganshire] by Richard de Clare 1243-62, and he transferred it to his brother Laurence, Nicholas died in 1252 according to Matthew Paris. In 1262 a Fulco de Sanford held Leckwith but by 1294 it was in the de Clare hands." END OF QUOTE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=mycAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA351
Glam. A. 4870. Grant by Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, to Sir Nicholas de Sanford, of the manor of Lecquid, with 'heybote' and 'hushote' in all the grantor's forests of Meyskin. Witnesses;—Sirs Stephen Baucen, sheriff of Glamorgan, Walter de Sullie, William de Reygny, and others (named). [AD. 1233–45.]
Glam. A. 4871. Grant by Nicholas de Sandford, to Sir Laurence de Sandford, his brother, of the manor of Lecquid. Witnesses:—Sirs Philip Basseth, William Dyve, Oliver de Ingham, Roger de Sandford, Adam de Dutton, and others (named). Fragment of seal of arms.
Glam. A. 4872. Grant by Laurence de Sanford, to Sir Philip Basset, of the manor of Lecquid. Witnesses:—Sir Hugh le Despenser (dispensator'), justiciary of England, Richard de Culewurth, constable of the Tower of London, Henry de Wykham and others (named).
https://books.google.com/books?id=g1M4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA115
A. 3220. Grant by William de Monte Acuto, son of Drew (Droci) de Monte Acuto, to Philip Basset, of all his land in Therlebergh, paying a pair of gilt spurs or 6d. yearly. Witnesses:— Ralph de Ardern, Thomas and Nicholas de Sanford, brothers, and others (named).
Reference: Desc. Cat. Ancient Deeds 2 (1894): 167.
"Obiit Nicholaus de Sanford. Tempore quoque sub eodem, videlicet decimo tertio kalendas Februarii, obiit Nicholas de Sanford miles."
https://books.google.com/books?id=ufYKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA273#v=onepage&q&f=false
In 1066 the manor of WOOLSTON was held by Earl Harold. It was then taken by King William and in 1086 was held by him in demesne. (fn. 233) During the 12th century the manor was granted to the Sanford family to hold in serjeanty by virtue of the office of chamberlain to the queen. (fn. 234) A John de Sanford held the manor in 1210-12 (fn. 235) and Cecily de Sanford in 1219. (fn. 236) Gilbert de Sanford held Woolston in 1236, in which year he officiated at the coronation of Eleanor of Provence. (fn. 237) He was still living in 1248, (fn. 238) but was dead by April 1249 when the wardship of his daughter and heir Alice de Sanford was bought by Fulk Basset, Bishop of London. (fn. 239) In June 1249 the bishop sold the wardship to Hugh de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who married Alice to his son and heir Robert. (fn. 240) In 1259 John de Rivers, lord of Ongar hundred, granted to Robert de Vere and Alice his wife a release of 4d. rent at their view of frankpledge at Woolston. (fn. 241) In 1265 Robert's estates were forfeited for his part in the Barons' War; the township of Woolston was then said to be worth £6 6s. 8d. a year. (fn. 242) Robert recovered his estates under the Dictum of Kenilworth, but before this, in October 1265, all Alice's hereditary lands had been restored to her. (fn. 243). In 1284 Robert and Alice granted the reversion of Woolston after their deaths to their daughter Joan and her husband William de Warenne, son and heir of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (d. 1304). (fn. 244) Robert died in 1296; Woolston was then being held of him and Alice by William le Plomer. (fn. 245) Alice died in 1312." END OF QUOTE.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol4/pp24-32
Reviewing the above, it appears that Alice de Sanford's father, Sir Gilbert de Sanford (died c.1249), was the son and heir of John de Sanford who occurs in 1210-12. Given that Sir Gilbert de Sanford occurs in records with Sir Nicholas de Sanford and Sir Laurence de Sanford, and given that Sir Nicholas de Sanford's father was also named John de Sanford, I believe it is safe to conclude that Sir Gilbert de Sanford was the brother of Sir Nicholas de Sanford (died 1252), Sir Laurence de Sanford, and Thomas Sanford. This in turn would place Sir Nicholas de Sanford (died 1252) as the uncle of Sir Gilbert de Sanford's daughter and heir, Alice de Sanford, wife of Sir Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford.
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, John Barclay, Charles Barham, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, Dorothy Beresford, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward Bromfield, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, James & Norton Claypoole, St. Leger Codd, Elizabeth & Thomas Coytemore, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, Rowland Ellis, John Fenwick, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Patrick Houston, Edward Howell, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Elizabeth, Joshua, & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, Edward Raynsford, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, John & Lawrence Washington, John West, Hawte Wyatt, Amy Wyllys.
Do you descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford. If so, I'd very much appreciate seeing your line of descent posted here on the newsgroup.
Douglas Richardson, Historian & Genealogist
Mr Richardson,
I believe I am descended from Edward Raynsford, who is on your included list of 17th Century New World Immigrants that descend from Sir Robert de Vere and his wife, Alice de Sanford.
Edward Raynsford m Unknown
Mary Raynsford m William Bassett
Mary Bassett m John Redding
Ebenezer Redding m Marcy Miller
Marcy Redding m Josiah Hatch (desc. of Edmund Hawes, and a multiple Mayflower descendant from Edward Doty and John Howland/Tilley.)
Zilpha Hatch m Asa Keene Sr.
Asa Keene Jr m Abigail Barstow
Mercy Keene m Peleg Sampson
Henry Sampson m Rebecca Churchill
Edgar Sampson m Lillian Phinney
Ray Dexter Sampson m Melissa Irene Davison
Edna Lorraine Sampson m Everett Aliston Bumpus (desc. of James Cudworth)
Paul Stanton Bumpus

My "problematic" generation is with Mary Bassett, who married John Redding, having a son Ebenezer Redding, though there are three secondary sources which would make my case; most hopeful is “Redding Grandsons of Thomas Redding” by Fred Q. Bowman, which appears in The Genealogist 3:2:161-171. Gary Boyd Roberts seemed happy enough with that source in 2014 but, as the former Historian General for The Mayflower Society (2008-2014) I’m just not thrilled with it. Line is also found in “New Englanders in Nova Scotia” and "The Redding Family." Anyone have any ideas on my Ebenezer Redding (who is buried about a mile from me here in Middleboro, Ma.) being descended from this intriguing lineage?
Loading...